Tag Archives: insurance

Durbin Thinks the Gov’t Has Profits to Spend

In a perfect example of Progressive thinking, Sen. Dick Durbin (P-IL), has taken issue with the idea of lawmakers and congressional staff having to be subjected to the mandates of Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. As people like Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid throw around rhetoric like “hostage,” “extortion,” “legislative arson,” etc., they are – at the very same time – carving out incredible perks for themselves and their staffs, paid for them on the backs of the taxpayers, while creating a super-privileged class.

Since the US Supreme Court, under the direction of SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, over-stepped their function in literally re-framing the
law as a tax — even as Progressive lawmakers debating the law stated without doubt that is was not a tax, it is fair to assume that this “tax” is covered by the authority of Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, which mandates all taxes, “… shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Specifically:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Before the rhetorically challenged chime in, an “impost” is, by definition, a “tax.” But I am getting off track on the issue of tax inequity…\

In attempting to create – or, to be more accurate, further the privilege of the elitist political class, Mr. Durbin has suggested that government be treated on an even plane at the private sector.

The Washington Times reports:

“‘If Obamacare is going to force Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health insurance, be forced onto the exchange with no subsidies, then the men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the same,’ said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who on Tuesday staged a filibuster to block the chamber floor and draw attention to his fight to defund the health law.

“Sen. Richard J. Durbin (P-IL), though, said if members of Congress lost their taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, would Mr. Cruz want all workers to be stripped of support from their companies.

“‘You better think twice about this. If you want to stop the employer contribution to health insurance, that is the headline for tomorrow,’ Mr. Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said.”

When Sen. “Dickie” Durbin (P-IL), took to the floor during Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX), elongated floor speech to advance this ridiculous notion, he tried to slough off the underwriting of Congress’s health insurance, making a subsidy of 72% sound like Congressmen and their staffs were shouldering some sort of burden. Then he equated it to what large corporations do for their employees.

Note to Mr. Durbin: Corporations make profits out of which they pay for the benefits they provide their employees, or at least they used to before Obamacare, which is making them abandon their employees.

The Federal Government doesn’t make a product by which to create a “profit.” Government “profits” are taxes extracted from taxpayers. So, because government doesn’t create profits they can’t use those profits to pay for your health insurance benefits, or those of your staffs.

That said, there should be no federal health insurance benefits with the advent of Obamacare. All federal – all – should be in the Obamacare exchanges; each and every federal employee – union or not, regardless of branch – should be forced onto the exchanges.

Suddenly Obamacare doesn’t sound so hot, eh, Mr. Durbin?

One Down!!!!

 

The case of the Boston marathon bombers is certainly a bizarre one indeed.  Now we discover they are two Chechnyan muslim kids who came here at ages 9 and 16 and lived here for ten years. They were both on college scholarships and the older one was a professional golden gloves boxer with Olympian potential and studying engineering. The younger lived In Camebridge and was attending college at the University of Mass at Bunker Hill campus. Their father has moved back to Russia. They went from that background to suddenly becoming terror bombers, killing three and wounding over a hundred, acting non-chalant over the ensuing days and tweeting online by Wednesday to holding up a 7-11 store with a bomb strapped to their chests, hijacking a Mercedes-Benz, forcing the driver to drive them to banks where they withdrew about $800 in cash, then getting in a fire fight with police killing a MIT policeman, hurling explosives at cops before the one was gunned down and killed.

As Obama and his dem co-horts express sadness and anger at the loss of their gun control legislation, this latest incident should tell them that no amount of legislation will prevent a person from committing evil. They will always find a way to commit mass casulties. Does this latest incident mean we now have to register pressure cookers and have background checks on all those owning and buying pressure cookers?

The law enforcers believe there are more people associated with these two and I would tend to agree. These guys didn’t just wake up one day and decide to do this? Who influenced them and why? Why Checheyans? Who got to them and used them as pawns as it seems they weren’t too bright in planning their getaway.

According to the government this isn’t classified as a terrorist attack even though Obama called it one as I found out in the article below on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act signed into law after 9/11.:

The Boston Marathon bombing has been called a terrorist attack – even by the US president himself. But despite the classification, the bombing may not qualify as a “terrorist attack” in the eyes of the Treasury and those providing insurance coverage.

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which was signed into law after the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in $40 billion of damages, allows businesses to enroll in a federal reinsurance program that covers the cost of terrorism-inflicted damages.

President Obama on Tuesday defined instances where “bombs are used to target innocent civilians” as acts of terror – which includes the Boston Marathon bombing.

“Any event with multiple explosive devices – as this appears to be – is clearly an act of terror,” a White House official told reports after the bombing.

But in order for damaged businesses to benefit from the federal reinsurance program, an attack must be certified as an “act of terrorism” by Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew, as well as the US Attorney General and the Secretary of State, the Wall Street Journal reports.

And in order for these department heads to certify a violent act as “terrorism”, there needs to be a minimum of $5 million in inflicted damages – regardless of the motives behind the attack. About 60 percent of commercial policyholders have purchased insurance against terrorist attacks – an investment that likely won’t help businesses damaged in the Boston Marathon attack, considering the small amount of damage in comparison to other attacks, like 9/11.
I also found this interesting comment from a commenter to an article about this.

joiseydude

There is no way these two terrorists just woke up one morning and decided it would be a good idea to kill a bunch of people, incl kids. Everyone knows there is a growing a very dangerous element in our country from the former Soviet block countries, coming into the US to set up criminal enterprises, or in this case to bomb people. This is a larger problem that just these two, so let’s see if the law enforcement community will address this?

Their Uncle says they deserve to die and they give honest muslims a bad name. He called them losers and is urging the surviving one to give himself up. That would be good as we’d like to know who else is behind this and why they did it.. Their father in Russia is saying the police set them up and plans on suing the police for killing his son. Excuse me sir, but they killed a cop first and threw explosives at police and fired guns at them so the police acted in proper defense. The Chechnyan President is blaming the U.S. culture for them saying they were fine when they were in Russia. He is in no place to cast aspersions with all the fighting and bloodshed in his part of the country.

Black hat man dead...
Brothers from Russia region near Chechnya....
Bragged of Bombing...
Dead suspect was 'very religious' Muslim boxer...
'I Don't Have A Single American Friend'...
Uncle: Men Lived In Cambridge Together For Decade; 'Absolutely Deserved' To Die...
Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, on loose...
PROFILE? 'WORLD VIEW: ISLAM'...
Appears Sympathetic to Al Qaeda...
TIMELINE: Bombs strapped to chest, men robbed 7-Eleven...
Suspects threw explosives at cops before shootout...
VIDEO...
Black Hat may have blown himself up...
POLICE SCANNER: Trigger found on body; At-large bomber 'may be wearing suicide vest'...
Residents Told to Lock Doors... No Fly Zone in Place...
Mass transit shut in Boston...
‘I don’t understand them,’ bombing suspect said of Americans | Fox News

Boston Marathon bombing may not qualify as terrorist attack for the feds — RT

The scariest of outcomes for Obamacare

One possible outcome of the Obamacare ruling is particularly worrisome – finding only the individual mandate unconstitutional, but not why you think.

Tomorrow morning every news agency, media outlet, pundit and analyst will be eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. While I sincerely hope that the whole thing is turned into a 2,700 page footnote in history, I am concerned that what will survive will lead to a socialist healthcare system in America because healthcare insurance companies (payers) will no longer be able to function.

If only the individual mandate is struck down, but the remaining provisions left in-tact, insurance companies will be forced to seek those costs from the few non-pre-existing customers left – us. Our premiums will “necessarily skyrocket” to cover the costs associated with those regulations. Here’s how it works:

The requirement that insurers must offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions at a “fair price” means people no longer have to need to carry  insurance while they are healthy. They only need purchase it when they get cancer, get really hurt in a car accident, fall off a ladder or whatever. Then they can just jump on to our health plan at near the costs the rest of us pay.  So they magically get $10,000 or more in urgent care, critical care, surgery, x-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, hospital stay, post-care and more while having paid only one month’s premiums into the risk pool. Where does the rest of those tens of thousands of dollars come from? Easy – the rest of the middle class who has been dutifully over-paying for too much coverage so that Freddie Freeloader can then drop his coverage after he’s healed up from his drunken-binge car wreck.

Why would anyone carry coverage until they get really sick or hurt? Just pay doctor’s visits out of pocket until you get really sick or hurt, then just jump on a plan for a few months until you’re better then leave. As this behavior increases so will premiums – the money has to come from somewhere. In time, no one will keep insurance long-term which will precipitate the demise of insurance payers – at least in their current form.

Most middle and low-income earners don’t treat healthcare like a responsibility. They don’t put away for future expenses like they do for college or retirement because insurers do that for them. The next logical step for insurance companies will likely turn their worlds upside-down – payers won’t be paying first anymore.

I would expect that payers will go to only high-deductible plans. They will exist in tiers so that the higher your deductible, the smaller your premium. This might allow them to charge incredible premiums for low-deductible plans so that even those with pre-exiting conditions have to pay the initial five, six, ten or twenty thousand dollars of expenses out of their own pockets before the payer starts kicking in.

Employers may choose to no longer provide coverage as the premium increases make it impossible for them to operate their businesses. Americans will have to provide for themselves. The noise from the electorate will increase in volume demanding that something be done about the insurance company profits and Congress will swoop in to rescue them. Voila – single payer, government-provided health care is born at the demand of the American people.

This was the intent of the law from its inception. Kill the payers, enrage the voters, become the only answer to a problem Congress created. The Supreme Court may just speed up what was the ultimate goal.

 

Progressives Push To Require .. DOG INSURANCE

There is no other phrase for this liberal mess-of-a-proposal other than “WTF, Over?”

State Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) has introduced a bill that would require any Texan who owns a male dog which weighs 20 pounds or more and is not neutered to have an insurance policy covering injuries or damage caused by that dog when it is off the leash or out of the dog’s yard.

Seriously, is this one of the biggest societal problems that an overly-intrusive Progressive dolt has to to push?

Now, I’m from Texas and perhaps that’s why this is even more insulting. Granted, San Antonio is not a great bastion of Conservatism, but it is still Texas and this is a ridiculous push to dilute personal responsibility even further.

Liability statutes already make a person responsible for the damage their pet causes. Next we’ll need Child liability insurance for baseballs that go through neighbors windows or juice spilled on someone’s carpet.

So now an entire community of dog owners will be forced to subsidize the actions of one idiot that trains his Pit Bull to hate pizza delivery guys. The only people that will actually buy the insurance are the middle class and up. The very same people that rarely have dogs that maul mailmen in the first place (although U.S. mail personnel may become extinct shortly due to impending bankruptcy).

Owners are already liable for the actions of their pets. This is an unnecessary burden on pet owners and will certainly create yet another failed bureaucracy for the federal and/or state governments to run.

Auto Insurance Reform on the Horizon

Many in the politcal arena would compare compuslive heath care coverage to that of required automobile insurance.  So let’s do that.

Health Care Insurance Reform is in the books.  No one is quite sure what they will get or what it will cost, but it does seem that most feel that something like it should be done.

Why not for automobile insurance?  We should require that everyone buy the insurance (whether they have a car or not), we should certainly require that regardless of their previous driving history (pre-existing conditions) that insurance companies should cover them (and their 26 year old children).

Certainly we should continue to cover them regardless of how bad their driving record gets.

These may seem like ludicrous comparisons, but, are they?  Why would we turn someone down because of some unfortunate accidents but protect their coverage due to unfortunate health conditions?  Neither are controllable?  Both will require that others bare their burden.

How to Take Care of Your Own Health Care

Politicians, union leaders, insurance companies and everyone else under the sun is telling us which bill, tactic, initiative, plan or speech on health care we should support. We are told stories and shown reports of people losing their benefits due to increasing costs. If you are financially responsible, you can turn the tide without joining a union or requiring the government to support you.

Health Savings Accounts (HSA) were enacted during the Bush administration and are paired with high-deductible health plans. The premiums are smaller, many employers offer an annual deposit into your HSA, and the money that is spent out of your HSA is tax-free (pre-tax).

I have personally used an HSA for three years and have watched my premiums decrease for the last two years.   The savings in premiums were put back into the HSA to provide for any catastrophic medical needs we may have in the future.  Any money left in the HSA at the end of the year simply rolls-over and keeps adding up.  During years when everyone stays healthy, we rack up huge savings.  If anyone gets really sick, we don’t go bankrupt, we go to the HSA.  Our high-deductible health plan kicks in once we hit the deductible and pays 100% of all costs with no limits.

The key to these plans is that it only kicks in when someone gets really sick or hurt.  I don’t need insurance to pay for an office visit or inexpensive drugs.  This is the same for auto insurance.  Choosing higher-deductibles means having lower premiums (or getting much better coverage for the same cost).  Do we really need insurance to pay for an oil change or cracked windshield?  Not if we know how to put money away for a rainy day.

You are often able to use the money in your HSA for things that you could not use your standard HMO/PPO plans.  Dental expenses, all pharmaceuticals, therapies and treatments that a standard plan won’t pay for.pills

HSA’s aren’t for everyone.  To avoid getting into a worse situation than you started with, you much actively and aggressively fund it.  Don’t simply pick the highest-deductible plan because it has the lowest premiums.  Choosing such a high-deductible could create problems if a medical disaster occurs before you’ve built up your HSA.  Look at what you can put into the account, understand what your employer’s contribution will be and consider your family’s health situation.

If you are the personally responsible type, consider an HSA with a high-deductible health plan.   It may save you quite a lot on health care insurance and give you more freedom in your medical choices than you are previously accustomed.

Other places to go look: