“My Cancellation’ Site Shows How ObamaCare has Hurt People

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The site is named, My Cancellation, and it is an open forum for people to submit their cancellation stories, letters, and pics.  Here is a sampling…

The Democrats may lie about it, but there is no escaping it-not only are people losing their plans, what they are offered under ObamaCare is far more expensive. Just to recap…

1.  “If you like your plan you can keep it.”  LIE!

2.  Premiums are going to come down by $2500 a year.  LIE!

And, as always, if you voted for Obama, you voted for this.  You were warned, but you chose to listen to the administration, or drank the Kool Aid offered by MSNBC.  And all of them lied to you.

Elections have consequences.

Share

#ObamaCare Damage: 100,000 to Lose Insurance in NY; 800,000 on NJ Impacted

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I bet there are a bunch of Obama voters out there wondering what happened with #ObamaCare.  They’re getting cancellation notices for the plans that Obama told them they could keep.  Not only that, most are being told that they can get another plan, with a higher deductible, and a far higher premium.  Of course, they could have read here, for years, about what was going to happen, but they watched the MSM instead.  So, now they are going to pay for their vote.  Jammie Wearing Fool has more…

You voted for him, so now you must be punished. If you like your Hope and Change, you can keep your Hope and Change.

Insurers are canceling the medical policies of about 100,000 New Yorkers enrolled in individual health plans because of ObamaCare, state health officials said.

But the figure is actually much higher because it doesn’t take into account hundreds of thousands covered under small business group policies that are being scrapped or rewritten to conform to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

In New Jersey, the policies of 800,000 residents are affected by the insurance overhaul, officials in the Garden State said.

“Approximately 100,000 individuals will be required to change insurance because current plans are not compliant with ACA [Affordable Care Act],” said New York state Health Department spokesman Bill Schwarz.

Many of the existing policies are deemed substandard under ObamaCare. All new policies are required to carry new consumer protections — such as the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions — and carry 10 “essential health benefits,” including maternity and pediatric care, substance abuse and mental health treatment, chronic disease care, and prescription drug, dental and vision coverage.

Now, mind you, you could be a 50 year old male, and be forced to pay for maternity care, or pediatric care.  Of course, we all know that 50 year old men are the biggest consumers of maternity care out there.  And they still see their pediatricians too, don’t they?

Just as a reminder; if you voted for Obama, you voted for this.  You were warned, but you chose the sweet sounding lies instead. Enjoy your higher costs, and your maternity care!

Elections have consequences.

Share

ObamaCare Damage: Skyrocketing Health Care Costs Confound NC Businessman

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Yesterday, we reviewed how President Obama lied early and often about how ObamaCare was going to decrease premiums.  We went over that many people have had their premiums double, or even triple.  And now, we have the plight of a NC businessman who is struggling between a rock and a hard place in order to do right by his employees and customers…

Did you catch the lie at the very end of the video?  That runs counter to the CBS News report from earlier that indicates that the system needs a complete overhaul to function. 

In the end, ObamaCare is everything we said it would be, and less.  That, and you have to be living under a rock, a die hard regressive, a pathological liar, or floridly psychotic to miss it.

Or do I repeat myself?

Elections have consequences!

Share

Obama Supporters Hit with ObamaCare Sticker Shock: Irony Ensues

Share

When of my sarcastic comments at the end of my Obam,aCare Damage posts is simple..

If you voted for Obama, you voted for this.  You were warned.  Elections have consequences. 

Today, we have example from an Obama supporter that actually reacted to my admonition.  Motor City Times has more…

Everyone saw this coming, except for Obama supporters such as Tom Waschura:

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

Welcome to reality, Mr. Waschura.  I hope you enjoy a long stay, during which you ill learn that the lies about ObamaCare were just the tip of the iceberg.

Share

Change The Definition of Cancer To Reduce ObamaCare Costs?

Share

So, rather than defund or even delay the worse than useless Uaffordable Affordable Health Care Act, Obama and the Democrats have decided to allow a partial shut down of the government. Big deal! It’s one way to reduce deficit spending. Not everybody is happy about the shut down. Most notably are some government employees who take exception to being called UNESSENTIAL. By way of Flopping Aces, quoting from the Washington Post, we learn:

Furlough 1So, here we are. Because  President Obama and the Democrats do not want to admit that ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster, they prefer to shut down the government and withe the help of their media lap-dogs, try to convince the American public that it’s all the fault of those nasty tea bagger Republicans. But, here is the thing, folks. Everybody with a brain cell functioning knows that ObamaCare will result in higher health care cost for less health care service. And, that includes Mr. Obama and his administration. But not to worry. They are working diligently to find ways to reduce ObamaCare costs. As reported by Poor Richard’s News (H/T to BadBlue Uncensored News), one of the ways they plan to reduce ObamaCare cost is __  Are you ready for this? __ is to change the definition of cancer. They have decided that those types of cancer that aren’t immediately life threatening should be called something else and patients that want treatment for those types of not really cancer cancer will have to wait and/or pay more out-of-pocket to get this now unessential health care service. Poor Richard’s News quotes from this Forbes article:

The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefine the term “cancer” so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans — and should we be concerned?

On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term “cancer” be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as “indolent lesions of epithelial origin” (IDLE). Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldn’t be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.

How clever is that? By changing a definition, the administrators of ObamaCare are making a decision that should be made between the patient, the doctor, and the insurance company. And, if they can change the definition of cancer, how many more ailments can they  redefine? I agree with the author of the article:

And why would the Obama administration want to re-define cancer?  Because starting tomorrow, Obamacare will begin subsidizing millions of Americans’ health insurance, and cancer tests and treatments are expensive.

This is nothing more than a back-door, roundabout form of rationing.  It has nothing to do with improving health care or saving lives and everything to do with bureaucrats picking and choosing who gets what tests and treatments.

It is plain and simply rationing of health care. And, at some point, rationing becomes a death sentence. So, in the opinion of your humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in, the House Republicans should go back to their original proposal to defund ObamaCare and each time the Senate sends the bill back to the House, they should just change the date and return it to the Senate. Keeping the government in partial shut-down may be a godsend.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

Donna Brazile Runs Into ObamaCare Reality: Denies it

Share

I really love it when a liberal runs face first into reality, and has no clue that their policies created that reality.  The latest victim of this cognitive dissonance is Donna Brazile, the current DNC vice- Chair.  Nice Deb has info on Ms. Brazile’s recent brush with reality…

brazile obamacare reality

Now, how could she had known that her premiums were going to go up?  Could she have been warned?  Well, friends, those types of warnings are a speciality here at the CH2.0.

Elections have Consequences: Health Insurance Premiums to Hit $20,000?

ObamaCare Damage: Health Insurance Premiums to Double?

Maybe They Should Have Read it: ObamaCare Causes Massive Increase in Health Insurance Premiums

Elections Have Consequences: “Startling Rate Increases” Due to ObamaCare

ObamaCare Damage: Health Insurance Premiums Rise Under Obama

College Students Hammered by ObamaCare-Just in Time for the Election

ObamaCare Damage: Increased Costs to Consumers, Just as Predicted

In other words, she could have come to this site (note that the last link was a post from 2010!).  She would have known all along that this was going to happen.

As for Ms. Brazile? Well, even a brush with reality could not waken her from her useful idiocy, and she later tweeted that the insurance companies were “price gouging.”  Then again, we know that liberals are immune from reality.

Share

What Recovery? Part II: Systemic High Unemployment?

Share

Here is a post from Jim at Asylum Watch discussing High Unemployment-Matt

In Part I of this series, we examined money velocity (the number of times the money supply circulates in the economy over a year), which is directly related to economic growth, GDP, and found that it has been declining since 1999. The velocity of money is currently slower than it was in the Great Depression. We noted that the stock market has recovered nicely and corporate and banking profits are up and Wall Street investors are doing well. This suggest that the money supply is circulating at a higher rate for big corporations, big banks, and big Wall Street investors and less so for the folks on Main Street.

While writing Part I, I came across an article by Charles Hugh Smith, Why Employment Is Dead in the Water, where he said:

Employment is dead in the water because opportunities for organic expansion are few and the cost basis of doing business in the U.S. keeps rising.

The question was raised in Part I about what happened to all that Quantitive Easing (QE) stimulus the Federal Reserve has been doing for the last four years. Mr. Smith may have confirmed suspicions of Asylum Watch.

Academic economists and political progressives would have us believe that the only thing restraining employers from hiring millions more people is lack of access to cheap credit.

The explicit assumption here is that cheap credit is all employers need to expand their workforce. This is so out of touch with reality that it beggars description.Progressives and academic economists generally claim the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest policy (ZIRP) and its other policies of flooding the economy with liquidity “are working,” i.e. boosting the economy.
Here is what the Fed’s policies are boosting: financial sector profits Please compare this chart with the chart above of full-time employment, and then decide where the Fed’s free money/easy credit is flowing.

So, Mr. Bernanke’s three trillion in QE stimulus has helped the economy of the financial sector, but not much else. It has not helped reduce unemployment as he said it would. Was he really just looking out for the banking industry? I am cynical enough to believe that is exactly what he had planned.

Charles Hugh Smith does an excellent job in this article. I highly recommend it to you. I am going to use some of his graphs along with others to try to build a picture of what is going on in the US economy. Mr. Smith closes his article with this paragraph:

Employment is dead in the water because opportunities for organic expansion are few and the cost basis of doing business in the U.S. keep rising. That vise forces businesses large and small to reduce labor costs while boosting productivity. There is no other way to stay solvent in a post-bubble, over-capacity, over-indebted consumerist economy awash in too much of everything but energy, common sense and fiscal prudence.

Clearly the US is having its problems competing in this global economy. Our businesses pay the highest taxes in the world. There is little semblance to a free market economy in a country with thousands of laws and hundreds of thousands of regulations. But, with all due respect for Charles Hugh Smith, there seems to be more at play than he has noted. Our problems did not start with Barack Obama; although he is doing his utmost to make things worse.

To be sure America’s high costs hurt our competitiveness and that causes companies to take their production to countries with lower taxes, lower wages, and less regulatory controls. That is logical. What else could be happening? Maybe some graphs can help us understand. Let’s start with a graph of our GDP over time:

We see that except for the effects of the 2008 recession that  the GDP has grown steadily. Now lets compare that to what has happened to the velocity of money (taken from Part I) and to workforce participation rates. Please pay special attention to the trend of these curves from 1999-2000 to the present.

Graph of Velocity of MZM Money Stock

So, between 1999 and the present, GDP has continued to grow except for the 2007/2008 recession. But, both the velocity of money and workforce participation have been in steady decline over that time period.  So, what do all these graphs mean? The Financial Profits graph means the Feds money printing Quantitative Easing has only helped the banking industry. The GDP graph means that the overall economy is growing; all be it slowly. The Workforce Participation graph tells us that, in spite of a growing economy, job creation is slower than the growth of the potential workforce, which means high unemployment. The velocity of money graph coupled with the growing GDP means that upper income people are benefiting more from this economy than everyone else.

Confused? Let’s see if I can explain the structural changes that have occurred in the US and that are affecting job creation.

What Is Affecting Economic Competition and US Employment?

  • Globalization: The United Sates emerged from World War II as the only  industrialized nation left standing. As a result, the US would become the richest of nations and Americans would enjoy the highest standards of living. But, it also fell to the United States to become the world’s peacekeeper or policeman. That alone meant our government would have to grow, which would eventually affect our competitiveness. The US rebuilt Europe and Japan, and they would become serious economic competitors. As tax policies and regulatory policies and wages in Europe and Japan approached that of the US, the playing field was leveled somewhat and a new Asian Tiger appeared: Korea. This pattern would repeat itself and the competitive edge would shift to different Asian Tigers. In more recent years, new Tigers have emerged: China, India, and Brazil, for example.
  • Big Nanny Government: As government grows in size and, therefore in spending, it is competing with the private sector in the economy. Governments are never as efficient as the private sector. But, when government becomes the nanny of its citizens. things get worse, because the government is taking money from the productive sector and giving it to the non-productive sector. To make matters worse, the Nanny Government in the US has not asked its citizens to pay for all the social programs that are redistributing the wealth. This was purely for political reasons. Therefore, they have buried the nation under a mountain of debt; soon to reach $17 trillion.
  • Reaction By The US Business Community: It is only natural and rational than when companies find they can not compete with the products and services coming from emerging nations that many will move some or all of their production to countries where their costs will be much less. We consumers all benefit from that. The price is that some people lose their jobs and others don’t get hired. Please understand, my friends, this would have happened on some scale even if the nanny state had never occurred. The added cost burden of the nanny state has accelerated and accentuated the process and more people lost their jobs than would otherwise have happened. The beginning of the downward trends in the velocity of money and workforce participation rates seems to have coincided with the end of the Dot.Com bubble. Maybe we can call that the point in time when the world moved into the Information Age. It became much easier for emerging nations to copy, buy, or steal the technology that otherwise would have given the developed nations a competetive edge. What about the companies that are still producing and doing well in the US? Well, as their profit margins were being squeezed, that have made use of technology to make their workforce more productive; and, as a result they are not growing their workforce as rapidly as we have seen after other recessions.

What About the Demographics of Aging Population and Birth Rates?

  • Aging Population: The United States is not alone in this problem. The same is true in Europe, Japan, and even China. In the US, the aging population has a double whammy effect on the economy and on the employment numbers. As the Baby Boomers retire, there are not enough younger worker to pay the cost of the Boomer’s demands on Social Security and Medicare. These programs currently account for the lion’s share of the federal budget. Borrowing to pay these programs is a drain on the economy. Sooner or later, the liberal Democrats will have to come to terms with Social Security and Medicare. They will either have to tax Americans like  Sweden does (70%) or reform the programs and reduce costs. The other problem is that many Boomers are retiring later in life and, therefore, are not making room for new younger workers.
  • Declining Birth Rates: Again, Europe, Japan, and China are also experiencing declining birth rate. In China it is by government edict and in the other countries it do to cultural changes.  Many Americans are concerned about what the long-term effects of a declining birth rate will be on our economy and on our culture. One of my favorite new conservative bloggersdid a compelling argument against this trend in her article the other day. She noted that Americas birth rate is currently 1.9. Not enough to maintain our population. She noted that it is only that high because birth rate among Hispanic Americans is 2.35, however, the birth rate of Hispanic Americans has fallen 2.3% in recent years and will probably continue to fall. Besides the impact on traditional American culture, she fears that it will be impossible maintain economic growth because there won’t be enough workers to fill the jobs. My opinion, on the other hand, is that for the next 30, 40, or 50 years, there may not be enough jobs for all those who want and need jobs.

To be sure, your humble observer at Asylum Watch, has painted a gloomy picture of the  future in this series on “What Recovery?” Tomorrow, in Part III, We will review an article by one of my favorite libertarian writers. Gary North. He thinks people like me are being too negative. He believes that freedom and innovation will save the day. At the end of Part III, I will summarize what I think I have learned in this investigation of What Recovery. Then you, dear readers, can decide for yourselves if high unemployment is going to be a systemic problem for America or not.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Share

Happy New Year, Here are Your New Taxes!

Share

taxes

Curtis Dubay at Heritage has an article on all of our new taxes, courtesy of the Obama administration. 

New Year’s Day was tough for taxpayers. Thirteen tax increases kicked in.

The deal that Congress and President Obama struck that finally—but only partially—avoided the fiscal cliff resulted in seven tax increases.

Those hikes combined with six tax increases from Obamacare that also began on New Year’s Day.

13 Tax Increases That Started January 1, 2013

Tax increases the fiscal cliff deal allowed:

1. Payroll tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”

2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.

7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.

Obamacare tax increases that took effect:

8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).

9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).

10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.

11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.

12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to the Medicare Part D subsidy.

13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.

Each of these 13 tax increases will slow the economy, meaning that businesses will create fewer jobs. Fewer jobs will make it even more difficult to land a job than it already is for the more than 12 million Americans looking for work.

President Obama demanded these higher taxes. Obama’s tax increases, in Obamacare and through the fiscal cliff deal, will not curb deficits and debt, because growing spending is driving America’s budget crisis. Congress needs to immediately turn its attention to the actual cause of our deficit and debt problem: too much spending. The proper way to address this problem is through reforms to entitlement programs.

President Obama promised the American people a “balanced approach” of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce deficits and debt. He has achieved the tax increase portion of that approach. Now Congress needs to force him to follow through on the spending cuts portion.

Reprinted with Permission.

Share

ObamaCare Damage: Health Insurance Premiums to Double?

Share

If you ask Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, the answer is yes.  Townhall has more…

Yesterday on CNBC, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said that health insurance premiums could as much as double if Obamacare comes into full effect:

To provide all Americans with health insurance, premiums will have to rise to pay for it, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” on Wednesday.

“If we’re going to insure all Americans, which is a worthy and appropriate cause, then somebody has to pay for it,” Bertolini said of the expected premium increases under Obamacare.

Bertolini said that insurance premiums could double in some places just on the basis of what types of policies people buy today.

Anticipating a criticism, Bertolini said that higher premiums wouldn’t mean higher profit margins for insurance companies. The reason is that it will actually be more expensive to insure people due to some of the Obamacare mandates.

We’ve covered this several times, and we know that premiums have increased dramatically already.  If this comes to pass, it will impact all of us, to some extent or another.

Just remember, if you voted for Obama, you voted for this.  Thanks!

Share

Welfare is Highest Single Budget in Item in 2011: 1.03 Trillion Dollars!

Share

Liberals often harp on Military spending, and wish to cut it, citing it’s percentage of the government.  However, under President Obama, Welfare spending alone has gone over 1.03 trillion dollars.  And yes, that is trillions with a “t.” The Lonely Conservative has more…

Welfare spending – that’s President Obama’s economic plan. Last year the federal government spent over $1 trillion on welfare programs. It’s the one thing Obama has been good at – getting people on the dole and hoping they vote for more.

The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

The total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program. (Read More)

So, more welfare, more democrats?  That has been the theory for years.  the more people that get on the government drug, the more people that will vote to keep the benefits.

But whatever you do, never ever call it dependency!

Share

College Students Hammered by ObamaCare-Just in Time for the Election

Share

Yesterday, I asked the question, which is worse, being Obama’s enemy, or his friend?  That line resonates a bit more today, given that college students, who overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008, are being repaid for that support-in higher insurance rates thanks to ObamaCare.  The Lonely Conservative has more…

College students who purchase their health insurance policies through their colleges may be in for a shock when they get the bill. Colleges all over the country are raising premiums drastically to cover the costs associated with Obamacare. In North Carolina, where Democrats are hoping young voters will help them win the state, the costs have skyrocketed.

But as the president fights to keep the conservative-leaning state in his column this November, education officials here are complicating his campaign message by citing “Obamacare” as a reason for the rising cost of student health insurance plans on campuses from Asheville to Wilmington.

In April, Tom Ross, the president of the University of North Carolina system, sent a letter to the university’s board of governors announcing that students should brace for a hike in the cost of university-provided insurance plans.

Ross explained that at least 64,000 North Carolina college students – roughly a third of those enrolled in the state’s 17 public universities – should expect to see “substantial” increases in health coverage costs for the 2012-2013 academic year.

“Based on more than three semesters of actual claims experience, as well as the new provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we are facing large increases in premiums for our students,” Ross wrote in the letter.

In North Carolina, college students are required to have proof of health insurance, either through their university, their parents or a private provider.

Students who purchase insurance plans from North Carolina public universities this fall will be shelling out $709 per semester. That’s up significantly from a cost of $460 per semester last year.

Get over to The Lonely Conservative, as there is even more.

We warned that ObamaCare would increase costs.  Anyone with a half necrotic brain could have recognized that.  But, people continued to push for ObamaCare, and now they are reaping the “rewards” for that support.  It has to be noted that this is part of the Cloward-Piven of ObamaCare-to increase costs and reduce availability, causing the health care system to crash and burn under the weight of those increased costs.  That would give our regressive friends the justification to take it over entirely.

Let’s add college students to the increasingly long list of Obama client groups that are now staring up at the bottom of the bus.

How ya likin’ that “change?”

 

Share

ObamaCare’s Latest Casualty: Catholic University Drops Health Coverage Due to ObamaCare

Share

Remember when we were all told that under ObamaCare, if you liked your plan, you could keep it?  As we predicted then, a ton of people are going to lose their plan.  And, just as we predicted, it is predictable and intentional.  For the latest example, The Blaze has coverage of Fransciscan University in Stuebenville Ohio…

Franciscan University, a Catholic institution in Steubensville, Ohio, is claiming that Obamacare has forced the school to end its student heath insurance program. The massive health care overhaul, the university says, has led to cost increases that no longer make offering the program a viable possibility.

Not surprisingly, President Obama’s controversial contraception mandate is one of the the provisions that caused Franciscan University to make its startling decision. In addition to the mandate, which the school says would force Catholics to violate conscience, another provision in the president’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — one that requires a maximum coverage amount to be increased to $100,000 for policyholders — was cited as the basis for the decision.

In an interview with Fox News, Mike Hernon, the university’s vice president of advancement, claimed that Obamacare would cause the $600 student policy to double in cost next fall. He also said that the same policy would triple in cost the following year.

“This is putting people in a position where they are having to choose between their faith and their morality, and now an unjust cost,” Hernon said. “These sorts of regulations from the government are forcing our hand in a way that’s really wrong.”

Remember that we mad the following observations about ObamaCare back in 2009-2010…

1.  Many Democrats, including Obama himself, have openly stated the desire for a single payer health care system.

2.  Since a single payer system would never pass, they needed to Cloward Piven the current health care system.

3.  The additional costs, regulations, and requirements in ObamaCare would encourage companies to pay the fine/tax in the legislation, which would be cheaper than paying for the insurance.  This, of course, would put more and more people in the public system.

4.  Then, we see the abortion contraception mandates being built into the system, and this too, is part of a larger plan.  Catholic organizations are major players in health care.  If they are chased out of the system due to social mandates, or higher costs, someone, namely government, will have to pick up the slack.

Basically, this is another example of what ObamaCare is supposed to do-chase as many other entities out of the market as possible, so the government will take over more and more of the system.  The end goal is the same, single payer, but the methodology we pointed out is becoming more and more apparent.

Share

ObamaCare Damage Roundup: It Costs Almost Twice as Much as Promised, and Millions Might Lose Their Plans

Share

Are Conservatives and Libertarians prophetic?  Or do they just have a good grasp of the obvious?  While I’d like to think that we’re able to see the future, the reality is that we can integrate information from a variety of sources, and make reasonable predictions about future events.  Consider ObamaCare-when we were told that Congress had to pass it “so we can see what is in it.”  While the contents were supposedly a mystery, promises were made, like it being revenue neutral, costing approximately $900,000,000,000 over the first ten years.  However, Conservatives pointed out that there were many accounting tricks done to meet that number, and that the likely cost would be significantly higher.  After all, Medicare overran it’s cost projections by an order of magnitude, just as most all government entitlements do.  Why would ObamaCare be any different? Well, the CBO has proved that assertion to be quite correct.  Michele Malkin has the details…

Earlier in the week the CBO found that the “Affordable Care Act” is going to make health care so affordable that it will cost at least twice as much as originally advertised:

The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama’s health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive — twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.

In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO’s update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.

So then, just as we predicted, the law is going to cost almost twice as much as originally projected!

But, at least we’re going to keep our own plan, just as President Obama promised, right?

Well, that too appears to have been something of a fabrication.  Again, reality interferes with the narrative…

As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama’s healthcare reform law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new report Thursday.

The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019.

The best estimate, subject to a “tremendous amount of uncertainty,” is that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022.

Hmm, it looks like a lot of people are going to lose their plans.  There have already been anecdotal evidence of people losing their plans.  I would predict that will only get worse.  The reasoning is simple…the law places so many demands on the system (Cloward-Piven) that many companies will drop their coverage and pay the related fine, as it is cheaper.  Also, many companies may change to less expensive plans.  Either way, I think it’s safe to predict that a lot of people will be sent to the public system, and eventually, less and less private plans will be available-just as the regressives want.

This is just the beginning folks.  It’s going to get worse.

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Death Threats Against Koch Brothers OK!

Share

As we have chronicled with the “Great Moments in Civil Discourse” posts, regressives have a glaring double standard in which the the most innocent and inane comments made by Conservatives are filled with racism and “hate.”  On the other hand, regressives are apparently cleared to call for violent revolution, engage in thug tactics against men, women, and children, and make death threats.  For the latest example, we need to take a look at some interesting emails received by Koch industries, via Powerline.

On Thursday, Charles Koch authorized employees of Koch Industries to reveal the contents of “hundreds of e-mails that the Kochs and employees have received in the last year, some of them containing death threats.” The Wichita Eagle, Koch Industries’ home-town newspaper, reported:

Charles Koch, his brother and employees have in recent months been getting death threats, hundreds of obscenity-laced hate messages, and harassment from some far left-wing groups, Koch said on Thursday. …

“I hope you all DIE,” one e-mail, received last year, said. “You people are ruining our country, and all for $$$.” “Choose your expiration Date, Brothers…” said another. “The Koch brothers will DIE!!!!!” said another.

There were hundreds more — some from Wisconsin, where the Kochs were accused of aiding Gov. Scott Walker in his disputes against unions. Most of them were signed with what appear to be real names, many contained obscenities, and some Koch employees said these messages had made them nervous. …

There is more over at Powerline, so I’d encourage you to check it out.

When we look at the regressives, we see what they say and do.  At the same time, we know what the Tea Parties have said and done.  One side has thousands of arrests, millions of dollars in damages (and costs to municipalities), rapes, murders, drug overdoses, violence to people trying to record their activities (in public places), and a variety of other felonies and misdemeanors.  However, when one looks at the MSM coverage, you’d think that the peaceful Tea Parties were the second coming of National Socialism.  At the same time, the violent, anti-Semitic, and openly communist # Occupy movement is portrayed as a mainstream populist movement.

So, while this post will likely be derided as racist and hateful, the people threatening to kill the Koch brothers are given a pass, or perhaps even applauded.

Isn’t it great to live in a “post-reality” America?

Share

Latest EPA Rules to Cost 1.4 Million Jobs and a 12% Increase in Utility Bills

Share

The good thing about having a record is being able to run on it, and I have a track record of posts on my blog that make Obama pretty jealous. In November of 2008 I pointed to an interview that Obama gave where he said that as part of his ‘green energy’ policies he intended to use the power of the federal government to bankrupt all coal producers in the United States. As I quite accurately wrote:

Obama is telling anyone that uses any energy at all that he intends to drive up the price of it. Combine this with his anti-drilling stances for oil, and get used to an economy that is starved for energy- high inflation, low growth, unemployment, and bad times.

This recession is not ‘Bush’s fault’- it is the result of government policies that Obama put in place that have led to a rise in prices for energy, and when it becomes more expensive to produce energy, the result is as predicted. As I wrote in Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs:

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing ‘safety’ or ‘environmental’ regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc.

This is not just fun and games people- these are real policies being put in place by real people that are having real job-killing and wealth-destroying effects. Democrats might want to run next election by churning out negative attacks and finding the one bad thing that their opponent did in the past, but that’s just a side-show to distract you from the real results of their policies.

And the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are bad policies. They are not resulting in any sort of ‘safer’ environment. The man-made caused global warming that was going to destroy the world in the near future has been proven to be an utter myth promoted by corrupt scientists and ‘green energy’ producers who both live on kick-backs from the government. And it appears that under Obama and the Democrats administration, oil spills and mining disasters are getting more common and having worse effects. This isn’t a shock- being safe is more about kicking back money to the right people now and much less about everyone following the law. And there attempts to kill coal production and mining in the United States just means that an unsupervised and unregulated communist China will produce and mine for more coal, doing far more damage to the environment than if it was done in the United States.

And the negatives of the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are becoming more obvious. The latest example of their bad policies is the latest rules that the EPA has put out on ‘pollution’ and energy production. These rules are draconian in nature and by design are supposed to be as unfriendly to energy and business as possible- the exact opposite of flexible and smart policies that allow businesses to thrive in a creative and business-friendly environment.

These new EPA rules are designed to choke job creation, especially in rural areas and states that produce coal, but these states don’t vote Democrat and don’t give the Democrats lots of wealth, so they think it is okay to hammer those states and punish them for their sense of liberty and freedom and equality.

These new EPA policies are also designed to ensure that consumers are stricken with higher utility bills. Oh, your Al Gores and John Kerry’s and John Edwards and Barack Obama’s will be able to pay those higher utility bills, but the middle class will be hard hit by these policies and driven into poverty and become a serf to the government system.

Coal plants will soon be forced to install new scrubber equipment that provides marginal improvement in air quality at tremendous expense. Producers of this new scrubber equipment will benefit and thousands of unionized bureaucrats who will be hired to ensure that these new standards are met will benefit, but the quality of air will see little improvement and the costs associated with installing and running these new energy-eating scrubbers will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs, or the company will absorb the costs by delaying investments in improvements in technology or safety, or the company will be forced to become more efficient by laying off many workers and employing more automation (they’ll also save money by laying off workers because they won’t have to pay the ever increasing costs of employing people that Obama and the Democrats are piling on). Or the company will go out of business.

The Washington Post reports that electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies that the Democrats are putting in place, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs, and those people will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media. They are responsible for these bad policies- these aren’t Republican or conservative or Bush or tea-party policies that are killing jobs and destroying the middle-class- they are Democratic policies.

When a party pushes for policies that achieve little good at the cost of a great number of negatives, it doesn’t matter how much spinning they do and it really doesn’t matter how good or bad the individual candidates are who they are running against- that party needs to be thrown out of power until they learn just how much damage their policies do to the life, liberty, and property of the great people of the United States of America.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Green Energy Is Burning Up Your Green $$$

Share

Obama’s insane energy policy is burning a hole through the American’s family budget. At the same time, our government is burning through our tax dollars while putting our future generations deeper and deeper in debt.

How are Americans reacting to this insanity? That I can tell, there is almost no reaction from Main Street America. The reason, I think, is obvious.  The average American is being battered about like a ball in a pin ball machine by the multitude of negative impacts their government’s policies are having on them. It is almost impossible for anyone to focus on one bad policy long enough before another one smacks them from behind. We bloggers, on the other hand,  are able to sift through numerous issues each day and decide to write about one of them. In that fashion, I decided that today I would write about the absurdity of Obama’s “Green” energy policies.

What The Obama Administration Won’t Tell You About Solar Power is the title of a recent article at The Daley Gator, via Big Peace,  which begs for attention that it is not likely to get. So, I will do my humble best to help raise awareness on this important issue. Here are some of the highlights:

On Friday, Secretary of the Interior Salazar praised a new solar project in California, expected to be the largest in the world, as a major milestone in fulfilling President Obama’s promise to expand renewable energy.[i] The first phase of the project, to be completed in 2013, is being supported by a U.S. Department of Energy $2.1 billion loan guarantee. The 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside County, California claims to be able to power between 300,000 and 750,000 homes and create 1,000 temporary jobs and about 200 permanent jobs. The truth is that solar power alone will dependably serve very few homes because it is too unreliable but will cost up to 5 times as much as the cheapest form of electrical generation. Consumers, businesses, and the taxpayer will suffer.

Of course, Secretary Salazar does not tell the public that this solar plant will provide only a small fraction of the power that a 1,000 megawatt fossil fuel or nuclear plant would provide. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), a new solar thermal plant has an average capacity factor of only 18 percent, which compares to a new natural gas combined cycle plant at 87 percent, a new coal-fired plant at 85 percent and a new nuclear plant at 90 percent.

Think about for a second or two, my friends. A capacity factor of only 18 frigging percent. This is twenty-first century progress?

And, the capital cost compared to conventional generating plants of the same size:

Not only is the annual production less but the cost of the solar plant is much higher. According to the EIA’s analysis of the cost of new generating plants which begin producing power in 2016, the projected capital cost of a solar thermal power plant excluding finance charges is $4,692 per kilowatt compared to $2,844 per kilowatt for a dual-unit coal-fired plant and $978 per kilowatt for a natural-gas combined cycle plant. [iv] So, the cost for a 1,000 megawatt solar plant would be $4.7 billion dollars, a coal-fired plant would be $2.8 billion, and a natural gas combined cycle plant would be just under $1 billion.

What about the relative production costs?

* solar thermal, 31.2 cents per kilowatt hour,
* coal, 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour,
* natural gas combined cycle, 6.2 cents per kilowatt hour, and
* nuclear, 11.4 cents per kilowatt hour.

When I look at these numbers my blood starts to boil. Our government (well maybe it’s not our government but Obama’s government) is promoting and subsidising solar energy at a cost of 31.2 cents per kilowatt-hour while impeding development of our humongous gas reserves, which could be used to produce energy at not 6.2 cent per kilowatt-hour but something even less. If private industry had the freedom to develop our gas reserves, the unit cost of that gas would be significantly less than it is today.

So, the lucky citizens of California will be paying through the nose for their electrical energy. (That ought to really help the sales of the Chevy Volt.) But don’t worry. I’m sure it wong belong when everyone will have the chance to watch their Green$$$ being burnt up by a Obama Green Energy Plant near you.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

Share

Government Action Causes Preemie Birth Preventive Drug to Go from $10 to $1500- Further Evidence that Evil Insurance Companies Must be Nationalized?

Share

From the Associated Press:

The price of preventing preterm labor is about to go through the roof. A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That’s because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved. But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE’-Nah)….

…Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a huge financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs that have been paying for it….

….Ther-Rx and its parent company became involved about three years ago and acquired rights to the drug from a Massachusetts company named Hologic Inc., said Divis, who is also Ther-Rx’s president.

To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years….

…Some doctors said they were happy getting the cheaper version from compounding pharmacies, and Aetna’s Armstrong said she was unaware of any quality concerns. Still, doctors will use the Ther-Rx brand, in part because of legal worries. Not that they have a choice: Last month, KV sent cease-and-desist letters to compounding pharmacies, telling them they could face FDA enforcement actions if they kept making the drug….

Summary- There was a drug out there that helped prevent babies from being born prematurely and having all of the associated health problems with this. The drug was cheap and was frequently freely chosen by patients and doctors. Several years ago a clever company realized that it could use the power of the government power to make money, so bought up the rights to this drug and then lobbied the FDA hard to give them exclusive rights to selling the drug. The FDA did so, the company jacked up the price, and threatened government thugs on anyone that didn’t buy from their government regulated monopoly. Children, parents, insurance companies, doctors, and society all suffered ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED. And now Obama and the Democrats in Congress want the government to be involved in every single decision regarding you and your health.

UPDATE: I love http://www.opensecrets.org/. A quick search on donor lookup of employer ‘KV Pharmaceutical’ shows that FRANKLIN, JOSHUA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/DIRECTOR OF MARKETING) donated $300 Clinton, Hillary (D) and HATTEN, SANDRA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/VICE PRESIDENT OF ??? donated $300 Obama, Barack (D). All other entries are from 2000 or previous and not as relevant. Again, this does not demonstrate that those donate to Democrats always get an executive agency a contract to market something exclusively that was on the market for many years they just recently acquired, but it does make you wonder why those who are getting special benefits in our government are almost always donating money to Democrats and rarely to Republicans.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share