RUMOR. Hillary Clinton To Fire A Crap Load Of Staff After Losing New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton is rumored to be planning a purge of her campaign after she takes a beating in New Hampshire.Read More »
True cost of Obamacare
I know many things have been written on this, but this write up was very concise for those of you who are open to the facts but do not have time to watch or keep up with every new detail.
Excerpts from the article(emphasis mine):
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10-year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats’ bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmickry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.
The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this health care “reform” that it is almost impossible to untangle all of their lies. Let’s start by clarifying some basic truths.
First, who pays for health care right now? That’s right: the taxpayers, who foot the bill not only for their own health care, but for illegal immigrants, the poor, and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare, but it still doesn’t cover all the costs).
Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in health care costs that Democrats claim they so desperately to want to fix? Right: these same taxpayers.
Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer health care policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer via higher prices. So in reality, we pay.
Others will remind us that actually, employers don’t pay the entire tab — that offering health care benefits is a big plus for employers because they get subsidies from the government. Since health care benefits become part of a “compensation package,” employers actually pay less (thanks to the government subsidy) than they would have to pay the employee otherwise.
True again. Employers don’t pay the full cost of health care benefits; the government subsidizes them. But where does the government get the funds to subsidize employer-provided health care? From taxes or borrowing (which will require more taxes in the future to retire the debt). So who pays? Again, we pay — now or in the future.
One of the primary causes of skyrocketing costs in health care is the low-cost or-no cost care available to low-income groups, including illegal immigrants. This creates an explosion in demand, not to mention immigration — both legal and illegal — by people who wish to take advantage of our low-cost, high-quality services. The government sometimes reimburses doctors and hospitals for the services they provide, but not always. Even when they do, the reimbursement is often and sometimes significantly below cost.
Who pays for all this? We pay! Twice!
We pay the taxes to cover the government reimbursements, and we pay in higher insurance premiums that result from doctors and hospitals trying to recoup their losses by passing them on in higher fees to private insurers. If this is not an option, they go out of business, reducing the availability of health care for everyone.
The bill raises $700 billion in new taxes. That much, you can be sure, is real. In addition to the explicit taxes in the legislation, the 1,990-page House bill imposes all kinds of uncounted taxes on insurers that will dramatically increase private health insurance premiums. This is similar to the Baucus bill, which would cause health insurance premiums to go up for most individuals as much as 199 percent! The true cost of the Baucus bill, when these phony savings and other hidden costs are considered, is at least twice the CBO estimate.
But the biggest fraud of all is that in order to make this program “budget-neutral” — i.e., not add to the deficit on paper over the ten years estimated — tax collections and program cuts begin immediately but the new program itself does not start fully paying out until 2015. So they are covering five years of cost with ten years of tax collections! Going past 2019, the deficit will skyrocket.
This all assumes, of course, that the projections they have produced have some basis in reality. The analysis so far should belie that notion. But it gets much worse. As explained in an earlier article, such projections never include these programs’ huge ripple effects.
First, the market distortions created by such programs require the government to create yet more programs to deal with them, for example, enforcement. Beltway “think-tanks” get involved with all kinds of new ideas, and some of these proposals become law, which creates yet more bureaucracy. Politicians and beneficiaries get together to dream up new fixes and adds.
Second, they do not include the many changes and additions made after the bill becomes law. Such changes invariably and dramatically increase program costs.
Finally, they never account for the explosion in demand created by moral hazard — i.e., the tendency of people to demand more services when the perceived cost is minimal or zero.
For example, Medicare and Medicaid have grown 2,735 percent between 1967, the first year they paid benefits, and 2008, the last full year for which actual data is available, after correcting for inflation. Together Medicare and Medicaid are the largest expenditure in the federal budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicare paid out a modest $17 billion in its first year of operation. In 2008, that cost rose to $455 billion.
>>I cannot stress enough just how America, job creation, lifestyles, standard of living, medical drugs, procedures and care will change if govt healthcare is mandated and the Democrats are shoving it on the people:
On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.
How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
>>Senator Reid is buying another Senators vote for 100 million dollars. If this bill was actually good the Mary’s constituents, why is she having to be bought ?