Boeing, Boeing, Gone?

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing announced Obamacare has caused them to cut benefits and increase premium contributions. While Obamacrap is not the only reason, it was given at least partial credit. According to the folks at ABC News:

Boeing said deductibles and copayments are going up significantly for some 90,000 nonunion workers.

The company cited three major reasons for the cost shift, including untamed health care inflation, the effects of the new law, and lifestyle issues including being overweight and lack of exercise.

Spokeswoman Karen Forte said Boeing is concerned that its relatively generous plan will get hit with a new tax under the law in 2018, but that the company would have made the changes anyway.

So much for "if you like the plan you have you can keep it."

Not happening.

Constitution State Rate Spike

Once again, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has proven herself to be quite fangless in her efforts to cajole insurers into artificially suppressing rates:

"[Connecticut]'s largest insurer has been approved to raise health premium rates by 41 percent to 47 percent for some of its policies sold to individual buyers..."

The good news is that the bulk of Anthem's business in the state will experience only a "modest" 19% increase.

Oh frabjous day!

In utter disregard of the Federales, the carrier had the temerity to claim that the "reason for the increases is the new federal health reform mandates." [emphasis added]

Oh wait, did I say "the carrier?"

I meant "the Connecticut Department of Insurance."

I wonder if Ms Shecantbeserious will now threaten them.

More from the "Real World" files

A very nice young lady called the other day, looking for individual health insurance. She's a student at a local university, on her own at the tender age of 18. Her mother has moved out of state, and for a number of reasons, Karen [ed: not her real name] can't be on mom's plan. She is eligible for the university's health plan, but is (understandably) not enthused. She'd really like to have a real plan.

But she can't.

No, she's not ill, nor is she pregnant. But she is 18, and therefore ineligible for an individual medical plan. She's one of the (unintended?) victims of ObamaCare©, which has essentially destroyed the individual market for young adults.

Too bad we had to pass it to see how Karen would be hurt by it.

Ch-Ch-Changes, ObamaCare© style

As we move further out from September 23rd, the state of the individual health insurance market continues to crystallize. Here's what we know as of this morning (October 18, 2010).

Plans that have "grandfathered" status are subject to some (but not all) ObamaCare© provisions. Of course, it's likely that these plans will quickly lose this vaunted status as insureds make changes to keep their plans affordable. These changes comprise:

■ Expanded Dependent Coverage
■ No Lifetime Limits
■ New Patient Protections
■ New Limitations on Rescission

Newly-written plans, and those which have already lost their grandfathered status, "enjoy" these benefits:

■ Expanded Dependent Coverage
■ No Annual Dollar or Lifetime Limits
■ Expanded Preventive Care
■ No Pre-existing Condition Waiting Period for Children under 19
■ New Patient Protections
■ New Limitations on Rescission

Interestingly, some ostensibly grandfathered plans will also be subject to these provisions, as well; it's not at all clear what benefit their grandfathered status still confers on them.

In related news, Anthem (and perhaps some others) will be offering an "Open Enrollment" period during November. Only two "classes" of insureds are eligible:

■ Adult Dependents (from age 19 to age 28) who are not currently enrolled on a member's policy or who were previously canceled from a member's policy due to age, student or marital status are eligible for enrollment. The member's policy to which the adult dependent will be added must have an effective date prior to September 23, 2010 [ed: in other words, must be grandfathered].

■ A covered family member who previously reached his or her lifetime maximum can enroll for benefits on a member's existing policy during this special period.

We're still awaiting word on how much lower premiums will be due to these enhancements.

[Hat Tip: Anthem BCBS]

About that Individual Mandate (Video)

As we've long noted, the Individual Mandate is evil. The folks at Amendment63 show us why:



[Hat Tip: RWN]

Obamacare© and Your W-2: An Update

From reliable sources:

It appears that the requirement to report -- set to begin next year (2011) -- is voluntary only for that year. It's anticipated that the IRS will provide more guidance in the future, including clarity for 2012 W-2s. It's also anticipated that it will rain unicorns.

What this (probably) means:

■ If an employee leaves in, say, March 2011, the employer doesn't have to provide the info, but may still choose to do so.

■ When employers (or their payroll services) send out that mass of W-2s in January 2012 (for tax year 2011), this info will still be optional.

■ On the other hand, if an employee leaves in, say, April 2012, the employer does have to provide the info within a few weeks (unless, of course, the IRS pulls an Emily Litella).

■ When employers send out that mass of W-2s in January 2013 (for tax year 2012), this info is no longer optional, (unless - you guessed it - the IRS pulls another Emily L).

Hey, we're here to help clear things up.

Cavalcade of Risk #116: Call for Submissions

Julie Ferguson hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 18th). Please remember to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

In Memorium: Bye, Papa

[ed: This post is in loving memory of Robert (Bob) Keller, who passed away yesterday, 10/13/10]

I suspect that most readers will wince when I mention "The Brady Bunch;" the theme song is an almost tribal memory for most of us. In "real life," of course, blended families don't always (or frequently) actually "blend." Because of his indomitable spirit and bottomless heart, my step-dad, Bob Keller, managed that incredible feat.

My father passed away when I was 22; a few years later, Mom found her other true love when she met Bob. I remarked often that it must have been terribly convenient for her: both of her beloved husbands were Roberts. From the moment we met, Bob and I connected and when they wed a few months later, his family and ours had already begun to bond. I still fondly recall our family Chanukah parties, with the kids and the adults all happily chattering and feasting on latkes. Bob had a way of bringing all those who were close to him close to each other.

When our eldest was born, there was no "well, he's a step-grandfather;" he held her proudly and lovingly, as if to announce to the world "hey, look at this!" My daughters knew only love from him, and for him, as did my better half.

I adored him.

For many years, we would meet for lunch every week, often sharing wings at, well, the wing's place. Even more often, we shared our mutual love of rare hamburgers at a local pub (and by rare, I mean "walk it through the kitchen - quickly!" - rare). This was usually preceded by our monthly trip to Max's, where Ralph, our balding barber, would neatly trim us up.

It was with Bob that I shared the last few hours of my mother's life, and it was Bob who had the strength to let the hospice nurses know that "Mrs Keller has passed."

I realized today that Bob had actually been in my life longer than my own father. He was a great dad, a terrific grandfather, and an adoring husband. His first wife, Lynn, had passed several years before he and my mother met, but it was obvious to all who knew him that the size and depth of his heart was enough to deeply love both of his wives.

Thank you, Bob Keller, for your kind, strong hands (oh, did I mention that he was an accomplished wood and stained glass artist?), your bottomless and generous heart, and for the love you shared with my mother, my family, and me.

Cheap Car Insurance ?

Cheap Car Insurance ?

Car insurance - who needs it? Well, if you own a car, the answer is you need autoinsurance. That's the law. We're here to take some of the pain and confusion out of choosing car insurance with topics like choosing an auto insurance company and how car insurance rates are set. If you are involved in an accident or have your car stolen, owning the right kind of car-insurance - not just cheap car insurance - can help to ease a difficult situation.

Take a deep breath and relax. The pages ahead are filled with information on how to get the auto insurance coverage that's right for you, and - are you ready for this - possibly even save you some money on your car insurance premium too.

The People v ObamaCare©: This just in...

A Florida judge has ruled that the 20 of the 57 states may, in fact, continue pressing their lawsuit against ObamaCare©:

"U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ... said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for Dec. 16."

Not much more than that right now; interested readers may peruse the decision here.

Health Wonk Review: Rescue Me Edition

Our favorite health care economist, Jason Shafrin, hosts this week's wonky round-up. Jason asks (and answers) the question "What do the Chilean miners have to do with health policy blogs?"

Auto Insurence - Insurence Auto

Auto Insurance
The cost of auto insurance



Prices for auto insurance can vary by hundreds of dollars between companies, so it pays to shop around.
You should get several quotes before you buy a policy.
Don't shop price alone, service is just as important as price.

The carrier you select should offer both good prices and quality service.
Auto insurance is an investment and you should feel comfortable about your policy.
Quality service may cost a bit more. You should try to balance the service and price.
Nowadays, most major companies offer comparable quality customer service, of course they want your business.





You are likely, right now, to be paying too much for your auto insurance. The odds are even greater that you could get the coverage you need from another insurance company for a better rate.

However, consumers are generally shown not to put the energy into shopping for their insurance that they would into buying a new car.

The rise of the internet has radically changed the buying and comparison of auto insurance policies. Not only has competition between insurance providers increased, driving down policy prices, but it is easier and faster than ever to find the auto insurance perfect for you. There are several ways to save money in your search for better, more affordable car insurance.

Here are a few ways to save money on auto insurance: 1. Be thorough in researching and requesting all discounts you qualify for
2. Maintain a clean, up-to-date driving driving record
3. Assume more risk in your coverage
4. Choose to drive a “low profile” car with specific money-saving features
5. Find a low-cost insurance provider that can meet your needs


We’ll begin to explain discounts you might qualify for:

Low-Risk Job or Occupation Insurance adjusters collect information about what type of people get into accidents. Historically, data suggests overwhelmingly that people with certain professions get into far fewer car accidents than other people. For example, a teacher is far less likely to be involved in an accident than someone who is unemployed. Your job may entitle you to lower insurance rates because you are at lower risk for an accident. It is important to shop around for this discount, as different insurance companies use different criteria.

Professional Organizations and Auto Clubs A membership with auto clubs, such as AAA, or professional organizations offered through your employed may save you money on your car insurance. It is important to ask your insurer if any of these discounts are offered while also pursuing them through your employer.

Combined and Renewal Discounts If your car is insured by the same company that provides you with house or life insurance, you may be entitled to significant discounts on both policies.

You may not have to switch insurance companies to save money on your policy. If you have been with the same provider for an extended amount of time and had no accidents, you are entitled to renewal discounts, which provide incentive to remain with your insurer.

Automobile Safety Features Many states have laws that require lower insurance rates for cars equipped with safety features. Some industry-standard features such as ABS anti-lock brakes, airbags, and automatic seat belts may qualify you for insurance discounts. You should research if you live in one of these states or if your specific provider offers discounts for such safety features.

Assuming More Risk There are two ways in which you can drastically reduce the cost of your car insurance. First, if you have an older, less-valuable car you may drop your collision insurance. In trying to save money by owning an older car it does not make sense to spend more on insurance. If your car is worth less than $2000, you are most likely spending more on insurance than it is worth. Dropping collision coverage will create significant savings on your policy.

If you are not driving an older car, it might make sense to request a higher deductible. A deductible is the amount you pay out-of-pocket before the insurance company compensates the rest. Increasing your deductible from $500 to $1000 could decrease your monthly payments by as much as 30 percent. You might pay more for small fender-benders and dings but will save significantly while still being covered in the case of large accidents.

Low Profile Cars If high insurance costs are burying you, consider it while shopping for your next car. Insurance companies charge more for high-performance cars because of their increased susceptibility to accidents and being stolen. It might make sense to buy a more modest vehicle and use your savings for other adventures.

ObamaCare© and Your W-2: In the news

This is how the IRS characterizes the health care/W-2 kerfluffle:

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an arm of the U.S. Treasury Department, has decided to include health expense codes that employers can use, but do not have to use, in the draft version of the 2011 W-2 wage tax withholding form." [emphasis added]

Gee, thanks fellas.

I find that ironic because of this:

"The IRS on Tuesday announced it has delayed the filing requirement for companies to report the cost of supplying healthcare coverage to their employees."

Regular readers may recall our recent post on this subject, which pointed out that the folks at NFIB "believe the provision really starts earlier. If someone leaves his job in 2011, the employer must provide the W-2 – with the added info – within a few weeks of the employee’s departure." So does this new announcement change that calculus?

One problem, of course, is that it doesn't seem to address the issue of when the actual reporting must begin. I've asked our friends at NFIB for their thoughts, and will let our readers know what we find out from them.

["Hill" Hat Tip: FoIB Patrick P]

Stupid Government Trick: Hit a cop, Sell a Policy

We had to go back all the way to our very first year (2005!) to find an idea this reprehensible:

"On at least six occasions, state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink approved felons’ applications to sell insurance in Florida."

Ms Sink, currently running for Governor of the Sunshine State, presently serves as the state's Chief Financial Officer. It's not just that her office thought this was a good idea, but she (apparently) personally signed off on all six applications. And these weren't speeding tickets or spitting on the sidewalk, either:

"(A)pplicants ... had been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to ... Assault on a police officer ... Resisting arrest with violence ... Grand larceny" and several other serious offenses. Florida, as in most states, prohibits convicted felons from obtaining licenses to sell insurance. Unfortunately, these six (that we know of) fellows were approved to sell life and health insurance policies (now there's a scary thought!) to unsuspecting prospects.

It certainly gives new meaning to high pressure sales.

[Hat Tip: Hot Air]

Old Dog, New Trick: Apologia

Years ago, Saturday Night Live featured a funny sketch called "Common Knowledge," the point of which was to show that a lot of what we think we know is, in fact, wrong. This past summer, in one of my posts about Ohio's new ObamaPool©, I inadvertently mis-characterized how renewal rates are calculated in the individual market. I said:

"by law, carriers can't single out individual insureds for rate increases"

Turns out, there is no such law; the relevant section of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) is silent as to this issue. This discrepancy was pointed out to me by the reporter who wrote the story on which that post was based, Ms Carrie Ghose; she emailed me yesterday to challenge my claim regarding renewals. After poring over the ORC (and checking with other sources), I found, to my dismay, that there is no such provision. I've updated the original post with this information, but in fairness to Ms Ghose, I wanted to make sure that our readers know the facts regarding renewal rates in the Ohio individual medical market.

A spoonful of sugar...

Perhaps it's all in one's perspective:

"Growing numbers of Americans with health insurance are walking away from their prescriptions at the pharmacy counter, the latest indication that efforts to contain costs may be curbing health-care consumption."

The Journal's thesis is that, because folks have higher co-pays and/or deductibles, they can't afford to pay as much for their meds.

I think it's something else: when 3rd parties are paying the bulk of your expenses, you have no real incentive to cut back. DTC (Direct to Consumer) advertising also plays a role, increasing demand, regardless of whether or not it's justified. Bob wrote about this some time ago, pointing out that "(s)ome studies suggest that newer, more expensive meds are no more effective than older, less expensive drugs."

So there's an increase in demand, fueled by the fact that someone else is footing the bulk of the bill, but what happens when that equation tilts the other way? People make the conscious choice to take a flyer, perhaps understanding that they don't really need that med, after all (not unlike those who choose to go without health insurance). Seems pretty rational to me.

Supporting this thesis is the fact that "(p)atients are deserting prescriptions for the most expensive drugs most often." That makes sense, although one wonders why they even bothered having them filled in the first place. It's not as if the cost, and one's portion of it, is a surprise: the cash register pretty much tells the story. Simple enough to pull an Emily Litella.

To some extent, ignorance of how health insurance works is a factor:

"After switching employers in April, Ms. Brockway said, she chose a high-deductible plan for herself and her 12-year-old son because it took less out of her paycheck ... when she went to pick up asthma medicine for her son and an antidepressant for herself, the pharmacist told her it would cost more than $335."

And?

How much did she save in premiums, and where did that go? How much is her cable bill (if any)? Just once, I'd really like to see so-called "journalists" ask (and report) about what other choices their subjects are making. We have no idea whether Ms Brockway's son has his own cell-phone, for example, and how much that costs. What other discretionary expenses do people make that tells us about their priorities? Why aren't these part of the story, as well?

And there's this: "She returned later and bought a less-expensive prescription for her son." So she did in fact, make the choice to put her son's health first. Why didn't she ask about less expensive medication in the first place? Why didn't the pharmacist (or her doctor) suggest the lower priced alternative? I submit that it's because, until recently, cost wasn't a factor: someone else was paying for it.

The fact is, her high-deductible plan (apparently) worked exactly as advertised, she just didn’t understand how to use it. Once she had "skin in the game," it was to her advantage to begin asking questions, and looking for ways to lower the cost of her (and her son's) health care.

And that's a good thing.

Historical Recreation: U.K. vs U.S.

I have been involved in historical recreation with the Society for Creative Anachronism for a very long time and have just had a very interesting online exchange with someone doing historical recreation in England, largely on the differences between how they do it and how we do it.

The central difference, so far as I can see, is that almost all U.K. recreation consists of performances for an audience, usually a paying audience. Almost all SCA recreation, and I think (although I might be mistaken) most U.S. recreation in other periods, most notably the U.S. Civil War, is done by and for the participants. An SCA tournament has an audience, but it is a medieval audience—an audience of participants dressed in some attempt at period clothing. The spectator at the tournament may also be one of the people cooking the evening's feast or, later, teaching renaissance dances.

One result that I found particularly striking, given my interests, was a very different attitude to medieval cooking. My correspondent assured me that medieval feasts were very expensive. A little online browsing, searching for "medieval feast" in .uk domains, confirmed that. So far as I could tell, the nearest thing to an authentic medieval feast available in the U.K., put on by a catering firm, costs 34 pounds/head in the least expensive version and a whopping 270 pounds per head in the fancy, seven course, version. A large part of that cost, of course, is for the labor of cooks and servers.

In contrast, I would expect an SCA feast, at least equally authentic, to be no more than ten dollars for the meal, plus perhaps another five or ten as a site fee to pay for the rental of the hall. The labor cost is zero, since the cooks and servers are themselves participants, doing it for fun—at most they might (or might not) get a free meal. My correspondent found that idea, along with the idea of musicians performing at the feast for free, almost unbelievable—in his view, anyone worth listening to would expect to be paid.

Another consequence of the difference is that, as best I can tell, English historical recreation is tied much more closely to the official educational system than similar activities in the U.S., with performances to some degree designed to fit into the standard curriculum. The recreation is subsidized by the state—on how large a scale I do not know. And at least some of the customers for the performances are state schools. Indeed at one point in the conversation, it seemed to me that my opposite number took "fitting into the official curriculum" as part of the definition of eduational, although when pressed on the point he denied it. What was clear was that he thought of "educational" as meaning "educating the audience," while I thought of the activity's primary educational role as educating the participants. Or perhaps, more precisely, encouraging them to educate themselves.

I am curious as to the consequences of these very different approaches. One striking contrast with the SCA is that the U.K. groups have quite a high level of required physical authenticity. The SCA, in contrast, has a minimal level of required authenticity—some attempt at pre-17th century garb. But while physical authenticity is not required, it is admired, and there is a lot of it at a high standard. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that our best armorers or costumers are at least as good as theirs. And it is worth noting that Civil War recreation in the U.S., at least by reputation, maintains a level of required authenticity comparable to the corresponding activities in the U.K.

I am also curious as to the reasons for the difference. Is it merely a matter of historical accident? Or is there some difference between cultures that makes Americans (and Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, ...) more willing to put time and effort into something they are doing for the fun of it?

With luck, some readers of this blog will have experience with historical recreation and be able to provide additional information.

How Will the Insurance Company Find Out?

"If I don't tell the health insurance company about (name any illness), how will they find out?". I always cringe when this question comes up. Got a call like this today from a former client.

I say former because he bought health insurance from me a few years ago, including maternity with no waiting period, so his wife could get pregnant.

She did, she delivered, he dropped the coverage.

Then last week he called again. Just like before, did not want health insurance on himself, nor on his son (who is on Peachcare . . . Georgia's SCHIP plan for low income families), just on his wife.

My spidey senses were tingling.

"Is she in good health?" I asked.

"Oh yes, I just want to get health insurance on her just in case."

I wanted to ask "in case what" but I didn't.

Today he called back and wanted to know which health insurance plan I would suggest. I said the plan from Humana was a good one and the one I would probably buy if I were in the market.

"How soon can we make it effective?" he asked.

"Usually a couple of days. Why do you ask?"

"She is waiting on some tests. The doctor thinks she may have Lupus".

There you go. The cat is out of the bag.

"Well, she won't be able to get health insurance until the tests come back and if confirmed that she has Lupus, she will not be able to buy health insurance then either".

"Why not?"

I hate that question almost as much as the one that followed.

"The carrier will ask on the application if she is waiting on test results and when they find out they will postpone the health insurance application until the tests come back".

"So how will they know if she doesn't tell them?"

"They have ways of finding these things out. If they don't find out before underwriting, they almost certainly will if the tests come back positive for Lupus."

"What kind of ways?"

"I tell you what. Let's just forget about any of the plans I sent you and you should have her apply for PCIP, the Obamacare plan that is designed for this kind of situation."

"How much does it cost? Is it more expensive than the Humana health insurance plan?"

"Probably, but it doesn't matter since, based on what you have told me, she won't qualify for Humana or any other health insurance plan besides PCIP."

"OK, send me the information, I think I will wait until the tests come back before applying."

"Sounds like a plan . . ."

I hate calls like this.

ObamaCare© Travelin': Medical Tourism under PPACA

Steven Lash, President of Satori World Medical, thinks that there's a silver lining in ObamaCare©: it's his belief that it will continue to fuel, and in fact increase the demand for, medical tourism. He bases this belief, in part, on the fact that this train-wreck has already begun to show the stress fractures in our system as a result of increased demand without adequate supply.

With Steven's permission, here's his take:

The changes in legislation [ed: ObamaCare©] will offer both positive and negative impacts to U.S. businesses. One of the benefits of the legislation is that we now know how the future of health care is going to be shaped. There are a specific set of deliverables and timetables that have been set.

With the completion of PPACA, businesses are focused again at looking for measures to save on rising health care costs. Because of this, businesses are starting to see a place in their employee benefit plans for medical travel.

With the addition of 40 million Americans having access to health insurance, there will be increased demand for health care services. Couple that with an existing shortage of nurses and doctors, queuing for medical care will be a natural by-product.

As the time to see a specialist increases, more individuals will seek to get immediate help through medical travel. Employers and employees will come to understand the high-quality health care that is available to them internationally as they look to end pain and ill health.

The PPACA utilizes similar features as the state-wide Massachusetts plan, which was implemented several years ago. In the Massachusetts plan, queuing for primary and specialty care has more than tripled the wait time for appointments and treatment.

As the low cost option, medical travel will be an attractive network option for employer-based medical plans.

Thanks Steven!

Retro Risk Reduction

It's tempting to think that the long, heavy "big metal" cars of bygone eras were safer than today's smaller versions. Take, for example, the venerable '59 Chevy Bel Air, its 211 inches weighing in at an impressive 3225 pounds. At the other end of the spectrum, last year's Chevrolet Malibu which, while actually a bit heavier (by about 200 pounds), is about 20 inches shorter. In a head-to-head (literally!) battle, the survisor might surprise you:



[Hat Tip: FoIB Sam B]

ObamaCare© Dreamin': I've got some questions

Currently, and since the advent of HIPAA, I can go from a group plan to another group plan, or an individual plan to a group plan, on a guaranteed issue basis, and any pre-existing conditions will be covered immediately.

[ed: Yes, there are a variety of hoops through which to jump, but assume those for sake of discussion]

In order to accomplish this, I need but a simple piece of paper, called a Certificate of Creditable Coverage, which "proves" that I've been covered for (at least) the previous 12 months. Absent this Cert, my new employer's carrier can delay covering any pre-existing conditions for a while.

Yes, yes, Henry. What's your point?

Well, as long as I have that little piece of paper, I can prove prior coverage, which is the point of the exercise, and demonstrates that one can, in fact, prove a positive.

But can one prove a negative?

Implicit in the PCIP (ObamaPool©) program is the applicant's assertion that he has not been insured during the previous six months. Which leads us to Question #1:

How does the Pool's© lifeguard prove that I did?

Follow up question: by what mechanism is the new carrier allowed to investigate the veracity of my claim?

Next, we turn our attention to the problem of the child; that is, the fact that one can no longer buy a child-only policy. Carriers which have gone this route (and I'm aware of none that haven't) generally allow a child to be covered if at least one of his parents is also on the policy. Which brings us to Question #2:

What happens when Mom and Junior apply and are issued a policy, and a month later Mom drops coverage on herself?

Follow-up question: by what mechanism would the carrier be allowed to then cancel coverage on Junior?

Well?

Friday LinkFest

■ At Frontpage, Tait Trussell makes the case that ObamaCare© constitutes "Medicare Malpractice" by essentially shafting "millions of low-income folks, minorities, and Hispanics." As we've noted, a lot of seniors covered by Medicare Advantage plans have been thrown under the bus.

■ David Hogberg offers his fisking of the New Republic's Jonathon Cohn's take on efforts at repealing ObamaCare©. He notes that this train-wreck "will force a lot of people to pay higher premiums ... lavish subsidies on the private insurance industry ... [and] put life-and-death decisions in the hands of bureaucrats." Sounds like a hat-trick to me.

■ Finally, the AP reports that the ObamaPools© are off to an underwhelming start (something we've long since noted), including one that we missed: "California, which has money for about 20,000 people, has received fewer than 450 applications."

Enjoy!

The Sad (Real) Faces of ObamaCare©

Yesterday, I had to turn away two prospective insureds. That's happened before ObamaCare© was a gleam in Ol' Nancy's eyes, but it was particularly troublesome because there are fewer choices now on which these folks can "land."

Let me explain:

Steve is a 45 year old gentleman who was laid off from his job last month. He's eligible for COBRA, but his means are (obviously) more limited, and the cost is prohibitive. With ARRA subsidies gone, he's stuck. Compounding his troubles is the fact that he's way to short for his weight, and has a number of other health issues. In fact, but for one "glitch," he'd be a prime candidate for the ObamaPool©.

Unfortunately, he's been insured within the past half-year, so he's outta luck, and outta the 'Pool©.

Then there's Tonya, a young lady in her late 20's, a single mom with a healthy five year old. Her employer offers a very nice group insurance plan, which just experienced a 35%+ rate increase, much (most?) of which comes courtesy of ObamaCare©. She'd like to jump off, but she has a number of problems.

No, her height and weight are within normal guidelines, but she's a Type I diabetic, and therefore uninsurable in the "regular" market. The 'Pool© might be a great option for her, but - you guessed it - no can do. Adding insult to injury, she can't do what we used to do: peel Junior off the group plan and put him on his own, much less expensive, policy. It's really a nasty trick, because even though we could write Junior on a plan with Mom, if Mom doesn't qualify (and she doesn't), Junior's not eligible. Then again, it's doubtful now that they'd save any money if they could get him his own plan.

I guess now that we're seeing what's in the bill....

Irony, Thy name is Cliff Clavin

Let me get this straight: Postal Workers' union elections are on hold because ballots have been lost in the mail?

Yep:

"But the union announced that only about 39,000 ballots were turned in -- and that "a large number of union members had not received their ballots."

You're kidding, right?

Um, no:

"The American Postal Workers Union has extended its internal election after thousands of ballots appeared to have gotten lost . . . in the mail."

As Warner Huston notes, these are the folks that want to run our health care system?

It's a little known fact that...

Shecantbeserious Waivering: You want fries with that?

On the heels of the recent McDonad's/Mini-med kerfluffle, we now learn that over 2 dozen companies have been granted temporary ObamaCare© exemptions. This of course raises a number of -- shall we say uncomfortable? -- questions:

First, under what criteria were these waivers granted? What, if any, quid pro quo was extracted from the corporate coffers of those which benefitted?

Second, what happens next year, when these waivers expire? Will they automatically renew? If not, what process will be implemented to review whether or not such exemptions will continue?

Third, what companies applied for an exemption and were declined, and on what basis?

Fourth, why is it that not only employers and insurers were granted exemptions, but also unions?

One more little time-bomb that was in the bill we had to pass to see.

Obamacare - Is The Public Option Dead?

Is the so-called public option in Obamacare dead? Some don't think so. Left wing blogger Huffington is sporting a post today suggesting there is still hope for those who want a public health insurance option. According to Dr. Abrams who it appears has never practiced medicine nor run a health insurance company, Democrats can still exploit a little publicized provision in Obamacrap to sweep them into office and create even more bureaucracy at the state level.

Apparently no one told Dr. Abrams the states are broke.

Although a federal 'public option' failed to make it into the law, states were granted the power to generate their own public option.

There you have it. Public insurance run by the states. The same states that are complaining about the addition of millions of uninsured's to Medicaid and wondering how care for the masses will be funded without massive tax hikes.

There's your answer.

States, like the federal government, have almost unlimited authority to raise taxes at will. For some reason people seem to think if it comes from the government it must be free. Those are the same people who believe that corporations pay taxes and you can't get pregnant if you do "it" standing up.

If I were running anywhere this year, for governor or state legislature, I would propose that my state enact a public option for itself. Its costs would be negligible, as the federal government provides the necessary subsidies to enable those who cannot afford it to buy it, whether it is from a private insurer or the state.

Costs would be negligible. Gotta love it. 

Raise your hand if you believe in subsidies that will last forever, if they even materialize at all. If you raised your hand you probably live in one of the 57 states and voted for having your health insurance premiums lowered by $2,000 and still believe if you like the plan you have you can keep it.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, according to HuffPo, "Reports of the public option being dead are greatly exaggerated".

The Commish (An InsureBlog Exclusive!)

Although the Whitman-Brown (or is that Brown-Whitman?) race seems to be sucking up all the air in the room, there's another electoral competition going on in the Golden State. In California, the Commisioner of Insurance is an elected position. It's a tough race, but independent insurance agent Rick Bronstein aims to give it all he's got. Rick graciously agreed to an (Exclusive!) email interview with InsureBlog:

InsureBlog (IB): So, Rick, can you tell our readers a bit about yourself (including how long you've been in the insurance business)?

Rick Bronstein (RB): I’ve lived in the Los Angeles area all my life, graduating from UCLA in 1978. I’ve been licensed since August 1977 when I began working in a small P& C agency part time. Ultimately I became the office manager and remained there for 9 years. Since then I’ve worked for a credit union as their insurance department manager, as an outside salesperson for Secure Horizons, and been on my own since 1996.

I enjoy long walks on the beach golf, profitable trips to Las Vegas, and riding my motorcycle [ed: since this is a family-friendly site, no centerfold].

IB: How would you characterize the current state of CA insurance markets? I realize that this is a somewhat loaded question; maybe a little bit about the P&C side, and more on the life/health (especially health) side.

RB: Like most states, mandates and regulations have created more problems than they have solved. Carriers are forced to provide benefits that may not be wanted, and every benefit has a cost.

We have a state run workers compensation company that as part of its mandate is to be revenue neutral to taxpayers. A few months ago our insurance commission sent $5,000,000 to various district attorneys throughout the state to fight fraud. How is that revenue neutral? Insurance companies should fight their own fraud cases.

The insurance commissioner has been holding Anthem Blue Cross “hostage” and has not approved their plans with effective dates after 9/22/10. How is that helping residents of California?

We’ve gone from oversight to over-regulation.

IB: Why run for insurance commissioner instead of, say, letters to the editor, that kind of thing?

Letters to the editor are almost impossible to have published, and if so, are rarely more than one or two paragraphs. While I know it’s unlikely that I will receive more votes than the establishment candidates (Democrat and Republican), at least I can get out the message of allowing a free market to actually be free.

What are your Top 3 goals should you become elected? Or, if you prefer, the first 3 things you plan to address?

The most pressing issue right now is the ObamaCrap that the brain surgeons in Washington passed. So the first 3 things I would do is to encourage the state to do everything possible to have this overturned. Among all the other unconstitutional provisions, the entire bill violates states’ rights.

Since I do not believe the insurance commissioner’s job is to make it more difficult for insurance companies to do business in California, I would reduce the regulations that thwart competition and lead to higher prices.

The third item is to once again allow for gender rating for Medicare Supplements. Several months ago the state required unisex rates which had the effect of raising prices for women on many plans by 20% or more. Once again, regulation where none was needed.

IB: One last question: With all the news out of DC, what do you think about ObamaCare, and specifically as it might effect Californians?

RB: This is a family site, right?

Thanks, Rick, for your forthright answers, and your commitment to fight the good fight. Hopefully, at least some of your ideas will find their way to implementation.

[This interview is not intended as an endorsement of any candidate]

Movin' on up... (An IB Exclusive)

In the Wikio Health Blog rankings. The new numbers are out, and we've moved up quite a bit, all the way to the (lucky) 13 spot (pretty good for an insurance blog!).

Thanks to Wikio's Oliver Orlik for the heads' up, and for the (exclusive!) opportunity to post this before the official publishing date:

1	Well
2	Respectful Insolence
3	Science-Based Medicine
4	Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog
5	Dr. Wes
6	Health Beat
7	The Health Care Blog
8	In the Pipeline
9	Pharmalot
10	White Coat Underground
11	Better Health
12	John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
13	InsureBlog
14	The Last Psychiatrist
15	Health Care Renewal
16	Managed Care Matters
17	Healthcare Economist
18	Disease Management Care Blog
19	DB's Medical Rants
20	The Happy Hospitalist

Ranking made by Wikio