Why Obamacare WILL Fail, Even If It Passes

March 19, 2010 at 20:03 (General Stupidity, News, Philosophy, Politics, Video)

And it will drag us all down with it. Fools.

Just remember this, and look around:

The KGB is in theory gone (although sensible Russians disagree), but their ideas and techniques are not.

To start with, Americans would still be facing skyrocketing premiums. There’s been a lot of debate over the Congressional Budget Office report on this matter, with Republicans emphasizing that premiums would be higher in the individual market, and Democrats touting the finding that in the employer-based market, they could be slightly lower. But the important thing to keep in mind is that these estimates are all relative to what people would otherwise be paying if we simply did nothing. So even if you look at the employer-based market, according to the CBO, a family policy would cost roughly $20,100 for the average employee in 2016 under the Senate bill, rather than $20,300 under the status quo. Good luck to any Democrat who attempts to tell those families and businesses struggling to pay $20,100 for insurance coverage that if it weren’t for Obamacare, they’d be paying $200 extra.

While Obama claims that we need to pass his bill to avert spiraling health care costs, the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare Services, which is responsible for tracking this, estimated that if the Senate health care bill passed, spending would actually rise to 20.9 percent of GDP, compared to 20.8 percent under the status quo Obama has rightly deemed “unsustainable.” In other words, a decade from now, Americans would still be reading stories on the devastating effects of health care spending on our economy – a problem that Obamacare was supposed to cure.

On Thursday, Democrats celebrated the release of a preliminary score from the CBO for their final bill, which was found to reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. They relied on some of the same accounting gimmicks that they employed in previous estimates as well as some new ones. Democrats delayed most of the major spending provisions until 2014 to make the bill appear cheaper over the CBO’s 10 year budget window; claimed as revenue premiums from a new long-term insurance program, even though that same money is supposed to pay off future benefits; and it siphoned nearly $19.4 billion from an unrelated student loan bill. Yet even if you were to put all of that aside and assume that the deficit reduction is real, it wouldn’t make a dent in the $10 trillion in deficits we’re projected to accumulate over the next decade under Obama’s budget.

Furthermore, everybody knows that the real long-term fiscal challenge is the looming entitlement crisis. Early in the process, the White House declared that health care reform is entitlement reform. And while that’s true in the general sense, the specific bill he supports uses money from Medicare cuts to help finance a new entitlement rather than to deal with the massive unfunded liability of the program.

Those who believed Obama’s promise that if they like their health care plan, they can keep it, would be in for a rude awakening. The version of the bill released on Thursday makes sure that all policies have to meet new federal mandates, thus forcing people with existing insurance to change policies. Some of the incentives it puts in place induce employers to cut coverage while those with privately-administered Medicare Advantage plans would see their benefits affected. And those who are currently uninsured by choice because they are young and healthy would be forced to purchase government-approved insurance policies, or pay a tax penalty to help subsidize insurance for others.

But even those who get to keep insurance they’re happy with will see the quality of medical care and service decline as the system, already at capacity, treats a flood of new patients. While these effects are hard to measure, CMS concluded that “consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services.” This doesn’t even take into account the much more difficult to measure effect on medical innovation as a result of policies such as the tax on medical device makers.


Leave a Reply

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: