Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

education

education (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

In discussing the many negatives and lies embedded within the Common Core curriculum with family, friends and acquaintances, it has become apparent that most people are fixated upon various, obvious aspects of Common Core. Most people are missing the bigger picture!

As with U. N Agenda 21/sustainability, ObamaCare and every action taken by the existing regime, along with many of the actions taken by previous regimes, both Democrat and Republican, there is much more to Common Core than meets the eye. Educational professionals within the private and parochial educational systems and the parents who send their children to private and parochial educational systems, along with homeschoolers and their children, need to wake up to the fact they are targets of a Common Core conspiracy.

The evil elites who have devised Common Core, U. N. Agenda 21/sustainability, ObamaCare, and other insidious attacks upon our rights and freedoms harbor a special hatred of our constitutional republic and religious faiths, especially Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism. These evil elites hate the constraints imposed upon government by our constitution, and the morality, ethics and principles upon which our constitution was founded, protecting the citizens of the U. S. from an overreaching, tyrannical government. The elites must always be in control, and, as such, God and our constitution are the enemies of these self-appointed elites. It is time for us to ‘educate’ the targets of Common Core that they are in the elites’ crosshairs!

Read more at canadafreepress.com

Advertisements

First came the good news from the West Coast about how Obamacare will be lowering premiums for individuals shopping in the new state exchanges. Never mind that in California the official folks at the exchange, who are supporters of health reform, mixed apples and oranges to reach their conclusion that rate shock had not materialized. Now come the official folks in Ohio, who, by the way, are not big Obamacare supporters, warning Buckeye State consumers that “insurers expect the cost to cover healthcare expenses for consumers will significantly increase.” Never mind that their predictions are based on what insurers have told them their “costs” will be—not on the actual premiums they plan to charge.

The Ohio Department of Insurance explained its thinking in a press release:

“While those costs do not specifically track with the premiums insurers charge individual customers, it is expected that these increases in costs will also translate to significant premium increases for many Ohioans.”

Question: If the state isn’t exactly sure what these “increases in costs” mean in terms of dollars and cents in premiums, why did it issue a press release and hold a news call with reporters? The answer, according to the press release, was to “help health insurance consumers continue to prepare for the expected price increases.” But the Department’s real message seemed to be that insurers have no choice but to simply pass on some unidentified and unspecified costs.

A question the press might have explored: What costs? As I’ve explained recently, insurers consider lots of factors in determining premiums. These include the cost of medical services, how much more they can charge older people than younger ones, where policyholders live, how tough a state regulates them, what the competition looks like, their expenses in selling the policies—and the profits they’d like to earn. When actuaries mix these elements together, they arrive at a price, or a premium, that they hope will be low enough to entice shoppers to buy their products.

The Associated Press and The Columbus Dispatch picked up on the “analysis,” and the AP’s piece effort got a lot of pickup. Neither story was a model of clarity. It’s fair to ask what Ohioans got from this reporting. Probably not much, except maybe another helping of confusion.

The AP story started with the department’s thesis—that insurers’ costs of covering Ohioans in the insurance shopping exchange (which will be run by the feds in Ohio, since the state opted out of running its own exchange) would be “significantly higher.” The second graph continued:

“That means individuals should also brace for potentially higher costs when purchasing coverage through the new insurance marketplace created by President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, state officials said.”

The third graph told readers that the state did not look at actual premiums, however. The fourth reported that Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, a Republican who is also the director of the insurance department, noted that specific premiums will vary and could change when the state reviews them, but that “premiums will track very closely with the cost.”

Taylor also said that benefits required by the law are “much richer” than the benefits previously available to Ohio consumers. What the heck did that mean to readers? And was that the reason for these higher costs? The AP didn’t really explain, but did throw out some numbers, telling readers that “projected costs to the companies for providing the required health benefits under the law ranged from roughly $283 to $577 for individual plans.” But for which plans—the bronze, the cheapest type offered in the exchanges; the silver plan; the gold plan; or the most expensive platinum plan, where coverage is top-notch. And who do these “costs” apply to—20 year olds? Or, 30, 40, or 60-year-olds? Numbers tossed out like confetti mean nothing without specifics.

At the end of the piece, the AP repeated what has become almost a standard graph in these kinds of stories:  Young, healthy people will get rate increases, but older people will see rates decrease, leaving readers to think 60-year-olds will pay lower premiums than 25-year-olds. They won’t. Older consumers will pay more—sometimes much more in absolute dollars.

Original article at cjr.org

MichaelRamirez

The predictable hits just keep on coming as the Obamacare clock ticks down toward full implementation.  Liberals have shifted gears from arguing the law will lower costs and reduce premiums for everyone — which is how the unpopular overhaul was dishonestly marketed — to shrugging that hey, at least many uninsured and lower-income citizens will get affordable coverage.  But even that’s not universally true, as many American workers are about to painfully discover.  Behold, the “Affordable” Care Act in action (via the Associated Press):

It’s called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama’s health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels. That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer “affordable” coverage or face fines. But what’s reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it’s like a mirage — attractive but out of reach. The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.  Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That’s due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of “affordable” workplace coverage aren’t entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.  Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today’s Catch-22 insurance rules.

They’re “disappointed,” and are already mobilizing to pin their own mess on insurance companies.  Their solution, of course, will be to forge ahead to a fully government-run single payer system — which has been the objective from word one.  They’ll ask Americans to forgive them for producing a disastrous, unworkable federal power-grab, insisting that it can only be fixed by even bigger government.  No thanks.  The AP story above shines the spotlight on a gaping loophole in Obamacare.  Basically, major employers of low-wage workers can technically satisfy the law’s requirement that they offer “affordable” coverage to full-time employees, even if the new rates aren’t actually affordable in reality.  Unable to pay the premiums being offered by their employers, and ineligible for taxpayer subsidies to obtain coverage on their own (because they’re “choosing” not to accept their “affordable” employer options), many of these workers will determine they have no choice but to remain uninsured — and will pay the anti-middle classObamacare mandate tax for the privilege of doing so.  What a deal.  Guess who’s heading for the exits as this monstrosity looms?  Ta-da:

Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting. The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive…If the issue isn’t resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform. The problem is far more acute in the House, where lawmakers and aides are generally younger and less wealthy. Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

Read more at TownHall.com