ObamaCare: 93% Of Americans Would Get No Benefit; 25% of Americans making Under $200k/Yr Would See Taxes Rise

The Obama White House is pitching talking points to frightened Democrats to deceive them into voting for ObamaCare.  One of the promises is that the boondoggle legislation “brings down costs for everyone.”

But even Democrats don’t buy the lies now.

Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Wednesday contradicted President Barack Obama on whether the health care reform bill will lead to a decrease in health care premiums.

Durbin claimed that rates would go up, while the president said the rates would go down.

“Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down, I don’t think is telling the truth.”

And there are a ton of facts to support the fact that this ObamaCare boondoggle fiasco will be a fork jabbed in the eye of this already struggling economy.  As Fox News reported on Thursday, March 11:

[A] new survey released today casts doubt on the president’s ability to reduce health care cost and insurance premiums.

Businesses nationwide that provide insurance were asked what health reform would mean to them Sixty-nine percent said it would increase the cost of their health care programs. Sixty-nine percent also said it would add to their administrative costs.  Seventy-one percent predicted it would raise the cost of America’s health services generally. Thirty-five percent predicted it would lead to a decrease in employer- provided coverage.  Top Democrats tried to dodge numbers today and emphasized the human side of reform.

So when 7 out of 10 businesses that provide health coverage for their employees say that ObamaCare will add to their administrative costs which they will pass on to their employees, what is a rational person supposed to think?

I trust Obama more than anybody or anything“???

Stop trusting him.  He is lying to you.

$2.5T in Tax Hikes Due Health Care Bill
Analysis by Former CBO Director Confirms that 25 Percent of People Making Under $200,000 Would See Taxes Rise

By Mark Eddington

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released an analysis by former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin today that found that 25 percent of people earning $200,000 a year would see their taxes rise under the Senate health care bill.

This analysis makes clear that the Administration’s assertions that its health care proposal will not raise taxes on people making under $200,000 a year are simply not true,” said Hatch. “At a time when people are struggling and we are trying to shore up our fragile economy, we should not be punishing middle-class families with higher taxes.”

On the campaign trail, President Obama pledged that no individual earning under $200,000, and no family making less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up.

Holtz-Eakin found, through an analysis of data by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, that:

Only about 7 percent of Americans would actually receive a government subsidy to help pay for mandatory health insurance.

25 percent of those earning under $200,000 a year would see their taxes rise. In other words, for every one family that would receive the government subsidy, three middle-class families would pay higher taxes.

93 percent of Americans would NOT be eligible for a tax benefit under the bill.

Below and attached is the complete analysis by Doug Holtz-Eakin provided to Senator Hatch:

In the midst of all the rhetoric about the evil insurance companies from the Democratic side of the aisle to justify the passage of this $2.5 trillion health care bill and all the rhetoric about government takeover from the Republican side of the aisle, I want to draw your attention to some recent facts regarding the impact of this bill.  The computations are based on data provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation as contained in a recent American Action Forum health care brief.

Only about 7 percent of Americans would actually receive a government subsidy to help pay for mandatory health insurance.

25 percent of those earning under $200,000 a year would see their taxes rise. In other words, for every one family that would receive the government subsidy, three middle-class families would pay higher taxes.  That stands in stark contrast with the President’s pledge that anyone earning under $250,000 would not see their taxes increase.

93 percent of Americans would NOT be eligible for a tax benefit under the bill.

Moreover, 52 percent of all Americans will see their taxes rise including small business owners.  This tax increase would take place even after taking the government subsidy into account.

So what does this all mean? Simply put, under this bill fewer and fewer Americans will continue to support the needs of an ever-growing majority.  Furthermore, these tax hikes come as our nation struggles to recover from one of the most severe economic downturns since World War II. For employers who may want to hire, they are frozen because of the threat of more taxes and regulation that will eat up money they could use to put people back to work.

I want to emphasize as well the budgetary impact of this bill.  We are at a historic crossroads as a nation. According to the recent 10-year outlook by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), President Obama’s policies would add $8.5 trillion to our already sky-high national debt. The sobering report also confirmed our record deficit of $1.5 trillion this year along with a dire prediction of deficits rapidly increasing after 2015.  And this all before the passage of this trillion-dollar health care bill.

Citing numbers from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Democrats say that this bill would reduce the deficit by roughly $100 billion over the next 10 years. Just last week, Nancy Ann DeParle, the White House Director for Health Policy, and Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, argued in a Washington Post op-ed that, “[t]he president’s plan …more than meets the president’s commitments that health-insurance reform not add a dime to the deficit and that it contain measures to reduce the growth rate of health-care costs over time.” But the only way to make the numbers work is through budgetary gimmicks.

But as a former CBO Director, it’s important to understand that CBO only scores the legislation it’s given – no matter how unrealistic. So, for example, if the bill says that the Administration will defer the Cadillac plan tax to 2018, which was evidently a concession to the powerful labor unions, then CBO has take that assumption at face value when they score the bill and its deficit impact.

Furthermore, Mr. Orszag and Ms. Deparle cite pay-as-you-go budget rules – requiring that any new entitlement spending be offset – as a mechanism to make sure that health care reform is fully paid for in the future. Once again, this assumption fails the test of reality. Just this week, the Senate ignored pay-go for a portion of a bill for unemployment benefits. And last year, Democrats chose to exempt a Medicare payment fix for doctors from pay-go.  Whether they should or should not be subjected to these budget rules is irrelevant.  The point is that the Administration’s record is hardly encouraging.

The CBO has just reduced the amount of “savings” that ObamaCare would have over a ten year period.

But those savings are an illusion: the CBO is forced to accept the claims and the budget gimmicks of the administration and the leaders of Congress.  As an example, between $200-300 billion for the “doctor fix” have been illegitimately removed from the bill to make it appear to be “deficit neutral.”

The Costly “Doctor Fix.” Every year, because of congressionally created formulas in Medicare physician payment, Congress must vote to suspend these pre-ordained payment systems that would automatically cut Medicare payments to physicians. If enacted this year, these cuts would reduce physician payment rates by 21 percent.

Physicians believe, correctly, that unless there is a fundamental reform of Medicare payment, many physicians will reduce their Medicare practice or stop seeing new Medicare patients, thereby reducing the accessibility of Medicare beneficiaries to physician care. Both the House and the Senate have acknowledged this as part of their agendas for health care reform.

However, to make their bills appear less costly, the leadership of both houses has removed the doctor fix and its more than $200 billion price tag from their health care bills and presented it as a separate bill. This enables Senator Reid to claim that his bill will reduce the deficit, but the CBO estimates that the House bill (H.R. 3961), combined with the “doctor fix” bill (H.R. 3962), would “add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period.”[13] The Senate bill plays the same shell game, creating the appearance of deficit reduction by ignoring the inevitable cost of the doctor fix.

Unless you think doctors’ reimbursements have nothing whatsoever to do with health care costs (which is a polite way of saying, ‘Unless you are a truly stupid human being’), you realize this is a ridiculous gimmick.

The same Heritage article details numerous other similar shenanigans and gimmicks.

There are simply all kinds of nefarious assumptions in this bill which the CBO cannot question due to the limitations of their mandate.  And the reality is that it will make health care more expensive for average Americans.

What if those assumptions are wrong, as many of them will almost certainly be?  The government will have saddled itself with trillions of dollars of more unsustainable spending, and their only option will be to massively hike taxes even as they ration care.

The Democrats are also playing games with the CBO scoring by claiming that future legislation that they don’t have the political will to resolve now will somehow be resolved by a future Congress in 2018.  They are taking credit for revenues from a “Cadillac tax” that they claim a a future Congress will implement eight years from now (after Obama is out of office even if he is re-elected to a second term).

This future tax is allegedly going to raise $90-$150 billion in revenue over ten years.  But it’s never going to happen.

Let me put it this way: Democrats are arguing that this is their one historic opportunity to pass this massive health care “reform” because of their domination of the House, Senate, and the executive branch.  By applying that very logic, if they don’t have the political will to pass an incredibly unpopular tax – which Republicans fundamentally oppose – why on earth would anyone be so naive to believe that this yet-to-be Congress in eight years would have that will???

As a fundamental matter, having ten years of taxation, with only six years of spending, is pure gimmickry to artificially make something that will massively add to the costs and spending “appear” deficit neutral.  It’s crap like this that prompted the best and best-selling newspaper in the nation to label this boondoggle “The Worst Bill Ever.”

And just how is it that something that is “deficit neutral” only due to $500 billion in revenue from new taxes and another $500 billion from Medicare supposed to reduce the actual costs of health care?  That $500 billion in cuts from a Medicare system that is already on the verge of collapsing will either have to be given back to Medicare in the form of more deficit spending, or elderly people will literally suffer and die.  It is simply a lie to claim that ObamaCare will reduce health care costs.

And the American people understand that, according to polling.  Rasmussen discovered that 81% of Americans believe ObamaCare will cost more than the official estimates, and 66% of Americans believe that it will increase the federal deficit.  78% believe that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the costs for ObamaCare, and only 25% believe ObamaCare will be good for the economy.

The Cato Institute removes some of the major gimmicks – which the CBO cannot do – and comes up with the real likely cost of ObamaCare: MORE THAN SIX TRILLION DOLLARS.

Right now, the only thing preventing ObamaCare being imposed on the nation by the same sort of constitutional gimmickry that is being done to the budget numbers is abortion language.

In a way that is fitting, because abortion is a good metaphor for this bill: the entire thing is one giant abortion.

Get in your Democrat congressman’s face and scream as loudly as you have to to stop this terrible monstrosity from destroying our health care system and our economy.

2 Responses to “ObamaCare: 93% Of Americans Would Get No Benefit; 25% of Americans making Under $200k/Yr Would See Taxes Rise”

  1. J.W. Wartick Says:

    I’m so confused as to why he’s still trying to force this through when it seems that the majority of Americans don’t want it. The votes have been cast, and they don’t want it. Maybe Americans want health care reform, but not like this.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    What Americans want is to bring the cost and complexity of health care down – which is another way of saying they want the government out.

    The government is already responsible for more than 60% of health care; and now they want to take over the rest. The question is, has their systematic take-over brought the costs down? Absolutely not. In fact, absolutely the opposite. They’ve added all kinds of regulations and policies and requirements and mandates that have driven the costs up and up and up even as they’ve destroyed the free-market competition that would reduce costs and improve quality.

    Private health insurance companies only contribute about 5% (a little less, actually) of the cost of health care. So what do the big-government liberals do? They demonize that 5% and ignore the fact that their own damn system is the entity screwing our system up.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: