ObamaCare Irony

[B-Man]

Critical Condition: Conservatives were right about ObamaCare, a lefty website concedes.

 

When we saw the headline "Four Ways ObamaCare Could Still Fail," our reaction was that it sounded like an unrealistically low estimate. But we were intrigued enough to read the article because of the source: TalkingPointsMemo.com, a news site with a strong (and acknowledged) liberal Democratic slant. Its framing as friendly criticism makes the piece, by congressional reporter Sahil Kapur, a powerful indictment of ObamaCare.

 

To be sure, it's not clear Kapur intends to indict ObamaCare, and if he does, he downplays it, presumably in order to avoid alienating his liberal readers or his liberal editors. In his lead paragraph, he summarizes the problem as follows: "Republicans remain committed to botching its implementation, which--along with inherent complexities in implementing parts of the law--leaves in place significant obstacles to achieving its key goals."

 

When you read the rest of the piece, however, it's clear that the emphasis should be reversed: The law's deficiencies--or "inherent complexities," to use Kapur's obfuscatory euphemism--are the primary difficulty. The Republican commitment to botchery is real, and it does compound ObamaCare's problems, but it is a secondary problem.

 

{snip} (Four points listed)

 

Kapur's argument amounts to the following: Democrats passed a law that had and still has insufficient public support (points 1 and 4), that cannot achieve its goals without unconstitutional means (point 2), that did not allocate the necessary resources to accomplish its objectives (point 3), and that lacks and still lacks even minimal support across the political aisle (all four points).

 

That sounds very much like the conservative critique of ObamaCare. At this point it's fair to say that ObamaCare opponents have won the argument. Of course, since supporters won the political battle three years ago (and Obama won re-election), this monstrosity is now the law of the land, ensuring that both sides' victories will have been Pyrrhic.

[3rdnlng]

We need the idiots to keep reproducing so their kids can finance our debt.

What, from their entitlement programs?

[Rob's House]

What, from their entitlement programs?

Don't be fooled. Many idiots are quite successful.

[Doc]

The ACA is e foot in the door to nationalized medical coverage (whether you like the idea or not...).

 

Decoupling employment and coverage is most likely an intended side effect meant to help expedite the shift.

That was a foregone conclusion once it wasn't declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. All the lies in the world to the contrary by this administration and his partners in crime in the legislature were just that. Lies to get this abortion of a bill passed and send us on the path to universal health coverage/care and Nanny state interference in our lives.

If health care becomes nationalized, you won't be seeing a doctor unless you pay cash. And even then, good luck.

The Repubs don't have to botch anything. That abortion of a law made it a foregone conclusion.

[Magox]

The Joint Committee on Taxation released a report to Committee of Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp shortly after the Supreme Court ruling that recalculates the costs to insurers, consumers and businesses under the new plan. According to their report – which does not include updated scores for the individual mandate, the employer mandate, or certain other revenue effects – the tax increases that remain on the books will cost taxpayers more than $675 billion over the next ten years. Chief among these will be the sales tax on the purchase of health insurance, totaling $101.7 billion, and making it larger than all the other industry-specific taxes combined.

“The health insurance tax will add a financial burden on families and small businesses at a time when they can least afford it, and it should be repealed, ” says AHIP, a trade association representing health insurance industry providers, in today’s call for the repeal of the health insurance tax before it can take affect. As they report,

· Starting next year the ACA imposes a new $100 billion tax on health insurance. The tax will start at $8 billion in 2014, increasing to $14.3 billion in 2018, and will continue to increase each year.

· The health insurance tax is larger than the device tax and the prescription drug tax combined.

· The health insurance tax will increase costs for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own, small businesses, seniors and people with disabilities enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, and state Medicaid managed care plans.

· The health insurance tax is far greater than the minimum penalty for those who choose not to buy health insurance – further incentivizing young, healthy people to forgo purchasing insurance until they need medical care.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/15/the-unsung-but-massive-obamacare-sales-tax-increase-that-is-on-the-way/

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.forbes.co...-is-on-the-way/

 

Man, I sure miss the old days when Obamacare was going to reduce the deficit, decrease health care costs, and not raise taxes on anyone so you could keep your coverage and doctors.

 

Good times.

[B-Man]

More Obamacare “Surprises”

Yuval Levin

 

Every time one of the warnings voiced by Obamacare’s critics before the law was enacted has come true, the law’s most eager champions (i.e. the political press) have seemed deeply surprised. It’s almost as if they just weren’t listening, isn’t it?

 

The last few days have offered two great examples. In this morning’s New York Times we are treated to the spectacle of a health reporter discovering the existence of economics:

Federal and state officials and consumer advocates have grown worried that companies with relatively young, healthy employees may opt out of the regular health insurance market to avoid the minimum coverage standards in President Obama’s sweeping law, a move that could drive up costs for workers at other companies

.

 

It seems that employers with huge amounts of money at stake have discovered that self-insured companies are not subject to many of Obamacare’s requirements, and oddly they have reacted not with indignation at such a regulatory oversight but rather by moving to self-insure. By creating this powerful incentive, Obamacare threatens to draw employers (even quite small ones) with healthy workforces out of the insurance pool fully regulated by the new law, leaving that pool less healthy and therefore leaving it with greater costs. In fact, Obamacare itself actually makes the switch to self-insurance less risky for employers by making it easier to switch back if necessary

 

 

Like most of the law’s most significant effects on economic incentives, this wasn’t actually done on purpose. It’s a function of the same attitude on display in the Times article: a view of economic actors as drones awaiting instructions rather than reasonable people considering their options. And so of course, the solution is to take away options. The Times’s description of the administration’s thinking is priceless:

The Obama administration is investigating the use of stop-loss insurance by employers with healthier employees, and officials said they were considering regulations to discourage small and midsize employers from using such arrangements to circumvent the new health care law. “This practice, if widespread, could worsen the risk pool and increase premiums in the fully insured small group market,” the administration said in a notice in the Federal Register.

 

How exactly the existence of a design flaw in the law somehow empowers the administration to fix it by “discouraging” self-insurance through regulation is so quaint and naïve a question as to not even merit mention—a vestige of our barbarous past.

 

Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:

Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.

 

The arrangement is loosely modeled on an approach that actually has helped people with pre-existing conditions in some states: the high-risk pool. But as Jim Capretta and Tom Miller (among many critics) noted back in 2010, it was cobbled together in haste and involved rules and requirements that plainly guaranteed its failure.

 

 

We’ll be getting used to hearing a lot of that too. In fact, in response to the program’s bankruptcy, Gary Cohen (the director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS) offered the Washington Post a statement that seems likely to stand as the unofficial motto of Obamacare as the law is rolled out in the coming years: “What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run.”

 

Better late than never. But not much better.

 

 

.

Edited February 19, 2013 by B-Man

[Magox]

What a disaster.

[Magox]

The number of people getting healthcare through an employer is at its lowest point since President Obama took office, according to new Gallup data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Republicans consistently argue that President Obama's healthcare law will erode employer-based coverage. And the latest Gallup figures show that while the economy has steadily added jobs over the past year, that trend hasn't come with rising levels of employer-based healthcare.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-insurance/284387-employer-based-health-coverage-hits-new-low#ixzz2LfZEcfMb

[DC Tom]

Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:

Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.

 

 

That's funny. The government will require insurance companies to enroll applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, but the government's own pre-existing condition insurance program is turning away people with pre-existing conditions.

 

But "People already in the plan will not lose coverage." Yeah, sure...and no one would ever be turned away for having a pre-existing condition again, too.

[dayman]

That's funny. The government will require insurance companies to enroll applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, but the government's own pre-existing condition insurance program is turning away people with pre-existing conditions.

 

But "People already in the plan will not lose coverage." Yeah, sure...and no one would ever be turned away for having a pre-existing condition again, too.

 

Well in the governments defense they're going to compel a huge portion young/healthy people into the market at higher premiums than they would have had previous to the law dumping a bunch of money in.....so it's really a question of how far off the projections of those enrollments are...

[Doc]

That's funny. The government will require insurance companies to enroll applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, but the government's own pre-existing condition insurance program is turning away people with pre-existing conditions.

 

But "People already in the plan will not lose coverage." Yeah, sure...and no one would ever be turned away for having a pre-existing condition again, too.

Yeah, but it's the gubment and they only have our best interest at heart.

Well in the governments defense they're going to compel a huge portion young/healthy people into the market at higher premiums than they would have had previous to the law dumping a bunch of money in.....so it's really a question of how far off the projections of those enrollments are...

Compel them...how? The $600 "penalty," versus paying many thousands of dollars a year for health insurance they'll barely use?

[DC Tom]

Well in the governments defense they're going to compel a huge portion young/healthy people into the market at higher premiums than they would have had previous to the law dumping a bunch of money in.....

 

I hope you're being sarcastic, and your defense of the ACA isn't really that the legislation that promised to reduce health care costs actually has to increase them to work.

 

so it's really a question of how far off the projections of those enrollments are...

 

That's gotta be sarcasm. Because I hope we're not placing our hopes in a set of projections that were the basis for a bill that Congress had to pass to see what was in it.

Edited February 23, 2013 by DC Tom

[dayman]

I hope you're being sarcastic, and your defense of the ACA isn't really that the legislation that promised to reduce health care costs actually has to increase them to work.

 

 

 

That's gotta be sarcasm. Because I hope we're not placing our hopes in a set of projections that were the basis for a bill that Congress had to pass to see what was in it.

 

Yes you idiot, learn to see sarcasm when it confronts you and not have to ask.

[birdog1960]

costs need to come down it's really that simple. govt programs have been the only "insurers" recently successful in forcing hospitals and health systems to accept lower payments that are more in line with other countries and with sustainability. private insurers are losing the battle to big hospitals and big and ever expanding healthcare systems. they've lost the edge in negotiating rates due to the massive size of these systems.

 

i'm reminded of a lecture i attended about 10 years ago which began when the speaker showed city skyline photos and asked what about them struck the audience. he went on to point out that many of the most impressive buildings filling the horizon were insurance company buildings. that's changing. now, it's shiny new hospitals and clinics and medical centers that are, more often then not, the largest employers in big, small and medium sized communities with some of the highest paid executives. despite it's considerable warts, the ACA is the best chance we currently have for reigning in unsustainable health care costs. it could have been much more explicit in this regard but would never have passed in such form. so, the optimist sees it as a starting point, a work in progress. the pessimist sees it as an end game failure. both should see the beginning of the end of private, employer purchased insurance as we currently know it which was destined to happen with or without the aca.

[dayman]

costs need to come down it's really that simple. govt programs have been the only "insurers" recently successful in forcing hospitals and health systems to accept lower payments that are more in line with other countries and with sustainability. private insurers are losing the battle to big hospitals and big and ever expanding healthcare systems. they've lost the edge in negotiating rates due to the massive size of these systems.

 

i'm reminded of a lecture i attended about 10 years ago which began when the speaker showed city skyline photos and asked what about them struck the audience. he went on to point out that many of the most impressive buildings filling the horizon were insurance company buildings. that's changing. now, it's shiny new hospitals and clinics and medical centers that are, more often then not, the largest employers in big, small and medium sized communities with some of the highest paid executives. despite it's considerable warts, the ACA is the best chance we currently have for reigning in unsustainable health care costs. it could have been much more explicit in this regard but would never have passed in such form. so, the optimist sees it as a starting point, a work in progress. the pessimist sees it as an end game failure. both should see the beginning of the end of private, employer purchased insurance as we currently know it which was destined to happen with or without the aca.

 

the realist knows that the ACA is not going to destroy everything and everyonewhen it kicks in, but isn't going to work real well either...and there will be two choices continue to fix it as everything shifts to provide more healthcare and medicare payments structures lead the charge to slow the growth in costs that previous medicare pay structures helped spur...or you can move to single payer...but once the reforms regarding access to insurance and thus care for those in need is gone...that will never be removed...and thus...both parties have to focus on improving a system where everybody who buys in is covered as opposed to just saying it can't be done and saying no....

Edited February 23, 2013 by SameOldBills

[Bigfatbillsfan]

That's a helluva observation there.

 

Coming from a person that posted that article as though it was something the rest of us didn't already know?

 

Same Old Revisionism.

 

It was discussed as a way to lower health care costs and premiums.

 

and rammed through, without ONE Republican vote.

 

and now you laughingly try the "everyone knew it" excuse.

 

 

SameOld....SameOld.

 

 

.

 

uh... no, for those of us that were listening, we knew that it was discused well before it was passed. And the idea is to lower the average premium. That would mean that a young person will be paying a higher premium than what they take up in services while an older person will be paying much less than what they take up in services. I don't know where the idea that this is somehow Obama screwing the people who voted for him. They knew this and voted for him anyway.

 

The things you guys tell yourselves...

 

Hillary will run in 2016 on the platform of converting Obamacare to single payer.

 

Good. Can't happen soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Bigfatbillsfan

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Yes you idiot, learn to see sarcasm when it confronts you and not have to ask.

 

 

Go, go, go.

[DC Tom]

Yes you idiot, learn to see sarcasm when it confronts you and not have to ask.

 

Sorry. It's hard to tell when someone's attempting sarcasm when they're a congenital moron.

[dayman]

Go, go, go.

 

lol you got zinged in that other topic well enough for some posts you made but that said...still waiting on a link to the solicitation and quote from it...

 

Sorry. It's hard to tell when someone's attempting sarcasm when they're a congenital moron.

 

then you are an idiot for not seeing both at once before your eyes

Edited February 23, 2013 by SameOldBills