-->
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan




Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts

Friday, February 8, 2013

Michelle Malkin v. Juan Williams Debate Obama's List of Broken Promises

Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams argue about the consequences of Obamacare and the affect it has had on medical supply companies and small businesses.

MICHELLE MALKIN: Reality check. I may not be a 'real journalist' like you Juan, but I'm not a pollyanna either. And out here in the real world, the effects of Obamacare, including the medical device tax that is cutting R&D and causing layoffs across the country in the most innovative firms. The fact that so many people who were intending to go into medicine are no longer going into medicine. Thank you, brain drain, a big consequence now of Obamacare.

And the fact that so many small businesses, doctors, who were individual practitioners are either bailing and retiring all together or going into concierge care. Have you heard that term? Do you know the trends now of people who are shutting down their practices as they used to be constituted, dropped insurance all together, where now only the wealthiest can pay for care. Congratulations, Obamacare. Heckuvajob. (Hannity, February 6, 2013)



3 Reasons Health Care Reform Won't Cut The Deficit By One Thin Dime
One of the main selling points of health care reform was that it would cut the federal deficit by a supposed $143 billion over the next decade and a trillion-plus dollars in the one after that.

But not only will the legislation not cut one thin dime from the deficit, it will also certainly cost far more than the $940 billion in new spending already on the table for at least three reasons.

These include:

1. Legislative Trickery. Congressional Democrats have pledged support for "the doc fix," a permanent upward adjustment to the rates at which Medicare providers are reimbursed. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, "We have made a commitment to do this. This is very important." The cost of the "doc fix"? Some $247 billion over the next 10 years, wiping out any deficit reduction from health care reform.

2. HIgher Premiums. In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform very similar to what President Obama just signed. The result? The Bay State now has the highest premiums in the country and cost about 33 percent more than expected.

3. Bad Accounting. The government is terrible at predicting how much programs will cost, especially when it comes to medical care. Initial 1960s' projections of Medicare's costs in 1990 had the program costing about $12 billion; the actual result was almost 10 times that amount. As a Joint Economic Committee report notes, "Major health care proposals have almost always cost more...than the highest cost estimates published while the legislation was pending."
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Austin Hill - Obamacare And The New Corporate Welfare

How do companies make millions of dollars with a really bad idea?

They advise state governments on how to comply with federal Obamacare mandates, and then help the states build new websites.

The subject of Obamacare scarcely came up as a topic in the recent election, and it remains overwhelmingly unpopular. Yet it is already costing taxpayers lots of money, and has created a whole new stream of corporate welfare.

The President’s “if you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor” promise and his pledge to “bend the healthcare cost curve downward” are both fiction. What is non-fiction, however, is the fact that state governments are paying private consulting firms big bucks to lay the groundwork for our nation’s new healthcare bureaucracies. Among the beneficiaries of the new government spending are both Democrats, and Republicans, and they’re scooping-up taxpayer dollars in both Red and Blue states.

Chief among the concerns of individual state governments has been figuring out how to comply with the “health insurance exchange” mandate that has been imposed by the feds. And what, precisely, is a “health insurance exchange” anyway? Most of the consultants can’t actually say with certainty what any particular state’s “health insurance exchange” should consist of (a point on which I’ll elaborate later). But generally speaking, the states and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are envisioning that each state would have its own website that lists all the various health insurance policies that are authorized to be bought and sold in that state, along with links to the respective insurance companies’ websites. It’s also likely that each state exchange will include a call center, with a toll-free number where consumers can get their questions answered.

Federal mandates of Obamacare’s magnitude pose new challenges for the states. So many of the states have hired private business consulting firms to figure out how to set up an insurance exchange that complies with the federal requirements, while many other states are soliciting proposals from these companies in anticipation of creating a future exchange.

So how difficult and costly could it be, do you suppose, to set up a website and a call center for the residents of one individual state? In the world of private enterprise, most small to midsize companies doing business within a specific region of the U.S. would be foolish to spend much more than a hundred thousand dollars for their customer service website and the infrastructure for a call center, and in many cases the project could be completed for much less.

But this is where the corporate welfare of Obamacare kicks in to high gear. Companies, careers, and personal fortunes are being made by people who are consulting the states, as firms bill the individual states millions of dollars for the website and call center set-ups.

Take for example a company called Leavitt Partners, LLC. Founded by the former Republican Governor of Utah (and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services) Michael Leavitt, the company describes itself as a “healthcare intelligence business,” and is focused solely on state-by-state Obamacare compliance (they have already completed Utah’s insurance exchange start-up).

Last month Leavitt Partners representatives traveled north and proposed to build an exchange for their neighboring state of Idaho, a state with a population of less than 1.7 million people and with elected leaders who haven’t yet decided which direction they will take with the federal mandates. Once the Leavitt representatives unveiled their proposed price tag to build an exchange - $70 million-an incredulous member of Idaho’s state insurance task force asked “does Governor Leavitt really believe that this is a good idea?” Company associate Brett Graham replied with the nuanced explanation that “Governor Leavitt doesn’t like the feds dictating to the states,” however, the Governor also believes that the states should “stand inside the circle with the feds rather than stand outside of it” (it’s also noteworthy that while Leavitt is making millions of dollars showing states how to do Obamacare, he also publicly endorsed the presidential candidate who vowed to repeal it – Mitt Romney – and was chosen to oversee the Washington transition team had Romney won the election).

Leavitt’s proposal is not the most expensive that the sparsely populated Idaho has received. The global accounting and consulting firm KPMG weighed-in with a price tag of $77 million, and when a state official asked what the residents of Idaho would get in return for such a large expenditure, KPMG representative Andrew Gottschalk was vague: “It’s hard to explain exactly what you get…It’s hardware, it’s software, there’s infrastructure, there’s people and staffing” he stated. “There would likely be a call center. It’s all kinds of things… there’s a lot of stuff….but it’s hard to be specific.”

States spending millions of taxpayer dollars, and receiving “all kinds of things” and “a lot of stuff” in return. That’s our present-day reality with Obamacare. Along with Leavitt Partners and KPMG, global consulting firms Maximus and Mercer are also cashing-in. These firms employ well educated, highly skilled professionals with JD’s, MBA’s, and advanced degrees in information systems and healthcare management, most of whom would undoubtedly reject the idea that they are welfare recipients. As the Maximus corporate website states, “we leverage our extensive experience and strong commitment to ethics to provide high quality services and solutions.”

Yet the need for finding “solutions” to the federal government illustrates Obamacare’s problem. The fact that states as small as Idaho are even considering spending tens of millions of dollars to employ highly educated “experts” to create new statewide bureaucracies that are in full compliance with the already cumbersome federal bureaucracy demonstrates that government is our problem in the healthcare markets, and not our solution.


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

ObamaCare - The Determinators Movie

The Determinators is a chilling story which uncovers the dark underside of the massive healthcare reform bill that, once fully implemented, will significantly threaten the way Americans live...and die. Based on the book "The Battle for America's Soul" by CL Gray, MD. The Determinators feature leading experts in the field of healthcare who have studied the law and it's impending ramifications.

The Determinators highlights several of the worst elements of Obamacare that big-government bureaucrats want to keep hidden from the public until it's too late. It's information people need to know before they decide how to vote.


Movie Length - 58:36
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Austin Hill - Economy Stalls As Obama Targets Businesses

The economic experts are worried.

From the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, to the central bankers of China, the U.K. and France, to the specialists on Wall Street, some of the presumed “best and brightest” among us are expressing concerns over a global economic slowdown. And the fussing got a little louder after last Friday’s employment report here in the U.S.

These presumed geniuses, including the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, in particular, need to understand something. Their friend President Barack Obama has become nothing short of an enemy to one of the world’s greatest economic engines – American small businesses.

It’s insufficient to say that President Obama isn’t helping small businesses, or that the President isn’t “trying hard enough.” The Obama Administration is proactively attacking small businesses, as though they were domestic terrorist cells – while at the same time they seem genuinely surprised that “job creation” is so weak.

Small businesses and their respective advocacy groups have no idea how to cope with the mandates placed upon them by Obamacare, nor how vicious the President’s army of 50,000 new I.R.S. agents will be in auditing and penalizing them. And since 2010’s “banking reform” laws came to pass, banking and lending institutions have been in a state of shell-shock trying to figure out how to continue doing what they do – lending – without getting penalized for allegedly violating the all-important reforms.

What isn’t so widely known, however, is the increased frequency with which individual businesses are being confronted and threatened by governmental agencies other than the I.R.S. For example, U.S. Congressman David Schweikert (R-Arizona) tells a horrifying story about a small business owner and his government- and it’s a story that helps explain why the economy isn’t growing.

While visiting a local coffee house in his hometown of Scottdale, Schweikert is confronted by another patron who asks “can you please help me?” Turns out this other patron is the owner of Zoe Inidustries, Inc., a small, local company that designs and sells custom plumbing fittings and supplies (see their website at ShowerBuddy.Com).

As Congressman Schweikert sits down to listen to the man’s story, the sickening details emerge. This small, private business has been employing people in Scottsdale since 2000, and has earned itself an “A+” rating from the Better Business Bureau, but is now being told that it must pay $447,000 to President Obama’s Department of Energy.

Why would the D.O.E. know anything at all about Zoe Industries? The Department of Energy regularly, and randomly tests new plumbing fixtures that are bought and sold in the U.S., and a particular shower head product that Zoe Industries designs allegedly didn’t measure up to federal standards.

The U.S. federal government requires all new shower heads to possess what is known as an “O-ring” flow restrictor mechanism within the shower head that - as its’ name implies – reduces the flow of water and presumably reduces water consumption. And while all of Zoe Industries’ shower heads have the proper O-ring mechanisms in them, the Department of Energy believed that, in one particular case, the O-ring was “too easy to remove” during a test.

Schweikert got to work, investigating the D.O.E.’s case against Zoe Industries. Fortunately, Zoe Industries was able to recently “settle” the complaint against them by their government, by paying a much smaller fine – just slightly under $30,000.00. But this happened after the company had engaged in over a year’s worth of “discussions” and “negotiations” with the D.O.E., and after the company had accrued over a year’s worth of legal bills to defend themselves against the D.O.E.

For his part, Congressman Schweikert also shot-back legislatively, authoring and passing an Amendment to a Department of Energy funding bill that would forbid the D.O.E. from spending any of its funds on testing shower heads. This restriction on how the D.O.E. spends its’ money likely won’t hold up in the Democrat-controlled Senate, but it nonetheless got the D.O.E’s attention-after its’ passage the D.O.E. was on the telephone to Congressman Schweikert expressing “concern” that there had been a “misunderstanding.”

So did the D.O.E. extort Zoe Industries? Clearly, an agency of our federal government used its own brute force to extrapolate money out of the pockets of a private citizen. And the growing fear among business owners is that instances like this are only a “sneak preview” of things to come, when the I.R.S. begins policing individuals and companies for alleged Obamacare compliance violations.

And the word “alleged” is very important here. One need not have violated the law at all – but if your government alleges that you have, you either must pay the fine that your government is demanding, or be prepared to run-up potentially massive bills paying Attorneys to represent you and fight on your behalf.

This is why our economy is stagnant right now. The President who claims he is saving us from oppressive healthcare bills, is the same President whose Administration is comfortable fining a small plumbing supply shop owner nearly half a million dollars. American businesses are living in fear of American government, and businesses owners are not in a position (financially or otherwise) to take more risks and try to grow and expand – they are “tapped out” just trying to survive.


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Kevin McCullough - Why John Roberts is Mitt Romney's Secret Weapon

I would caution my fellow conservatives on the frustration they may be enticed to express at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It is unwarranted, and it is unwise.

The reason I state such is that it is my firm belief that the Roberts' decision on the Obamacare mandate will without question bring about ultimate doom to the government control of healthcare, and through the best means possible--not judicial activism--but through the democratic process.

In boxing terminology no one has pulled a "rope-a-dope" this effective since Muhammad Ali himself. In doing so, it is clear that John Roberts duped the liberal wing of the Supreme Court into agreeing with him on calling out President Obama as legislatively dishonest, while assisting the conservative wing of the court into dismantling punitive measures against the states, and greatly limiting the ability of the legislature to use the powers of the commerce clause of the constitution to quietly take over people's lives.

Yes, conservative friends there are many silver linings in Thursday's odd verdict but let me assert merely four here:
1. Obamacare has been outed--by the authoritative voice of the nation's highest court-as a fraud. Yes the administration pitched it as a "penalty," as something that would not carry with it the burdensome label and politically repulsive thought of a tax. But Chief Justice Roberts seduced the four Obama supporters on the bench into agreeing that President Obama had in fact lied to the nation all through his 2008 campaign. Promising tax-cuts for 95% of the nation (a promise wrapped in a lie all its own), he has instead raised taxes--primarily on middle class families to the tune of $1.7 trillion dollars for the next decade. (And THAT'S just the starting point!) A tax, and nothing but a tax, is the only way the mandate funding could be understood in order for President Obama's only domestic initiative to survive. So a tax it is...

2. The commerce clause has been severely restricted. Roberts sided with the conservative wing of the court in asserting rightly that the Congress can't wander into a grey area of regulation, by attempting to force behavior of the population through manipulation of the commerce clause. The court rightly examined and asserted that the legislature has no right to legislate what people choose not to do. Punishments can not be levied on inaction. And if they attempt to do so, they must come in the form of a tax that the nation has recourse to change and remove through the electoral process.

3. The true cost to America's middle class was unveiled. Hiking taxes by close to $5 billion, with an additional $5 billion in medicare cuts, didn't close the loophole, no matter how much President Obama attempted to argue that it would. In reality the middle class families of America--already under assault by a horrible economy with limited prospects of improvement--will be forced to fork over another $1.7 trillion in forward looking deficits. Yes the families who earn $60-$90,000 per year will be the ones who make too much to qualify for the low income freebies, and not be making enough to be able to afford plans that they can buy in to. It will be these families who will be punitively crunched with this penalizing tax called Obamacare, and the Roberts' decision has removed the veil to allow this to be seen.

4. Perhaps the most important thing of all, the Roberts' decision will likely hand Governor Mitt Romney a 40 state victory in the upcoming elections. The Tea Party has been reignited. Grassroots groups have reawakened. And the roar of 2010 will be a distant memory when the voters take Governor Romney's advice and change Obamacare by removing President Obama.
To be very candid, I was more worried about the political outcomes of the case, had the justices thrown out the law all together in essence neutralizing one of the most glaring differences between the two sets of solutions being offered in this election cycle.

Instead we've been given an HD-retina-screen level upgrade in seeing the differences starkly and in greater contrast.

Re-elect President Obama and it will be the full implementation of the biggest small-business-killer ever invented by the Congress--Obamacare. Choose another path and you will set a course for the complete repeal of Obamacare, and the beginning of a new day for small business owners across the nation.

The choice is simple.

And John Roberts was the secret weapon that made it all happen, by outthinking everybody, and staying true to the Constitution.

Overall, not a bad outcome!


Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Austin Hill - The Tragic State Of American Advocacy Groups

Hey AARP, and AMA – where did you lose your souls? And where does the iron fist of President Obama end – and where does your influence begin?

Throughout our nation’s history, private advocacy groups have given a voice to the “voiceless,” and have changed the way our government has treated people who otherwise had been trampled-upon or ignored. But today, two of the more prominent groups of these sorts have become indistinguishable from President Obama’s agenda for “change.”

And these two groups may also be learning a very painful and costly lesson: when you get too close to “the man,” eventually “the man” can own you.

Let’s start with the American Medical Association. Any individual who can earn the title “M.D.” is worthy of significant respect, and one would hope that an entire association of M.D.’s would be equally as worthy – but the A.M.A. has seemingly got itself caught in the crossfire of the “Obamacare” war.

The association’s stated mission is to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health; to advance the interests of physicians and their patients; to promote public health; to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients; and to raise money for medical education. It is also noteworthy that the group originally opposed Medicare, fearing undue government intrusion in the medical profession.

But soon after Medicare’s beginnings, the A.M.A. changed their position – presumably they realized that government-funded health care through Medicare produced more guaranteed, government-funded wages for MD’s. Thus for all of my lifetime, the A.M.A. has aggressively opposed any cuts at all in Medicare funding.

Over the years the A.M.A. has also supported tight government limits on medical school entries – likely for the purpose of limiting the “supply” of M.D.,’s, and thereby enhancing the wages of M.D.’s. On this point the late Economist Milton Freidman once noted that the A.M.A. had become a “guild,’ and was shielding its present-day members from the potential competition of future would-be Doctors.

By mid-2009 the A.M.A. reverted back to being skeptical of government power again, and publicly opposed President Obama’s healthcare “reforms”. The Obama Administration countered the A.M.A.’s opposition with a pro-Obama political group called “Doctors For America.”

Compared to the nearly 1 million M.D.’s practicing in the United States, D.F.A.’s approximate membership of 10,000 is tiny. Yet the pro Obama MD group made a huge p.r. impact, complete with photo-ops of “Doctors” dressed in white lab coats and stethoscopes standing beside the President at his podium. The D.F.A. was also able to get the A.M.A. to hedge a bit back in 2010, and agree to Obama’s reforms “in principle.”

Then just two weeks ago, A.M.A. President Dr. Peter Carmel announced at the Association’s annual convention their renewed opposition to Obamacare. He declared what many of us have been concerned about for quite some time; that the law does not address the dwindling of Medicare reimbursements to M.D.’s, nor does it address the ever-escalating threat of medical malpractice lawsuits, a major source of healthcare cost increases.

Lesson for the A.M.A.: government meddling in your profession ultimately hurts, even if it seems to “help” in the short run (or as President Ronald Reagan once said, “..Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem…”).

And then there’s the A.A.R.P., formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. They describe themselves as a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization dedicated to “enhancing the quality of life for all as we age,” and their support of expensive and expansive government programs is well known.

A.A.R.P. has consistently supported the expanded funding of Medicare. They passionately supported President George W Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit effort. Yet in 2005 they viscerally opposed President Bush’s attempt to reform the bankrupt Social Security program, when he proposed that younger American workers be able to invest less than 1% of their Social Security withholdings in private accounts.

These two very different responses to the same President (Bush), all within the calendar year 2005, seemingly affirmed A.A.R.P.’s simple-minded governing philosophy: more government entitlement spending is always good, and less government entitlement spending is always bad.

So it was no surprise that after President Obama’s inauguration, the A.A.R.P. was ready to support anything he had in mind. But while the “leaders” of A.A.R.P. were busy enjoying their “seat at the table” with the President and quickly gave Obamacare their blessing, they failed to see the growing outrage among their rank-and-file.

A.A.R.P. members correctly realized that Obamacare does, indeed, drive a government wedge between Doctors and patients, and it shifts big chunks of federal funds away from Medicare (a lifeline to Seniors) and in to healthcare programs designed for younger voters. This tension culminated in the A.A.R.P. leadership walking out of a meeting at their own annual convention in Dallas back in 2009, unable to answer their members’ questions or to defend their own positions with the President.

Today the A.A.R.P. faces a reduced membership roster, amid competition from the newly formed and more private sector-oriented American Seniors Association. And the reduction in their credibility is likely incalculable, but nonetheless real.

American advocacy groups are essential, and can fulfill an important purpose. But when the “leaders” of such groups get seduced by charming politicians, everyone loses.


Austin Hill
Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Cato Institute - States Should Flatly Reject ObamaCare Exchanges

Here are just a few reasons why states should refuse to create ObamaCare Exchanges.

Jobs. Refusing to create an exchange will block Obamacare from imposing a tax on employers whose health benefits do not meet the federal government's definition of "essential" coverage. That tax can run as high as $3,000 per employee. A state that refuses to create an exchange will spare its employers from that tax, and will therefore enable them to create more jobs.

Religious freedom. In blocking that employer tax, state officials would likewise block Obamacare's effort to force religious employers to provide coverage for services they find immoral — like contraception, pharmaceutical abortions, and sterilization.

The federal debt. Refusing to create exchanges would also reduce the federal debt, because it would prevent the Obama administration from doling out billions of dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies.

The U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration has indicated that it might try to tax employers and hand out those subsidies anyway — even in states that don't create an exchange, and even though neither Obamacare nor any other federal law gives it the power to do so. If that happens, the fact that a state has refused to create an exchange would give every large employer in the state — including the state government itself — the ability to go to court to block the administration's attempt to usurp Congress's legislative powers.

A lower state tax burden. States that opt to create an exchange can expect to pay anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year to run it. But if states refuse, Obamacare says the federal government must pay to create one. Why should states pay for something that the federal government is giving away?

Bye-bye, Obamacare. That is, if the feds can create an exchange at all. The Obama administration has admitted it doesn't have the money — and good luck getting any such funding through the GOP-controlled House. Moreover, without state-run exchanges, the feds can't subsidize private insurance companies. That by itself could cause Obamacare to collapse.

Michael F. Cannon is the director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Video Produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Austin Hill - Change, Change, Change - The Obama Transformation is Here

“We are five days away,” the future President famously said in October of 2008, “from fundamentally transforming the United States of America…”

So how does Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” look to you now?

If the world seems chaotic to you, you’re not alone. President Obama promised “change” during his first campaign for the presidency, and in less than one full term he’s delivered.

American foreign policy, historically devoted to protecting American interests and championing liberty, is now focused on “outreach” to people who want to destroy us. But the “transformation” has not just impacted America’s place in the world.

Your private world – your day-to-day environment and the cultural norms that order that environment – is changing as well (so is mine). And while it’s difficult to measure people’s changing attitudes, there is clear evidence that Americans are increasingly developing a negative attitude towards work, productivity, and success.

Depending on what poll you’re reading, roughly half of the American population agrees with President Obama’s assumption that “rich” Americans need to be taxed at a higher rate. Concerns about undermining people’s incentive to achieve just don’t matter to many of us – making “somebody else” pay makes a lot of us feel better.

There also seems to be a change in Americans’ attitudes towards working. And while there are far too many of us who are earnestly trying to find work and cannot, there nonetheless appears to be growing numbers of us for whom working is just not a priority.

The reality of Americans choosing to not work – or, at a minimum, choosing to work less – would seem to be a very intentional consequence of President Obama’s agenda. Indeed, it has long been the belief of the President’s science adviser John P. Holdren that the world would be a better place environmentally if “Americans worked, produced, and earned less.”

This may seem counter-intuitive, yet the numbers don’t lie. As the unemployment rate has recently dropped a bit, so also has the “labor force participation rate” – the statistic that represents the ratio between the labor force itself, and the overall population. Assuming that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is telling the truth, participation in the labor force has dropped to a 30 year low, as roughly 1.2 million Americans recently chose to exit the labor market.

It’s difficult to deny that the decline in the number of people who want to work correlates with the President’s agenda. At the very least, one has to admit that this change corresponds on the timeline with Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Yet within his first three years as our President, we’ve seen the amount of direct federal payments to individual households – both direct payments for specific usages, and for “unrestricted” usages – skyrocket by more than $600 billion. One might argue that these direct payments rose out of necessity because of the recession, although President Obama has slated for another $500 billion worth of annual increases in direct payments between now and 2016. If the trend continues, within the next four years direct payments will account for two-thirds of all annual federal government spending.

But wait, there’s more. A record forty-nine percent of all American homes have somebody living in them who is receiving some sort of federal benefit. And reliance on food stamps has expanded forty-five percent during the Obama presidency, thanks in no small part to the President’s insistence that the expansion of food stamp funding be included in his “economic stimulus bill.”

So has the expansion of “federal assistance” brought about “fundamental transformation?” President Obama insists that it creates a sense of “fairness” in our society. Yet it’s difficult to argue that it doesn’t create at least some incentive to cease being productive.

And then there’s President Obama’s signature “healthcare reform law.” Nearly two years ago the Congressional Budget Office warned that with all the robust entitlements that the law promises, it would most certainly impact the labor market.

Speaking at a little-noted event at the University of Southern California in October of 2010, C.B.O. Director Doug Elmendorf noted that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda would be with people’s interest in working.

Furthermore, Mr. Elmendorf stated that, in some cases, Americans would simply choose to no longer work, because their needs for healthcare will be provided by the enhanced Medicaid funding entailed in the Obamacare law.

Proclivities to make somebody else pay, and a declining interest in working – indeed America is being transformed. Will voters choose more of it this November, or will we choose to get back to being Americans?


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.