Prescription for Disaster

How The Sale of Insurance Across State Lines Would Work

Thursday, May 17, 2012
An interesting commentary about the purchase of health insurance across state lines would work. Read more here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

Bookmark and Share

Cost-Shifting Does Not Justify ObamaCare

Monday, May 07, 2012
The idea of cost-shifting (that the uninsured need uncompensated care, the cost of which is then transferred to others in need of care) is often used as a justification for ObamaCare. Jeffrey Singer, a practicing physician explains the truth about cost-shifting and concludes that this problem does not justify ObamaCare:

Singer writes:

"A major justification by President Obama for the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, which requires everyone to buy health insurance, is that every time an uninsured patient receives care in an emergency room, doctors and hospitals shift the cost to those of us who have insurance. But the impact of such cost shifting is vastly overblown and government, through the legislation, makes the problem worse, not better."

Read Dr. Singer's full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 


Bookmark and Share

Obama Administration Uses Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelection

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

President Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed for cuts to Medicare Advantage to "pay for" ObamaCare. These cuts will have a devastating impact on Senior's ability to access care under the Medicare program. It has recently been discovered that the Administration is now using a slush fund to temporarily stave off the impact of these devastating Medicare Advantage cuts - at least until the election.

According to the Washington Examiner:

"According to a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday, the administration has been doling out cash from an $8 billion slush fund to temporarily cushion the blow from these cuts. The pain will come later, presumably after his re-election."

You can read the full commentary from the Examiner here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC



Bookmark and Share

States Can Improve Their Business Climate by Rejecting Establishment of ObamaCare Exchange

Monday, April 23, 2012

Are there many ways that a state could shield businesses in their state from an onerous, job killing tax penalty? In most cases - no. But in the case of ObamaCare the answer is a definitive "yes!!!"

ObamaCare seeks to have states set up insurance exchanges or government controlled "markets" whereby federal subsidies are dolled out so that people can buy heavily regulated, government approved health insurance. According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, if a state establishes an exchange, ObamaCare allows the subsidies to be given out (see Section 1311). If a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will do so but ObamaCare does not permit any subsidies for people who access the federal exchanges (see Section 1321). 

So, a state that takes a pass on establishing an exchange (as many states have chosen to do) is effectively telling the feds, "we aren't going to spend state tax dollars to do your dirty work - have at it." But here is where a state that decides to take a pass can really benefit that state's economy. Under ObamaCare, if someone receives an exchange subsidy, their employer is subject to a penalty under ObamaCare but if no employees receive a subsidy employers are not subject to the penalty. Get it? The bottom line is that states can protect job creators from onerous federal taxes if they refuse to create and set up an ObamaCare insurance exchange. That is a significant incentive for states to protect their economy and jobs. The alternative is to create an exchange, letting the penalty kick in, resulting in fewer businesses and fewer jobs which will create a double-whammy for state taxpayers. Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to deal with the further strain on a state's social safety net resulting from higher unemployment and would end up footing the bill to finance a system to hand out federal bennies.  A bad deal all around for states, employers, employees and taxpayers.

Read more about this here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Liberal WaPo Declares Obama Story About Mother's Health Insurance Problems False

Thursday, March 22, 2012
As part of a "PR" push to push ObamaCare, the President and First Lady sat down for an interview to discuss the President's mothers health issues (actor Tom Hanks narrates in parts of the video). In 2008, the President claimed that his mother spent “the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” 

Turns out that wasn't the case but the misleading PR video makes it sound like it was. In fact, the liberal Washington Post gave the video and story "Three Pinnochios" meaning it contains "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senate Finance Committee Details Regulatory Cost and Lost Jobs Due to ObamaCare

Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Read the details at the Committee website here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Democrat Admits Obama Administration is Ignoring Constitution

Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Democratic U.S. Representative Kathy Hochul (NY-26) admitted to her constituents that the Obama Administration was "not looking at" the Constitution when it created the contraception mandate.

 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Indiana Senate Rejects Health Care Compact Medicare Takeover

Tuesday, March 06, 2012
According to the NWITimes.com, the Indiana Senate has stripped out the state's takeover of Medicare as part of the ill-advised legislation to create a Health Care Compact. Under the compact, states are purportedly given control over health care policy in their state and are required to completely (and dangerously) remake the health care system in their state. (As AHEC has previously pointed out, the compact's promises are completely false).

The compact seeks to give state federal money to finance programs that states would be responsible to create. In doing so, the compact ends Medicare in each state that adopts the compact. Indiana stands to lose $56 billion in federal health care funding over the coming decade. 

The silliness of the advocates of the compact - principally the Health Care Compact Alliance led by Leo Linbeck III - would have the states first enter into the compact which requires them to remake their state's health care system while deferring the difficult policy decisions to a later date. Linbeck's idea sounds eerily similar to Nancy Pelosi's comment that Congress had to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." It is as if Linbeck was telling states, including Indiana, that they had to "pass the compact so Indiana legislators, patients and doctors can find out what health care will look under the compact."

AHEC applauds the effort of the state legislators to protect Medicare but it would be better if they outright killed the compact altogether.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

According to Roll Call, the United States Senate will vote on conscience protection on Thursday.  Stay tuned for more details.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Free Isn't Free (When it Comes to Contraception)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
President Obama is forcing insurance companies to provide certain services for "free".  But if history has shown us anything, the government is never able to provide anything for free - even when it makes others actually pay the costs through mandates. 

Insurance companies are very good at assessing actuarial information - including the impact that government regulations and mandates - and how that information will affect insurance premiums. While the Obama Administration has suggested that mandating coverage for certain services (like contraceptives) will help insurance companies avoid costs related to unintended pregnancies, the insurance companies don't agree with the Obama Administration's ultimate economic conclusion.  

According to one article, "a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.
Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses."  An additional 33.3 percent of the insurance companies said they weren't sure the President's assessment was accurate, 20 percent said the Obama Administration's would not affect their insurance plans but that was because the insurer already included contraceptives in their premiums. Only 1 insurance company out of 15 actually agreed with the White House's assessment of the economic impact of Obama's policy.

Ultimately, this issue is not about contraception, it is about whether government should be able to dictate economic decisions to businessess - forcing them to buy and sell certain products as part of their business model and regardless of what that impact may have on costs and on their consumers. Government is incapable of assessing the issues related to cost with the same effectiveness as those participating in the free market - meaning both business and consumers. 

You can read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive