Prescription for Disaster

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued the long-awaited and overdue regulations related to the creation of ObamaCare insurance exchanges (a copy of the regulations can be found here). The regulations were met with criticism from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on behalf of the Republican Governor's Association which echoed concerns AHEC has been raising about the idea of exchanges for more than a year. 

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

“Once again, the Obama administration has overpromised, oversold and under-delivered, this time with regards to granting states the flexibility needed to establish and maintain health insurance exchanges. The regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services extend the federal government’s reach into the states and will cost the states millions of dollars annually to operate. This Administration’s inability to provide critical guidance to their broken healthcare reform mandate gives more and more credence to the necessity of the Supreme Court ruling this law unconstitutional.”

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

  • No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
  • No clarity on cost-sharing
  • No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
  • No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
  • No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
  • No clarity on “partnership exchanges”
AHEC again renews its call for states to forego the creation of a state exchange (like Florida and Louisiana have decided to do). This is the only way that states can avoid being saddled with future mandates and burdens of ObamaCare.

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


Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 7

Sunday, March 11, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:



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

Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 6

Saturday, March 10, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform. The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:

 

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


Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 5

Friday, March 09, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:


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


Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 4

Thursday, March 08, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:


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

Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 3

Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:


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

Bookmark and Share

Video Series: The Impact of ObamaCare - Part 2

Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Dr. Jill Vecchio, a Colorado physician, has produced a seven-part video series about the impact of ObamaCare. The videos include the following subjects: (Part 1) who will be covered; (Parts 2 and 3) what are the costs; (Part 4) state exchanges and employers; (Part 5) doctors and patients; (Part 6) Constitutional issues; and (Part 7) ideas for real healthcare reform.

The videos are certainly worth watching and we hope you will take the time to learn more about how ObamaCare will affect you and your family:


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

Bookmark and Share

What We Know About ObamaCare

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee sent out a press release detailing what we know about ObamaCare so far. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the negative consequences of the health care law but it sure is enlightening reading. Here is what WAM sent out:

  • Health care costs for consumers and health care spending overall will increase drastically as a result of the Democrats’ health care law.
  • 72 percent of Americans expect the Democrats’ health care law won’t make their families' health care situation better.
  • Despite promises of lower costs that were repeated over and over by the President and other supporters, 75 percent of small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees do not believe the law will slow the rise in health care costs. 
  • Health care premiums will continue to go up, not down, despite President Obama’s promise to reduce health care premiums by $2,500. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health care premiums in the workplace increased 9 percent, or over $1,200, for an average American family in the year following enactment of the Democrats’ health care law.
  • Employers are dropping coverage due to the health care law, destroying the ability to “keep the coverage you have and like.” Another report from the McKinsey Group found that more than 50 percent of employers with a high awareness of the law say they will stop offering health coverage. 
  • The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the health care law may hinder job creation. Additionally, in a 2011 letter to Congress, 200 economists wrote that the law “contains expensive mandates and penalties that create major barriers to stronger job growth.” 
  • Americans of all political stripes believe the requirement to purchase government-mandated health insurance even if they can’t afford it, the centerpiece of the Democrats’ health care law, is unconstitutional. In a recent Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans said that this provision is unconstitutional, with over 50 percent of Democrats agreeing. 
  • As a result of the Democrats’ health care law, more than 90 percent of seniors will lose the retiree prescription drug coverage they have and like and see nearly double-digit premium increases. 
  • The Obama Administration continues to overpromise, overspend and underperform – all at the expense of the taxpayer. Consider these three examples:
  • Despite a $5 billion price tag, the high-risk pool that was intended to cover 375,000 people has only 45,000 enrollees. 
  • The Obama Administration handed out more than one-half billion dollars in cut-rate loans, primarily to political allies to form cooperatives, many of whom do not appear eligible under the law. 
  • The Administration has already nearly exhausted $5 billion in funds for the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP), which was supposed to be in place through 2014. By refusing to pay new claims, this is yet another broken promise in the Democrats’ law. However, the Obama Administration did not miss the opportunity to reward its politically favored friends – unions and state and local governments – which comprised about half of the entities receiving the federal retiree reinsurance subsidies.
Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Bookmark and Share

Obama Administration Funding Radical Groups with ObamaCare Funds

Friday, March 02, 2012
FoxNews is reporting that the Obama Administration is funneling millions of dollars of ObamaCare money to liberal groups - including $56 million to a group with historic ties to radical leftist Saul Alinsky. The group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was given $56 million in taxpayer dollars to set up a non-profit health insurer over the next five years.

AHEC has the following commentary about the propriety of forcing taxpayers to finance this kind of government endeavor:

(1) This kind of endeavor should be financed through private philanthropy, not government coercion through taxation? In August 2010, an article was published at A Line of Sight that made the following comment: "Charities play a vital role in society, but the appropriate way to fund these charitable activities is through the individual generosity of the American people. American taxpayers should not be forced to finance charities they do not support." That is exactly what is being done here - taxpayers are forced to pay taxes so the Obama Administration can reward its friends. If there was real support for this endeavor, let private individuals fund the charity but don't force taxpayers to do this.

(2) This is similar to the manner in which the Obama Administration has funded its friends in the energy field. Will this end up to by Solyndra-care where taxpayers take the financial brunt of a completely failed exercise? Government has a track record of spectacular failures when finding enterprises like this.
 
(3) This should be offensive from the perspective of many taxpayers. Consider that people who work for an insurance company or have invested in one, are forced to pay higher taxes under ObamaCare in order to fund a non-profit that will comet with them but the playing field is not level. The non-profit does not have to earn more money in order to pay taxes like the for-profit insurance company does. That is totally unfair. Government has used coercion to pick winners and losers once again.
 

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