Obamacare's Rate Shock Hits The Buckeye State

Ohio Department of Insurance officials announced last week that average premiums in the Buckeye state would soar 88 percent once President Obama's health care law kicks in. (Photo: Thinkstock)

Ohio Department of Insurance officials announced last week that average premiums in the Buckeye state would soar 88 percent once President Obama's health care law kicks in. The news added fuel to an already raging debate over Obamacare's effect on insurance costs.

Ohio's insurance department disclosed that a total of 14 insurance companies had proposed rates on 214 plans to be offered through the federally run insurance exchange set to open on Oct. 1 and begin providing benefits in January.

"The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.

Supporters of Obamacare were quick to dismiss the news, noting that Taylor was a Republican and arguing that the study was misleading. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, one of the most prolific defenders of the health care law, insisted that it wasn't fair to compare average premiums, because that doesn't account for differences in the quality of the plans.

For instance, he described that under the current system, one of the cheapest bare bones plans in Ohio costs just $29 per month, but could stick enrollees with annual out of pocket expenses as high as $25,000. Under Obamacare, out of pocket costs are capped at $6,350 for the cheapest "bronze" level plan.

But in his analysis, Cohn is doing what he often accuses critics of Obamacare of doing -- cherry-picking a plan that results in the most outrageous number to demonstrate a point -- in this case, $25,000 out of pocket costs. But even if we give up the idea of comparing average premiums, the announced Ohio rates don't present a pretty picture for Obamacare.

Ohio regulators also announced that, "Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans." That means that the cheapest plan available under Obamacare in Ohio will be $282.51.

But according to a search of eHealthInsurance.com, a 26 year-old living in Cleveland, Ohio, could currently purchase an Anthem SmartSense Plus plan for $89.45 per month. That's less than a third of the cost of the lowest Obamacare rate, as reported by Ohio regulators, and the annual out of pocket expenses for the Anthem plan are $6,000 -- which is less than Obamacare's bronze option.

In fact, under the current system, the same hypothetical 26 year-old could purchase a Medical Mutual plan with a $2,500 annual out of pocket limit, for $188.41 per month -- still significantly cheaper than the least expensive Obamacare option.

Obamacare naturally drives up the cost of insurance because it requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and mandates that insurers offer a wide array of benefits, whether or not consumers want them. It also institutes a tax on health insurance.

To his credit, Cohn eventually acknowledges that, "Obamacare's requirements really will make insurance more expensive relative to what it would cost otherwise" meaning that some people will end up paying more.

In general, if the law works as intended, older and sicker Americans who qualify for subsidies will find it easier to obtain affordable health coverage, but younger Americans with lower health care costs who do not qualify for subsidies will end up paying more.

Through the individual mandate, the federal government is hoping to coax enough healthy Americans into buying much more insurance than they're likely to need, thus providing a windfall of profits to private insurers, who can then afford to cover sicker Americans.

Philip Klein (pklein@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @philipaklein.

View the original article here

Police Pull Over Couple For Buckeye Bumper Stickers They Mistook For Marijuana Leaves

A middle-aged couple driving through Tennessee on their way home from a funeral were pulled over by a police officer who mistook their Ohio Buckeye bumper stickers for marijuana leaves.
The Columbus Dispatch reports:

Two officers approached, one on each side of the car.

“They were very serious,” [the driver, Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni] said. “They had the body armor and the guns.” […]

“What are you doing with a marijuana sticker on your bumper?” [an officer] asked her.

She explained that it is actually a Buckeye leaf decal, just like the ones that Ohio State players are given to put on their helmets to mark good plays. […]

The officer then explained that someone from outside his jurisdiction — apparently another officer — had spotted the leaf sticker and thought it might indicate that the car was carrying marijuana, Jonas-Boggioni said. […]

The reporter quoted a spokeswoman for the West Tennessee Drug Task Force, who accurately explained that a marijuana sticker is clearly not a sufficient reason to stop a car. To justify a stop, police officers must meet the standard of “reasonable suspicion” that an individual has committed a crime or violation. And a sticker – a classic example of First Amendment expression and nothing more – is nowhere close to reasonable suspicion that the couple were drug traffickers.

This same type of flimsy evidence has justified the hundreds of thousands of “stop-and-frisks” applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily in New York City and elsewhere. A court recently found that police officers in the Bronx lacked that necessary reasonable suspicion for their frequent stops of individuals outside residences for alleged trespassing.

What’s particularly troubling about this incident is that police did not simply spot the stickers in the course of their route and stop the car. They went out of their way to respond to a call reporting “marijuana” stickers and sought that car out. Had the stickers actually portrayed marijuana leaves, and not a football symbol, the officers’ reaction might have been different, although the lack of reasonable suspicion would have been exactly the same. And while the inconvenience of a stop may seem minor, federal district judge Shira A. Scheindlin articulates in her recent stop-and-frisk decision why unconstitutional stops — in and of themselves a harm subject to Fourth Amendment protection – have increasingly “dire and long-lasting” consequences:

The stakes of “field interrogation” by the police have dramatically risen since Terry [v. Ohio, which established the legal standard for stop and frisks,] was decided in 1968. The use of incarceration has increased, sentences have grown, the threat of lengthy incarceration has created new incentives to plead guilty, and the collateral consequences of a conviction — on employment, housing, access to government programs, and even the right to vote or serve on a jury — have become more common and more severe.

The War on Drugs has also since emerged, and with it, a host of other  justifications for disproportionately subjecting particular populations to the criminal justice system.

View the original article here