Obamacare - You Support We Reward

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said "we have to to pass the bill in order to find out what's in the bill"?
Within those 2000 pages consists of a number of goodies rewarding subsidiaries (such as unions with $2 billion) which own the Democrats.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee has discovered that the health care law has allowed the government to pay out $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health care costs for early retirees.  O where O where has the money gone?  Let's take a look at exactly which pockets the Liberals have lined with Obamacare money.

From The Washington Examiner:


"According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.


"The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.


"But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters."


Hold on a minute....  I thought that the purpose of this law was that it would lower health care costs, and not to simply dole out money to only those who supported the bill, which is now law.  And these Leftist "spread the wealthers"  -  who are so generous with NOT their own money but thieving other peoples' money - really expected us to believe their load of malarcky when they claimed that this law was non-partisan and would benefit all the people.   Do I see pigs flying?    It certainly seems like this law is only targeted at helping certain groups in our society (anyone who supported the passage of Obamacare) and not the whole of society, and sure as heck not the common good.  Oh... That claim was the Democrats using smoke and mirrors, by any means necessary, telling distortions and lies just to get the bill passed. These Democrats are throwing the taxpayers' money down the toilet.  I thought this POS law was supposed to be about health care.  No, it's all about paying off the Leftist ideological extremists who backed this government piece of garbage which is filled with mountains of red tape.  This was all about power and control.  The Democrats couldn't give a rats a$$ about health care.  Think about it, these sadistic immoral twisted loons think killing an unborn child is health care. They think funding Planned Parenthood is considered essential to running our government.  These libtards whine about values supposedly being thrust upon them when the fact is they shove their evil immorality down our throats when they force Americans to fund the murder of innocents.  Do these people have a consience?  These people live on their selfish egos and are ghouls who prey upon the weak and most vulnerable in our society.  They make the claim that Republicans and conservatives are all about money when in fact they choose that the weak and vulnerable in our society are not worthy of living because of the money it would cost to take care of them.  Congress needs to stop throwing the taxpayers' money down the toilet.  How would these Green weenies and red rhinos like it if the taxpayers said enough is enough and there was a tax revolt?

Obamacare Effects: Three Catholic Hospitals Closing in Scranton & the Power of a Social Justice Nun

There has been much controversy surrounding the closing and sale of three Catholic hospitals in Scranton, Pa. The controversy includes: Kevin Cook - Mercy Health Partners CEO, three different statements, two Catholic Representatives, the Affordable Care Act - A.K.A. - Obamacare, and Obama’s nun.


- In Review

Sr. Carol Keehan, Obama’s nun, is the nun who dissented from Bishops and threw her weight to support Obamacare. She is the nun who used her clout as head of the CHA, falsely claimed that abortion wasn’t covered in Obamacare, and provided “legitimacy” for Bart Stupak and the rest of the so called pro-life Democrats to support and vote for Obamacare even though there were and still are no safeguards protecting against abortion coverage and federal funding in Obamacare.  The Congressional Research Report Confirms this. She wanted us, as Catholics to trust our government over our Bishops’ prudential judgment on a matter related to morals. That sounds so nonsensical. Misplaced trust?

For anyone to think that our government is going to do the right thing in matters of faith and morals, look out for you and me, is complete and utter naivete when our government has sanctioned the murders of countless innocents since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.

When Sr. Carol Keehan became a religious sister she took a vow of obedience and in fact has more of an obligation than ordinary laity to heed the Bishops’ prudential judgment with relation to abortion and Obamacare. Since the Church Teaching is that abortion is an intrinsic evil is Catholic Dogma has Sr. Keehan broken her vow of obedience by dissenting from the Bishops in order to support Obamacare?

The common good must not be pursued at the expense of the morally reprehensible murders of innocent human lives.

In his first statement Kevin Cook stated, "Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."

Notice that Cook stated “absolutely” twice.

48 hours later Cook said, sale discussions were happening "long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors."

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

That same day Sr. Carol Keehan made this statement, "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."

Okay… Like she isn’t politically motivated to ensure her support for Obamacare isn’t for naught.

Then about a couple days later Cook announced: “Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.”

Coincidental? Or Coordinated?

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

Would a social justice political activist nun misuse her power as CEO of the CHA to silence the truth in both instances, with Obamacare and with Obamacare playing a pivotal role in the closings of three Catholic hospitals? Did this Left wing activist nun “lower the boom” on Kevin Cook and force him to change his tune in those last two statements? Well, it kinda looks that way.

Oh - how could one forget? Since she bucked both the Bishops and the Catholic faith and instead staunchly supported Obama and his health care bill she was rewarded with one of the 21 pens that Obama used to signed the health care law. What a trade -- fidelity to Church teaching and to her vows sacrificed for fame, power, recognition, and on top of all that, a pen.

From The American Spectator - “One doctor in Scranton -- who was deeply disturbed by the announcement -- is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor -- frequently run a debt. "What's different? Why now?" he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals "you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation," said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can't deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.

Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that "hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable." He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals "is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced" under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.”

‘The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: "Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare." Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two "has had a real impact on the community." Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: "There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO's of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”’


Seems like there is something fishy going on. I live in Pennsylvania, but unfortunately I don’t live in either of their districts, otherwise I would vote for the opposition.

Here is the political ad that CatholicVote.org has put out.




Cross Posted at Tu ne cede malis

The Consequences of the NOT so Affordable "Affordable Care Act"

By James A. Bacon:


Josh Dent is an early victim of Obamacare. The lanky, shaven-headed machine operator likes the medical insurance plan his employer, Acorn Signs, provides him. But under the newly enacted Affordable Care Act, his insurance policy will get less affordable. A provision in the law is putting his insurance company out of business, and whatever replaces Mr. Dent's current policy will likely be much more expensive.

The way the 29-year-old sees it, Acorn Signs will have to cut benefits or cut pay. One way or another, he figures, the switch to a new insurer will cost him.

Steve Gillispie, Acorn's president, is distressed by this unexpected development. A year and a half ago, he was facing premiums of $150,000 from an established insurer, up from $80,000 just three years before. Then along came Richmond, Va.-based nHealth. The start-up company, launched with the mission of making consumer-driven health care a reality, rescued him with a plan that kept premiums below $90,000 yearly. The plan insured his 35 employees against hospital expenses, created a $1,500 deductible for doctors' fees and set up health savings accounts (HSAs) for employees to pay for what the health plan did not. "For most employees," Mr. Gillispie says, "it netted out money in the pocket."

Lower insurance charges helped Acorn survive the recession without laying off any of its employees or cutting their compensation. Going back hat in hand to one of the dominant insurers in town, Mr. Gillispie fears, will add tens of thousands of dollars to his cost structure. Profit margins are tight in this slow-growth economy, but he hates to pass on the higher insurance costs to his employees, many of whom are paid $14 to $16 an hour. "Most of these people are living hand to mouth as it is," he says. He still does not know what he will do.

Such is the unintended consequence of Obamacare, which overhauled the health care industry with the goal of making medical insurance more affordable and accessible to all. The provision that is causing Acorn Signs so much heartache is the so-called 80/20 rule, which requires all insurance plans to pay out at least 80 percent of premiums in benefits. The goal behind the rule is to punish insurers that let administrative expenses get out of hand. In practice, the law punishes innovative, entrepreneurial companies like nHealth that kept premiums low.

The company ran afoul of the 80/20 rule by charging premiums that were so low that the administrative expenses looked high by comparison. Alan Slabaugh, a benefits specialist who brokers the policy, explains the problem this way, using very rough numbers: If a traditional insurer bills $500 monthly per employee, paying out $400 in benefits and charging $100 to administration, its administrative ratio is 20 percent - acceptable under the 80/20 rule. NHealth keeps premiums low by using HSAs to incentivize employees to reduce their spending - buying generic drugs, for instance, and shopping around for cheaper pharmacies - and by showing clients how to self-insure for physicians' fees. If nHealth charges superlow premiums of $300 per month, paying $200 in benefits and keeping $100 for administrative expenses, its administrative ratio would be 33 percent - thus failing the Obamacare test and triggering penalties.


In its short existence, nHealth passed the market test with flying colors, signing up 128 clients across Virginia. However, the fast-growth company was still burning cash when Obamacare passed, and management wasn't expecting to be profitable for several years. The 80/20 rule attacked the company's business model and pushed the break-even point out another year or more. Given continued uncertainties about how the regulations would be written, the company notified clients in June that the board had decided to shut down the company; it would honor all existing contracts but not renew them.

About 2,500 Virginia employees are the losers. Other insurers in the Richmond marketplace offer HSAs, Mr. Slabaugh says, but none is as inexpensive as nHealth's. Workers will wind up paying more for insurance - assuming their employers even can afford to continue providing insurance at the rates the big insurers charge. Even non-customers pay a price indirectly. With one of Virginia's most aggressive and innovative insurers knocked out of action, the dominant players don't have to compete as hard for their business. Just a few months out of the gate, Obamacare is falling far short of the lofty goals set for it. As Mr. Slabaugh says, "The health care reform bill was passed with the intention to increase choice and decrease the costs associated with health care. As the legislation is being implemented, I am witnessing quite the opposite, and nHealth is just one example."

James A. Bacon is author of the forthcoming book "Boomergeddon" (Oaklea Press, 2010) and publisher of the blog by the same name.