House majority Leader, Republican Eric Cantor who is Jewish, tweeted the Following Thursday night:

President Obama’s HHS regulation violates religious freedom.  It is like forcing a kosher deli to sell pork chops.  #NotKosher

What happens when Government is underway to force Americans to buy a product? The stock prices of the firms producing these products will sky rocket.

Here are some numbers:

The equity indexes on Wall Street (Dow, NASDAQ, S&P 500) are up approximately twenty percent since March 23, 2010, the day Health Care Reform was signed. However, the stock price from United Health Group is up more than fifty percent since the signing almost two year ago, while shares of Humana are up more than eighty percent since then, and shares of Aetna and Cigna are up approximately 25% in the same time.

More striking about all these numbers is that in the 22 months leading up to ObamaCare signing, the three main indexes and the above stocks were are all down with similar percentage points. This indicates that the strong turn around in health care stocks versus the overall equity markets is likely related to benefits that Health Care companies have due to ObamaCare.

Well-Point is the only one of the top five health care firms whose stock gained less than the three main equity indexes since the health care signing. However, if you invested money in Well-Point the day GM came back to the market in mid-November 2010, you would be looking at a 25% Well Point gain, while you would be down by 25% if you bought share in the “successfully” bailed out GM.

Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from  the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened  application rules last summer.

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812  workers received waivers from President Barack  Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom  work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing  applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of  controversial news reports, including The  Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to  businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.

The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the  1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17  are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand  the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.

(Read More)

Politi-Fact Writes: Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to “terminate Medicare.” A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country “without Medicare” and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: “House Republicans’ vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal…”

Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats’ claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included “death panels.” In 2010, it was that the plan was a “government takeover of health care.”

HuffPost Reports: March madness is coming to the Supreme Court next year. The justices have designated three days, March 26 to March 28, as the oral argument dates for the health care cases.

The Court agreed to hear the challenges to the Affordable Care Act in November, setting aside an extraordinary five and a half hours for oral argument.

The main event will be on Tuesday, March 27, when the Court will take up the constitutionality of the health care law’s minimum coverage requirement. That provision, commonly called the individual mandate, requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Court has set aside two hours for argument over whether Congress’ passage of the individual mandate exceeded the legislature’s powers to regulate interstate commerce or lay and collect taxes under Article I of the Constitution.

On Monday, March 26, the Court will hear an hour of argument over whether a Reconstruction-era federal statute, the Anti-Injunction Act, bars the justices from making a decision on the individual mandate’s constitutionality until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.

The Court will consider two additional issues on Wednesday, March 28. Ninety minutes will be dedicated to whether the individual mandate is so central to the health care overhaul that the entire law must fall should the justices find the mandate itself unconstitutional. An additional hour of argument will address 26 states’ claim that the law improperly expands Medicaid by coercively conditioning states’ receipt of federal funds on their participation in the new health care exchange system.

Reuters Reports: The Supreme Court on Thursday set the schedule for briefs to be filed ahead of hearing arguments in late March over President Barack Obama’s sweeping  healthcare overhaul law.

The high court agreed to a proposal by the three main parties in the legal battle and by two attorneys who have been appointed to argue certain positions.

In a brief order, the court for the most part required that the first set of briefs will be due starting in early January, the other side will file their briefs in February and final reply briefs will be submitted in early March.

The court on November 14 agreed to hear an Obama administration appeal defending the law and urging it be upheld as well as two separate appeals by 26 states and an independent business group challenging the law and urging it be struck down.

The court agreed to consider the following four separate questions:

- whether the U.S. Congress overstepped its powers by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.

- whether the rest of the law can survive if the mandate is struck down.

- whether challenges to the mandate must wait until after it takes effect in 2014.

- and whether Congress improperly coerced the states to expand the Medicaid program that provides healthcare to the poor and the disabled.

From the AP: Medicare’s prescription coverage gap is getting noticeably smaller and easier to manage this year for millions of older and disabled people with high drug costs.

The “doughnut hole,” an anxiety-inducing catch in an otherwise popular benefit, will shrink about 40 percent for those unlucky enough to land in it, according to new Medicare figures provided in response to a request from The Associated Press.

The average beneficiary who falls into the coverage gap would have spent $1,504 this year on prescriptions. But thanks to discounts and other provisions in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, that cost fell to $901, according to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates.

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

The estimates are averages, so some Medicare recipients may do worse and others better. Also, it’s still unclear if the discounts will start to overcome seniors’ deep unease about the law.

Concern over cutting Medicare to expand coverage for the uninsured helped push older voters toward Republicans in the 2010 congressional elections. Obama and the Democrats have been trying to woo them back ever since.

“For people with high drug expenditures, the 50 percent discount offers real savings,” said Tricia Neuman, director of Medicare policy for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s certainly more helpful than no coverage at all, which is what they had previously.”

More than 2 million beneficiaries already have gotten some help, discounts that have gone largely to middle-class seniors, because the poor are covered in the gap at taxpayer expense.

In a scathing report, Democrat Congressman Pete Stark produced a report showing that for 2010, five major health insurers raked in a total of $11.7 billion in net profit, all of it on the backs of the poor and sick.

Indeed, to everyday Americans who are not aware how big some industries are, the $11.7 billion figure may come across as huge and perhaps outrages too. Likely for this very reason, Mr. Stark didn’t reveal some of the following relevant information regarding the 2010 profits of these five firms – United Health, Well Point, Aetna, Humana and Cigna:

• While the five companies combined earned $11.7 billion in profit, governments collected a total of $6 billion in taxes from these companies.
• The $11.7 billion in after-expense and after-tax revenue is from a total of $242.7 billion in income between the above five firms. Yes, of almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in business activity, the firms were left with only $11.7 billion in profit.
• Dividing the above revenue, profit and tax bills in five, each company on average had $48.54 billion in revenue; only $2.34 billion in profit, yet governments – just by standing in the side – collected $1.2 billion from each of the firms.
• Earning $11.7 billion out of $242.7 in revenue is a profit margin of 4.8%, compared to the 10-15 percent returns that index-funds connected to the DJIA, NASDAQ or S&P 500 gave for 2010.

The Stark report writes that 25-30 percent premiums of some health insurance plans were spent on administrative cost in 2010. But starting this year, the report notes, firms will be limited to spend only fifteen to twenty percent on administrative cost/profits collections. In other words, if the 4.8% profit margin is not poor enough, firms will be squeezed even more, and their thousands of workers – you know, workers are the ones that Democrats are always on the look out to protect – will likely need to see cuts and limitations in their compensation.

Any time Democrats scream about ‘billions in profits’ of Corporate America, note A) that the billions in profits mostly represent a fraction of the actual business activity and overhead. B) Government has its hand big time in the cookie charge too, so if they want to give back billions in premiums to Americans, governments can cut their tax rates on the corporations. C) If these attacking Democrats were to have investment consultants that produce for them only 4.8% a year in returns, these investors would likely be fired.

As a bonus, here is the breakdown of the above five health insurers and their business activity of 2010. 

• United Health had $94.15 billion in revenue (income); paid $2.74 billion in taxes, and was left with $4.63 billion in after expense/tax profit.
• WellPoint had  $58.80 billion in gross revenue; paid $1.46 billion in taxes, and was left with $2.89 billion in after expense/tax profit.
• Aetna had $34.76 billion in gross revenue; paid $624.7 million in taxes, and was left with $1.77 billion in after expense/tax profit.
• Humana had $33.86 in gross revenue; paid $650.1 million in taxes, and was left with $1.1 billion in after expense/tax profit.
• Signa (in 2009) had $21.15 in gross revenue; paid (approximately) $526 million in taxes, and was left with $1.34 billion in after expense/tax profit.

Contact yossi@yossigestetner.com and/or follow on Twitter @yossigestetner

You remember speaker Pelosi saying that “we need to pass HC Reform to know what’s in it”? And “the more people know about it, the more they will like it”?

You remember those two lines? Well I do. Therefore, I looked up some poll numbers.

A Very recent CNN Poll has 54% surveyed disapproving of Obama’s handling of HC, vs. 44% who do approve, which means HCR is still a net-negative for Obama.

Worse, according to a Bloomberg Poll of a few weeks ago, 32% have the same opinion on HCR as they did a few months ago when it passed, and another 37% support it LESS. This means that a total of 69% Americans do NOT fit into the category that Dem leaders told their members will take place, I.e. that more and more Americans will like it more as the election draws closer.

One of the “great” things in Obamacare, is that people with pre-existing conditions can – starting in June – buy into high risk Insurance pools subsidizes, but not directly run, by the federal government.

Sound clean, and promising too. Right? Well, as they say: the devil is in details. Here are some details written in a lengthy news piece in the NYT just afew days ago:

1) Only those who are uninsured for six months can buy-in. This makes me wonder, why according to the new Health Care laws, insurers as of 2014 won’t get to hold off pre-existing people for six months before covering them… Besides, how can this compassionate ObamaCare leave sick people hanging for a half year?

2) According to the Times report, “Premiums in the new program will be set at “standard rates,” based on the average premiums charged by private insurers for similar coverage in the individual market.” Regardless if “similar coverage” means policies that cover pre-existing conditions, or policies that don’t cover, Health Care premiums ain’t affordable. Therefore I wonder, why would the high-risk pool not give cheaper prices for those in suffering?

3) Get this from the Times: “The law specifies a limit on out-of-pocket medical costs, which cannot exceed $5,950 a year for an individual in the pool.” As far I understand this line, those suffering people may need to pay up to $5,950 on a yearly basis, excluding premiums. WHAT?

*

Obama keeps saying that the more people learn about the new law, the more they will like it. Well, here we got to see a few details of just one provision in the bill. Do you like now Health Care Reform more than you did afew minutes ago?

In a list of Top Ten immediate benefits You Will Get from Health Care Reform, written by Congressman John Larson, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the House, it is reported that the law “Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans.”

Feels Good. Right? Well, Wrong! Just as with adults, Health Insurers are exempt from covering pre-existing cases until 2014! The only difference between adults and children is, that in a few months from now if a child already has a policy or if the child  gets now a new policy, a firm cannot exclude payment to treat a particular illness, as sometimes happens now.

Are you shocked that this pre-existing thing for children is not in the can yet? Well, so was I when I read the AP story on Yahoo! The Dems should only wait until more American wake up and see what the bill does NOT cove,r as of yet.

Because firms cannot avert paying a pre-existing condition, they are now left, with two options: 1) they can, untill 2014 comes around, decide not to accept these children altogether. 2) The insurer will accept, but only at a much higher rate.

Outch! How will THIS sit with the American people?

                                                                              *

NOTE TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE MY POSTS VIA E-MAIL: if you have a comment that you want to send me regarding the issue I address or any posting in general, you can reply as you would in a regular e-mail: Hit the reply key; write what you please; press send, and I’ll be glad to read your thoughts.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO DON’T RECEIVE MY POSTS VIA E-MAIL: sign-up here to receive my writings directly into your inbox. Only your email address is needed.

In 2008, I didn’t t vote for McCain, I voted for Palin. It just happened to be that McCain’s name was also on the ticket. Back in 2006, I casted a vote against my Congressman while knowing well that he will not come close to stand a chance of losing that election. Earlier, in 2004, I voted for the Bush/Cheney ticket despite knowing that NY’s Electoral College will anyway not go to the Republican side.

The reason I go voting, is to exercise the right to vote. Plus, I want to make sure that the margin of victory for the Dems should be with one vote less, even if it means voting for Republicans who are RINO (Republican in Name Only).

This makes me turn to Republican and Conservative voters from closely divided districts and states (like Minnesota was in November 2008), and ask them the following:

Now that Health Care Reform is where it is, what were you thinking by sitting out the elections in 2006 and 2008? You REALLY thought that there is no difference between moderate Republican majorities to a Leftist mad-house that we have in Washington since 2007?

I will not go through the list of issues here to point out the differences between both sides, yet I will give one example: Deficits.

The last budget (FY 2007) written up by the Republican Majority had a deficit of only $163 Billion, yet a year later, when Pelosi and Reid were at the drawing table, we finished with a $455B deficit (let me not even mention FY 2009 which ended on a minus of $1.4 trillion). This is just one issue where moderate Republicans did three times better than did the Dems. If so, why are you sitting out elections?

Back in 1992, you were very dissatisfied with GHWB, and therefore you voted for Ross Perot, thus making is possible for Clinton to win the Presidency despite getting only 43% of the popular vote. Were you happy with that result? Were you glad that taxes for every household rose under President Clinton by 25%, vs only 9% under Bush the first? Were you happy that Clinton gave us Breyer and Ginsburg, vs David Souter that Bush gave us a few years earlier?

Only a few 100 more votes in Minnesota in November 2008 was needed to block the Dems of getting 60 votes in the Senate to pass HCR. A few hundred votes here and there during the 2006 and 2008 Congressional Elections, would have given the Dems a smaller majority in the House, thus making it close to impossible for Health Care to pass in its current state.

But to some Conservatives, voting for the Republican in those elections was too bad of a bitter pill to swallow. Well, here you have it: Health Care Reform is on the way to President Obama, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!

Next time, dear Conservative Ideologue, vote for the least bad of the two option you have, because voting/waiting for your ideal candidate, gave you Clinton and Obama as Presidents; control of the Hill to Pelosi and Reid, and finally: Health Care Reform in addition to higher taxes which you don’t like.

When will the Democrats cut this talk that Health Care “saves” $130 billion over the first ten years? The reforms DO cost and will cost money; it’s the slashing of Medicare by $500 billion and the increase of tax rates by a half trillion that “saves” this $130 billion.

To “save” $130, the Dems can/should just cut Medicare by $65 billion, raise tax by $65 billion, and they’ll have their $130 in “savings”! After all, this is where the “savings” comes in the first place. They can have it without messing up the Health system!

P.s. The reason Health Care Reform saves only $130 billion despite the massive Medicare cuts and huge tax increases is because the reforms DO COST MONEY!!! How stupid do the Dems think we are?

Sure, people want to be covered in case they have a catastrophic event, God-forbid. But in general, does Washington think that people without jobs; people with weak salaries, are going around worried now about Health Care, which one can get in the Hospital in case of emergency, or are people worried how to pay bills? How to push through the month? How to pay stupid tax levis?

A person who has/is in a family of three, is self-employed, and earned in 2009 the average income for private sector people, has now a tax bill of 4-5 G’s, if this person didn’t pay social security/Medicare tax throughout the year. In the same time, the Dems wanna move-in and help this person with Health Insurance which will cost Uncle Sam a few G’s a year.

How about the Gov. switches it: they don’t take from this person the 4-5 G’s for FICO tax, which he can use to buy Insurance on his own, and the gov dosnt give now for this person health coverage?

You may say: “What do you mean don’t pay SS tax; this person needs to pay in $$$ to the system that he should get money when he retires.”

Well, 1) most people pay into Medicare/Social Security more than they ever get back. So, don’t worry about not paying into the system. 2) If the Government is anyway ready to give this person now “free health Insurance,” why not switch it, and send this person “free” Social Security checks and Medicare when he/she retires?

Listen up Mr. President:

I don’t have health insurance for almost a year now, and nor do I have stocks or other investments in health insurance firms. I can therefore tell you objectively that your recent moves to consider empowering the federal government to limit the rate hikes of Health Insurance companies will not help me with a dime, and will likely hurt me in the future.

Here is why:

A) The profit margin of health insurers is like… Em, 7-8 percent of their total investment. Which means, if their expenses keep rising yet they can’t cover it, they will… O yeah: go out of business. I don’t see how that helps uninsured or insured Americans.

B) Rather than focusing on revamping the Health system, and taxing this plan or that plan, why don’t you do things that will cut health costs? Don’t give me this load of junk that your Health plan will save money for the government, because the savings are a result of cutting Medicare by aproxx $50 billion annually, and raising tax by $50 billion annually. It has nothing with tackling the problems that cuses health costs to rise.

C) As of now, I am just a little-a.. guy. However, if I succeed in business, I do NOT want the federal government to dictate my business or investment. It is outrages, and probably beyond your authority, to control business the way you did in the Auto industry and other businesses. The last thing we need as a nation, is for the federal government to move-in like the old Communists and control/dictate private business institutions.

Mr. Obama: please mind your own business, and let Americans take care of their business. Thanks sir.

NY’s two Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, voted in favor of the Health Care legislation, but the sad news for all new Yorkers is, that regardless how poor they are, they WILL pay more for Health Care, if the bill gets signed.

Let’s not focus now on the fact that half the percentage of the population currently uninsured will continue to be uninsured even when the full “benefits” of HCR kick in by late 2013. Let’s just focus on what HCR will cost NY annually, which in turn WILL cost the poor little man, a lot of money that they don’t have:.

According to Governor Paterson, HCR will every year cost the state $1 billion. What happened last time the Governor needed an extra $1 billion bucks? He raised DMV fees on EVERYONE, rich and poor alike. Same will happen here: payments to Hospitals and clinics will go down, or the state will come after you to get the money, in form of even higher sales tax, and other chargers that you can’t avoid.

Listen poor guy: nothing in America is free, and stop buying the junk from the Dems that they raise tax only on the rich.

How many more times will Dems repeat this junk that the HCR bills are deficit Neutral??? My head EXPLODES every time I hear/read it, because the fact is Health Care will – starting in ’14 – cost the government a fresh $145 billion EVERY YEAR, if the “reforms” take place.

Here are the (approximate) raw numbers:

In the first 10 years from when President Obama will (hopefully not) sign the HCR bill, Medicare will be cut by $500 billion, and taxes will be increased by a half trillion dollars. This should reduce the deficit by $1 trillion in the first ten years, yet the CBO reports that HCR saves the budget only $130 billion in the next 10 years. Where, you ask, goes the rest $870 billion? Well… You got it: to cover this damn HCR bill starting in ’14 when the “benefits” kick in, which means a yearly expenses of $145 billion!

It is simple as I just put it, yet the Dems keep on repeating this blatant lie that HCR “saves” $130 billion during 10 years, giving the impression that the “reforms” save money to the government, when in fact it is only the steep Medicare cuts and sharp increase in tax that save some money.

(In light of the Sneate vote, let me refrash a posting I had here two months ago)

Yip yip ya-hoo (as Limbaugh would say). The Dems health care plan, as you probably know, will cover 94% of the U.S. population.

Let’s have a drink to celebrate. But hold that one, because if you are currently uninsured, you still have a 50% chance of staying this way even if the Dem plan gets signed by Obama.Here are the simple numbers…The U.S. population is approximately 305 million people.The number without health insurance is 47 million.Of it, less than 37 million are actually legal in the U.S.From another perspective it means: approximately 12% is not insured.The Dem Plan covers only 94%, which means 6% will be left without coverage.Total: if you are of the 12% without coverage you still have a 50% chance of staying without healthcare. Yeah… What a marvelous health plan.You want more? The Dem plan for 94% coverage kicks in only in ’13. So my fellow 12% uninsured Americans: your 50% chance of getting insurance, has a 100% chance of waiting another 3-4 years.
To those who wanted that Medicare should be expanded to Americans 55 and older, take this note: Medicare is not free; it gets “officially” funded through 7.5% tax off of your weekly income. Plus, you still have premiums when you hit 65. So… if you think Free Health Care is coming your way, wash your face with cold water because you are day-dreaming.

Speaking of Medicare, the Dmes HCR plan cuts Medicare with tens of billions of dollars starting the year that the bill gets to Obama. So… If you think Medicare is underfunded now, call me before the ’12 elections.

Since news of the Health Care “compromise” came to light, I read from a few pundits (mainly on the left) that the Republicans lost politically and on policy by being fully against these bills.

This claim is totally off the mark.

First Politically:

When the Stimulus passed, we were also told that the Republicans lost. The Left was certain that the Stimulus will do wonders to the economy, and thus help the Dems politically. However ten months later, the Stimulus has little to show for it self, and few Americans think that it was a good idea.

The same game is with HCR: as time moves along (I am talking months, not years), more people will notice that besides being taxed; threatened with prison; being fined, and/or just simply be of the 4%-6% Americans who will still not be covered by the Dems’ plan (which is only a slight improvement of the current 8%-9% that go forcibly without Health Insurance), the bill – voters will notice – does NOTHING to help Americans who have now trouble with Health Coverage. In addition, before writing that the Republicans lost, the Dems should wait untill more Americans notice that Nelson, Reid and a dozen other Dems obtained special services for their states on the back of the other 35 states. I am sure few Americans will be happy with that either.

Now on Policy:

The Republicans, being in the minority position that they are, do not have much political power. Yet, whatever Shtick they did since July to derail HCR, is the reason why the HCR bills are now MUCH less liberal than Move.on and others would want. Is it still a DISASTER of a bill for Conservatives? Sure it is, but let’s not forget that the Dems have sweeping majorities in both Houses, thus Republicans will anyway lose policy fights. However, if Republicans would “going along” with HCR, and/or “work on compromise,” the bill by now would have looked the same, or perhaps even more, liberal.

So… All in all, the Repubs didn’t lose on this battle. They in fact got (on policy), and will get (politically) more than anyone on the Left will ever want.

Whichever way the final Health Care Reform bill shapes up to be, the Democrats are doomed.

If it has a full scale public option, it cannot get 60 votes to end debate in The Senate due to a few moderates. If it does not have the public option, the conference bill won’t pass the House due to a few dozen liberals.

Now let’s move to politics: if the bill passes, the Republicans will campaign the next twelve months that starting in ’10, the legislation cuts too much from Medicare, raises too much tax despite that the HCR benefits start only a few years later. If President Obama does not sign the bill, the base on the Left will be mad like hell, and this likely translate into trouble for the Dems come November.

All this is directly the fault of Obama, Ried and Pelosi who did zero-to-nothing to have real bipartisan support on this issue. Now it is time that they eat their own.