Half of Obamacare enrollees are skipping doctor visits to save money

Can you cover more people for more conditions and have costs go down?
Can you cover more people for more conditions and have costs go down?

(click for larger image)

Obamacare enrollees are covered, but they’re not really covered, because they can’t afford doctor visits.

The Washington Free Beacon explains.

Excerpt:

Half of Obamacare enrollees are skipping doctor visits to save money, according to a report from GfK, a market research group.

Only 33 percent of the general insured population is doing the same, according to the report.

“Even before the news broke that the cost of mid-range health insurance from the Affordable Care Act exchanges will rise about 25%, millions of Obamacare customers were already skipping doctor visits to save money,” the study said. “With mid-level exchange premiums set to rise about 25%, more cutbacks in care seem likely.”

Obamacare enrollees were asked what steps they had taken in the past year to lower their health care costs.

Thirty-six percent of Obamacare enrollees cut back on doctor visits even when they were sick, 22 percent skipped preventive care, 12 percent reduced lab testing, and 12 percent delayed surgery.

“Exchange users with lower incomes (below $25,000 a year) are turning to urgent care facilities and ‘minute clinics’ in huge numbers; 27% have done so in the past year, compared to just 12% of the overall [Affordable Care Act] customer population,” the study says.

“Visiting one of these outlets is often appealing to people who may have not formed lasting relationships with providers, especially as costs can be substantially lower,” the study said.

[…]“As we approach another enrollment period for the ACA, it’s important to understand why the exchanges are failing,” said Brian Blase, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center. “The law made insurance way too unattractive for relatively young and healthy people who are largely choosing to pay the individual mandate tax penalty instead of purchasing coverage.”

“Only those who receive giant subsidies are signing up for coverage in significant numbers, and many are gaming the new rules to enroll only when they need expensive medical services,” he said. “This year’s huge premium increases combined with much less choice of plans for Americans across the country demonstrate the law is wrecking the individual market for insurance and needs large scale revision.”

Yes, this is the so-called Obamacare death spiral, which has older sicker people signing up for health care, but young healthy people not signing up because there is no value for them. When only sick people sign up, the costs go up, because the payouts are higher. It’s like having an auto insurance plan that is only used by those with bad driving records. Naturally, the costs will be higher, and the only way to balance it out is to force people who drive safely and don’t make any claims to join anyway, and pay for something they won’t use.

Obama’s solution to this problem of young people not signing up  is to punish them with fines.

CBS News explains:

Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama’s health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday.

To make matters worse, the penalty for individuals and families who did not have health insurance in 2016 will also nearly double as compared to fees for 2015 tax returns when revisions to the Affordable Care Act go into effect.

According to the IRS, shared responsibility payments will jump to $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, with the family maximum not to exceed $2,085 or 2.5 percent income above the filing threshold. That’s up from $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, with a maximum of $975 per family for the 2015 tax year.

What were the young people thinking when they voted for a deal like this? Well, they weren’t thinking at all – that’s the problem. Their brains don’t work, so they just do whatever is popular. They don’t have enough real life experience to separate the celebrity worship from the economics. And they don’t respect the judgment of those who are older and wiser.

Theist David Wood debates atheist Michael Shermer: Does God Exist?

Two bears fight it out, and may the best bear win!
Two bears fight it out, and may the best bear win!

Details:

On October 10th, 2016, David Wood (Christian) debated Michael Shermer (Atheist) on the topic “Does God Exist?” The debate was sponsored by Ratio Christi. In the course of the debate, Wood and Shermer discussed the Scientific Revolution, design arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, the problem of evil, skepticism, and methodology.

The video:

The debate starts at 6:30, following introductory remarks. I was ordered to summarize this debate by my good friend Eric, who said this: “I’m a little less than halfway through the David Wood vs Michael Shermer debate, but it’s amazing. If you summarize it you will sound super snarky but you will actually be doing honest reporting.”

I’m only going to summarize the opening speeches which went until 47:40.I linked to the rebuttals and cross-examination below. I did love the debate, and thought that both sides had great speakers who kept to their times, and were on topic and effective. As always with my snarky paraphrase of the atheist, you should listen to the recording to see what was actually said. I try to present their argument with the spin removed.

Wood’s opening speech:

The scientific revolution was started by Christian theists:

  • Science requires three assumptions: 1) that the universe can be understood, 2) that human beings can understand it, 3) that it is good for human beings to understand the universe.
  • Christians produced an explosion of scientific discoveries during the 16th and 17th century
  • In their writings, these Christian theists explained that their scientific investigation was grounded in their Christian worldview, and was seen as a form of worship and learning from God
  • It is easy to do science now that the scientific method is widely accepted, but the challenge was to come up with the method and make the first discoveries – Christians did that
  • Atheism does not ground the assumption that the universe is understandable – it’s an accident
  • Atheism does not ground the assumption that humans could understand the universe – we are just random accidents that don’t have free will and our consciousness is an illusion
  • Atheism does not ground the desire to understand the universe, the earliest scientific discoveries had no practical benefit
  • Theism grounds all 3 of the requirements of the scientific enterprise: the universe is made by a rational mind, human beings are made in the image of God – inheriting free will and rationality, knowledge of God (the highest God) can be obtained from the natural world (the Bible says so in Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1)

The testing of the scientific hypotheses confirmed theism:

  • scientific progress confirmed the origin of the universe out of nothing
  • scientific progress confirmed the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of complex embodied intelligent life

Atheism doesn’t ground the scientific method:

  • the three elements of the scientific hypothesis, which was birthed by theism, have been confirmed by repeated use of the scientific method
  • the three elements of the scientific hypothesis, which are not grounded in atheism, have been confirmed by repeated use of the scientific method

Shermer’s opening speech: (snarky paraphrase with spin removed)

An atheist about one more God than you:

  • There are lots of different religions, just like there there are many answers to math questions, and so that means that none of them can be true.
  • Just like you, I deny lots of wrong answers to math questions, but I just go one answer further and deny the right answer

Response to David Wood:

  • Well, in most of these European countries, you had to be a Christian or they would burn you at the stake, because it was against the law to be an atheist
  • So, since there were only Christians on the face of the planet in every country since the beginning of time (since that was the law everywhere, at all times, and in all places) then OF COURSE Christians invented science since they were the only ones who ever existed
  • The fact that the earliest scientists credit their Christian worldview for starting them on the path of making scientific discoveries “is irrelevant” (direct quote). “You might as well point to the fact that they are all dog owners. It’s irrelevant.” (direct quote)

Atheism is just a lack of belief in God:

  • Atheism, which has the definition a belief in the non-existence of God, actually means a lack of belief in God
  • I like my made-up definition, because then I don’t have to give any reasons or science to show that atheism is true
  • I just describe my psychological state, not objective reality, and that allows me to not have to defend my worldview

The burden of proof:

  • David has to produce evidence for his view of reality
  • I don’t have to produce evidence for my view of reality

The scientists that David quoted never discovered anything:

  • Those early scientists never discovered anything
  • They believed that thunder was God bowling
  • Newton and Copernicus and Galileo and the other famous scientists just said “I can’t figure it out” and “God did it” (direct quote)

The progress of science shows a natural explanation for everything:

  • The progress of science in the last 50 years has overturned the origin of the universe from nothing, and upheld the eternal universe favored by naturalists
  • The progress of science in the last 50 years has reduced the number of constants and quantities that have to be fine-tuned
  • The progress of science in the last 50 years has reduced the complexity of the origin of life from libraries biological information, molecular machines and miniature factories to simple jello that was formed in a warm pond

Who made God?

  • You can’t explain the origin of space and time and matter by appealing to a cause that is spaceless, eternal and non-material
  • Why can’t the universe be the thing that doesn’t need to be created (i.e. – it is eternal, and did not begin to exist 14.5 billion years ago, as every scientist says)

Why is there evil?

  • On atheism, the universe is an accident, and there is no objective standard of morality
  • Therefore, no atheist can call anything good or evil objectively
  • God allows human evil and natural evil
  • I have looked into the repercussions of evil throughout time and space for every act of apparently gratuitous evil and I can confirm God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing human evil and natural evil, and I keep the reasons in my garage at home, but you can’t see them because they are invisible, and they are undetectable by any other means

Christians used to believe in witches

  • Look at me quoting the Bible in the one place it mentions witches!
  • I believe the parts that make Christianity look bad, but not the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which is accepted as eyewitness testimony by the most skeptical atheist historians

You can repent at the last minute and get eternal life, that’s not fair

  • Not sure how an atheist misunderstanding Christian doctrines that can be explained by people who have read C.S. Lewis books is an argument against the existence of God

Christianity celebrates human sacrifice

  • Christians believe in human sacrifice because Jesus had to die for the sins of everyone
  • I’m pro-abortion and think that killing 56 million children is a great thing though

The doctrine of atonement makes no sense

  • How could God the Father accept the death of God the Son as a sacrifice for sin?

The rebuttals

I did not summarize the rebuttals, but I did watch them and link to them at the start of each speech.

My thoughts

First, I was very pleased with David Wood’s performance in this debate. I would have liked more focus on the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning, and fewer quotations from scientists in the opening speech. The rebuttals were good. And his performance in the Q&A was worth listening to.

Shermer’s first rebuttal gave me the impression that he was not interested in grasping truth through science, but just pushing away the science of today with speculations about the science fiction of tomorrow – might, maybe, let’s say, etc. He’s not a skeptic, he’s a speculator. Theists go wherever the evidence leads, we decide based on the evidence we have today. His attempt to underwrite objective morality by appealing to feelings wasn’t convincing. In the Q&A, he takes the standard atheist view that the nothing that preceded the universe is really something.

UPDATE: Triablogue reacts to the debate here.

Who halted the FBI investigation of Hillary’s private unsecure e-mail server?

Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?
Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself: who killed the FBI investigation of Hillary’s e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation?

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey has an answer to the question in the Wall Street Journal.

First a quick review of the facts:

Nonetheless, in July [FBI director Comey] announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to charge [Hillary Clinton] with a crime, although Mrs. Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server—at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by hostile foreign nations—a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails—a felony under two other statutes. He then told Congress repeatedly that the investigation into her handling of emails was closed.

Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.

Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general [Loretta Lynch], whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.

That July announcement of Mr. Comey, and that testimony by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, also had a history.

When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.

The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.

Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?

 

Yes, why did Comey stop the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton given all of these facts?

Mukasey explains who called off the investigation and why:

The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.

After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.

That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”

[…]Instead, Mr. Comey acceded to the apparent wish of President Obama that no charges be brought. 

Obama would have wanted the FBI investigation stopped because if the Department of Justice decided that Clinton “was at criminal risk” for communicating on Clinton’s nonsecure system, then so was he. Fortunately for Obama, he appointed Loretta Lynch as attorney general, and we know she won’t prosecute Democrats, because she refused to go after the IRS for persecuting conservative organizations ahead of the 2012 election, so that Obama would win.

So, did Obama know that he was communicating to Secretary Clinton on an unsecure private e-mail server?

"We need to clean this up" = We need to cover this up
“We need to clean this up” = We need to cover this up

His own staff sent e-mails confirming that he knew.

The far-left New York Times reports:

In a March 2015 interview, President Obama said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

But that assertion concerned aides of Mrs. Clinton, who knew that the president himself had received emails from the private address, according to a hacked email made public on Tuesday by WikiLeaks.

“We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,” Cheryl D. Mills, a top aide, wrote to John D. Podesta, another senior adviser, on March 7, 2015.

Two days later, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, tried to clarify the president’s remarks, saying that he had, in fact, exchanged emails with Mrs. Clinton through her private account.

And far left CNN confirms:

A top Hillary Clinton adviser said President Barack Obama’s answer on Clinton’s private email use as secretary of state needed “clean up,” according to hacked emails from her campaign chairman released Tuesday.

In a March 2015 email chain, Cheryl Mills, a top legal adviser and longtime member of Clinton’s inner circle, told campaign Chairman John Podesta of an interview in which Obama said he learned about Clinton’s private email setup from news reports.

“We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,” Mills wrote to Podesta.

So, who ordered the FBI to stop investigating Hillary’s private e-mail server? Who ordered the Department of Justice not to proceed with the criminal investigation? Obama was the one with the authority to call it off, and Obama had a reason for calling it off: he was at risk of criminal charges himself.