CBO: 20,000,000 to likely lose insurance under ObamaCare.

[Soul Crusher]

Obamacare's Flawed Economic Foundations
WSJ ^ | March 19, 2012 | Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Vernon Smith

Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:16:58 AM by trappedincanuckistan

ObamaCare will be argued next week in the Supreme Court. While the justices will consider the intricacies of constitutional law, at their heart the arguments in favor of the legislation have to do with the economics of health care.

Consider the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The Obama administration defends the mandate on the ground that a person's decision to not buy health insurance affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' health insurance. The government adds that health care is unique and therefore can be regulated constitutionally in ways other markets cannot.

In reality, the mandate has almost nothing to do with cost-shifting. The targeted population—the young, healthy and not poor who choose to forgo coverage—has a minimal role in the $43 billion of uncompensated health-care costs. In 2008, for example (the latest figures available), the Department of Health and Human Service's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that the uncompensated care of the mandate's targeted population was no more than $12.8 billion—a tiny one-half of 1% of the nation's $2.4 trillion in overall health-care costs. The insurance mandate cannot reasonably be justified on the ground that it remedies costs imposed on the system by the voluntarily uninsured.

The government's other defense is that the health-care market does not exhibit textbook competition. No market does. The economic features relied upon by the government—externalities, imperfect information, geographically distinct markets, etc.—are characteristic of many markets.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

[whork]

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/15/cbo-obamacare-could-make-20-million-people-lose-employer-based-insuranc




Fuck you and die every Obama drone.

Wháts the problem they are poor fuck em right?

[whork]

It makes no sense for an employer to pay for health insurance.  Do they pay for car insurance too? Home? life? Maybe we should mandate that!

It makes no sense for employers to keep their employees healthy

[whork]

And not everyone gets sick.  So why have the company pay for it? Thing is they shouldn't.  

You are pretty shit at your job, huh..?

[dario73]

Broken obamatheclown promise#9058230948023043820.

[Soul Crusher]

Video: Wasserman-Schultz Admits People Will Lose Their Health Insurance Under ObamaCare
The Hope For America ^ | 3/22/12 | Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Martha MacCallum



The bad hair day chairperson of the DNC had a semi-contentious interview with FNC's Martha MacCallum.

Wasserman-Schultz was asked about the CBO report which states that 20 million people will lose their health insurance coverage under ObamaCare. She tried to answer that one by stating, essentially, that they won't lose "coverage" even if they lose "their coverage".

And that's an important distinction.

Because Obama told us that we would be able to keep our existing health insurance plan under ObamaCare. That clip is included at the end of this video.

In summary: No, you can't necessarily keep your health insurance plan under ObamaCare.

[Shockwave]

Obama-care is an epic failure and it hasnt even taken off yet.
I pray to god that the supreme court winds up striking it down, or someone does the right thing and gets it off the books.

Whats funny is right now I have no health insurance so this directly affects me - Im in school and my wife is pregnant. And I still would rather have no insurance than have the government force me into buying health insurance against my will.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama-care is an epic failure and it hasnt even taken off yet.
I pray to god that the supreme court winds up striking it down, or someone does the right thing and gets it off the books.

Whats funny is right now I have no health insurance so this directly affects me - Im in school and my wife is pregnant. And I still would rather have no insurance than have the government force me into buying health insurance against my will.

The worst part is that they are mandating wildly expensive insurance no one is going to be able to afford anyway.   Do you think it ends w Birth Control? 

[Shockwave]

The worst part is that they are mandating wildly expensive insurance no one is going to be able to afford anyway.   Do you think it ends w Birth Control? 

Its funny, people actually believe that with their outrageous choices, that they will suddenly make a sensible decision.
Why would their choices on what coverage is mandated be any less outrageous or expensive than the idea itself?

You let people start deciding what to stick into mandatory coverage like this, and every tom, dick, and harry that has a politicians ear is going to get something mandated that makes them money. Sandra Fluke is a perfect examply.

This whole thing was a huge can of worms, now youre going to have everyone that wants something for free out there testifying why it needs to be mandatorily covered, and as long as someone stands to profit from it, were going to have to pay for it.

[Soul Crusher]

Its funny, people actually believe that with their outrageous choices, that they will suddenly make a sensible decision.
Why would their choices on what coverage is mandated be any less outrageous or expensive than the idea itself?

You let people start deciding what to stick into mandatory coverage like this, and every tom, dick, and harry that has a politicians ear is going to get something mandated that makes them money. Sandra Fluke is a perfect examply.

This whole thing was a huge can of worms, now youre going to have everyone that wants something for free out there testifying why it needs to be mandatorily covered, and as long as someone stands to profit from it, were going to have to pay for it.

If they had a very limited low cost catastrophic plan of some sort that covered rare shit - thats one thing - but what they came up with is a leviathon that is going to bankrupt the middle class as well as astate medicade budgets.   

[Shockwave]

Yep, well, gotta make sure everyone has their fair share, even if that means everyone but the elite have nothing.
After all, its unfair for people who make more to have more, so we need to take it and redistribute it amongst the middle and lower class, even though it will have little to no effect on the upper-upper class.

To me, it seems like his idea's on giving people their "fair share" will wind up exactly like Soviet Russia... everyone on the lower class in broke and the upper classes are kings. But maybe thats what theyre after?

[Soul Crusher]

Yep, well, gotta make sure everyone has their fair share, even if that means everyone but the elite have nothing.
After all, its unfair for people who make more to have more, so we need to take it and redistribute it amongst the middle and lower class, even though it will have little to no effect on the upper-upper class.

To me, it seems like his idea's on giving people their "fair share" will wind up exactly like Soviet Russia... everyone on the lower class in broke and the upper classes are kings. But maybe thats what theyre after?

Shock - if i paid you ten million dollars and told you to design the worst possible health care law you could conjure up - you could not have possibly done worse than what obama reid and pelosi came up with.   

[dario73]

HEHEHEHEH!!

I still can't believe people voted for this.

[dario73]

If the Supreme Court does it's job of interpreting the law, instead of making its own laws, ObamaCare will be stricken.

[Skip8282]

Bump.

Cowards.

[dario73]

Hopefully it is 6-3 by the Supreme Court to trash the entire law.

[Soul Crusher]

HEHEHEHEH!!

I still can't believe people voted for this.

There are tons of clips just like that on the mandate.   He lied his ass off and his incompetent delusional base still support him. 

[James]

Obamacare's Flawed Economic Foundations
WSJ ^ | March 19, 2012 | Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Vernon Smith

Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:16:58 AM by trappedincanuckistan

ObamaCare will be argued next week in the Supreme Court. While the justices will consider the intricacies of constitutional law, at their heart the arguments in favor of the legislation have to do with the economics of health care.

Consider the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The Obama administration defends the mandate on the ground that a person's decision to not buy health insurance affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' health insurance. The government adds that health care is unique and therefore can be regulated constitutionally in ways other markets cannot.

In reality, the mandate has almost nothing to do with cost-shifting. The targeted population—the young, healthy and not poor who choose to forgo coverage—has a minimal role in the $43 billion of uncompensated health-care costs. In 2008, for example (the latest figures available), the Department of Health and Human Service's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that the uncompensated care of the mandate's targeted population was no more than $12.8 billion—a tiny one-half of 1% of the nation's $2.4 trillion in overall health-care costs. The insurance mandate cannot reasonably be justified on the ground that it remedies costs imposed on the system by the voluntarily uninsured.

The government's other defense is that the health-care market does not exhibit textbook competition. No market does. The economic features relied upon by the government—externalities, imperfect information, geographically distinct markets, etc.—are characteristic of many markets.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Obamacare should have never been... it is as simple as that.

[Soul Crusher]

Check this out - I sent this info to my congresscunt and this is what she sent back:

______________________

Dear 333386:
 
Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  I appreciate the benefit of your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.
 
I voted against H.R. 2 because it would end important consumer protections for Americans with private insurance, weaken Medicare, and take away coverage options for those without insurance.  Instead of identifying specific improvements, those opposed to health reform proposed to eliminate the entire reform bill.  If such an irresponsible measure were to become law:
 
· Consumer protections for 445,000 constituents who have private insurance would be rescinded, resulting in higher health care costs and reduced coverage;
 
· 9,200 residents in Westchester and Rockland Counties with pre-existing conditions would lose access to insurance;
 
· Insurers could reinstate devastating annual and lifetime benefit caps;
 
· Pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer survivors could be denied coverage when they most need it;
 
· Seniors would have to pay higher prescription drug costs; and
 
· 4.4 million families in the New York area would not be able to access tax credits to purchase better and more affordable coverage.
 
I am more than happy to work with my colleagues to improve flawed portions of the law.  For instance, I have voted to repeal to so-called 1099 provision impacting small businesses and joined my Republican colleagues in supporting a proposal to delay the controversial Independent Payment Advisory Council.  However, I cannot support proposals to nullify important consumer protections that help New Yorkers.
 
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. If you would like more information on this or other issues, or to sign up for my regular e-newsletter, visit my website at www.lowey.house.gov.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help you in any way.


           Sincerely,

           Nita Lowey
           Member of Congress

[dario73]

She is an idiot.

She is saying is that it is impossible to repeal just because it's in effect. No. It can and SHOULD be repealed and if some are adversely affected, SO WHAT!!! The long term consequences of this "law" is a lot worse than the temporary setbacks.

Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something MUCH better.

We don't have to settle for crap just because Congress is filled with lazy morons.

[dario73]

It's time forrrrrrrrr the daily bump.

[Soul Crusher]

It's time forrrrrrrrr the daily bump.

notice how all the typial leftists like straw licker blackass 240 andre et al want to tak about is birth control palin and fluke? 

[dario73]

Like Jason, this thread can't be killed.

[Soul Crusher]

Like Jason, this thread can't be killed.

Just get a discussion on gays, fluke, palin, condoms, or some other idiotc thing and the left goes wild.   

Notice how blackass and andre have gone silent? 

[dario73]

Just get a discussion on gays, fluke, palin, condoms, or some other idiotc thing and the left goes wild.   

Notice how blackass and andre have gone silent? 

The only comment he has made in the past few days was a timid "no" when you asked about Obama's hypocrisy.