Healthcare

Obamacare Results in 47 Percent Premium Hike

by Hans Bader on October 17, 2010

in Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Obamacare has just led to a 47 percent increase in some health insurance premium rates in Connecticut:

The state’s largest insurer has been approved to raise health premium rates by 41 percent to 47 percent for some of its policies sold to individual buyers, in the largest price hikes yet seen in Connecticut since the adoption of national health care reform… The reason for the increases is the new federal health reform mandates, according to Anthem and the state Department of Insurance.

This is the exact opposite of what Americans were promised by the sponsors of Obamacare, which was deceptively billed as the Affordable Care Act.

Earlier, a judge in Florida refused to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Obamacare.

Obamacare includes major tax increases such as new taxes on investors and a $60 billion excise tax on health insurers that will be passed on to consumers.  It has already resulted in higher costs for major employers, and the elimination of high-quality health care plans. Insurance regulators in Connecticut had previously approved other premium increases.

The higher costs of Obamacare are one factor in why employers are reluctant to hire. Last month, 95,000 jobs disappeared as more jobs were eliminated than created in the American economy.

Judge Rejects Obama Administration’s Motion to Dismiss Challenge to Obamacare

by Hans Bader on October 15, 2010 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Regulation

A judge in Florida has rejected the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss challenges to Obamacare brought by 20 state attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Business. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson found that the attorneys general had made a plausible argument that Obamacare is in excess of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and in violation of the Tenth Amendment — indeed, he said it wasn’t even “a close call.”

The judge gave a green light to a challenge to Obamacare’s requirement that all citizens buy federally-regulated health insurance — the so-called “individual mandate.”  “While the novel and unprecedented nature of the individual mandate does not automatically render it unconstitutional,” Judge Vinson observed, “there is perhaps a presumption that it is.”  This means at the very least that “the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.”

The judge also allowed the state attorney generals to challenge Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion provisions under the Tenth Amendment.

We earlier explained why the individual mandate contained in Obamacare is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. We joined an amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute supporting Virginia’s challenge in a case pending in Richmond, which you can find here. The judge in the Virginia case also rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  Three former U.S. attorneys general, William Barr, Ed Meese, and Dick Thornburgh, also filed a brief challenging Obamacare in that case.

Briefs in many constitutional challenges to Obamacare can be found at this website.

At the ACA Litigation Blog, Brad Joondeph summarizes the Florida judge’s ruling, noting:

After laying out the competing arguments as to whether [the individual mandate, contained in Section 1501(b) of Obamacare,] is within Congress’s commerce power, he states as follows: ‘At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call.’ Judge Vinson goes on to explain that the individual mandate is ‘simply without prior precedent’ (p.61), and that, unlike statutes upheld by the Supreme Court in prior Commerce Clause decisions cited by the federal government (such as Heart of Atlanta Motel and Wickard), this regulation ‘is not based on an activity that [people] make the choice to undertake’ (p.63). In other words, Judge Vinson sees this as a regulation of inactivity, and thus one that is qualitatively different from prior uses of the commerce power (as augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause). Moreover, he finds it highly salient that those regulated by 1501 (that is, all legal residents) have not taken some sort of voluntary action (such as entering the motel business, or growing wheat, for example) before being subjected to the provision’s requirement. Seeing the minimum coverage requirement in these terms, I think, is probably going about 75 percent of the way towards finding it unconstitutional. Mind you, Judge Vinson concludes by stating that he is holding only that the states have ‘stated a plausible claim.’ (p. 64). But the reasoning behind his conclusion–not to mention the modifier ‘most definitely’ that precedes it–gives one the sense that, following the coming motions for summary judgment, the odds are in favor of the court declaring the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional.

Obamacare May Force McDonald’s to Drop Health Coverage for Employees

by Hans Bader on October 1, 2010

in Economy, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Michelle Malkin points out that “McDonald’s has notified the feds that it may be forced to drop health insurance for some 30,000 workers due to the Obamacare mandate.”

A large number of employers may eventually eliminate health coverage due to Obamacare. As The Wall Street Journal notes:

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for ‘mini-med’ plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits. . .McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

It’s not just limited-benefit plans that are disappearing. Excellent health plans that patients prize most are disappearing too.  Earlier, 22,000 seniors lost their health care plan due to Obamacare. Meanwhile, state regulators are approving premium increases due to the increased costs resulting from Obamacare.

By the way, I’m tired of mindless McDonald’s bashing. The food at McDonald’s is no more fattening than at many restaurants which charge much higher prices.  (A Big Mac is healthier than quiche lorraine.)  I lost 10 pounds while working at McDonald’s and eating mostly McDonald’s food (a man in Richmond lost 86 pounds). Yet left-wing busybodies are now using discriminatory zoning rules to block the opening of new McDonald’s franchises in places like Los Angeles, and are calling for taxes on fast food to control what people eat, as part of “healthcare reform.”

Insurance Regulators Approve Increases Based on Obamacare

by Hans Bader on September 19, 2010 · 4 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

In Connecticut, insurance rate regulators have approved hikes in insurance premiums of up to 20 percent, agreeing with insurers that Obamacare increased their costs. Some people will now pay thousands of dollars a year more as a result.

This contradicts claims made by President Obama and his aides that the new health care law would cut health care costs and bend the cost curve down.

Employers like AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, and Verizon have already reported major cost increases due to the new health care law.

As noted earlier, the health care law raises taxes on the middle-class and investors in future years. Obamacare will cause many harms, such as reducing life-saving medical innovation and increasing state budget deficits. It is based on accounting gimmicks that will increase the federal deficit, as even some Obama supporters have admitted — like David Brooks, who in a moment of candor called arguments for the bill ““unbelievable” and “insane.””

LibertyWeek 102: Collective Insanity

by Richard Morrison on July 19, 2010

in CEI Projects, Features, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome guest co-host Alex Nowrasteh to Episode 102 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on the healthcare tax, obscenity and the First Amendment, the prognosis for the Gulf of Mexico, and the collective insanity coming out of Venezuela.

ObamaCare Vastly Expands IRS Red Tape and Power, Raises Medical and Insurance Costs, Taxes, and Deficits, and Harms Very Sick People

by Hans Bader on April 27, 2010 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

“Billions of more documents” will be have to be filled out by small businesses for the IRS so that a “spendthrift Congress can shake a few extra bucks out of” them to pay for ObamaCare. They will have to spend countless hours to “gather information,” such as about the person they buy a used car from, and the mom-and-pop landlords who lease space to them, even if the small business has to spend more money gathering the information than the IRS will collect in taxes as a result.  (The new health care law will raise far more revenue by taking away medical tax-deductions from “15 million very sick people” with “major medical expenses” starting in 2013.)

The health care bill vastly expands the power of the IRS.  The Washington Examiner says that “16,500 more IRS agents” will be “needed to enforce Obamacare.”  That’s “the biggest expansion of the IRS since World War II.”

ObamaCare is also costing major employers who provide health coverage for retirees billions of dollars.  “When companies started reporting the write-downs they’d take as a result of the passage of ObamaCare,” congressional Democrats “reacted with outrage at the announcements, and scheduled hearings to demand answers . . . from AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere, and Verizon.”  But now, the massive costs of ObamaCare are so obvious and undeniable that even congressional Democrats have “admitted that CEOs who reported billions in losses due to ObamaCare were required to state those losses after all,” and that their “companies acted properly and in accordance with” federal “accounting standards.”

“Economic experts from President Obama’s own Health and Human Services Department have released a devastating report noting that Obamacare ‘will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019,’ according to the Associated Press. Even worse, ‘Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and ‘possibly jeopardizing access’ to care for seniors.’”  This contradicts Obama’s claims that the health care law would “bend the cost curve down” and cut the cost of health insurance.

This report existed before Congress voted on the health care bill, but Obama’s HHS Secretary concealed it until after the bill’s passage.

“The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.”

To try to offset and hide the increased cost of health care resulting from their ill-conceived health care law, the Obama administration and congressional leaders are now proposing a new bill to “impose price controls on insurance,” even though similar legislation is already backfiring in Massachusetts, where health care costs spiraled upwards after the state government adopted a prototype of ObamaCare several years ago, resulting in “explosive costs.”

The health care legislation backed by Obama contains many penny-wise, pound-foolish provisions.  It spends money on frills like “cultural competency,” while cutting spending on crucial things like anesthesia.

Fourteen attorneys general are challenging provisions of the new health care law in court.  Their lawsuits argue that forcing people to buy health insurance is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The new law imposes many middle-class tax increases, such as taxes on uninsured individuals, on cosmetic surgery, on medical devices, and on certain health care plans.  It also increases taxes on many investors and imposes marriage penalties.

The new health care law will reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums, break many campaign promises, and increase state budget deficits.  It  will jeopardize the quality of medical care, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level.  It ignores advice from doctors and federal experts, and lessons from countries with universal health care, about how to keep costs down.

While the CBO deceptively scored the health care bill as not increasing the federal deficit, thanks to the many tax increases in the bill, it did so only because it was required to accept many accounting gimmicks that even pro-administration journalists have admitted conceal the bill’s enormous cost and the fact that it will massively increase the deficit.  The New York Times‘ David Brooks, once a staunch supporter of President Obama, recently said that the bill’s drafters were “corrupted by power” and called arguments for the law “unbelievable” and “insane.”  The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who also voted for Obama, wrote that the law “is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.”

ObamaCare Will Raise Insurance Premiums and Health Care Costs, Perhaps Bankrupt Hospitals, Federal Officials Admit

by Hans Bader on April 26, 2010 · 3 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

“Economic experts from President Obama’s own Health and Human Services Department have released a devastating report noting that Obamacare ‘will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019,’ according to the Associated Press. Even worse, ‘Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and ‘possibly jeopardizing access’ to care for seniors.’”  This contradicts Obama’s claims that the health care law would “bend the cost curve down” and cut the cost of health insurance.  Starting in 2013, the health care legislation will also dramatically increase the taxes of “15 million very sick people” with “major medical expenses.”

“The administration’s own actuary reported on Thursday that millions of people could lose their health insurance, that health-care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and that the overhaul will mean that people will have a harder and harder time finding physicians to see them.”

To try to offset and hide the increased cost of health care resulting from their ill-conceived health care law, the Obama administration and congressional leaders are now proposing a new bill to “impose price controls on insurance,” even though similar legislation is already backfiring in Massachusetts, where health care costs spiraled upwards after the state government adopted a prototype of ObamaCare several years ago, resulting in “explosive costs.”

The health care legislation backed by Obama contains many penny-wise, pound-foolish provisions.  It spends money on frills like “cultural competency,” while cutting spending on crucial things like anesthesia.

14 attorneys general are challenging provisions of the new health care law in court.  Their lawsuits argue that forcing people to buy health insurance is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The new law imposes many middle-class tax increases, such as taxes on uninsured individuals, on cosmetic surgery, on medical devices, and on certain health care plans.  It also increases taxes on many investors and imposes marriage penalties.

The new health care law will reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums, break many campaign promises, and increase state budget deficits.  It  will jeopardize the quality of medical care, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level.  It ignores advice from doctors and federal experts, and lessons from countries with universal health care, about how to keep costs down.

While the CBO deceptively scored the health care bill as not increasing the federal deficit, thanks to the many tax increases in the bill, it did so only because it was required to accept many accounting gimmicks that even pro-administration journalists have admitted conceal the bill’s enormous cost and the fact that it will massively increase the deficit.  The New York Times‘ David Brooks, once a staunch supporter of President Obama, recently said that the bill’s drafters were “corrupted by power” and called arguments for the law “unbelievable” and “insane.”  The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who also voted for Obama, wrote that the law “is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.”

Do we really want to be like Europe?

by Fred Smith on April 13, 2010

in Culture, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, International, Regulation

With the passage of ObamaCare, we’ve taken another giant step towards Europeanizing America. Tragically, our history shows a steady trend in that direction, with government spending as a percentage of GDP steadily increasing from 20% in the 1930s to over 35% in the last two decades. From the first success of the Progressives in the late 19th century, the United States has tended toward the European regulatory-welfare state model. Is this convergence wise?

Certainly European-style governance has many drawbacks. Consider Denmark. There, tax revenues are used to pay for health care expenses, all levels of education, child care, etc. Even students receive support grants while in school! Vacation policies are generous with employers required to grant at least 5 weeks of paid vacation per year. All this may seem great-you pay for nothing and get “free” vacation time. But, of ourse, there are no free lunches.

Danes pay a large price for all this. Minimum tax rates in Denmark are over 45%. In addition, Denmark pays the supra-governmental EU-imposed VAT (value added tax) of 15% on top of the national VAT of 10%. The VAT tax is essentially a sales tax raising the price of everything. Consumer goods are much more expensive with gasoline costing $6-8 per gallon, a beer over $10. European taxation shifts choice away from individuals and limits their ability to enjoy much of the world’s marvels.

Average take home income in Denmark is close to that of the United States, but Danes have a much lower purchasing power given these downstream taxes and the higher prices resulting both from the sales tax and the regulatory burdens. Home ownership in Denmark is more than 10% lower than in the United States.

Personal car ownership is discouraged in Denmark in favor of public transportation. The tax on a new car is over 100% of the sticker price, doubling the cost of car ownership. Danes also pay an annual ownership tax of anywhere from $1000-$4000. As a result, only about 400 individuals per thousand own automobiles in Denmark, compared to over 750 per thousand in the United States.

These aspects of European life are less well known to Americans. American tourists see a “nicer” side of Europe, staying in lovely hotels, enjoying beautiful scenery, and eating wonderful foods The reality of everyday life in Europe is less lovely.

While America is not perfect, allowing the government to control more aspects of our lives will not yield a better, healthier society. The government cannot wave a magic wand and rid the world of problems. We all want a healthier, safer, and wealthier society. Are free markets or bureaucracy the better path to those hopes? Indeed, if we continue down the current road, what will America resemble tomorrow? France without the good food?

Millions of Seniors to be Dumped from Health Plans Due to New Health Care Law

by Hans Bader on March 30, 2010

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Two million seniors are expected to be dumped onto Medicare from company prescription medication plans, thanks to a poorly-vetted provision of the new health care law signed by the president this week. It will cost the taxpayers billions in higher Medicare costs, and the companies hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax deductions.

It’s one of many penny-wise, pound-foolish provisions in the new health care law. It spends money on frills like “cultural competency,” while cutting spending on crucial things like anesthesia.

Fourteen attorneys general are challenging provisions of the new health care law in court. Their lawsuits argue that forcing people to buy health insurance is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The new law imposes many middle-class tax increases, such as taxes on uninsured individuals, on cosmetic surgery, on medical devices, and on certain health care plans. It also increases taxes on many investors and imposes marriage penalties.

The new health care law will reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums, break many campaign promises, and increase state budget deficits. It will jeopardize the quality of medical care, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level. It ignores advice from doctors and federal experts, and lessons from countries with universal healthcare, about how to keep costs down.

Governors of both political parties assailed the health care bill as a job-killer that will drive up state deficits, increase taxes, and harm the economy. The governors of New York and California earlier warned that “their states will be crushed by billions in new costs.”

While the CBO has scored the health care bill as not increasing the federal deficit, thanks to the many tax increases in the bill, it has done so only by accepting many accounting gimmicks that even pro-administration journalists have admitted conceal the bill’s enormous cost and the fact that it will massively increase the deficit. The New York Times‘ David Brooks, once a staunch supporter of President Obama, recently said that the bill’s drafters were “corrupted by power” and called arguments for the law “unbelievable” and “insane.” The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who also voted for Obama, wrote that the law “is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.”

CEI in the News: March 29, 2010

by Richard Morrison on March 29, 2010

in Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhZZwYaxrc 285 234]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →