100 MILLION “ANECDOTES”: Cancer-Stricken Patients Lose Their Insurance Plans and Doctors Thanks to Obamacare

Guest post by Investor’s Business Daily

CancelCare: Dismissed as anecdotal exceptions, as many as 80 million people with employer health plans, like a Virginia cancer patient, now find their coverage being canceled because it doesn’t comply with ObamaCare.

Debra Fishericks, who has been working for the past 10 years at Atkinson Realty in Virginia Beach, has been frantically scouring Healthcare.gov for a plan that fits her.

But she’s finding, like so many others, that premiums and plans like the one she had are out of her price range.

Fishericks is battling kidney cancer, and while one of the benefits of ObamaCare was supposed to be that people with pre-existing conditions could not be denied insurance, those who already had it are losing it.

As with Fishericks, the policies they liked and helped to keep them alive have been decreed “substandard” and must be replaced with compliant and more expensive policies the Obama administration considers “better.”

“On June 30, 2014, I will probably not be offering company insurance for my employees. I just can’t afford it,” Fishericks’ boss, company owner Betsy Atkinson, told CBS News, meaning Fishericks and many others like her must now fend for themselves.

“We were happy, we had great insurance. We had continuing care for our employees,” Atkinson, owner of a realty company, told affiliate WDBJ.

Fishericks has looked on the ObamaCare website for a new policy, but to her dismay the plans on the site come with premiums that she cannot afford.

“They just go up higher and higher when there is a pre-existing (condition),” Fishericks says.

To the Obama administration, Fishericks’ story is another “anecdote,” part of the 5% minority President Obama and his cronies claim are unfortunate exceptions to the rule.

They are like Edie Sundby, a stage four cancer patient about to lose the “substandard” health plan that helped her survive all these years with her insurance paying out $ 1.2 million, and whose op-ed in the Wall Street Journal earned her a direct rebuke from the White House.

Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute said that in addition to the individual cancellations, “at least half the people on employer plans would by 2014 start losing plans as well.”

There are approximately 157 million employer health care policy holders. So that’s almost 80 million about to lose their coverage. Eighty million.

Projections the administration itself issued back in July 2010 made it clear officials knew the impact of ObamaCare three years ago.

Powerline’s John Hinderaker cites the Federal Register of June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116), which includes a chart that indicates that the Obama administration expected that somewhere between 39% and 69% of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013.

For small-business employers, the estimate was that between 49% and 80% would lose their plans.

The destruction of the private health insurance market is no accident. The architects of ObamaCare see it as a necessary precursor to a single-payer system something like Britain’s National Health Service, where the mortality rates for cancer are abysmal.

According to an article in Britain’s Lancet Oncology, U.S. men and women, even with their “substandard” insurance, have much higher cancer survival rates than their English counterparts.

For example, the breast cancer mortality rate is 88% higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S., and the mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40% higher than in the U.S.

In the administration’s view, apparently that and the loss of Debra Fishericks’ cancer coverage for her kidneys is a small price to pay so Georgetown law students like Sandra Fluke can get free contraceptives.


Read more at Investor’s Business Daily

Doug Ross @ Journal

DON’T LET THEM CHANGE THE SUBJECT: Seven Lies and Seven Liars of Obamacare

Guest post by Herman Cain

Seven lies from seven Democrats about ObamaCare, just so you don’t forget the matter at hand.

When you’re as desperate as Barack Obama is right now – with your approval ratings plunging and people no longer even finding you to be an honest person – you’re willing to try almost anything to make people focus their minds on something else. Well, I should qualify: That’s what you do if your priority is your own political viability. If you’re a real leader, you man up and solve the problem. But we don’t have a real leader. We have Barack Obama.

So he is desperately trying to change the subject from ObamaCare to just about anything else. As Dan wrote this morning, he sent John Kerry off to get a deal with Iran at any cost so the two of them could wave the piece of paper and pretend they had accomplished something. At the same time, they are once again pushing an amnesty bill that they hope will lock in illegals as loyal Democrat voters fix the immigration system.

But none of these are serious policy initiatives. Their purpose is simply to change the subject from ObamaCare, which is quickly turning into a political crisis of historical proportions for the Democratic Party. And we’re not going to let them do it. We’re not going to let them make you forget that Democrats lied through their teeth about letting you keep your policy, about your premiums going down, about letting you keep your doctor and your hospital, about what the whole thing would cost . . . I could go on, but you get the idea. So in the spirit of refreshing your memory, I herewith present seven lies from seven Democrats, at least one of whom thinks she should be the next president.

I think you know what to do with these:

1. Max Baucus
“If you like what you have you can keep it.”

2. Harry Reid
“Those fortunate enough to have health insurance will be able to keep theirs.”

3. Mark Begich
“If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of (inaudible), you keep it”

4. Mary Landrieu
“While those individuals who like the coverage they already have will be able to keep their current plan.  This is a very accurate description of this bill before us – The Patient Protection and Affordability Act.  It’s very accurate.”

5. Hillary Clinton
“You keep the insurance you have if you like it.”

6. Nancy Pelosi
“If you like what you have and you want to keep it, you have the choice to do that.”

7. Barack Obama
“If you like your health care plan you will be able to keep your health care plan.  Period.”

Liars. Every single one of them. The only conceivable defense against this charge would be for them to say that they trusted Obama, and if that’s what the did, they’re fools. But I don’t buy it. They’re all liars, and that should never be forgotten, especially not at a time when the president is so desprately trying to change the subject to anything else.

Follow Herman Cain at CainTV.com

Doug Ross @ Journal

The Hoover Myth

Excerpted from Jonah Goldberg’s invaluable The Goldberg File

My friend and AEI colleague Nick Schulz has done something I don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do: Read John Judis’s New Republic cover story on the economy. Apparently Judis believes he’s cornered Mitt Romney on the Achilles heel of Romney’s — and the GOP’s — economic agenda. Judis confronted Romney and asked
him:

I want to ask you something about history. You know, when Herbert Hoover had to face a financial crisis and then unemployment, his strategy was to balance the budget and cut spending, and that made things worse. When Roosevelt came in, unemployment was twenty-five and went to fourteen percent by 1937. With deficits. Aren’t you repeating the Hoover mistake?

Ah, the “Hoover Mistake,” capitalized for your eternal reifying pleasure.

If you ever doubt that liberal historians have imbibed the partisan talking points of the New Deal, you need look no further than the maligned figure of Herbert Hoover. Judis’s characterization is simply what “everyone knows” to be true about Hoover’s response to the Depression of 1929. I say “the Depression” and not “the Great Depression” because it took FDR, the Tony the Tiger of liberalism, to make it Grrrrrrrrrrreaaat!

The problem is that almost everything “everybody knows” about Hoover is wrong. This creates a real challenge for conservatives and libertarians because while Hoover the man was very impressive, Hoover the Progressive Republican was, well, a Progressive Republican. As anyone who’s read Liberal Fascism should remember, Hoover was all-in on Wilson’s war socialism, serving as national food administrator; he considered “supper . . . one of the worst pieces of extravagance that we have in this country.” He promulgated the Little American’s Promise, a pledge card every child was expected to sign:

At table I’ll not leave a scrap 
Of food upon my plate. 
And I’ll not eat between meals but
For supper time I’ll wait.
I make that promise that I’ll do
My honest, earnest part
In helping my America
With all my loyal heart.
For kids who couldn’t read yet, he offered them a nursery rhyme:
Little Boy Blue, come blow your horn!
The cook’s using wheat where she ought to use corn
And terrible famine our country will sweep,
If the cooks and the housewives remain fast asleep!
Go wake them! Go wake them! It’s now up to you!
Be a loyal American, Little Boy Blue!

Hoover was such a card-carrying Progressive, guess who considered running on his ticket as vice president in 1920? Wilson’s toady at the Navy Department, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

But none of that matters. Hoover was a crazy, heartless libertarian, don’t you know anything?! I mean, just look at what a spendthrift he was during the Great Depression! Hoover mistake, Hoover mistake, Hoover mistake! I’m not listening to you!

Well, if you tell a certain breed of libertarian that Hoover was a budget-balancing fiscal tightwad, you’ll get punched in the face, at least figuratively. Here’s Tim Taylor:

Hoover’s budget strategy over his term of office was not to balance the budget. The budget ran a small deficit of -.6% of GDP in 1931, followed by a much larger deficits of 4.0% of GDP in 1932 and 4.5% of GDP in fiscal year 1933 (which, as Judis points out at a different point in his discussion, started in June 1932 and was thus mostly completed before Roosevelt took office in 1933).

Let me say it clearly: Hoover didn’t cut spending. In nominal terms, federal government spending went from $ 3.3 billion in 1930 to $ 4.6 billion in 1933. As Taylor notes, given the price deflation that came with the crash, the real federal outlays nearly tripled from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 8.0 percent of GDP in FY 1933.

In the spring of 1930, the New York Times said of Hoover’s efforts, “No one in his place could have done more” and “very few of his predecessors could have done as much.”

But, hey, maybe Hoover’s reputation as a spendthrift of Jack Fowlerian proportions (Jack, as you should know, is the head suit here at NR; he’d object but he’s busy searching for a 10 percent off at Arby’s coupon I told him was in the corner of a round room) is derived from his effort to cast himself as a responsible steward of the public fisc. Er, no. Here’s Hoover defending his record in his acceptance speech at the 1932 convention as he prepared to run for another
term:

Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action. Our measures have repelled these attacks of fear and panic . . . We have used the credit of the Government to aid and protect our institutions, both public and private. We have provided methods and assurances that none suffer from hunger or cold amongst our people. We have instituted measures to assist our farmers and our homeowners. We have created vast agencies for employment.

Perhaps because I am so cynical, I’m no longer shocked that liberal historians and Democratic politicians still cling to the Hoover myth, but what is amazing to me is how liberal economists who swear they are empiricists and fact-finders propagate it as well. Paul Krugman is constantly invoking the Hoover myth. So is Brad DeLong, who has driven many decent students of economic history to the point of sputtering rage with his insistence that Hoover was a “liquidationist.”

The Hoover myth endures for a simple reason — it has to. Because otherwise the FDR myth will tip over.


Subscribe to Jim Geraghty’s MORNING JOLT and Jonah Goldberg’s G-File at National Review Subscriptions

Doug Ross @ Journal