We’ll go broke saving money that way

Health care law won’t rein in costs, study says

Critics of Affordable Care Act cite government’s own forecast

Despite President Obama’s promises to rein in health care costs as part of his reform bill, health spending nationwide is expected to rise more than if the sweeping legislation had never become law.

Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a 10-year forecast by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Thursday. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually.

CMS officials attributed the growth to an expansion of the insured population. Under the plan, an estimated 23 million Americans are expected to obtain insurance in 2014, largely through state-based exchanges and expanded Medicaid eligibility.


It would have cost less to do nothing. And best of all, Dick wants to raise the age of Medicare eligibility!


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to We’ll go broke saving money that way

  1. ralphb says:

    Duh! More coverage for more people with no actual reform has to cost more money! That anyone ever believed otherwise shows they are really suckers. Or paid believers?

    • DandyTiger says:

      Duh indeed. That anyone is surprised at this is what’s amazing. It’s the controls, the pooling of resources, that does the trick. Asshats.

  2. Jadzia says:

    Personally, I attribute the “growth” in costs to the extra profits the insurance companies will be able to rake in, now that they are getting a captive market with no real price controls.

    Meantime I am learning way more about the French system than I had expected. The bureaucracy is ridiculous to the point that it’s actually becoming kind of funny–in order to get me covered for prenatal care, the health authorities are making me take, tomorrow, ALL of the early-pregnancy tests and screens that French women routinely take in their first trimester, notwithstanding the fact that I am 26 WEEKS PREGNANT and half of those tests (like the triple-screen for Down’s) won’t even return reliable results at this point. However, since my prenatal care in the U.S. consisted of “search the web for tips on how to perform an unassisted home birth,” I am not complaining. They can have as much of my pee and blood as they want, as long as I get an epidural at the end.

    • Karma says:

      Congrats on your lil one….and it sounds like a long day.

      I agree about the growth in costs being tied to their profit margins and the new law. The first Rep candidate that states with authority that they will repeal Obamacare…wins.

      Of course, they better follow through with that campaign promise. If Rep and Tea Party voters discover their representatives like that bill also. It could get ugly. I suspect they won’t roll over as easily as the left/Obots did on the war, Gitmo, FISA, etc.

      • Jadzia says:

        iknowrite? That’s the one thing that I have always thought the right was better at — standing their ground. The Repubs run a (relatively) moderate candidate, their troops scream about it, then stay home, and eventually get what they want. The Dems run somebody completely unacceptable? Their folks meekly take the beating with the Roe stick (or, just insert your issue of choice here) and do as they’re told.

        And thank you for the congrats–they are few and far between in my real life, i guess because i’ve exceeded the approved number of kids!

    • WMCB says:

      Congratulations!

    • DandyTiger says:

      Congrats!! And best of luck!

  3. Dario says:

    The Supreme Court will get rid of Obamacare.

    • Jadzia says:

      On what ground? It certainly is a stupid law, but I don’t see unconstitutionality (at least not without reversing cases like Lopez). Of course, I don’t have half the (evil!) brains of Scalia.

      • Jadzia says:

        Zuh. I meant EXTENDING Lopez. I’m kind of tired.

      • WMCB says:

        I see unconstitutionality in the govt forcing citizens to buy a product from a for-profit entity.

        • DandyTiger says:

          Me too. But it’s not clear cut. I see the arguments from both sides. I’m hoping my state of VA wins out though. 🙂

        • votermom says:

          Not a lawyer, but using the commerce clause to define inactivity as activity seems bogus to me.
          The Fed govt might as well force me to sign up for Facebook because my not doing so affects FB’s stock prices.

        • Dario says:

          I agree that’s the reason it will be unconstitutional. Forcing a person to buy health insurance is not like buying auto insurance. If the government can force me to buy health insurance, then it can force me to buy vitamins, because it’s good for me.

        • votermom says:

          Not because vitamins are good for you, but because buying vitamins impacts the vitamin industry and therefore the economy.
          😯

      • Dario says:

        Lopez vs.? Do you mean this case decision?
        Huh?
        from wikipedia:

        Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges,[1] into the school. He was confronted by school authorities[2] and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violation of the federal[3] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[4]
        ——
        In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from “commerce” as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[11]

  4. Pips says:

    Via TL (no, not J., heh)Lawyer: Strauss-Kahn maid’s remarks misportrayed:

    The tapes have not been released, and Thompson said he was allowed to hear them Wednesday but didn’t get copies of them. They contrast with a New York Times account of what Diallo had said, according to Thompson. The newspaper has reported, citing an anonymous law enforcement official, that Diallo said “words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing'” to her friend shortly after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest.

    But on the tapes, her mentions of Strauss-Kahn’s resources and her knowing what to do are made at different points, and in contexts that cast them in a considerably different light, Thompson said.

    As if many of us didn’t already suspect that to be the case. I for one am sick of how media, in this case on behalf of the prosecutors, ruin other people’s credibility, reputation, livelihood, carreer, even lives, by tampering with timelines. And more often than not, no one is checking the veracity.

    And then there’s this:

    Her last meeting with prosecutors, in late June, ended with her in tears as prosecutors asked about her past and life, Thompson has said.

    Because if a woman, claiming she was sexually assaulted, can’t prove that she lives, and always have, as a pious nun – and of course to prove that, it’s necessary to have her whole life “ransacked” and accounted for in detail – she was probably asking for it/ had it coming anyway.

  5. yttik says:

    “…an estimated 23 million Americans are expected to obtain insurance in 2014…”

    Well yeah, because we’re all so broke now, we’ll qualify for medicaid. Also on the bright side, Obama has increased the number of people who now qualify for food stamps to 46 million. Go Bama!

    • ralphb says:

      While cutting funding for food stamps. Go Bama indeed.

      • yttik says:

        Yeah, I know. My state is cutting medicaid, too. There’s just no money. By the time we’re all on it, I’m not sure if it will cover any services at all.

  6. djmm says:

    Medicare for all is the solution. Then we will be like most of the civilized world.

    djmm

  7. propertius says:

    “We lose money on each one, but we make it up in volume”

Comments are closed.