Obamacare's Danger Signs

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
[url="http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U5YjAzMjkxODY1YTViYmNjN2JjNGZjYWY4ZjliNDc="]Link[/url]:
But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:

[b]1. People losing coverage:[/b] About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

[b]2. Huge fines for companies:[/b] Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties in the first five years after the fines trigger in 2014, partly because they can’t afford to offer expensive, government-mandated coverage and partly because some of their employees will apply for taxpayer-subsidized insurance.

[b]3. Higher costs for consumers:[/b] Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

[b]4. A program created to fail:[/b] The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

[b]5. Spending increases:[/b] Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

[b]6. “Free-riders”:[/b] An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

[b]7. Spending reductions are fiction:[/b] Estimated reductions in the growth rate of health spending “may not be fully achievable” because “Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even within the next ten years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health insurance could also become an issue.”

[b]8. You can’t keep your doctor:[/b] Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will “possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.” Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs.

[b]9. Coverage but no care:[/b] A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

This is an objective report by administration actuaries that shows this sweeping legislation has serious, serious problems.

[cmotherofpirl]

People have already lost their coverage in the last year because major employees are firing all their full-time employees and rehiring everyone at a lower wage and no benefits. If you read the business weekly mags, many companies have already decided its cheaper to pay a fine than have employee benefits, and will simply drop health care all together and absorb the fines as the price for doing business. It is also an excelllent reason to outsource more because you don't have the legal hassles in other countiries.

[CatherineM]

There are also people losing their coverage because of things like what happened in Washington. The Archdiocese, faced with being forced to insure the same-sex partners of employees are going to quit covering all the spouses of employees.

[homeschoolmom]

[Maggyie]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='03 May 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1272911866' post='2104246']
There are also people losing their coverage because of things like what happened in Washington. The Archdiocese, faced with being forced to insure the same-sex partners of employees are going to quit covering all the spouses of employees.
[/quote]

There really are more creative ways to handle that situation. In San Francisco Archbishop Levada (now head of CDF) found a solution by simply allowing all employees to select one other person, of any status, to be covered by their health insurance. Gay employees could choose their partners, thus satisfying the requirements of the law, married couples could choose their spouses, single people could add an uninsured mom or dad or sibling.

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='Maggie' date='09 May 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1273435913' post='2107748']
There really are more creative ways to handle that situation. In San Francisco Archbishop Levada (now head of CDF) found a solution by simply allowing all employees to select one other person, of any status, to be covered by their health insurance. Gay employees could choose their partners, thus satisfying the requirements of the law, married couples could choose their spouses, single people could add an uninsured mom or dad or sibling.
[/quote]

I feel that, while the Archbishop may have done the right thing, he was doing it for the wrong reason: to keep the homosexual crowd quiet. The church should not yield ground on any issue of such importance for any reason; marriage has become weak enough already, we should show absolutely no support for the homosexual movement in any way. Sure, the Archbishop did allow anyone to carry one extra person regardless of relation. But I feel he acted for the wrong reason, and that his actions may give a false impression of support.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='03 May 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1272907943' post='2104218']
[b]6. “Free-riders”:[/b] An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.
[/quote]
You know, in any other context, when someone tells you there's a problem that needs fixing and they have the solution, then demands that you pay up or else, well, we call that extortion and racketeering. "Johnny, your pizza parlor isn't in the best part of town...some, uh, unclassy folks just moved in. Now we can protect you, but you're gonna need to give us a cut of the business. We wouldn't want you to have to pay the price."

Requiring me to buy a product you're offering or else suffer consequences (especially consequences that are arbitrary and don't naturally follow from my refusal to buy the product) is racketeering.

So the real question is...which mafia is really running the show?

We can talk about the government's money-laundering scheme another time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

they should have just did a universal single payer system, instead of this public option. or, just insured the uninsured who cant afford it, through the government, and let the rest go as it has been doing. hand outs to insurance companies as done with this law, are probably not going to help a whole lot.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='12 May 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1273674414' post='2109322']
they should have just did a universal single payer system, instead of this public option. or, just insured the uninsured who cant afford it, through the government, and let the rest go as it has been doing. hand outs to insurance companies as done with this law, are probably not going to help a whole lot.
[/quote]
Yeah, because we have the money for that.

It works in France. Hell, they're not in debt every year trying to accomplish that task.

If I'm paying for their insurance, I want people to eat healthy, work out and take yearly PATs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i read an interesting point in glenn beck's book, about how those who smoke actually use less healthcare than those who do not, given they die sooner. idea, the healthier live prolonged lives, with all kinds of problems in the mean time.
his point was that if we're quick to say we should ban the smoking, we should ban the non-smoking, too, to show how ridiculous 'banning' or even 'fees' etc are.
not that i buy his argument, but it's still interesting. (ideally the ones that live longer are paying something of worth into the system too, though, to make up for their longer lives, but either way, yeah.)
i say, stick it to the smokers, and the overweight, if we're paying for their healthcare, and if they want on the government teet.

Edited May 12, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Beck's argument applies to pragmatism. Mine applies to healthy behavior. Mine is better.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a very common factoid, cited by people of all stripes, is that government healthcare in other countries like single payer, costs about ten percent of their GDP. in the US, we pay 17 percent of our GDP with much worse results overall. im pretty sure if france etc are in debt, it's because of their otherwise more socialist trends, not cause of their health care system.

if ya wanna criticize single payer, 'we dont want to have to wait in line' 'dont have to pay for the irresponsible' etc are all decent arguments, though i dont buy any of them. that is, there's ways to mitigate the bad effects, or diminish them completely.

Edited May 12, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='12 May 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1273675978' post='2109337']


if ya wanna criticize single payer, 'we dont want to have to wait in line' 'dont have to pay for the irresponsible' etc are all decent arguments, though i dont buy any of them. that is, there's ways to mitigate the bad effects, or diminish them completely.
[/quote]

If these ways existed, then why are they not implemented elsewhere?

[Winchester]

In France their healthcare is in debt. Not some other service--their healthcare.

You have to look at culture, as well. If we don't pursue proper healthy activities as much, we will spend more and get less in return.

Socialism in America seems motivated by entitlement more than in other countries. I am opposed to socialism--I see it as improperly used government power.

[dominicansoul]

the biggest danger sign? It has Obama's signature on it...