Mama Bin Cranky

Screaming on the Inside

ObamaCare Promises: Lies or Ignorance

Posted by madjillmom on November 5, 2013

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.

It was a lie. That is the best take on it. They lied to get the bill passed on a party line vote. They lied to the public to win reelection. They lied and counted on a compliant, worshipping press to go along with it.

Otherwise, they are ignorant.

Someone ask Obama how it was going to cost nothing to cover millions more people? Ask why they delayed the employer mandate to cover employees? That was strictly political. They didn’t want higher premiums, massive cancellation, and shorter work weeks to help Republicans in 2014. Obamacare is “pie in the sky liberal make it so policy” that will not lower costs. It will take money from Medicare and spread it to the young poor. It will cover illegal aliens. It will continue to shift costs from the poor to the middle class.

It will not lower our premiums by $1200 just because Obama likes to promise that. Instead of doing healthcare reform in a limited and smart manner, they will create problems for most to cover just a few.

If you did the right thing and personally bought coverage because you are a responsible person, you will more than likely be dropped and have to buy a much more expensive policy. If you didn’t do the responsible thing, you will probably be rewarded with cheap health insurance subsidized by those of us who did the right thing. Thanks Obama.


One Response to “ObamaCare Promises: Lies or Ignorance”

  1. OGRE said

    The problem is that they aren’t going to help cover the few! Take a look…

    This is from a 2009 CBO report…

    ■ Currently, a significant share of the population moves in and out of insurance
    coverage during a year, which complicates efforts to provide effective
    prevention and wellness services. As discussed later, though, those services
    are less broadly effective at reducing health care spending than might be
    expected, and in any event, expansion proposals would not eliminate all of the
    churning that makes it harder to maintain continuity of care.

    ■ Most expansions of insurance coverage that are under consideration would
    leave a moderate number of people uninsured, in part because some people
    would be ineligible for subsidies or would choose not to buy insurance even
    with large subsidies. Therefore, any current problems arising from the lack of
    insurance could be reduced but not eliminated.

    It also bears emphasizing that if a reform package achieved “budget neutrality”
    during its first 10 years, budgetary savings in the long run would not be
    guaranteed—even if the package included initial steps toward transforming the
    delivery and financing of health care that would gain momentum over time.
    Different reform plans would have different effects, of course, but two general
    phenomena could make the long-run budgetary impact less favorable than the
    short-run impact:

    ■ First, an expansion of insurance coverage would be phased in over time to
    allow for the creation of new administrative structures such as insurance
    exchanges. As a result, the cost of an expansion during the 2010–2019 period
    could be a poor indicator of its ultimate cost.

    ■ Second, savings generated by policy actions outside of the health care system
    would probably not grow as fast as health care spending. Such would be the
    case for revenues stemming from the Administration’s proposal to limit the
    tax rate applied to itemized deductions and from proposals to tax sugar-sweetened
    soda or alcohol, for example.

    Some policy options under consideration would yield savings that grew in tandem
    with health care spending—reducing the level of federal spending on health care
    but not affecting the measured rate of spending growth after the first few years.
    For example, the largest savings proposed in the President’s budget would arise
    from a decrease in payments to private health insurance plans operating under the
    Medicare Advantage program. If enacted, that change would permanently lower
    the level of Medicare spending, but it would probably not offset a noticeably
    larger share of the cost of an expansion of insurance coverage in the second
    10 years than in the first.

    It was never about helping anyone, it has, and always will be about the expansion of the federal government and an increase in their own power.

    They didn’t even follow the CBO’s guidelines for implementation, see the third bullet point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: