Chickens Are Coming Home To Roost: AARP Raises Insurance Costs for Employees

This would be funny if it weren't so damn sad for so many people who trusted these idiots!

The AARP’s health insurance costs are going up next year due to rapidly rising medical costs that are partly fueled by the health overhaul, the AP is reporting.

Premiums for the group’s employees will rise by 8% to 13% next year, the story says. The association is changing co-pays and deductibles to avoid a 40% tax on high-cost health plans that goes into effect in 2018, according to the AP. About 4,500 people are covered by the group’s plans.

In an Oct. 25 email, Jennifer Hodges, the AARP’s director of compensation and benefits said, “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”

The endorsement of the seniors’ lobby helped get the law passed back in March. According to the AP story, the association stands by that move and says the health law is a “small part” of why its employee health costs are going up.

“The impact on AARP employees is not a factor at all in our policy making, which is directed at the impact on our membership and on all older Americans,” the group’s legislative affairs director, David Certner, told the AP.

Other companies have cited the new law in making changes to their health offerings, including Boeing and 3M, which the WSJ wrote about here and here.

WSJ

How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare

Progressive pundits and policy wonks boast that, despite Tuesday's Republican victory in the House, ObamaCare will be very difficult to eradicate. They correctly point out that, to get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), both houses of Congress must pass repeal legislation and that a Democrat filibuster would more than likely forestall any such effort in the Senate. They further point out that President Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill that somehow found its way to his desk, and that there is virtually no chance that his veto would be overridden. All of this is absolutely true. Moreover, the PPACA infection has already been introduced into the health care system and has begun to spread. Nonetheless, when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January, they will still have the ability inoculate us against future outbreaks of this contagion.

The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective -- in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first "universal coverage" law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state's legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That "reform" program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, "DukakisCare" is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.

The many similarities between the DukakisCare and ObamaCare situations have not received any attention in the media, of course, but they have not been lost on everyone. Mike Stopa, who unsuccessfully sought the 2010 Republican congressional nomination for the MA-3 district, offered a PPACA repeal plan whose introduction declared, "[T]he experience of Massachusetts in the late 1980's… serves as a model in our current situation." Indeed it does. Not long after the Dukakis legislation passed, the GOP made significant gains in the state legislature and immediately set about dismantling the bill. There are also parallels in the executive branch. As Stopa put it, "Michael Dukakis passed universal healthcare in 1988 and his term as governor ended in 1990. Barack Obama passed PPACA in 2010 and his term ends in 2012." All of which suggests that the "MA vaccine" could work on ObamaCare.

For the newly empowered GOP, however, the most difficult stage of the vaccination process may be the first -- getting solidly behind the defunding project. Their vociferous denunciations of PPACA notwithstanding, many House Republicans have expressed reservations similar to those of Rep. Paul Ryan: "Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, 'No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things." Similar noises have been heard in the upper chamber. Retiring Senator Judd Gregg recently said, "I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here …"

These and other Republicans are understandably chary of fighting a PR war with the White House. Their shellacking by Bill Clinton in 1995 is still green in their memories. But much has changed since then. Fifteen years ago, the Democrat-friendly "news" media could exert considerable control over the public perception of a battle between Congress and the President. Now, the blogosphere and conservative talk radio can -- and will -- provide an alternate narrative. And the voters who came out in such impressive numbers to repudiate the Democrats are not likely to be patient with a pusillanimous approach on this issue. Most would likely agree with the chairman of DeFundIt.org, who responded thus to Ryan's squeamishness: "[I]t is a policy battle we must fight…. Make no mistake, the conservative base will revolt against a Republican Party that backs down in a funding fight over ObamaCare."

Assuming the Republicans can absorb this reality and summon the courage to face down the President on funding, they can move to the second stage of the vaccination process. In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation. They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment. It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just ... must redistribute wealth."

The third and final stage of the vaccine must, of course, be administered in 2012. The event that enabled Massachusetts legislators to finish off the 1988 universal coverage bill was the replacement of Michael Dukakis with Republican William Weld. The decision, by the former, not to seek reelection in 1990 made that process easier than might otherwise have been the case. Needless to say, Barack Obama is very unlikely to follow the Duke's example. However, if the President stays true to form and refuses to face the reality that the American people do want to "re-litigate" the reform issue, it is at least possible that a good Republican opponent can beat him in the 2012 presidential contest. And Tuesday's big GOP gains in key state houses and legislatures, particularly in crucial battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio, render an Obama defeat even more plausible.

Cynics will argue that, even if Obama can be given the bum's rush in 2012, that doesn't guarantee the success of this three-stage vaccine. And it is certainly true that it didn't permanently inoculate the Bay State from new and more virulent strains of health "reform." But that's hardly an argument for supinely allowing the PPACA to spread or waiting for the Supreme Court to provide a miracle cure. This contagion must be eradicated now. John Boehner was right when he said, "[W]e have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill…" And, if outright repeal isn't possible, then the MA vaccine is the next best alternative.

AS

Ole Miss Political Professor says he wants the truth about Obamacare, but . . .

Robert Albritton is a professor of American and comparitive politics at the University of Mississippi. He writes in The Hill's Congress Blog that in essence the Democrat's inability to explain the positive sides of PPACA, and their sheepishness on taking to task the GOP naysayers led to there demise. He is "puzzled how this much-needed program to assist Americans with the high costs of medical care could become so demonized by the opposition."

I'm puzzled by how anybody could have ever thought it was about health care at all.

Mr. Albriton writes:

In hindsight, of course, the Democrats failed to handle this challenge adequately. Instead of ducking the issue, they should have asked the appropriate questions of Republican opponents, and these questions are no less appropriate for the coming Congressional debates: “Just what parts of the healthcare legislation do you want to repeal?” Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions? Prohibiting companies from terminating coverage of chronic conditions? Providing portability of medical insurance coverage when the insured change employment or location? Coverage for the millions of Americans who have no access to healthcare, including millions of children who are not covered under CHIP, because they live in the wrong state? Prohibiting termination of coverage for persons with catastrophic needs? Yes, there is a huge price, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the long run, the legislation will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs.

Maybe Mr. Albritton prefers the confusing and costly bill that cuts into the already dangerously fragile Medicare system. But, THIS ONE by the GOP seems to not only makes sense, but the price tag is easier to deal with too.

GOP Picks Up 680 State Legislature Seats

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.
Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

NJ

Our taxdollars at work shrinking the private sector

While it might make sense for federal workers to perform certain jobs, other cases now coming under government control — and taxpayer responsibility — remain unclear.

Management of our nation’s armed forces, for instance, is best left solely to the federal government and is, in fact, mandated in the constitutional provision to “provide for the common defense.” But must those providing the troops with meals or uniforms also be federal employees? Should someone working the concession stand at a national park be on the government payroll?

Serving ice cream at Yellowstone or making combat boots can easily, and likely more efficiently and cheaply, be contracted out to a private company.

Yet, barely two months into his presidency, Barack Obama ordered all federal agencies to figure out how to make more private contractors into public employees. The Office of Management and Budget months later required such insourcing reviews occur “on a regular basis.”

This practice does not necessarily, as argued, provide taxpayers with more efficient service. Nor does it save money. The most obvious thing it does is increase the number of dues-paying union members. Over the past 25 years, the number of union workers in the private sector dwindled to just over ten percent. At the same time, unionization grew among government workers. Over 35 percent of government workers are now in unions.

Insourcing, at its core, is an attempt by big-government liberals to fill the coffers of organized labor at the expense of taxpayers and workers in the private sector. Over a period of time, Americans will have to pay more in taxes to pay the generous benefits and salaries of federal union workers, who will be impossible to fire regardless of their quality of work.

Nonetheless, over the past few years, liberals in Congress and Obama administration functionaries have been strategically inserting language into bills that fund the government. Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill contained strict insourcing mandates, and must-pass spending bills forced private contractors to compete with government wages and benefits. While such language has had to pass every year on its own, attempts are now being made to make this policy permanent.

Ill-conceived policies such as insourcing will lead to a larger and more intrusive federal government that will take away more hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for it.

Everyone can’t be a federal employee, but everyone has to pay for them. How many more can America afford and at what cost to liberty?

DC

House GOP walking fine line with Tea Party in effort to keep Bachmann and her ‘antics’ out of leadership

House Republicans Thursday reacted strongly against Rep. Michele Bachmann’s decision to run for a top leadership post in the new majority, looking to nip in the bud any chance that she might attract support from the substantially large group of incoming freshman lawmakers.
The trick for Republicans is to keep Bachmann – the Minnesota Republican viewed by many in leadership as an unserious and unhelpful spokesman for the party – away from an elevated platform that many in the party feel would hinder or harm the GOP, without being viewed as not listening to the Tea Party movement, which supplied much of the energy that gave them a 61-seat pickup and control of the House.

Bachmann is loved by many in the conservative grassroots for her outspoken support for a wide range of conservative positions, no matter how politically incorrect. She has developed a national profile after only two terms in Congress by appearing regularly on TV. But she has attracted significant negative attention as well for comments deemed extreme or careless.

She is running against Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, for the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference, which functions as a communications and logistics hub for the party.

Top House Republicans from Eric Cantor to Paul Ryan are firmly behind Hensarling, arguing that he is a solid conservative who will provide the very “constitutional conservatism” that Bachmann says she represents.

But Hensarling is far less well known beyond Washington and his home district of the southeast Dallas suburbs, so there is potential for average grassroots conservatives who know of Bachmann but not Hensarling to interpret the party’s support for the latter as a slight of the Tea Party.

And Bachmann could, in fact, gain traction, if a significant number of incoming freshman Republicans side with her. But Republicans made the case, strenuously, that that won’t happen.

“Bachmann will have a tough time convincing anyone that Hensarling isn’t conservative enough,” a House Republican aide told The Daily Caller. “She’ll have an even tougher time convincing the conference that she wouldn’t take our whole team down in flames with her antics.”

Another House Republican staffer aligned with the most conservative elements of the party called Hensarling “literally unbeatable.”

“A Bachmann win would be possible were she running against a no-name do-nothing member,” the Republican said. “But Jeb Hensarling has been one of the most active members of the Conference in recent years–as [Republican Study Committee] chairman, as [National Republican Congressional Committee] fundraiser, as financial services and budget guru, and as media maven.”

Bachmann aides did not respond to requests for comment.

DC