ObamaCare's Hinkle Wrinkle

One supposes that this could be quite humorous, if the stakes weren't so darned high:

"As critics warned [ObamaCrap] will not “bend the cost curve downward” as promised. To the contrary, a June report ... predicts that national health spending through 2021 will continue to grow at a considerably faster clip than Gross Domestic Product."

Yeah, yeah, those whingers are always carping on PresBo's greatest legislative achievement.

Wait, what?

"...To the contrary, a June report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid..."

Hardly a bastion of right wing activism, CMMS is charged with actually implementing the bill we had to pass to learn what's in it. And they see what we've been saying for quite some time: ObamaCrap does nothing to lower the cost of health care delivery. It's basic economics hard at work: offer something for nothing, and you get a lot of takers.

And this growth is quite lopsided:

"Private health insurance spending will rise about 8 percent. Medicaid spending will grow about 20 percent. In a few years, government will account for 50 cents of every health care dollar spent in America." [emphasis added]

That last bit bears repeating: "In a few years, government will account for 50 cents of every health care dollar spent in America."

Currently, that number is about 41%. That's a 25% increase in federal health care spending in a very short time span.

And from where do these dollars come? Regular readers already know.

Open Mic Night: HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious

They say that when one door closes, another opens. It appears that even as Gilbert "Aflac" Gottfried exited stage left, Cabinet member cum comedienne Shecantbeserious has entered stage right. In her stand-up debut at Politico, she rocked the house with some great one-liners:

"Just 12 months after [ObamaCrap] became law, the American people are enjoying new protections, greater freedoms and lower costs.

Children are now protected from being turned away by insurers because of a pre-existing condition."

Good one, Kathy!

The punchline is spoiled, of course, by the fact that (with few exceptions) there are now no child-only policies available. So the fact that that they can't be declined for pre-existing conditions is scant comfort to those who can't buy it at all.

"Seniors enrolled in Medicare now have the freedom to get preventive care ... for free."

Really? The doc's no longer get paid for their services? Bet that's news to them! Of course, the rest of us do pay for these services, in the form of higher taxes and, of course, less choice.

Here's a howler:

"Early signs show that ... the number of small businesses offering coverage to employees is increasing."

Is that right? One supposes it would be asking too much of Ms Shecantbeserious to offer a cite for this claim; the truth is that, because of the poor economy, more small businesses are failing, and fewer that are left plan to continue offering plans.

And another cute one:

"Perhaps less widely recognized ... has been the way the law is demanding transparency and accountability from the insurance industry to bring down premiums."

It certainly takes a certain chutzpah to rail on the insurance industry about "transparency" given the process by with this train-wreck was forced onto an unwilling citizenry. And premiums going down? That's Lenny Bruce-level funny right there.

But wait, there's more!

"And for the first time, insurers are being held accountable for the way they spend consumer premiums."

That'll come as a surprise to the states that have always required that carriers justify rate increases based on claims and other factors. Had she herself been an insurance commissioner. she might have known that. Oh, wait... Never mind!

The hits, they keep on coming:

"Today, Americans also have a new Web-based tool that allows them to comparison shop for the best insurance options ... Go to www.[obamacrap].gov to check it out."

As Bob's noted, this site is itself quite the joke.

But the lady's on a roll:

"These efforts are helping to make the health care marketplace more competitive"

Excuse me a moment while I catch my breath.

With fewer choices available as carriers exit the market, this one's quite the knee-slapper.

For some reason, she turns serious at the end:

"Ultimately, we know that the biggest factor driving up premiums is the soaring cost of care."

I was unaware that we'd made Ms Shecantbeserious an honorary co-blogger. After all, we've been saying this for years in the (previously) vain hope that someone in DC would listen. Apparently, she's been an avid IB reader all this time. The problem, of course, is that she still misses the mark: "Analysts predict that by 2019, these efforts could save an additional $2,000 for a family policy for employer-based coverage."

The only thing missing is context: what good is that savings if it still means that coverage is unaffordable? How many people seriously say "sure I'd buy that Bugatti if they'd knock $2000 off the list?"

Don't quit the day job, Kathy.

Godwin's Law and "Representative" Steve Cohen

Godwin's Law is a well-known (if often misquoted) internet meme that says:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

Today, Democrat Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee broke it in the real world, managing also to ignore President Obama's request for rhetorical civility:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels ... You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing, blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.”

I hereby invoke my own Absolute Moral Authority and soundly denounce the heated, hateful, fact-free and decidedly uncivil rhetoric spewed by the "Representative." It is exactly the same as left-leaning pundits comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers: it trivializes the real Holocaust and its millions of innocent victims.

It is beyond the pale that the ignorant and self-hating Mr Cohen would liken foes of ObamaCrap to those who actually killed innocents. Recently, a (non-Jewish) politician used the term "blood libel" precisely as it should have been used, both in context and in meaning. Rep Cohen, who should know better, uses it to smear political opponents who recognize that ObamaCrap is, in fact and demonstrably, a government take-over of our health care system.

Rep Cohen, you owe us an apology for this brutal and spiteful shanda.

[Hat Tip: RedState]

From the mailbag: Retirees and Dependents

From a reader:

"My spouse is a retiree of [a well-known financial institution]. We are both in our late 50's and on [the former employer's] group health insurance. Our daughter turned 24 last Spring, and "aged off" our insurance due to that event. We were told by the [former employer] in August that she could be added back during open enrollment for coverage effective 1/1/2011 under the new provision of Obamacare, since she is under age 26.

Open enrollment began today and now they've changed their tune. They are now saying that because my wife is a retiree, and not an active participant, that the changes in the law pertaining to dependent coverage do not apply. I have read both the text of the law itself from the Federal Register and the federal regulations promulgated by the IRS, the Dept. Of Labor, and the Dept. Of Health and Human Services. I see nothing that makes this distinction. In fact, the regulations specifically state that even if my daughter were married, or not living with us, she would still be covered. The only exception seems to be, for grandfathered plans, if she were eligible for coverage under a different employer’s group plan, they could exclude her. This does not apply to her.

The [former employer] has promised to research further and get back to me in 5 business days. I asked them specifically to site me the law or regulation that allows them to distinguish a retiree’s dependent coverage from an active employee’s dependent coverage.

Do you know anything that backs up their position, or are they completely wrong, as I suspect? Thank you very much for your help in this matter."

We're always grateful for a challenge, and this one seems both current and important. Here's what I replied:

"You'll find that the employer didn't actually "change its tune," but gave you inaccurate info in the first place. Retiree plans are exempt from that part of ObamaCrap.

Sorry!!

If she's healthy, you might be better off putting her on her own plan, anyway. Often, these are less expensive than dependent coverage on a group plan, and will offer a choice of benefits designs.

Have a GREAT rest of the day!!"

Our reader, being the tenacious sort (which we like), wasn't wholly satisfied with this reply, and (as it turns out), with good reason:

"She does have her own plan, but it’s not very good. Guess we’ll have to shop around for something better for her. Do you know where in the law this exception for retiree plans is? (Sorry, I’m a lawyer, so I like the details).

Thanks for the quick reply."

He's right to call me on this, because he had asked for a specific citation, not just our analysis. Here's my reply:

Here ya go!

"Among other things, the regulations, set to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 17 ... also confirm that retiree-only plans are exempt from certain PPACA requirements."

And:

[Link to relevant Federal Register]"

And so our work was done. Or so I thought.

As our own Mike Feehan points out:

"Actually, Hank, behind the curtains there's a little more involved than just being a retiree or the dependent of a retiree.

The distinction comes about because, apparently, the former employee and her family are enrolled in a "retiree-only" plan. Since they are both under 65, and presumably not Medicare-eligible, it's possible they could have the same plan (i.e., same benefit design) as the former employer's active employees. The employer's corrected answer tells me that this couple is enrolled in a distinct, retiree-only plan. (HHS says a retiree-only plan can enroll no more than 1 current employee). Thanks in large part to lobbying by AARP, retiree-only plans are, as you point out, exempt from PPACA. Of course, the plan sponsor of a retiree-only plan can voluntarily choose to comply with the reform requirements. But if they claim exemption they obviously can ignore the requirements - and the extra cost that the requirements entail. To claim the exemption, the plan sponsor must certify that the plan covers no more than 1 current employee, that a separate Form 5500 for the plan is filed with DOL, and that there is a separate SPD [ed: Summary Plan Description].

Clearly and in hindsight, the former employer gave them bad information the first time. While learning the truth of the matter may have angered them, I don't see that they "lost" anything they were entitled to. Maybe, if their daughter immediately canceled some other individual policy in anticipation of group coverage, they could claim to have been damaged by relying on the employer's erroneous advice. But that seems unlikely. So I doubt the employer's bad answer has harmed them - at least not in any way that I can see. It just made them angry. I bet there's a lot of plans out there bumping into things in the dark, trying to figure this out. It's almost as though the government deliberately made all this as complex as possible . . . naw, that can't be right . . . .can it?"

Hips, Knees, Tonsils and the MVNHS©: Oh, my!

Those rascally rationers at the Much Vaunted National Health Service© are on a roll. Not content to deny essential medical care to cancer patients and patients dying in the hallways, they've set their sites on the more mundane.

To wit:

"Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money."

If memory serves (and it most assuredly does), proponents of ObamaCrap based most of their advocacy on the "fact" that British-style medical "care" delivered excellent care at substantial cost savings compared to our "broken" system.

The truth is: not so much.

Here's a sample of that superior, yet more cost-effective, health care "system:"

■ Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work

■ Tonsillectomies only to be carried out in children if they have had seven [seven!] bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year

On the other hand, they did get one thing right:

■ Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment

Paging Dr Berwick!

Mike and Bob on Medical Loss Ratios

Recently, I was privileged to observe a really interesting email exchange regarding the new Medical Loss Ration (MLR) rules which go into effect next month, and which promise to further erode the value of health insurance. The conversation was a result of an email I'd received from Cigna, and which I forwarded to Bob, who then forwarded it on to Mike. The email said, in part:

"On November 22, 2010, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services jointly announced Interim Final Regulations for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (PPACA) Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision.

The provision states that beginning in 2011, insurers and HMOs must annually calculate their MLR and provide rebates to policyholders if their MLR (percent of premium revenue spent on claims/medical care) is less than 85 percent for large groups and 80 percent for small groups or individuals.

MLR applies to insured plans only, regardless of grandfathered status."

It also mentioned that "Non-U.S. insurance companies do not file MLR."

Bob immediately glommed on to that last bit:

"Go back 20+ years or so when self funded plans with stop loss insurance was becoming popular in groups less than 1000 lives. Because US based health insurance carriers were prohibited from offering such plans (stop loss) foreign companies, most notably Lloyds, were major players along with Swiss Re, NRG (Netherlands Reinsurance Group), Sun Life, Manu Life and a few others. Even saw Tokio Fire and Marine on some risks.

P&C companies quickly figured out the ban was on US health insurance companies so carriers like Safeco, Travelers and some minor players got in the game.

This makes me wonder if this opens the door for foreign companies to get in the game and spoil the market? They can apparently skate on the MLR issue but the plans themselves would have to comply with other issues (mandated benefits) or else the insured is subject to a fine."

I had focused on the way MLR will be calculated, but Bob immediately noticed something "under the radar."

Mike then responded:

"I've attached two paragraphs that I found in the preamble to the regulations, together with a full copy of the preamble & regulations. (The preamble is 230 pages long, the regs themselves 78 pages long. In effect, HHS takes three pages to explain each page of their regulation - think that will be enough?)

Anyway, it seems to me that the main thing is whether a health insurance policy is approved by any state, and only secondarily whether the health insurer is domestic or foreign. Therefore I think the CIGNA comment does not fully explain the situation and probably has raised a lot of questions.

As to stop-loss insurance, I don't find where the preamble addresses it. I think that's because the insurance reform law deals with health insurance policies and benefits, not stop-loss insurance. So I assume that none of this applies to stop-loss insurance because it's not "health insurance" and I doubt there will be any disruption in stop-loss insurance markets, whether the insurer is a US insurer, or not."

Which is at once comforting and disturbing: comforting to know that the stop-loss insurance market (a vital component for self-funded plans) is probably going to be alright. But disturbing because, well, as Bob points out:

"Let me see.

Obamacrap is 2200 pages, give or take.

Regs are 78 and preamble 230 pages.

And let's factor in the numerous exceptions (over 100 companies and counting) and this thing will make the tax code seem like a Readers Digest article.

So frustrating to see what they have done, and how they are seemingly clueless about, well, just about anything dealing with the real world."

Just so.

ObamaCare© No Go? You Betcha!

FoIB Elena Marie tips us to this rather,um, provocative response to Judge Vinson's recent ruling:

"Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he will not implement the federal health care overhaul passed by Congress last year after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional."

Which really begs the question: why isn't every governor doing this? A Federal District Court has ruled ObamaCrap unconstitutional. In the real world, this means "No. Can. Do." But in the "political" world, it seems to mean "And your point is...?"

Sheesh!

There IS a difference...

Both health and disability insurance are (like auto and home) based on the concept of indemnification . That is, they are designed on the premise that one can both identify and quantify a given risk, and then offload some portion of that risk to an insurer.

Health insurance bases these quantities on the cost of health care; car insurance on the cost of a new vehicle (among other things); and disability insurance is based on one's wages.

Not exactly rocket surgery.

Most people have health insurance of one kind or another, most folks do not own disability insurance (more's the shame). But most intelligent, reasonably astute folks know the difference: health insurance pays the doc, disability insurance pays me (and, hence, the mortgage).

Apparently, our Rocket Surgeon in Chief (RSiC) is unaware of these differences:

"During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother's struggle with cancer ... fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment."

The story (and I stress the term story) became the centerpiece of his push for ObamaCrap.

Unfortunately, our RSiC misunderstood the very simple, obvious difference between health insurance and disability insurance:

"[ObamaMom]'s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment ... [ObamaMom]filed a separate claim under her employer's disability insurance policy." It was that claim, with the insurance company CIGNA, that was denied."

So let's get this straight: we are now facing an unprecedented limitation on our economic freedom because the RSiC misunderstood (and consistently misquoted) the difference between health and disability coverage?

Wow. Just wow.

Historically High. No, Wait: Historically Low

Do you sometimes (often?) get the feeling that the rocket surgeons in DC have been inhaling again? Take, for example, two emails I received today, just hours apart.

The first one breathlessly exclaims:

"Healthcare spending to reach new heights ... will account for almost a fifth of the nation’s economy by 2020, with government making up almost half of it, Medicare’s actuaries project"

Oh noes, the sky is falling!

Maybe not, as the second one explains:

"Today, the CMS Office of the Actuary released its report on how much the United States spends on health care now and in the future. The report shows a 3.9 percent growth in health spending in 2010 – an historic low."

So which is it?

One possibility is that these actuaries are, in fact, delusional, and that they don't have a clue as to what's really going on, let alone what will happen down the road as ObamaCrap kicks into high gear. While I'm by no means unconvinced that this is the case, a more charitable conclusion is that both reports are accurate.

But how can that be?

Well, we all know the old saw about statistics, and how they can be made to tell whatever story one wishes to hear. So for those who think the sky is, in fact, falling, there's ample evidence that we should be running for cover. On the other hand, those with a more optimistic outlook have plenty to be cheerful about.

As for me, I think it's perfectly obvious where we're actually heading: an aging population, with the chronic and expensive claims that go with it, presages much higher costs; the implementation of ObamaCare© and it's intrinsic rationing will create even greater anguish.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

An Afternoon with the Commish

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to listen to a brief presentation by our new Insurance Commissioner, Mary Taylor. Although she took office only a few months ago, she had some interesting things to say, and gamely took questions from a group of (understandably) discomfited insurance agents (I got the first one).

We only had her for about half an hour; she spoke for maybe 20 minutes, but that was fine since it left time for questions.

Right out of the box, she mentioned that Ohio is a fairly competitive state, health insurance-wise. That is, we have several carriers vying for market share, which helps to keep rates in the reasonable range (by comparison to other states only, of course).

She spoke at length about ObamaCare©, as would be expected (she also observed that we probably had our own name for it, which was, of course, correct). One major concern is that it's expected to increase Buckeye state Medicaid rolls by 1 million people. When questioned about that later, she re-confirmed that this expansion was due exclusively to ObamaCare©, not the current economy (which, of course, also adds to those numbers).

Ms Taylor also expressed her regret at how Washington has forced so many ill-conceived mandates on the states (more on this in a few moments), and the current administration in Columbus is very much in the Repeal-and-Replace camp, with an emphasis on state-based reforms.

As mentioned, I got the first question. Before I asked it, though, I told her that "my co-blogger calls it ObamaCrap," which got chuckles from both her and my fellow agents.

My question for her was: "Given the boundaries of McCarran–Ferguson, why aren't state DOI's screaming bloody murder at HHS usurping their regulatory power?" Since I knew that she was relatively new to her job (she, like pretty much every Insurance Commissioner I've ever heard of, has no background in the industry), I gave her examples such as Waivers and Guaranteed Issue for kiddies (which has killed the child-only market), which were never in ObamaCare© itself but "forced" on the states by Shecantbeserious. Her answer was a bit disappointing, if not unexpected: she and her boss (she's also the Lt Governor) feel that the best way to fight it right now is by educating the public. Meh.

The other interesting question that came up was about Medical Loss Ratios (MLR). The question was why hadn't we (Ohio) applied for a waiver on MLR. She answered that they didn't think MLR was a problem here, since we have a pretty competitive market (for now). The guy who asked it followed up by pointing out that it does have a direct affect - on us.

She replied that she'd be happy to hear more about that - we'll do our best to oblige.

Overall, color me impressed: she only took office in January and, as much as I hate to admit it, health insurance is not her only raison d'etre. Hopefully, we'll see more proactive initiatives out of Columbus, especially in the fight against ObamneyCare©.

At Issue: ACA & HMO

For some time now, ObamaPlans available here in The Buckeye State (and, it seems, pretty much everywhere else) have been built on the HMO chassis:

"One way carriers have found to reduce their costs has been to offer ever-shrinking networks"

And with HMO's if you're out-of-network, you're also out-of-luck.

So recently, one of my ACA clients reached out to me with a problem:

"I've got several acute medical issues, and no nearby providers who can help me. For example, I've got some increasingly problematic thyroid issues, and the only nearby endocrinologist only sees diabetes patients. Plus, my Primary Care doc isn't even in-network. Help?!"

We spoke for quite some time, and agreed that there weren't a lot of options, but that I'd reach out to our carrier rep (I'm anonymizing the carrier here since they've done nothing wrong, this is purely to illustrate the frustration of this model, which the ACA basically drives).

To his credit, I quickly got this reply:

"After some research, it seems that the inured is correct: the closest provider to this zip code is related to the [Diabetes Center]. But I also found this:

[Alternate provider who appears to handle thryoid cases]

While that provider is located a bit farther away, he is the only other endocrinologist appearing in the network.

The member is welcome to reach out to Customer Service and request services from a non-network provider, but don't get their hopes up: we had a similar situation in months past and it was not approved."

My client was decidedly not happy:

"Wow… I am not in [that] area.  That is over 20 miles from my house, which I am not comfortable with going that far. They aren’t even close to the hospitals I would need to use if I have a further issue."

As I pointed out, there's nothing in the ACA that requires carriers to make convenience a factor when setting up their networks. It's further exacerbated by the fact that we have competing hospital networks in this market (as in others, of course), and this creates additional issues.

From our rep:

"As for the primary care provider, it's appears that they are independent and not owned and operated by either system. With these plans, [Hospital System] is exclusively the provider network, they provide [us] with the list of providers that are part of their contract. In other words, we don't contract outside of the list of providers that is provided to us by the contracting facility."

The key there is that the carriers' hands are tied. To make matters worse, she's already met her annual deductible for 2020, so moving to another carrier (even if that was an option, which is really isn't) would be another disaster.

#ObamaCrap FTW.

Heh: We get results!

Less than two weeks ago, we blew the whistle on the new Medicare Death Panels. Well, FoIB Holly R tips us that "(t)he Obama administration ... will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations."

The Gray Lady is spinning this like a whirling dervish, but the bottom line is that this ghoulish program has been busted. You're welcome.

And speaking of spinning, here's more of your tax dollars at work shilling for ObamaCrap:

"Try typing "Obamacare" into Google, and you'll find that the first entry is now the Obama administration's www.healthcare.gov ... You'll get the same paid-for result if you type in "Obamacare facts," "Obamacare summary," "Obamacare info ..."

And the list goes on. These people have no shame: whether it's spending tax dollars for Matlock to pimp for Medicare cuts, or this waste of taxpayer dollars, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious and her henchmen just don't care.

ObamaWaivers© for Thee and Me?

Looks like WaiverMania's heating up, but this time it may be good news:

"A House Republican is pushing a new bill that would allow individuals to get a waiver from major provisions of the new healthcare reform law, including the so-called individual mandate."

Hey, it's only fair: unions, restaurants, even states get a waiver, why not those of most likely to be negatively impacted by ObamaCrap?

And in a swell bit of hypocrisy, "the administration says ... that limited insurance is better than no insurance at all."

Really?

So "low value" (meaning, of course, affordable) insurance is okay for now, but we look forward to making health insurance unaffordable in a few years.

Daggum rockit surgeons, I tell ya!

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]

BREAKING: Anthem Pulls PFFS

More on this shortly, but just received this in email:

"Anthem has made a difficult decision to non-renew all PFFS plans in all states and counties for 2012."

Regular readers may recall Kelley's post explaining how Private Fee-For-Service (PFFS) plans work. For now, the bottom line is that the $500 million hit Medicare took for ObamaCrap is already paying dividends.

And by "paying dividends," we of course mean "hurting seniors."

Along the Oregon Trail

As we noted Monday, "you are more likely to die if you are on government insurance than if you have no insurance at all." And, of course, Oregon's health care "system" is an exemplar of this result.

Well, Cato's Michael Cannon reports on a yearlong experiment on Beaver State citizens, and the results aren't pretty:

"Oregon decided to enroll an additional 10,000 people in its Medicaid program via lottery ... Medicaid coverage led to higher medical consumption."

No surprise there: make pretty much anything freely available at low (or no) cost, and odds are you're going to have a lot of customers.

But is "free" health care worth what you pay for it?

You be the judge:

"Though the president has claimed [ObamaCrap] will “save lives,” the [Oregon Health Insurance Experiment] detected no evidence that extending Medicaid to 10,000 adults did so in the first year."

Granted, one year is hardly long-term, but shouldn't there have been some indication of improved morbidity (if not mortality) even in the short-run? Michael also points out - and this is important - that "the OHIE extended coverage to the most vulnerable population of uninsured Americans, yet the improvements in health and financial security are so far apparently modest."

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Barbara Wagner was unavailable for comment.

Radio Bob

Bob's on the radio (again!) in the morning (7:00 AM!!) to talk about today's court ruling outlawing "ObamaCrap." Click here and then hit the "listen live" button.

California DOI: FAIL!

This is hysterical:

"Dave Jones, the new California insurance commissioners, is asking big carriers to refrain from increasing premiums for at least 60 days after the effective dates of their most recent rate filings."

Remember, it was folks like Mr Jones who rushed ObamaCrap through Congress, and now he wants to slow things down? Hey Davey: Why don't you approve the rate hikes so you can see what's in them?

Heh.

Introducing: BoCare©

About two years ago, Bob (presciently) posted about a New Jersey initiative to push pet insurance. Seems like little Fido's owners weren't being made aware of various insurance alternatives available to them (and hence, money available to Fido's vet).

And I bet you thought that ObamaCrap was just for us silly humans.

Well, guess again. Behold, H R 525:

"To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and increase the number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health."

Briefly, the bill's purpose is to extend federal funding for vet's (as in veterinarians) in order to spend even more money (that we don't have) so that Fido can enjoy the same kind of health care that we enjoy.

Oh, wait:

Did I say "Fido can enjoy?"

I meant: "So that you and I can dig deeper in our pocket to subsidize another sub-group of professionals."

And what, you may ask, does this have to do with ObamaCare©?

Glad you asked.

It seems that, when they were "passing the bill so that they (and we) could see what's in it," they inadvertently forgot to include funding to increase the "Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program" (aka Title V of Section 5204) of ObamaCare©.

Do we all get a treat now?

[Hat Tip: RedState]

And another (Symbolic, but still Awesome) Step Forward

A few days ago, we noted the faltering steps toward derailing ObamaCare©. Today brings news that South Carolina's new governor, Nikki Haley, stood up to PresBo, virtually demanding him to repeal ObamaCrap. When he (of course) refused, she then requested (a la McDonald's) a waiver for the Palmetto State. It's doubtful, of course, that this will be forthcoming (although she says he promised to consider it, who would bet on it?), but it's heartening to see the pushback from newly-elected leaders against this train-wreck.

Kudos, Nikki!

[Hat Tip: RedState]