ObamaCare price

Experiencing sticker-shock at the price of insurance on ObamaCare exchanges?
That's more likely if you live in a "red state" that didn't vote for Obama, according to price data compiled by the Heritage Foundation. In red states, premiums for 27-year-olds rose an average of 78% on ObamaCare exchanges, whereas in "blue states" that voted for Obama, premiums rose a smaller 50%.
Senate critics of ObamaCare say the difference is one way in which the bill is unfair.
"It’s unfair, outrageous and unacceptable," Senator John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who is also an orthopedic surgeon, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.
“After discovering that the President broke his promise that Americans can definitely keep their coverage, many red state Americans are now finding out that their rates will soar under ObamaCare. This... proves once again that the President’s health care law picks winners and losers across the country," he added.
Health policy experts say the reason red states got hit hardest is that they had fewer regulations to begin with.
"Think about it this way, what does ObamaCare do? ObamaCare imposes a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme upon the insurance market. So if you're in a lightly regulated state today, all of a sudden it's going from a lightly regulated system to a heavily regulated system, and that drives up a lot of the costs," Avik Roy, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who specializes in health policy, told FoxNews.com.
The increased regulations in question include requirements that insurers provide things like preventative care and contraceptives, which ObamaCare will now require in all states.
Asked about the numbers, the head of the pro-ObamaCare group Doctors for America pointed out that they don't take into account government subsidies that low-income people get under ObamaCare for purchasing insurance.
"The figures don’t take into account the subsidies... So it might be in a chart, but it’s not what people are actually seeing out there when they’re getting coverage," Alice Chen, Doctors for America Executive Director and a practicing internal medicine physician, told FoxNews.com.
Roy says that's a bad argument.
"The idea that somehow  insurance cost increases don't matter because there are subsidies for people -- no, because subsidies are paid for by taxpayers. Subsidies aren't free. They don't fall from the sky. So if you're going to take subsidies into account, you also have to take the taxes into account that paid for these subsidies," he said.
Slightly more red state Americans qualify for subsidies than blue-staters: 8.3% of people, compared to 7.9% of blue staters, according to data provided by Roy which is also on the Manhattan Institute's "Know Your Rates" calculator.
Chen added that, thanks to ObamaCare's subsidies, the rate increases would not be a problem for most young people.
"A Department of Health and Human Services analysis came out last week which showed that 50% of young Americans would actually be able to buy a plan for $50 or less a month. Makes me wish I was in that age bracket!" she said.
Others disagree.
"It's because the vast majority of young people can now enroll in Medicaid, which is effectively free. That's $50 or less. But Medicaid is awful insurance, and it has very poor health outcomes that are barely better than being uninsured. So yeah, you're going to get this "free insurance" that doesn't actually let you see any doctors."
A Republican Senate staffer who does health policy told FoxNews.com that the rate changes discussed so far aren't the only way in which ObamaCare transfers money from red to blue states.
"Red states are subsidizing the blue states' Medicaid expansion... What you have is a lot of the wealthier states, a lot of the bluer states, are expanding Medicaid. And the federal government has promised to pay 90 cents of every dollar to expand Medicaid to include childless adults," the staffer told FoxNews.com.
"I don't think it's intentional on the part of the administration," he added.
Due to ObamaCare, a few "blue states" such as New York will actually see health insurance costs fall. Experts say that's because of a law in those states known as "community rating", which in New York means that everyone must pay the same price for insurance regardless of age or health. Since healthy young people were being charged the same rate as a 64-year-old with health problems, many young people gave up on buying insurance. But now, ObamaCare will force them to get insurance, and insurers may then charge everyone a bit less because young and healthy people cost them relatively little.
"A lot of these young people who opted out of insurance in New York will be forced to opt back into the system due to ObamaCare, and that will bring down rates," Roy said.
While the advertised prices of insurance in red states will rise 78%, and in blue states a smaller 50%, Roy pointed out that people were not always charged the advertised prices -- sick people have generally been charged more, but that will be illegal under ObamaCare, and so their premiums will go down. Roy redid the numbers to account for that, and using his numbers, the price increases change to 66% in red states and 48% in blue states for 27-year-olds. For 40-year-olds, it's a 37% increase in red states and a 28% increase in blue states.
"Our numbers are more flattering to the Obama administration, because if you're a healthy person you're going to pay a lot more than our numbers show," Roy said.
Chen said that, even if rates rise in some places, it's because ObamaCare has forbidden dishonest plans.
"In those states where it has traditionally been easier for insurance companies to sell a plan where they can yank it back as soon as you get sick, it is possible that you’re going to have to pay a little extra to be sure that plan is going to be there when you need it," Chen said.
Roy said insurance companies yanking coverage is already illegal.
"It almost never happens. It's already illegal unless you've lied on your forms," he said.
Senators opposed to ObamaCare say the whole thing is another reason to scrap the bill.
"We need to suspend the entire law and replace it with what all Americans wanted all along – affordable, accessible care,” Senator Barrasso told FoxNews.com.

ObamaCare's red state rate squeeze

STUDY FINDS OBAMACARE premiums will be highest in states that did not vote for President Obama, prompting some lawmakers to say it proves 'law picks winners and losers' across the country. Go Figure!

Obama tweaks message about keeping health plans under ObamaCare

As thousands of consumers receive health insurance cancellation notices, President Obama is continuing to fine tune his promise that Americans who like their health plans would be able to them under his signature health care law.
The president told about 200 of his campaign supporters and health care activists Monday that the administration had promised Americans they could keep their current coverage -- as long as their plans hadn’t changed since ObamaCare was signed into law.
"If you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn't changed since the law's passed," Obama said. "So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act you are grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they have got to change it to a higher standard. They've got to make it better."
Obama said his health care law is making the insurance market better for everyone, even though millions of Americans who buy individual plans have been receiving cancellation notices. He said the notices "can be scary for people," but added they were often getting "a very bad deal."
"The bottom line is -- is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody and that's right thing to do," he said.
The president also acknowledged that technical problems with the health care website to shop for insurance are making it tougher for people to find other plans. He said he's "not happy about it," but promised, "We're going to smooth this thing out."
At least 3.5 million Americans have been issued cancellations, but the exact number is unclear, The Associated Press reported. In a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall this past week, Obama said the problem is limited to fewer than 5 percent of Americans "who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident."
In the Republican-controlled House, officials say a vote is likely as early as next week on a bill to let insurers continue selling any individual policies that were in effect on Jan. 1, 2013, even if they provide coverage deemed insufficient under Obamacare.
The measure, drafted by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and backed by roughly 100 fellow Republicans, would remain in effect throughout 2014, after which the issue would presumably be reviewed.
"Despite the president's repeated promise of 'if you like your plan, you can keep it,' many Americans are now learning the sad reality that their current plan will no longer exist beginning on January 1," Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement when he announced his legislation last week.
"This legislation is about providing folks the peace of mind that they will be allowed to keep their current coverage if they so choose."
While Upton's legislation permits insurers to sell existing coverage plans that would otherwise be banned, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced legislation during the day to go one step further by requiring it.
Aides told The Associated Press that under her measure, insurance companies would be obliged to continue offering existing paying customers continued coverage under any plans in effect at the end of 2013. No new consumers could enroll.
"A promise was made that if you like your health plan, you can keep it - and I will do everything I can to see that the promise is kept," said Landrieu, who is gearing up for what is expected to be a challenging re-election campaign next year.
The White House declined comment on the two bills.
Both measures are designed to cut through a complicated system in which some plans for individuals that fall short of coverage standards are allowed to continue under Obamacare, while others are not.

Graham says he'll continue to block Obama nominees unless he gets Benghazi info

WASHINGTON –  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham reiterated his pledge to block all of Obama’s nominees for executive branch positions until Congress is allowed to hear testimony from those on the ground during the Benghazi terrorist attacks in 2012.
“I shouldn’t have to do this – to make these threats,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Graham says there are still too many unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
While there have been a number of Capitol Hill hearings on the deadly attack in Benghazi, Graham is among a group of lawmakers who say they aren’t satisfied with the information provided and want more.
“I don’t think it’s over the top to find out what happened to four dead Americans,” he said. “I don't think it’s over the top to talk to survivors. The State Department interviewed these survivors.”
Along with Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.
Graham has been asking for the FBI’s transcripts of interviews with State Department and CIA survivors who were evacuated to Germany after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate.
In an Oct. 28 letter Graham, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Julia Frifield, referred to "significant risks" and "serious concerns about having the survivors of the attack submit to additional interviews."
Graham and other Republicans believe the transcripts will show the survivors told the FBI it was a terrorist attack and made no mention of a video or anti-U.S. demonstration at the consulate.
“So I’m going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress,” he said.
Graham also called on fellow lawmakers in Washington for help.
“The only way this will work is if my GOP colleagues get behind me and Democrats too and support my request to find out exactly what happened,” he said.

Deep sleep: ObamaCare site goes offline for extended maintenance

The problem-plagued ObamaCare website shut down Saturday night for “extended” repairs, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Technicians have shut down HealthCare.gov during weekends since the site launched Oct. 1 but just for a few overnight hours.
The site was scheduled to be offline from 9 p.m. ET Saturday until 9 a.m. Sunday.
"The HealthCare.gov tech team is performing extended maintenance this weekend to improve network infrastructure and make enhancements to the online application and enrollment tools,” agency spokeswoman Joanne Peters said Saturday.  
The Obama administration says Americas can still apply for insurance coverage by calling a toll-free number available around the clock.
In recent weeks, the administration has brought in outside experts to assist in getting the site running.
Officials say their goal is to eliminate such problems as volume-related crashes, slow response times and incorrect information before the insurance policies kick in January 1, 2014.
They also have set a goal of getting the site running smoothly by month's end and releasing enrollment numbers by mid-November, as Capitol Hill lawmakers hold hearings about the extent of the problems before the site launch and who knew about them.

What Will Happen When the Government Collapses?

Yesterday, my colleague, Marty Biancuzzo, explained why America is on a path to inevitable economic and government collapse.
After reading Marty’s piece, another colleague asked me: What will America look like after a government collapse?
It’s an important question, and I want to give a satisfactory answer. But I can’t do that in one short column, so I plan to return to this topic several times over the next few weeks. I hope when I’m done you will have a better understanding of where the country is headed.
Now, consider our current situation…
It’s clear that Barack Obama and Congress have no plan to get the dead-in-the-water economy moving. In fact, they appear to be completely incompetent.
Too many Americans are jobless, an excessive number of Americans are dependent on government handouts to eat, and the countless Americans who could contribute to the economic recovery are frozen in place, unwilling to take risks due to an uncertain regulatory environment.
Now, it’s fashionable in some governmental circles to argue that another Great Depression could never happen. Politicians reason that America at present has far more tools to prevent such a cataclysm.
They believe: “things are different this time.”  If only they knew how right they were.
It Is Different This Time… It’s Worse
I’ve heard investment advisors, central bankers and politicians use the phrase, “It’s different this time,” so often I want to wretch. This asinine statement is arrogant beyond reason.
Frankly, I believe we’re much more vulnerable to a prolonged depression than we were in 1929.
Here’s the truth: Today’s monetary manipulation may forestall a bust, but it can’t change the fact that one is inevitable. And when it arrives, it’ll be more devastating and difficult to solve than in the past.
Don’t believe me? Well, I’ve identified seven reasons why we are in fact worse off today than we were leading up to the crash in 1929.

1. In 1929, America had by no means the social problems we face today.
2. In 1929, the federal government had very little debt. Today, we have a staggering $16.5 trillion in debt.
3. In 1929, most state governments weren’t facing insolvency. Today they are flat-out broke. We have $4 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities at the state level, thanks to decades of union control of local government. There were no public employee unions in 1929.
4. In 1929, we didn’t have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, much less Obamacare. Our obligation to these entitlement programs will consume our entire federal budget in a few years.
5. In 1929, the costs associated with illegal aliens were non-existent. Today, in California alone, it costs $10.5 billion to pay for the incarceration, health care and welfare costs of illegal aliens.
6. In 1929, today’s massive government dependency culture was unheard of. Today we have food stamps and dozens of other housing and welfare programs. Indeed, over 100 million Americans are now dependent on the Federal government for something.
7. Taxes were significantly lower in 1929 than today, even as a percent of family income. Most businesses paid no taxes in 1929, and today we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Sales and FICA taxes didn’t exist. Today’s combined total of income, sales, local, state, gas and property taxes amount to the highest burden in our history.

So all those same problems we faced from 1929 to 1938… Out-of-control unemployment, bank failures, currency depreciation, deflation, bankruptcies, a housing bust, sickness and hunger… We’ll face them again in the future.
And don’t think that Congress or a presidential administration will save you from these problems. Sadly, when things begin to get tough, Washington D.C. only protects their own.
Tune in Next Week  http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/04/government-collapse/
Today’s column is merely the beginning of a journey. For the next few Fridays, I will construct an answer to the question: What will America look like after a government collapse?
Next week, I want to talk about the Fed. Most people don’t realize just how insidious the institution really is… I promise that it’s doing nothing more than stealing your wealth and lining bankers’ pockets. I’ll tell you all about it next week.
Until then I remain,
Your eyes on the Hill,

Floyd Brown

Obamacar