CARTOON: Obamacare Ruling
Filed Under: Cartoons Tagged With: Cartoon, Obamacare, Rule of Law, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Californians Struggle to Afford Obamacare Premiums
In May 2013, Covered California officials faced sharp criticism over claims that premiums would actually go down for many health insurance purchasers. Forbes.com’s Avik Roy wrote that the agency implementing the Golden State’s version of Obamacare needed to look at its own data, which suggested health premiums would surge at least 64 percent after the regulations in the Affordable Care Act took effect. Bloomberg analysts offered similar criticisms.
Two years later, the Kaiser Family Foundation has issued a report that suggests these warnings were more accurate than the upbeat predictions of Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee. A key finding:
“Among adults who say that they pay a monthly premium for their health coverage, nearly half of newly insured adults (47 percent) say it is somewhat or very difficult to afford this cost, compared to just 27 percent of adults who were insured before 2014. When looking specifically by type of coverage, 44 percent of Covered California enrollees (not all of whom are newly insured) report difficulty paying their monthly premium, versus a quarter of adults with other types of private coverage. Medi-Cal enrollees do not pay monthly premiums for their coverage.”
Cost, not glitches, slowing CA sign-ups
The Kaiser report, which was based on interviews with 4,555 Californians, says the cost factor is the biggest barrier to higher enrollments, not online technical snafus:
“Cost continues to prevent many uninsured adults from seeking coverage. While many people focused on website glitches and administrative barriers during 2014, uninsured adults say that the reason they still lack coverage is because it’s too expensive, with most not even trying to get ACA coverage, and many who did still saying they are ineligible or believe the coverage is too costly.”
The cost of premiums is also prompting Californians to quit Covered California, KCRA TV in Sacramento reported, citing documents showing that 150,000 people dropped their state coverage in 2014.
These developments come in a pivotal year for Covered California — the last year in which federal subsidies will help cover the subsidies provided by the state agency. By law, beginning in 2016, the agency cannot seek state subsidies and must rely only on revenue it generates from premiums. Its goal was to have 1.7 million residents enrolled by Feb. 15, but it fell far short, with 1.4 million signups.
More criticism from national media
Meanwhile, Covered California is again provoking comment from outside of California. A May 31 Columbia Journalism Review essay by Trudy Lieberman criticized coverage of the agency as misleading:
It’s not easy to figure out how to monitor the progress of Covered California, the country’s largest state-run health insurance exchange.
Is it the total number of people who have signed up for an insurance plan on the exchange during open enrollment? The rate at which people renew? The number of new sign-ups in a given year? The number of Latino sign-ups? The number of “covered lives”? The number of Californians who have had coverage through the exchange at any point? Or, simply, the overall rate of uninsured adults across the state?
“In recent months, Covered California has cited each of these measures to tout its success. And though outside analysts have raised some notes of caution, press coverage has largely followed the lead set by the exchange. The result is coverage that has too often been reactive, short on enterprise, and with missed opportunities to ask some necessary questions. Covered California may ultimately have a success story to tell — but it will need to face some sharper skepticism before we can be sure.”
Lieberman wrote that California journalists should spend more time talking to affected state residents about their experiences with the agency and be less inclined to accept Covered California’s characterizations of its record.
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Covered CA, Health care, Obamacare
Obamacare Funds Allegedly Used For Union Recruitment
According to a letter made public Saturday, federal investigators are looking into whether Obamacare funds were misused to benefit a union.
The letter, which was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, says the Office of Inspector General has been investigating whether Southern United Neighborhoods and its sub grantee, United Labor Unions Local 100, purposely misused federal funds from the Obamacare Navigator program to recruit members. The program was designed to help people enroll in Obamacare.
“Your request as to the disposition of your complaint poses a question, which is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, through which individuals may request records,” the letter noted. “However, we conducted a search for records relative to your request and were informed there was an open and ongoing investigation concerning this matter.”
Back in September, after conducting its own research, the group Cause of Action wrote to the OIG asking to investigate whether SUN and Local 100 misused the federal funds. CoA took notice after a court case involving an individual who claimed he was owed overtime by SUN and ULU.
“On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs Cedric Anthony (‘Anthony’) filed a class action lawsuit seeking damages for unpaid overtime against SUN and ULU under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” a letter from CoA detailed.
“Anthony alleges he was initially employed by SUN as an ACA federal navigator, visiting community events and enrolling individuals in healthcare,” the letter continued. “In addition to these duties at SUN, Anthony alleges that he was directed to recruit members for the ULU by visiting schools to register cafeteria workers for the union.”
“SUN and ULU admit that Anthony was employed by ULU,” the letter added. “They deny, however, that Anthony was employed by SUN.”
On Nov. 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice which effectively closed the case. The Joint Stipulation meant questions raised in the case in regards to misuse of funds were not answered, prompting the need for a federal investigation.
“Cause of Action uncovered that ObamaCare navigator funds were not only funneled to an ACORN-related entity, but were potentially misused to support union activities at the behest of ACORN founder Wade Rathke,” CoA President Dan Epstein told TheDCNF.
“On the basis of Cause of Action’s request for an investigation, the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services disclosed that there is ‘an open and ongoing investigation’ concerning the use of the navigator funds,” he continued. “It’s encouraging to hear that HHS is conducting a probe to ensure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately, and not to enrich ACORN’s political interests.”
Republican Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch recently estimated the administration spent over $120 million on the Navigator program for the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment periods.
SUN and Local 100 did not respond to requests for comment from TheDCNF.
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Health care, Obamacare, unions
Medi-Cal Struggles Leave Politicians Worried, Patients Hurting
A victim of its own success, California’s popular Medi-Cal program has rapidly swelled to a large enough size to malfunction. It’s known as Medicaid in the rest of the country and provides medical care to poor people.
Mounting woes — from applicant backlogs to outdated regulations — have raised serious concerns among analysts and policymakers.
In part, the challenges facing the Medi-Cal system came about because of administrative changes triggered by the federal Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Here it’s called Covered California. As CalWatchdog.com reported, a combination of cuts in federal and state budgetary subsidies boosted provider costs.
“A provision of Obamacare hiked the rates for primary care doctors to the substantially higher Medicare rates for two years, but those increases ended on Dec. 31,” reported the San Jose Mercury News. “A second blow came last month when the state cut the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate by another 10 percent, a reduction approved by California lawmakers in 2011 but delayed in a court battle that doctors ultimately lost.”
But the ACA has made an even greater impact on California’s health care challenges by ballooning the population accessing Medi-Cal benefits. As the Mercury News reported, Obamacare opened the floodgates in Jan. 2014, resulting in 2.7 million more recipients to date.
California’s expanded recipient group now makes up 17 percent of total national Obamacare enrollment, even though California’s overall population is just 12 percent of the U.S. total.
State health officials, according to the Mercury News, have concluded that by the middle of 2016, “more than 12.2 million people — nearly a third of all Californians — will be on Medi-Cal.” Meanwhile, the program already consumes about two-thirds of California state-government spending on health and human services overall.
Budgetary fears
For both Gov. Jerry Brown and Sacramento legislators, these trend lines have raised sharp worries, as McKnight’s news servicereported:
“State lawmakers this week said the latest enrollment news is alarming, and that even if a new pending rate request hike goes through, there is concern the state will run out of funding to care for its Medicaid recipients. State Medicaid costs are up 4.3 percent this year while federal share of costs for new enrollees will begin dropping in 2016, according to Gov. Jerry Brown.”
Brown has made an effort to head some costs off at the pass in his budget plan. According to State of Reform, a health-care think tank, “Brown has earmarked $2 billion in total funds ($943.2 million General Fund dollars) to cover mandatory Medi-Cal expansion.”
But pressure to change the budgetary calculus in California’s favor has intensified.
Reducing access
The big picture for Medi-Cal has officeholders and policymakers so nervous because of the ripple effects of increased costs and recipient rolls. State of Reform observed:
“In addition to Medi-Cal primary cuts making it potentially impossible for new patients to find physicians, President Barack Obama’s executive action will make approximately 1 million undocumented immigrants in California eligible for health insurance tax subsidies.”
That has critics warning access to doctors could decrease sharply. In a sobering report issued by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the impact of the president’s actions was incalculable:
“The benefits received by undocumented immigrants through these programs are almost entirely funded by the state and would therefore result in additional General Fund costs of an unknown amount. The General Fund costs to provide state–funded benefits to this population are unknown at this time.”
With the federal government putting the squeeze on California’s budget, state doctors have become increasingly scarce.
“There are mounting concerns there will not be enough plan doctors to accommodate the enrollment surge,” according to McKnight’s. “One recent study found that only 57 percent of the state’s primary care doctors accept new Medi-Cal patients.”
As a result, increasing numbers of recipients have been winding up in the ER. As the Fresno Bee observed, that transfer of burdens has undermined the claim advanced by Obamacare proponents “that patients with insurance would have primary care doctors to take care of them and less reason to use expensive and overcrowded hospital emergency rooms.”
Although experts have not determined the likely extent of doctors’ unwillingness to treat Medi-Cal patients, California lawmakers have begun to brace for the worst: a substantial budgetary increase that will not be covered by the federal government.
Instead, the higher health tab may have to be absorbed by increased taxes, cuts in other budget areas, or both.
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ACA, Health care, Jerry Brown, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, Obamacare
Covered CA Facing 2015 Adjustments
After posting some of the biggest numbers in the Obamacare firmament, Covered California is putting the squeeze on Golden Staters. Amid concerns that bureaucratic and administrative rules will reverse initial gains, the statewide exchange is stressing the substantial increase in tax penalties facing Californians who don’t get insurance.
Meanwhile, choices for coverage are shrinking, not expanding.
In order to hold down spikes in the cost of care, Obamacare included insurance subsides calculated according to a family’s expected yearly income. In keeping with federal tax practices, if a family’s actual income exceeds the estimated amount, their subsidy shrinks accordingly — regardless of whether it leaves them in the hole.
According to the Los Angeles Times, analysts now predict that as many as half of all families enrolled and subsidized under Covered CA could face a bill this tax year.
The implications are so serious that Covered CA executives are on edge. They’ve had to pivot swiftly from public relations mode — pushing a traveling awareness campaign designed to boost enrollments — to public warning mode.
“As the health law’s second open enrollment period draws to a close, Covered CA , the largest of the state-run health insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare, is about to start emphasizing the tax penalties one can incur by not getting covered,” Reason’s Peter Suderman observes.
“As the penalty increases,” Covered CA Executive Director Peter Lee said in a statement, “it makes more and more sense for those who have been waiting on the sidelines to get in and get coverage.”
Toby Douglas, director of the Medi-Cal management organization DHCS, put it more bluntly. “This is an important message that should be heard by Californians of all income levels,” he said. “Applying for coverage not only gives you an opportunity to get comprehensive health care; it can help you avoid a penalty that could hurt you and your family.”
A snowball effect
The federal picture is not the only one that matters in California. It turns out that Medi-Cal faces a simultaneous reduction in state reimbursement rates. As David Gorn notes at California Healthline:
“The 10 percent rate cut, approved by the California Legislature in 2011, was held up while the matter was thrashed out in court. Last year, the courts upheld the state’s right to reduce provider reimbursement and health care officials decided to implement the cutbacks in phases. The last phase, which includes primary care providers, went into effect Jan. 1.”
That puts pressure on legislators to pour more state tax dollars into funding Medi-Cal. “More than 11 million Californians are on Medi-Cal — more than 30 percent of the state’s population. Raising rates by any amount, given that huge pool of recipients, would be an expensive proposition,” writes Gorn.
The result is a snowballing budgetary problem, not just for families seeking health coverage but for the state of California. It’s bad timing for Gov. Jerry Brown in particular.
Brown has just come off of a fragile but significant political success — debuting an eye-popping budget plan that’s nevertheless been greeted as relatively well-disciplined, if only by California’s profligate standards. Brown has had to carefully balance competing demands for more cash for statewide interests, from environmentalists to the universal pre-K lobby.
Too hard a push for additional health care funding could foster a political crisis that cuts strongly against Brown’s agenda, which is heavy on infrastructure and fiscal management.
Pressure on the left
Adding more wrinkles to the challenge facing Brown, important constituencies on the political left have imposed increasing burdens on the scope of coverage promised under Obamacare. USA Today reports that perhaps half-a-million unlawful immigrants residing in California will soon become eligible for Medi-Cal, while Sacramento Democrats are working “to extend state-subsidized health insurance to everyone, including those barred from getting covered through the Affordable Care Act.”
Meanwhile, some 280,000 Northern and Central California customers have been put on notice that their coverage may collapse or cost more, thanks to a contract dispute that has Blue Shield of California squaring off against the Sutter Health network. Sutter, earning the sympathy of liberals, insists Blue Shield is to blame for slashing reimbursements and expecting Sutter to somehow absorb the costs.
But the controversy is poised to remind Californians of the intra-party divisions that had Democrats at odds in November over Proposition 45, which would have given the state insurance commission the power to negotiate rates with insurers, including Covered CA itself. Voters rejected it, 59 percent to 41 percent.
Prop. 45 was backed by Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, who was re-elected to his job, and billionaire hedge-fund investor Thomas Steyer, who is contemplating a bid for the U.S. Senate.
Opposition included Diana Dooley, the head of the state’s Health and Human Services Agency and chair of Covered California, a Brown appointee, and the Service Employees International Union, a key Democratic power center.
This piece was originally published on CalWatchdog.com
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Covered CA, Health care, Obamacare, Prop 45
Pay for Retiree Health Care by Putting California Government Workers in Obamacare
As I’ve stated here before, there is no reason for California governments to continue retiree health care benefits for those who aren’t already retired or vested. It’s costly as heck (and getting costlier), and money hasn’t been set aside to pay for the benefits. And this country has Obamacare and Medicare to cover government retirees.
But retiree health care seems here to stay – in fact, the Brown administration is widely reported to be coming up with a plan to provide more of a funding base for it. That’s essential — even if the state comes to its senses and ends retiree health care, there will be many decades of benefits to pay for those who already have earned them.
But how to provide funding? I’d suggest taking a hard line: no other program or part of the budget should suffer to pay for retiree health care (that could just as easily be provided by existing public programs). So how to pay for it? The most appropriate way would be to put today’s state and local government workers into the insurance markets created by Obamacare.
The money saved – a Stanford study estimated the annual savings to California would be $1.4 billion – would be significant, providing a base of funding for retiree health care.
There’d be other benefits to the shift – including building up the fledgling markets with new customers and giving powerful public employee unions a stake in making the markets work. (Do you think it would be so hard to get Covered California on the phone if SEIU members were its customers?) And it’d be more than fair, since unions are the most important backers of the party that gave us this new health insurance system.
Of course, the fairness of such a policy wouldn’t stop unions from opposing this . And that opposition represents an opportunity for both sides of the political spectrum. The right could point out that even Democratic interest groups don’t want to go on with Obamacare. Republicans in the legislature, if they’re going to use their newfound ability to block Democrats who lost their supermajorities, would be wise to seize on this issue; they should block measures that require two-thirds until they get the elimination of retiree health care going forward.
Less-political people on the left could point out that having public employees getting platinum-coated health benefits means less money for vital public programs and investments. And they could make the most fundamental of progressive arguments: shouldn’t we all be in this together?
This article was originally published on Fox and Hounds Daily
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Health care, Joe Mathews, Obamacare, Public employees
Report: Inaccuracies in Covered CA Doctor Lists
What good is medical insurance if you can’t find a doctor?
A recent investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care found a quarter of the doctors listed in the provider directories for two of California’s top Affordable Care Act insurance plans either refuse to accept patients in the Covered California exchange, the state’s ACA implementation, or the doctors can’t be located.
“The inquiry was in response to numerous complaints the Department received from consumers who were having difficulty finding in-network physicians,” said the DMHC. “When contacted by the Department, a significant number of these physicians listed in the Plan’s network as participating providers indicated they did not accept Covered California enrollees.”
Nearly 13 percent of the physicians listed by Anthem Blue Cross as Covered California providers were not willing to accept patients enrolled in Anthem’s Covered California plans, according to a DMHC phone survey of 3,272 providers. Another 12.5 percent were not at the location listed in the provider directory.
Similar results were found with Blue Shield in another DMHC report: 8.8 percent of providers were unwilling to accept patients enrolled in Blue Shield’s Covered California products, despite being listed on the website as doing so. And 18.2 percent of the physicians were not at the directory’s listed location.
Some Californians have it worse than others. In 13 counties, fewer than half of Anthem Blue Cross’ Covered California providers said they accept Covered California patients, according to DMHC. That was the case for Blue Shield providers in 12 counties. The worst was Modoc County, where only 20 percent accept Blue Shield’s Covered California patients.
Making the situation even worse for those seeking affordable health care, 6 percent of the physicians who do participate in Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Covered California plans are not accepting new patients, according to the DMHC.
Advertising
The department accused the companies of violating California Health & Safety Code Section 1360. It states: “No plan, solicitor, solicitor firm, or representative shall use or permit the use of any advertising or solicitation which is untrue or misleading, or any form of evidence of coverage which is deceptive.”
The companies’ Covered California insurance plans were cited for four deficiencies of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act, which regulates HMOs in California:
- “The Plan operated at variance when its internet website and online Provider Directory informed enrollees that numerous physicians were participating in the Plan’s Covered California products, when they were not.
- “When the Plan failed to correct inaccuracies in its online Provider Directory, the Plan used (or permitted the use of) written or printed statements or items of information that were either untrue or misleading and which were disseminated, at least in part, for the purpose of inducing persons to enroll in the Plan.
- “The Plan failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide enrollees with accurate contracted provider lists, either upon request, or through provider listings set forth on the Plan’s internet website.
- “The Plan failed to submit a required Amendment filing to inform the Department of a greater than 10 percent change in the list of providers and to resubmit its updated provider list for re-review and approval.”
The first three deficiencies remain uncorrected, according to the DMHC report, and “have been referred to the Office of Enforcement for additional corrective action and other remedies as needed.”
Responses
The companies filed responses with DMHC, arguing the findings are flawed, overblown and based on inaccurate phone surveys. Their contracted physicians are responsible for inaccuracies in the directory if they don’t notify that they’ve moved to another location. And the companies said that any problems have been corrected.
“The Final Report drew several inaccurate conclusions based on unsupported assumptions and a fundamentally flawed research methodology,” argued Blue Cross in its response. “Most concerning is that even after being advised of the obvious problems with the survey’s findings, DMHC forged ahead with publishing its Final report.
“The unfortunate result is that the final report is likely to confuse and mislead consumers at a time when they are in need of accurate information in making their health care decisions.”
The company argued phone surveys have a “penchant for inaccuracy.” To ensure accuracy, the surveyor must first test a small sample and make adjustments before launching the full campaign. And it should include a subsample interviewed by a different interviewer to double-check the responses.
“Importantly, the interviewer should make every effort to speak with the person most likely to have the information sought, and record the title or role of the person interviewed,” Blue Cross said. “There is no indication in the Final Report that any of these basic protocols were followed.”
The company said it followed up with the physicians contacted by DMHC. Nearly half had “no recollection of any call from DMHC or its surveyors, with many saying such a call would have been referred to the individual with whom Anthem spoke, and that the provider’s office fully understands it is an Anthem provider.”
Blue Cross also charged the DMHC report is misleading because it assumed physicians who had not updated their address information or did not respond to the survey or were uncertain whether they were in the Anthem plan “were by implication not Anthem providers. … [I]t appears the Final Report was written to confirm DMHC’s erroneous initial bias that Anthem’s Provider Directory had significant inaccuracies.”
Defense
Blue Shield’s response, while not as confrontational, made similar arguments in its defense:
“Blue Shield of California acknowledges and shares the Department of Managed Health Care’s concern about the network confusion that Individual and Family Plan members and our network providers experienced in 2014, due in large part to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
“We have worked hard over the last year to ensure that all of our members have an improved and positive experience in 2015. We are committed to continuing to work with the Department on our shared mission of serving Covered California members across the state.
“At the same time, we believe that the Department’s Final Report is misleading and has the potential to further confuse members by significantly overstating the severity of the issues. The vast majority of the issues raised in the Department’s report have either been corrected by Blue Shield or were never caused by Blue Shield in the first place.”
Blue Shield said it has more than 27,000 primary care providers under contract, with 96 percent “confirming they are accepting new Covered California patients.”
DMHC response
DMHC responded to Blue Cross’ criticisms:
“While the Department understands these concerns, they do not change the fact that the significant inaccuracies contained in the Plan’s online Provider Directory resulted in a highly unacceptable consumer experience, nor do they change the fact that California consumers could not reach or did not have access to providers who were represented as being part of the Plan’s network.”
The department acknowledged that Blue Shield is making corrections, but also defended the accuracy of its report’s findings:
“[T]he disconnect between the information provided to members and the actual status of providers within the Plan’s network has real potential for creating barriers to care. The divergence between the Plan’s online directory and the survey responses by provider offices listed in the directory creates confusion and access difficulties for enrollees.”
The DMHC was backed up by the California Medical Association, which represents more than 40,000 medical professionals. In a Dec. 8 letter to Covered California, CMA Associate Director Brett Johnson said the DMHC’s findings “unfortunately were consistent with our own findings.
“We have long been concerned with the state of provider directories in some of California’s largest health plans, and have conducted numerous internal surveys and analyses to this effect, some of which involved direct testing (e.g., calling practices to verify participation status) similar to that employed by DMHC.
“Despite criticism of DMHC in the plan responses for using telephone contact as the primary means of assessing a physician’s participation status, both directories audited in the report used directory disclaimers that instructed the enrollee to call or otherwise contact the listed provider to verify participation status.
“We believe, furthermore, this emphasis on point-of-service access appropriately places the responsibility for clear communication, comprehensible administrative policies, user-friendly information updating processes, and unambiguous contracting, among other things, in the hands of those best equipped to do something about it, the health plans, as opposed to relying primarily on DMHC to have the capacity required to effectively police the vast documentation this entails.”
However, the CMA did agree with the companies “that miscommunications and misunderstandings were the likely cause of a significant percentage of DMHC’s reported inaccuracies and failures to verify participation, and we further agree that, in such instances, physicians have a role in confirming participation status and ensuring that demographic data remains current.”
Recommendations
Johnson’s letter submitted three recommendations for Covered California’s consideration:
- “Foster improved collaboration among providers and health plans to improve communication, the contracting process, and the means by which demographic information is verified and updated.
- “Using Covered California’s authority as an active purchaser, require that providers’ participation in reduced networks be only obtained via a separate, affirmative assent.
- “To achieve greater network transparency and improved directory reliability, continue encouraging and pursuing consumer-friendly technological improvements, such as creating an interface between health plan network management systems and a Covered California cross-plan directory.”
At the Dec. 15 Covered California board meeting, Executive Director Peter Lee said, “I applaud and appreciate CMA’s approach and recommendations. Getting directories right is a problem and challenge for both doctors and health plans. We will address that issue.”
This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ACA, Covered California, Health care, Insurance, Obamacare
Revising History to Fool Taxpayers
After Joseph Stalin took the reins of power in the Soviet Union in the mid 1920’s, his image suddenly appeared in paintings of important meetings of the Bolshevik revolutionaries – which was odd because he had attended virtually none of them. Later, after each successive Stalinist purge, group photos that included previously prominent, but now ostracized, imprisoned or executed communists, would be scrubbed, so as to appear that they had never existed.
Of course attempts by politicians to rewrite their history go far beyond just doctoring paintings and photographs.In Washington, D.C. we have the curious case of Jonathan Gruber. During the run-up to Obamacare, both then Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama sang the praises of the roll that MIT professor of economics Jonathan Gruber had played in crafting the legislation. Gruber has been described as the architect of Obamacare and, before that, the similar Romneycare in Massachusetts.Recently, videos surfaced online showing economist Grubber telling groups that the healthcare law had been written specifically in a way to deceive the “stupid” American public so that it would not be clear that it actually contained massive tax increases.When confronted with this evidence, now Minority Leader Pelosi, who famously said that lawmakers had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it, did her best impression of a deer in the headlights and denied any knowledge of Jonathan Gruber. The president acknowledged Gruber, but dismissed his influence as an insignificant. Both Pelosi’s and Obama’s efforts to downplay Gruber’s role in drafting the Obamacare is so easily disproven by the facts that even the most left leaning journalists are incredulous.
In the recent California General Election, we saw almost humorous efforts by some candidates, who in the past opposed Proposition 13, to recast themselves as champions of the taxpayer protecting measure.
Perhaps the most egregious example occurred in Orange County, where former Assemblyman Jose Solorio was seeking a state Senate seat. Knowing the district included many homeowners, he tried to campaign as a protector of Proposition 13. He was even able to persuade Jerry Brown to record political ads intended to verify Solorio’s Proposition 13 credentials.
Sadly for Solorio and his band of revisionist historians, the Assembly keeps careful records and it was easy for taxpayers to document that he had voted more than once for measures that would have undercut Proposition 13’s taxpayer protections. With the truth out, his candidacy was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
The lesson here is that when any politician makes claims about his or her record, because of the internet, voters can quickly check to see if they are being told the truth, or if, like Jonathan Gruber, the office seeker believes the public to be stupid.
Revisionists rely on deception and obfuscation. To expose them, it is therefore necessary for the majority of voters to have access to the truth and have the skills to discern its importance. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.
This piece was originally published at HJTA.org
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Jonathan Gruber, Jose Solorio, Obamacare, Orange County, Prop 13, Property Taxes
Look Who Is Living Like the One Percent
The far left smugly promotes a cartoonish image of upper income individuals as those who enjoy limousines, expensive wine, travel and lavish parties. If one listens long enough to so-called “progressives,” one may begin to imagine that all rich people look like Uncle Pennybags, the little tycoon mascot of the Parker Brothers Monopoly game.
The myth, as perpetrated by progressives, is that the wealthy got to the top by cheating the little guy, gaming the system and evading taxes. Of course, under this view, the rich are unquestionably evil and the very rich are known as the “One Percent.” You don’t get any more evil than members of the One Percent. (Unless, of course, an extremely wealthy individual devotes millions of dollars to advance Al Gore’s view of global warming, in which case they get a pass and advance directly to Go).
Given this myth – and its perpetuation by main stream media – it is ironic how many of those associated with government, most of whom share the far left ideology, are living like the cartoon version of the One Percent.
A recent news report from the Associated Press reveals that California’s health insurance exchange, Covered California, has awarded $184 million in no-bid contracts, including several worth a total of $4.2 million that went to a consulting firm, The Tori Group, whose founder has strong professional ties to Covered California’s Executive Director Peter Lee. Other no bid contracts were awarded to a subsidiary of a health care company Lee once headed.
Isn’t this the kind of insider dealing that the radical left accuses the “Evil Rich” of using to build their fortunes?
Then there is what CBS investigative reporter David Goldstein discovered about the lifestyle of some California State University administrators. Seems they have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, donated for the purpose of supporting students’ educations, on amusements like fancy parties, alcohol, season tickets to the Hollywood Bowl and top restaurants. No doubt members of the One Percent will be asking why they were not invited.
Showcasing the hypocrisy of some who vilify the wealthy is a very public critic of the One Percent, Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, who takes down almost $560,000 in yearly compensation. Her union paid nearly $120,000 to a limousine service last year, according to federal financial disclosures.
Then there are the two-dozen Sacramento lawmakers winging their way to posh resorts in Maui to attend “conferences,” with expenses being paid for by special interests with business before the Legislature. Living large, indeed.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Kevin de Leon was sworn in as state Senate leader at a ceremony at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles to which 2,000 guests were invited. Invitations to the event called it an “Inauguration.” Usually Senate leaders are sworn in at a low key ceremony on the Capitol steps.
After the ceremony, guests attended a reception in a blocked-off street outside the concert hall where free food and drinks were provided. Sounds like de Leon just picked up the Chance Card allowing him to advance to Boardwalk, the most expensive property on the Monopoly board, where he will, no doubt, rub elbows with Uncle Penneybags.
So all this talk about how those in the private sector are greedy and those in the public sector are altruistic is, quite simply, balderdash. The sad fact is that the public sector is just an inviting environment for self-serving behavior – if not more so. The difference, of course, is that we the taxpayers pay for the latter.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Covered CA, HJTA, Jon Coupal, Obamacare, One Percent
Obamacare Stuffing
Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle
Filed Under: Cartoons Tagged With: Barack Obama, Jonathan Gruber, Obama, Obamacare, Thanksgiving
