Posted on 11/07/2013 1:38:31 PM PST by mdittmar
Umm, this sounds like baseline budgeting, in the sense that Obamacare will cost much more than stated, but by throwing all these people out of their existing plans it’ll be less expensive (for taxpayers) than it might have been had Obamacare gone into effect without throwing them out of their plans...whatever that means.
ABC/AP happy talk. They have no idea how many healthy people will drop out of the insurance pool because it’s too damn expensive due to Obamacare/gubmint interference.
It wasn’t exposed enough. Yes, the CBO estimated that there would still be 30 million uninsured by 2023, but the Obama administration never admits that in public while hawking the plan. It is being billed as universal coverage.
I have no sympathy for the insurance companies, which along with Big Pharma, pushed Obamacare, which they thought would force millions more to buy their product. And even if the premiums go up, the government will subsidize them with increased premium subsidies. I look at Obamacare in much the same way as I do federal college loans that enable colleges to increase tuition faster than inflation.
They act like this is a happy coincidence. It was by design which makes Obama’s lie even more egregious. Obamacare is a wealth redistribution plan that steals from the middle class to effectively expand medicaid. Those losing their policies now are small businessman and professional that contract out their services. This is going to backfire on the Dems is more ways than they could ever imagine. Small businessmen and contractors will simply self insure for non catastrophic medicine and reduce their salaries to reduce the penalty to less than $500. The risk pools will lose millions of healthy people. By mid 2014 most insurers will be bleeding red ink and demanding a bail out which the ACA guarantees them.
Actually, no. Those buying insurance on the private market before ObamaCare are probably either (1) sicker than average, or (2) good with money and did the numbers on catastrophic coverage. Group 1 will cost a bundle, and the insurance companies cannot turn them away - serves kaiser and BlueCross right. Group 2 is the pool the thugs want to recruit, and the vast majority will pay the fine rather than subsidize socialism.
I guess this reporter attended the “how to report on Obamacare” seminar the WH held.
How about those who can’t afford to pay 50 or 100 or 200 percent more than they’ve been paying? They’re not going to be in the exchange pool.
How about those being asked to pay more for worse coverage? They may not jump in the pool either.
The odds are very good that obamacare will INCREASE the number of people without insurance.
What the hell does this mean? They're dropping my policy and I'll be paying significantly more for another, but being a taxpayer I'll actually be saving by not having to pay as much to subsidize the new coverage?
“...if they are coerced or have no other option.”
Wait until they require “proof of insurance” to get a job or any government services. Leftists can’t figure out how to do the right thing to save their lives, but they can do the wrong thing in spades.
They falsely assume that everyone who loses coverage will go out and buy a more expensive policy. This is not the broken window fallacy (the person with the broken window will go out and hire a glazier but that will not “stimulate” the economy); rather the entire neighborhood will have a whole lot more broken windows.
I assume that ABC is thinking that if those people do go out and buy more expensive policies (a huge assumption), then the remaining uninsured will require less of a subsidy. This is another huge assumption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.