Morning Action: Your Health Care Premium May Increase by 125 Percent? Thank Obamacare
OBAMACARE. Health insurance premiums could increase up to 125 percent in Wisconsin because of Obamacare:
“Half a million Wisconsinites will soon have to open up their pocket books for health care coverage,” says a local anchor. “And new estimates show, it may be costly. … The state’s office of the commissioner of insurance released estimates of how premium rates for individuals will be changing under the Affordable Care Act.”
The second anchor adds, “Yeah, for people who have no insurance or who may not have insurance those numbers show a wide range of increases- from 10-percent on the low end to as much as 125-percent. And with the requirement for individuals to have insurance set to start in less than a month, the law remains controversial.”
Adds the reporter, “According to the state’s office of the commissioner of insurance, there will be drastic premium increases as a result. The office compiled date from 8 cities for $2,000 deductible plans for three different age groups. The study did not include the numbers of actual estimated costs, only percentages. In Appleton a 21-year-old’s cost would increase 54- percent, a 40-year-old’s about 37-percent, and a 63- year-old’s about 32-percent.”
SYRIA. The Heritage Foundation explains that Members of Congress have an opportunity this week to get clarity on the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) bothendorsed military action in Syria yesterday, but it’s unclear whether President Obama has sufficient support in Congress for a resolution authorizing such action.
House and Senate hearings this week give Members of Congress an opportunity to question the Obama Administration on Syria and its strategy—and question they should. Here are just five reasons Congress should press the Administration for answers.
Heritage Action opposes action in Syria. Communications director Dan Holler said:
Heritage Action is opposed to punitive missile strikes on the Syrian regime. Yesterday’s hearing made it clear there is not a vital U.S. interest at stake. Further, there is not a clear, achievable, realistic purpose to the use of force being contemplated by the Obama administration and officials offered little evidence such action would prevent further abuses.
OBAMA. President Obama is in Sweden today seeking support for a military strike on Syria:
Obama landed in Stockholm early Wednesday morning, and will have meetings with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and King Carl XVI Gustaf.
The U.S. president and Reinfeldt also hold a brief news conference, where Syria will very likely surface as a topic.
Obama has called for limited military action against Syria, saying the government has used chemical weapons on opponents; he spoke to U.S. congressional leaders about his plans Tuesday, and will take a similar message later this week to the G-20 summit of nations in St. Petersburg, Russia.
IMMIGRATION. Interest in tackling immigration reform has decreased over the August recess for many Republican lawmakers (sub. req’d):
Prospects for an immigration overhaul have dimmed over the summer congressional recess, as a newly crowded agenda damps what already was tepid interest among House leaders in taking up the issue.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said in July he hoped the House would consider immigration bills before turning to negotiations on raising the nation’s debt ceiling this fall. But as the House prepares to reconvene next week, GOP leaders have no plans to bring immigration bills to the floor, aides say.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has placed a major, new issue on the agenda by asking Congress to authorize military strikes in Syria. A debate over federal spending levels for the next fiscal year is likely to dominate much of September and the weeks beyond.
We contend that Congress should not take an amnesty first approach. Moreover, the House should not compromise with the Senate on their amnesty bill.
EX-IM BANK. The Heritage Foundation points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who support the Export-Import Bank – and the cronyism it engenders – except when it hurts their district:
Four lawmakers from Minnesota and Michigan are up in arms over a proposed $650 million financing deal for Roy Hill, an Australian mining company. The deal, backed by the Export-Import Bank, the U.S. government’s export credit agency, is for the purchase of Caterpillar mining equipment manufactured in the U.S.
But Senators Amy Klobuchar (D–MN), Al Franken (D–MN), Carl Levin (D–MI), and Debbie Stabenow (D–MI) don’t like this deal because Roy Hill competes with American iron ore producers, the majority of which operate in the Senators’ home states of Minnesota and Michigan. In a letter to the Export-Import Bank, the Senators claim that they are
concerned the proposed Ex-Im Bank financing and the large amount of iron capacity that it would subsidize will…substantially injure American iron ore and steel producers and their employees that are competing in the same global marketplace.
The Senators are essentially arguing that the Export-Import Bank shouldn’t be subsidizing the purchase of U.S. mining equipment because it might hurt miners in the U.S. How ironic, considering all four of them voted for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank just over three months ago.