Thread: Do you support Obama Care ?

What happens when Senators vote for a bill to find out what's in it?
Health care spending for families increase. http://ow.ly/p8yFe



Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four

9/23/2013 @ 8:00AM |217,967 views
Chris Conover Chris Conover, Contributor

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.

What this means for a typical family of four

$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.

Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You?

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.” The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)

The past is not prologue: The burden increases ten-fold in 2014

As it turns out, the average family of 4 has only had to face a relatively modest burden from Obamacare over the past four years—a little over $125. Unfortunately, this year’s average burden ($66) will be 10 times as large in 2014 when Obamacare kicks in for earnest. And it will rise for two years after that, after which it hit a steady-state level of just under $800 a year. Of course, all these figures are in nominal dollars. In terms of today’s purchasing power, this annual amount will rise steadily.

But what happened to the spending slowdown?

Some readers may recall that a few months ago, there were widespread reports of a slow-down in health spending. Not surprisingly, the White House has been quick to claim credit for the slowdown in health spending documented in the health spending projections report, arguing that it “is good for families, jobs and the budget.”

On this blog, Avik Roy pointed out that a) since passage of Obamacare, U.S. health spending actually had risen faster than in OECD countries, whereas prior to the law, the opposite was true. Moreover, to the degree that U.S. health spending was slowing down relative to its own recent past, greater cost-sharing was likely to be the principal explanation. Medicare’s actuarial experts confirm that the lion’s share of the slowdown in health spending could be chalked up to slow growth in the economy and greater cost-sharing. As AEI scholar Jim Capretta pithily puts it:

An important takeaway from these new projections is that the CMS Office of the Actuary finds no evidence to link the 2010 health care law to the recent slowdown in health care cost escalation. Indeed, the authors of the projections make it clear that the slowdown is not out of line with the historical link between health spending growth and economic conditions (emphasis added).

In the interests of fair and honest reporting, perhaps it is time the mainstream media begin using “Affordable” Care Act whenever reference is made to this terribly misguided law. Anyone obviously is welcome to quarrel with the Medicare actuary about their numbers. I myself am hard-put to challenge their central conclusion: Obamacare will not save Americans one penny now or in the future. Perhaps the next time voters encounter a politician making such grandiose claims, they will learn to watch their wallet. Until then, let’s spare strapped Americans from having to find $657 in spare change between their couch cushions next year. Let’s delay this law for a year so that policymakers have time to fix the poorly designed Rube Goldberg device known as Obamacare. For a nation with the most complicated and expensive health system on the planet, making it even more complicated and even more expensive never was a good idea.

Update #1: September 23, 2013

Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress has declared this article is “totally wrong.” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul Van de Water “described this calculation as one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time” asserting that I’ve calculated “an average that doesn’t mean anything for anyone.” To his credit, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber at least concedes my basic point: “The bottom line is that the government has consistently reported that Obamacare will raise national health spending by about 1 to 2 percent.” But then goes on to say ““This is a small fraction of the typical 5 to 7 percent annual growth rate in health care – and is a small price to pay for insuring 30 million or more Americans.” Notably absent from Mr. Volsky’s scathing critique is any mention of the person who started this use of a “typical American family:” President Obama. Most important, Professor Gruber’s point essentially substantiates my own: it was the President’s claim of $2500 premium savings for the “typical” family that was and continues to be totally wrong. It’s simply not possible for national health spending to rise by $621 billion and for the “typical” family to expect a $2500 (per year!!!!) premium reduction. Did Paul Van de Water or anyone else at CBPP call candidate Obama’s promise “one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time”? If not, why not?

People are welcome to argue that Obamacare is a great deal, that it’s worth all that added spending to get extra coverage for tens of millions of Americans. But of course, that’s not how Obamacare was sold. Rather than tell Americans the truth that they’d have to pay more and that the extra price was worth it, candidate Obama promised the ultimate free lunch: we’ll cover 30 million uninsured AND the typical family will see their premiums go down by $2500 (per year!!!!). And Jonathan Gruber seems to have changed his tune since the fierce debates about health reform, since as Avik Roy has recounted, “What we know for sure,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber told Ezra Klein in 2009, “is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.” Obamacare was sold on the promise that it would not increase health spending or the deficit or increase taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year [“I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”] Every one of these promises/claims/predictions turned out to be totally wrong. We can start having a productive debate when progressives are willing to concede these simple, easily demonstrable empirical claims. And then perhaps we can move on to junking this unworkable law and replacing it with the world-class patient-centered health system Americans deserve.



Footnotes

[1] The Medicare actuary first issued a report carefully estimating the cost impact of Obamacare on April 22, 2010. Its annual national health expenditure projections reports for 2010, 2011 and 2012 all have contained tabulations showing that Obamacare will increase health spending over the next 10 years compared to a counterfactual scenario in which the law was never enacted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...amily-of-four/

Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare

12:40 AM 09/23/2013

Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health-care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore.

With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.

Paul’s proposal — outlawing any special exemptions for government employees — would mean all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some critics say those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens Oct 1.

“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.

“See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”

Roberts famously voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obama’s unpopular health-care law when it went before the Supreme Court last year.

Paul’s constitutional amendment says no federal employees should get special exemptions from laws. The senator also plans to push a proposal requiring that Congress and all federal employees rely on Obamacare for their insurance.

His proposal comes after outrage from conservatives about a so-called “exemption” for members of Congress and their staff from Obamacare.

What’s being referred to as the “Obamacare fix” for lawmakers and staff was made because the Affordable Care Act includes an amendment from a Republican senator that changes how the government currently covers most of the cost of health-care premiums for members of Congress and their staffers. The new law mandates that members and staff must enter into exchanges or be covered by insurance “created” by law.

But after concerns about the cost of health care going up for congressional employees, the Office of Personnel Management announced in August that it would provide a subsidy of about 75 percent of the cost for the health care of members and staff.

Paul revealed his new amendment push on Sunday after TheDC inquired about a proposal from Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who has proposed killing those federal Obamacare subsidies for lawmakers and their staff. “I support any effort to make all laws applicable to Congress that we pass,” Paul said.

But Paul says his proposal goes even further.

“I think mine is a little more inclusive,” Paul explained. “Mine — compared to Vitter’s — would include all federal employees, and save billions of dollars.”

He added: “Why don’t we do it for all federal employees? And mine would save quite a bit more money.”

Lawmakers, including Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have defended the special Obamacare exemptions being made for lawmakers and their staff. Earlier this month, the Nevada Democrat flatly stated, “That’s what the law says, and we’ll be part of that.”

“We’ll be treated like the rest of the federal employees,” Reid said. “It’s nothing unique that employers help pay for health care.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/ex...#ixzz2fkrppcSD

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, took the Senate floor at 1:41 p.m. yesterday to talk about defunding Obamacare and he, along with his supporters, are still speaking. He said he will speak until he "can no longer stand."

Morning Cruz: Senator plans to speak until he 'can no longer stand'
Posted: Sep 24, 2013 5:50 PM CDT



Sen. Ted Cruz, along with his supporters, speak into the wee morning hours Wednesday. (Source: Senate TV/CNN)

WASHINGTON, DC, (SENATE TV/RNN/CNN) - Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has taken the Senate floor to talk about defunding Obamacare.

Cruz began speaking at 2:41 p.m. ET, and said he will speak until he "can no longer stand." By 5 a.m. Wednesday, Cruz and his conservative GOP colleagues had spoken for 14 hours. Topics included Cruz's recitation of Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss.

This comes as the countdown toward government shutdown gets closer.

Cruz is not participating in a filibuster because he doesn't have any real power to prevent a vote from happening on Wednesday.

http://www.wafb.com/story/23520016/s...ampaign=Buffer

<3 Leno

We are all lab mice now:
White House didn’t think this Obamacare promo through
Posted at 1:55 pm on September 26, 2013

The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse

Take it from this guy: Insurance companies can no longer put lifetime limits on your coverage
(h/t @AdorableCareAct)



11:56 AM - 26 Sep 2013

The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse

Don't be a sad panda: You can get affordable health coverage in 5 days
http://HealthCare.gov (h/t @AdorableCareAct)


5:53 PM - 25 Sep 2013

You’re drunk, White House. Go home.

Laura Kay @conservbtfly

@WhiteHouse has been reduced to selling Obamacare with cutesy mice and panda graphics. #Desperation

12:26 PM - 26 Sep 2013

Keep in mind this is from some of the same people who mocked Ted Cruz’s reading of “Green Eggs and Ham”: http://twitchy.com/2013/09/25/dont-q...usy-cruz-poem/

But this time, the White House really phoned it in. You can “rest easy” knowing President Obama and the Dems are experimenting with your health care coverage! http://twitchy.com/2013/09/21/health...youre-screwed/ http://twitchy.com/2013/09/22/hey-kn...ation-notices/

Just like this lab mouse.

FOX News Radio ✔ @foxnewsradio

Huh? Lab rats for Obamacare? pic.twitter.com/t5jUBliIcc
(@Majchrowitz)

12:41 PM - 26 Sep 2013

Katie Pavlich @KatiePavlich

I see children are running @whitehouse twitter feed again today, let's all take healthcare advice from rodents! yay! http://ow.ly/pfgzn

12:28 PM - 26 Sep 2013

Greg Pollowitz @GPollowitz

Call PETA. @whitehouse using lab mice to sell obamacare.
http://www.nationalreview.com/feed/3...greg-pollowitz …

12:04 PM - 26 Sep 2013

J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman

Rather fitting that @whitehouse would push Obamacare with mice, the same rodent that helped kill millions during the Black Death.

12:45 PM - 26 Sep 2013 from Chicago, IL, United States

A fitting response:

Greg Pollowitz @GPollowitz

Dear @whitehouse, @BarackObama: take it from this cute little guy...your health plan sucks.



12:05 PM - 26 Sep 2013

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/26/we-are...o-through-pic/

PRESIDENT REFERENCES SLAVE LAW WHILE MOCKING OBAMACARE OPPONENTS — BUT HERE’S THE FULL CONTEXT
Sep. 26, 2013 - Becket Amy Adams

President Barack Obama at an event in Largo, Md., Thursday referenced the Fugitive Slave Acts while mocking opponents of his health care law — but there’s a lot more to this story.

Obama Invokes Fugitive Slave Acts While Trashing Obamacare Opponents

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives on stage to speak about the Affordable Care Act at Prince Georges Community College on September 26, 2013 in Largo, Maryland. On October 1, 2013, open enrollment starts for the new Obamacare online, state-based exchanges, where consumers will be able to compare and shop for private health insurance plans.

The president’s remarks were made in response to Bill O’Brien, a Republican representative in New Hampshire’s state legislature and former speaker of the House, who said in August that Obamacare is “as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.”

“You had a state representative somewhere say that it’s as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act,” the president said. “Think about that. Affordable health care is worse than a law that lets slave owners get their runaway slaves back [emphasis added].”

“These are quotes! I’m not making this stuff up!” he added. “All this would be funny if it wasn’t so crazy.”

But here’s something: a lot of confusion followed the delivery of the president’s remarks after both a prominent reporter and the official pool report failed to give the full context of his speech. Both sources failed to make it clear that the president was referring specifically to the O’Brien quote.

For instance (from the pool report):

Your pooler could see Steny Hoyer’s shoulders bobbing up and down with laughter when Obama took aim at an unnamed Republican lawmaker who, the President said, described the ACA as the most dangerous law ever passed. The president said that meant the lawmaker in question viewed Obamacare as worse than the Fugitive Slave Act. (The president looked over quite a bit at Hoyer, who was sitting in the front row to the left of the podium when looking out to the audience.)

IRS Loses $67 Million In Taxpayer Dollars Set Aside For Obamacare
September 27, 2013 by Sam Rolley

The Internal Revenue Service has lost track of $67 million spent from a slush fund set up to for the implementation of Obamacare, according to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report.

A slush fund called the “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was included in the healthcare law in order to help the IRS cover the cost of new tax provisions that will come with Obamacare. It contained nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 new tax provisions.

But TIGTA claims that IRS officials failed to account for large sums of money used from the slush fund.

From the report: “We also found that the IRS did not track all costs associated with implementation of the ACA, including costs not applied to the HIRIF. Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million of indirect ACA costs incurred for FYs 2010 through 2012.”

According to TIGTA, the IRS plans to have spent $360 million on Obamacare implementation in fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30.

Despite the lofty sum of taxpayer dollars being pumped into getting the IRS ready for Obamacare implementation, the TIGTA report concedes that the Nation’s tax collection agency “lacks complete information regarding the full cost of [Affordable Care Act] implementation.”

“This lack of complete information on ACA implementation costs limits the IRS’s ability to accurately report to stakeholders the total resources it applied to the ACA implementation and fully estimate the resources needed in the future for this effort,” the report states.

The IRS responded to the report, saying it “takes seriously its obligation to be good stewards of government resources.” The agency agreed with the report’s recommendations and has begun applying them.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/2...for-obamacare/

So, the IRS “lacks complete information regarding the full cost of [Affordable Care Act] implementation” and “This lack of complete information on ACA implementation costs limits the IRS’s ability to accurately report to stakeholders the total resources it applied to the ACA implementation and fully estimate the resources needed in the future for this effort,” the report states."

So, basically, because they don't know how much it's gonna end up costing in total, they can't account for $67 million dollars that was already spent?? How does that even work?? I get that you can't always guess what something will eventually cost, but regardless of the final price, the agency that is essentially the accounting firm for the federal government should at the very least be able to tell its "shareholders" how much they already spent, and on what!

..

"nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 new tax provisions."

And this pathetic group is going to oversee collecting 50 NEW TAXES (the true reason for "obamacare")? And this is just for "enforcement mechanisms (whatever that means), and not hiring thousands of new personnel, payroll, overhead, etc? What a crock!

..

We knew that's what the whole Obamacare bill was all about. Otherwise, it would have addressed healthcare, not insurance. And once it was given to the IRS to be the agency to lord over it, there was no doubt. Who is the IRS the henchmen for?

..

In the real world, if a company had that much money 'vanish', it would be that someone in the company embezzled it.

..

First question, if it was designated money, why would it be in a slush fund?

..

"The IRS responded to the report, saying it “takes seriously its obligation to be good stewards of government resources.” The agency agreed with the report’s recommendations and has begun applying them."

Translation...Oops you caught us so we will give lip service to making changes until you quit checking so closely on us then its back to business as usual.