Huge Obamacare Price Increases Looming (RATS knew all about it)

Power Line ^ | 3/13/13 | John Hinderaker

[Libloather]

The Democrats knew what they were doing when they deferred the implementation of most provisions of Obamacare until after the 2012 election. What is surprising, really, is that Obamacare has been so unpopular, given that most of its baleful effects have not yet been felt. But it won’t be long now. The Associated Press reports that health insurers are warning of massive price increases beginning next year:

Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next year as the health care overhaul law expands coverage to millions of people.

[Cheerio]

Those drawing on Medicare in their senior years paid into the funding pot for decades (in my case since 1965). If the amount paid into the plan was insufficient then the Government corruptocrats have been lying to us - surprise surprise. The doctors are soon going to refuse all Medicare patients once the “Doc Fix” is allowed to go into effect - it gets a reprieve annually from the Congress because the politicians know what the result would be if they allow it to go into effect.

This District of Corruption Government is so corrupt and deceitful there are no words in the English dictionary to describe it. Since you are still working, you have every right to be upset - vote them all out. Institute term limits. Cut off the Seniors who have been forced to pay into Medicare for decades and I can guarantee you what will transpire, use your imagination.

Obamacare was sold to you with even more lies, 2,300 pages that no one read and was jammed down our throats. The Senate had to change it's rules to stop the 41st vote from Scott Brown. Piglosi told Congress they have to vote for it to see what was in it. Obama TOOK one half TRILLION out of Medicare to keep his Obamacare estimated costs below 1 TRILLION which is what he sold the nation on. Latest estimate are over $6 TRILLION and rising every time it hits the news.

New requirements are being written weekly by Sect of HHS, since the Congress gave the law writing authority to Obama. GOOD GOD, you want Medicare recipients to pay like you have to pay? ALTHOUGH I DO NOT KNOW YOUR AGE, I CAN GAURENTEE YOU MEDICARE WILL NOT BE THERE WHEN YOU RETIRE. I doubt the USA can exist in it's current form more than four more years - the markets will tell us when it is over - but it will be so sudden that it will make 1929 look like getting ready for a Sunday picnic. Count on it.

[piasa]

Pelosi: “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.”

...Just like any old turd.

[bt_dooftlook]

You have no Medicaid or Medicare account.

Period.

The moneys you paid in went either directly to then-current recipients or into the general fund (where it was spent) via a purchase of a special Treasury bond from the Treasury.

The only things guaranteeing your Medicare/Medicaid benefits are:
a) the government’s willingness to raise taxes, borrow money, print money, or reduce benefits; and
b) the public’s willingness to put up with any of that

The people you should be sick of are those politicians who used these Ponzi schemes to play you for a sucker to get re-elected.

YMMV

[Terry Mross]

Believe me, those who do understand it want single payer.

[catnipman]

“The older folks hate Obama and Obamacare”

That’s because we still remember what it used to be like to live in a free country. No more. The USA is now thoroughly a fascist state through and through. I see it in operation every day, and at a personal level, via its impact on me, my friends, and my family.

[RedHeeler]

Yup. Thank God.

[ogen hal]

Pikes...heads on pikes.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

That’s because we still remember what it used to be like to live in a free country. No more.

Doesn't seem that long ago that the wall came down, and it was "The End of History." The GOPe set us up for this with Bush and a dem-lite congress, and then we got the knockout punch with the election of a dedicated Marxist.

[dforest]

Pay attention. The cost of Medicare is also going to rise. Problem is, your coverage will be also be paid off the backs of seniors who will have their treatments cut.

Do you FEEL better now?

[Richard Brandon Abroad]

Just as planned! Now you will want government-provided, single-payer health care. Everyone should read below the headlines on what is happening in the UK Nation Health Service. Stakhanovite 'targets' have led to MURDER of ageing patients (read up on 'The Liverpool Care Pathway' scandals), manipulation of reporting statistics, denial of care, and a general lowering of standards such as nurses and doctors who cannot speak English. And don't believe the stories that it has all stopped now it has been exposed. The manager of THE worst hospital, identified by a government report, has been promoted to run the whole NHS!

[Qwackertoo]

We all knew the worst of the worst would be AFTER 2012 . . . so we will wait and see if the sheeple become informed BEFORE the 2014 elections. Libs already have Hillary being sworn in 2016 and us losing badly in 2014 and 2016. We shall see.

Me, I’d love to see EVERY SINGLE Dem incumbent LOSE in 2014 and 2016. Clean out the House . . .and the Senate. I know, a pipe dream.

[justlurking]

Just in time for the 2014 elections.

No, there's one more provision that won't be fully obvious until after the 2014 election: the Obamacare penalty, err.... tax..

2014 is the first year that it will be assessed. But, I don't think it will be "due" until you file your tax return for 2014, which means April, 2015.

THAT will take the wind out of one of Obama's biggest constituencies: the young middle-class. If they don't have insurance through their employer, I expect that very few of them will bother to get health insurance on their own.

Some will willing do so, because it's cheaper to pay the penalty, err.... tax. But, I believe most are LIVs that are completely oblivious. And they are going to be pissed.

[justlurking]

I understand your thinking, and have 40+ years of contributions myself, but the typical Medicare recipient receives about $4 in service for each dollar put in.

Does that include the cost of money over time?

I've seen far too many "cost-benefit" analyses that simply add up contributions over the past 40 years, and add up the benefits over the expected lifetime, and declare they are "equal" or "better".

This doesn't account for the cost of money over time -- particularly during the 80's. During that period, government bonds were paying double digit interest rates.

I've done the calculations: I've contributed about $270K so far, but if I had invested those contributions in long-term government bonds at the prevailing interest rate each year, I would have collected about $580K in dividends. That's $750K now, and it would just about double by the time I start collecting benefits, even at the low bond rates today.

The cost of money also figures into benefits. In order to value it correctly, you have to pick a point in time, like retirement, and calculate the present value of the future benefits. It is a smaller number than the sum of the payments, just like the balance of your car loan at the beginning is smaller than the sum of all your future payments.

[nascarnation]

I've contributed about $270K so far

Congrats on making an awesome salary!

I worked 40+ yrs and was over the SS limit nearly every year and only contributed to Medicare 62k (mine + employer) in that time.

[nascarnation]

I’ve not studied it in detail, but I don’t think the 25% number even includes Medicaid which is a separate budget item. Medicaid has always been paid for out of state and federal general revenues.

The Medicare program began as a mild Ponzi scheme and was made even less viable by increased lifespan and expensive medical technology developed in the last 45+ years.

That’s why the govt considers the “death panels” so vital. Anything that reduces the lifespan makes a HUGE improvement in the financial projections for both Medicare and SocSec.

[OrioleFan]

Nazi Pelozi should have said, “We have to pass it so you can see all the crap we put into it.”

[justlurking]

I worked 40+ yrs and was over the SS limit nearly every year and only contributed to Medicare 62k (mine + employer) in that time.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear: those are Social Security contributions, not Medicare. But, the cost of money calculations apply to Medicare contributions as well.

My point is that when you include the cost of money, your actual contributions over the past 40 years have multiplied by about 3X, and will continue to grow until you retire.

Yes, I know there is no actual account balance on your behalf. But, when you do a cost/benefit analysis over time, you have to do it like there is a balance of accounts, or the results are meaningless.

For Social Security and Medicare, the government is essentially borrowing money from you now, with the promise to borrow more from someone else to pay you later. Why would you loan money to them for nothing?

(Oh, and I typo'ed a digit: 270K+580K is actually 850K).

[USAF80]

If there is no balance then the money does not exist. It’s just a ponzi scheme. This is the reason why they keep saying that Medicare/aid whatever will be insolvent in a few years.

At least with a normal investment you get statement showing how your money is growing or shrinking.

[justlurking]

If there is no balance then the money does not exist. It’s just a ponzi scheme. This is the reason why they keep saying that Medicare/aid whatever will be insolvent in a few years.

Actually, there is a balance -- at least for Social Security. It's the "trust fund", which is a bunch of special treasury bonds. They really exist, on paper -- in a file cabinet in West Virginia. No, I'm not joking.

This balance (which is basically excess taxes from the past 30 years or so) is expected to be exhausted in about 2033. It wasn't so long ago that it was expected to be 2041. So, it is getting closer, and will probably continue to get closer. At that time, only enough Social Security taxes will be collected to pay 75% of expected benefits.

But, the "trust fund" is a balance for all of Social Security. Individual taxpayers don't have a balance. All you will get is the earnings that were taxed over your working career. That's what is used to compute your benefits: after all of them are adjusted to constant dollars, the highest 35 years are averaged.

Then, the benefit formula is applied. It's not linear, as this graph demonstrates:

However, this is all beside the point. In order to evaluate whether Social Security or Medicare beneficiaries receive more than they contribute, one must analyze it as if they really did contribute to their own account, and withdraw from their account. And in doing so, you must take the cost of money or return on investment into account. Since the trust fund is invested in the equivalent of long-term US treasury bonds, it's fair to use those rates for the rate of return.

It's hard to do it for Medicare, because you can't really predict medical expenses for an individual -- only as a large group. And it's not that easy to do it for Social Security, because as you can see from the graph: the relationship of contributions to benefits is non-linear. Lower income taxpayers get a great deal, and higher income taxpayers get screwed.

I did the calculations a while back. I'll try to dig them up and repost them.

[KansasGirl]

Our healthcare coverage has already went up 50% since Obamacare passed.