Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, August 13, 2013


Mornin', folks!

 A dreary day... but every once in awhile we need stormy weather 

I invite you all to join me in the "comments section" of this posting where it's warm and dry!

Read... Comprehend... Act...!
.


Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/

First, there was the delay of ObamaCare's Medicare cuts until after the election.

* "DELAY."

Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate.

* "DELAY."

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

* "DELAY."

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law — its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs — will be delayed for one more year.

* FOLKS. A LAW WAS PASSED. AFTER A HUGE NATIONAL DEBATE. THIS LAW PASSED PARTIALLY BASED UPON HARD ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY "THE NON-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE." THIS ANALYSIS WAS BASED UPON NUMBERS GIVEN THE CBO BY THE DEMOCRATS WHO CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS WHEN OBAMACARE WAS PASSED... NUMBERS THE WHITE HOUSE SIGNED OFF ON AS PART OF THEIR MARKETING EFFORT TO GET THE BILL PASSED. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE "DELAYS" MAKE EVERYTHING YOU WERE TOLD ABOUT OBAMACARE'S ECONOMIC IMPACT MOOT - RIGHT? ALL THESE "DELAYS" TAKE AWAY REVENUE OBAMA, PELOSI, AND REID TOLD YOU THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE TAKING IN. FOLKS... YOU WERE LIED TO.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act.

* AND AS ALWAYS... ALLOW ME TO MENTION THE CONCEPT OF THE RULE OF LAW. WHERE IN THE LAW VOTED ON AND PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT IS THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO BASICALLY RE-WRITE THE LAW AS HE GOES... TO "DELAY"... TO IGNORE... THOSE PARTS OF THE LAW WHICH HE'S DECIDED ARE NO LONGER GOOD IDEAS... NO LONGER IN HIS AND HIS PARTY'S POLITICAL INTEREST?

While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the [latest] delay — whose legal justification is dubious once again — there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.

“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”

The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies.

(But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.)

* FOLKS... I'LL TRY TO FLESH OUT THE DETAILS A BIT BETTER IN A FOLLOWING NEWSBITE, BUT FOR NOW... (*SHRUG*)... SUFFICE IT TO SAY WE'RE NO LONGER A NATION UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. EVEN IF YOU LOVE OBAMA AND SUPPORT HIS POLICIES YOU MUST ADMIT THAT HE CONFUSES HIMSELF WITH A KING AND WORST OF ALL... MORE OFTEN THAN NOT GETS AWAY WITH "RULE BY DECREE."

August 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/low-premium-high-deductible-health-plans-are-endangered-by-affordable/article_39a6679a-0f01-5351-94cc-6f17549d81ad.html

Rod Coons and Florence Peace pay $403 a month for a family health plan that covers barely any medical care for either of them until he or she reaches $10,000 in claims in a given year. And that’s just the way they like it.

* IN NEW YORK SUCH PLANS DON'T EXIST; THEY'VE BEEN EFFECTIVELY OUTLAWED BY STATE MANDATES CONCERNING "LEVELS OF CARE." CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE COUPLED WITH HEALTHCARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ARE - AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN - THE WAY TO GO, BUT INSTEAD WE'VE GOTTEN OBAMACARE.

“I’m only really interested in catastrophic coverage,” says Coons, 58, who retired last year after selling an electronics manufacturing business in Indianapolis. Beyond their premium, the couple typically spends no more than $500 annually on medical care, Coons says. “I’d prefer to stay with our current plan.”

* BEYOND MAKING INTELLECTUAL SENSE... COONS AND PEACE ARE EXERCISING FREEDOM... LIBERTY... RIGHTS THAT AMERICANS USED TO ENJOY AND TAKE FOR GRANTED.

That won’t be an option next year.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

In 2014, plans sold on the individual and small-group markets will have to meet new "standards for coverage and cost-sharing," among other things. In addition to providing 10 so-called essential health benefits and covering many preventive-care services at "no cost," plans must pay at least 60% of allowed medical expenses and cap annual out-of-pocket spending at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. (The only exception is for plans that have grandfathered status under the law.)

* FOLKS... AS I SAID ALL ALONG... OBAMACARE REPRESENTS "FULL SPEED AHEAD..." - BUT IN THE WRONG DIRECTION... HEADING FOR THE ROCKS...

Plans with $10,000 deductibles won’t make the cut, experts say, nor will many other plans that require high cost-sharing or provide limited benefits — by excluding prescription drugs or doctor visits from coverage, for example. Plans next year can continue to be linked to a health savings account, however.

* AGAIN... NEW YORK AND MANY OTHER STATES EFFECTIVELY MAKE "CATASTROPIC CARE POLICIES" ILLEGAL IN THE SENSE THAT NO COMPANY CAN LEGALLY OFFER THEM. (THAT'S WHAT "STANDARDS FOR COVERAGE AND COST-SHARING" REPRESENT!)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, based on the 10 states (and the District of Columbia) that have so far proposed individual market premiums for next year, the average monthly rate will be $321 per person for a mid-level plan.

* SUBSIDIZED OR UNSUBSIDIZED? (FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... THEY'RE GONNA PLAY ALL SORTS OF WORD GAMES... MATH GAMES; THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT YOU END UP SPENDING FOR YOURSELF... WITH THE LOWER LINE BEING WHAT YOU'RE BEING FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE FOR OTHERS.)

Many policyholders don’t realize their current plans won’t meet the standards set by the Affordable Care Act next year. (When the online health insurance agency eHealthinsurance began notifying people in nongrandfathered plans that they’d have to change policies in January, the company got so many calls that it shut down the planned weeklong email campaign after one day. Carrie McLean, the company’s director of customer care, says people who got the email “said, ‘What are you talking about? I thought I was already on an ACA plan.’ ”)

Coons is none too pleased, either. “I’m happy with where I’m at right now, but it doesn’t look like that’s where I’m going to be at in the future,” he says. Coons plans to look for coverage through the online state marketplace. The couple may qualify for subsidies available to people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($62,040 for a couple in 2013).

* SO... MARY AND I WILL CONTINUE TO PAY FOR OUR HEALTH INSURANCE OUT OF POCKET WITH NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY... PLUS... WELL BE PAYING TO SUBSIDIZE COONS' NEW OBAMACARE POLICY THAT HE DOESN'T WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Health-policy experts point out that even though the sticker price on a plan may be higher next year, many people will qualify for subsidies that will make coverage more affordable.

* HOW... IS... THIS... GOOD...?!?! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY SO OVERSPENDS THAT IT NEEDS TO BORROW FORTY-SOMETHING-CENTS OF EVER DOLLAR SPENT! WE HAVE A "BASIC" NATIONAL DEBT OF APPROXIMATELY $17 TRILLION WHICH IS BEING ADDED TO YEAR AFTER YEAR... PLUS... THIS UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT IS BEING FINANCED AT INTEREST - A SUBTRATION FROM THE NATIONAL WALLET/INCOME!

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... INCOME REDISTRIBUTION AND EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE STATE WITH NO CARE FOR FISCAL REALITY IS WHAT OBAMACARE IS ALL ABOUT.

In addition, the health plans offered on the individual market next year will provide much better coverage than many current plans, they say.

* WHAT'S THAT MEAN...??? IN THE REAL WORLD IT MEANS PAYING FOR MANDATED "BENEFITS" YOU MAY NEVER NEED (OR WILL NEVER NEED)!

August 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579008843893312528.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

A federal judge in New York City has declared the police department's use of stop-and-frisk unconstitutional and appointed a monitor to reform the practice.

"To be clear, I am not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk," wrote Judge Shira Scheindlin, allowing that the Supreme Court has found the practice permissible. "The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much-need police protection."

But the people most in need of that protection are the city's minority residents, who may be less likely to receive it in the wake of her ruling.

* THEY WHO ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS FOR THE PROMISE OF SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER. (OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT...)

During the trial, police testified that they stopped people when they witnessed suspicious behavior and suspected criminal activity. They said that the disproportionate number of stops in black neighborhoods reflected the amount of crime in those neighborhoods, not anti-black bias. The judge was unpersuaded. She said police were "conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner" and that the current stop-and-frisk policy amounted to "indirect racial profiling."

Starting in the 1960s, New York City's murder rate rose steadily, peaking at 2,245 in 1990.

By last year the number had dropped to 419, a 40-year low.

City officials from former Mayor Rudy Giuliani to current Mayor Mike Bloomberg to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly cite stop-and-frisk and other kinds of pro-active policing as a major reason for the decline.

Nor does this record simply reflect national trends.

"New York's crime drop has been twice as deep and has lasted twice as long as the national average since the early 1990s," writes Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, who adds that those who have the most to gain from these police tactics are the city's black residents. "Today, 10,000 minority males are alive who would have been killed by now had New York's homicide rate remained at its early-1990s levels."

To the extent that Judge Scheindlin's ruling results in less-effective policing of the ghetto, law-abiding blacks in those communities will be worse off. For example, blacks, who make up about 24% of New York City's population, were responsible for 66% of all violent crime in 2009, including 80% of shootings and 71% of robberies.

And the vast majority of the victims were fellow minorities.

The problem with this court ruling is the problem with liberalism, which wants to focus on police behavior instead of black behavior.

August 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)