The Slow Dismantling of Obamacare

[P@triot]

This legislation is such a sham, even the dumbocrats are abandoning it. Which clearly shows 1 of 2 things....

1.) The left knew it sucked ass and supported it because of partisan politics - at the detriment of the entire United States

2.) They didn't do their homework when they supported it and voted for something they didn't read

Either way, how humiliating for the dumbocrats...

Morning Bell: Obamacare Loses CLASS Act, Medical Device Tax Kicks In

 

[healthmyths]

Just 6 votes passed Obamacare!
And I KNOW that it would not have passed if these six voters had comprehended the following:
1) 10 million of the so-called "50 million uninsured" were according to Census NOT CITIZENS... thus leaving 40 million.
2) 14 million are and have been completely covered by MEDICAID! Leaving 26 million.
3) 18 million are under age 34, make over $50,000 and pay an average OUT of POCKET health care costs of $2,000 a year LESS THEN their Employer offered health insurance!
This leaves 8 million that truly are uninsured and want insurance.......NOT 50 million!

NOW those 8 million could have been completely covered by a tax just like Obamacare is doing to tanning salons.. 10% on gross revenue.
BUT instead a tax on the $100 billion lawyers make!
The tax would decline in ratio to the decline of the $750 billion a year that physicians say they do defensive medicine out of fear of lawsuits!
With one simple tax 8 million would be covered!
Health care costs would decline as fear of lawsuits would decline and physicians wouldn't order so many duplicate tests.. i.e. defensive medicine.. $750 billion a year!
Source for the 18 million figure: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009
AGE the annual per capita expenditure
20 $ 1,448 (So why should they pay a $2,000 penalty for not having insurance when they pay out less in real expenses???
40 $ 2,601
65 $10,245
Source for above expenditures:: The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs

 

[waltky]

People have no idea what Obamacare will do to their pocketbooks...

Obamacare premium sticker shock could fuel foes
2/4/13 - Obamacare could nearly triple premiums for some young, healthy men

The federal health care law could nearly triple premiums for some young and healthy men, according to a forthcoming survey of insurers that singles out a group that might become a major public opinion battleground in the Obamacare wars. The survey, fielded by the conservative American Action Forum and made available to POLITICO, found that if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher.

That isn’t the sticker price many of these individuals would pay, thanks to subsidies offered with the law. But the young men with higher incomes wouldn’t get subsidies, and the warning of a premium price shock for them might become a key exhibit in opponents’ argument that Obamacare won’t save Americans money over the long haul but would rather cost them. The forecasts in the study are higher than most so far by allies and foes of the Affordable Care Act. But it is likely that some in the group will face increases. That’s because the same new insurance market rules that will make coverage more affordable for older and sicker people will make insurance for young and healthier people more expensive.

Most other studies have tried to estimate average premium increases, which have ranged anywhere from negligible to 85 percent and higher. This survey looks at individual examples in specific markets to show the itemized impact of the major Obamacare reforms. The insurers estimated that a healthy 27-year-old man in Austin, Texas, who pays $54 a month for insurance this year would have a $153 premium if Obamacare’s market regulations were in effect.

The pressure would be the opposite but more modest for top-tier plans covering an older, unhealthy woman in Austin. Her premium would drop by 40 percent, they estimated. But the sharp increase for some is going to make it “hard to declare victory,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a persistent critic of the health law. The Obama administration should “be very, very, very afraid,” he said. The country was “told it was going to make health care cheaper.”

Read more: ACA premium sticker shock could fuel foes - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

See also:

You’re about to find out what your health insurance really costs
Sunday, February 3, 2013, W-2 form you receive from your employer in 2013 will show full amount paid for your health coverage

Here’s a quick question. How much does your health insurance cost? You probably have no idea. Most Americans get coverage through an employer – either their own, their spouse’s or their parent’s. The employer usually picks up most of the tab, somewhere between 50 and 80%. You probably know the size of your share, since it is taken out of each paycheck. But few people know the size of the entire bill. That is about the change. Starting this year, the W-2 form you receive from your employer will include the full amount that was paid for your health coverage. (That’s the form you file with your tax return listing compensation for the year. Employers who file fewer than 250 of them are exempt.) When you see it, you may be in for a big surprise.

Take a look at Box 12. If you received health coverage, you will see the code “DD” followed by an amount. That’s how much your employer paid. There’s a good chance it’s a lot more than you thought. The average individual policy cost $5,615 in 2012 and the average family policy $15,745. Some plans cost much more – over $20,000. If you are like most workers, only a small portion of that, about a quarter on average, is deducted from your paychecks. The rest is compensation you may not have realized you were getting. The cost of health coverage was not reported until now because it is not subject to income tax. The money is a benefit you receive tax-free, so the IRS has no need to know how much it is. For most workers, this ignorance is bliss. They enjoy financial protection from health care expenses and have no idea what it really costs.

The problem is that many workers pay the cost without realizing it. That’s because their employers make up for the expense by paying less in salary. If Box 12 on your W-2 lists, say, $15,000, there’s a good chance you could be making thousands of dollars more in salary if your employer didn’t provide health benefits. The change in reporting was mandated by the health reform law. The purpose is to make you more cost-conscious. With knowledge of what coverage really costs, workers may be more open to accepting cheaper plans in return for higher salaries. That could help to push spending down throughout the health care system. The law does not change the tax treatment of your health coverage. It is still tax-free, if you get it through an employer. While some fear the new reporting rule will make it easier for the government to tax health benefits in the future, there are no plans to do so. A tax change would require that Congress pass another health reform law, and that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Lest you think the new rule was an insidious provision slipped in by Obamacare’s architects, it actually had clear bipartisan support. It was originally proposed by two Republican senators – Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming – and two Democrats – Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon. America has the most expensive health care system in the world. While cost increases have moderated in recent years, they are unsustainable in the long run. Few of us appreciate how much of the expense we actually bear – often with each paycheck. Thanks to health reform, we will now have a better idea. That could be a first step in bringing costs under control.

Source

 

[jwoodie]

Obama has made the political calculation that a majority of voters will either be insulated from these tax increases or be mollified that their neighbors are getting screwed even more than they are.

 

[Anonymouse]

Read the actual Legislation text, there is not way to enforce the so called fines.