Obamacare Strikes Again

This post is a continuation of sorts to my last blog where I explained that Obamacare is going to make me less healthy as well as make me go bankrupt. In the ongoing saga that is now my quest to be a good citizen and pay for health insurance, I have come across a few more stumbling blocks.

First, at my work we had a meeting to discuss the changes that were coming due to new health care regulations (Obamacare). Because our current provider (Anthem) was going to increase the rates by 100% the company decided to switch insurance providers to help control cost. Now, I don't use the company insurance because it is expensive, even though people have tried to tell me to join a "group" because that way premium costs can be shared and rates go down. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for me because MY rates just get jacked up so I can subsidize all the older and less healthy people I work with. So as I am sitting in this little meeting I'm handed a sheet of paper that goes over two different types on insurance, one that is only good to use in the state of Virginia and another one that can be used nation wide. While all this coverage is being explained to me I am under the impression that because of the higher deductibles the rates will be a bit cheaper. However, the coverage still requires child dental insurance, mental health coverage, maternity, mammograms and other services I don't need but are now required by law. When I look on the paper it says that the cheap plan (the Virginia only plan) for Employee and Spouse is...$150---PER WEEK! So, my current insurance cost for the entire month is less than one weeks worth of insurance through work! So, on your standard 4 week month that would cost me $600. And on top of all that, the $600/month insurance premium is subsidized by my employer at $200/month. So, thanks to Obamacare which was fed to us as something that was going to lower rates, reduce the deficit and get everyone covered with insurance has caused our work rates to skyrocket. Also, the company in years past has been paying about $150 towards everyones insurance, but because of Obamacare they had to increase it to the $200 because the rate increases were so high.

Now, as was stated in my last post about this topic, Anthem has notified me that I can pay just under $400 a month for my own private insurance, which sounds pretty cheap in comparison. However, it is still more than I can afford. Because Anthem and the government know that everyones rates are going through the roof, my Anthem notice said that I may be eligible for a government subsidy to help reduce my rates. But there is a catch, according to my employer I am not actually eligible for the subsidy. There is something interesting that is apparently built in the law that says if your employer provides you with 'affordable' health insurance you are not eligible for a government subsidy. Now because the company I work for pays $200 towards their offered insurance plans the government considers it "affordable" and I will not be able to receive the subsidy. I'm sorry, but an insurance rate of $600 a month for 2 people with no preexisting conditions, no health complications, and under 30 is insane. And it is most certainly not "affordable."

So, to sum this whole thing up, I'm screwed. I can pay $400 (280% increase) for private insurance with Anthem, I can pay $600 (428% increase) for my work insurance, or I can take the gamble and pay $200 for the year as a penalty and not have any insurance. As things stand now, the government has literally caused me to lose my insurance. The law that was supposed to get everyone coverage is driving me out because of the massive rate increases and by being locked out of getting a subsidy.

Here is the sad thing, millions of American's new this was going to happen. By adding required benefits to insurance plans and insuring more people, why would anyone think that premiums will go down. People did (not me) because the government told us, and it was a flat out lie! If anyone sat down and though about it, cost reduction made no sense. How can people be required to pay for more services but lower their monthly premium?. We forgot about common sense and now I, and I suspect I'm not alone, am paying the price.

With the Republican controlled Congress coming next year, the first thing on the agenda should be to get rid of Obamacare. Remove the required benefits and allow me to have the insurance of my own choosing, because our health care legislation is quite literally bad for my health.

Great News Thanks To Obamacare

I have written on this subject before, about a year ago. I was notified by my health insurance provider, Anthem, that my insurance does not meet the requirements under Obamacare and that in 2015 I will need to choose another plan. The current insurance I pay for is essentially in case of a disaster.

Now there is a reason I chose this particular insurance plan. I am 25 years old, my job requires me to work on my feet (which is much healthier than sitting at a desk), I eat organic foods, and I go to the gym for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week. I have no preexisting conditions, I don't smoke and I don't drink. Essentially, the definition of healthy living. My wife is the same, no health issues, eats well, and exercises regularly. She is in graduate school so children aren't in the picture any time soon. Because of this, our insurance rate is very low, less than $150 a month for the both of us.

Yesterday I received a notice from Anthem that my insurance will be canceled on December 1, 2014. Also, I am required to sign up for a plan that is in compliance with Obamacare regulations. Essentially, I need to pay for additional benefits that I don't currently need. Some of those requirements are prescription drug coverage and maternity coverage. As stated previously, no preexisting conditions and no children, but I am required to pay for it anyway.

Now, because of our current situation, me being the primary income because my wife is in school (she gets a small stipend), our budget is tight. Also, we track every dollar we spend and that way we know exactly what we can afford. I work on commission, so my pay varies from month to month. I have to pay the monthly bills with my income, which includes rent, utilities, phone, insurance, and student loans. Because of my pay fluctuation, the rate I was paying for insurance fit within our budget and we had nothing to worry about. An increase will be difficult to handle.

When Anthem sent me my notice yesterday in the mail reminding me that if I like my insurance plan I CAN'T keep it, they sent me a quote for a new policy. According to Anthem, this is one that most closely aligns with my current coverage, but has those essential benefits required under the new law. When I read the rate increase, the word "shock" is an understatement. My insurance premium for a plan that Anthem says is most like mine, but includes everything required under the law, will increase my premiums by 275%. THAT IS ALMOST TRIPLE WHAT I PAY NOW! I stared at the statement not knowing what to do. My monthly rate was quoted at almost $400 a month. For me! Never been to the hospital for anything. The only time I was every sick and needed medication was when I had strep throat 15 years ago! I've never been seriously ill, never broken a bone in my body and have only gone to the doctor for physicals (when my wife makes me). But now, due to President Obama's "landmark achievement" I suddenly need to pay an exorbitant amount for health insurance.

I have no idea how I will be able to afford this. My current policy has been working fine, mostly because I'm perfectly healthy. My income isn't stable and I have plenty of other bills that need paying. I can't fathom how one day I have insurance and am paying a manageable low premium, and then the next day I will need to pay almost 3x as much even though nothing my health condition hasn't changed.

This is actually going to make my health worse. Yes, Obamacare has the potential of making me less healthy! The reason is that in order for me to exercise daily, I need to purchase a gym membership. One months health insurance premium costs the same as an entire year at the gym. Also, in order to be healthy, I pay more for organic foods which are more expensive. If I am having to trim areas in my budget, looks like grocery may need to go down, meaning buying less healthy organic foods.

So, thank you President Obama, your defining legacy (healthcare reform) is going to cause me, and many more like me, to have to strain my budget for something I don't want, and don't need.

The truly amazing thing is that the President knew this was going to happen. He blatantly lied to the American people saying that premiums wouldn't change and that those who liked their coverage could keep it. None of that has come true. Sadly, I am in the age group that is getting the shortest end of the stick. Now, because the insurance premiums are so insane for my wife and I, on my Anthem notice was a little box on the back side of the paper saying that if I make less than 39k a year, I can get a government subsidy!

First off, they knew the insurance rates would be astronomical, which is why the subsidy is there. Secondly, as someone who doesn't want to rely on federal assistance, this may be my only real option. Obamacare is going to generate major dependence because of individuals like myself who can't afford his health insurance requirements. It's insane. My choice is either strain my budget and pay for it all myself, or become dependent on the government to subsidize part of my premium. It's forced dependence.

No matter how any of this plays out in the end, it's worse than my current situation. I like my insurance and I can afford it. Next year, either I will have a hard time making ends meet or I will be dependent on the government. Man I love the USA! The last option before me is one that I am seriously exploring, not getting insurance. I've been paying my own insurance for about 4 years now and have had no reason to use it. So, given the option between being dependent on the government or paying a 'tax' for not being covered, I think I'll take the tax.

The amazing thing is the bit of irony in this situation. The Presidents mission was to decrease the amount of people who are uninsured. Well Mr. President, in my situation, the exact opposite happened.

Warlord in Chief

By now, unless you've had your head in the sand, you've heard of ISIS (or ISIL). They are an 'extremest' terrorist organization operating in Syria and Iraq. They have been leaving a trail of destruction and death in their wake as they overtake cities that were once occupied by American forces. With the new 'threat' abroad, President Obama has decided that he may take action. As is custom for this President, he will not commit ground troops but instead intends to begin bombing Syria. With this new plan being tossed around, President Assad told President Obama to seek permission to begin bombing first. However, on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphatically rejected that condition, telling reporters "We're not going to ask permission from the Syrian regime."

Now you can think what you want about Assad, but we have just told him that we will not seek permission or even notify him when we start blowing up his country. It has now become the job of the President to send bombs to foreign nations to kill 'radical extremists' that currently pose no threat to American soil.  Also, no matter how much we do not approve of Assad, he is still the leader of Syria. We have created this tangled web of alliances with radical groups throughout the Middle East. We support guerrilla organizations and influence the overthrow of governments, inadvertently creating a power vacuum where these more radicalized groups come in and take control.

This outcome is what happens when the President himself has the power to essentially declare war. We have granted him the authority to bomb foreign nations and pick which foreign regimes to overthrow. This is not the role of the executive envisioned by the founders and that power is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. And there is good reason for that, the modern presidency essentially has the power of the British monarch from the 1700s. This is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent.

We have created a new kind of Executive, one that the writers of the Constitution never imagined. The government we now possess is much similar to the government we broke away from. The powers granted to those who hold office far exceed their original limits.We have become what W. F. Buckley refers to as a 'crown' government. Or maybe more accurately what George Mason called an "elective monarchy." We have vested almost all power to one central office.

We have created an executive office that our Constitution was meant to prevent. The president is granted powers over social issues, economic affairs, as well as the US military. And amazingly, most of this usurpation of power only started 60-70 years ago. The modern presidency will likely only increase in power, therefore making our congressmen virtually useless. We are in a sense evolving backwards. We created a government that was divided and checked against each other, with the primary role going to congress to create laws. We broke away from a monarch that had excessive power over its people. In modern times instead of American's being ruled by a British monarch, we willingly vote in our own.

The Cult of the Presidency

A few years back I purchased a book by Gene Healy, Vice President of the Cato Institute, entitled "The Cult of the Presidency." I am currently in the process of re-reading that book because it's that good. It is perhaps the single most important book I've read in regards to how I view the Executive Office. The book was written during the Bush years, so it's not an Obama bash fest like many books out now. It goes through the history of the Presidency, and in doing so calls out those who in the Bush administration pushed for a massive Executive expansion, mostly justified by John Yoo.

For those who are interested in learning more about the history of the Presidency, and the theories behind what powers the president wields, this is an excellent book likely the most well written book on the subject.

As I'm reading this book again I got to thinking about all the things the President does that are just blatantly unconstitutional. Mostly, the President's expansive war powers, which came with the stamp of approval from John Yoo in the Bush administration. Going back to the original intent of the Executive office, the nature of his authority is apart of the name, Preside. The role of the President is to enforce the laws passed by congress. We commonly hear that all three branches of government were created with checks and balances but, they are not equal. The Legislature was always intended to wield more influence than the President or the Supreme Court. Primarily because that is where the laws were made, the President just enforced them and the courts determined constitutionality.

Sadly, we have come so far from this view of the presidency it is almost impossible to go back. We as a people seem to believe that we have and should have a closer connection to the President than our own locally elected representatives who live down the road from us. There is this insanity that the President embodies the spirit of America. We have willingly elected a savior and corrupted our political system because of our own stupidity and shortsightedness.

This has caused news outlets go berserk when a natural disaster occurs and the president either does or does not go to the location to empathize with local families. Why does he need to be there? Shouldn't the people of that area be focused on restoring their lives and local agencies helping with that effort. The president shouldn't be a symbol of hope for us, that is how dictatorships begin. We freely give away our rights because we so trust this official with our well being.

To give a little perspective, during the founding era and into the 20th century (from Jefferson up to Wilson) the President did not give his State of the Union speech to congress. It was written because the precedent was that it would look like the President is trying to influence policy if he went himself. Now we have a sitting President who in his SOTU speech he openly attacks the Supreme Court. We have turned an office of enforcing the laws to the one who essentially mandates what Congress will take up that year. When congress passes a law that is credited to the President (Obamacare), you know there is corruption between the legislators and the enforcer. At that point you have to ask yourself, who does Congress work for, us or the President?

Sadly, the problem isn't a DC problem, it's our problem as a nation. We have created this powerful office. The Constitution has few and defined powers for that office, and with ambitions President's, and willing people, we have made it the most powerful branch of government. The "leader of the free world" resides in one man. He has the power to strike foreign nations without declaration, detain American citizens suspected to be terrorists and has successfully convinced the American people that massive government intervention into healthcare is a moral good. We are slowly breeding a dictatorship. We are not there, not even close, but when you look at the power that the President actually wields, the only thing holding us back is the type of person we elect, because the power is there.

Ferguson

The unrest in Ferguson is the number one story on almost every news outlet and has been since the protests and riots began over a week ago. So far there are very few facts, Michael Brown is dead, he was unarmed, and Officer Darren Wilson pulled the trigger. However, media sources have been scouring for details to sensationalize the story. New evidence emerges every day that change how things played out. Civil unrest has gripped Ferguson and it appears that the police are unable to control the situation.

In order to try and calm things down, Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson. Now, his presence there is to try and calm the people down and get to the bottom of what happened. But, it doesn't seem like this is his primary goal. At a community meeting Holder said, "I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man." He then goes on to tell a story of his own experience with racial profiling in NJ. Now, to me this doesn't sound like someone from the Justice Department. His main function there is to seek Justice, but upon arrival he starts speaking about racial profiling, leading those in Ferguson to assume that this is the case for the Michael Brown shooting. The problem is, we don't have the details yet.

There have been numerous eye witness testimony to the Officer Wilson shooting Brown after her surrendered. One thing is for sure, eye witness testimony is unreliable. Anyone who has taken a Psychology course will understand this. You can put 10 people in the exact same situation and they will all tell a different story. Now evidence has emerged that Officer Wilson sustained a 'blowout fracture' to his eye, suggesting there was a fight or some sort of struggle.
But back to the motives of Holder, what exactly is he trying to accomplish in Ferguson? He is saying that will be impartial, but going back to his remarks it seems he already believes that civil rights were violated. He is also having the Federal Government come in and search for any evidence of civil rights law violations.This will only throw more flames on the fire as Holder and his team look for civil rights violations that will be extrapolated to the rest of the police force. His first priority should be that the evidence is examined thoroughly and the sequence of events is verified. Evidence must be properly examined and justice served.
With Attorney Holder going to Ferguson, and the remarks he has made, I don't have much confidence in an impartial inquiry into the events. His remarks make it seem that his job comes second (being the Attorney General) and the fact that he is a black man first. Holder's comments are in direct contradiction to those of John Adams "We are a government of laws, not men."

The Daily News Byte

NY Post: Dems EatingTheir Own Words on ObamaCare

                In 2013, Debbie Wasserman Schultz responded to criticism by Michelle Malkin on ObamaCare saying she would be eating her own words, then put the hashtag GetCovered. Since Schultz's comments, the Obama administration has decided to extend those plans that were to be outlawed under Obamacare, allowed insurance exemptions for universities, and financial incentives for insurance companies who are going to experience hardship under ObamaCare regulations. Everything has been a disaster with this law. One of the only benefits of the law that Democrats actually get behind is that kids  can be covered up to age 26 on their parents plan. It seems that Schultz is eating her own words here.

Time: Rand Paul Wouldn't Let Putin Get Away With This Invasion

                Rand Paul wrote on op-ed in Time Magazine in response to the Russian 'invasion' of Crimea. He boasts that he wouldn't let "Putin get away with it." He calls only for specific economic sanctions and deregulation to help deal with the likelihood of a gas shut off from Russia. With the development of the Keystone Pipeline and the shipment of oil to Europe, he believes that this would counter Russia closing off its gas supplies to Europe. Also, he is calling for an end to sending money to Ukraine because it can be used to pay off its debts to Russia. So we would effectively be "borrowing from China to give to Russia." The use of sanctions appears to be the common policy objective in handling Putin. These policy prescriptions are just about the same as the President has called for. So far, Russia is only in Crimea, they have yet to invade through military might the rest of Ukraine. Also, there are calls for Russia to let Ukrainians decide their own fate, but Crimea voted to join Russia and it was ignored. Now it's likely that there was political influence from Russia, but the people in Crimea are not revolting against this vote. And it's not like the West isn't influencing Ukraine to join the west.

Reuters: Crimea Votes to Join Russia

                The Crimean Parliament voted to join with Russia. With this vote, President Obama also called for sanctions against the illegal seizure of Crimea. It's kind of funny when Russia literally just walks in and claims the area with no bloodshed, then Crimea votes to join with Russia and then the US tells Russia they are going to be sanctioned for this action. The US and Western European nations make it sound like Russia has forcibly taken this part of Ukraine, when it appears they are content with being Russian. President Obama is calling for the sanctions because the 'invasion' is against the Ukrainian constitution. Is that document still valid since there is now a revolutionary government in place? It comes down to this, the previous Ukraine government was pro-Putin, a revolution occurred that changed it to be pro-West. So when Russia acts to keep them pro-Russia of course the West is going to step in. So this is really a battle between the West and Russia, not the 'sovereignty' of Ukraine. If there was a revolution in say Germany that was Pro-Putin, of course we would be saying that the government wasn't legitimate. It's all about national interest. The claims put forward by the nations of the world are all hypocritical. What is the big deal about Ukraine and why is it so important to the US? This issue needs to be left to those who inhabit Ukraine. It should be of no concern to us. We have elevated the US to protector of the world, a position that it was never meant to take.

Washington Examiner: Union Bashes Obamacare

                A union that represents some 300,000 hospitality workers has come out against ObamaCare due to the high cost of insurance. According to the union, Unite Here, ObamaCare will effectively reduce wages by up to $5 per hour due to the burdensome costs of the health law. With the increase in benefit cost and the likelihood of businesses cutting back on hours, the cost to low and middle income Americans will be substantial. It's time for Americans to wake up and realize that the PPACA wasn't for the benefit of the Middle and Lower class, but for special interest groups and large insurance companies. Large insurance companies were pretty much guaranteed customers by the federal government.

The Daily News Byte

The Blaze: The West Sold Ukraine to Putin

                With all the commotion around Ukraine, nations are scrambling to find out what to do. They look more like chickens who've had their heads cut off, running around in circles with no sense of direction. The people in Ukraine are scared and they see American weakness as a sign that Putin will be unchallenged and that his advances will continue. Ukrainian's are correct in that the West has essentially abandoned them. Western sanctions will backfire and the threat of pulling out of the G8 means nothing to Russia, who is already looking to make its own alliance with Asia. Right now the West is weak, there is no agreement between world leaders, and the politicians who run the countries are too spineless to stand up to Putin. So, as of right now, Putin appears to have free reign because he doesn't fear a united west.

Sky News: Russia and China Agree over Ukraine

                News is developing continuously on the Ukraine situation. Russia's closest ally, China, appears to be siding with Russia on this issue (not really a surprise there). The leaders of the western world are gathering together and put some sort of plan together for economic sanctions against Russia. My question, if China is going to back Russia, is the western world going to sanction China as well. We seem to only want to focus on the atrocities of Russia, but we seem to not care about their closest ally.

The Hill: Russia Demands Ukraine Warship Surrender

                Russia has much more military might than Ukraine. Currently, it appears there has been no actual fighting in the region of Crimea. This part is known to be mostly composed of Russian speaking individuals and a place that is more loyal to Russia itself. With the so far refusal to surrender, this event has the potential to escalate the situation if Russia decides to take military action.

RT: Kerry's Threats vs Russia Unacceptable

                In response to the threats made by Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia appears ready to counter the West's claims. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, they responded in the region of Crimea due to the overthrow of the government in Kiev by radicals. So far, the 'invasion' has been done without bloodshed it would appear. According to Russia officials, the west is ignoring the fact that the former president of Ukraine signed an agreement with the opposition but the next day the capitol was overthrown and the agreement thrown out the window.

Forbes: Ilya Shapiro - 9 Reasons Why I Support Arizona's Religious Liberty Bill

                Ilya Shapiro is a scholar at the Cato Institute. He is a promenant defender of civil liberties and is on the pro-marriage equality side. However, he recently wrote an opinion piece about why he supported the Religious Liberty Bill that was recently vetoed in Arizona.  Since he has nine main points, I won't put them here, but check out the article.

Roll Call: Paul Ryan Looking to Overhaul Anti-Poverty Programs

                Paul Ryan has released a report that looks at the benefits anti-poverty programs have had for the poor. While Ryan does claim that some programs are necessary, there are many others that need reforming or removal. The amount of money spent on these programs is around $800 billion. The natural response to the Ryan proposals is that Republican's are trying to cut the deficit by helping the rich and hurting the poor. This argumentation totally misses the point because the point of Ryan's study is to identify programs and do work and ones that don't.