Massive "Affordable" Care Act rate increases are on the way across the country in 2016, as the insurance industry adjusts to the law's coverage requirements and the older-and-sicker-than-expected individual market risk pools. There are many reasons why Obamacare has remained consistently and enduringly unpopular for years, including its raft of broken central promises. A few updates from across the country:
The average monthly premium per person for that UnitedHealthcare plan will rise from $398 in 2015 to about $463 in 2016.
Even after regulators rejected insurers' requested 18% rate increases derived from actuarial data, the artificially-held-down spikes are still nearly 10 percent, on average. Because these large increases are less than what was requested, HHS is referring to them as "reduced rates." Orwellian, and unlikely to fool anyone actually paying their bills. Higher rates, higher out-of-pocket costs, and access shock are national trends under Obamacare.
The Nevada Health Co-Op created as part of the Affordable Care Act is ending operations at the end of the year due to continued high costs
After years of slower growth, Medicare and Medicaid are growing more rapidly again. Following news earlier this year that national health spending growth had started to quicken once again, the CBO estimates that major health programs—mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare—will cost 13 percent more this year than last, adding up to about a $106 billion difference. The biggest contributor to the boom in federal health care spending? Medicaid, which, will cost $49 billion more this year, a year-over-year increase of about 16 percent, thanks largely to the expansion of Medicaid coverage under Obamacare.
Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax” will hit one in four employers that offer health care benefits, a leading industry analyst says in a report being released Tuesday, socking companies with a massive levy that Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill say is unfair to those who have negotiated high-quality plans as part of their jobs. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 26 percent of companies will be affected by the tax when it takes effect in 2018 and 42 percent of employers will be paying the levy a decade later, signaling just how quickly health care costs are expected to rise — and how valuable the Cadillac plans are...Kaiser said some employers probably will cut back on the scope of their plans to duck the tax, resulting in coverage with higher deductibles or networks with fewer doctors. “For the most part, these changes will result in employees paying for a greater share of their health care out-of-pocket,” the study authors wrote.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragged that the president's rhetoric about the so-called 'Cadillac tax' was a ruse, deliberately "mislabeled" to convince the public that it would only impact a small number of plans. In fact, Gruber argued, the tax would expand over time to cover all employer-based plans, with the goal of destroying the status quo, with which tens of millions of Americans are satisfied. "Keep your plan," etc.
"Currently, President Obama is on pace to deport more illegal immigrants than any president in United States history." You better tell that to all the liberal Latino organizations and especially Ramos at Univision. Since we have deported more than have let come in.....we should have less of them here right?
Big momma.....if I didn't know "honest Democrat" was an oxymoron, I'd say you was one.
Then why not eliminate the IRS with all it subjectivity and ability to grant political favors and go to the FAIR TAX and we won't have these problems. Every code in 72,000 pages of the tax code are written to give some one or group an advantage over others. It's time to scrap this weapon that is too easily used to abuse people.
Why are you defending corruption Chrissie. Why is it you don't think Democrats should ever be held accountable for their activity. Taking the 5th may be a right but it is not being accountable. We the people can't have a government of us, by us and for us if no one is held accountable to us.
....probably from reading the nonsense you post.
Anybody honest enough to admit he is a socialist is way too honest to be a Democrat. The powers behind their party want people who can be used. The left-wing God Fathers have no use for people with morals. They know Hillary doesn't have any but she just makes it too obvious. Chief Lizzy Warren is a known liar like Hillary but the lefties think she's a more likable liar. Biden is also a known liar and plagiarizer but he's entertaining with his buffoonery and gaffs of stupidity so he's a more entertaining liar.
That's why you and I are rich. Poor people look at Social Security as the government doing something good for us......I look at Social Security as keep us from doing something good for our selves.
“What if Most Democrats Don’t Want Hillary?”
Two polls in mid-August show that Hillary has dropped below fifty percent among Democrats.
The most recent poll published, the CNN/ORC poll shows that today the percentage of Democrats who want her as the party nominee is 47%. As bad as that news is for her, it is the trajectory of that poll that ought to terrify Hillary’s supporters, considering the decline since April in the percentage of Democrats favoring Hillary for the nomination: April 19 (69%), May 31 (60%), June 28 (58%), July 22 (57%), and August 16 (47%). The next CNN poll can be expected to show her percentage support in the mid-40s.
A few days before that CNN/ORC poll was published, a Fox News poll showed that only 49% of Democrats now want Hillary as their nominee. As with the CNN/ORC poll, there is a similar period, although slightly less uniform, decline. Here are the Fox News poll numbers asking whom Democrats supported for the 2016 nomination, and Hillary’s numbers in those polls: March 31 (61%), April 19 (62%), May 15 (63%), June 2 (57%), June 23 (61%), July 15 (59%), August 2 (51%), and August 15 (49%). The next Fox News poll will likely show Hillary in the mid-40s as well.
Virtually all the other major polls show the same decline – CBS News, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac University, Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, McClatchy/Marist and Monmouth University – although none of these polls has yet showed Hillary dropping below the critical 50% mark among Democrats. The decline in those polls that have asked the question on different occasions this year, however, has been enormous. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows a drop from 75% in mid-June to 59% in mid-July, and Quinnipiac shows a drop from 60% to 55% from mid-April to mid-July.
In associated questions in these polls, no one is saying that he has never heard of Hillary, nor has no opinion about her. That is the intractable problem she faces today. Hillary cannot reintroduce herself to America, because everyone already knows her so well. Democrats in the last couple of years have wistfully imagined that a fawning establishment media, glowing photos of Hillary on women’s magazines, and the popularity of her husband (or, at least, what these Democrats wish to believe about Bill’s popularity) would sail her through the general election. Now, of course, it will not even sail her through the Democrat nomination fight.
Hillary has been a very unpopular political figure in America for almost a quarter of a century. The Republican landslide in 1994 was largely caused by American unhappiness with the new first lady, unelected and unaccountable to the people, exercising power she had never earned and hiding all her machinations from the people and the press.
She almost singlehandedly turned the Democratic Party from the majority party in Congress and state government in America into a minority status from which it has never recovered. One might have thought that Democrats would grasp her pathetic political skills.
No other politician in American life fits so closely Tallyrand’s description of the Bourbons of France: “They have learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing.” And no public figure seems most like Marie Antoinette’s attributed response to the poor of France who had no bread: “Let them eat cake.” Very powerful and very rich, Hillary waddles around like a titled dowager entitled to privilege and high offices.
Democrats are now trapped between two fatal problems. Hillary is a dreadful candidate who will lose the general election, and possibly by the sort of landslide that would give the incoming Republican president the power to implement a true revolution. But even if Democrats dump Hillary, it will be only to nominate another hapless geriatric career politician whose candidacy will splinter their party and cause millions of aging feminists to stay home in sullen protest, creating the prospect for a Republican landslide. It is an impossible problem for Democrats, but of course, it is a problem of their own creation.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.
Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.
They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.
In the final analysis, it is no more meaningful to calculate an average temperature for a whole planet than it is to calculate the average telephone number in the Washington D.C. phone book. Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. “Global temperature” does not exist.
In their award winning book, “Taken By Storm” (2007), Canadian researchers Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick explain: “Temperature is not an amount of something [like height or weight]. It is a number that represents the condition of a physical system. In thermodynamics it is known as an intensive quantity, in contrast to quantities like energy, which have an additive property, which we call extensive in thermodynamics.”
Even if enough accurate surface temperature measurements existed to ensure reasonable planetary coverage (it doesn’t) and to calculate some sort of global temperature statistic, interpreting its significance would be challenging. What averaging rule would you use to handle the data from thousands of temperature-sensing stations? Mean, mode, median, root mean square? Science does not tell us. For some groups of close temperature measures (and NASA and NOAA are dealing with thousands of very close temperatures), one method of calculating an average can lead to a determination of warming while another can lead to a conclusion of cooling.
Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, the figure would be unimportant. No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in regions, not the globe. There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature. Global warming does not matter.
Future generations are bound to ask why America closed its coal-fueled generating stations, its cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.
The sad answer will be that it had nothing to do with the realities of science, technology or economics. The tragic blunder is based on satisfying political expedience for a privileged few, egged on by vested financial interests, and supported by largely uninformed activists granted the media platforms needed to sway public opinion. As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”
For years we were number 1 on the index of economic freedom, now we are number 12. Is that good or bad?
Déjà Vu: When Bill Clinton Pardoned His Former CIA Director over Classified Documents on His Home Computer. Bill Clinton’s administration was nowhere near as lenient as Obama’s is being with Hillary.
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton insists she did nothing wrong by running all of her government communications, including classified material, through her unsecured, home-brewed computer server. Perhaps she’s forgotten one of her husband’s final acts in the Oval Office: issuing a presidential pardon to former CIA director John Deutch.
Deutch’s offense? Keeping classified material on unsecured home computers.
The pardon came just as Deutch was reportedly going to cop a plea with the Justice Department.
Deutch headed the CIA from May 1995 to December 1996. Several days after he left the agency, classified material was discovered on a government-owned computer at his house in Bethesda, Md. Additionally, unsecured classified magnetic media were found in the study. According to the CIA inspector general’s report, the computer had been “designated for unclassified use only.”
Unlike the current administration’s six-month delay in obtaining Clinton’s computer, the feds moved almost immediately in the Deutch case. Within ten days of discovering the errant material, they retrieved the hard drive from Deutch’s computer. A formal security investigation was opened within a month.
Excellent post bridget......and very true. Socialism is just another word for theft. For socialists to gain a following they must create and disseminate propaganda that will convince weak mind that theft and other immoral actions are OK. Once people are brainwashed by this propaganda they won't even believe what they see with their own eyes if it's in any way contrary to the propaganda that now does their thinking for them.
Oh......really maybe you should tell the government to give back all the lease royalties it collected from ranchers and farm land. "The American people own it." is exactly the kind of phrase the Bolsheviks used in their communist revolution.......soon all the land belonged to the government and they were able to say "all the land belongs to all the people."
It's not government ownership of land that made America great......quite the contrary, it was strong private property ownership rights. Private property ownership is one of the hallmarks of economic freedom. It is measured in the index of economic freedom. We are now number 12 on the list. Do you have a clue why most the land of the Louisiana purchase is now privately owned. Let the federal government auction off all that "wasteland" in the west and let's see what it's really worth. The federal government has no business owning that land when private individuals are willing to pay for it and put it to use.
The federal government can only give it's citizens that which it first take from them.
Hottest month on record, where? How was it measured? How was it measured in the past?
Not as long as the government manages it, eh. Billions of bf of timber, minerals galore , billions of barrels of oil and enough range and farmland to feed all of American and still have food left over to export. Hardly "wasteland."