<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: insurance premiums</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'insurance premiums'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22insurance+premiums%22&t=%22insurance+premiums%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:54:23 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Court Declares ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Unconstitutional</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4258846&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcqJi_9XNSCc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonObamaCare has always hung by an absurdity.  ObamaCare supporters claim that the Constitution&amp;#8217;s words “Congress shall have the Power…To regulate Commerce…among the several States” somehow give Congress the power to compel Americans to engage in commerce.  This ruling exposes that absurdity, and exposes as desperate political spin the Obama administration’s claims that these lawsuits are frivolous.
This ruling’s shortcoming is that it did not overturn the entire law.  Anyone familiar with ObamaCare knows that Congress would not have approved any of its major provisions absent the individual mandate.  The compulsion contained in the individual mandate was the main reason that most Democrats voted in favor of the law.  Yet the law still passed Congres...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4258846</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:16:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4258846</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NPR Story Was Hardly Biased, but the Headline?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4118887&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSV6PyZsNCj0%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonToday&amp;#8217;s NPR story, &amp;#8220;Health Law Hardly At Fault For Rising Premiums,&amp;#8221; was much fairer than its headline (and the sub-heads, if that’s what we call them).   ObamaCare is “hardly at fault for rising premiums?”  Really?  The story quotes an insurance-industry flack who well establishes what the Obama administration&amp;#8217;s own regulations confirm: ObamaCare will be a major driver of premium increases for some health plans.  A sub-head calls such claims “misinformation.”  Oh?  The article does more to bolster those claims than the administration&amp;#8217;s flack does to knock them down.  A more accurate headline would have been, “Health Law at Fault for Rising Premiums? In Some Cases, Yes.”
One wonders whether, in some posh Versailles sa...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4118887</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:11:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4118887</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Cognitive Dissonance of ObamaCare Supporters</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4055703&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjyWDFq34l5Q%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. Cannon&amp;#8220;The Affordable Care Act offers new benefits like preventive care with no out-of-pocket cost and tools to help fight unreasonable premium increases that will save money for consumers.&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman at the Department of Health and Human Services
The Cognitive Dissonance of ObamaCare Supporters is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4055703</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:31:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4055703</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Prods Yet Another Insurer to Flee the Market</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4022900&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqCYT1eaGZXs%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonFirst, a dozen insurers said they would stop writing child-only health insurance policies.  Now, according to the Wall Street Journal:

By forcing the exit of Principal Financial Group &amp;#8212; which ran a profitable, $1.6 billion health insurance business &amp;#8212; ObamaCare has now left 840,000 Americans to find another source of coverage.
According to The New York Times, other insurers may soon follow:
More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers&amp;#8230;
“It’s just going to drive the little guys out,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant in Alexandria, Va. Smaller players like ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4022900</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:09:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4022900</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Leads Minnesota Insurers to Suspend Sales</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3998959&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmP4je9Jwvv4%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonFrom the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Two of Minnesota&amp;#8217;s biggest health plans said Thursday they have temporarily suspended sales of individual health insurance policies because of uncertainty related to the new federal health reform law.
The moves by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and HealthPartners came on the same day some of the federal government&amp;#8217;s most-heralded consumer protections came into effect&amp;#8230;
The insurers that have suspended individual sales say they are awaiting guidance on new rules, including those around coverage of kids with pre-existing conditions&amp;#8230;
Pam Lux, a spokeswoman for Eagan-based Blue Cross, said she expects the suspension of individual sales to be brief but could not say if it would be days or weeks. (Source: Cato...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3998959</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:09:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3998959</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Many Supporters Not Willing to Trumpet ObamaCare’s Achievements</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3998961&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_aHqsV_IXnc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonAn interesting update on the politics of ObamaCare appears in CongressDailyPM (subscription required):
The marking of six months since the signing of the healthcare law should be a moment of celebration by Democrats, especially as several popular provisions go into effect today. But the political realities of the midterm elections have made trumpeting the law, which remains unpopular with large swaths of the electorate, a delicate balancing act for Democrats&amp;#8230;
House leaders tell their members to address the healthcare law in a way that best suits their districts&amp;#8230;
some Democratic members in the House and Senate instruct staff not to write talking points on the law&amp;#8217;s six-month provisions&amp;#8230;
a former administration official questions if Democrats&amp;#8217...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3998961</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:32:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3998961</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare’s Premium Refunds: Bad News for the Sick</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3993886&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3TlU4KCMCaY%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonUSA Today and Politico Pulse report that ObamaCare has prompted BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina to rebate $156 million to its customers in the individual market.  This may seem like good news.  It&amp;#8217;s actually bad news, particularly for BCBS&amp;#8217;s sickest customers.
Pre-ObamaCare, BCBS’s customers – whether healthy or sick – had coverage with an insurer that had already pre-funded their future medical needs. Competition protected them from BCBS skimping on care: if BCBS got a reputation for skimping, it would have a hard time enrolling new customers.
Post-ObamaCare, BCBS no longer needs that pile of cash, so they&amp;#8217;re returning it to their customers. That hurts sick enrollees because BCBS is doling it out to all enrollees – not just the sick e...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3993886</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:35:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3993886</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare &amp; Health Insurance Premiums: Out of the Frying Pan, into the Fire</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3980817&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F7wLnv6a_8s4%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonDuring the (initial) congressional debate over ObamaCare, President Obama vilified Anthem Blue Cross of California for a 39 percent rate increase.  On Wednesday, the Hartford Courant reported that ObamaCare itself may increase premiums by similar amounts:
Health insurers are asking for immediate rate hikes of more than 20 percent in Connecticut for some plans, citing rising medical costs and federal health reform laws as reasons&amp;#8230;
In what might appear to be an oddity, companies are citing a huge range of effects that the health care reform mandates will have on plan prices — from near zero to well over 20 percent. The reason is that among all the plans, some already deliver the provisions required by health reform, while others do not&amp;#8230;
Anthem Blue Cross an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3980817</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:43:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3980817</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Government Decisions About Avandia And Preventive Services</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3767074&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fgovernment-decisions-about-avandia-and-preventive-services%2F2010.07.19</link>
            <description>An FDA advisory panel has voted that the diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) can remain on the market, but recommended further warnings associated with its use. The panel was divided, the New York Times reported, with 12 of 33 members saying the drug should be removed from the market, 10 voting to restrict sales and strengthen the warning label, 7 recommending only strengthening the warning label, and 3 voting for no change. One panel member abstained. (New York Times)
The White House yesterday announced which preventive services would be available at no charge to patients under the new healthcare legislation. Adult patients who choose a health plan after September 23 will receive mammograms, diabetes screening, and tobacco cessation counseling, among other services, at no increased cos...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3767074</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:45:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3767074</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>7 Under-The-Radar Healthcare Changes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3746740&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2F7-under-the-radar-healthcare-changes%2F2010.07.12</link>
            <description>Kaiser Health News proves its value once again with an under-the-radar story covering some items you won&amp;#8217;t see in many other news sources. An excerpt:
&amp;#8220;&amp;#8230;several lesser-known provisions also take effect in coming months that could have a lasting impact on the nation&amp;#8217;s health care system.
These provisions include eliminating patients&amp;#8217; co-payments for certain preventive services such as mammograms, giving the government more power to review health insurers&amp;#8217; premium increases and allowing states to expand Medicaid coverage to low-income adults without children.
While these changes might not have gotten at lot of attention, they could help build support for the law in the run-up to the contentious mid-term elections.&amp;#8221;
Their list:
• Prevention For Less...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3746740</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:00:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3746740</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Regs’ Effect on Uncompensated Care Overblown</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3695549&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FH5Fkbi6uNpI%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonAn Obama administration “fact sheet,” released alongside the interim final rules for several of ObamaCare’s cost-increasing mandates, claims those mandates will reduce the &amp;#8220;hidden tax&amp;#8221; imposed by uncompensated care:
By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care and the amount of cost shifting among those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013.
According to research by the Urban Institute, that “hidden tax” isn’t very large:
Private insurance premiums are at most 1.7 percent higher because of the shifting of the costs of the uninsured to private insurers in the form of higher charges.
As the Congressional Budget Office repeatedly lectures Congress, &amp;#8220;Uncompensat...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3695549</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:00:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3695549</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress to Expand Deposit Insurance</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3665957&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fzn19fS0fa1o%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark A. CalabriaWhile I never had much hope that this Congress would actually fix the real causes of the financial crisis &amp;#8211; loose monetary policy, Fannie/Freddie &amp;#8211; I had hoped that they wouldn&amp;#8217;t do a lot to make an already bad situation worse.  Boy, was that hope naive.
Take the area of federally provided deposit insurance.  There is a massive amount of scholarly work, much of it empirical, that demonstrates that expanding the level and scope of deposit insurance results in more frequent and severe financial crises.  So what is Congress considering?  Yes, you guessed it:  expanded deposit insurance.
Recall during the financial crisis Congress raised the coverage limit to $250,000 &amp;#8211; forget that there were never any premiums charged ahead of time for this cov...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3665957</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:32:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3665957</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>SEC vs. Goldman Sachs: Legislation by Demonization</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3494297&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FspXUjt4XBzk%2F</link>
            <description>By Alan ReynoldsThe Obama administration thinks it has discovered the perfect formula to cram legislation through in a hurry:  Demonize some prominent firm within an industry you plan to redesign, and then pass a law that has nothing to do with the accusation against the demonized firm.  They did this with health insurance and now they’re trying it with finance.
With health insurance, the demon was Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, which Obama accused of raising premiums by “anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.” Why didn’t some curious reporter interview a single person who actually paid 39% more, or quote from a letter announcing such an increase?  Because it didn’t happen.  Insurance premiums are regulated by the states, and California wouldn’t approve such a boost....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3494297</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:46:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3494297</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Monday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3370401&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0ai6lc-z1W8%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Moody
﻿﻿Alan Reynolds: The truth about health insurance premiums and profits.


An overview of the many hurdles the health care bill still faces in the House.


Study: Public schools dishonest about the true cost of education. This video explains it all in less than three minutes.


Will conservatives ultimately oppose the war in Afghanistan? Join us for a lively discussion this Thursday at Cato featuring Joe Scarborough, Grover Norquist, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and more. Registration free. Will be broadcast online live Thursday at the link.


Podcast: &amp;#8220;Documenting Human Rights Abuses in Venezuela&amp;#8221; featuring Ian Vásquez. (Don&amp;#8217;t tell Sean Penn.) (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3370401</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:41:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3370401</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Cost Projections to 2019: The Doc Fix Trick Again</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3335288&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FeMoZExHNuB4%2F</link>
            <description>By Alan ReynoldsCongressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) takes the President to task for cooking the books on projected health care costs, most egregiously with the “doc fix” &amp;#8212; namely, assuming Medicare slashes physician payments by 21.3% this year and subsequently lets them fall continuously in real terms.
What nobody seems to have noticed is that the same phony “doc fix” taints the new “Health Spending Projections Through 2019&amp;#8221; from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, tries to downplay the CMS forecast “that the public sector will start paying more than half of the nation&amp;#8217;s health care bill starting in 2012, and that government spending will grow faster than private spending from 2009 to 2019...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3335288</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:59:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3335288</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare 3.0: Higher Implicit Taxes, Quicker Death Spiral</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3298293&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZHT934nOUDw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonIn a recent paper, I showed that the health care legislation passed by the House and Senate would impose punitive implicit tax rates on low- and middle-income workers.  Those bills would also result in higher health insurance premiums over time because they would create large financial incentives for healthy people to drop coverage and only purchase it when they become sick.
The health care proposal that President Obama released yesterday essentially splits the difference on most areas of disagreement between the two bills.  But a preliminary analysis shows that ObamaCare 3.0 would make these perverse incentives even worse.  Families of four earning $22,000 under the Senate bill (100 percent of the federal poverty level) or $30,000 under the House bill or the Obama p...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3298293</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:49:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3298293</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama: CEO of America, Inc.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3298304&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQtoZq-2OhrU%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday Politico Arena asks:
Will President Obama&amp;#8217;s proposal to block excessive rate increases by insurers help get a health care package through Congress?
My response:
Just where does President Obama think Congress finds the power to authorize the HHS secretary &amp;#8220;to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators&amp;#8221;?  My colleague David Boaz addresses the politics of this unseemly proposal just below.  And elsewhere our colleague Michael Cannon offers a devastating economic critique of the proposal, citing White House economic advisor Larry Summers, no less, on the folly of it all.  But the constitutional question is what concerns me.
No doubt Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law, beli...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3298304</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:28:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3298304</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Meet the New Plan, Same as the Old Plan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3294570&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FuS6K1FQoagw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonOr it may even be worse.
This morning, President Obama released his latest health care blueprint, which he hopes will breathe life into his moribund effort to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  The new blueprint is almost exactly the same as the House and Senate health care bills that the public have opposed since July.  It mostly just splits the difference between the two.
One new element, however, is the president&amp;#8217;s proposal to impose a new type of government price control on health insurance premiums.  I explain here how those price controls are a veiled form of government rationing that helped sink the Clinton health plan.
If anything, those price controls make the president&amp;#8217;s new plan even more bureaucratic and government-heavy.  The Senate bi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3294570</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:49:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3294570</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama on Health Care: Half Right</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3096828&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvG1MFG7RDvc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael D. TannerPresident Obama gave what seems like his thousandth exclusive health care interview last night, this one to ABC News’s Charles Gibson.  In trying to sell his health care plan, the president warned that if Congress does not pass legislation controlling health care costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”  He also warned that unless health care is reformed, “your premiums will go up.”
 The president is absolutely correct about that.  The only problem is that, according to the president’s own chief health care actuary, the bills that Congress is now considering do nothing to restrain either federal health care spending or total health care costs.  In fact, Rick Foster, chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says that...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3096828</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:48:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3096828</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Curtain Call for the ‘Public Option’ Sideshow</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3089256&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSqRqgKHfyCA%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonSenate Democrats now appear to be jettisoning the idea of creating a new government program to snuff out compete with private insurance companies.  It was an audacious proposal from the start, as it made their health care plan even more left-wing than the Clinton plan, which voters soundly rejected for being too statist.
Yet it was always a sideshow that helpfully distracted the Left, the Right, and the mainstream from what shrewd Democrats and their allies at AHIP have really wanted all along: an individual mandate forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of law.
As I argue in this Cato study, an individual mandate gives government more (and more immediate) control over Americans&amp;#8217; health care than even the so-called &amp;#8220;public option&amp;...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3089256</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:08:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3089256</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reid Health Bill Perpetuates the $1.5 Trillion Fraud</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3008069&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKau_XyoF57Y%2F</link>
            <description>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has finally unveiled his massive 2,074-page health care bill.  The Congressional Budget Office reports that the insurance-expansion provisions would cost the feds $848 billion over 10 years.  To raise those funds, the bill would tax wages, medical devices, prescription drugs, sick people, health insurance premiums (twice), HSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and &amp;#8212; why not? &amp;#8212; cosmetic surgery.  The remainder would supposedly come from $491 billion of Medicare cuts, even though Medicare&amp;#8217;s chief actuary says such cuts are &amp;#8220;unrealistic&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;doubtful.&amp;#8221;  But don&amp;#8217;t worry.  Somehow, this thing&amp;#8217;s gonna reduce the deficit.
Of course, that $848 billion only accounts for part of the federal government&amp;#8217;s share of t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3008069</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:05:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3008069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3008072&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcjT3muqiNHU%2F</link>
            <description>Why America leads the world in medical innovation.


If the health care overhaul bill were a medical product it would have to come with a warning label, which could read something like this: Warning: This product will increase your health insurance premiums, make your children poorer and won&amp;#8217;t make you healthier. That&amp;#8217;s not all. There&amp;#8217;s more. 


Unintended Consequences: Could government efforts to redesign cities to make them more pedestrian friendly, concentrate jobs in selected areas, and increase mass transit actually raise C02 emission levels?


What does it say about politicians who think Americans who don&amp;#8217;t buy health insurance should be subject to a $250,000 fine and/or five years in jail?


The president is on his first official trip to Asia. Here&amp;#8217;s an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3008072</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:32:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3008072</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Three Irrefutable Facts About the Baucus Bill</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2890625&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMnmE0GBdNoI%2F</link>
            <description>The Senate Finance Committee votes today on Senator Max Baucus&amp;#8217; version of the health care bill. Cato health care experts have analyzed the bill thoroughly, and point out three vital components to the cost and reach of the legislation:
1) The real cost of the bill is in excess of $2 trillion.
Chairman Max Baucus hoodwinked the CBO with a number of clever budgetary gimmicks, most notably by keeping about half of the cost off the federal books. The bill also assumes Congress will make cuts to Medicare payments, which has never once happened before.
2) The bill contains an enormous middle-class tax hike.
The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost ce...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2890625</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:57:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2890625</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More ‘Success’ for the Massachusetts Model</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2727082&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSVwSGcZOauc%2F</link>
            <description>The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts now has the highest insurance premiums in the nation.   The average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent.  And, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an annual family premium in Massachusetts is expected to hit $26,730 by 2020.   Meanwhile CNN hails Romneycare as the model for the nation… (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2727082</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:27:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2727082</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Washington Post Misrepresents Individual Mandates</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2645265&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRsxZ4OyyBg4%2F</link>
            <description>Here&amp;#8217;s a poor, unsuccessful letter to the editor I sent to The Washington Post:
“Like Car Insurance, Health Coverage May Be Mandated” [July 22, page A1] paints a misleading picture of proposals to require Americans to purchase health insurance – i.e., an “individual mandate.”
First, the article lacks balance.  It cites three politicians who support an individual mandate but none who oppose it, a group that includes a majority of Republicans.  The article claims an individual mandate “has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance,” even though most conservatives, including the movement’s flagship magazine National Review, oppose the idea.  The closest the article comes to offering an opposing perspective is one conservative who has supported an indiv...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2645265</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:15:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2645265</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Health Care Reform Bill Will Cost $500 Billion in New Taxes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2605945&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6_XbFFeVUIM%2F</link>
            <description>House Democrats released their 1,018 page health care reform bill, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, yesterday.
This bill is a dog&amp;#8217;s breakfast of bad ideas paid for by more than $500 billion in new taxes. The reform would impose an individual mandate on individuals, requiring every American to buy a government designed insurance package or pay a new tax equal to 2.5 percent of their income. At a time of rising unemployment, businesses would be required to provide health insurance to workers or pay a new tax equal to 8 percent of workers wages. These new taxes could drive the total cost to taxpayers much higher than the $500 billion in direct taxes in the bill.
In addition, the bill includes a host of new insurance regulations that will drive up the cost of insurance ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2605945</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:24:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2605945</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kennedy’s Health Bill: A First Look</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2464094&amp;cid=t_201825_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3Syu3NVOyAI%2F</link>
            <description>A draft of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s health care reform bill is finally available, and it is difficult to overstate how far he would move us to a government-run health care system. An initial read-through reveals among the key provisions:

An individual mandate, requiring that every American purchase a “qualified” insurance plan. (Sec. 161(a)) The mandate will be enforced through the tax code with Americans required to pay a penalty if they fail to comply.  In an extraordinary delegation of congressional authority, the Kennedy bill would give the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services the power to determine what this penalty should be. Individuals would be required to submit information on their insurance status over the previous year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2464094</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:40:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2464094</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why it’s a good idea to use your dental insurance before the end of the year</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2512095&amp;cid=t_201825_125_f&amp;fid=38161&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dentalheroes.com%2Fdental-insurance-end-year%2F</link>
            <description>Our friend, Tammy Davenport, a guide for the About.com Dentistry section, wrote a post recently to remind us that it&amp;#8217;s a good idea to use our dental insurance before the end of the year.  If you&amp;#8217;re lucky enough to have dental insurance(sadly 100+ million Americans don&amp;#8217;t), then you&amp;#8217;ll appreciate her post entitled &amp;#8220;5 Reasons to use Your Dental Insurance Before the End of the Year.&amp;#8221;


5 Reasons
In short, the reasons she states for using your dental insurance before the end of the year are as follows:

Yearly Maximum &amp;#8211; unused benefits do not typically rollover, so you should try to meet your annual maximum if possible.
Deductibles &amp;#8211; This could increase next year, so using your insurance now will ensure that you&amp;#8217;ve locked in the current ded...</description>
            <author>Dental Heroes</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2512095</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:27:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2512095</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

