ObamaCare Will Increase Insurance Premiums

One of the fundamental promises of Democrats is that their massive takeover of health care would deliver lower costs, delivering an economy of scale.

The problem is that government has never been very good at lowering the cost of anything.  Quite the contrary.

And what has always been true before turns out to be true again.

Let’s get right to the nitty gritty of the CBO report:

“CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law,” the report says.

Now, Democrats are trying to argue that about the “about half of those enrollees” who would have lower premiums due to receiving government subsidies.  But understand: the costs are objectively higher by 10-13% than they would have been had we done absolutely nothing at all.  The mere fact that some people are getting transfer (i.e., welfare) payments from the government (i.e., from still more government taxing and borrowing) doesn’t in any way change that fact.

Stop and think about it: it would be a lot cheaper for the government to provide people with subsidies based on the lower costs of doing nothing else to mess with the health care system.  It is an outright fraud for Democrats to say they will lower costs.

I like the way Mitch McConnell put it:

“The bottom line is this: After 2,074 pages and trillions more in government spending, massive new taxes and a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for seniors, most people, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will end up paying more or seeing no significant savings,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. The health insurance industry’s lobbying arms also proclaimed that the report confirmed their similar warnings.

This is just a terrible bill, and a terrible philosophy.

Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING that will reduce the costs of healthcare.  They are diametrically opposed to tort reform, which would lower the costs of premiums by lowering doctors’ exposure to risks, simply because the sharks – I mean lawyers – who sue everything that walks, crawls, swims or flies are a major Democrat special interest group.

In the same way, Democrats talk about “increasing competition,” and yet they are fundamentally opposed to actually doing anything of the sort.  A primary reason healthcare costs have increased so much is due to the fact that insurance companies are specifically forbidden from being allowed to compete across state lines.  Republicans want competition; Democrats do not.  Rather, Democrats want to continue to mandate special interests-based coverage by dictating to insurance companies what coverage they must offer.

The other thing is that Democrats talk about the fraud they are offering is “deficit neutral.”  It is no such thing.  They played budget gimmicks, taxing for four years before having to pay out any benefits.  If you look at the costs of the NEXT ten years – when benefits will actually be paid out for all ten years – the cost will be $2.5 trillion, rather than the $848 billion that the Demcorats talk about in their tax-for-ten-year-spend-for-six plan.

Taxes will be raised by over $500 billion.  Medicare will be cut by $500 billion.  $500 billion is another way of saying half a trillion dollars.  That’s how the Democrats get their “savings”: they bleed it from taxpayers, and they steal it from their previous commitments to senior citizens.

The Democrats’ bill raises taxes, guts Medicare, and raises premiums.  You can start to understand why the Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine gave the bill a failing grade.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “ObamaCare Will Increase Insurance Premiums”

  1. J.W. Wartick Says:

    Yeah, see, I’m not opposed to say, taking care of people who need it and can’t afford it. I am opposed to this being done in a way that is rushed, expensive, and ridiculous.

    As a Christian, I look on examples of Christians in the Bible and see the almost socialistic communities that they had, in which everyone took care of everyone. But I think that those communities can only exist in very small scales, and perhaps only in groups of fellow believers. Thus, when we start looking at it on a government scale in a country whose government can be credited with such wonderful things as our current education system and the like, my confidence is shaken.

    I see the merit in wanting to have a society in which everyone takes care of everyone, but I am also a realist and I don’t think that the U.S. is capable of doing this in any fashion that will be good for everyone (or even the majority).

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Your intuitions are correct, I would say.

    The early Christians were communalistic, not communistic. And their community was strictly voluntary; no one was forced to join. And the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 illustrates that they didn’t even HAVE to give up everything they owned. Peter said about their land, “While unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?”

    That doesn’t sound at all like communism.

    I also think you can go back to 1 Samuel 8:19ff and see some things. The people wanted a king so they could be like the nations, which grieved God. God warned them that he would grow a giant government apparatus and essentially steal from the people, which of course is exactly what happened.

    God never wanted big government.

    And then there comes the very real issue: define stealing. The Old Testament is filled with the descriptions of unjust kings and unjust judges.

    To say a little more, think of the view that liberals are providing: big government as God, and Obama as Messiah. Who is the Savior? Whom shall we turn to? For liberals it’s a no-brainer: to Government, of course.

    Our founding fathers understood the dangers of a welfare state. They understood that a government that provided such a state was evil, and that the people would become craven under such a system. They wanted to give a man just enough support to encourage him to get up and work for himself – and not a shred more.

    A couple of quotes:

    “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” – Thomas Jefferson on the “general welfare clause”

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” — Benjamin Franklin

    We need to reduce the costs of our health care system so people can afford to purchase their OWN health care. But Democrats have steadfastly refused to do anything that would lower the costs (such as tort reform, eliminating costly mandates, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and so on).

  3. J.W. Wartick Says:

    As always, excellent insight! I enjoy this blog very much. How do you have time to write so much so frequently?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m partly retired, and just don’t have the burden of having to be somewhere all the time.

    I actually limit myself to no more than a two hours per day writing articles. If I go “over,” it’s with comments.

    As to comments, if I have time, or want to spend it, I go “comment crazy.” If I don’t have time, or don’t want to use the time I’ve got writing comments, I’m a lot more brief.

    One thing is for sure, I sure am a lot happier responding to comments from good conservative people like you than I am some bitter/angry liberal.

  5. J.W. Wartick Says:

    Well, thanks! It’s like a breath of fresh air being able to log in and see a blog that I can agree with out there, rather than constantly shaking my head.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m always amazed at the sheer degree of the leftwing presence on the blogosphere. But there have to be a few like us to keep the conservative viewpoint circulating.

    More conservatives have to start getting involved and start fighting for the truth.

    I’m always glad to spot a friend in the face of so many foes, too.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 527 other followers

%d bloggers like this: