New York Obamacare insurers ask for 24 percent rate hike

New York Obamacare insurers want to raise prices for 2019 by an average 24 percent, with some plans seeking rate increases as high as nearly 40 percent.

The most common reason the state's 14 insurers on Obamacare’s exchanges gave for the increases was the repeal of the individual mandate in the new tax law. That follows insurers in several other states that have cited the mandate repeal and other moves by the Trump administration for their proposed rate hikes.

“Insurers have attributed approximately half of their requested rate increases to the risks they see resulting from its repeal,” New York’s Department of Financial Services said Friday. “Without the federal action, the average requested rate increase would be 12.1 percent.”

Some plans would have increases of about 5 to 8 percent, and one plan would lower premiums by 3.2 percent. Other plans have proposed rate hikes of 31 percent and 38 percent.

The rates are proposals that need to be finalized. The state’s insurance regulator is expected to negotiate with the insurers over final prices, which will be revealed before Obamacare’s open enrollment begins in November. Obamacare's exchanges are on the individual market, which is used by people who don't get insurance through a job or the government.

New York’s Department of Finance said the individual mandate was a key component of Obamacare that "helped mitigate against dramatic price increases by ensuring healthier insurance pools.”

Maryland and Virginia have announced double-digit rate hike proposals, with insurers citing the repeal of the individual mandate that everyone have insurance.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/new-york-obamacare-insurers-ask-for-24-percent-rate-hike

High court blasts Colorado's anti-religious bias, leaves boundaries of religious liberty ill-defined

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Colorado officials' religious bigotry required the court to defend a Christian cakeshop owner, Jack Phillips who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

Writing the court's majority opinion in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy affirmed that the cakemaker's first amendment rights were denied because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had failed to neutrally consider Phillips' religious beliefs.

Kennedy noted that the baker's concerns made it "difficult [for Phillips] to find a line where the customers’ rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."

The court ruled that the commission thus had a responsibility to neutrally assess the baker's rights here alongside those of the gay couple. Yet the commission did not do so. Pointing out the commission's distinct biases, Justice Kennedy noted that "One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe 'what he wants to believe,' but cannot act on his religious beliefs 'if he decides to do business in the state.'" Kennedy then blitzed the commission's use of language in its hearings related to Phillips.

"To describe a man’s faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use'," Kennedy said, "is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical – something insubstantial and even insincere." An unimpressed Kennedy then reported that the commission's "record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners."

Implication: the commission was intrinsically entirely hostile to Phillips' constitutional rights because he was grounding hs claims in religion.

For Kennedy, that absence of neutral consideration required the Supreme Court to relieve Phillips of the censure imposed upon him: "For these reasons, the court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case… However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated."

For Kennedy, the admittedly narrow operative point here is that a religious individual must receive due process and just assessment by a government body. Still, the more conservative justices were more aggressive.

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurrence, for example, argues that "it is no more appropriate for the United States Supreme Court to tell Mr. Phillips that a wedding cake is just like any other - without regard to the religious significance his faith may attach to it - than it would be for the Court to suggest that for all persons sacramental bread is just bread or a kippah is just a cap."

That passionate language speaks to the court's challenge. As new cases reach its attention, the nation's ongoing struggle between secular modernity and religious freedom will continue at pace.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/high-court-blasts-colorados-anti-religious-bias-leaves-boundaries-of-religious-liberty-ill-defined

James Comey: 'Decency and the rule of law inevitably win over demagogues and liars'

Former FBI Director James Comey tweeted his support for Jon Meacham's new book The Soul of America, insinuating his disdain for the Trump administration, yet with hope for better days ahead.

Just finished Jon Meacham’s “The Soul of America.” Good reminder that facts and the essential goodness of the American people always triumph. It can take a while, but decency and the rule of law inevitably win over demagogues and liars. So long as we all stand up and speak out.

— James Comey (@Comey) June 4, 2018

Since his dismissal in early May 2017, Comey has vocalized his grievances with the president on numerous occasions, memorializing his experiences with his own book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership.

“This president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values,” Comey writes. “His leadership is transactional, ego driven and about personal loyalty.”

While Comey and other Republicans have had much to say about their aversion to Trump's leadership, few have been able to offer an example of ideological leadership that should replace him. While Comey's book presents a no-holds-barred critique of his former boss, Meacham tries to substantiate readers' frustration with a hopeful narrative of historical leadership, driven by his own ideologically liberal convictions.

Meacham identifies that the mainstream conversation has left Americans in cognitive disarray over the extremism and populism of both the Left and the Right, but still feels optimistic about progressivism as the solution needed for compromise and getting along.

"Meacham commends a particular liberal disposition that once dominated our politics but whose influence has long since waned," book reviewer Sean Wilentz wrote for the New York Times. "It is a public philosophy akin to what Schlesinger described as the politics of 'the vital center,' devoted to egalitarian reform but disbelieving in human perfection, fierce in its advocacy but humble in the face of human folly."

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/james-comey-decency-and-the-rule-of-law-inevitably-win-over-demagogues-and-liars

Britain's Theresa May condemns 'deeply disappointing' tariffs in phone call with Trump

British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned President Trump's "deeply disappointing" tariffs on steel and aluminum imports during a tense phone call Monday, during which the two leaders agreed on the need to discuss trade at the G7 summit this week.

The 30-minute phone call was described as "constructive" by a Downing Street spokesperson, despite May's criticism of the "unjustified" tariffs. A readout of the call provided by the White House said trade was discussed but did not mention any acrimony.

"The President further underscored the need to rebalance trade with Europe and expressed hope for a Brexit deal that does not increase tensions on the Northern Ireland border," the readout said.

Trump is set to attend a G7 summit in Canada this week before heading to Singapore for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The summit will take place amid growing backlash to the president's decision last week to proceed with increased tariffs on the United States' European partners, Canada and Mexico.

The EU responded to the move last Friday by promising to make good on its own threat to impose new tariffs on a variety of American-made goods, including denim, bourbon and motorcycles. European officials have also said they intend to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization.

Trump is scheduled to make his first presidential visit to the United Kingdom in mid-July, during which trade negotiations with the EU will be continuing.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/britains-theresa-may-condemns-deeply-disappointing-tariffs-in-phone-call-with-trump

Pundits, journalists score viral hits with tweets scaremongering the US ambassador to Germany

The U.S. ambassador to Germany just advocated the overthrow of its ruling party, according to certain politicos and pundits.

What a scandal! What an outrage! Or maybe not.

Ambassador Richard Grenell told Breitbart London this month that he aims to “empower” conservatives in Europe.

Here is what he said:

There are a lot of conservatives throughout Europe who have contacted me to say they are feeling there is a resurgence going on.

I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders. I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left.

There’s no question about that and it’s an exciting time for me. I look across the landscape and we’ve got a lot of work to do but I think the election of Donald Trump has empowered individuals and people to say that they can’t just allow the political class to determine before an election takes place, who’s going to win and who should run.

President Trump’s appointee to act as the U.S. ambassador Germany continued, taking aim at Europe’s political "elites" with the sort of rhetoric one would expect from a Trump official with a very populist worldview.

“That’s a very powerful moment when you can grasp the ability to see past the group-think of a very small elitist crowd telling you … have no chance to win or you’ll never win, or they mock you early on,” he told Breitbart London.

Grenell also said that the key to victory for European conservatives is to focus on everyday issues that matter to working class voters, including tax cuts and immigration reform. An example of a politician who Grenell believes fits the mold is Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a vigorous opponent of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her immigration policies.

There’s a good question here about whether it’s appropriate for Grennell to vocalize support for specific political movements and politicians around the European continent. I'd argue it's inappropriate for him to throw his support behind specific actors, especially if they're known opponents of Chancellor Merkel, with whose government he will have to work.

But leave it to certain members of the press and political class to take it a step further by accusing Grenell of basically calling for outright revolution in Germany.

“The American ambassador in Germany has just implied that he would like to unseat the current German government,” Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum said in a tweet that has been shared by more than 7,000 social media users.

She added later after she encountered pushback on her initial tweet, “Sorry, but given the context, the implications are perfectly clear. In an interview with Breitbart, when he says he wants to ‘empower’ the ‘conservatives’ who fight the ‘failed policies of the left’ he doesn't mean the … coalition [which includes Merkel’s party].”

Tom Wright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, also said in a note that has been retweeted by more than 5,000 people that Grenell said he would "intervene in internal politics of Europe to empower anti-establishment conservatives. Directly contradicts State Dept line that Trump admin is neutral.”

There’s a legitimate criticism here for a U.S. ambassador voicing support for certain politicians, and suggesting opposition to certain European political parties. Why accuse him of saying things he didn’t actually say? Why lose the legitimate criticism in overwrought hand-wringing?

Grenell did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pundits-journalists-score-viral-hits-with-tweets-scaremongering-the-us-ambassador-to-germany