Obamacare

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas has filed for a rate increase of almost 60%. This is due to revenue losses estimated at more than $1 billion over the past two years under Obamacare. The increase in rates will destroy the private insurance market because many will be forced to cancel their insurance. This will lead to the government picking up the coverage and attempting to pay for it through higher taxes and inflation. InfoWars 2016 Jun 2

That has been the plan all along. Cost overruns in Obamacare are not the result of a mere miscalculation. That outcome was known from the start. American leaders in both major political parties are dedicated collectivists, and this was merely a strategy for achieving their goal. They will not rest until every human activity, not just health care, is under their control. It is their path to greatness and power.

According to Jonathan Gruber, the MIT Professor who was a key person in the creation of Obamacare, Obama was in the room when the healthcare ‘Cadillac tax’ was created. [This is a 40% excise tax on healthcare plans that have little or no deductibles. Gruber says that Obama suggested that the tax be introduced in phases to disguise it.] Gateway Pundit posted 2014 Nov 14 

Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor and key Obamacare adviser, was caught on a video recording boasting that the healthcare law was written in "tortured" language to deceive Congress into thinking it was real insurance instead of a tax in the name of insurance. (It gets even worse. On two separate occasions last year Gruber was caught on camera calling the American people stupid for falling for the lies he and others were using to sell the program.) Fox News 2014 Nov 12

A British National Health Service health trust in Northern England is considering not sending obese people and smokers for certain operations because their unhealthy lifestyles allegedly lower the chance of an operation's success...

SPIKED ONLINE

The future of obamacare.  Cutting costs, by not treating the unhealthy.

Britain's NHS is horrendously expensive, this is one way they figure to cut costs.  They already have rationing, they actually have a lottery system for who gets to see the doctor.

Pharms only have to cut what they charge by 80 billion?  Pharm executives practically trampled themselves signing up for the offer of no further cuts, and why wouldn't they; they are making 100's of billions of dollars and expected their profits to go down from the current %2000.  Hell yes they signed up for it, they could have lost hundreds of billions but instead they promised a [silly me, thinking a link to rabid left-wing google would stay] 150 million advertising campaign to help shove the illegals health reform down everyone's throat.  A simple pain free way to cut costs would to have been to bring competition back into the pharmaceutical business, that would have cost us nothing but instead slammais supporting one and two thousand percent profits by the pharms.  Check snopes & 'truth of fiction' for verification.

Tort reform would have been another way to cut down on medical costs but I don't hear that mentioned either.  Did you really expect a lawyer, epically one that lies (that is redundant, redundant) to sponsor tort reform? I suspect you will not find a lawyer anywhere on Obamacare, ever.

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter.” This is [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.] directly contradicted by candidate Barack Obama–s own website which quotes Obama at a rally in Ames, Iowa form 2008: “If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. … So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.” So there you have in one paragraph the true purpose of Obama–s public option: a vehicle to slowly transition all Americans out of private coverage and into a government-run single payer health care system. This Trojan Horse view of the public option has been reaffirmed by [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“Under the reform we–re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” This statement is also plainly false. Again, as demonstrated above, the true purpose of Obama–s public option is to move Americans out of their private coverage and into government run health care. [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]Independent, non-partisan analysis from the Lewin Group has confirmed the House bill, H.R. 3200, will do exactly that: About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

“That–s what the health exchange is all about, is that you – just like a member of Congress – can go and choose the plan that–s right for you.” This statement isn–t false, but it is misleading. Members of Congress do purchase their health care through a health exchange: the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Through the FEHBP 283 private plans compete for federal employees– health care dollars. [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]The Heritage Foundation has long been a supporter of health reform that empowers consumers to utilize a FEHBP like system. But Obamacare is nothing like the FEHBP system. There is no government run public option competing with private plans in the FEHBP. So whenever Obama says that a health exchange already “drives down costs” he is right … but remember that this cost reduction is achieved purely by private health coverage without any “competition” from a government run public option.

“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” This is just plain false. The AARP released a statement late yesterday[paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.] directly contradicting the President: “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don–t need it.” Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients. A [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them. Obamacare will only make this problem worse by[paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.] cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Obama also mentioned yesterday that he wants to pay for subsidized health care by killing the Medicare Advantage program. [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]Medicare Advantage plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor–dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

“I said I won–t sign a bill that adds to the deficit or the national debt. Okay? So this will have to be paid for.” That is a nice promise, but so was Obama–s October 2008 promise that he would enact a [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]“net spending cut.” [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]We all know how that has turned out. The reality is that the Senate still has not figured out how to pay for their bill and the House bill would increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years. CBO director Doug Elmendorf has said: [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]“In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.”

“My belief is, is that [Obamacare] should not burden people who make $250,000 a year or less.” Both the House and Senate bills partially pay for Obamacare by imposing “employer mandates” or “pay or play” provisions that require employers to pay higher taxes if (a) they do not offer health insurance, or (b) they offer it but have employees who decline it and instead use the government system. [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]Multiple [paracom dot paramountcommunication dotcom/ site is no longer safe nor is the exact link to be found.]studies have shown that such provisions cause both lower wages and lost jobs for low-income workers.

House's global warming bill: $8B

Tsongas: "I won't take obamacare because I have better options‎"

Half of All States Now Suing to Stop Obamacare

If it is allowed to be implemented, Obamacare will eventually do deep and irreparable harm to our nation–s budget deficit. But while Obamacare is more of a long-term threat to fiscal health at the federal level, it is a  clear and present danger to the states. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid.

While Obamacare will pay for all of the benefit expansion for the first three years of the law, and 90% of it after that, Obamacare never pays for any of the state administrative costs for adding those 18 million Americans to their welfare rolls. That amounts to billions in unfunded federal mandates for states to absorb. That is why 33 Republican governors signed a letter to the White House and Congress making an emphatic appeal that Obamacare–s Medicaid provisions be repealed.

It is also why the newly elected governors of Ohio, Oklahoma, Maine, and Wisconsin have all decided to sue the Obama administration in hopes of stopping Obamacare. Specifically, Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma has announced that the Sooner State will pursue its own case against the law, while Govs. John Kasich (R) and Scott Walker (R) (of Ohio and Wisconsin respectively) will add their states to Florida–s multi-state suit. And yesterday, newly sworn-in state Attorney General William Schneider announced Maine would also join the the Florida litigation. That brings the number of states on the Florida suit to 23 and the total number of states suing to stop Obamacare (which includes Virginia and Oklahoma) to 25.