Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (165591)	4/15/2010 1:32:53 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

or I invented the internet or I will make the Ocean levels go down

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (165591)	4/17/2010 11:15:20 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 173976

Illinois Mayor Expresses Doubts About Obama’s Citizenship breitbart.tv

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (165591)	4/19/2010 10:28:32 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

Gaming The Health Insurance Mandate By MERRILL MATTHEWS Posted 06:46 PM ET Democrats claim their newly passed health insurance reform will eventually provide health coverage for more than 30 million uninsured people. Don't bet on it. The key to achieving that goal, Democrats believe — along with expanding Medicaid and subsidies for buying coverage — is the individual mandate, which requires individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. The mandate is supposed to push nearly everyone into the pool to minimize free-riding on the system. But what if millions of Americans decide it's a better deal to pay the fine and remain uninsured until they need coverage? It appears that's exactly what's happening in Massachusetts, which passed its own ObamaCare-like reform with an individual mandate in 2006. Last year, Charles Baker, former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of Massachusetts's largest health plans, noticed some health insurance brokers posting comments on his widely read blog. They were suspicious that people were applying for health coverage after a medical condition developed, got the care they needed, and then dropped the coverage. Coverage for an individual, noted Mr. Baker, now a Republican candidate for governor, might be $2,000 to $3,000 a year, while the penalty was only about $900. So he asked his finance people to see if they noticed any discernible patterns. Boy, did they. From April 2008 to March 2009, 40% of the individuals who applied to Harvard Pilgrim stayed covered for less than five months. Yet claims were averaging about $2,400 a month, about six times what one would expect. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts has now confirmed it is experiencing similar problems. The company says that in 2009, 936 people signed up for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000. The disparity between the cost of expensive coverage and the fine for not getting it encourages individuals buying their own coverage — i.e., those not in an employer plan — to game the system by paying the fine and remaining uninsured until they need coverage. Insurers have long recognized this problem, known as "adverse selection," which is why every type of insurance normally restricts people from obtaining coverage after an incident has occurred. Someone can't, for example, buy a homeowners policy for a house that is already on fire. But Democrats have decided to do away with that basic actuarial principle with regard to health insurance. That means it's all about the penalties. Under the existing Massachusetts law, Bay Staters face a penalty of perhaps a half to a third of the cost of the premium. And yet, as Mr. Baker indicates, there appears to be a lot of gaming going on. ObamaCare, by contrast, has a minimum individual penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, rising up to 2.5% of income (or $2,085 maximum) per family in 2016. So the first-year spread between the penalty and the cost of coverage for an individual may be 20-to-1 or 30-to-1. Think that might encourage even more gaming than they are seeing in Massachusetts? In supporting the individual mandate, Democrats frequently cite the fact that nearly every state requires drivers to purchase auto insurance. But that mandate hasn't gotten everyone insured. Auto insurance mandates usually have fairly low penalties, and they are often sporadically enforced. And so people game that system, too. Indeed, the problem of uninsured drivers is so bad that many states require drivers to buy uninsured motorist coverage to protect them from all of those drivers who are required to have auto insurance but don't. The growing adverse selection problem has some Massachusetts officials considering other options; the governor has proposed legislation for a semi-annual open-enrollment period. That's where people would have a limited time to enter the system or change health plans. Open enrollments don't solve all the problems, but they help. To be sure, the higher penalties in Obama-Care's out years will discourage some gaming of the system, but they won't eliminate it — not as long as there is a gap between the cost of coverage and a penalty. And that's only if Congress keeps the current penalty schedule. The Congressional Budget estimates the government will collect $17 billion in penalties from individuals over 10 years. But members of Congress don't like penalizing their constituents, and there will be a lot of pressure to delay or reduce the penalties, just as there was when the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit was being implemented. But then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was never about creating an actuarially or financially sound health care system; it was about creating a new entitlement where everyone has coverage — when they need it.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (165591)	4/24/2010 11:06:25 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

Mr. Obey, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, is one of three House Democratic chairmen who have drawn serious opposition. Representatives John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, who oversees the Budget Committee, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who runs the Armed Services Committee, have been warned by party leaders to step up the intensity of their campaigns to help preserve the Democratic majority. These established House Democrats find themselves in the same endangered straits as some of their newer colleagues, particularly those who were swept into office in 2008 by Mr. Obama as he scored victories in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and Virginia. Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he would consider anything short of taking back the House a failure. Republicans say they have not recruited strong candidates in all districts, but both parties agree that Republicans are within reach of capturing the 40 additional seats needed to win control. Republicans also are likely to eat into the Democratic majority in the Senate, though their prospects of taking control remain slim. Democratic Congressional officials — well aware that a president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections — have long been preparing for a tough year. But that Mr. Obey here in Wisconsin and other veteran lawmakers like Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota suddenly find themselves in a fight reflects an increasingly sour mood toward the Democratic Party and incumbents. “He’s supporting the party line of the Democrats, which is not consistent with North Dakota,” said Rick Berg, a Republican state representative from North Dakota who is challenging Mr. Pomeroy. “In the past, we’ve been more conservative at home than the people we send to Washington.” Asked if this was a good time to be a Republican candidate, Mr. Berg laughed and said, “I sure think so.” Mr. Pomeroy, who has served for 18 years as the state’s only congressman, won two years ago with 62 percent of the vote. Now he is among the top targets of House Republicans and is fighting without the help of one of the state’s incumbent Democratic senators on the ballot, since Byron L. Dorgan chose to retire. “Some cycles are more challenging as a candidate than others,” Mr. Pomeroy said. “This should be in the range of challenging cycles.” Democrats worry that some lawmakers who have avoided tough races in the past could be at added risk of defeat because they are out of practice, slow on their feet and often reluctant to acknowledge the threat they are facing. The chairman of the House re-election effort, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, has called mandatory face-to-face meetings with vulnerable members to monitor their campaigns. In the Seventh District of Wisconsin, which covers 17,787 square miles from the middle of the state to Lake Superior, signs of Mr. Obey’s service in Congress are found in new bridges, highway expansions and countless other projects. Yet there are fewer signs of Mr. Obey himself. At the Democratic Party office in Wausau, his hometown, campaign placards hang in the window for Senator Russ Feingold, but none for Mr. Obey. When asked to discuss his re-election bid, Mr. Obey declined, saying that it was too early to begin talking politics and that he was focused on his legislative duties. “I have never met anyone who thought political campaigns were too short,” he said. Mr. Obey, 71, was elected two years before Mr. Duffy, 38, was born. Mr. Duffy is widely seen as leading in the Republican primary — his opponent is the candidate who lost to Mr. Obey two years ago by 22 percentage points — and his race has drawn support from party leaders in Washington, Tea Party activists and Sarah Palin.