About that $2,500 Health Insurance Savings Obama Promised Us...

In the run-up to the implementation of Obama Care in 2013, I threw a post on Facebook asking for any real-world examples of someone benefitting from the health insurance premium savings that Obama had promised. A primary piece of his sales pitch for the Affordable Care Act was that the average family would save approximately $2,500 per year on insurance costs due to government subsidies and the industry-wide cost reductions that the act would bring about. I never did hear from anyone whose premiums were reduced.

At the time, I don't recall any credible analysis to support Obama's claim. Having been reminded of the post by Facebook, I wanted to take a look at what actually happened with health insurance premiums since Obama Care became law.

The Kaiser Family Foundation provides a ton of analysis on the health care and insurance industries. It didn't take long to find year-over-year insurance premium data at their site.

The graph below plots both individual and family average annual premium costs beginning in 1999. As you can see, annual increases held steady from 2013 onward.

Would an average $2,500 reduction cause a noticeable blip in data like this? I would think so. But I'm not a statistics expert.

Another interesting chart from the KFF site shows increases in insurance premiums alongside overall inflation and earnings increases in 5 year increments. I'm not sure this tells us much more about the effects of Obama Care. But the premium increases in the first years of the century are staggering. Fortunately they were already falling. It's also good to see that the premium growth rate has largely stabilized...even if it is still significantly outpacing inflation and wages.

In the end, is doesn't appear that Obama's claims of premium saving held water. Much like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

 More "Great Moments in Presidenting"

How are they this clueless?

The White House had to know that updated inflation numbers were coming out yesterday. And it's safe to assume they were tipped as to what the numbers would be. Yet they went ahead with a public celebration of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

It turns out the numbers were so bad that the markets tanked to the tune of a roughly 4% drop, the DOW's worst day since 2020. And that was bad enough to cause CNN to cut away from Biden's garden party remarks to talk about it.

The reality is there will never be a good time to celebrate an inflation reduction act that not only won't reduce inflation but was deceitfully mis-named to mask what it was really designed to do: Spend tons of money on Democratic pet projects that can't pass through Congress on their own merits.

 OK...So here's my blog

Someone said to me recently, "You do enough blathering on Facebook about politics and such, you should just do a blog." After getting over the offense of having my thoughtful, often witty, posts about current events reduced to "blather" I decided to give it a shot. I have no idea what I'm doing or what sort of stuff I might focus on. But I will put most of my topical blathering here...most, but probably not all. On FB I tried to condense my thoughts into relatively concise posts. I'm thinking I'll do less editing here and flesh out my thoughts more completely.

Whether I have anything interesting or original to offer is to be determined...and, even then, highly debatable. Whatever the outcome, I want to exercise the writing muscles a bit more (trying to keep the synapses firing as I move through middle-age). I'll throw an occasional link to this content on FB. Otherwise, this is the spot. Bookmark it, check back when you can and let me know if you think I'm spot-on, dead wrong or just a blathering idiot. I can take it.

Thanks.

There's Really Only One Reason for This

Credit card companies more closely tracking gun, ammo sales after push by Dem lawmakers

What to think of politicians and government agencies who pressure corporations to do the things they lack the political support necessary to do themselves?

The federal government is prohibited by law from creating a firearm registry. Yes, you must pass a background check to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. Beyond the record that you applied for the check, the feds aren't supposed to keep any more data about your purchase...not even whether or not you actually bought anything. Enter Sen. Warren and some other Democrats who really don't like that law and have been trying to find a way around it for some time. The latest tactic has been to badger credit card companies to track firearm purchases, creating a de-facto (at least partial) registry from which the government can presumably subpoena data when they feel the need. And now we learn that the card companies have caved. Warren, et al. say it will help identify possible mass-shooters. How? Are the card companies being instructed to watch for suspicious purchases? Is that their job? Or will the federal government be peeking in to the purchase records? There are still a lot of questions about how this will work but it's not a good look for politicians to pressure businesses to help them get around laws they don't like.

"Despite these moves by the three companies, it will ultimately be up to banks to determine whether or not they will allow gun shop sales on their issued cards."

That final line of this story begs an interesting question: Will the issuing banks soon find themselves under pressure to restrict or reject firearm purchases? Well, you'll recall they were put under pressure not long ago to limit the business they do with gun manufacturers. Which they eventually did. So I'm going with "yes."