Obamacare will cost at least 200% more

In 2010 the CBO reported that Obama’s landmark and potentially unconstitutional healthcare law would be “deficit neutral.”  We were told that insurance costs would go down 10 to 30%.

Now hold on this could be a shock to you.  Flash-forward to 2012, no longer deficit neutral the legislation, according to a study to be released by Charles Blahous, will now add $340 billion to the deficit.  (I predicted and continue to stand by this, before we arrive at 2019 this legislation should it be held in place will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit.)

The Obama administration challenges this finding, even falsely asserting that the CBO says Obamacare will lower the deficit, something it has not said since 2010. Let’s look at the CBO’s prediction, but first you should know the CBO’s predictions are notoriously low, normally off by 3 to 11 times the actual amount.

President claims fuzzy math used by Blahous

In 2010 the CBO estimated Obama care would cost taxpayers $900 billion and would save $130 billion by shifting Medicare costs from Medicare to Obamacare.  In 2012 the CBO revised its estimated cost to $1.76 trillion, nearly a 200% increase and the bills have not begun to pour in.  Now the CBO is saying $575 billion in shifted Medicare costs.

So by any math new or old that would change the savings to a loss.  The Blahous study is  estimating that loss at $340 billion.  Let’s accept the CBO numbers as stated in the Washington Post article and do the math.

$1760b – $900b = $860b (additional cost)
now subtract out the “savings” estimate of $575b:
$860b – $575b = $285 billion added to the deficit.

Where is the deficit reduction Mr. President?

And what about premiums?

Have you noticed your health insurance premiums and/or coverage?  It is likely either you’ve had your benefits severely cut or your premiums have doubled like mine.

In 2010 I paid $165 per month in premiums for a family of five.  This year I was informed that due to the new healthcare insurance taxes my new premium would go up to $320 per month – more than double.  They wrote that I could avoid this by selecting a minimal plan that would maintain my old premium but cover about half what had been covered or I could opt out and choose to pay the penalty when it comes into effect.

Mr. President, you said I could keep my coverage, yeah but to do so I must give up lunches.

We can only pray this law is overturned.  But here’s the problem for Republicans; do we simply go back to the way things were?  Well, that would be great for me personally, but it wouldn’t fix the problem.

Fixing the problem means finding the root cause.  It does not mean putting the government in charge.  As I’ve written before the only thing government does effectively is destroy things.

I believe tort and employer-base health insurance are the root causes of high healthcare costs.  If individuals had to select their plans and barriers were removed, insurance companies would be forced to compete for a huge and diverse customer base.

Currently insurance companies only have to convince a few select corporate execs to choose them.  A kick-back, a well-timed and well-placed lunch meeting and bang – a million dollar policy is written.  If individuals chose their own plans this could not happen.

Hey I’m in business and I was a management major in college.  I know the argument about attracting top talent through great benefits.  The solution here is for companies to offer insurance vouchers or reimbursements to employees.

In the long run everyone would save money and benefits would eventually increase or decrease depending on consumer demand for various insurance products.  Wow, imagine letting the market fix the problem.

Unfortunately, many young Americans are socialists and don’t even know it.  They can’t wrap their little leftist minds around how that would work.  After all, they’ve been taught that companies are evil and government is benevolent.

Too bad that isn’t true.  Human nature is flawed and selfish but market forces are composed of millions of individuals who can and do punish bad companies when exposed.

Governments are composed primarily of unelected unionized people whose greatest reward for their service is the power they  wield.

Even more so, elected folks crave and abuse their power.  Case in point, Nancy Pelosi.  There has never been a more arrogant and ignorant usurper of personal freedom than this.  Anyone who thinks G.W. Bush was dumb needs to listen to what Pelosi has said.  She makes GWB sound like a rocket scientist.

People wake up and realize Obamacare sounds fair but it will curb your freedoms, reduce your choices, drain the economy, raise your taxes, further increase entitlement mentalities, and ultimately bring down the government.

Sound like fear-mongering?  Then your not looking at the numbers.

    • Ben
    • May 20th, 2012

    RE:We were told that insurance costs would go down 10 to 30%.

    Two things become evident by this statement; either we were lied to, or our wise and learned leaders didn’t have a clue. I believe there were heaping piles of both.

    So, driven by the need for a cheaper and cost effective health care our “leaders” give us Health Care Version 2.0 or Obama Care and it failed miserably at achieving its stated goal.

    Therefore, on this basis alone, shouldn’t this law, a fricking excuse for success, be repealed?

    Based upon the deficits being piled up by our government alone, we would have been better off by going after it by reducing its size, the number of agencies, TSA, overlapping missions, ballooning budgets, waste and fraud. With the money saved an argument could have been made to leave the existing healthcare system as it was. With the lessons learned, we could have made a better and more informed effort at reducing the size and cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

    No matter, based upon the upcoming events, i.e. this summer’s, deficit ceiling bust and the huge tax increase we’re going to get at year’s end, there’s a good chance our mountain of debt is going to be defining our destiny for us rather than the other way around. In that event, it won’t matter much what we do about our screwed up health care as there won’t have much left of a budget with which to fund anything, unless of course, they raise our taxes.

    Therein lies the rub. Our elected officials never think of government’s burden on taxpayers in terms of it’s size. Government officials and elected officials don’t see the problem as one of big government and wasteful spending They believe the problem is that taxpayers aren’t doing their patriotic duty by feeding it more of their hard-earned money by way of more taxes. When you look at the historical tax revenue over the years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG ) we see that taxes always go up. Seldom do they go down and if they do, that fault is corrected. Whenever we give government more money, they will always find new and inventive ways to spend it, often with unintended consequences. Solyndra comes to mind. Easy come, easy go.

    We’re going to have to face the music and soon. We cannot continue on this road of spending and taxing ourselves to ruin. There must be a new evaluation of where we as a country want to be in say, 10 years and start plotting that course away from the abyss we will certainly fall into if we don’t. Social programs are not the answer to this problem.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: