BloggeRhythms

An article buried on Drudge this morning, by Robert Pear @nytimes.com, addressed significant increases in health care coverage costs from insurers. While certainly to be expected, some of the reactions to the higher fees are interestingly biased and worth analysis.  

 

According to Mr. Pear, “Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

“Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.”

Many reactions reflect the certainly logical results of the imposition of the health care tax, such as the already mentioned increases in coverage costs. Others, though, seem to be a surprise to many who surely shouldn't have been taken aback.  

 

For example, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, “said that federal subsidies would soften the impact of any rate increases, of the 10.2 million people who obtained coverage through federal and state marketplaces this year." Yet, whereas 85 percent receive subsidies in the form of tax credits to help pay premiums, what else would any rational person expect?
 

Regarding the overwhelming majority of subsidized coverage recipients: “Some say the marketplaces have not attracted enough healthy young people. “As a result, millions of people will face Obamacare sticker shock,” said Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming.”

 

However, how can anyone be truly surprised when the government steps in to offer anything free, or even at reduced cost, without a corresponding source of revenue to cover the additional expense? As far as those paying their own way are concerned, they’re in the same spot as one’s who can’t identify the sucker in the poker game only to find out later, it was themselves all the time. 

 

Mr. Pear notes that, “The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

 

“Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico has requested rate increases averaging 51 percent for its 33,000 members. The proposal elicited tart online comments from consumers.

“This rate increase is ridiculous,” one subscriber wrote on the website of the New Mexico insurance superintendent.”

Above all though, what’s most interesting and totally predictable, is the reaction of the POTUS upon learning of the predicament he himself is primarily responsible for. “President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

So, in other words, he’s not involved in this anymore and it’s now up to the folks whose costs he’s forced to as much as double in many cases to go out and fight for a solution themselves. And if that isn’t the most incredible example of self-serving arrogance, it’s hard to imagine what is.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Michael Goodwin, @nypost.com, titled his latest column: “How Bernie Sanders threatens to derail Hillary’s coronation.”

In the article, Mr. Goodwin compares the current situation in the Democrat presidential race to Lyndon B. Johnson’s whom everyone assumed was a shoo-in as POTUS. 

At that time, “LBJ looked certain to be re-elected in 1968, until a Minnesota senator with a penchant for poetry named Eugene McCarthy shocked the world by getting 42 percent in the New Hampshire primary, against Johnson’s 49 percent. Less than three weeks later, the president famously declared that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

What’s most important about the comparison raised by Mr. Goodwin is how quickly things can change in presidential politics. Especially when the voting public is displeased with a present administration’s handling of critical issues affecting the nation. In Johnson’s time, there were social and cultural clashes between classes, generations, and races. There was also the continuing of the very unpopular war in Viet Nam.

All in all, there are many similarities to today in Johnson’s decision to withdraw, and today’s situation among Democrats in general and Bill Clinton’s wife in particular.

Because, regardless of how hard she attempts to distance herself from a POTUS responsible for many unpopular political positions, coupled with significant losses to the nation’s economy as a whole, the voting public’s going to paint her with the same brush anyway. And that is something she cannot escape, no matter haw much money she raises and how much of her own history she attempts to refabricate.

Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are you both reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios