Obamacare

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Obamacare

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 22 Mai 2013, 11:44

Tracinski skriver og siterer fra WSJ: Nancy Pelosi infamously declared that we had to pass ObamaCare in order to find out what's in it. It turns out we also had to pass the bill to find out what's not in it.

What's not in it is health insurance. Here's the blockbuster report from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 98186.html

"Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

"Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

"Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing."

So ObamaCare encourages employers to cover routine preventive expenses, but not big catastrophic events like surgeries and hospital stays. This is pretty much the polar opposite of insurance.

It is also another factor that will contribute to the "death spiral" of ObamaCare's health insurance exchanges.

"Regulators worry that some of these strategies, if widely employed, could pose challenges to the new online health-insurance exchanges that are a centerpiece of the health law. Among employees offered low-benefit plans, sicker workers who need more coverage may be most likely to opt out of employer coverage and join the exchanges. That could drive up costs in the marketplaces."

It is a mistake to think that the problem with big government is that it will be relentlessly efficient in imposing its master plan. The problem is also that its master plan is invariably poorly conceived and full of loopholes, corrupt carveouts, and just plain incompetent mistakes. And you have to pass these big government programs before you find out all the mistakes that are in them.
———
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Obamacare

Innlegg OlfyFredrik 04 Aug 2013, 11:05

'Cheapest' ObamaCare Plans Aren't So Cheap After All

The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.

The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.

[...]

In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.

In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.

And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.

Bilde

http://news.investors.com/politics/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm
OlfyFredrik
 
Innlegg: 6
Registrert: 03 Aug 2013, 16:38

Re: Obamacare

Innlegg Erik 19 Aug 2013, 12:07

Harry Reid Confesses Truth About ObamaCare

''Reid is correct that the ultimate goal toward which ObamaCare is merely a step is fully socialized medicine. ObamaCare forces people to purchase government-approved and government-regulated health insurance. By subsidizing insurance and regulating rates, it forces some people to pay for the health care of others. ObamaCare also establishes a bureaucracy to determine which services doctors may and may not offer their patients under such “insurance.” ''


http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... obamacare/
Erik
 
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Obamacare

Innlegg nico 08 Jan 2015, 20:54

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-0 ... -obamacare

The brain incubator at Harvard, the place which according to legend, and certainly the US News and World Report's annual paid college infomercial, is the repository for some of the smartest people in the world, is furious.

The reason - Harvard's illustrious faculty has learned that they too will be subject to their own policy recommendations as relates to Obamacare, which they themselves helped conceive. As the left-leaning NYT reported earlier today, "for years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar."

Because Harvard's brilliant ivory tower economists and public policy wonks know precisely how to fix the world... as long as said fix never applies to them.

And sure enough, the faculty did everything in its power to make sure it never had to suffer the consequences of its own brilliance...
You can't put an "I wish" over an "It is"

- Leonard Peikoff
nico
 
Innlegg: 528
Registrert: 20 Apr 2007, 00:14
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Obamacare

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 09 Feb 2015, 13:05

Our Healthcare Policy Problem Is Much Bigger than Obamacare

Way back in 2010, immediately after Obamacare was rammed down our throats, I put together four guiding principles for a counter-offensive.

One of my goals was to help people understand that the problem was far greater than Obamacare. Indeed, the so-called Affordable Care Act was merely another step on a long (and very bad) journey to healthcare statism.

The way to think of Obamacare is that we are shifting from a healthcare system 68 percent controlled/directed by government to one that (when all the bad policies are phased in) is 79 percent controlled/directed by government. Those numbers are just vague estimates, to be sure, but they underscore why Obamacare is just a continuation of a terrible trend, not a profound paradigm shift.


Two years ago, I elaborated on this thesis and even put together a couple of charts to emphasize the point.

Bilde
Obamacare was enacted in 2010, and it was perceived to be a paradigm-shifting change in the healthcare system, even though it was just another layer of bad policy on top of lots of other bad policy. Immediately after the legislation was approved, I offered a rough estimate that we went from a system that was 68 percent dictated by government to one that was 79 percent dictated by government. …all of the same problems still exist, but now they’re exacerbated by the mistakes in Obamacare.
Bilde


My numbers were just vague approximations, of course, but I think the basic premise was spot on.

And my theory is still accurate. But you don’t have to believe me.

Writing for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein makes the critical point that repealing Obamacare wouldn’t result in a free-market system.

Instead, we’d be stuck with the pre-Obamacare system that was decrepit because of already-existing programs, mandates, regulations, and other forms of intervention.

…repeal is not enough. Even if simple repeal were politically obtainable, Americans would still be left with a broken healthcare system. Government regulations would still be stifling competition and individual choice and government healthcare programs would still be driving the nation’s unsustainable long-term debt problem. If Republicans achieved repeal without agreeing on a way to reform healthcare along free market lines, it’s inevitable that Democrats would eventually lead another overhaul of the system that would grant even more power to the federal government.


Philip is totally correct.

Before Obamacare, we had a system that didn’t work very well because of government. But in a horrifying example of Mitchell’s Law, many people decided that more government was the solution to the problems already caused by government.

Bilde

Hence, we got so mis-named Affordable Care Act.

But if Obamacare is repealed, we’ll simply be back in the same unstable situation. And Philip is right that the statists will then simply argued for a different type of government expansion. Probably single payer, notwithstanding all the horror stories from places such as the United Kingdom.

Some may argue at this point that it doesn’t really matter because Obama is in the White House with a veto pen, so critics have a couple of years to figure out their next step.

Maybe, but it’s also possible that the Supreme Court will (for a change of pace) make the right ruling on a key Obamacare case later this year. And this would probably force policy makers to re-open the law.

…a Supreme Court decision expected by late June could invalidate Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans. If Republicans don’t have an alternative ready, congressional leaders will be under tremendous pressure to pass a simple “fix” that would allow the subsidies to continue to flow, thus further entrenching Obamacare before a Republican president theoretically is able to act in 2017. For these reasons and many others it’s important for Republicans to unite around an alternative to Obamacare.


Philip (who has an entire book on this issue) then proceeds to categorize Obamacare critics as being in three different camps on the issue of how to proceed.

The first approach comes from those who believe that fully repealing Obamacare is probably unrealistic, but who still see an opening to reform the overall healthcare system in a more market-oriented direction. I call this the Reform School. The second approach comes from a crowd that believes full repeal is a necessity, but can only occur if opponents of the law create a market-friendly alternative with enough financial assistance to make health insurance widely available to those Americans who want to purchase it. I call this the Replace School. And finally, there is a third approach, which advocates repealing the law, returning to pre-Obamacare levels of taxes and spending, and then using that clean slate as the basis to overhaul the system in a free market manner to bring down costs. I call this the Restart School.


Since I focus on fiscal policy issues rather than healthcare, I don’t know if there are substantive – or merely strategic – differences among these three groups.

But I will say (assuming you actually want to solve the problem) that at some point you have to deal with the government programs and interventions that have given us a third-party payer crisis.

Bilde

So I will reiterate what I wrote back in 2010 as part of my proposed counter-offensive.

he only way to fix healthcare is to restore the free market. That means going back to a system where people pay out-of-pocket for most healthcare and use insurance to protect against genuine risk and catastrophic expenses. The time has come to reduce the size and scope of government. …Change Medicare into a system based on personal health accounts and shift all means-tested spending to the states. …the flat tax is ideal from a healthcare perspective since it gets rid of the healthcare exclusion in the tax code as part of a shift to a tax system with low rates and no double taxation.


This video, narrated by Julie Borowski for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, looks at the Obamacare/third-party payer issue.

[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl3LwMGFAFM[/YouTube]

And if you want to examine some of the component issues of healthcare reform, we have videos on Medicaid, Medicare, and tax reform.

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... obamacare/ (med hyperlenker)
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15


Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 3 gjester

cron