ObamaCare's Broken Promises

[Vel]

Why on earth should the least expensive insurance policy under ObamaCare be in the range of 20,000 dollars per year? I though ObamaCare was going to bring the price down? And please, before someone comes in here spouting about subsidies and such kindly realize that the subsidies are being paid from other taxpayer's forced government tribute.
*************************************************

January 31, 2013, 6:52 p.m. ET
ObamaCare's Broken Promises
Every one of the main claims made for the law is turning out to be false.

By DANIEL P. KESSLER

As the federal government moves forward to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation. In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds—all of which have become increasingly implausible.

• Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.

That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.

Some champions of the law argue that this misses the point, because once the law's new subsidies are taken into account, the net price of insurance will be lower. This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.

Daniel Kessler: ObamaCare's Broken Promises - WSJ.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Same lie as Willow is hawking. If you're interested, here's the truth.

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12 FR.pdf

 

[waltky]

That's $130B per year...

Obama health law will cost $1.3T, CBO says
2/05/13 - The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Tuesday that President Obama's signature healthcare law will cost about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

The figure represents a slight increase since August, when the nonpartisan budget office estimated that the law would cost about $1.17 trillion before 2022. Tuesday's total incorporated 2023, and budget analysts wrote that last August's estimate "remains essentially unchanged." The CBO has concluded that healthcare reform, in spite of its price tag, will ultimately reduce the deficit because of revenue-raisers within the bill. A House GOP bill to repeal the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over about 10 years, the CBO said in 2012. The CBO's long-term economic forecast revised a raft of predictions related to the cost and insurance outcomes of the Affordable Care Act.

Report authors projected that 26 million people will enroll in the law's insurance exchanges by 2022 — 500,000 more people than the August report estimated. The CBO also raised its projection for the number of people who will enroll in Medicaid by 1 million, for a total of 12 million new beneficiaries by 2022. Implementation of the healthcare law has continued steadily since last August, contributing new variables to CBO projections. Budget analysts cited several developments, including federal health officials' decision not to allow states to partially expand their Medicaid programs, in adjusting their predictions.

The CBO said that the deal on the so-called "fiscal cliff," which lowered tax rates for many, will lower employer-based healthcare coverage and increase enrollment in the state insurance exchanges. The rate reduction "reduces the tax benefits associated with health insurance provided by employers," report authors explained, predicting that 7 million people will lose employer-based health coverage as a result of the healthcare law. The CBO questioned the "readiness" of the state insurance exchanges and the "ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries" — making plain concerns raised by healthcare experts about the challenges of implementation before 2014.

Overall, the report said more employers will pay penalties for failing to offer health coverage than was previously expected, for a total of $13 billion in additional revenue. Penalties from disobeying the individual mandate, however, will be $11 billion that was forecast last August, the CBO said. "On the basis of revised income projections, more people who remain uninsured are expected to either be exempt from the penalty or to pay a smaller penalty based on a flat rate instead of one based on a percentage of income," the report stated.

Read more: Obama health law will cost $1.3T, CBO says - The Hill's Healthwatch

 

[rdean]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...bankruptcies-a-blatant-lie-3.html#post6778459

When I pointed out that Medical Bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcy and 78% of those who go bankrupt have private health insurance, Quantum Windbag called me a liar. Then it linked to an article it thought would prove me wrong. In the middle of the article, it went on about how great Obamacare is and how much worse it would be without it. Apparently, it hadn't read it's own article.

Republicans work to block everything Obama does and then complain he "failed" his promise.