Sticker Shock in Illinois: Proves ObamaCare Isn't Working

With all the political news regarding the Trump/Kahn controversy, most Americans missed the news that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois announced rate hikes of between 23% and 45% for their various health insurance plans in the ObamaCare exchanges.  While the Illinois Department of Insurance must still approve the rate increase requests, this merely shows, once again, that insurers are losing their shirts trying to work with ObamaCare.  And, as I pointed out previously, without an approval of these rates, insurers will simply stop selling policies in the exchanges.

Also understand, the American taxpayer is the biggest loser when a company asks for a 45% rate increase, since, in Illinois, 75% of the people who buy insurance in the exchanges will receive federal subsidies.  While this is still lower than the overall average of 86% as reported by Health and Human Services, it proves that the primary reason for buying ObamaCare insurance is that it is either free or somewhat inexpensive; and that the 33 million people who still, after 3 years of enrollments, haven't bought insurance because they can't afford to do so.

So much for the success of the so-called Affordable Care Act.

References:

Illinois' Obamacare plans seek big 2017 premium hikes: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-illinois-obamacare-rates-0802-biz-20160801-story.html

86 Percent of Health Law Enrollees Receive Subsidies, White House Says: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/11-7-million-americans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

pb

Why All of Us Are Paying For Your Neighbor's Solar Power

Even if you have a solar power system of your own, you will also be paying for your neighbor's as well.  And, the more systems that are installed, the more you will pay.

As much as 30% of the cost is offset by using tax dollars in the form of rebates, tax credits, and other incentives. With actual installed costs being between $15,000 and $29,000, the buyers of solar get taxpayer-supported subsidies of as much as $4,500 to $8,700; certainly making the upfront cost a lot more palatable. 

But, it doesn't just stop with your dollars.

Every time a personal solar power system is installed, the local commercial power company loses some revenue.  However, that company cannot reduce any costs other than fuel because they still have to provide power to that house for those times when the sun doesn't shine.  So, simply, you have a formula for rate increases.  It's a problem similar to the electric car.  Electric cars use the same road that all of us use but pay no gasoline taxes towards the building or maintenance of those roads.

Now, to the big kahuna of why your paying for your neighbor's solar: Net Metering. In 44 states, net metering means that the public utility must buy back any excess power production from a solar installation at, usually, retail pricing. And, retail includes all the costs to upgrade and maintain the electrical grid and engineer and bill for it.  Costs that the residential solar customer doesn't incur.  Thus, some public utilities must raise prices to cover operational costs that have been lost to net metering.  However, now with the advent of smart meters, the utilities are in the position to measure how much excess energy they are paying for and are better positioned to only pay wholesale for it; a fact that has greatly increased the breakeven point that the customer would see when making a decision to buy solar.

The reality is that solar is not cost effective and in order to make it cost effective, every non-solar customer is paying heavily.  This is especially true for the poor, who in no way, could afford to shell out thousands of dollars for a solar power system; even if their home was large enough and strong enough to support it.


References:

Federal, state and local solar tax credits and rebates: http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-energy-tax-credits-rebates

Cost of Solar Power:  http://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/cost-of-solar

Nevada could lose 6,000 jobs without net-metering cap hike: http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/nevada-could-lose-6000-jobs-without-net-metering-cap-hike

Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity On ObamaCare

ObamaCare is a broken and bad law and most people know it.

In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from 6/14 to 6/18, only 8% thought that the President's healthcare program was working well; the rest said it either needed to be changed or repealed. Similarly, a 6/10 to 6/14 poll by CBS/New York Times found that only 9% thought that the law should be kept as is. In a May 29-31 poll by CNN and ORC, only 11% thought ObamaCare was a success.

However, with the latest Supreme Court's decision on subsidies, it will continue as is for at least another year and a half that Obama has left in office.

Had the high court ruled otherwise, Congress would have been forced to do something about it because the loss of subsidies would have been the leverage that the GOP needed to make major changes.  Changes that the President would have to accept, and not veto, because the lack of subsidies would gut the law's major attractiveness for low income enrollees.  The vast majority of those enrolled (86%) have only signed up because they were getting subsidies which cut their monthly premiums by an average of 72%. Yet, we still have 35 million Americans who are uninsured because they can't get subsidies, and therefore can't afford insurance under, laughably, the Affordable Care Act . Compare that to the only 10.2 million who have signed up for ObamaCare over the last two years with only 1.4 million (14%) of them paying full-price.

References:

Supreme Court saves Obamacare: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/

Polling Report: Summary of Health Policy Polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

86 Percent of Health Law Enrollees Receive Subsidies: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/11-7-million-americans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

Meet the Health-Law Holdouts: Americans Who Prefer to Go Uninsured: https://www.google.com/search?q=Meet+the+Health-Law+Holdouts%3A+Americans+Who+Prefer+to+Go+Uninsured&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

ObamaCare sign-ups officially beat 2015 goal: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243771-obamacare-sign-ups-officially-beat-goal

Obamacare subsidies cut premiums by average of 72 percent: HHS: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/9/obamacare-subsidies-cut-premiums-average-72-pct/?page=all

Obama Wins No Matter How Supreme Court Decides On Subsidies

No matter if you call it  King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, or Indiana v. IRS, the Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments as to whether or not enrollees in the Federal exchanges (aka Healthcare.gov or HCgov) are eligible for Federal subsidies.  At stake are millions of  Healthcare.gov enrollees who may lose those subsidies.  To put this into perspective, ACAsignups.net is reporting that as of 3/2/15, 11.76 million had signed up for ObamaCare health plans.  But, of that number nearly 9 million were signed up through HCgov, and, approximately 87% of that number or 7.83 million  are qualified for and should receive some amount of subsidies. Subsidies that may be struck down by the highest court if it rules to side with King.

Now, many have written that if the Supreme Court rules favorably in the case of King (the primary umbrella suit for all of the other suits), ObamaCare will unravel because subsidies are the key to reducing the number of uninsured lower income families.  But, there's more to that decision than just what is legal.  As usual, that "more" is politics.

Certainly, if the Supreme's vote that federal subsidies in the federal exchanges are legal, then Obama and the Democrats are winners.  But, what if the subsidies are struck down.  What then?  At that point, Democrat politics will kick into high gear.  Even though the Democrats are wholly responsible for writing a flawed legislation that, legally, would deny millions their subsidies, they will still use that court defeat to blame the Republicans. 

First, they will blame those 36 states run by Republican Governors and Legislatures for denying millions of people subsidies by not setting up their own ObamaCare exchanges and, instead, relying on the HC.gov for their enrollments.  Then, they will pressure the Republican House and Senate to come up with a solution to re-instate those subsidies.  If they aren't re-instated, the President and the Democrats "and" the mainstream media will hammer the Republicans right through the 2016 Presidential election cycle.  That has already started.  The Kaiser Family conducted a poll and 64% of  wanted Congress to act if the subsidies are struck down by the Supreme Court.  This despite the fact that, according to a RealClearPolitics summary of several polls, only 39.6% even approve of the law.

So, there you have it.  Obama wins no matter what happens, and once again, Republicans are being boxed in by something that not even one of them voted for and which is negatively viewed by most Americans.  Go figure!


References:

King v. Burwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

87% of Obamacare Enrollees Qualify for Subsidies: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/87-of-obamacare-enrollees-qualify-for-subsidies-increase-over-last-year

ACAsignups.net: http://acasignups.net/

Most uninsured Americans live in states that won't run their own ObamaCare exchanges:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/most-uninsured-americans-live-in-states-that-wont-run-their-own-obamacare-exchanges/

Public Approval of Health Care Law: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

64% Want Congress to Act if Subsidies are denied: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102373740

The Supreme Court To Review 4 Words That Could Kill ObamaCare

Once before, the Supreme Court reviewed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and found the tax imposed on those not buying healthcare to be constitutional because, under the Constitution, Congress has been explicitly given the right impose taxes.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to be the arbiter in whether or not subsidies can be given to low income enrollees who have purchased their insurance through anything but State-run Exchanges. This tune it will all come down to the wording that appears in Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter A › Part IV › Subpart C › § 36B of ObamaCare which covers premium assistance (subsidies).  And the words that matter -- those which define who may receive subsidies -- are as follows:

"and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State..."

More importantly, the Court decision will all come down to the last four words of the above line: "established by the State...".  What "established by the State" seems to imply is that any low income enrollee, in any of the 36 States who didn't establish their own Exchanges, aren't eligible for subsidies.  Thus, forcing millions to fully pay their own premiums.

Now, Obama's attorneys are going to argue that it was never the intent of ObamaCare to not give low income insureds a subsidy and, those people shouldn't be punished for a wording error (typo) in the law; arguing that it possibly should have said "for the State" and not "by the State".   This too is a ridiculous argument.  The universality of the subsidies could have been maintained by simply saying "and which were enrolled in through an Exchange" period.  There is no need to add the words "established by the State".

But the wording is very explicit, and those on the other side of this case are going to argue that it was intentional; further arguing that the intent was to punish Republican States for not setting up their own exchanges.  Thus forcing Republican Governors and Legislatures to face the voters over not having provided subsidies for their poorest of people.  Otherwise, the restrictive language of "by the State" would not even be needed.  But, punishment was the intent, and, in 2012, one of the chief architects of the law, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber made this quite clear when he said this about crafting that part of the law:

"What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits-but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

Clearly, the intent was to use this portion of the law politically. This in much the same way that Democrats tried to defeat those Republican Governors who didn't expand Medicaid under ObamaCare.  However, not one Republican Governor who refused to expand Medicaid lost their governorship in the last election.

My guess is that the high court will side against Obama's Justice Department and rule that the subsidies outside of State exchanges are invalid.  But, in doing so, they may specify that enrollees who are currently receiving those subsidies can continue to receive them -- assuming they are still eligible -- on the basis that they entered into a "good faith" contract with the federal government for their health insurance.  Though, beyond this, ObamaCare will not be able to provide additional subsidies.  Thus, it will be up to the President and the new Republican Congress to fix it.  We'll see how that goes.

Of course, if subsidies are ruled out for non-State Exchanges and the wording of law isn't changed through legislative action, much of the intent of the law -- that to insure most of those who can't afford insurance -- is lost.  As a result, millions won't be able to sign up for ObamaCare because of cost (mostly younger people) and then, those forced to sign up because of need (usually older and/or sicker) will only see their premiums get more expensive.  

Ultimately, ObamaCare will only be seen as a bigger failure than it already is.


References:

Supreme Court to hear Obamacare subsidies case: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN0IR1Z720141107

26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

Liberal Paul Krugman: Death by Typo The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

An ACA Subsidy Smoking Gun? | RealClearPolicy: http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/07/25/an_aca_subsidy_smoking_gun_1023.html

Liberal Website: The New Republic: The Supreme Court Is Now a Death Panel: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120206/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-king-v-burwell-life-or-death

Americans Vote Against Greater Medicaid Reach: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/05/us-voters-say-no-to-obamacare-medicaid-expansion

Good Faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith

Obamacare's Success Depends on Young Buyers: http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Obamacare-young-healthcare-insurance/2013/07/26/id/517196/

The Public Disapproval Of ObamaCare Continues: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Harry Reid's Disingenuous Comments On The DC Court's Ruling On ObamaCare Subsidies

After two separate, but equal, federal courts ruled at odds with each other over the expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies to include those states that refused to establish their own exchanges, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt obliged to go to the microphones and admonish the DC court which had just ruled against the expansion.   Reid, arguing that the DC ruling was a partisan effort by two "activist" Republican judges, seemed to be blind to the fact that one could argue that the very same activism took place in the Virginia court where 3 Democrat Judges (Davis, Gregory, and Thacker) unanimously sided with the Obama Administration over the expansion of subsidies.

Reid also continued his admonishment by declaring that ObamaCare was lawfully passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  However, what he is completely ignoring is the fact that the the constitutionality or the legality of the ObamaCare law was never at issue in those two court rulings.  What is at issue is whether or not the IRS had the right to re-write the law and, thereby, expand subsidies to those 36 states who elected not to provide their own exchanges.  Section 36b of ObamaCare clearly mandates that, in order to receive a subsidy, you must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.”  The words "established by the State" obviously doesn't imply any exchange established by the Federal government like "healthcare.gov".  Otherwise, why even be so specific by using such wording?  And the reason for the IRS re-write is simple.  Too many states had refused to set up their own exchanges; leaving millions of the enrolled ineligible for subsidies.  In fact, only 14 actually did create their own exchanges. So, the Obama Administration knew the law would die on its own if millions avoided signing up for healthcare without those subsidies. Once again, it is the lawlessness of the Obama Administration that is really at issue here. 

Sadly, these opposing decisions by our courts does expose political activism in our judicial system.  If there wasn't, at least one of the 4 Democrat judges involved in these two decisions crossed party lines and would have ruled differently in what is an obvious wording intent of the law.  And, that activism is the very reason that Reid went "nuclear" in the Senate; thus, allowing federal judges and other political candidates to be appointed with a simple majority and not the previously required two-thirds vote.  This way Harry, with a majority control of the Senate, could load up our legal system with as many far-left, activist justices as he and the President could see fit. So, if Reid wants to make claims of political activism in our courts, he need only look in a mirror.

References:

Video: Harry Reid Admonishes DC Court Decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsOvOgxzoA

The statutory text of Obamacare and the Halbig and King cases: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_econ/2014/07/the-statutory-text-of-obamacare-and-the-halbig-and-king-cases.html

U.S. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions On Obamacare Subsidies: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/22/334034284/u-s-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-health-law

Judge Andre M. Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_M._Davis

Judge Roger L. Gregory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Gregory

Judge Stephanie Thacker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Thacker

Upholding ObamaCare—as Written An appeals court's remedial civics lesson: Laws mean what they say: http://online.wsj.com/articles/upholding-obamacareas-written-1406070280

Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html

Senate Nuclear Option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Another Executive Action May Be Death Knell For ObamaCare

When ObamaCare was being drafted, the Democrats wanted to make sure that all the states would buy into the program by creating their own insurance exchanges.  To insure this, the law specifically said that if a state refused to setup their own exchange -- and Health and Human Services (HHS) was forced to provide one instead -- no one in that state would not be eligible for any federally subsidized insurance policies. What the President, the Democrats, and his HHS department didn't count on was the fact that 34 states refused to setup an exchange; meaning that millions wouldn't received subsidies and, as such, were probably not inclined to sign up for health insurance.  This, in essence, would crush ObamaCare by not getting all the currently uninsured into the program.

Recognizing this flaw in his health law, Obama decided -- on his own and contrary to the law -- to extend subsidies to those enrollees in those states who didn't establish exchanges.  That action by the President is now being challenged in the D.C. federal appellate court under the reference name Halbig vs. Sebelius.  If successfully argued, it would mean that millions in 34 states would lose the subsidies that Obama promised; thus forcing mass cancellations. At the same time, it would post another court loss for the Administration.


References:

Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2014/07/07/obamacare-faces-another-court-threat-and-this-one-could-be-fatal/

Jonathan Turley: Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

The BIG threat to Obamacare (that you've never heard of): http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807858