Tag Archives: Increase

Health insurers are dropping coverage of children

You know those mandates that force insurance companies to cover children of adults until they are 26 years old? And the ones that forbid rejecting children who have pre-existing conditions? Yeah that costs insurance companies money. Can you believe that? Health care costs money! It costs more money to cover people for mandated coverages! Who could have foreseen that? Not Obama and his merry band of tenured Ivy League hermits, who have never held private sector jobs in their entire lives.

Story from The Hill. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)


Health plans in at least four states have announced they’re dropping children’s coverage just days ahead of new rules created by the healthcare reform law, according to the liberal grassroots group Health Care for America Now (HCAN).

The new healthcare law forbids insurers from turning down children with pre-existing conditions starting Thursday, one of several reforms Democrats are eager to highlight this week as they try to build support for the law ahead of the mid-term elections. But news of insurers dropping their plans as a result of the new law has thrown a damper on that strategy and prompted fierce push-back from the administration’s allies at HCAN.

The announcement could lead to higher costs for some parents who are buying separate coverage for themselves and their children at lower cost than the family coverage that’s available to them.

[…]Health plans and state insurance commissioners in July raised concerns that the new rules could lead some insurers to stop children-only coverage because families could wait until their children get sick to buy coverage.

[…]…insurers including WellPoint and CoventryOne have announced in recent days that they’re dropping children’s coverage in California, Colorado, Ohio and Missouri, according to HCAN.

Yeah, insurance companies don’t like being forced to add coverages, (= risk of having to pay claims), while keeping premiums the same. It increases their losses. And if they can’t raise premiums to cover the increased exposure to claims on these additional coverages, then they go out of business. And then you get to pay for your own health care costs out-of-pocket.

The only person who did not see this coming is Barack Obama. He understands less about economics than my keyboard.

Here is my previous post about Connecticut raising their health premiums 20% or more to respond to Obamacare.

Connecticut approves health insurance hikes caused by Obamacare

From the Hartford Courant. (H/T Hot Air)


Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Connecticut requested a wide range of premium increases, which will take effect Oct. 1, to cover the costs of new benefits required by federal health reform. Higher prices mostly affect new members shopping for a health plan on the individual market rather than people who have group plans through an employer or some other organization.

The Connecticut Department of Insurance approved Anthem’s request without changes, including a boost of as much as 22.9 percent just to comply with one provision: eliminating annual spending limits per customer. But it’s unclear how much more customers will pay because of the variety of plans and the complexity of other factors, such as a person’s age.

New provisions mandated by federal law to start Thursday include allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, eliminating annual and lifetime limits on the amount of money an insurer spends per customer and mandating that insurers cover the full cost of preventive services, such as mammograms and colonoscopies.

The looming question is how much those new mandated benefits, along with rising medical costs, will raise prices for health insurance next year. Insurers will submit a new batch of rate requests in October and November to take effect in 2011.

Hans Bader reminds us of what else has happened:

Employers like AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, and Verizon have already reported major cost increases due to the new health care law.

As noted earlier, the health care law raises taxes on the middle-class and investors in future years. Obamacare will cause many harms, such as reducing life-saving medical innovation and increasing state budget deficits. It is based on accounting gimmicks that will increase the federal deficit, as even some Obama supporters have admitted — like David Brooks, who in a moment of candor called arguments for the bill ““unbelievable” and “insane.”

This is what talking about “hope” and “change” amounted to.

How domestic violence against men is ignored by the feminist state

Article is from MSN Lifestyle. (H/T Andrew)

If your wife attacks you and the police are called, it is often the law that they must arrest the man:

Four Sacramento County Sheriff’s cars pulled up in front of David Woods’s house. He tried to explain to them what happened. But the lead deputy cut him off: “Yeah, that’s fine. Put your hands behind your back.”

David said, “No, wait, she stabbed me … there’s the knife. See the knife? See my neck wound? See?”

“Put your hands behind your back. Turn around,” the deputy replied.

“No,” David protested. “She stabbed…”

The deputies drew their weapons.

Women use the element of surprise and weapons when they assault men:

She had a serrated vegetable knife with a blade about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.

“I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance…the knife went right through my collar and gave me a little nick on my neck.

“She reared back to stab me again. I tried to block it again…I hit her in the mouth. She dropped the knife, ran to the telephone, called 911, and told them, ‘My husband is hitting me! I think he’s gonna kill me.’

State employees, including police, social workers and judges, have been brainwashed to believe that women can never be violent:

After 15 minutes, the female deputy returned from the bedroom after talking to David’s children. She told the other deputies, “It’s true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to stab him with the knife.”

They took the cuffs off David. “Your wife obviously needs help,” the lead deputy said. “She works for Kaiser, you’ve got health insurance that covers mental health, you need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment.”

David says there’s a double standard when it comes to charging men. “Now, isn’t that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue.”

Taxpayer money is spent used to fund feminist research and a bevy of social programs exclusively for women:

“The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power [financially]. I knew I had to get my kids out. I called the largest domestic violence shelter agency in Sacramento County several times. They told me, ‘Men are perpetrators of domestic violence; women are victims of domestic violence,’ and hung up.

“I had no way out. I had no money. Whenever we bought a car, Ruth insisted that the car be in her name only, so that if I took it and went to the movies without her approval she would call the police, and report, ‘I’m estranged from my husband, and he stole my car.’ She did that several times.”

Worst of all is what David’s children endured. One daughter says, “No one would help. Teachers, parents of friends, anyone I tried to talk to about what was going on at home told me I didn’t understand, that my mother couldn’t possibly be the violent party. When the police came to our home, they would always be ready to arrest my father, sometimes putting handcuffs on him. It was up to me to scream as loud as possible that it was my mom and not my dad, so they wouldn’t take him away and leave me alone with her.”

That was all just an example. The article goes on to explain the real domestic violence statistics and laws. In this country we have a massive budget to pay for a collection of social programs just for protecting women from violence committed by men. There is nothing remotely comparable for male victims of female violence.

All of these discriminatory programs are authorized by bills like the “Violence Against Women Act”. There is no “Violence Against Men Act”, and virtually no social programs for violence against men.

The take-home lesson for men is this: women have been trained by feminists for decades to view themselves as the victims of male discrimination. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-male behavior up to and including domestic violence. Every woman is a potential batterer.

Additionally, women have been trained to view unborn babies and their own children as parasites who restrict their careers. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-child behavior up to and including abortion and child abuse. Every woman is a potential murderer and child abuser.

Men: stay away from women until these anti-male laws and social programs are repealed. They have to learn somehow that hating men is not OK. Vote with your feet.

My previous posts on domestic violence are here.

What did Reagan do when he inherited a recession?

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan

Here is a piece from Bloomberg from Amity Shlaes. (H/T The Western Experience)


Double-digit unemployment looms. The country is in a funk. The federal budget deficit is widening to an extent not seen in decades.

This scenario isn’t new. It also describes the U.S. in 1982. Somehow, the 1980s and the 1990s turned out to be pretty good years. So it’s worthwhile to compare current policy to the one followed then.

…Today, taxes are on their way up. Whether it will be abolishing some of the tax deductibility of health care or increasing taxes on soda, President Barack Obama and Congress are clearly signaling the direction in which they want to move. Most tax increases under discussion would make the rich, or companies, the first to pay. The justification offered for this is that the federal government needs the money and may know how to spend it better than the private sector, anyhow.

…In the early 1980s, the view on taxes was the opposite: get them down. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, enacted by Ronald Reagan, pushed tax rates down for wealthy and non-wealthy alike. The capital gains tax rate dropped to 20 percent. When Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top marginal rate on income taxes fell to 28 percent.

Is Obama right? Or was Reagan right?

The coming tax increases

The Wall Street Journal reports on some of the new taxes Obama wants to impose.

The [health care] bill’s main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama’s budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

And what happens when you tax the rich?

House Democrats… claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America’s millionaires aren’t that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn’t materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

It should be noted that a value-added sales tax disproportionately hurts the poor.

How do Democrat policies stimulate the economy?

Consider this Washington Times article to see how it works. (H/T Gateway Pundit)


The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

That has revived Republican criticism that the pet project was an “invisible earmark” in the massive spending bill for Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco district abuts the Bay, and epitomizes what Republicans say is the failure of stimulus spending so far to help an economy still shedding jobs.

“Lo and behold, the government has announced that the mouse is getting its money after all,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said, standing beside a poster of the furry varmint. “Speaker Pelosi must be so proud.”

Mrs. Pelosi’s office was quick to dismiss the criticism.

My preferred stimulus was to spend under $400 billion and to temporarily suspend the employer portion of payroll taxes, so that American employees would go on sale. When people have jobs, then they are comfortable spending money. But Obama and Pelosi preferred to spend the money on mice. American workers or mice? Which one stimulates the economy?

Earlier this week I wrote about how well the first two stimulus bills worked, and how the Democrats would like to pass a third stimulus bill.

Raising taxes

Democrats also think that raising taxes on businesses and individuals will stimulate the economy. See, when the unemployment rate goes to 9.5%, and everyone has to pay more for electricity and gas, then Democrats believe that people will spend more.

Consider this article from Politico which lists some of the ideas they are considering. (H/T Michelle Malkin)


— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise $100 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 and couples that make $1 million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than $20,300 for a family and $8,300 for an individual could raise $240 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than $25,000 would bring $90 billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise $168 billion, while the second would collect $90 billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising $75 billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as $20 billion, and insurance providers, raising $75 billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up $30 billion, and a 10-cent hike could make $100 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

Try to think about what effect this will have on the person who rents you your apartment, who supplies your employer with capital, or who pays your salary. Try to think about whether you will pay more or less for the goods and services you need when the people who provide them are attacked by the government. Try to think about what effect increased borrowing will have on the prosperity of your children.