Another $17 trillion surprise found in Obamacare

From the link:

'The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leave taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.

The federal government has an additional $17 trillion unfunded gap in other obligations, including Social Security, bringing the total shortfall to $99 trillion.

That shortfall is different from existing debt. The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term in office so far.'


Where are the normally verbose Leftists in here to discuss this problem?

99 trillion dollars over 75 yeras is like less then .5% of GDP meaning the only reason you think it is big numbe is because you are cluless
 
At the end of the day it's about control of the people and the Obamabots are either too stupid to realize this or are enthusiastically for being controlled because it's easier than being responsible for one's self. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand then the so called "progressives" will have pretty much succeeded in shredding the Constitution as going forward this case will set precedent to allow the federal government to make us do what ever they want under the guise of regulating commerce. What's left of federalism will be dead.
Only dumbasses like you think that taxes shred the Constitution
 
At the end of the day it's about control of the people and the Obamabots are either too stupid to realize this or are enthusiastically for being controlled because it's easier than being responsible for one's self. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand then the so called "progressives" will have pretty much succeeded in shredding the Constitution as going forward this case will set precedent to allow the federal government to make us do what ever they want under the guise of regulating commerce. What's left of federalism will be dead.
Only dumbasses like you think that taxes shred the Constitution

They are when taxes are used as a private piggy bank for Socialist engineering and not adhering to the intended purpose of correct government functions as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
 
At the end of the day it's about control of the people and the Obamabots are either too stupid to realize this or are enthusiastically for being controlled because it's easier than being responsible for one's self. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand then the so called "progressives" will have pretty much succeeded in shredding the Constitution as going forward this case will set precedent to allow the federal government to make us do what ever they want under the guise of regulating commerce. What's left of federalism will be dead.
Only dumbasses like you think that taxes shred the Constitution

They are when taxes are used as a private piggy bank for Socialist engineering and not adhering to the intended purpose of correct government functions as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Only dumbasses like you think that making a competitive insurance market for private companies is socialist engineering
 
At the end of the day it's about control of the people and the Obamabots are either too stupid to realize this or are enthusiastically for being controlled because it's easier than being responsible for one's self. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand then the so called "progressives" will have pretty much succeeded in shredding the Constitution as going forward this case will set precedent to allow the federal government to make us do what ever they want under the guise of regulating commerce. What's left of federalism will be dead.
Only dumbasses like you think that taxes shred the Constitution

Please quote me where I said taxes shred the Constitution.
 
At the end of the day it's about control of the people and the Obamabots are either too stupid to realize this or are enthusiastically for being controlled because it's easier than being responsible for one's self. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand then the so called "progressives" will have pretty much succeeded in shredding the Constitution as going forward this case will set precedent to allow the federal government to make us do what ever they want under the guise of regulating commerce. What's left of federalism will be dead.
Only dumbasses like you think that taxes shred the Constitution

Who said taxes were what shredded the Constitution? The comment was that the government would have the right ot make us do whatever they want under the idea of regulating commerce. That is, in fact, shredding the Constitution and only dumbasses would think otherwise.

Immie
 
Only dumbasses like you think that making a competitive insurance market for private companies is socialist engineering

Please explain to us exactly how ObamaCare creates a competitive insurance market for private companies.

Update: Health Insurance Exchanges

Background

One of the great challenges in buying health insurance has been a highly fragmented market. Individuals and group purchasers lack a reliable means for seeing their choices in one place and in a manner that allows them to compare what the plans cover, which providers are in various plans’ practice networks, how cost-sharing might differ, and how numerous competing plans might compare on key measures of quality performance. Nor has there been an active, consumer-oriented system for assuring that insurance plans that are offered in the individual and small group markets provide comparable coverage, cover the benefits that are considered essential to any health insurance plan, have accessible provider networks, and are accountable for specific measures of health care quality. State insurance departments play a different role in most states, overseeing health insurers’ solvency and marketing and business practices. But typically insurance departments do not, as part of their work, organize the health insurance market to make it accountable and user-friendly to individual and group consumers.

Health insurance exchanges are designed to help individuals and small employer groups be better positioned to purchase high quality health insurance by creating “organized markets”[1] that simplify the job of selecting and enrolling in coverage and securing performance information about available products. Health insurance exchanges have been a key element of numerous health reform proposals; indeed, the concept of an exchange lies at the core of systems that turn on the competitive selection of health insurance products in the individual and group markets.[2] Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, established as part of the state’s 2006 health reform legislation, is probably the best known example of a health insurance exchange.[3] The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit also utilizes an exchange concept as the means by which beneficiaries select their prescription drug plans. At the same time, there are several issues that can derail the development and functionality of exchanges, including adverse selection, a low number of participants, over-complexity, transparency and disclosure, and competition, among other things.[4]

A health insurance exchange might carry out numerous functions: helping individual and group purchasers calculate and compare (e.g., individuals versus families; older versus younger individuals; small versus larger employer groups); providing information about the plans and negotiating prices; helping purchasers gain access to available subsidies; and assuring that premium payments to plans are adjusted to reflect the level of health risk among enrollees (a practice known as risk adjustment) in order to assure payment fairness depending on the specifics of their products. For example, health plans may differ on the level of pharmacy benefits covered or may offer provider networks that are broader or narrower. Health plans’ provider networks may also perform differently on key measures of health care quality. Depending on these variations, plans may attract sicker versus healthier populations.[5]

Health insurance exchanges are designed to overcome a basic problem, namely the lack of a robust, organized market for the purchase of health insurance by individuals and small business. In the absence of an organized market, the price of coverage rises because of the additional costs incurred in marketing to and supporting thousands of small customers. In addition, the lack of an exchange means the absence of an organized group of individuals and small business purchasers across whom the cost of coverage can be spread.

Exchanges have the potential to serve large numbers of individual and group health purchasers across an entire region. As a result, they have the potential to make purchasing easier and more efficient than is the case in a highly fragmented market in which thousands of individual and small group consumers are attempting to navigate the health insurance marketplace with incomplete information. Comprehensive and transparent quality and pricing information across a full range of products can be made available in an organized and logical fashion.
 
Only dumbasses like you think that making a competitive insurance market for private companies is socialist engineering

Please explain to us exactly how ObamaCare creates a competitive insurance market for private companies.

Update: Health Insurance Exchanges

Background

One of the great challenges in buying health insurance has been a highly fragmented market. Individuals and group purchasers lack a reliable means for seeing their choices in one place and in a manner that allows them to compare what the plans cover, which providers are in various plans’ practice networks, how cost-sharing might differ, and how numerous competing plans might compare on key measures of quality performance. Nor has there been an active, consumer-oriented system for assuring that insurance plans that are offered in the individual and small group markets provide comparable coverage, cover the benefits that are considered essential to any health insurance plan, have accessible provider networks, and are accountable for specific measures of health care quality. State insurance departments play a different role in most states, overseeing health insurers’ solvency and marketing and business practices. But typically insurance departments do not, as part of their work, organize the health insurance market to make it accountable and user-friendly to individual and group consumers.

Health insurance exchanges are designed to help individuals and small employer groups be better positioned to purchase high quality health insurance by creating “organized markets”[1] that simplify the job of selecting and enrolling in coverage and securing performance information about available products. Health insurance exchanges have been a key element of numerous health reform proposals; indeed, the concept of an exchange lies at the core of systems that turn on the competitive selection of health insurance products in the individual and group markets.[2] Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, established as part of the state’s 2006 health reform legislation, is probably the best known example of a health insurance exchange.[3] The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit also utilizes an exchange concept as the means by which beneficiaries select their prescription drug plans. At the same time, there are several issues that can derail the development and functionality of exchanges, including adverse selection, a low number of participants, over-complexity, transparency and disclosure, and competition, among other things.[4]

A health insurance exchange might carry out numerous functions: helping individual and group purchasers calculate and compare (e.g., individuals versus families; older versus younger individuals; small versus larger employer groups); providing information about the plans and negotiating prices; helping purchasers gain access to available subsidies; and assuring that premium payments to plans are adjusted to reflect the level of health risk among enrollees (a practice known as risk adjustment) in order to assure payment fairness depending on the specifics of their products. For example, health plans may differ on the level of pharmacy benefits covered or may offer provider networks that are broader or narrower. Health plans’ provider networks may also perform differently on key measures of health care quality. Depending on these variations, plans may attract sicker versus healthier populations.[5]

Health insurance exchanges are designed to overcome a basic problem, namely the lack of a robust, organized market for the purchase of health insurance by individuals and small business. In the absence of an organized market, the price of coverage rises because of the additional costs incurred in marketing to and supporting thousands of small customers. In addition, the lack of an exchange means the absence of an organized group of individuals and small business purchasers across whom the cost of coverage can be spread.

Exchanges have the potential to serve large numbers of individual and group health purchasers across an entire region. As a result, they have the potential to make purchasing easier and more efficient than is the case in a highly fragmented market in which thousands of individual and small group consumers are attempting to navigate the health insurance marketplace with incomplete information. Comprehensive and transparent quality and pricing information across a full range of products can be made available in an organized and logical fashion.



Assuming that insurance companies would be allowed to offer policies nationally, that is selling across state lines, then the various state insurance regulations would be unneeded and this would create a need for regulation by the Feds.

Regulating and controlling, though, are two very different things.

Why would these Exchanges need to be entities of the government instead of merely regulated by the government?
 
Assuming that insurance companies would be allowed to offer policies nationally, that is selling across state lines, then the various state insurance regulations would be unneeded and this would create a need for regulation by the Feds.

What you're getting at here is the question of why interstate purchasing is a desirable goal.

On the one hand, you might argue that it creates a more competitive market and offers additional options to consumers (particularly in states where one insurance company dominates). That's the view taken by the framers of the ACA, which allows insurers to sell in other states using the same mechanism used by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. In fact, exchanges are required to offer at least two of these out-of-state plans.

On the other hand, if you view it simply as a way to deregulate a state's insurance market, you're right that would create a need for regulation by the feds. But that isn't what proponents of the most popular across-state-lines proposal are suggesting. Regulation (or lack thereof) of insurance policies takes on a very bizarre formulation in their proposal that doesn't allow a state to regulate products sold within its borders but also refuses to install at least a federal regulatory floor for the entire country.

Why would these Exchanges need to be entities of the government instead of merely regulated by the government?

I guess that depends on what you mean by that. States have leeway in designing their exchanges, including in developing the governance model and the operational model. Generally they're choosing from one of the three governance models: operating it through a state agency, establishing an exchange as a quasi-governmental entity, or establishing the exchange as a non-profit organization. Of these, the quasi-governmental entity model for the exchange is the most popular, probably because it's a fairly nebulous term.

But outside the very few states that are actually thinking of making the exchange a state agency, exchange decision-making is being made by a public-private board consisting of representatives of the major stakeholders in the state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top