Tag Archives: Doctors

California: Obamacare exchanges will raise health insurance premiums up to 25%

The radically leftist Los Angeles Times reports on it. (H/T The Cato Institute)


California’s health insurance exchange said more than 30 plans are expected to vie with one another for spots in the state-run marketplace opening next fall.

State officials, and those in other states, are eager to flex their purchasing power under the federal healthcare law by selecting only certain individual and small-business health plans for 19 different regions across California.

The exchange, branded Tuesday as Covered California, will negotiate with insurers for the best rates and will assist consumers and small businesses in choosing a plan by separating them into five categories based on cost and level of benefits.

[…]The ability of the exchange to lower healthcare costs remains unclear. Experts said average premiums could rise in the exchange because the Affordable Care Act requires improved benefits, but consumers’ out-of-pocket medical costs could decrease under those same changes.

California insurance officials have expressed concern about substantial rate hikes for some existing policyholders going into the exchange.

Under a new rating map approved by state lawmakers, the Department of lnsurance estimated that premiums for similar coverage could increase as much as 25% in West Los Angeles, 22% in the Sacramento area and nearly 13% in Orange County.

Do you want to pay higher medical insurance premiums? Can you afford it? We’ve already seen massive drops in average household incomes under this President.

According to Forbes magazine:

New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.

In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better…

[…]Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

[…]Obama has failed the poor as well as the middle class. Last year, the Census Bureau reported more Americans in poverty than ever before in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty. Now The Huffington Post reports that the poverty rate is on track to rise to the highest level since 1965, before the War on Poverty began. A July 22 story by Hope Yen reports that when the new poverty rates are released in September, “even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.”

Additionally, medical insurance premiums, which Obama promised to lower, are actually up.

From Investors Business Daily.


During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama’s vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.

Why should we go forward with Obamacare, which requires the construction of these exchanges? Obama already broke his promise to cut health insurance premiums, and the full implementation of these exchanges would raise the premiums even higher. This is nothing but a ploy to justify the imposition of price controls on private health insurers so that they go out of business, and we are left with a fully government-controlled system. Then there will be no choice, no competition, waiting lists, a shortage of doctors and rationing of health care by un-elected bureaucrats. Do not give this man a second term.

Here are a few articles that I have been using lately to inform people about the problems with Obamacare:

It’s important to understand that people who oppose this law don’t oppose because we are just being contrary.  We have reasons.

Firms to drop employee health coverage as Obamacare takes effect

From CBS Marketwatch.


Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.

“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.

Now we’re going to get what we voted for, unless the Republicans get in all the way in 2012.

Most doctors will restrict or close their practice if Obamacare is not repealed

From the NY Post.


A recent survey finds that countless MDs will respond to ObamaCare by limiting which patients they’ll see.

The Physicians Foundation asked 2,400 doctors and American Medical Association members what they thought of the new law; a full 67 percent were against it.

More important, it asked how they’d cope with the new rules (which don’t fully kick in until 2014). Sixty percent said they feel compelled to “close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients.” And 59 percent said the “reform” would oblige them to spend less time with the patients they do have.

Of course, many doctors already limit how many patients they’ll take on who depend on government insurance (whose fees rarely cover an MD’s costs). But it’ll get worse under ObamaCare: In the survey, some 87 percent said they would significantly restrict Medicare patients and 93 percent said they’d significantly restrict Medicaid patients.

[…]All in all, the survey found that 74 percent of doctors will alter how they practice.

To stay in business under ObamaCare, doctors will have to adjust. Some will see fewer patients themselves and hire nurse practitioners to help carry the load; others will work part-time and supplement their income elsewhere. Many will join groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or clinics.

Was Obama telling the truth when he said that you could keep your doctor? No.

Related posts

Round-up of news stories from around the world

I read Neil Simpson’s latest round-up. He linked to an article on the new DISCLOSE bill passed by the Democrats, which outlaws free speech for some people. Not unions, of course. Basically, if you’re a Democrat, you still have free speech. Other people – not so much.

Well, I liked his round-up a lot, so here’s mine. I hope it’s as good.


From Business Week. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)

Government-run doctors are striking for 5% raises during a worldwide recession.


Some 15,000 doctors across Germany are staging a walkout to press for higher pay and better working conditions, a union said on Monday.

Doctors at about 200 public clinics in most German states were on strike and 4,000 gathered for a protest in Munich, the Marburger Bund union said in a statement.

The walkout is scheduled to last all week, but the union stressed it could continue indefinitely if the towns and cities running the clinics don’t make a better offer.

[…]The 700 clinics run by towns and cities represent about one-third of all German hospitals and employ 55,000 doctors.

Gee, I wonder what would happen if private and church-run companies went on strike? Oh wait. That would never happen since they would be out of business in a moment. Maybe we shouldn’t have government-run health care… it’s bad for consumers.


From the Calgary Herald.

New political party in Alberta has dynamite policies!


Wildrose Alliance party members approved some controversial resolutions Saturday at their party convention, including allowing workers to opt out of unions and examining a provincial police force, but they left other hot button issues on the table.

Resolutions giving Albertans the unequivocal right to own firearms and support the development of nuclear power were both defeated.

And more policies:

  • Whistleblower protection and better funding for the auditor general
  • Supporting school choice legislation that would let students attend school wherever they want and could open the door to more funding of private schools
  • More privately delivered health care

Wow, too bad they had to throw out the guaranteed right to own firearms, but at least their hearts are in the right place. I wonder what Alberta is like? Do any of you live in Alberta? Can you leave me a comment?


From Investors Business Daily.

Australian Labor Party throws out crazy socialist leader.


Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s surprise ouster by his own party Tuesday came with a teary farewell hailing his role in Australia’s economy. Maybe it wasn’t such a bright idea to imagine it was his golden goose.

Seven months ago, nobody would have thought the well-liked socialist prime minister with less than three years in office would meet such an ignominious end, blubbering after he was thrown out by members of his own Labor Party Tuesday.

[…]It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.

Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.

When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.

[…]When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.

Ooops. That’s why it’s a bad idea to let socialists run your government. I mean – it’s a bad idea if you like having a job and being able to find a new job if you don’t like the one you have or you get laid off.

United States

From the radically leftist Los Angeles Times. (H/T Newsbusters)

Welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards to withdraw money at casino ATMs.


The casinos are listed on a Department of Social Services website that allows welfare recipients to search for addresses of ATMs where they can withdraw cash provided under the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program. The monthly grant ranges up to $694; most of the ATMs impose a withdrawal limit of about $300 per day.

[…]The cash portion of California’s welfare benefits comes from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Each year, California gets $3.7 billion from the federal government for the program, while state and local governments kick in an additional $2.9 billion.

Maybe it isn’t a good idea for the state to transfer money away from people who create jobs to people who think that gambling is the equivalent of a job. And since federal money is being used to provide this welfare, I’m paying for it. Oh well. I didn’t really need the money anyway. I’m sure that the people who voted for Obama got their warm fuzzy feeling for “helping the poor” – using my money.

That last article about the poor reminds me of something I read on The Bumbling Genius about how liberal elites view the poor. The solution is never bad character. The solution is always to give them more money.

The truth about government-run health care in the United States

Two stories today, the first from the Houston Chronicle, about Medicare. (H/T Stuart Scheiderman)


Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren’t taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

[…]More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.

[…]The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010. Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.

The uncertainty proved too much for Dr. Guy Culpepper, a Dallas-area family practice doctor who says he wrestled with his decision for years before opting out in March. It was, he said, the only way “he could stop getting bullied and take control of his practice.”

“You do Medicare for God and country because you lose money on it,” said Culpepper, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston. “The only way to provide cost-effective care is outside the Medicare system, a system without constant paperwork and headaches and inadequate reimbursement.”

What’s wrong with government running health care? If there is no money to be made in health care, then there is no one who invests in it. The government is left to bear the full brunt of the costs, and they pass it on to taxpayers. After helping themselves to piece of the tax revenues, of course. The patients are the least of their concerns – especially the elderly, who no longer pay taxes into the system.