US 1Q GDP Growth Would Have Been Negative (-1%) Without Obamacare Spending and Heating

If you listen to NPR, you wouldn't know that.

And never mind that Obamacare simply "takes money out of one person’s pocket and transfers it to another person’s, potentially crimping the spending of the person or company bearing the higher cost burden".

And never mind that it's very hard to find doctors who do take Obamacare insurance...

From Wall Street Journal (4/30/2014; emphasis is mine):

Health Care, Heating Prevent First-Quarter Contraction in U.S. GDP

The U.S. economy might have shrunk in the first quarter if not for the Affordable Care Act and spending to keep out the cold.

U.S. gross domestic product expanded a paltry 0.1% in the first three months of the year, dragged down by falling inventories and weaker exports. Spending on housing and utilities, meanwhile, contributed 0.73 percentage point to the change in GDP while spending on health care added a hefty 1.1 percentage points, the highest figure on record.

“If health-care spending had been unchanged, the headline GDP growth number would have been -1.0%,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.

Outlays on utilities are clearly a double-edged sword. First, the severe winter weather chilled activity in other areas of the economy. Second, households have limited budgets and might well have spent money buying other goods or services had they not been forced to boost their thermostats.

“Looking ahead, we expect consumption growth to remain stronger than in 2013, but we expect the contribution from goods consumption to rise and the temporary support from utilities and health care to gradually wane,” said Michael Gapen, an economist at Barclays Capital.

The strong increase in health-care spending reflects that Americans — some of whom are newly insured — are visiting doctors and purchasing more medical products, said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Prices for health-care services rose more slowly than overall inflation in the first quarter, compared to a year earlier. That indicates utilization — not price gains — is driving the increased spending, he said.

“People who didn’t have insurance before can now go to the hospital and the doctor,” Mr. Furman said in an interview. “That’s good for the economy.”

The spending figure includes amounts spent on purchasing insurance as well as drugs, exams and other care.

The Affordable Care Act required most Americans to carry health coverage, expanded eligibility for Medicaid and created new health-insurance exchanges offering subsidized policies for many. Enrollment for private health insurance through federal and state exchanges has swelled to about 8 million, the White House said.

So far this year, that has increased incomes and encouraged more spending on health-care services. (The Commerce Department cautions that its figures may be heavily revised. Its latest estimate is based on Medicaid benefits and ACA insurance exchange enrollments; more complete information is expected before the final first-quarter GDP release on June 25.)

Clearly, though, the vast pool of Americans with new access to health care have been visiting doctors and hospitals in rising numbers. “That pent-up/hidden demand for healthcare was huge,” Mr. Shepherdson said. “Next question: How long will it last?”

The White House’s Mr. Furman said the Affordable Care Act should provide a “tailwind” to the economy for “the next year or two,” as more Americans gain health coverage.

The deadline to enroll in exchanges was March 31. Though it’s been extended for individuals who had trouble completing applications, some economists say the economic impact of the health-care law may well fade—at least until the next enrollment period.

The law could have negative consequences as well. The Congressional Budget Office said in February the law would reduce the total number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time jobs in 2021.

Another factor to consider: The Affordable Care Act, like all government spending, is funded either via taxes or borrowing. So it takes money out of one person’s pocket and transfers it to another person’s, potentially crimping the spending of the person or company bearing the higher cost burden.

Finally, one main goal of the law is to help contain health-care costs over the long term, allowing more resources to flow to other sectors of the economy. Much more data — and time — is needed to see if it’s successful on that front.

Tweet

(OT) Million Lines of Code Pictorial, and Obamacare Has 500 Million Lines

Good luck Mr. President "fixing" the mess of Obamacare code (at the very bottom in the graphic below) by December 1, 2013.

Oh I forgot. He didn't know. He didn't know this either. (What DOES he know anyway?)

(What did they use? Cobol? Fortran? Basic? Stacks of punch cards?)

From Information Is Beautiful:

Tweet

(UPDATED) (OT) Obama's Press Secretary Does "Sir Humphrey Appleby" Over ABC Reporter's Question Over Disasterous Launch of ObamaCare

(UPDATE) Washington Post reported on October 21, 2013 that the pre-launch test by the government officials and contractors resulted in the system crash with only a few hundred people trying to log on simultaneously. That's gotta be far worse than "10-year-old technology". More like 15, if not 20.

Days before the launch of President Obama’s online health ­insurance marketplace, government officials and contractors tested a key part of the Web site to see whether it could handle tens of thousands of consumers at the same time. It crashed after a simulation in which just a few hundred people tried to log on simultaneously.

Despite the failed test, federal health officials plowed ahead.

When the Web site went live Oct. 1, it locked up shortly after midnight as about 2,000 users attempted to complete the first step, according to two people familiar with the project.

=======================

Finally, someone from the mainstream media (aside from Jon Stewart's half-hearted attempt to "grill" Secretary Sebelius the other day) asks the Obama administration official directly:

"How can you tax people for Obamacare when the website doesn't even work?"

In "answering", Obama's press secretary Jay Carney does Sir Humphrey Appleby by:

• Launching into long, meandering, mostly irrelevant monologue; and when asked the question again,

• Thanking the questioner ("I appreciate what you're saying...") and never answering the question

"Tax" Mr. Jonathan Karl of ABC News is referring to is the penalty assessed by Internal Revenue Service on citizens and residents who fail to obtain health insurance coverage as specified by the Obama administration and fail to declare that coverage information in their tax returns.

From Real Clear Politics (10/21/2013):

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: Let me make sure I got that last part right. Given all the problems that we have seen with people trying to enroll in this program, is the White House going to be delaying the mandate?

JAY CARNEY: No. Listen, that is not all what I was saying.

KARL: Well why not?

CARNEY: Jon.

KARL: Why not delay? You are going to charge people a fine for not enrolling, why not --

CARNEY: We're three weeks into a six-month enrollment period. As I said, the law itself as written makes clear that Americans with access to affordable insurance would need to have insurance by March 31. But people that do not have access to affordable care, due to a state not expanding Medicaid -- and there are states out there who are depriving their own residents of access to expanded Medicaid because they made that choice -- or due to other factors, will not be penalized. That is number one. When it comes to the issue I was just talking to Brianna about, with the February 15 marker period, I would refer you to HHS for more details, but they are looking to align the policies, the disconnect between open enrollment period and the individual responsibility timeframes, which exists in the first year only.

The point that I'm trying to make, Jon, and addressing the question at the end of your question, is we're focused on providing quality health insurance to millions of Americans. We are three weeks into a six-month enrollment period. If you enrolled last week or you enroll next week, your insurance does not kick in until January 1st. And ample prior experience shows that in programs like these, most people do not enroll until towards the end. If you are able to shop for an extended period of time before you have to buy, you are likely to shop.

In Massachusetts, for example, where similar health-care initiatives was passed into law, the average consumer explored his or her options six to eight times, I believe the figure was, before actually making a decision. So, again, we're acknowledging, clearly as the president did, problems that have existed on the website. That we are focused on making the consumer experience better, providing clear information to Americans about the variety of ways they can get the information about plans, as well as the variety of ways that they can enroll to them.

And our focus is on making the Affordable Care Act work and making sure that Americans have access to these plans. Not on figuring out who is to blame for a problem that clearly exists and we need to fix.

KARL: You can't really charge people a fine for not getting health insurance if don't fix this mess. You can't make the website work, can you?

CARNEY: I appreciate what you're saying and I have answered now and will answer again that people who --

KARL: So if the website is not fixed, will people still have to pay the fine?

CARNEY: First of all, we're way still early in the process. You're talking about February 15 and a March 31st deadline, it is October 21st today. We are three weeks into this.

The Obama administration, from the president on down, is trying its best to pass it off as some technical glitches of the expensive and so far useless government website created by a Canadian company using 10-year-old technology, but it goes far beyond "glitches.

Many Americans, who did not follow what was unfolding when this disaster of a so-called healthcare reform was being discussed back in 2010, do not even know that they will be penalized for not having the health insurance AS SPECIFIED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

People who "lack" coverage in areas deemed "essential" by the Obama administration - maternity care for EVERYONE, psychological care, pediatrics care for EVERYONE, etc. - will be forced to get that coverage with potential huge increase in premiums. Many doctors have been dropping out of the insurance system altogether ever since ObamaCare (aka Affordable Care Act, even if it is not "affordable" and there will be less "care") passed as a law thanks entirely to the Democratic Congressmen and Senators in the Congress.

People who can't afford to have health insurance will either be forced into the already highly dysfunctional Medicaid whether they like it or not (if they are low-income as defined by the administration) or will be penalized with fines that they could ill-afford.

One thing for sure that ObamaCare will successfully achieve is to cause incredible bureaucracy to grow and prosper on its own (chart courtesy of Joint Economic Committee of the Congressional Republicans):

and this, I believe, has been the main purpose of ObamaCare all along - self-generating, parasitic federal and state bureaucracies.

When any politician anywhere in the world say he/she is doing it for "the people", laugh, and then be very afraid. They are doing it for them and their buddies, and make "the people" responsible for negative, so-called "unintended" outcomes.

"Who could have known?" they will be saying, while asking us to pay for their mistakes.

Tweet

Ideas to Save Bankrupt Detroit: Nuclear Power Plant Factory and Obamacare

Whatever works, some may say.

First, Nuke for Detroit scheme. A little-known company called American Atomics has made an offer to Detroit:

American Atomics would like to extend an offer to the City of Detroit, one that will not only “save Detroit," but that will result in Detroit becoming the fastest growing city on earth in five years.

We are going to build the world’s largest factory and begin mass producing our HOPE 40 power plant on August 1, 2018. This 8 million square foot, 720 million cubic foot highly integrated manufacturing facility will create between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs within 10 years, most of which will be accessible to semi-skilled workers based on company provided job training.

Our headquarters operations will require a separate 600,000 square foot office and laboratory campus where about 2,000 of the world’s most talented nuclear science and engineering, marketing and management, and administrative and finance individuals will work each day. The factory complex will be on a 2,000 to 2,400 acre site. Our HQ campus will be on a 60 to 90 acre site.

Our plan includes developing a companion industrial park complex where our key suppliers will build dedicated facilities for servicing our operations, with this site being another 1,200 to 1,600 acres and expected to generate another 100,000 to 200,000 manufacturing and industrial services jobs.

...We will, of course, implement HOPE 40 provided power generation for our own usage and the use of the community where we reside. This means that local businesses will enjoy 2¢ per kilowatt-hour flat rate electricity pricing, with no limitation on capacity — given that we will scale the local generating capacity with as many HOPE 40 power plants as needed to service the demand.

...We would like to choose Detroit, as we can think of no finer demonstration of the power of cheap, clean electricity to fuel economic growth than to show what happens in a location so desperately needing an economic boost. ...

What is "HOPE 40 power plant"? It sounds like a small-scale nuclear power generating unit using liquid metal as coolant, i.e. fast breeder.

From American Atomics' mission statement page:

On August 1st, 2018 the world will fundamentally, radically change for the better. That's when we'll begin shipping our first mass production run of 1,000 HOPE 40 power plants — a self-contained, truck-shippable power generator system that can be quickly set up anywhere on earth and allow its owner-operator to begin profitably selling electricity for three cents per kWH or less.

...We're rebooting the Atoms For Peace initiative by choosing the other reactor science — the fast spectrum reactor — and pouring the collective resources of the world's largest commercial venture into its completion.

The company looks like a venture-funded start-up, based in Tennessee. There is no information of officers of the company, except that "We are a group of the leading nuclear scientists, engineers, technologists, and manufacturing experts on earth, utterly dedicated to our mission of solving humanity's energy problems." (from the company's website)

I have no idea whether this is some kind of joke or hoax, or the real thing. The blog where I got the link to the company notes:

"...the technology that the company plans to develop into mass produced small nuclear power plants uses liquid metal cooling, something that has not been used in commercial nuclear plants in the United States since Fermi 1"

Fermi 1 was the 94 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor that had a partial core melt in 1966.

If this "truck-shippable" mass-produced nuclear power generating unit is real, then move over Russians (who are building nuclear power generating ships)...

And Obamacare...

From New York Times (7/28/2013):

Detroit Looks to Health Law to Ease Costs

As Detroit enters the federal bankruptcy process, the city is proposing a controversial plan for paring some of the $5.7 billion it owes in retiree health costs: pushing many of those too young to qualify for Medicare out of city-run coverage and into the new insurance markets that will soon be operating under the Obama health care law.

Officials say the plan would be part of a broader effort to save Detroit tens of millions of dollars in health costs each year, a major element in a restructuring package that must be approved by a bankruptcy judge. It is being watched closely by municipal leaders around the nation, many of whom complain of mounting, unsustainable prices for the health care promised to retired city workers.

Similar proposals that could shift public sector retirees into the new insurance markets, called exchanges, are already being planned or contemplated in places like Chicago; Sheboygan County, Wis.; and Stockton, Calif. While large employers that eliminate health benefits for full-time workers can be penalized under the health care law, retirees are a different matter.

“There’s fear and panic about what this means,” said Michael Underwood, 62, who retired from the Chicago Police Department after 30 years and has diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. ...

...retirees say they worry about what the costs would actually amount to and whether the coverage would be as generous as some have received through city plans.

A 60-year-old single man with an income of $45,000 might have to pay $4,275 a year, or about 52 percent of his total annual premium, for a midpriced plan bought through an exchange, with the balance covered by the federal subsidies, according to an estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. A couple who are both 55 with a combined income of $60,000 might have to pay $5,700 a year, or 42 percent of their total premium. In both examples, additional out-of-pocket costs of up to $6,350 per person could apply, depending on how much medical care they needed.

(Full article at the link)

So the city retirees would be forced to spend nearly 10% of the income on so-called Obamacare plans, just like non-city workers elsewhere.

Tweet

ObamaCare Is Coming to Town, and Democrats Are Busy Looking for Someone to Blame for the Disaster to Come

That someone seems to be the Republicans in the Congress.

Never mind that no Republicans voted for the 1,000-page bill crafted by the industry lobby that no lawmaker bothered to read before voting.

Ms. Kathleen Sebelius claims it is beyond her expectation how complicated this legislature really is.

That sounds so familiar and so bogus.

Thanks to the US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who inexplicably flipped at the last moment and voted with the "minority" who therefore became the majority in affirming the US health care (insurance) reform ridiculed as "ObamaCare" is constitutional, this monstrosity will be foisted on the nation later this year.

Just as a reminder, none of these people, Dems, Republicans, Supreme Court judges, Obama administration officials, and Mr. Obama himself, will not need to suffer ObamaCare. They have their own healthcare plan for life, generously funded by tax-payers.

None of the Hollywood celebrities who pushed ObamaCare will have to suffer either. They have money to buy whatever care they want.

From Investors Business Daily (4/11/2013):

Sebelius Tries To Blame GOP For Coming ObamaCare Failures

Health Care: As Democrats grow increasingly worried that ObamaCare will explode on the launch pad just as midterm elections get going, the Obama administration seeks to pin blame on Republicans. Good luck with that.

Earlier this week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius admitted that she didn't realize how complicated getting ObamaCare off the ground would be.

Sebelius complained that "no one fully anticipated" the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public.

She wasn't talking about the massive and impossible task of imposing central planning on one-sixth of the nation's economy.

Instead, she was trying to find a way to blame Republicans for ObamaCare's failures when the inevitable problems start emerging.

Rather than say "let's get on board, let's make this work," recalcitrant Republicans have forced her to engage in "state-by-state political battles," Sebelius said at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. "The politics has been relentless."

So let's see if we get this. Democrats shoved an unpopular, expensive, ill-conceived and poorly written law down the country's throat with no Republican support, and without bothering to see whether states would want to take on the thankless and costly task of helping the feds implement it.

And now that many of these states are rebelling, it's the Republicans' fault?

Sebelius' fellow Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, had a more accurate take on the problem the administration faces: the law is "probably the most complicated piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress" and "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

Rockefeller, like a growing number of Democrats, realizes that ObamaCare is shaping up to be a political disaster for the party next November.

The influential Cook Political Report noted earlier this month that almost all of the Democratic insiders they talked to "voiced concern about the potential for the issue to hurt Democrats in 2014."

And just what could explain these concerns?

Maybe it's because even Sebelius now admits that ObamaCare will force insurance claims up 32%.

Or possibly it's because, despite endless assurances that the insurance exchanges would be ready on time, the administration had to delay for a year a key feature meant to give small business a choice of health plans.

Or because neither Sebelius nor the states have provided evidence they can get the rest of the exchanges ready by Oct. 1, when ObamaCare's open enrollment begins.

Or perhaps Democrats' fears stem from state insurance commissioners warning of a rate shock once ObamaCare's "community rating" rules and benefit mandates start. Or from rising evidence the law is hurting job growth as small businesses try to avoid its costs.

None of this, mind you, has anything to do with Republicans. And if the GOP were smart, it'd be focused on making sure that, come next November, the public knows that, too.

Tweet

"Unexpected" (想定外 So-tei-gai) Consequence of Obamacare: Part-timers May Lose Hours, Jobs

Who could have known? (Anyone who actually read the 1,000-plus-page bill could have. I know there are a few people in the US who did read the bill in its entirety...)

From Financial Times (2/18/2013; emphasis is mine):

US business hits out at ‘Obamacare’ costs

By Barney Jopson in New York and Alan Rappeport in Washington

US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.

Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.

David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.

Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.

Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.

...“If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.

“If [policy makers] get those things too far out of balance, everybody will have to reconsider their position on that point, including us. But we’re going to wait and see how that all develops.”

The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.

(Full article at the link)

I sense what will happen next. The Obama government will raise the penalty, so the penalty matches or exceeds the coverage requirement. Then, bye bye 30-hour-per-week part time jobs ...

Tweet

Obamacare: Did Chief Justice Roberts Flip in the Last Minute?

Interesting tidbits regarding the surprising US Supreme Court decision to uphold the Obamacare individual mandate, albeit as a tax. (I say surprising because even the people betting at the Intrade lost their shirts on this.)

Two scholars, one a law professor at University of Boulder and the other an economic Professor at Barkeley, say Chief Justice Roberts may have changed his position at the last minute and sided with the liberal minority - i.e. dissent - and turned that side into the "majority opinion" in the 5 to 4 decision.

They cite the wording of the eventual "dissent" from Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy referring to Justice Ginsburg opinion as "dissent".

From ABC News, quoting Yahoo News (6/29/2012):

Did Justice Roberts change his Obamacare vote at the last minute?

Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?

That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."

"No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.

DeLong pointed out on his popular blog that in Justice Clarence Thomas two-page note on the dissent, he refers to the conservatives' dissent as the "joint opinion" instead of the "joint dissent."

Campos hypothesized that the conservative justices may have intentionally left these typos as a way of signaling to the outside world that Chief Justice Roberts abandoned them at the last moment.

Lyle Denniston, the long-term courtwatcher who writes for SCOTUSblog, tells Yahoo News that he "can't account for the wording of the Thomas opinion."

But Dennison disagrees with Campos that it's incorrect for the dissenters to refer to Ginsburg's opinion as a dissent. Ginsburg wrote that she thought the individual mandate should have been upheld under the Commerce Clause, and she was in the minority in that respect.

Kennedy and the four conservative justices, including Roberts, said the mandate would be illegal under the Commerce Clause. Roberts upheld it as a tax, instead, with the four liberal justices partially concurring.

"My own sense, from reading the Roberts opinion, is that it was written as a majority opinion in all of its drafts, and that various Justices joined or dropped off," Denniston told Yahoo News. "I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court."

There are other scholars who think Justice Roberts may have flipped at the last moment. Here's more from Mother Jones (6/28/2012).

Tweet

US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Indivisual Mandate as "Tax"

Nancy Pelosi gushed they "made history" when the Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare".

Sure. As if it was a good history.

Today, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruled 5 to 4 with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the liberal judges in stating that "Obamacare"'s mandate that forces individuals to buy health insurance or face penalty is constitutional, but as a "tax". So the pathetic performance by Obama's Solicitor General in front of the Supreme Court didn't make a difference. Too bad.

Mr. Obama and his administration, and his party have been saying it is not a tax, but SCOTUS says it is. Obama's word on the SCOTUS decision? "Let's move forward..." Not a word about "tax".

The US stock market tanked on the news of the decision. Right now, tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.9%, Dow down 1.2%, S&P down 1.2%. The stock market, or what's left of it after incessant intervention and manipulation from the central bank, sees it correctly, for today, that it is a tax burden - the last thing that the economy needs right now.

Washington Post is a handy calculator to assess the impact on your household budget.

Using the calculator, if you have no insurance, 2 people in the household, annual adjusted gross income of $20,000 (barely above the federal poverty level), and you are married, you may be able to buy insurance in the federally assisted state insurance exchange for $800, or 4% of your gross income. If you do not buy the insurance, you will get penalized and required to pay the maximum fine of $1,390.

If your adjusted gross income is $40,000 (national average), then the cost of insurance at the insurance exchange will jump to $3,800, or 9.5% of your adjusted gross income. If you don't buy the insurance, you will be penalized with the same $1,390 fine.

If your adjusted gross income is $60,000, the cost of insurance at the insurance exchange will be $5,700, or 9.5% of your adjusted gross income. Penalty will be the same as in the previous two cases, at $1,390.

SCOTUS has decided it's all within the right of the Congress to tax citizens, as long as this Individual Mandate is a "tax".

GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says a vote to repeal the law will be on July 11. Conservative media thinks the 2012 election has just become the 2010 election, a referendum on Obamacare.

Tweet

Florida Judge: Entire Obamacare Unconstitutional and Should Be Voided

YYEEESSSSS!!!

From Investor's Business Daily [emphasis is mine]:

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson on Monday dealt the strongest legal blow yet to ObamaCare, ruling that the individual mandate "exceeds" the authority of Congress and that the entire law should be "declared void."

Another federal judge ruled in December that the mandate was unconstitutional. But Vinson went further, ruling that it was not severable from the rest of ObamaCare, so the entire act should be struck down.

At least two other judges have ruled in favor of ObamaCare. The Supreme Court almost certainly will hear the issue eventually.

The plaintiffs in the Florida suit included 26 state governments, giving the ruling added prominence.

...

The mandate requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The administration argued that the federal government can compel people to buy insurance via the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.

Vinson ruled that the mandate tries to regulate economic inactivity, which he called the "very opposite of economic activity."

In December, Judge Henry Hudson of eastern Virginia also ruled the mandate unconstitutional. Courts in Michigan and western Virginia had previously dismissed challenges to the mandate.

The Supreme Court will likely offer a split decision. Historically, the high court has been loath to curtail the legislative branch's authority. But regulating economic inactivity is unprecedented. And, as the 26-state case showed, there is strong political and voter opposition to the year-old law.

Read the full article at the link.

Tweet

Virginia Judge Ruled Obamacare Unconsitutional

From Bloomberg:

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn’t order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

Hudson found the minimum essential coverage provision of the act “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The decision left intact other provisions of the law and only affects the part that requires most U.S. citizens to maintain minimum health coverage beginning in 2014.

Tweet

ObamaCare Chart - and This Is Only 1/3 of It

Developed by the Joint Economic Committee minority, led by U.S Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, who released the chart.

"Brady admits committee analysts could not fit the entire health care bill on one chart. "This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill. It’s actually worse than this."

And remember, the Congress is EXEMPT from all this s--t.

Tweet

Under ObamaCare, Doctors Will Be Required to Report How Fat You Are

Another gem, this one from February 2009 stimulus bill, which President Obama threatened us with catastrophe if Congress didn't pass.

Starting 2014, health care practitioners will be required to report your height, weight, and BMI (body mass index) electronically to the national database, and that information will be available on a national exchange so that the community organizing groups have access to the record to help improve your health.

Here comes the fat tax, based on your BMI! An April Fool's Day joke by someone may turn out to be not much of a joke after all. I am sure the government will hand out subsidies, not tax, to certain racial minorities (and union members, probably).

Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS (7/15/2010 CNS News)

"(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

"The obesity-rating regulation states that every American's electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

"The law also requires that these electronic health records be available--with appropriate security measures--on a national exchange.

"The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law. Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology [aka Electronic Health Record Czar], define the "meaningful use" of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers--including doctors and hospitals--must establish "meaningful use" of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing "meaningful use" of EHRs.

"Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: "The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

"Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation--developed by Dr. Blumenthal--that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity." [The article continues.]

And you ask why Americans are feeling down? It's not just because of the economy.

Tweet

ObamaCare the Great Equalizer

unless it gets nullified, repealed, made unconstitutional (better happen sooner than later)

From yesterday's LRC Blog post by Thomas DiLorenzo:

Doctors, Ditch Diggers, What’s the Difference?

Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on April 27, 2010 08:21 AM

I hear from a very reliable source who attended a presentation by Maryland Congressman John Sarbanes to Johns Hopkins Hospital doctors on Obamacare that the docs were told that their pay was being cut by about 40% over the next two years.

"Some of the medical profession’s finest were apparently upset that they might have been duped by years and years of propaganda about the “need” for socialized medicine. They were never told that the inevitable price controls would apply to THEM! Where will the upcoming “brain drain” drain to?

Update: Tom B. writes: “Your title [to this blog] is very appropriate. I was born in Poland and came to the U.S. at age 2, but have many cousins and other family back there. Several of them are medical professionals (MDs, dentists) who, during the latter days of communist rule, made about $44/month while laborers made almost double that amount.”

"This of course is the point of Obamacare in particular and Obammunism in general: Redistribution and the total destruction of as many markets as possible. Obama’s “Change” means descending into the cesspool of early twentieth-century style socialism. Like all socialists, the Obammunists are obsessed with envy of the more successful."

Emphasis is mine. I might add that the success is allowed only for the President himself and his designated friends.

I hear that some of the doctors who are not in "the system" who only accept cash (or cash equivalent) payment from the patients have already doubled their consulting fee.

Tweet

"Where Do We Get the Free ObamaCare and How Do I Sign Up?"

That's what many Americans are apparently asking, according to McClatchy News.

So I guess that's why some people (less than 50% of the country) have been supporting the President's health care insurance "reform" that will:

• cost nearly $1 trillion (by the administration's own estimate; you know how it will grow)
• expand IRS power;
• expand the federal government;
• increase taxes and/or institute new taxes on goods and services in health care;
• surtax on income tax for the "rich" (you are "rich" if you make more than $200K);
• force Americans to buy health insurance that the government (not they) deems "appropriate" and only from the federally-mandated insurance "exchanges";
• cause the existing insurance policy rates to go up significantly (because the insurance companies will be required to cover everyone, pre-existing condition or not, totally defying the very model of how insurance works - to underwrite a policy based on person's health status);
• cause Medicare services to be cut back (that's how this scheme will be paid for, in part).

In addition, there will be no more "disaster coverage" with high deductibles so that they can save money. Even if they have no intention of conceiving a child or physically incapable even if they want to, their insurance will have to have maternity care coverage. Same for the substance abuse, mental health, pediatric care (even if you are single). You will have to have the coverage in those "important" aspects of health care.

The government doesn't even have a definite, reliable number of how many Americans are actually lacking the health care insurance and how many need it. These days the number is somewhere between 30 million and 35 million. It used to be 40 to 50 million. They count people on COBRA (temporary health insurance after people lose their jobs) as "uninsured".

I have seen the number as low as 8 million, when you subtract non-documented immigrants.

Speaking of non-documented immigrants, Obama's new law will be grossly unfair to them IF they want to buy the health insurance in the new government-mandated insurance exchange with their own money. The law won't allow them. And this law stipulates you will have to buy your insurance at this exchange, and nowhere else. So, what will these immigrants do? They will do what they have been doing: use hospital emergency care as their "primary care family physician" and pay next to nothing. (Maybe that's one reason for the push for so-called immigration reform - legalize them so that they will be forced to buy health insurance.)

Investors Business Daily had a nice summary of what you can expect from this health care insurance "reform": "20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms" (David Hogberg, 3/25/2010 IBD). The article mentions specific sections of the bill.

And remember: the insurance industry with powerful lobby supports the bill that is now the law. They were briefly against it (or so they said) because the penalty under the law for not having an insurance would be TOO LOW. (Nice people.)

I could go on and on, but I have already wasted so much breath (I have 75 posts on health care "reform" on this blog). As people discover what's in the bill that has become the law of the land (for now, unless these 18 states are successful), all I will say is "I told you so. You should have read my blog..."

Tweet

Fried Breakfast Is Good For Your Health. Really.

If you want to avoid ObamaCare, in addition to Bill Sardi's recommendation (natural medicine cabinet) the other day, eat fried breakfast.

Now that's more to my liking. I always liked solid English Breakfast whenever I stayed in England. I hope this is not a April Fool's joke...

Fried breakfast is healthiest start to day, say scientists (4/1/2010 Telegraph UK)

"A breakfast of bacon, sausages, eggs, and beans could be the healthiest start to the day, according to new research.

"Scientists believe that breakfast programmes the metabolism for the rest of the day, and a fatty meal will help the body break down fat later on.

"Carbohydrate rich foods in contrast appear mainly to prepare the body to break down only carbohydrates, the International Journal of Obesity reports.

"Dr Martin Young, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said: “The first meal you have appears to programme your metabolism for the rest of the day.

"“This study suggests that if you ate a carbohydrate-rich breakfast it would promote carbohydrate utilisation throughout the rest of the day, whereas if you have a fat-rich breakfast, you (can) transfer your energy utilisation between carbohydrate and fat.”

"The team of researchers found there may be some truth in the old saying “'eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper' – may be the key to a healthy body and mind.”" [The article continues. Emphasis is mine.]


(Ohhhh Nooooo Google AdSense is feeding my site with Carly Fiorina's campaign banner. Ugghh.)

Tweet

Bill Sardi: How to Survive ObamaCare

is to practice self preventive care to stay healthy, and never have to go to the doctors.

In an article written exclusively for Lewrockwell.com, Bill Sardi shares his natural medicine chest.

How To Prepare For Obamacare: Create Your Own Natural Medicine Chest (Bill Sardi, 4/1/2010 Lewrockwell.com)

"This article provides a list of proven home remedies and self-help strategies that readers can begin utilizing today to maintain health while avoiding costly medical care.

"While I have written articles in the past at LR that have addressed heart disease, cancer and other maladies, I hadn’t yet addressed every-day and emergent health problems that cause Americans to run to the doctor.

"Americans can begin to stock their home medicine chest with items that will avert or forestall a visit to the doctor. Many of the most common reasons to visit a doctor, stomach pains, chest pains, fever, cough, headaches, sore throats, infections, toothaches, back aches, can be handled with low-cost remedies at home." [The article continues.]

Here's part of his natural medicine chest. For more details, please visit the link above.

Tweet