1. ObamaCare Beginning To Worry Insurers.

Insurance companies that participate in the exchange are worried that the exchanges won’t be viable for long.  The recent announcement by the Obama Administration that people could keep their health plans through 2015 has only added to the troubles as insurers were hoping those people would see their plans cancelled this year and then join the exchange.

From the Washington Examiner:

Though the department [of Health and Human Services] has reported that 4 million have signed up for health care plans through one of the program’s new insurance exchanges, that number drops to 3 million when individuals who haven’t kept up with paying premiums are included (about 20 percent never paid the first month’s premiums, and an additional 2 to 5 percent haven’t paid the second month’s premium, Laszewski writes, citing insurance carriers).

That isn’t enough to create a sustainable risk pool with a critical mass of young and healthy enrollees to offset the cost of covering older and sicker individuals who are now guaranteed an offer of coverage.

Well, NCPPR warned them about these problems a while ago.  Sometimes being right is a real pain.

2. Unions Also Worried About ObamaCare.

Here is the key paragraph from an analysis by UNITE!, a union that represents people who work in the hospitality industry, airports, food service and so on: 

Ironically, the Administration’s own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality. Yes, the Affordable Care Act will help many more Americans gain some health insurance coverage, a significant step forward for equality. At the same time, without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss  of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage. 

3. Testimony Before The Senate HELP Committee Tomorrow

I’ll be testifying before the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, which is part of Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  The topic is “Access and Cost: What the U.S. Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries.”  It will take place between 10am and noon EDT, and you should be able to view a webcast here.  What will I say?  Well, here is a sneak peek at some of the testimony I’ve submitted:

4. And For Something Totally Unrelated To Health Care.

Here is Rosey Grier, one of the defensive linemen of the then-Los Angeles Rams known as the “Fearsome Four”:

And here is Grier singing “It’s All Right to Cry”:

Hat tip, Kyle Smith.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the other day that, despite all the "good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told. All of the are untrue, but they're being told all over America."

ObamaCare is causing a catastrophic change to our health care climate and Harry Reid is denying it. Denier!

No, we don't have a hockey stick to support this (and, come to think of it, neither do alarmists who concocted something more like a horse-hockey stick to "prove" anthropogenic climate change.)

We have proof more like a baseball bat right to the groin... reality.

Not theory, not models, but actual observed changes to our health care system.

There's this: Millions Americans have been informed that their insurance policies are being discontinued BECAUSE they don't meet ObamaCare requirements.

Need proof? Take a look at this letter all the employees of my organization received.

My family's new plan came with a 55% higher price tag and higher co-payments.

And there are much more dramatic and tragic stories such as this one, which details how ObamaCare caused a 49-year-old woman to lose coverage for cancer medication.

Senator Reid has walked his comments back a bit, by saying that nearly all the horror stories are false and suggesting that he was referring only to the ObamaCare horror stories being circulated by Charles and David Koch, whom Reid has called "un-American"... or "un-Aryan"... I forget which.

Reid apparently doesn't believe the Kochs are entitled to express their opinions and exercise their rights like everyone else. He wants to make them the scapegoat for problems he created... not all that dissimilar from a tactic used by a certain European regime 70+ years ago.

Reid owes an apology not only to the millions of Americans who have been harmed by ObamaCare AND to the Kochs, whom he has slandered.

He owes one to his Senate colleagues as his insistence that all ObamaCare horror stories are lies impugned the character of many of them, a violation of Senate rules.

But reforming it creates political problems.  If a politician suggests getting rid of it, he’ll quickly be attacked as someone who will cause those who get coverage through their employers to lose their insurance.  Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and then-Senator Bob Bennett of Utah proposed a health care bill in 2007 that changed the tax exclusion to a standard deduction for individuals.  That’s one reason their reform never got much political traction.

Here are a few ideas, perhaps only half-baked at this point, on how the tax exclusion can be reformed.

My proposal begins with giving employers the option of keeping their insurance with the tax exclusion or switching to a system of tax-free employee health accounts (EHA).  With an EHA, an employer would deposit the amount of money he would otherwise use to pay health insurance for an employee.  The employee could then use the EHA for any health care purpose including buying insurance.  The money in the EHA would belong exclusively to the employee.  He could bring it with him from job to job.

My proposal would give employers further flexibility by allowing them to offer each employee both access to the an insurance plan with the tax exclusion or an EHA.  In this scenario employees who liked their employer plan could stay in it, while employees who did not could take the EHA and purchase insurance they found to be more suitable.  New employees who came to the company and already had insurance they liked could opt for the EHA and use it to keep paying premiums on their policy, thereby enhancing portability.

I suspect that most employers would not take the EHA option initially.  Most employees with employer-provided insurance would keep it, if for no other reason to avoid employee backlash.  Over time, though, employers would want to get out of the health insurance game and would convert to EHAs, especially if health insurance costs started escalating very quickly which, under the current system, they eventually will.  Employees would become more agreeable to switching to EHAs as the rising price of health insurance caused the share they pay toward their coverage to grow.  

More details of this proposal have to be worked out.  For the time being, I’d like to hear the reaction of readers to this.

Speaking of the America Academy of Pediatrics, the AAP has fired a shot across the bow of retail health clinics:

Retail health clinics that are popping up in drugstores and other outlets shouldn’t be used for children’s primary-care needs, the American Academy of Pediatrics said, arguing that such facilities don’t provide the continuity of care that pediatricians do.

While retail clinics may be more convenient and less costly, the AAP said they are detrimental to the concept of a “medical home,” where patients have a personal physician who knows them well and coordinates all their care.

Thus far, AAP has only made arguments against using retail clinics as a substitute for a “medical home” for children.  And it is certainly free to do so.  

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that children are getting worse care at retail clinics, as the AAP helpfully notes: “Data on outcomes specifically looking at pediatric patients are limited, but minor illnesses, such as acute pharyngitis, demonstrate no significant issues with early return visits to pri- mary care physicians.”  In fact, the studies that AAP cites show retail clinics produce pretty good outcomes.

But I doubt the AAP’s effort will end at persuasion or that it will let data deter it from using government to go after retail clinics. For example, the statement released by the AAP states that it has laid out principles that retail clinics “should be subject [to] because of concern regarding the medical care received by pediatric patients in these settings.”

Note the use of the passive voice, a common tactic lobbying groups use when they don’t want to say who will be responsible for doing the “subjecting.”  Will it be the retail clinics who subject themselves, or will it be the government?  

Ultimately, it should be parents who make the decision as to where their children get treated, since no one else—not pediatricians, not “academies,” and certainly not politicians—has a greater interest than parents in seeing that their children receive proper medical care.

But don’t expect the AAP to respect the wishes of parents.  After all, more children treated at retail clinics means fewer treated by pediatricians.  That could also mean fewer dues paying members of the AAP.  It is probably only a matter of time before the AAP calls for stricter government regulations on retail clinics.

American physicians, worried about changes in the health care market, are streaming into salaried jobs with hospitals. Though the shift from private practice has been most pronounced in primary care, specialists are following.

American Interest titled its post on this “Your Hospital Bill Is About to Get a Lot More Expensive.”  Here’s why:

…experts caution that the change from private practice to salaried jobs may not yield better or cheaper care for patients.

“In many places, the trend will almost certainly lead to more expensive care in the short run,” said Robert Mechanic, an economist who studies health care at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management….

…many of the new salaried arrangements have evolved from hospitals looking for new revenues, and could have the opposite effect. For example, when doctors’ practices are bought by a hospital, a colonoscopy or stress test performed in the office can suddenly cost far more because a hospital “facility fee” is tacked on. Likewise, Mr. Smith said, many doctors on salary are offered bonuses tied to how much billing they generate, which could encourage physicians to order more X-rays and tests.

The article doesn’t say much about the impact on physician quality, but readers should be concerned.  Here is what Dr. John Slotosky, who I interviewed for a National Policy Analysis Medicare, had to say about working for a hospital:

“I was a typical physician employed by a hospital,” Dr. Slatosky said. “I had all the say so of a janitor. We had no say in scheduling or work hours, and if you needed a day off you had to beg for it.”

Looking back, he reflects that in that setting he was unable to provide quality care to patients.

“Most hospitals lose money on their primary-care practices because they are so top-heavy with bureaucracy. But this hospital was trying to make its primary-care network profitable, so the physicians had to see about twice as many patients as you would at a normal physician practice. Hospitals are used to dealing with big charges, of thousands of dollars. But primary-care is about small charges. Most of it probably costs $50 to $200.

“But with seeing so many patients, you only get to see them for a short time. And you try to take care of things quickly, and you miss things. If you want quality, you have to take some time with your patients, and patients have to be willing to pay for that.

Hospitals pressuring physicians to see as many patients as possible is only one way the trend away from independent practices may harm quality.  In my experience, physicians tend to be very independent minded, a trait that often leads them to be good physicians.  Independent-mindedness, however is not a characteristic that is usually prized in bureaucracies like hospitals.  If more physicians end up working for hospitals, long term it may discourage more independent-minded people from going into medicine.

1. Trial Lawyers Bonanza!

The new delay in the employer mandates only apply to employers who don’t reduce their labor force…unless…here is a Q&A on the regulation:

In order to be eligible for the relief, an employer must certify that it meets the following conditions:

(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on Feb. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.

In the title Goodman writes that “you would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to think of a ‘bona fide business reason.”  That’s true, but trial lawyers would have to be pretty dumb to not realize that “bona fide business reason” is so vague that it will provide them with plenty of opportunities to sue businesses with big pockets.  And in my experience, trial lawyers aren’t THAT dumb.

2. Well, Those Rural Folk Didn’t Vote For Obama Anyway.  I missed this one in the Washington Post from almost two weeks back. Apparently consumers in rural Georgia are finding insurance pretty pricey on the ObamaCare exchange:

If Lee Mullins lived in Pittsburgh, he could buy mid-level health coverage for his family for $940 a month. If he lived in Beverly Hills, he would pay $1,405.

But Mullins, who builds custom swimming pools, lives in southwest Georgia. Here, a similar health plan for his family of four costs $2,654 a month.

Read it all.

3. ObamaCare Brings Some People Sadness…  The Massachusetts exchange is not going well, according to the Boston Globe:

The head of the state’s beleaguered health insurance marketplace, which was once a national model, broke down in tears Thursday, as she described how demoralizing it has been for her staff to struggle with a broken website that has left an unknown number of people without coverage.

Jean Yang, the executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, wept at a board meeting, where it was disclosed that 50,000 applications for health insurance are sitting in a pile, and have yet to be entered into a computer system.

Wish I could say I feel sorry for her.

4. …And Brings Other People Joy.  I’m not one who generally enjoys this sort of schoolyard taunt, but given how arrogant the defenders of ObamaCare have been, in that context this bit of schadenfreude by John Podhoretz is spot on:

I could rage on and on about Monday’s gobsmacking announcement that the Obama administration is once again unilaterally delaying a key aspect of its health-care law and what this act of astonishing royalism suggests about the president and his fundamental disrespect for the American system of checks and balances.

But I’m not going to. Instead, with all the dignity that a 52-year-old man and father of three can bring to the task, I will offer these observations instead:

Neener neener neener.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

Face it, all of you who celebrated and wept and danced when it passed back in March 2010, all of you who viewed it as the historic moment of transformation for the United States: This law is a lemon.

As Bart Simpson once said, “I didn’t think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.”

5. Maybe “Substandard” Insurance Isn’t So Substandard After All.  Some Congressional supporters of ObamaCare and insurers are pushing a new type of plan that could be sold on the exchanges.  Dubbed a “copper” plan, it would, according to the Wall Street Journal, “cover, on average, 50% of medical costs, and while consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses would still be capped, that limit likely would be higher than the $6,350 maximum for individuals and $12,700 for families currently set by the law.”

The Anointed aren’t pleased:

“I’m not sure that requiring people who have insurance to nevertheless pay for 50% of their costs themselves can reasonably be defined as decent coverage,” said Jay Angoff, the first head of the Department of Health and Human Services office that is overseeing the implementation of insurance provisions in the law.

I am completely sure that bureaucrats, politicians, pundits and others who think they are entitled to run our lives should NOT be deciding what is and is not “decent coverage.”  That should be left to the individual consumer who pays the cost for that coverage.

6. We Need Single-Payer...like we need a hole in our head.  What would an Odds & Ends be without a quick look at the recent goings on in that British gem of health care, the National Health Service?  

-First up is Barnet Hospital whose administrators insisted their A&E Department (similar to an Emergency room in the states) was well prepared to cope with an influx of new patients after the A&E Dept. at nearby Chase Farm hospital closed down on December 9.  “But less than seven weeks later, Barnet Hospital was left crippled by the huge number of walk-in patients and ambulance arrivals on Friday, January 31, a letter leaked to the Times Series has now revealed.

“At the height of the crisis, ambulances were left queuing outside the hospital and, by 2.30pm, 19 had been left unable to transfer their patients because of the drastic bed shortage.”

More here.

-Colchester Hospital is in the midst of a scandal after “a health watchdog found ‘inaccuracies’ with waiting time data relating to cancer treatment.” Staff  told an investigating committee “they were ‘pressured or bullied’ to change data relating to patients and their treatment in order to make it seem people were being treated in line with national guidelines.”  The committee stated that “patients’ lives may have been put at risk.”

-Although incidence of brain cancer are on the rise in Britain, the NHS has proposed shutting down two-thirds of the “of stereostatic radiosurgery units - specialist brain tumour treatment centres.”  Increasing demand for a service yet the supply is reduced—government health care at its finest!

The Hatch-Burr-Coburn…“caps the tax exclusion for employee’s health coverage at 65 percent of an average plan’s costs” (italics added).  In 2013 the average employer-based plan cost about $5,884 for an individual and $16,351 for a family (see page 2).  Under Hatch-Burr-Coburn, any individual would be taxed at the marginal income-tax rate on any dollar of his heath plan that exceeded $3,825 ($5,884 multiplied by 65%).  For a family, it would be any dollar that exceeded $10,628.

In short, this legislation doesn’t just hit “Cadillac” plans.   It also taxes Honda Civic, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla plans.  

After talking with some Senate staffer last week, I learned that the wording in the proposal was incorrect.  The cap will be set at 65% of a high-cost plan.   For the sake of argument, let’s say that the expensive plan will be set at 2.5 times the average plan—so that the expensive plan would be $14,710 for a single person and $26,565 for a family. That means the cap would be $9,561 ($14,710 multiplied by 65%) for a single person and $17,267 for a family.

That’s an improvement, but how much of one?  One could argue that it’s not really a Honda Civic plan tax plan anymore, but it’s still very much a Cadillac one.  As I noted last time, ObamaCare’s Cadillac tax has not proven popular.  It’s also similar to 2008 plan put out by the John McCain Campaign that Democrats attacked as a tax increase.

One can be charitable toward this plan in that perhaps it provides a foundation on which to build true health-care reform.  But a lot of building is required.

January jobless numbers from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics put the official unemployment rate at 6.6 percent — a one-tenth of a percent decrease since December.  While this is a low for the Obama presidency, the BLS announcement qualifies the news that there was “little change” in the state of affairs for pretty much any demographic.

Only 113,000 jobs were created in January — much fewer than expected and certainly much less than needed to replace those normally leaving the workforce.

The labor force participation rate was an anemic 63 percent.

And things are not likely to get better at the rate things are going.  The latest report on ObamaCare from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the President’s signature takeover of American health care will destroy another 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.  Perhaps the opening round of those lost jobs is the announcement from Radio Shack this week that it will close at least 500 stores in the next few months.

Project 21 member Derryck Green, in his monthly “About Those Jobs Numbers…” report, takes a journey to Planet Progressive.  On Planet Progressive, all is fine despite the poor economic news — and Derryck doesn’t agree with the Obama Administration’s rosy opinion of its performance as it ends its fifth year in the driver’s seat of the American economy:

For those who suffered through President Obama’s State of the Union address last month, few should have been deceived into believing the pretty picture he painted regarding the state of our economy.  The attentive certainly were not.

Today’s jobless numbers prove that any skepticism was indeed well-founded.

That the economy is doing anything remotely positive and worth commending in this anemic, so-called recovery has more to do with the strength and resiliency of the American people and not because of the President’s stewardship.

In fact, the President’s supporters seem to revel in the potential expansion of a welfare state.

Today’s jobless report once again showed the continued drop in the unemployment rate isn’t the result of the economy making the progress that is desperately needed.  Rather, it seems to be the result of more Americans giving up hope and leaving the workforce.

However dishonestly the administration may attempt to spin the news, a deep dive into the statistics doesn’t lie.  Things are still bad.

The official unemployment rate, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 6.6 percent — down a tenth of a point since December.  But the press release that announced the drop said the overall situation created “little change.”

For the second month in a row, job creation fell far below expectations (113,000 jobs created in January).  The U-6 total unemployment rate, the one that includes the underemployed and the despondent who have quit looking altogether, is at an unbearably high 12.7 percent.  The very low labor force participation rate is at 63 percent — not a record, but close.

As for the President’s core constituencies, the news once again is not good at all.  Black men saw their unemployment rate rise from 11.9 percent to 12.1 percent.  The rate for black women also rose, from 11.5 percent to 12 percent.  Hispanic unemployment rose from 8.3 percent to 8.4 percent.

And black teenagers appear to be the hardest hit.  Their rate of joblessness rose from a high rate of 35 percent to an obscenely high rate of 38 percent.

Also consider the following:

• Real median household income continues to fall;
• The civilian labor force with a bachelor’s degrees, older than 35, continues a historic fall;
• The labor force participation rate of men between the ages of 25 and 54 — men in their prime — continues to drop.  It’s estimated that close to 10.5 million men, aged 25 to 54 don’t have work;
• Hours worked continues to decrease;
• There are now more than 50 million Americans now living below the poverty level — a number exacerbated during Obama’s presidency;
• According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, half of Americans are living in what they call “persistent economic insecurity… making it difficult to look beyond immediate needs and plan for a more secure future.”  In other words, half of Americans are unfortunately living paycheck-to-paycheck.

All of this presents serious causes for concern about the economy now and effects on the future.  Sadly, the news concerning the economy continues to grow more worrisome.

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report stating that unemployment remains historically high as a result of the slowest recovery following a recession since 1975.  Further, the report affirmed that, despite the projections of decreasing unemployment rates in the future, the labor force participation rate would likely continue to drop.

The report also stipulates that, as a result of the ObamaCare’s subsidized provisions — provisions that decline with increased income — people will inevitably determine there is a considerable financial incentive (in the form of subsidies in combination with the current marginal tax rates) to work less — if at all.

This, of course, negatively affects the labor force participation rate.

CBO analysts estimate that those responding to the incentive not to work could reflect the potential loss of upwards of 2.5 million jobs over the next ten years.  The report goes on to state that, though total employment will increase, it will do so at a slower rate as a result of ObamaCare’s adverse affects.

This job-loss projection doesn’t include the full impact of the employer mandate, which doesn’t go into effect until 2015.  Millions more jobs could be forfeited when employers calculate that penalties, layoffs and reducing employee hours are preferable to increasing their labor costs or simply going out of business.  As the CBO report states: “[T]he costs of the penalty eventually will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reductions in wages or other compensation…  Because the supply of labor is responsive to changes in compensation, the employer penalty will ultimately induce some workers to supply less labor.”

There may be two jobs created under ObamaCare, but they will likely be two people working 20 hours a week.  It helps employers stay under ObamaCare mandates and maintains individuals’ ObamaCare subsidies, but it’s going to devastate the American taxpayer.

In other words, ObamaCare is the job-killer many knew it to be and, over the next couple of years, that truth will be laid bare for the American people to see.

The response to all of this from liberal lawmakers and the White House and its allies has an expectedly cartoonish spin.  It serves as more indication that they really aren’t taking the poor economic situation seriously.

This was seen in the comments of Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a high-ranking Democrat in Congress.  He suggested it’s apparently a blessing that more Americans will have the freedom to “choose to work less or not at all” because the government has now provided them with health insurance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the report “rightfully says that people shouldn’t have job lock.  We live in a country where we should be free agents.  People can do what they want.”

What!?

Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors said, “This is not businesses cutting back on jobs.  This is people having new choices.”  Furman went on to say this new freedom would create a dynamic marketplace that magically encourages entrepreneurship.

Because they’ll have what accumulated wealth?  Or what collateral to secure a bank loan?

White House press secretary Jay Carney simply disagreed with the non-partisan CBO report because he didn’t like what it had to say.

“Job lock?”  “Free agents?”  “New choices?”  This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.  Too bad this is real-life, and not just a story.

It’s so bad that President Obama finally acknowledged his unpopularity to his allies in the Senate.  He should try telling people something they don’t already know.

Unpardonably, the President and his supporters idiotically embrace the job losses anticipated by the CBO report.  In a sane world, politicians would pass legislation, reduce taxes and regulations upon hearing such bad news to try and counter such poor projections.

Not on Planet Progressive.

On Planet Progressive, projected and actualized job losses are celebrated and touted with assertions that the impending unemployment of millions of Americans will is a good thing because these Americans will be able to “choose” to work less hours and “choose” to be jobless because they’ll still be able to receive health insurance.

On Planet Progressive, unemployment is a good thing because the jobless have health insurance while lacking a consistent paycheck.  In what sensible way does this fantasy balance itself out?

I applaud and commend the determination of Americans who stubbornly attempt to persevere despite the odds.  I’m talking about those people who persevere no mater what gets thrown at them.  They don’t step aside and seek a hobby.

But applause is not enough.  Despite their heavy lifting, no amount of super-human performance can overcome a government and chief executive so stuck on stupid that our nation’s economy careens toward oblivion.

Bottom Photo Credits: iStockPhoto.com

O’Reilly brought up issues largely ignored by the mainstream media: alleged IRS abuses, the Benghazi debacle and an apparent lack of accountability over the botched rollout of ObamaCare.

Obviously not accustomed to such blunt questioning, Obama pushed back — essentially blaming the Fox News Channel for hyping the stories O’Reilly asked about during the segment.

Even the New York Times reported that Obama’s responses “shed little if any new light on some of the most controversial moments of Mr. Obama’s presidency.”

On Benghazi, in defending his then-U.S. Ambassador and now National Security Advisors Susan Rice over her characterization of the attack on the American diplomatic compound as anger over a video rather than a coordinated terrorist attack, Obama said people “believe [the latter] because folks like you are telling them.”  He denied any “mass corruption” involving the suspected targeting of conservative organization by the IRS, and insisted there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the agency and that “these kinds of things will keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them.”

Pressed on ObamaCare and how few appear to have been held responsible for mismanagement of his federal health care takeover, Obama said, “I try to focus not on the fumbles, but on the next play.”

Project 21 member Kevin Martin, who watched the Obama-O’Reilly interview as part of his pre-game entertainment, thought President Obama’s uncomfortable and unrevealing performance was a precursor to the big game’s disappointment for so many people:

President Obama’s attempts to essentially blame the Fox News Channel for the scandals plaguing his administration is a tactic that has become a typical tactic, albeit an unbecoming one, for his administration.

By blaming his detractors, it’s obvious to me that President Obama believes that an American public he thinks adores him will simply accept what he says and excuse his lack of leadership on a whole host of issues from ObamaCare to the alleged IRS targeting of conservatives.

But the President went further, blaming the American public for believing what they may see on the Fox News Channel.  The truth of the matter, however — and something that the President clearly missed, in my opinion — was that the majority of people have come to feel his administration has not been truthful on a whole range of issues.  Things brought up by Bill O’Reilly, such as the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the poor rollout of ObamaCare, just scratched the surface.

It seems that, in agreeing to do this traditional interview — but with O’Reilly as the interviewer, Obama wasn’t ready to answer tough questions.  In the end, he instead chose to filibuster the conversation and express emotional disdain for an interview that was not full of softball questions.

Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV went inside a car repair business in McKeesport, PA to watch and record as employees learned the details of their new health plan under ObamaCare.

It's really very affecting; it seemed to me that some of the employees were having a hard time not breaking down.

We must repeal ObamaCare. We simply must.

Read it here this morning.

2. Maybe the Hatch-Burr-Coburn health plan did do some good. I don’t think much of their health care plan for reasons I list here.  But, perhaps by releasing it a day before SOTU, it prevented President Obama from saying the Republicans “don’t have a plan.” Or maybe the President has just gotten tired of saying that. Or maybe he realized he couldn’t say it in a direct way and so said, “We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against.”  

3. It’s STIMULUS THE SEQUEL!

Moreover, we can take the money we save from this transition to tax reform to create jobs rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes — because in today’s global economy, first- class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure. We’ll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. That can happen.

But — but I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. 

Why?  Because STIMULUS worked out so well the first time!

4. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage.  Here’s a better idea: Let’s let states and cities experiment with lowering the minimum wage.  States and cities would be able to apply for a four or five-year exemption from federal minimum wage laws and could set minimum wages lower than the federal rate or set no minimum wage at all.  Then we can see what happens to employment in those areas, especially among sectors of the economy most impacted by the minimum wage such as minority teenagers. Alas, Obama would never agree to that since he believes that the minimum wage is surefire poverty-prevention device, despite all of the research showing that raising it harms employment.  It will have to wait for another administration.

Today, some of those same members have expanded their remarks while more Project 21 members added their own criticisms.

Derryck Green, who writes a monthly analysis about the state of the economy for Project 21 every month on the day federal jobless estimates are announced, added:

President Obama lacked the political capital coming into last night’s State of the Union address that he had last year.  People have rightly lost faith in his leadership.  It’s a result of his ineffective economic policies and the nightmarish effects of ObamaCare’s implementation (among many other things).

Knowing this, one would think that the President would humbly approach the American people with serious and constructive ideas to address the perils facing our nation.

Instead, the President chose to recycle the stale messages of increasing the minimum wage (for federal employees), feeding the envy that characterizes income inequality (which, by the way, increased during his presidency) and talked about a meaningless pledge from some corporations to give the long-term unemployed a “fair shot” at a new job.

The problem is that there are too few jobs and too many unemployed thanks to President Obama’s economic policies that have stifled growth and expansion.

As usual, the President prefers shallow campaign-style issues to serious economic policy.

As a result, President Obama once again demonstrated that progressives and their economic policies don’t seem to be focused on — or concerned with — creating and generating wealth.  They only appear interested in the redistribution of it. 

Five years or so into the President’s so-called recovery — a recovery that feels worse than the actual recession — it’s safe to say his administration has shown a remarkable and indefensible indifference to the U.S. economy at the expense of millions of Americans.  And he doesn’t seem bothered by it.  With the unemployment rate dropping because over 92 million Americans out of the workforce; a labor-force participation rate matching a 35-year low, 47 million Americans on food stamps and emergency unemployment benefits close to being extended, issues such as minimum wage and wealth redistribution — though characteristic of an unsound and unserious economic strategy — aren’t the solutions that are going to jumpstart a lagging economy.

It appears the President prefers empty campaign rhetoric to serious, thoughtful and productive economic policies.

Project 21 member Ak’bar Shabazz, a small businessman and music promoter, said:

Last night, President Obama spoke about income inequality, high corporate profits and stagnating wages for workers.  He said he intends to help rectify this situation by at least increasing the minimum wage for federal workers by executive order.

This is a clear indication that the one who was supposed to unite the country has become impotent.  He has to resort to force and strong-arm tactics to enact his version of change.

Of course, any increase in the minimum wage will have a minimal impact for Americans until inflation is reigned in by stopping the quantitative easing that has caused it to skyrocket.

Dr. Elaina George, a board-certified and award-winning otolaryngologist, commenting on President Obama’s cheerleading of his health care takeover, warned:

The power to choose your doctor and for you, in partnership with your doctor, to decide your course of treatment is the foundation of excellent medical care.

With the “Affordable Care Act” — ObamaCare — the government has inserted itself to become the final arbiter of your care.  It will ultimately decide who the health winners and losers are.  Proponents of ObamaCare want people to believe that the system is so broken that it can only be fixed through fundamental change.  The disastrous roll-out has certainly fed the argument for a single-payer system, and there is an argument to be made that the government bailout written into the bill has actually already ushered in single-payer since whomever controls the money controls the access and thus makes the rules.

As the ObamaCare train wreck continues to roll out, it will become painfully obvious to patients that — although they have health insurance with no pre-existing conditions, free birth control and preventative care — they still may not be able to afford to access medical care when they need it because the out-of-pocket costs from their co-insurance and deductibles are so high.  Or they will find that, because they qualified for a subsidy, they will have that money clawed back the following year if their financial situation improves.  Even if they took the Medicaid option, they will be unable to leave any of their wealth to loved ones because the government will take it to recoup payments made for their health care.

Physicians will ultimately find that they will have no control of their talents.  They will be considered to be providers of services that are a “right” that must be given for whatever value the government deems to be fair.  They will become interchangeable with the health care team and, with that “innovation,” individualized health care and the art of medicine will be gone forever.

The antidote to what is ailing the American health care system is not more government intervention, but more choice via free-market medicine.  

Project 21 member Demetrius Minor, a youth minister and former White House intern during the George W. Bush presidency, said:

If the job market was so great, there wouldn’t be a push for unemployment benefits because there would be a greater incentive to work.

I actually attempted to watch the entire State of the Union address, but the President’s glorification of an anemic economy forced me to turn away.  A weak labor force and a generation welcoming a $17 trillion debt as a family heirloom is not economic progress.

Project 21 member Darryn “Dutch” Martin, a business consultant, remarked about Obama’s move to raise the federal contracting minimum wage:

Where’s Obama’s budget authority to do this?

Congress authorizes spending levels, not contract terms.  The executive branch negotiates contracts within their authorized spending levels.  So, yes, a president can issue this kind of executive order.  But it doesn’t give him any more money to spend.

So, when prices go up, things won’t get done until Congress authorizes more money. 

Democratic strategist Bob Weiner and I debated these and other questions on the Mainstreet Radio Network's Alan Nathan Show on 1/27/14.

I don't trust President Obama to mean what he says.

Not even on the things we all broadly agree with.

Take voting rights. At last year's State of the Union address, Obama complained about long lines to vote in Florida in 2012, and said he'd appoint a commission to find out went wrong. Well, he did appoint the commission, but the commission has since reported that some innocent screw-ups combined with a lack of resources caused the problems.

The U.S. has a federal agency set up to get Florida those resources.

Except.

Except the agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, has no commissioners.

Hasn't had any since 2011.

Possibly Bush's fault? Hmmm, probably not, him having left office in 2009 and all.

To be fair, President Obama appointed commissioners years ago, but they were too radical (and they really are radical) to get through the liberal Senate. And Obama has done nothing to get them through or to replace them with people who can get confirmed and get the issues in Florida straightened out before the next election. Which is pretty soon.

Maybe Obama doesn't care all that much about getting the polling places in Florida all fixed up after all.

And then there were President Obama's pledges at last year's SOTU to improve cybersecurity. (Edward Snowden, call your office. On second thought, stay the h*ll away from it; you've done enough damage already.)

But aside from Snowden and leaks, did the President really try to improve cybersecurity? It's hard to say he has, since the ObamaCare websites lack even the basic cybersecurity tools required by federal law. People working under his direction -- people who, he claims, were reporting to him on progress regularly -- were already working on the website when he gave last year's speech. Did he not question them about security issues?

Apparently cybersecurity was important enough to mention in the SOTU, but not important enough to ask a subordinate about.

These and numerous other examples give the public plenty of reasons to believe that whatever President Obama promises in the SOTU, he can't be trusted to keep those promises.

We really can't trust him to even try.

Last year, among many other things, he said he wanted to get a minimum wage increase through Congress, get more gun restrictions passed and have what he calls "comprehensive immigration reform" (as opposed to reform, I suppose).

The left has buzzed about the minimum wage a bit, especially over the last few weeks, but did anyone see President Obama making an effort to put together a coalition on the Hill to get the mandatory federal minimum wage increased? I sure didn't (not that it's a good idea).

The President stopped talking about new gun restrictions soon after it became clear getting them through Congress might be hard, too. (Again, I'm glad he failed, but he claimed he wanted it done and didn't really try.)

And the President knows how to get "comprehensive" immigration reform: Get the southern border closed. All kinds of people will support amnesty if that actually happens, and he knows it. But although he claims to support a closed border, does he take the steps necessary to get it close to that condition? Nope.

In the early years of our Republic, Presidents sent a written State of the Union report to Congress. No speech. Maybe we should return to those days. With no camera, and no microphone, the President just might limit his report to things he truly is committed to doing. And the rest of us can stop wasting our time watching him say things he doesn't really mean.

I’m all for incrementalism as long as it is in a direction of greater liberty.  Further, the plan does have some good parts such as capping Medicaid funds and giving states greater flexibility to experiment with Medicaid, and a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance (although the tax credit needs to apply to everyone, not just those at 300% of the federal poverty level or below.)  Hatch, Burr and Coburn should also be praised for providing examples (albeit hypothetical ones) about how their plan would impact individuals and families.  This “telling stories” is a crucial tactic in passing any piece of major legislation.  Democrats do it all the time, so it’s good to see the GOP finally trying to sell policy this way.

That said, their proposal has a big flaw, what might be called a “de facto Cadillac plan tax.”  Under ObamaCare, the Cadillac plan tax is an excise tax that applies to pricier insurance plans:

A 40 percent excise tax will be assessed, beginning in 2018, on the cost of coverage for health plans that exceed a certain annual limit ($10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for self and spouse or family coverage). Health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-funded group health plans must pay the tax of 40 percent of any dollar amount beyond the caps that is considered “excess” health spending.

The Hatch-Burr-Coburn plan goes beyond that.  It “caps the tax exclusion for employee’s health coverage at 65 percent of an average plan’s costs” (italics added).  In 2013 the average employer-based plan cost about $5,884 for an individual and $16,351 for a family (see page 2).  Under Hatch-Burr-Coburn, any individual would be taxed at the marginal income-tax rate on any dollar of his heath plan that exceeded $3,825 ($5,884 multiplied by 65%).  For a family, it would be any dollar that exceeded $10,628.

In short, this legislation doesn’t just hit “Cadillac” plans.   It also taxes Honda Civic, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla plans.  

I don’t see how this can be sold politically.  First, the ObamaCare Cadillac plan tax hasn’t proven popular, and it only hits a small percentage of plans, at least initially.  Legislation that taxes every health plan that’s above the average, and even many that are below, would be hugely unpopular.  “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan as long as you don’t mind paying new taxes on it,” isn’t a winning slogan.  Finally, recall that Obama hit McCain over the head in 2008 for offering a health care plan that, in effect, raised taxes on health benefits.  You can expect Democrats and liberals to launch a similar attack on the Hatch-Burr-Coburn plan should it ever become THE “Republican plan.”

In short, the Hatch-Burr-Coburn plan asks conservatives and libertarians to take incremental steps toward a free market, but then adds a 500 pound weight to our backs, thereby making it impossible to take any steps at all.  The GOP can do much better. 

UPDATE: After talking with some Senate staffers, it was clear I did not describe the tax portion correctly.  Here is a new post describing it with my thoughts.

I admit that ObamaCare, voter ID and racism do not seem related at first glance, but hear me out.

The central selling premise (other than "if you like your doctor or health plan, you can keep them") of ObamaCare was its universality.

That is, we were told that if ObamaCare was adopted, everyone would have health insurance coverage.

Able-bodied adults under 65 would pay their own way (with lower rates!), except for a few unable or unwilling, who would receive financial help from other Americans (we'll be watching for the thank-you notes). Disabled and elderly would receive Medicare, and the poor would receive Medicaid.

What do all of these programs have in common? You have to sign up, and to do that - here's where the racism comes in - you have to prove who you are.

Moreover, to stamp out fraud, very many patients with ObamaCare-approved providers have to show an ID every time they go to the doctor.

Why I myself must show a photo ID every time I see my doctors, and they know what I look like (granted, they've seen me naked, so perhaps forced themselves to forget).

If ObamaCare is universal, then everyone can get enrolled. Which means that everyone can be expected to prove who they are. Just as they do with voter ID.

Either neither of them is racist, or they both are.

Will ObamaCare's disastrous rollout affect Obama's popularity in 2014? How about the Benghazi coverup? Can Obama help his poll numbers by discussing income inequality?

For those with an interest, here is an audio recording of my latest weekly debate with Democratic strategist Bob Weiner on the Main Street Radio Network's Alan Nathan Show.

As usual, the conversation had raucous moments, particularly (in my mind) after Bob tried to excuse cabinet- and presidential-level dishonesty on Benghazi by pivoting to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. No doubt Bob has beefs about a few of my points as well.

Yet even as Republican politicians seem ready to go on the offensive, there’s a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.

And the good news about Obamacare is, I’d argue, what’s driving the Republican Party’s intensified extremism. Successful health reform wouldn’t just be a victory for a president conservatives loathe, it would be an object demonstration of the falseness of right-wing ideology. So Republicans are being driven into a last, desperate effort to head this thing off at the pass.

Yeah, ObamaCare—how’s that working out for you Mr. Nobel Laureate?

Photos: iStockphoto 

What kind of weed will certain populations get? Will market forces command higher grades of pot sold to some and lower grades sold to others? Suburban (and mostly white) teens will have little need to venture into the hood for dime bags. The legal purchase of quality cannabis could be one sprawling town center away.

Could that pose serious problems for underserved populations? Low-income, working- and middle-class communities of colors are already challenged by access to better housing, health care and groceries. But what happens when these populations access the marijuana marketplace for medicinal or recreational purposes? Will they be able to afford it?

Ellison is forgetting a basic law of economics: When demand for a product goes up, supply increases. Marijuana is a plant. If recreational use of it is legalized and demand does go up, supply will increase. Because marijuana is easy to grow, it should be relatively easy for suppliers to keep up with demand.* Thus, the price will fall.

So the poorer folks, regardless of race, should be able to get their fair share of marijuana, probably less expensively than they can now.

Which brings me to a concern of Ellison's I think is right on the mark:

...while pressed to keep young black people out of prison for pot possession, we’re not asking if we’ll be OK when our kids suddenly having greater access to it. Grumpy Sunday preachers might think that sagging jeans are a big problem—just wait till legal weed drops. Marijuana use is currently at 50 percent for Latino teens and 40 percent for black teens...

*At least until the trial lawyers and states attorneys general start demanding a cut, claiming marijuana use raises Medicaid and Medicare costs.

National Center Risk Analysis Division head Jeff Stier will testify Wednesday before a joint study committee of the Oklahoma State Senate and Oklahoma House of Representatives on e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction methods.

Sort of.

Jeff set off at 9:40 AM Wednesday morning to catch a flight out of his home base of New York City. The flight was cancelled due to the then-impending snowstorm, but, as he was determined to make it to Oklahoma City, he and a volunteer driver set out for the airport in Hartford, CT to catch another plane. Unfortunately, the snow caught them instead, alternative flight options also were cancelled, and conditions got so bad that driving back to New York City seemed extremely unwise. Yet all the hotels on the road so far are full, except one on the top of a hill they can't get to.

As I write this, Jeff has been on the road over 13 hours, and it's clear he won't be making it to Oklahoma by 9 AM Central time. So he's submitting his testimony in writing.

We'll link to it if we can get a copy, which, right now, is in the car with Jeff. We were hoping to watch Jeff testify on video, but like Jeff's trip to Oklahoma, I don't think that's going to happen.

Now we're hoping to get word from Jeff and his volunteer driver that they found somewhere safe to spend the night.

Stay tuned.

Addendum: They did.

-Only 11% of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey of consumers thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces. The result is based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers performed between November and January, of whom 389 had enrolled in new insurance.

-At Michigan-based Priority Health, only 25% of more than 1,000 enrollees surveyed in plans that comply with the law were previously uninsured, said Joan Budden, chief marketing officer.

-Health Markets Inc., an insurance agency that enrolled around 7,500 people in exchange plans, said 65% of its enrollees had prior coverage. Around 10% were dropping out of employer coverage, either because the employer stopped offering its plan or because they could qualify for subsidies on the marketplaces. Fifteen percent had previous individual plans canceled, and 40% decided to switch into coverage bought through an exchange from previous individual plans.

Let’s assume that 35% of the people signing up on the exchanges were previously uninsured as the Health Markets Inc. survey suggests.  That means of 2.1 million who have signed up for a private plan in the exchanges, only 735,000 were without health insurance.  That’s not going to make much of dent in estimate 48 million who are uninsured.  And it leaves open the  possibility that the exchanges could leave more people uninsured as we still don’t know the fate of the over 4.7 million people who lost their insurance in the individual market under ObamaCare.

(For those without access to WSJ online, a PDF version of the article is here.)

From National Journal:

Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force...

But, there are always ways to find levity even in the worst years burdened with the worst public policy in decades.  Below are my five favorite Obamacare commercials of 2013.  They can be returned to again and again for many hours of amusing mockery.

Before I get to my list, though, I’d like to address why these ads were so, well, STUPID?

It seems sheer idiocy to run an ad, like the one above from the Colorado Exchange, promoting promiscuity as a benefit of Obamacare.  The same with keg parties.  The reason liberals are running such idiotic ads is that they think most of you are idiots.  It is a long-held truism on the left (see, for instance, John Kenneth Galbriath or Raplh Nader’s Raiders) that advertisers can rather easily manipulate the great unwashed masses into buying “things they had never dreamed they needed.”  If that’s the unexamined premise held by the liberals who produced and approved these ads, then you be sure they are not going to be advertising Obamacare using the Socratic method.

Anyway, let’s get on with the fun:

1. When They Say It’s Not About The Money…

This was the winner of the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ Healthy Young America video contest.  As I noted when this came out, “if you have to sell something by telling the target consumer to ‘forget about the price tag,’ isn’t that a tacit admission the product is overpriced?  I’m hard pressed to think of the last time a commercial made a similar pitch.  The reason, I suspect, is advertisers know that if you encourage people to ignore the price of what you’re selling, most of the public, including younger people, see multiple red flags flying up the poles.”

2. President Hip Hop.  No commentary needed for this one.  Word:

This next one is from the Oregon Exchange that I’ve dubbed:

3. Julia In The Sky With Diamonds:

Not only is it a bit creepy, it gives viewers the web address to Cover Oregon, a website that still isn’t working.  Also, I doubt Oregonian David Mahler appreciates the ads message of “we are free to be healthy.”

When it came to post-card type ads, I initally had a hard time choosing a favorite.  The ones from Colorado were in the running, as were these e-cards from AARP.  But then Organizing for Action came through for me and made it easy:

4. Pajama Boy

I suppose that some of the mockery this ad and its “model,” Ethan Krupp, received was unfair, but it’s hard to think what it was.  

And, finally, here is my favorite.  It comes with a warning though.  If you have small kids nearby, do not watch until they leave the room.  Also, it may be NSFW.

5. Jingle Your Bells!

You know that Obamacare supporters are getting desperate when their response to this video is “whatever it takes.”

I am seeking to do this because of many stories in the news media about patients with pre-existing conditions who are losing part of their health insurance networks because their prior policies were cancelled under ObamaCare. For most people, buying two health insurance policies would be a waste of money, but for a small subset of individuals with medical challenges, having access to a broader network could be lifesaving, even if expensive. (I am assuming no subsidies.) I wanted to know if it is legal to do this under ObamaCare, but no health care policy expert I spoke to knew.

This post describes my effort to get an answer to this question by telephoning the Maryland exchange.

I called in on Sunday, December 29 at 1:22 pm, and went through a fairly extensive menu. At 1:25 pm an automated voice told me 20 people were ahead of me in line, and my estimated wait time was 120 minutes.

I stayed on hold, listening to the same riff repeatedly, punctuated every five minutes or so with a recommendation that I try the website. The music was rather irritating after 45 minutes, but I assume that's intentional: they understandably hope you will hang up and try the website. Unfortunately, in my case, I already had; the answer to my question wasn't there.

At 2:51 pm a live person answered the phone to say they were closing, and would take my name, number and reason for calling and they would call me back tomorrow.

When I explained why I was calling, the staff person (to her credit) decided to give me an answer immediately because I simply had a question instead of needing help filling out a time-consuming form.

I explained that I simply wanted to know if a person who already had health insurance with a limited network could purchase a second policy, without a subsidy, on the exchange in order to get access to a larger network of health providers.

At first she was a little confused about my question, and asked if I am on Medicare. I said no, and rephrased my question.

She then seemed to understand the question, and said no, I could not purchase insurance through the exchange. She explained that the exchange is only for people who do not have a minimum level of insurance – unless I wanted dental only (I told her I did not).

I noticed some hesitation in her voice, so I politely asked, “Are you sure?” She replied that the subsidies are only for people who do not have insurance already. I replied that I don’t want a subsidy; I just want to know if I am allowed to purchase at full price a second policy in order to expand my access to additional networks. She expressed surprise, and said that she had never helped a person before who did not want a subsidy (!). In that case, she said, she thought I probably could do it. She said I should try to do it, because she thought the website would let me.

I pointed out – politely, again, as she was being very polite to me, and probably worked a bit late to help me, besides – that she did not seem very sure. I asked if she was suggesting that I buy the policy and then try to use it, and if I was prevented from using it, then I would know that I was not allowed to buy it?

She said “yes.”

I have to give full marks to the lady who spoke to me for her politeness and willingness to help, but a definitive answer remains elusive.

Stay tuned.

Unless, of course, the hope is that President Obama’s signature plan to try to take over America’s health care system crashes down upon itself before too many innocent Americans are hurt.

Coverage for enrollees is supposed to kick in on January 1.  However, for those who enrolled in Oregon, the fears of many applicants and observers that a lack of confirmation on the part of the exchanges may lead to people across America being left uncovered and ignorant of that fact became realized in a robocall.  Covered Oregon called applicants on Friday, December 20 to warn them that they should make plans to find immediate coverage elsewhere if they don’t hear anything from the government by the following Monday.  That would mean there was a problem in that coverage they so diligently enrolled for.  Oopsie.

This new fear added to the fears of others who were still having trouble enrolling in the first place.  The Obama Administration once again took the law into its own hands, extending its enrollment deadline by another day to Christmas Eve.  There’s no word yet on how many people Santa encountered still waiting in the ObamaCare queue while on his appointed rounds early on the 25^th.

And, in a bizarre move that seems effective only in poking fun at the masses, Obama himself added to the enrollment chaos by allegedly signing up for a bronze plan on the D.C. Health Link exchange.  While it may seem odd that a family man of means such as Obama would sign up for the lowest-tier of the ObamaCare regime, he has absolutely no reason to fear high deductibles and premiums as he and his wife and kids will never have to use it – they will continue to get the best coverage and treatment of likely any American through the U.S. military as presidents always do.

In the days and weeks ahead, people will be learning a whole lot about what came in that bill that most lawmakers never read.  And most of these discoveries are likely going to be unhappy ones.

Project 21 member Christopher Arps wonders about the disconnect between the deceptive practices of this White House and its continued support among the radical fringe.  On one hand, the left remains angry toward Obama’s predecessor and Bush’s justification for launching portions of the Global War on Terrorism.  Yet, when the Obama Administration is caught misleading the public when it comes to the administration of government-run health care, the claims of lies and obfuscation from the left are virtually nonexistent.  Arps said:

If health care “experts” knew people were going to be losing their plans because of ObamaCare, you know darn well the Obama Administration was also aware of the problem!

As David Nather pointed out in Policito, cancelled individual health plans were no surprise to those who understood how ObamaCare operated.  In fact, he said, “the new rules for health insurance prices create winners and loser.”  Yet Obama sold it to the American people as a winning prospect for all.

Some people cried bloody murder that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell “lied” us into a war in Iraq.  But they now seem to excuse this president’s lying about someone so personal as your health care.

Another Project 21 member, Ak’Bar Shabazz, notes new higher prices for deductibles and premiums are not coming at an increase in quality.  He pointed out:

Look at your health care deductibles and your grandmother’s prescription drug costs.  After you do that, tell me that having health insurance is equal to having quality health care coverage.

Expensive deductibles and co-pays are put in place to discourage people from actually using their policies.  They want you to pay, but they also want to prevent you from overusing it – or using it at all.

This concern about a new and precipitous rift between coverage and quality in medical services under ObamaCare has long been a focus of Project 21 member Dr. Elaina George, an award-winning otolaryngologist.  In a recent blog post, Dr. George wrote:

It is no longer about the content of one’s character.  It is all about winning at all costs.

How else can the blind and dogged devotion of progressives to ObamaCare be explained at this point in time…

Cheerleaders of this ghoulish system apparently think it’s okay for people to die from a lack of access due to high costs or a denial of medical services deemed to be either medically unnecessary, experimental or simply too expensive.  The real human costs are distilled down to statistical talking points because it is more important to be on the winning team no matter the consequences.

For those who still believe in ObamaCare after all of this, it brings a whole new meaning to the notion of taking one for the team.

Nonetheless, at least one Project 21 member is seeing the current state of affairs with hope.  Stacy Washington thinks that the very obvious cracks on the ObamaCare plan may lead to its quick demise.  She said:

I cannot stomach listening to President Obama lie about ObamaCare.

But he’s apparently eliminated the individual mandate for the more than six million Americans who had their insurance plans cancelled as a result of his agenda.  At least for now.

He’s on a roll!

Every couple of weeks, he dismantles ObamaCare a little more.  By the summer, it should be completely gone!

That notion was on display in this exchange between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had the below exchange with Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) at Energy and Commerce Hearing last Wednesday: 

So, Sebelius believes that catching an illness early and avoiding expensive hospitalization lowers health insurance premiums.  Sebelius should know better.  Indeed, does she?  In other words, is Sebelius lying?  For a statement to qualify as a lie it must (1) be untrue and (2) the person uttering it knows it is untrue.  

On balance, Sebelius’ statement is untrue.  Back in 2008 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article in which the authors performed an exhaustive review of the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures.  The authors noted that statements similar to the one made by Sebelius were inaccurate:

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical.

On health care there is a ton of misinformation masquerading as fact, and the notion that preventive care saves money is one of them.  Thus, I’d like to give Secretary Sebelius the benefit of the doubt.  I’d like to, but I won’t.

First, when Congressional Budget Office “scored” Obamacare, it never scored any of the preventive care provisions as saving any money.  It explained why in a letter to then-Rep. Nathan Deal:

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs for the many who would make greater use of preventive care.

Given that Sebelius was intricately involved in the development of Obamacare, what are the odds that she didn’t know the CBO had said that the preventive care provisions wouldn’t save any money?  Slim and none, and slim left two hours ago.

Then there is the fact that the aides in the White House knew that President Obama’s promise that if you like your insurance you could keep your insurance was not true but let Obama repeat it anyway.  If the President’s staff aren’t willing to stop a whopper directed constantly at the American public, then one member of his staff will have no concern over a lie concening a less important issue stated at a Congressional hearing. 

I don’t know who would come out the winner in the pity competition, but at least the ObamaCare exchanges aren’t abandoning 1 in 4 women who are giving birth:

One in four new mothers were left alone by midwives when they were in labour, the NHS watchdog has revealed.

Some were forced to give birth on the floor in waiting rooms, having earlier been told not to come in as they were ‘not in enough pain’.

Other women said they felt ‘lonely, helpless and uncared for’ after being made to wait two hours for morphine following a caesarean.

The NHS’s chief inspector of hospitals Professor Sir Mike Richards, who oversaw a survey of 23,000 women, said some cases were ‘shocking’.

He added that failings in maternity wards were turning what should be the ‘most joyous’ experience of a woman’s life into one of the ‘most frightening’.

Treatment of pregnant women isn’t the only appalling problem in Britain’s single-payer system.  According to the Daily Mail:

Thousands of cancer patients are being denied urgent tests by their [General Practitioners], figures show.

Family doctors are typically referring fewer than half of all victims for fast-track appointments that are meant to ensure they have the best chance of survival.

Here’s a few other highlights:

-A “survey said thousands of patients have all but given up trying to secure appointments with their family doctor.”

-A report released in early 2013 was the fourth investigation of its kind into the terrible neglect at Mid Stafford Hospital.  A previous report found that conditions at Stafford may have led to 1,200 needless deaths between 2005 and 2009. 

-Between September 2012 and September 2013, “255,640 patients were kept waiting outside English hospitals [in ambulances] for at least double the 15 minutes recommended by NHS guidance.”  A patient in “Wales was made to wait six hours and 22 minutes before being admitted, while another in the East of England was delayed for five hours and 51 minutes.”

At the same time this is going on, Physicians For A National Health Plan, a single-payer group in the U.S., is promoting a new video and twitter hashtag to promote a single-payer bill in Congress.  Amusingly one of the actors in the video says “maybe I should’ve been British.”

Over the weekend, Ezekiel Emanuel — one of the key players in the creation of ObamaCare — candidly said that one of the real keys necessary to keeping one’s doctor or policy under the new government-controlled health care regime is having the money or the power to do so.  The desire to keep it isn’t enough.  Period.

Emanuel said on “Fox News Sunday” on the Fox News Channel:

The President never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to… [I]f you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that.  This is a matter of choice.  We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or a wider range of benefits. 

Then, later in the week, MSNBC mouthpiece Melissa Harris-Perry declared that the term ObamaCare — which was once embraced by Obama himself and claimed by former liberal Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — was actually  “conceived of by wealthy white men who needed to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal, and to diminish his accomplishments.”  It’s now, according to her, a “derogatory” term “meant to shame, to divide and to demean.”

ObamaCare is exposed to be a lot worse of a deal for the American people than how it was sold to them.  And, with their backs against the wall, its supporters are cranky.  It’s gotten so bad that those willing to speak up and offer constructive criticism about it are now being called racist as an obvious gambit to silence complaints.  Dissent, which was patriotic in the Bush era, now apparently bordering on treason.

Project 21 member Dr. Elaina George, an award-winning otolaryngologist, says the depths to which ObamaCare’s supporters have plunged is too much to abide.  It’s an offense to society’s sensibilities about race and fairness as well as an affront to the legacy of the civil rights movement.  Dr. George says:

It is no longer about the content of one’s character.  It is all about winning at all costs.

How else can the blind and dogged devotion of progressives to ObamaCare be explained at this point in time.

The architects of ObamaCare admit the law is inherently unfair.  It creates a two-tiered system that benefits the wealthy and privileged friends while relegating the poor, middle class and disenfranchised to an inferior health care system likely to be devoid of quality doctors.  The unlucky ones who can’t afford such quality will be locked out of medical centers of excellence such as Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and MD Anderson Cancer Center — stuck paying higher costs for medication and paying extra as if it is a privilege.

Cheerleaders of this ghoulish system apparently think it’s okay for people to die from a lack of access due to high costs or a denial of medical services deemed to be either medically unnecessary, experimental or simply too expensive. The real human costs are distilled down to statistical talking points because it is more important to be on the winning team no matter the consequences.

For those who still believe in ObamaCare after all of this, it brings a whole new meaning to the notion of taking one for the team.  It is immoral and unfair for those who created this system, along with their friends, to opt out while falsely crying racism to silence anyone who dares question their hypocrisy of the President Obama’s policy.

It is past the time to demand that we really live by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for people to be judged by the content of their character instead of being silenced by hypocritical race hustlers who want to control our destiny.

The race card, which has been overdrawn for far too long, must be declined.  Those who want to create and perpetuate victims in order to remain relevant need to be exposed and rejected.

My Cancellation town-hall tour will begin on Saturday, December 7th at 12:30pm at the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.  The panel will feature healthcare policy expert Naomi Lopez of the Illinois Policy Institute, insurance leader C. Stephen Tucker of Small Business Insurance Services, Inc., and medical professionals.  

IWC will be holding other town halls in North Carolina, Louisiana and Arizona.  More details here.  And also visit MyCancellation.com to see lots of photos of people with their insurance cancellation notices.  Here’s one of my favorites:

2. Sen. Harry Reid Repeats The Lie.  No description is necessary.  Just watch the clip:

3. Hey Doc, You Don’t Mind Treating Me For Free, Do Ya?  It’s The Law.  Will this lead to a flood of doctors going to “all-cash” practices?  One can hope.  From Michelle Malkin:

The Affordable Care Act created a 90-day grace period before insurers can drop patients who fall behind on premiums. So, delinquents who obtain tax-subsidized health insurance through an Obamacare health insurance exchange have three months to settle up their bills prior to their policy being canceled. As written, the law puts insurers on the hook for the grace period.

But the bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided to issue a rule in March making insurers responsible only for paying claims during the first 30 days of the debtors’ grace period. Who’s on the hook for the other two months? Well, customers are entrusted to foot the bills for additional services. But if they blow off the payments, it’s up to physicians and hospitals to collect.

In real-world practice, this means providers will be eating untold costs. 

4. How To Opt Out Of Obamacare.  I’ve never liked the idea of encouraging young people to protest Obamacare by forgoing insurance.  But Sean Parnell lists way to opt out of Obamacare—i.e., not purchase insurance on the exchanges—and still get health coverage.  Here’s one option:

Buy a short-term health insurance policy. These policies usually last between 1 and 11 months (6 months seem to be standard) and are not regulated under Obamacare, and therefore don’t offer the same high level of benefits that can drive up costs. Deductibles are available that are higher than what is allowed with Obamacare-compliant health insurance, leading to further savings. They can typically be renewed at the end of the policy, although it is a new policy that won’t cover any conditions that occurred under the previous short-term policy. Another limitation is that they often can’t be renewed over and over again, it looks like 3 years of coverage is about the maximum. But they are much less expensive than conventional health insurance, and can be a good option for covering major medical expenses.

For more options, visit Parnell's blog, The Self-Pay Patient.

5. They’re Enrolled In Medicaid…Or Not.  You’ve probably already read that the federal exchange is having trouble getting the proper enrollment information to private insurers.  As a result, up to one-third of people who have chosen a private plan on the exchange may not end up not being enrolled.  Well, it turns out the federal exchanges are having a similar problem with Medicaid enrollment: 

People shopping for insurance on the federal marketplace may be informed they’re eligible for Medicaid and that their information is being sent to state officials to sign them up. However, states aren’t able enroll them because they’re not receiving usable data from the Obama administration….

The problem with Medicaid coordination could affect tens of thousands of applicants and represents the latest issue to arise in the rollout of a website that’s been plagued with long waits for users and other glitches….

Essentially, if you’re a consumer on healthcare.gov, it will tell you you’re eligible for Medicaid and the state agency will take care of it, but there’s no real way for the state Medicaid agency to know anything about it,” said Salo, who leads the nonpartisan membership group for state Medicaid chiefs.

But not to worry, the federal government is on the case:

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services wrote a memo to the 36 states using the federal website last week acknowledging the information wasn’t being transferred automatically and saying another system was being developed to send it. More complete files could be sent as soon as next week.

 photo: iStockPhoto

On the 12/3/13 edition of “The Wilkow Majority” on SiriusXM satellite radio, Project 21 member Stacy Swimp said that the social agenda embedded in ObamaCare “fl[ies] in the face of our Judeo-Christian values,” and pastors who use their pulpits to promote the President’s health care takeover and encourage enrollment are acting as false prophets.

Stacy shocked Wilkow when he said:

If you see a pastor preaching ObamaCare from his pulpit, I stand on your show today and tell you what he or she has become is an enemy of the cross.

In particular, Stacy takes issue with ObamaCare’s promotion of abortion and the same-sex marriage.

Wilkow asked Stacy to be on the show to comment about a recent Washington Post commentary highlighting how a black church in the D.C. area, at the urging of its pastor, was holding an event to promote ObamaCare enrollment.  Columnist Colbert I. King wrote that the Reverend Frank D. Tucker “issued an emotional call to his congregation, young and old, to enroll in the program, resorting to language associated with the battle to win the right to vote.”

King added that “Tucker hammered at the obligation of the uninsured to enroll in the insurance program that Obama and other health-reform advocates have worked so hard to create.”  King noted that “talk show criticism and the pulpit defense crystallized the ObamaCare debate.”

 On Wilkow’s talk show, Swimp pointed out that he was not trying to score political points.  “I’m not talking conservative politics,” Stacy assured Wilkow, “I ‘m talking about the word of God.”

Focusing on the notion that pastors have a duty to promote ObamaCare for moral reasons, Stacy said:

If it is a moral issue, then the moral dilemma for [a pastor] should be: why in the world would I support something like this when, in fact, most of the people in my congregation are probably gonna be dropped from their health care?  They’re probably not going to continue to have their doctor.  All the false promises of this administration are actually undermining the quality of life of most of the people in his pews.  So, really, if you see a pastor doing this, you know what’s going on.  He’s bought and paid for by special interests.  He is, in fact, a false prophet, and he is turning people against God.

Stacy suggested real solutions to fixing problems with America’s health care could include paying more respect to free market ideas such as allowing people to purchase plans across state lines and promoting personal responsibility as a means of preventing future health care problems.

National Center policy analyst Dr. David Hogberg was featured in a Fox News Channel report on 12/2/13 about the latest bad news regarding ObamaCare.

In a segment featured on “Special Report,” it was noted that President Obama’s promise of cheaper health care is not quite as clear-cut as it seems — bordering on being a lie.  Plans are turning out to be more expensive than anticipated, choices of doctors and medical facilities are being cut and there is now evidence that officials knew long ago that the subsidies some people will rely upon to afford ObamaCare mandates might not be as helpful as needed.

In particular, Dr. Hogberg pointed out a bronze plan offered through ObamaCare could end up costing $6,000 — a cost that may be unhelpful to many Americans who may want or need the lowest-cost plans available.