Fisking the Gray Lady

Several years ago, I had the pleasure of being interviewed by the New York Times' Reed Abelson. For whatever reason, that interview was never published, but she struck me as a very nice lady, hindered only by some major blinders.

I was reminded of this today, when FoIB Holly R sent along the link to Ms Abelson's latest opus:

"With a court decision on Monday declaring the health care law unconstitutional and Republicans intent on repealing at least parts of it, thousands of Americans with major illnesses are facing the renewed prospect of losing their health insurance coverage."

Sounds pretty urgent, doesn't it?

But when one reads past that attention-grabbing intro, there's a lot less here than meets the eye. Her primary focus is on the lifetime caps. Now, I'm on record as having no real problem with lifting the lifetime maximum on policies: for one thing, the number of people who'd be affected is vanishingly small (as we’ll see in a moment); for another, the actual cost of this "benefit" is negligible. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that the bill itself is so rotten that it is unsalvageable. If the lifetime cap needs to go, then it needs to go, and this can be addressed when it's repealed and (perhaps) replaced.

In support of her position, Ms Abelson dredges up an old canard:

"The legislation put an end to lifetime limits on coverage for the first time, erasing the financial burdens, including personal bankruptcy, that had affected many ailing Americans."

Ahem:

"Credit-card debt, which went from $4,800 to $7,300 per household. Another factor is that it's often beneficial, given the alternatives, to declare bankruptcy. At most, 29% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and even that's likely an overstatement."

She then abruptly changes course, declaring that "even Republicans concede that a full repeal is unlikely." I challenge her to name one current Republican congressperson who's stated this. In fact, every single Republican Senator has signed onto S. 192 (The ObamaRepeal© Bill).

Project much, Reed?

Earlier, I opined that the number of people affected by the lifetime caps was "vanishingly small." Any idea just how small? Try "an estimated 20,000 insured Americans reached the lifetime limits of their coverage each year." Now, in the blog world, we have something called "fact-checking," which pretty much requires that one back up statements like this with a citation or link. One supposes that the NYT imprimatur is proof enough, because documentation certainly isn't forthcoming.

Finally, it's all about the narrative: Ms Abelson uses the sad story of cancer patient Hillary St. Pierre, whose coverage was slated to run out under her plan's lifetime max. Buried many, many paragraphs in, we learn that, even if her plan bailed, she "also now qualifies for Medicare." Way to bury the lede, Reed.

As I mentioned, removing the lifetime caps may well be a good, workable idea. But to paraphrase Judge Vinson, "it's not the Removal of Lifetime Caps and Pay for Preventive Care bill."

I doubt we'll see that story in the Gray Lady.

Mid-Week Linkfest

■ First up: Having recently celebrated our 6th Anniversary, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when I come across something "new" only to realize that we've already blogged on it. Still, some things are worth re-examining, such as the current wave of doc's eschewing insurance (including Medicare) reimbursements altogether. Will we see more of this as ObamaCare© continues revving up?

Time will tell.

■ Next, another in our continuing series on how left-leaning blogger Ezra Klein continues swinging, and missing. This time, his take on last week's SOTU, which included the tried-and-tired rolling out of yet another poster-child for health care "reform" that really isn't.

■ And finally, are those cholesterol meds really helping your heart lining, or just lining manufacturers' wallets? According to at least one British news outlet, don't assume you know the correct answer.

To Thine Own Self Be True

Polonius said, "to thine own self be true,and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

It appears Obama and company never read the Shakespeare . . . or the Constitution.

According to the folks at Politico, the political fallout from Obamacrap, especially in light of the recent court ruling, is likely to plague Democrat's for some time.

Gee, that's going to cause me to lose sleep . . .

Here are some choice observations.

The health care law is at its “lowest level of popularity ever,” said Jake Tapper of ABC News,

It could even be that no such piece of major legislation has created the continued, vehement public opposition that health care has provoked since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

Deals to buy votes in the House and Senate, including extra funding for state projects, all became part of the 2,000-page bill that most representatives never read. These deals deeply affected the American people, making them feel the law was forced on them, despite their opposition.

The Democrats argue that there are popular parts of the health care bill. That has been the case since Day One. The problem is that the American people object to the bill as a whole; the way it was passed; and what they perceive to be its effect on the size, scope and cost of government.

Democrats now say that repealing health care is a mistake because it diverts concern from the economy and jobs. We said this all along — that Obama and Congress were pursuing health care at the expense of the economy, when the recession was at its worst. For the Democrats to use that argument now is disingenuous, and the American people are not fools.

Heads up folks.

The riots in Tunisia, Eqypt and Jordan are about political corruption and heavy handedness.

Any of this sound familiar?

Obamacrap was never popular and never will be, no matter how much spin DC want't to put on it.

Time for folks up there to read the Constitution.

And perhaps Hamlet as well.

Here is a clue:

Hamlet doesn't end well.

Obamacare - Buying Into the Lie

Better health insurance, more coverage, lower premiums. Such was the promise of Obamacare. Instead what we have is two years of lies and deceit, fewer choices and higher premiums.

Why do I feel like Goldie Hawn in Private Benjamin who woke up to discover she had joined the wrong Army. The one she joined had condo's and yacht's, not quonset huts and jeeps.

As reported by Bloomberg Ann Woolner offers this insight on Obamacrap and the recent judicial ruling announcing the mandate is unconstitutional.

If his decision holds, out goes coverage for pre-existing conditions and affordable insurance even if you lose your job. Certain preventative medicine programs would go, too, as would everything else aimed at fixing the health-care crisis in this country.

One must have assumed Ms. Woolner joined the same Army as Goldie Hawn.

Apparently she has never heard of COBRA, HIPAA conversion, or risk pools . . . all of which offer "protection" for those who no longer receive their health insurance through an employer.

She must believe that free preventive care really is free and she most certainly bought into the biggest lie of all, that health insurance would become more affordable with the roll out of Obamacrap.

In weighing the promise vs. the reality of states that have the prequel to Obamacrap, she must have been living under a rock.

While Massachusetts is not the most expensive place to buy health insurance, it is certainly in the top 3 or 4. And for those who did not get the memo, Obamacrap was modeled after Romneycare.

After rambling through some meaningless drivel she then decides that there is an option that would be a good replacement for Obamacrap if the courts decide it is unconstitutional.

So why not offer Medicare to everyone? This would be constitutional under Vinson’s ruling. Call it a single payer system or the public option, but you’d have to call it constitutional. No one would be forced to either pay a premium or be fined.

Medicare is both broke and broken, but apparently she didn't get that memo either.

Why replace something that works for 85% of the country, at least it does when we have full employment, with something that doesn't work?

Makes no sense.

Apparently she has bought into the Obamacrap lie, hook, line and sucker.

Mandating Health Insurance and Revolvers

As we've pointed out (and as Judge Vinson reconfirmed), if the gummint can make you buy health insurance, it can make you buy anything. More to the point, if the gummint can make you buy something you don't want, it can make you buy anything you don't want.

But that's just a blog and a judge, right?

Not so:

In South Dakota, five state legislators "have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Unlike ObamaCare©, however, they're pretty flexible about what kind of weapon you select.

Now that's what I call "pro-choice."

But What About the EMPLOYER Mandate in Obamacare?

Rob Johnson of WGST asked me during an interview how Obamacare had impacted Georgia business and their group health plans. My response was the impact is minimal  . . . so far. The big change will come in 2014 but Obamacrap has had some effect on group health insurance premiums.

Two provisions of Obamacrap that have already affected Georgia employer health plan rates are the "free" annual wellness exams and requiring most employers to cover dependent children up to age 26.

The second provision is quite odd to me since I did not consider myself a child at age 26 and still don't. If you had not moved out of the house when you finished school we had a break-the-plate celebration.

The idea is, if your dinner plate was broken you would find somewhere else to live and eat.

None the less, while the expansion of the definition of a child had an impact on rates, so far it has been minimal. I expect that might change over the next year as parents add on children that have expensive medical problems while the healthy children are left to fend for themselves.

If this happens, watch for dependent rates to rise as a reflection of the increased risk of high claims.

Most employer group health insurance plans in Georgia already had low cost, and in some cases, free annual exams any way. So the removal of a nominal copay of perhaps $30 and substituting "free" has not had an effect on premiums and probably won't.

From a risk standpoint, it is doubtful if more people will seek to have their annual exam simply because it is free. This is especially true for males who would rather take a beating than go to the doctor, especially if they are not sick.

The bigger impact on business health insurance premiums will come in 2014 when all employers with 50 or more employees will be subject to "play or pay" rules.

While yesterday's court ruling did not specifically address the employer mandate it stands to reason that this was an oversight, perhaps by those who brought the suit, to address the requirement that businesses must provide health insurance or pay a fine (tax).

I am not a Constitutional lawyer, and apparently neither is Obama or members of Congress,  but it would appear to me that if the INDIVIDUAL mandate (requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax) is unconstitutional, then the same should apply to the EMPLOYER mandate.

Starting in 2014 if individuals do not buy health insurance they are fined.

Starting in 2014 if employers (with 50+ employees) do not buy health insurance for their employees they are fined.

What is the difference?

To my untrained eye, nothing.

I want to thank Rob Johnson and the folks at AM 650 WGST in Atlanta for inviting me on their show. You can hear a portion of the show including the interview with Bob Vineyard of Georgia Insurance Shop as well as some real legal scholars by clicking on the link in my name and wait for the audio to begin.

Quick: Who said this?

"[I]f a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house”

Take your best shot in the comments.