What's new

10 Things About Obamacare That Just Don’t Make Sense

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
  • Expanding a program that one in three doctors won’t accept.
Obamacare expands a broken Medicaid program that already faces a severe access problem: One out of three Medicaid doctors will not accept new Medicaid patients. If the Obama Administration has its way and every state expands Medicaid, 17 million Americans will be added to the rolls—5.6 million of whom will join the other Medicaid patients who can’t find a doctor.

  • Giving Medicaid doctors a pay raise—for two years.
Obamacare increases the payment rate for Medicaid primary care doctors up to Medicare payment levels in 2013 and 2014. After those two years, Medicaid doctors will face about a 22 percent payment cut.

  • Giving more government money to low-income Americans in the exchanges than to those in Medicaid
. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every low-income individual who chooses to enroll in the new exchanges instead of Medicaid will increase federal spending by roughly $3,000 in 2022, because exchange subsidies will be more generous than the cost of coverage in Medicaid.

  • Using Medicare money to pay for Obamacare.
Medicare’s finances are in serious trouble, facing a long-term unfunded obligation of $37 trillion and a bankrupt trust fund by 2024. Despite these facts, Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion and then uses that money to pay for new spending rather than putting the money back into a struggling Medicare program.

  • Forcing religious organizations to provide birth control coverage.
The Obama Administration refuses to exempt all religious employers from its mandate to provide coverage and pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs despite religious or moral objections to doing so.

  • Spending $1.68 trillion on a health care law that will leave 30 million Americans uninsured.
Obamacare’s coverage expansion provisions alone will cost $1.68 trillion over the next 10 years, but even after all that additional health spending, 30 million Americans will be uninsured.

  • Overpricing premiums for young adults—so the government can subsidize them.
Obamacare’s age rating system forces insurers to charge unnaturally high premiums for younger adults. This will result in more subsidies going to healthy young people in the exchanges than would otherwise be necessary if insurers were allowed to continue charging lower premiums that more accurately reflect younger adults’ lower health care costs.

  • Fixed revenue from a tax.
Obamacare’s annual fee on health insurers acts like a traditional excise tax—with one unique difference: The revenue collected from the fee will be fixed in any given year, meaning the amount going to the government will remain the same with no relation to how many consumers are actually purchasing coverage, totaling over $100 billion from 2014–2022. Thus, the fewer people that buy insurance, the higher the tax rate will be for those who do.

  • Obamacare gives $3.8 billion to fund CO-OPs—an insurer that is designed to fail.
It is uncertain whether any CO-OP insurers will actually be created, because there is no obvious market demand, the statute imposes restrictions that make it difficult to establish and operate one, and the law prohibits the most likely and sensible path to setting one up—a divestiture or conversion by an existing health insurer.

  • Obamacare has two types of health exchanges—the law just didn’t describe the second one.
It includes the American Health Benefit (AHB) and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). For the AHB exchange, the law contains requirements for structure, functions, and operations. The law provides no such detail for the SHOP exchange, and thus it is irrelevant—yet it’s in the law.

Finally, creating a new entitlement when America’s existing entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are in desperate need of reform, and the country is running annual trillion-dollar budget deficits, doesn’t make much sense either.

10 Things About Obamacare That Just Don't Make Sense
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,829
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
  • Expanding a program that one in three doctors won’t accept.
Meaning that two out of three will accept. Coincidentally that's the number of doctors that currently accept medicare/medicaid patients.

  • Giving Medicaid doctors a pay raise—for two years.
Obamacare increases the payment rate for Medicaid primary care doctors up to Medicare payment levels in 2013 and 2014. After those two years, Medicaid doctors will face about a 22 percent payment cut.

Why give raises for 2 years then have a pay cut? I'm calling bullshit.

  • Giving more government money to low-income Americans in the exchanges than to those in Medicaid
. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every low-income individual who chooses to enroll in the new exchanges instead of Medicaid will increase federal spending by roughly $3,000 in 2022, because exchange subsidies will be more generous than the cost of coverage in Medicaid.

There should be fewer unemployed and low-income workers by 2022.

  • Using Medicare money to pay for Obamacare.
Medicare’s finances are in serious trouble, facing a long-term unfunded obligation of $37 trillion and a bankrupt trust fund by 2024. Despite these facts, Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion and then uses that money to pay for new spending rather than putting the money back into a struggling Medicare program.

Straight up lie. Obama SAVED medicare $716B by cutting subsidies to rich insurance companies and by cracking down on fraud. NOTHING WAS CUT FROM THE PROGRAM.

  • Forcing religious organizations to provide birth control coverage.
The Obama Administration refuses to exempt all religious employers from its mandate to provide coverage and pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs despite religious or moral objections to doing so.

Because the right to freedom of religion comes down in favor of the 300 million individual citizens instead of a few corporate religions.

  • Spending $1.68 trillion on a health care law that will leave 30 million Americans uninsured.
Obamacare’s coverage expansion provisions alone will cost $1.68 trillion over the next 10 years, but even after all that additional health spending, 30 million Americans will be uninsured.

Just imagine how many young adults, pregnant women, people with pre-existing conditions, and underpaid workers would be uninsured if it hadn't passed.

  • Overpricing premiums for young adults—so the government can subsidize them.
Obamacare’s age rating system forces insurers to charge unnaturally high premiums for younger adults. This will result in more subsidies going to healthy young people in the exchanges than would otherwise be necessary if insurers were allowed to continue charging lower premiums that more accurately reflect younger adults’ lower health care costs.

This was the republicans' part of the plan. See, young adults are generally healthy, so they contribute to the pool and help subsidize the less healthy insured.

  • Fixed revenue from a tax.
Obamacare’s annual fee on health insurers acts like a traditional excise tax—with one unique difference: The revenue collected from the fee will be fixed in any given year, meaning the amount going to the government will remain the same with no relation to how many consumers are actually purchasing coverage, totaling over $100 billion from 2014–2022. Thus, the fewer people that buy insurance, the higher the tax rate will be for those who do.

The idea is for more people to get insured. That's what Obamacare's all about, remember?

  • Obamacare gives $3.8 billion to fund CO-OPs—an insurer that is designed to fail.
It is uncertain whether any CO-OP insurers will actually be created, because there is no obvious market demand, the statute imposes restrictions that make it difficult to establish and operate one, and the law prohibits the most likely and sensible path to setting one up—a divestiture or conversion by an existing health insurer.

Are you sure about that?

  • Obamacare has two types of health exchanges—the law just didn’t describe the second one.
It includes the American Health Benefit (AHB) and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). For the AHB exchange, the law contains requirements for structure, functions, and operations. The law provides no such detail for the SHOP exchange, and thus it is irrelevant—yet it’s in the law.

Link to that section of the law please.

Finally, creating a new entitlement when America’s existing entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are in desperate need of reform, and the country is running annual trillion-dollar budget deficits, doesn’t make much sense either.

It's not an "entitlement."

10 Things About Obamacare That Just Don't Make Sense
:eusa_angel:
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Straight up lie. Obama SAVED medicare $716B by cutting subsidies to rich insurance companies and by cracking down on fraud. NOTHING WAS CUT FROM THE PROGRAM.
Wow! Where in the world are you getting your information from?!?! Even the Obama administration has not disputed this on any level. They absolutely have taken $716 billion from Medicare for Obamacare. 100% Fact. It comes straight from the CBO (that's Congressional Budget Office for anyone not informed).

Please do your homework before posting so we can avoid misinformation like this in the Clean Debate Zone.

Romney’s right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Here’s how.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Meaning that two out of three will accept. Coincidentally that's the number of doctors that currently accept medicare/medicaid patients.
So we're now adding 30 million people to the healthcare system, without adding one single new doctor, and you're actually excited that only 66% of the doctors will be seeing patients? :cuckoo:

30 million new patients would be unsustainable even if 100% of the current doctors would accept Obamacare. You really need to take a look at the rest of the world and see the unmitigated disaster that universal coverage has created. In England and Canada, people wait months for basic needs, and years for critical, life-saving surgery.

You need to be informed - not just being a good soldier for the dumbocrat party and pushing their agenda at all costs.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Why give raises for 2 years then have a pay cut? I'm calling bullshit.
Why enter office with $9 trillion in national debt and run that up to $16 trillion in only 3.5 years?

Why whisper to Demetri Medvedev/Vladamir Putin that you need "space" to enact your foreign policy with Russia until after your final election?

Why tell the world for 14 days that a YouTube video caused the attack on American personnel in Benghazi when you had national security intel that clearly indicated otherwise?

Why funnel untraceable firearms to Mexican drug cartels?

Why appoint a self-admitted communist (Van Jones) to the White House shortly after being elected president?

I could go on, but I think this is probably enough to drive home the point that I can't possibly testify as to why Obama does all of the very stupid things he does. I can only point out that they are stupid. You'd have to ask Obama himself "why".
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
There should be fewer unemployed and low-income workers by 2022.
Unemployment absolutely skyrocketed after Obamacare was passed. And since Obama took office, more people have gone on food stamps than any point in US history.

So you have absolutely zero facts, evidence, or other information that would indicate in any capacity that there will be (and I quote) "fewer unemployed and low-income workers by 2022". In fact, the numbers indicate the exact opposite.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Because the right to freedom of religion comes down in favor of the 300 million individual citizens instead of a few corporate religions.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As you stated, freedom of religion is a Constitutional RIGHT. A right means it does not (and I quote) "come down" under any circumstance.

I want you to consider the profound stupidity of such a statement. If we get to a point where killing you and maybe a hundred thousand others like you is in the "best interest" of the other "300 million individual citizens", are you going to support that? Really? Being a "grandma", you just might cost us too much under Obamcare to keep you alive. Are you ok with us executing you in the best interest of the rest of us? That's the same type of insanity that people such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin, etc. used.

In the US, an individual and their rights supersede the "good of the whole". If you subsribe to that insane train of thought, there are plenty of communist/socialist/marxist nations you can move to (Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnamn, etc.).
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Just imagine how many young adults, pregnant women, people with pre-existing conditions, and underpaid workers would be uninsured if it hadn't passed.
Uh....so? How is that my problem? How is that the problem of the American people? This is the United States - it's about individual responsibility in this nation. If you're uninsured, that's your problem. It is most definitely not the problem of the federal government and the American tax payer.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The idea is for more people to get insured. That's what Obamacare's all about, remember?
Remind me again where it is written in the U.S. Constitution that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide healthcare to the people? What section is that in?
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
This was the republicans' part of the plan. See, young adults are generally healthy, so they contribute to the pool and help subsidize the less healthy insured.
And maybe that explains the rise of the Tea Party? Once again, I must ask you to cite to me the section of the U.S. Constitution that stipulates that young adults must "help subsidize" old adults?

Tell you what, lets do this Constitutionally. I'll subsidize my own grandparents needs, and you have your grandchildren subsidize your needs? Sound good?
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
It's clear the dots aren't quite getting connected for you, but it's hard to figure out what the problem is unless you work on articulating it a bit more.

Why expand Medicaid instead of just putting more people in private coverage in the exchanges? It's cheaper. That's actually an item right in your list--the per enrollee costs are lower for the Medicaid enrollees.

Why tack on some federal monies to state Medicaid reimbursement rates? To improve access for beneficiaries. Access challenges for Medicaid beneficiaries are another item right in your list.

You say we're adding 30 million people to the system, but your OP sees "no obvious market demand" for new insurance options and new carriers in barren state insurance markets.

You ask why there are two exchanges. Well, there doesn't have to be. That's a state choice, subject to state conditions and state design preferences. They can have a single market if they like. But the individual insurance market is generally distinct from the small business market today. The potential existence of the SHOP exchange gives small employers new options for getting value for their dollar and potentially freedom of choice for their employees (i.e. let the employer designate how much money they're going to contribute to health insurance and the let employees go pick whatever they like, assuming financial responsibility for the difference if they want a pricier plan).

Why does that--or any of this--not make sense to you?

Now some of the items are just wrong. Young people don't have to pay the same premiums as older folks for the same insurance coverage. Their premiums can be as little as a third of what older enrollees pay for the same coverage. More importantly, young people don't have to buy the same coverage as older folks. Anybody under 30 can buy skimpier catastrophic coverage with correspondingly low premiums.

No money is "taken" from Medicare. You talk about unfunded obligations--well, the $700 billion you're referring to is a reduction in Medicare's obligations. It's not revenues taken away from the program's obligations, it's obligations taken away from the program's incoming revenues. That's why those "cuts" extend the life of the trust fund. Similarly, religious employers aren't required to pay for contraceptive coverage.

So what's the deal here? Is this just feigned confusion?
 

jasonnfree

Gold Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
9,207
Reaction score
1,363
Points
280
Why give raises for 2 years then have a pay cut? I'm calling bullshit.
Why enter office with $9 trillion in national debt and run that up to $16 trillion in only 3.5 years?

Why whisper to Demetri Medvedev/Vladamir Putin that you need "space" to enact your foreign policy with Russia until after your final election?

Why tell the world for 14 days that a YouTube video caused the attack on American personnel in Benghazi when you had national security intel that clearly indicated otherwise?

Why funnel untraceable firearms to Mexican drug cartels?

Why appoint a self-admitted communist (Van Jones) to the White House shortly after being elected president?

I could go on, but I think this is probably enough to drive home the point that I can't possibly testify as to why Obama does all of the very stupid things he does. I can only point out that they are stupid. You'd have to ask Obama himself "why".

He spent it on what?
Besides the stimulus and auto bailout (still less than a trillion) what did he spend all these trillions on? Congress controls the purse strings. You mean he spent all that between the summer of 2009 and when the teabaggers took over in early 2011? You know Obama's spending is way lower than other presidents?


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Why give raises for 2 years then have a pay cut? I'm calling bullshit.
Why enter office with $9 trillion in national debt and run that up to $16 trillion in only 3.5 years?

Why whisper to Demetri Medvedev/Vladamir Putin that you need "space" to enact your foreign policy with Russia until after your final election?

Why tell the world for 14 days that a YouTube video caused the attack on American personnel in Benghazi when you had national security intel that clearly indicated otherwise?

Why funnel untraceable firearms to Mexican drug cartels?

Why appoint a self-admitted communist (Van Jones) to the White House shortly after being elected president?

I could go on, but I think this is probably enough to drive home the point that I can't possibly testify as to why Obama does all of the very stupid things he does. I can only point out that they are stupid. You'd have to ask Obama himself "why".

He spent it on what?
Besides the stimulus and auto bailout (still less than a trillion) what did he spend all these trillions on? Congress controls the purse strings. You mean he spent all that between the summer of 2009 and when the teabaggers took over in early 2011? You know Obama's spending is way lower than other presidents?


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
You know Obama's spending is way HIGHER than all other presidents in US history combined?

The Biggest Spender: Obama Has Spent More Money Than Anyone In History of World
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
  • Expanding a program that one in three doctors won’t accept.
Obamacare expands a broken Medicaid program that already faces a severe access problem: One out of three Medicaid doctors will not accept new Medicaid patients. If the Obama Administration has its way and every state expands Medicaid, 17 million Americans will be added to the rolls—5.6 million of whom will join the other Medicaid patients who can’t find a doctor.
I just wanna make sure I get this argument right.

You're saying that 1 in three doctors will not take new Medicaid patients. Got that.

These are patients who 0 in any doctors would take without Medicaid, since without it - they've have no way of paying for it.

And you're saying that since we are adding more people who 0 in any doctors will take presently to the rolls of people who may be taken by a doctor - or may not - that is worse? Sorry but if my chances of getting healthcare before ObamaRomneyCare was zero - and they are not zero now - how am I worse off? You say its one in three docs who won't take NEW patients - so the ones already on the rolls are safe - and a person who previously had zero health care now has a 2/3 chance of getting it on his first doctor pick - and that's worse?

What is the goal of the Republican party?
 
Last edited:
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Why give raises for 2 years then have a pay cut? I'm calling bullshit.
Why enter office with $9 trillion in national debt and run that up to $16 trillion in only 3.5 years?

Why whisper to Demetri Medvedev/Vladamir Putin that you need "space" to enact your foreign policy with Russia until after your final election?

Why tell the world for 14 days that a YouTube video caused the attack on American personnel in Benghazi when you had national security intel that clearly indicated otherwise?

Why funnel untraceable firearms to Mexican drug cartels?

Why appoint a self-admitted communist (Van Jones) to the White House shortly after being elected president?

I could go on, but I think this is probably enough to drive home the point that I can't possibly testify as to why Obama does all of the very stupid things he does. I can only point out that they are stupid. You'd have to ask Obama himself "why".

He spent it on what?
Besides the stimulus and auto bailout (still less than a trillion) what did he spend all these trillions on? Congress controls the purse strings. You mean he spent all that between the summer of 2009 and when the teabaggers took over in early 2011? You know Obama's spending is way lower than other presidents?


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
By the way, there was not "a" stimulus, there were 3 different rounds of stimulus and he was desperately trying for a forth. The first round was the near trillion "Recovery Act" bill. The second one, the name escapes me at the moment. And the third one was the "Omnibus" bill.

One last thing - how ironic that you point to a Forbes article as "proof" that he is such a small spender when I found this Forbes article that says he has spent more money than anybody in world history.... It doesn't take a member of Mensa to determine, based on our national debt alone, which article is the more accurate one.

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
  • Expanding a program that one in three doctors won’t accept.
Obamacare expands a broken Medicaid program that already faces a severe access problem: One out of three Medicaid doctors will not accept new Medicaid patients. If the Obama Administration has its way and every state expands Medicaid, 17 million Americans will be added to the rolls—5.6 million of whom will join the other Medicaid patients who can’t find a doctor.
I just wanna make sure I get this argument right.

You're saying that 1 in three doctors will not take new Medicaid patients. Got that.

These are patients who 0 in any doctors would take without Medicaid, since without it - they've have no way of paying for it.

And you're saying that since we are adding more people who 0 in any doctors will take presently to the rolls of people who may be taken by a doctor - or may not - that is worse? Sorry but if my chances of getting healthcare before ObamaRomneyCare was zero - and they are not zero now - how am I worse off? You say its one in three docs who won't take NEW patients - so the ones already on the rolls are safe - and a person who previously had zero health care now has a 2/3 chance of getting it on his first doctor pick - and that's worse?

What is the goal of the Republican party?
Could you rephrase this a little more clearly? I'm seriously unable to follow what you're trying to say.
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,829
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
Straight up lie. Obama SAVED medicare $716B by cutting subsidies to rich insurance companies and by cracking down on fraud. NOTHING WAS CUT FROM THE PROGRAM.
Wow! Where in the world are you getting your information from?!?! Even the Obama administration has not disputed this on any level. They absolutely have taken $716 billion from Medicare for Obamacare. 100% Fact. It comes straight from the CBO (that's Congressional Budget Office for anyone not informed).

Please do your homework before posting so we can avoid misinformation like this in the Clean Debate Zone.

Romney’s right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Here’s how.
Obama has disputed this. Often. You are very misinformed.

Negged for failing to factcheck.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,123
Reaction score
6,017
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Straight up lie. Obama SAVED medicare $716B by cutting subsidies to rich insurance companies and by cracking down on fraud. NOTHING WAS CUT FROM THE PROGRAM.
Wow! Where in the world are you getting your information from?!?! Even the Obama administration has not disputed this on any level. They absolutely have taken $716 billion from Medicare for Obamacare. 100% Fact. It comes straight from the CBO (that's Congressional Budget Office for anyone not informed).

Please do your homework before posting so we can avoid misinformation like this in the Clean Debate Zone.

Romney’s right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Here’s how.
Obama has disputed this. Often. You are very misinformed.

Negged for failing to factcheck.
As I stated before, please do your homework before posting in the Clean Debate Zone so we can avoid the kinds of misinformation you keep posting. From the story in the link I posted above:

First, where it comes from. On July 24, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, detailing the budget impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act. If Congress overturned the law, “spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period.”
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,829
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
Yes, spending would increase - BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD RE-AUTHORIZE THE BIG FAT SUBSIDIES TO INSURANCE COMPANIES. They said so.

Yawns.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top