“Affordable” Care Strikes Again – Spouses and Children Hit Hardest

Last week I reported on new rules released by the unelected bureaucrats at the IRS.  In the process of defining 'Affordable,' for the purpose of enforcing the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obama-Care), families that cannot “afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own.”

This week, the unelected bureaucrats at the Department of Health and (in)Human Services announced that as a result of their defining the meaning of affordable, for the purpose of enforcing the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obama-Care), they may not be able to subsidize the difference in costs between some individual and family plans.  If neither the employer nor the employee can afford to cover the difference, spouses and children would go uninsured.

Obama-Care  forces coverage that many Americans neither need or want.  That exposure drives up the risk and the price.  As the price rises the government becomes even less able to keep the promises it could have never kept in the first place.  And since the cost has already exploded well beyond their capacity to pay for it, the unelected bureaucrats are already busy cutting corners to put on a good show.

The Democrats, through Obama care, are creating the very thing they insisted they were going to fix, except that it will now cost exponentially more and the uninsured will not be victims of their own circumstances, they will be priced out or pushed out of the insurance market by the very legislation they were promised would guarantee them coverage.

So now that we know you will not get to keep your coverage, it might be a good time to ask if you still think you'll keep your doctor, or hospital, or even your job, as employers are forced to cut other costs to comply with the health care costs forced upon them by the state?

You might also want to consider if your benevolent masters, the ones who are arbitrarily kicking women and children off their health insurance, will also cut drug therapies, procedures, or any number of other things you might need to ensure your quality of life, because they happen to be too expensive, and as far as the state is concerned, you're not really worth it.

You are reading  "“Affordable” Care Strikes Again – Spouses and Children Hit Hardest"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Extinguishing Tobacco Revenue In Our Lifetimes

I told them.  If you want people to quit smoking, you had best not get used to the revenue from tobacco taxes.   Don't count on it for anything if you want to extinguish smoking in our lifetime.  You know, make it history?  But what did New Hampshire Democrats do when Republicans tried to back away from tobacco by lowering the tax just one thin dime?  They snapped like addicts in withdrawal.  They got the Democrat DT's and everything.

You can't cut the tobacco tax.  We're losing revenue.  We need that revenue.  I gotta have revvvaaaaannnooooo.  (Insert primal scream here.)

Their new plan?  Same as their old plan.  Raise the tax on a product they don't want around to tax.  Yeah, that will fix the wagon (actually it wont) ....until January2014 when a provision in Obama-Care delivers the coup de gras.

In January 2014 anyone who is still funding the tobacco tax with their 'habit!' is in for a surprise.  Obama Care has a provision in it that allows insurance companies to charge 50% more for individual health Insurance policies held by smokers.  That''' add thousands of dollars more per year to those people's premiums.  You think some folks will quit?

Might just be a big old beaver dam blocking the revenue stream.  But then, that was the goal.

So I think we can count on extinguishing tobacco tax revenue in our lifetimes.   At least in any form to which we've become accustomed.  And hey! maybe the insurance premium gang rape will finally be the thing that keeps kids from taking up the habit--lord knows the Democrats previous tobacco tax hike didn't have much effect.  Did I say we might want to back off that dead-end revenue stream if the goal?  I did.  So don't get too used to that money.  And while you are doing that you might want to ask about future funding for SCHIP.  Isn't the Children's Health Insurance Program heavily reliant on revenue from tobacco sales?

Say it with me. "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it."

You are reading  "Extinguishing Tobacco Revenue In Our Lifetimes"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Why We Can’t Have A Discussion With New Hampshire Democrats

My Fridge mag cross-post elicited the following response from Democrat Jim Splaine on the matter of gun ownership, which exemplifies the reason why any discussion with Democrats on any subject is unlikely.

Why can’t we have a real discussion about this issue? Just like the myths of an “$800 million deficit,” or that “Obamacare is socialized medicine” (whereas it’s mostly privatized), or that “gay marriage is a slippery slope,” there a new myth a-brewing among the Tea Partiers and right-wingers that President Obama and the Democrats are after everyone’s guns.

We cannot have a discussion because the 800 million dollar deficit is not a myth, the goal of Obamacare is a government-run single-payer system, the slope is slippery because Democrats lied about their goals and intentions, and Diane Feinstein has legislation right now that includes gun grabbing language.

Real discussions begin in reality.  Democrats refuse to begin in the real world preferring the one they’ve created to explain what they claim to believe.  And you can’t negotiate with madmen.

Deficit?

The 800 million dollar deficit “myth” is very real.  Just aks Democrat Finance committee member Cindy Rosenwald, who not only explained why it existed, but that Democrat leadership knew about it and intended to cut the budget to address it.

This extra money, $802 million in total, helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession. The federal money was one-time assistance. The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.

Rosemwald is no disgruntled back-bencher.  The Deficit was real.  But no one seems to have told Jim Splaine, who is apparently reading from the NHDP hymnal without question, where the words..”The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit,” do not appear.

ObamaCare

As for Obamcare being socialized medicine, anyone who understands how markets work and has ears to hear, knows that the Patient Affordable Care Act has but one purpose; to corporatize insurance under the jackboot of the Federal government.  Jim can choose between Fascist state control or Socialist/Communist control, but state control is the goal of Democrat leaders– unless collapse is an option for debate.  Are Democrats trying to collapse the Insurance system?  I’d enjoy a discussion about that.

Marriage

There are more than a few slippery slopes on the Gay Marriage issue the biggest of which is that marriage is a civil function of which religious marriage is but a part.  Splaine may have never used those words himself but it is out there, just like the myth that gay marriage is about equality.  As I so often say, marriage is a rite not a right.  Churches deny the rite of marriage every day.  Marriage also existed long before the state so it cannot possibly be a construct of it.  It was meant to tie a man to his childbearing wife for the benefit of their children, but seeing as those are also concepts are generally regarded as myths by Democrats it is a short walk to where Splaine’s narrative lives and breathes.

The state’s only real interest in marriage is to defend the property rights of the couple and their heirs.  Where a non-religious pairing is preferred, because the state cannot force you to be religious, the state also recognizes unions by judges and other civil persons for similar purposes.  Civil unions were afforded to same sex couples, and there was much rejoicing.

There are other slopes for us to slip on.  Civil unions were heralded as adequate until they were not.  Democrat John Lynch promised not to pass a Gay Marraige law  until he did.  Lynch lied about parental rights when he repealed them so with liars like this who needs the truth?

Guns?

All of which brings us to guns.  Mr. Splaine insists Democrats don’t want to ban all guns or even take them away except for some guns.  And Obama Care doesn’t socialize medicine it just makes socializing it inevitable.  And Civil Unions don’t redefine marriage until they do.  And there is no 800 million dollar deficit, except there is.

Given the arc of every other left wing policy we have no reason to believe anything they say or believe.  I certainly don’t.

There is the lefts enthusiasm for UN treaties that do their dirty work for them and just happen to include language requiring the registration, tracking, and inevitable confiscation of privately owned firearms; and the recent revelation of gun grabbing legislation from Senator Diane Feinstein (here and here for starters), show us that Mr. Splaine is mistaken.  Democrats do want to grab and or ban guns.  Should I look forward to his objections in public print to belay my fears?  Probably not–he still wants us to think there was no 800 million dollar deficit.

So we can talk about all of that if you’d like but Democrats don’t want to unless we begin from a starting point of their choosing.

Nor do they want to discuss how generational welfare and fatherless children are a greater threat to life than ‘assault weapons’ they cannot begins to describe.   (You might want to read this Jim before you open your mouth again about guns.)  I know you’re a smart enough guy, I’m just not sure you can see past the massive encumbrance of your pre-programmed worldview.

Other Nonsense

There is a good deal more nonsense in Jim’s NHI comment, a cow whose udder is fat for more milking, but I’ll leave that for others to explore.  My point is made.  Given the scope and consistency with which the New Hampshire left believes it’s own lies, and the lies themselves (like that they are civil for example- Ha!),  discussion is impossible.   It is impossible because it cannot begin until Democrats stop believing so much that is not true.

You are reading  “Why We Can’t Have A Discussion With New Hampshire Democrats”   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

The Little Governor Who Couldn't

Governor Lynch, in a fit of impotence and self contradiction, confused his role as the states chief executive today, as reported in a Union Leader column by Tom Fahey.  In regard to the passage into law of New Hampshire HB 601 and SB 148, Governor Lynch remarked on one hand that...

He allowed the bill (HB 601) to become law, he said, “because I did not want New Hampshire to default into federal oversight.”

and then claimed that...

...SB 148 has no practical effect on New Hampshire residents because there is no way to enforce it.
 

“ The assessments for not obtaining health insurance will not be administered through the state but through the Internal Revenue Service. Legislators and the public should understand that this legislation would have no impact on the capacity of the state of New Hampshire to block the individual health insurance mandate or the federal assessments for not obtaining insurance,” he said.

HB 601 (in short-hand) prohibits accepting pump-priming federal dollars for Obama Care--which must be returned to lower the federal deficit) and gives the NH legislature oversight of all state agencies on the matter before any part of it can be implemented.   SB 148 basically states that we will not enforce any purchase mandate fine or imprisonment related to the Health Care law.

As a matter of semantics Lynch is not wrong to suggest that if the IRS barges in and arrests us for failing to comply that no state agency is interposed to prevent that.  But isn't that exactly the point of SB 148.  It deems to interpose the law enforcing branch of the New Hampshire government--the executive and his Attorney General--between (in this case) the IRS and the people on the matter of  the Patient affordable care act.  SB 148 draws a line over which our chief executive is meant to stand in defense of his state and it's people.  The same line, by the way, that he draws (at least rhetorically) with regard to HB601.

So according to Lynch, while he does not want to default to federal oversight, the IRS can just reach over the Governors office and snatch whomever they please. 

What exactly is his job again?   Trust me, it is not to just keep getting re-elected.  But I think that is what this is about and I've got some thoughts on that.

With HB601 Mr. Lynch claims that he does not want the state to default into federal oversight, a problem that never (Never, ever) troubled him when he had a democrat majority legislature.  Education money, stimulus money, "insert name of federal money here" money, it was all accepted with open arms, with all the strings and oversight that came with it.  He couldn't accept it fast enough.  But now we are meant to applaud his so-called discovery of a few vertebrae (in the shadow of a likely veto override) when in this instance all he has to do is refuse to cash one check.

SB148 would actually require him to ask his AG to intercede in the interests of state sovereignty to legally protect and defend his constituents from what amounts to the exact same thing; a default to federal oversight.  But in this case, where he is the only legal roadblock to implementation (of a plan he actually supports) we are told the bill empowering him to be that roadblock means nothing, that it can't be done.

So why refuse to veto this bill and make that case?  Why just let SB 148 become law?

Governor Lynch has established that he can and will refuse to do his job.  Having never signed the bill that sends the federal money back relieves him of any responsibility; his excuse for avoiding a veto is the likelihood of an override by the Republican Super majority.  Obamacare is destructive to the lefts political aspirations, because most people don't like it, so starting a veto fight would keep it in the public eye; this would be bad for the state democrat party and its candidates heading into 2012. 

Since Lynch is only willing to defend us from default oversights that are politically convenient, those that require nothing from him, there is nothing to stop the federal government from forcing us to pay for the entire ObamaCare exchange mandate ourselves when the time comes, a mandate this Democrat Governor supports.    Remember, the Republicans made him return the money.

Lynch sits on his hands, says the feds say we have to pay, which starts a public mess about spending which he and the left can blame on Republicans, even the stupid ones that keep voting for him.  A fiscal fight about local dollars is easier to demagog than a federal law the governor claims he can't prevent.

Is he that smart?  I think that between Lynch and the Left wing party leadership this is a reasonable tactical assumption.  But there is an easy solution.

We either find a way to make Lynch do his job or replace him with a governor who will.

Problem solved.

 Cross posted

Sebelius Admits to Obamacare Double tap

Fans of the movie Zombieland might understand the post title right away.  In the movie the lead protagonist, "Columbus" has a set of rules he always follows which he believes are the only reason he is still alive after the world is turned into Zombieland by a mutant strain of Mad Cow disease that turns almost everyone into crazed, flesh eating zombies.

Rule #1 is cardio.   You need to be able to run away from Zombies.

Rule # 31 is Check the back seat.  Always look to see if there is a Zombie in the back of the car before you drive away in it.

Rule # 3, beware of bathrooms.  Zombies seem to be able to sense when you are at your weakest.

Rule #18 Limber up.  Wouldn't want to come up lame.

And Rule #2?  Double Tap.  It is not a waste of ammo to put another round into the head of a zombie to make sure they are down for the count.

So who stumbles into my metaphor but Obama Zombie and Health and Inhuman Services Minister Kathleen Sebelius.  Note to the left--no, I am not suggesting we double tap her, I am suggesting she and the democrats of the 111th congress--and all your lying or deluded selves included-- have double-tapped the Taxpayers.  Sebelius has just admitted to a congressional committee that a huge chunk of money they claimed was going to offset the costs of Obamacare is the legislative-accounting equivalent of a double tap.

Five hundred billion dollars ($500,000,000,000.00) was basically double counted, or double tapped, in the Patient Affordable Care Act to make it something it is not, affordable.

Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

Nothing new here.  We always knew the numbers were funny.  But the left and the media, having exhausted themselves with the ideological equivalent to the Health-Care Kama Sutra, would have none of it.  And it's been unraveling ever since.

I'm sure you feel much better now that passing the bill has lead to yet another discovery about what's in the bill--or not in the bill if you don't double tap the 500 billion. But what's $500 billion in the dynamic Obama-deficit based economy? It's a trip down to the US Treasury to speed up the presses.

But they could still make it up to us. Maybe we can all just get a waiver.

Cross Posted