So . . . in 2014, just as premiums begin to reflect the changes of Obamacare, and in the year where the uninsured must start paying the government $95 or 1 percent of their income (whichever is higher) . . . Democrats have decided they’ll embrace Obamacare and make it a centerpiece of their reelection message.

It will not surprise you that many of the currently uninsured are quite confused about what Obamacare means to them, and that some are saying they’ll just pay the fine because it’s simpler.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated that in 2014, 44 million Americans will lack insurance. But not all of those people will be paying a fine; some will be

exempted from the penalty tax — for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 18 million and 19 million uninsured people in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions.

By 2016, that number of uninsured drops to 31 million . . . when the fees are $695 or 2.5 percent of a person’s income.

The point is, starting in 2014, a lot of people who don’t have insurance and find the process of getting insurance immensely confusing and frustrating will suddenly be told they must pay the government for their failure to get insurance. And at that precise moment, Democrats will ask for their vote as an expression of gratitude.

The Heritage Foundation offers a comparison that articulates why so many Republicans are so wary about the Gang of Eight immigration bill:

After Obamacare, I don’t think you’ll see the conservative grassroots feeling confident about any 800-page bill for a long time.

As noted on Twitter, most Democrats’ view on immigration reform begins and ends with, “yeah, yeah, yeah, enough with the boring stuff about respect for the rule of law, economic impact on unskilled workers, assimilation, or border security, tell me how soon my party can get 11 million new voters.”

Most folks on the Right don’t trust the motives of the congressional Democrats pushing it or trust the Obama administration to enforce the law; we see immigration laws currently on the books ignored and ineffectively enforced all the time (hello, Boston bomber friends); we’re not convinced of any significant political benefit; we believe that any aspect of the law that proves inconvenient for the Democratic party’s allies will face immediate pressure to be repealed or altered;  and we believe it rewards those who have broken the law. But other than that, it looks great.

The midweek edition of the Morning Jolt features grim statistics on attitudes in the Muslim world, thoughts on Marvel’s superhero film franchises, and then these notes from the president’s press conference:

‘Hello,’ the President Lied

Three quick points on Obama’s press conference from Tuesday…

First, Obama demonstrates that the term “Game Change” is now the most useless buzzword since “value-added”:

THE PRESIDENT:  If I can establish in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game-changer because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands and get disseminated in ways that would threaten U.S. security or the security of our allies.

Q    By game-changer you mean U.S. military action?

THE PRESIDENT:  By game-changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us.

Watch your rear, Assad, or we might have to rethink the range of options.

In Syria and all of the world’s trouble spots, the American people are going to resist intervening internationally until they’re confronted with something more horrible than the loss of blood and treasure spent in the war in Iraq. Right now, Americans aren’t convinced that anything can happen overseas that is so bad, so consequential and horrific, they’ll wish they had sent their sons and daughters and neighbors to go fight and die for something. For now, they’re right; they will probably be wrong someday.

Secondly, examine Obama’s reaction to Jessica Yellin’s question:

YELLIN: Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Benghazi and Boston are both examples of the U.S. going backwards on national security.  Is he right?  And did our intelligence miss something?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure generated some headlines.

I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency rallying around a city that had been attacked — identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined.  We now have one individual deceased, one in custody.  Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place.  And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston and all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

Notice the sneer that Graham merely wants to “generate headlines” with his statement, as if it’s outlandish to argue that a terrorist murdering our ambassador or a terrorist bombing on the streets of Boston constitute “going backwards on national security.”

Then notice that Yellin asks about the intelligence before the bombing, and Obama responds by citing the work of law enforcement after the bombing.

Thirdly, Obama declared about his signature health care reform, “ A huge chunk of it has already been implemented.  And for the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act even if they don’t know it.  Their insurance is more secure.”

Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times responded, “Obama’s claim that folks who have insurance now have already gone through the ACA implementation is just not right. Lots of issues left.”

The tax penalty for not having insurance isn’t in effect yet. Businesses may still decide to drop coverage and pay the fines  (for some companies, it may actually be cheaper to pay the fines). We’re seeing companies try to shift as many employees as possible to less than 30 hours a week.  As Inc. put it:

The law’s new mandates–such as requiring insurers to cover preventive care at 100 percent–could drive rates higher. And small employers that buy insurance through the newly created Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, may find higher costs once they are lumped in with a general-population risk pool.

And as for that claim that your health insurance is “stronger,” perhaps the president meant, “more expensive”: “Premiums could increase by an average of 30 percent for higher-income people in California who are now insured and do not qualify for federal insurance subsidies, the study said.”

It is entirely possible that we have a public so spectacularly ill-informed, we are no longer capable of governing themselves. Here’s an April tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation: “Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is still the law of the land, including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”

With the public so vague on whether or not Obamacare is actually law, we should take all poll results with a grain of salt. But the law is even less popular than when it passed:

“Overall, the public remains as divided as ever when it comes to their overall evaluations of the health law. This month, 35 percent report a favorable view, 40 percent an unfavorable view, and a full 24 percent report they have  no opinion on the law, continuing a recent trend of particularly high shares not offering an opinion. Partisans remain quite divided, with a majority of Democrats in favor (57 percent) and most Republicans opposed (67 percent).”

In terms oft he law’s political future, just over half of Americans (53 percent) continue to say that they approve of efforts by opponentsto change orstop the law “so it has less impact on taxpayers, employers, and health care providers”, a view which theoretically encompasses a range of positions from hard‐core repeal supporters to those who believe the law only needs minor tweaks.One in three (including more than half of Democrats) believe that the law’s opponents should accept that it is the law of the land and stop trying to block its implementation, down somewhat from January (33 percent now compared to 40 percent at the start of the year).”

How do we know the media is downplaying the problems in implementing Obamacare? When 40 percent of Americans are unaware that the law is in place.

From today’s Morning Jolt…

Forget the Rest of the World; President Personally Calls Some Athlete You Never Heard Of Before

Hey, remember North Korea? They’re detaining a U.S. citizen.

Unless the Syrian rebels figured out some way to fake the presence of Sarin in the bloodstream of some volunteers, the Syrian regime used chemical weapons and crossed the red line… and no one can come up with a way to demonstrate the consequences of crossing that line.

Oh, and the guys we may soon intervene to help, the Syrian rebels, may have just tried to shoot down a Russian airliner.

Remember Boston?

But U.S. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) told ABC News yesterday that the FBI is also looking into “persons of interest” in the U.S. possibly linked to the Boston bombings.

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said he’s spoken with the FBI about the probe into possible trainers the brothers had.

“Are they overseas in the Chechen region or are they in the United States?” he said. “In my conversations with the FBI, that’s the big question. They’ve casted a wide net both overseas and in the United States to find out where this person is. But I think the experts all agree that there is someone who did train these two individuals.”

Remember Boston, again?

State lawmakers have launched an investigation into whether the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings improperly received public benefits.

Sources who have seen the 500 pages of documents sent to the House Committee on Post Audit and Oversight told News Center 5’s Janet Wu that the Tsarnaev family — including the parents of the two bombing suspects, the two suspects themselves, their sisters, the widow of the suspect killed and their child — received “every conceivable public benefit available out there.”

Remember the economy?

We’re still stuck in the muck.

That’s the conclusion to draw from the new report on gross domestic product. The U.S. economy grew at a 2.5 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, which was an improvement from the weak 0.4 percent of the final months of 2012… We’re muddling along at basically the same pace we’ve been at for nearly four straight years of this dismal recovery, with growth too slow to make up the lost economic ground from the 2008-2009 recession.”

National debt? $ 16,756,644,393,707.05,as of Friday. (That’s $16.7 trillion.)

Remember Obamacare?

In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives. We’ll hear about innocent victims who saw their premiums skyrocket, who were barred from seeing their usual doctor, who had their hours cut or lost their insurance entirely—all thanks to the faceless bureaucracy administering a federal law.

With all of this going on, guess what the top story was on Memeorandum, measuring what bloggers and news sites are writing about?

An NBA player coming out of the closet as gay. Wait, there’s more:

A groundbreaking pronouncement from NBA veteran Jason Collins — “I’m gay” — reverberated Monday through Washington, generating accolades from lawmakers on Twitter and a supportive phone call from President Barack Obama.

Hours after Collins disclosed his sexuality in an online article, Obama reached out by phone, expressing his support and telling Collins he was impressed by his courage, the White House said.

Collins, 34, becomes the first active player in one of four major U.S. professional sports leagues to come out as gay. He has played for six teams in 12 seasons, including this past season with the Washington Wizards, and is now a free agent.

This president can’t get squat done about North Korea or Syria, and so he doesn’t want us to focus on those far-off lands. His policies have done diddlysquat for most of the long-term unemployed. He’s not interested in throwing people off public assistance, even when they don’t deserve it, and he wants to insist that every terror attack is a one-time occurrence, instead of connected bits of an international ideological movement dedicated to killing Americans. Obamacare’s a mess, and he’s hoping you don’t notice. The debt continues to increase, even with the alleged horrors of sequestration.

“God, gays and guns.” That’s what he’s got left. And that’s what he hopes stays on your mind, for as many days between now and November 2014 as possible.

From the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Ultimately, the Obama Presidency Isn’t Really About Governing.

Obamacare’s implementation is a “train wreck,” in the words of retiring Montana Democratic senator Max Baucus.

The president’s gun-control proposals are rejected, because he can’t persuade red-state senators in either party that they would really be of any use in preventing gun violence.

The great news is that the Boston bombers were killed and apprehended quickly, but Boston’s ordeal left serious questions about the government’s ability to keep an eye on those deemed dangerous, and how carefully it scrutinizes those who seek to become American citizens.

Time magazine’s Joe Klein gave conservatives an “Alleluia” moment a few weeks ago. The Obama administration announced that the “exchanges” designed to help small businesses buy health insurance for their employees won’t be ready by the promised deadline. Instead of having multiple health-insurance plans, with differing prices, to offer to their employees, small businesses will be able to pick . . . one plan. Pointing to this and the inability the of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to come up with a unified electronic health-care-records system, Klein lamented, “we are now seeing weekly examples of this administration’s inability to govern.”

Klein’s dark assessment is probably driven by all of the other promises about Obamacare that have been left in the dust.

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” . . . except for the 7 million people who will lose their coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“Your premiums will go down . . .” except that premiums have gone up in the past years, with more hikes projected.

And let’s not forget one of then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promises, that Obamacare would “create 400,000 jobs almost immediately” and eventually 4 million jobs.

Klein writes, “as a Democrat — as someone who believes in activist government — [Obama] has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.”

At moments like this, conservatives feel an enormous temptation to snicker, “Welcome to the party, pal!” But brutally honest assessments like this one from Klein ought to be applauded on the right. One of the reasons the era of Big Government never really ended is because many of its usual fans on the left avert their eyes when it fails so badly. You can’t address a problem if you refuse to see a problem.

Unfortunately, there’s not much indication that Obama sees the problems and even less indication he wants to see them. The bold promise and the awful delivery have become the signature of this administration, extending well beyond the implementation of health care.

Elsewhere in his column, Klein writes, “faced a terrible economic crisis — and he has done well to limit the damage.”

The damage is limited . . . except for the fact that more Americans are living in poverty than when Obama took office. And our workforce participation rate is now the lowest since 1979. And the number of Americans on food stamps is at an all-time high. And the nearly 5 million long-term unemployed have defined life since autumn 2008 as an era of barely scraping by, month after month, year after year..

Of course, the “shovel-ready jobs” of the stimulus didn’t really live up to the promises, as Obama himself admitted.

And the web site meant to detail how every dime of stimulus spending ended up full of bad data and nonexistent congressional districts.

And as of June 2012, three and a half years after the stimulus passed, nearly $8 billion was still waiting to be awarded or sitting in agency accounts.

And the entire green-jobs initiative clearly hasn’t quite lived up to the hype, including the president’s infamous pledge that “companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Now another one of the administration’s high-profile loan recipients, Fisker Automotive, is contemplating bankruptcy; the company hasn’t built a car since July.

Tuesday we learned, “Taxpayer-backed funds kept flowing to electric carmaker Fisker Automotive months after the company failed to meet key production benchmarks, lawmakers said at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.”

All of these problems in the stimulus and the administration’s overall economic policies fit in a pattern, don’t they? Klein’s creeping sense that making sure “federal programs actually work efficiently” isn’t really an administration priority?

Time and again, we hear anecdotes of the president angered, befuddled, and frustrated that the policies implemented in the beginning of his presidency, with a compliant Congress, haven’t generated the results he promised. But very little seems to change, other than a bit of fuming at aides behind closed doors.

President Obama was surprised to learn, in discussions with economic adviser Christina Romer, that large-scale investment in infrastructure and clean-energy projects wouldn’t create enormous numbers of new jobs.

In a December 2010 meeting with economic advisers, he “boiled over” with frustration that his housing policies hadn’t helped struggling homeowners like he promised.

When federal program after federal program fails to generate the desired result, it’s not crazy talk to become at least a little skeptical of the latest pledges and promises and idealistic visions.

But Democrats often speak as if the Right’s skepticism of the government’s problem-solving ability is driven by some sort of abstract ideological theory. It’s not. It’s usually built upon hard experiences. Human behavior isn’t predictable, particularly their interactions with the government. Unintended consequences pile up like a car crash. The pattern is depressingly predictable: Someone in government comes up with some laudable goal, and announces some new program. After the press conference, when the cameras and microphones are away, implementing the idea proves more complicated than the press-conference announcement made it seem. Deadlines get missed. Costs turn out much higher than expected. Bureaucratic inertia begins to exert the gravitational pull of a black hole.

Perhaps it is the nature of the modern presidency for the occupant of the Oval Office to glide from photo-op to photo-op, and never spend too much time getting entangled in the messy work of actually making his policies live up to his promises. Certainly that’s the pattern for this president; even in this non-campaign year, the schedule is heavy with a campaign-style rally on gun-control initiatives here, a DCCC fundraiser there, then off to a tour of a national laboratory. He flits from issue to issue; to judge from his remarks and his schedule, the health-care issue is resolved and our health-care system’s problems are fixed. Maybe White House press secretary Jay Carney will get a question about the health-care exchanges or electronic health-care-records system, which he’ll defuse with another defensive, meandering word salad.

Implementing Obamacare? Hey, that’s for somebody else to worry about.

In over his head?

Obamacare is akin to a national case of hyperopia: the closer it gets, the fuzzier and less clear it becomes.

No, really; as the implementation of the law approaches, Americans understand less about it than they did three years ago:

Sixty-seven percent of the uninsured younger than age 65 — and 57 percent of the overall population — say they do not understand how the ACA will impact them, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation…

 

Seventy-eight percent say they haven’t heard enough to say whether their state plans to expand Medicaid, a decision the Supreme Court made optional in its landmark ACA decision last year. “This is equally true in states where the governor has states they will expand Medicaid and in those whose governor has said they will not move forward with the expansion,” the pollsters note.

In fact, the public seems actually to be even less knowledgeable about the health law’s more popular provisions than they were three years ago, including tax credits to small business to buy insurance, subsidy assistance for individuals and guaranteed issue of health insurance.

Many also continue to hold false impressions of the law: 57 percent incorrectly believe that the ACA includes a public option. Nearly half believe the law provides financial assistance for illegal immigrants to buy insurance. And 40 percent — including 35 percent of seniors — still believe that the government will have “death panels” make decisions about end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries.

The poll analysis asserts “death panels” don’t exist, but that’s only because the Independent Payment Advisory Board tries to ignore that nickname.

From the American Medical Association’s summary:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established a 15‐member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to extend Medicare solvency and reduce spending growth through use of a spending target system and fast track legislative approval process. By April 30 of each year, beginning in 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Actuary’s Office will project whether Medicare’s per‐capita spending growth rate in the following two years will exceed a targeted rate . . .

If future Medicare spending is expected to exceed the targets,the IPAB will propose recommendations to Congress and the President to reduce the growth rate. The IPAB’s first set of recommendations would be proposed on January 15, 2014.

The only way to cut the costs is to declare certain treatments insufficiently cost-efficient to be covered by Medicare. Citing “serious concerns,” the American Medical Association opposes the IPAB and supports its repeal.

At the conference I’m going to today, one of the topics of discussion will be whether Obamacare will be altered in the coming Congress.

My first instinct is that any reform of Obamacare is unlikely to pass, because the major factions in Washington have completely different priorities. Most Republicans would like to stop it in its tracks, repeal it entirely or almost entirely, and replace it with free-market-oriented reforms and tort reform and so on. As Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said yesterday:

I am proud that Senate Republicans stood united today and voted unanimously to defund Obamacare. While I’m disappointed that the amendment did not pass, we will not give up. And today’s vote demonstrates that the fight to repeal Obamacare is far from over.

There are some Democrats who want to delay or repeal parts of Obamacare, such as the new tax on medical devices. Senator Al Franken (D., Minn.) calls it a “job-killing tax.” But there are probably very few Republicans who are eager to save congressional Democrats from the consequences of their actions. You passed it, guys, now you explain the consequences to your displeased constituents.

Of course, unifying Democrats behind a series of reforms to Obamacare will present its own challenges. There are quite a few who would prefer that any changes to Obamacare bring it closer to single-payer. Last year, all 75 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said they would push for a single-payer system if the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare.

And of course, President Obama would want changes to the bill to be minimal or little-noticed, as each change represents a concession that he and his allies didn’t get it right the first time.

(“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”)

So my conclusion is that it would take some sort of really catastrophic consequence to get all the factions in Washington united on changing Obamacare as is.

Enter a really catastrophic consequence, stage left:

Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next year as the health care overhaul law expands coverage to millions of people. The nation’s big health insurers say they expect premiums — or the cost for insurance coverage — to rise between 20 and 100 percent for millions of people due to changes that will occur when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act roll out in January.

A giant increase in the cost of health insurance, driven by the “Affordable Care Act,” might drive a national fury that will make the 2009 and 2010 Tea Party rallies look like . . . well, actual tea parties with little finger sandwiches and cloth napkins.

After the 2016 questions, the Quinnipiac pollsters ask Pennsylvania voters what they think of Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act.

A total of 53 percent of Pennsylvania voters “somewhat disapprove” or “strongly disapprove” of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, while 37 percent “strongly approve” or “somewhat approve.” 

ACA will hurt them personally 40 percent of voters say, while 13 percent say it will help and 42 percent say it will have no effect.  There is little difference among income groups.

Compare this to recent national polling on views of the sequester:

Nearly half — 49 percent — of registered voters said the current cuts will have no impact at all on them or their families. Another 39 percent said the cuts would have a negative impact, and 10 percent said they would have a positive impact.

The final Morning Jolt of the week offers a look at what Republicans can learn from Rand Paul, the comedic horror that is our half-baked “Dudes” idea, and then this reflection of a troubled economy:

Understaffed America

One of the first victims of the Great Recession was service. I don’t know about you, but with disturbing regularity I get seated in restaurants . . . and we sit there . . . waiting for someone to greet us, bring menus, ask if we want anything to drink . . . and we’re left waiting for a seemingly interminable time. It’s as if our waiter suddenly retired. Or, you know, it’s like we’re in Europe.

Peggy Noonan is noticing the same thing.

It’s not a debt and deficit crisis, it’s a jobs crisis. The debt and the deficit are part of it, part of the general fear that we’re on a long slide and can’t turn it around. The federal tax code is part of it — it’s a drag on everything, a killer of the spirit of guts and endeavor. Federal regulations are part of it. The administration’s inability to see the stunning and historic gift of the energy revolution is part of it.

But it’s a jobs crisis that’s the central thing. And you see it everywhere you look.

I’m in Pittsburgh, making my way to the airport hotel. The people movers are broken and we pull our bags along the dingy carpet. There’s an increasing sense in America now that the facades are intact but the machinery inside is broken.

The hotel has entrances on two floors. I search for the lobby, find it. Travelers are milling about, but there’s no information desk, no doorman, no bellman or concierge, just two harried-looking workers at a front desk on the second level. The man who checked me in put his phones on hold when I asked for someone to accompany me upstairs . . .

Things are getting pretty bare-bones in America. Doormen, security, bellmen, people working the floor — that’s maybe a dozen jobs that should have been filled, at one little hotel on one day in one town. Everyone’s keeping costs down, not hiring.

What that hotel looked like is America without its muscle, its efficiency, its old confidence.

There are a lot of reasons for this . . . but we’ve added one more reason for a company to try to hobble along with fewer workers than they normally would:

Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans.

ObamaCare’s rules make expansion expensive, particularly for the 500,000 US businesses that have fewer than 100 employees.

Suppose that a firm with 49 employees does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more worker will trigger the mandate. The company would now have to provide insurance coverage to all 50 workers or pay a tax penalty.

. . . Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51.

If service industries cut the staff any deeper, it’s going to start looking like the sets of The Walking Dead in this country.

This Tweet from Democratic strategist Donna Brazile is getting a great deal of attention.

What’s on your menu? Just got off the phone with my health care provider asking them to explain why my premium jumped up. No good answer!

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) February 27, 2013

I guess it depends upon your definition of a “good” answer. Once Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, kids under 26, birth control pills and so on, the companies will cover those costs by… raising premiums for all customers.

So that’s a “good answer” in the sense of explaining the situation. But I guess if you’re a fan of Obamacare, it’s not really a good answer.

But cheer up, Ms. Brazile! You’re not alone!

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

 In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.

Massachusetts residents, are you ready for one of the architects of Obamacare in the governor’s mansion?

Dr. Donald Berwick, a Boston-based pediatrician and former Obama administration health-care official, is giving serious consideration to running for governor as a Democrat in 2014, injecting himself into a conversation limited so far to two statewide officeholders.

Berwick, who served for a year and a half as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before resigning in the face of Republican opposition to his permanent confirmation, has been talking with family, friends, civic and business leaders about a possible run.

He met privately on Monday with Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray in his Statehouse office to inform the Democrat of his plans, and has also spoken with state Democratic Party officials.

“That’s correct. I’m strongly considering it,” Berwick confirmed to the News Service on Tuesday.

Berwick joins Murray and Treasurer Steven Grossman among those giving serious thought to a run for governor in 2014 when Gov. Deval Patrick plans to leave office at the end of the second term.

Our Avik Roy wrote about Berwick repeatedly, and summarized his views when he tendered his resignation as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

Berwick was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his involvement in Tony Blair’s ill-fated efforts to improve Britain’s National Health Service. It was during this period that the NHS set up its notorious health-care-rationing board, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which routinely stymies the use of life-saving treatments in order to save money. Speaking at the NHS’s 60th anniversary in 2008, Sir Donald extolled the NHS as far superior to the American health-care system, a system veiled by the “darkness of private enterprise.” 

“Please don’t put your faith in market forces,” said Berwick. “It is a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can do. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, just consumer choice among an array of products with competitors’ fighting it out, leads to the health care system that you want and need. In the US, competition has become toxic. . . .  Do not trust market forces to give you the system you need. . . . I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.” Berwick, as head of CMS, sought to be one of these “leaders with plans.”

Berwick deserves credit for his intellectual honesty. Unlike the president, who repeatedly tries to describe his health-care agenda in chin-strokingly centrist tones, Berwick embodies what that agenda is really about: an attempt to move America in the centrally planned direction of Britain, a move that Berwick is “romantic” about.

“Don’t put your faith in market forces…” That’s pretty much the Massachusetts state motto now anyway, right?

Over at Twitchy, they note DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse is apparently irked at the Papa John’s pizzeria chain for CEO John Schnatter’s public criticism of Obamacare.

Quick, nobody tell him that the Obama campaign spent $1,500 on 20 separate orders for pizzas and other food from Papa John’s during the past election cycle — more than they spent at Einstein Brothers Bagels ($861.96), Little Caesars ($520.63), Pizza Hut ($834.03), Chipotle ($619.16), Starbucks ($260.14), or Whole Foods ($1,088.79).

But the good news for Woodhouse is that Papa John’s was only the second-favorite pizza of the Obama campaign; the campaign spent $2,710.10 at Domino’s.

All of these figures come from the itemized expenditures reported by the Obama campaign to the Federal Election Commission, and are updated through October 17 of this year.

The most recent issue of BusinessWeek features an article about how states are preparing to implement the changes of Obamacare. Besides the predictable problems – delays, computer systems that can’t sync, reaching people who are in good health who don’t want to purchase insurance — there’s the question of how states will fund the “health benefit exchanges,” a menu of insurance plans for the currently uninsured.

Maryland expects the federal government to fund the exchange through 2014. After that, they’re supposed to cover their own costs—for Maryland, about $40 million a year. The exchange board has until Dec. 1 to come up with a financing plan. [Anthony] Brown, Maryland’s lieutenant governor, gingerly hints at one way to pay for it: “[Even if] I don’t have children … I pay taxes that support public education.”

So… in addition to all of the other joys of Obamacare — the mandate, the IPAB panel deciding which lifesaving treatments are too expensive, the increase in premiums, the doctors quitting in frustration — we can add state tax increases coming in 2015. This is separate from the costs imposed on states by Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, and any state tax increases that are enacted as a result of that aspect of the president’s signature domestic policy legislation.

Greg Sargent transmits the next charge against Paul Ryan: “Dems are now going to launch a new offensive hammering home a simple point: Under the Romney/Ryan plan, health care costs for current seniors do go up.”

Er… have any of these Democrats looked at health care costs for everyone since Obamacare was enacted?

Health insurance costs for families are up considerably: “Kaiser’s survey found that annual insurance premiums to cover people through their employers average $5,429 for single people and $15,073 for a family of four in 2011. Those rates rose 8 percent for single people and 9 percent for families. In 2010, premiums rose just 3 percent for families from the previous year.”

Then there’s the price hikes in the current year: “The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7 percent from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc.”

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute projects medical costs will increase 7.5 percent for 2013, a rate they characterize as “relatively flat growth.” The National Business Group on Health projects a similar figure: “With the cost of employer-provided health care benefits at large U.S. employers expected to rise another 7 percent next year, employers are eyeing a variety of cost-control measures including asking workers to pay a greater portion of premiums but also sharply boosting financial rewards to engage workers in healthy lifestyles, according to a new survey by the National Business Group on Health, a non-profit association of 342 large employers.”

Of course, all of these rates of increase are much more dramatic that the rates of increase in inflation, wage growth, and other economic indicators: “The projected growth rate of 7.5 percent for overall healthcare costs contrasts with expectations for growth of 2.4 percent in gross domestic product and a 2.0 percent rise in consumer prices during 2013, according to the latest Reuters economic survey.”

Apparently the Obama message will be, “Don’t vote for Romney and Ryan, because they might fail to control the increasing cost of health care as badly as we have!”

Gallup:

A majority of Americans say the U.S. healthcare law that the Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional will make things better for those who do not have health insurance and for those who get sick. At the same time, Americans say the law will make things worse rather than better for taxpayers, businesses, doctors, and those who currently have health insurance. Americans are about evenly divided on the impact of the law on hospitals and on themselves personally.

So we now are on the way to providing insurance to 32 million to 50 million uninsured Americans, and all it took was worsening the system for 261 million to 279 million other Americans!

Funny thing, though . . . since Obamacare The Obama Health Care Tax passed, the number of uninsured Americans has risen:

Gallup first documented an increase in the monthly percentage of uninsured adults in November 2008, rising above 16% for the first time in February 2009 and above 17% for the first time December 2010. The monthly percentage of uninsured adults increased to 17.7% in December 2011, tying July for the highest on record. The uninsured rate was 17% or higher in most months in 2011.

This morning, Quinnipiac gives the GOP and the Right modestly good news on just about all fronts:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a tax hike, American voters say 55 – 36 percent, but in a mixed message, voters agree 48 – 45 percent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law, while they say 49 – 43 percent that the U.S. Congress should repeal it, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

A total of 55 percent of American voters say a presidential candidate’s position on health care is “extremely important” or “very important” to their vote in November, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. While 59 percent say the Supreme Court decision will not affect their vote, 27 percent say it will make them less likely to vote for President Barack Obama, while 12 percent say more likely. Independent voters say less likely 27 – 9 percent.

American voters split 48 – 47 percent on whether people should be required to have health insurance. Opposed are Republicans 76 – 19 percent and independent voters 51 – 43 percent, while Democrats support the mandate 79 – 16 percent.

The wording in Quinnipiac’s description of the “Fast & Furious” is a little confusing, but the gist is clear: among those who heard about the House holding Eric Holder in contempt, Americans think that politics played a big role . . . but they still agree with it.

A total of about two-thirds of American voters know something about the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Of that group, half were asked if they support the contempt vote, with support at 44 – 29 percent, with 27 percent undecided. Among the other half, asked if it was a legitimate attempt to get information or if it was politically motivated, 42 percent say the vote was political while 36 percent say it was legitimate, with 21 percent undecided.

“We asked different questions of two groups of voters. The answers were different but not mutually exclusive. More voters in one group believe the contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder are politically motivated. More voters in the other group support the contempt citation,” said Brown.

Independents support holding Holder in contempt 42 percent to 30 percent. Intriguingly, 39 percent of Democrats have “no opinion” on the Holder contempt citation. I can’t help but suspect that such a high number in that demographic represents a response of “deep down I think the guy I usually support did something wrong, but I can’t bring myself to admit it to a pollster.”

Moving on to the recent decisions on illegal immigration . . .

American voters approve 55 – 39 percent of President Obama’s new policy to end deportation of some young illegal immigrants. While 51 percent say the decision will not affect their vote, 30 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for Obama while 18 percent say more likely.

By 61 – 34 percent, voters want an Arizona-type law in their state, requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they have already stopped or arrested if they suspect he or she is in the country illegally.

Finally, Quinnipiac finds “14 percent say America’s economy is ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ while 86 percent say ‘not so good’ or ‘poor.’”

Note this is a sample of registered voters — and a nice large sample, “2,722 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percentage points.” The only quibble is that the survey was taken from July 1 to July 8 — and over the course of a week, public opinions can change . . .

The Morning Jolt begins the week with some ominous news from London about the Olympics, a lengthy contemplation of parenthood and modern society, and then this bit of economic news that could greatly impact the campaign in the fall . . .

Hey, Can We All Get Exemptions from All of Obama’s Policies?

The Wall Street Journal looks ahead . . . to autumn:

For all the focus on the unemployment rate heading into the November elections, the layoffs that could most complicate President Barack Obama’s re-election prospects wouldn’t take effect until early next year.

Unless Congress and the White House reach a compromise by year-end, the Pentagon would have to slash roughly $50 billion more from the current fiscal-year budget in January. That prospect of wide layoffs could undercut Mr. Obama in battleground states heavily dependent on military spending, particularly Virginia.

Federal law requires companies to warn their employees of potential layoffs 60 days before they take effect, meaning thousands of workers could receive the warning notices on the Friday before the election.

I wonder if anyone on Team Obama will contemplate trying to grant some sort of exemption to that federal law. You think I kid, but exemptions are the one of the real currencies of this administration:

On Obamacare the Obama Health Care Tax . . .

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

On No Child Left Behind . . .

President Barack Obama said on Thursday he was granting 10 U.S. states exemptions from parts of the “No Child Left Behind” education law, a move that could prove popular in an election year with parents and teachers who have criticized the law.

On Iran sanctions . . .

Even as it huffs and puffs, the United States last week took steps to undermine the very sanctions it cites as pressure against Iran. Using a loophole in the law, the administration simply exempted China, Singapore and other countries from heavy financial penalties that might be levied against nations that buy Iranian oil. On June 28, Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. had “made the determination that two additional countries, China and Singapore, have significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran” and so the law “will not apply to their financial institutions for a potentially renewable period of 180 days.”

That, of course, was a polite fiction. As a July 2 editorial in the Wall Street Journal succinctly summarized the toothless nature of the sanctions law: “It’s so weak, in fact, that all 20 of Iran’s major trading partners are now exempt from them. We’ve arrived at a kind of voodoo version of sanctions. They look real, insofar as Congress forced them into a bill President Obama had to sign in December. The Administration has spoken incantations about their powers. But if you’re a big oil importer in China, India or 18 other major economies, the sanctions are mostly smoke.”

Think of all of these exemptions as after-the-fact admissions that the policies are unworkable and disasters-in-the-making, or a sign that the administration was never that determined to enforce the law in the first place . . .

Gallup:

Although the Affordable Care Act of 2010 has dominated the news recently, with coverage exploding Thursday as the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the law, few Americans so far in 2012 mention healthcare when asked to identify the most important problem facing the country. Six percent say healthcare is the top problem in June, behind mentions of the economy, jobs, the deficit, and problems in government. The current 6% who mention healthcare is slightly below the average of 8% of Americans who since January 2001 have mentioned healthcare as the nation’s top problem.

They point out that this number increases dramatically when there is public debate about legislation on the issue, mostly in the first two years of Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidencies. Of course, when the perception that health care is a “problem” spikes, the question doesn’t differentiate between those who think it’s a problem that requires the legislation being debated and those who think the legislation itself is the problem.

The great Ben Howe catalogues all the promises, pledges, assurances, and statements from candidate and President Barack Obama that reached their expiration date today.

It is no longer “Obamacare.” It is “the Obama health-care tax.”