pattygreen

In the News June 2, 2010 Side Effects: Obamacare Creates a Costly Drop in Employer Health Coverage The President repeatedly promised that if you liked your health plan, you would be able to keep it. Nothing would change. Fat chance. In fact, millions of Americans of Americans will lose or be transitioned out of their existing employer based health insurance. The official Actuary at HHS- who doesn’t speak for the Administration- said it would be 14 million. But a new report by former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin predicts it could be as high as 35 million. That kind of disruption comes at a high price: It’ll cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion more than previously estimated. Why? Because Obamacare calls for lavish subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans buy health insurance. Indeed, households earning up to four times the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidies. According to 2008 Census data, some 127 million Americans would qualify. Yet the official CBO analysis of Obamacare estimated only 19 million would get subsidies. Why did CBO think the other 108 eligibles wouldn’t ask for “free” federal money? Because Congress added a “firewall” provision: You can’t get a subsidy unless you have no employer-sponsored coverage, or your contribution toward employer-based coverage exceeds 9.8 percent of your income. But this firewall is flimsy. The inducement Obamacare gives employers to keep providing generous health coverage is the threat of slapping them with a $2,000 per employee penalty if they drop coverage. The new study by Holtz-Eakin, now president of the American Action Forum, and his colleague Cameron Smith demonstrates just how ineffective this penalty will be. It presents the example of an insured low-income worker earning one-third more than the federal poverty level. The employer could drop that worker’s coverage, give him a raise, pay the penalty and still save money. Meanwhile, the worker could pocket the raise and the Obamacare subsidy, buy his own coverage and be none the worse for wear. As Holtz-Eakin and Smith put it, “There is room for the employer to actually improve the worker’s life by having a small pay raise and the same insurance and still save money.” For a health plan worth $15,921, the employee would get a bonus of $128 to keep the same health plan in the exchange, and the employer would save $9,941, even after paying the penalty. In theory, everyone “wins”. Sort of. The employer gets to dump expensive federally mandated health coverage, and the employee, who may have liked that coverage, still gets a pay raise. The only big loser is the employer and employee who happens to be a taxpayer. The feds will have to dole out subsidies to even middle class families whose employers drop coverage due to the programs perverse incentives. After crunching the numbers, Holtz-Eakin and Smith concluded that as many as 35 million could lose employer-sponsored coverage, bringing the price tag of the subsidies from a” measly” $450 billion to about $1.4 trillion. Have a nice day. Tags: Congressional Budget Office, employer mandate, firewall provision, Side Effects, subsidies, tax penalties Author: Kathryn Nix

Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations Published on June 1, 2010 by James C. Capretta President Obama and other proponents of the recently passed health care law argue that the legislation was desperately needed to improve the nation’s health system for both today’s citizens as well as future generations. But there are many reasons to be concerned that this new law will instead deliver both a lower quality health system and more costly and burdensome government for those paying taxes in future years. Another Runaway Entitlement Program The centerpiece of the new legislation is a large-scale coverage expansion. The Medicaid program is expanded to cover all households with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and subsidized insurance is provided for families with incomes between 133 and 400 percent FPL. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that these two expansions will bring 34 million people onto the federal entitlement rolls by 2017.[1] Moreover, by 2019, CBO says the cost of these “coverage” provisions is likely to escalate very rapidly and in line with the rising costs of existing health entitlement programs, including Medicare. Proponents claim that the tax hikes and spending reductions in the bill will be more than sufficient to pay for the added costs of another large expansion in federal spending. And, in fact, CBO’s cost estimate shows a net deficit reduction from the health-related provisions of the bill at $124 billion over the period 2010–2019. But, for many reasons, the impact on future taxpayers is likely to be much more adverse than CBO’s estimates indicate. The True Cost of the Legislation Omission of the Medicare “Doc Fix.” The Obama Administration and leaders in Congress chose to use all of the tax hikes and spending cuts they could find to create another new entitlement instead of paying for a fix for Medicare physician fees (the so-called “doc fix”). Under current law, those fees are set to get cut by 21 percent in June. The Obama Administration wants to undo the cut permanently, but it does not provide any offsetting savings. The result will be a spending increase of between $250 billion and $400 billion over a decade. Passing an unfinanced “doc fix” wipes out all of the supposed savings from the new legislation and greatly adds to the burden on future taxpayers. The CLASS Act Gimmick. The new health law creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program, called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. Those who sign up for it must pay premiums for five years before becoming eligible for benefit payments. Consequently, premiums paid by enrollees build a small surplus—about $70 billion over 10 years according to CBO—which the health law’s proponents claim as deficit reduction. But these premiums will be needed in short order to pay actual claims. Moreover, the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program predicts that the program will experience severe adverse selection.[2] When that happens, the program will either need to dramatically cut benefits or get a major federal bailout. Thus, not only is it inappropriate to claim the $70 billion in premiums as savings, but this program will almost certainly become a huge new unfinanced burden on future taxpayers. Medicare Cuts. CBO and the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program have both stated that Medicare spending cuts cannot be counted twice—to pay for a new entitlement expansion and to claim that Medicare’s financial outlook has improved.[3] But that is exactly what the proponents of the new legislation do. If the Medicare cuts and tax hikes for the hospital trust fund (about $400 billion over 10 years, according to CBO[4]) are used solely to improve the capacity of the government to pay future Medicare claims, then the health law becomes a massive exercise in deficit spending. But the problems do not end there. Many of the assumptions used to build the official cost projections are likely to prove entirely too optimistic. Estimates of Employees Dropped from Job-Based Coverage. The new insurance arrangements in the state-based exchanges will provide massive new subsidies to low- and moderate-wage households. For instance, at 200 percent FPL, the subsidy for a family of four will reach nearly $11,000 in 2014. But CBO estimates that only 3 million Americans will move from job-based insurance into the exchanges to take advantage of the subsidies, even though there are about 130 million Americans under age 65 with incomes between 100 and 400 percent FPL. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith of the American Action Forum have estimated that as many as 35 million people will be moved out of job-based coverage and into subsidization. If that is the case, the 10-year cost of the coverage expansion provisions would jump by $400 billion more.[5] Upward Pressure on Health Care Inflation. If, as CBO projects, some 30 million or more people get heavily subsidized comprehensive insurance coverage, it is certain that higher demand for services will put upward pressure on the prices charged for those services. Of course, in government-regulated insurance such as Medicaid, the fees are not as flexible. But in private plans, there is nothing to stop the added demand from pushing fees higher in coming years. Arbitrary Government Payment Rate Reductions The President has spoken often of the need to “bend the cost curve” of health care with “delivery system reform.” But the provisions in Medicare aimed at changing the way doctors and hospitals are organized and provide services are mainly small and untested pilot projects that are very unlikely to fundamentally change the cost structure of American medicine. The real cost-cutting in the law comes in the form of payment rate reductions in the Medicare program that are applied across the board and without regard to any assessment of quality of the care. The Chief Actuary of the Medicare program believes that these cuts will lead to large-scale abandonment of Medicare by hospitals that can no longer afford to take patients at the government’s below-cost rates.[6] The Opposite Effect The President and congressional leaders have argued that a primary benefit from the health law will be reduced long-term budget pressure and thus a brighter future for coming generations of taxpayers. But when the cost estimate is adjusted for omissions, gimmicks, double-counting, and unrealistic assumptions, it is clear that the new health law will increase the burden, not lessen it. One recent estimate projects the bill will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the decade following.[7] And any cost-cutting that does occur under the new law will come in the form of arbitrary governmental controls that will put up barriers to care in future years. James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center

In the News June 4, 2010 Paying for Obamacare: Kicking the Can Down the Road to Future Generations Health care reform was supposed to lower health care spending while expanding access for the uninsured. Instead, though Obamacare will cost taxpayers trillions, it will do little to address the rising cost of care. The government overhaul will not only have large and immediate negative effects for Americans of every ilk, but will have severe implications for future generations, amassing more federal debt to kick down the road to tomorrow’s taxpayers. In a recent paper, Heritage expert James Capretta lays out the several ways in which Obamacare will add to, rather than reduce, federal deficits: – Omission of the “Doc Fix”: “The Obama Administration and leaders in Congress chose to use all of the tax hikes and spending cuts they could find to create another new entitlement instead of paying for a fix for Medicare physician fees.” According to Capretta, the cost of the doc fix will fall between $250 and $400 billion over a decade. – Double-Counted CLASS Act Savings: The CLASS Act creates a long-term insurance program where enrollees must pay premiums for five years prior to receiving benefits. Writes Capretta, “premiums paid by enrollees build a small surplus—about $70 billion over 10 years according to CBO—which the health law’s proponents claim as deficit reduction. But these premiums will be needed in short order to pay actual claims.” – Double-Counted (and Dubious) Medicare Cuts: Democrats claim that cuts to Medicare will increase the solvency of the program—but they simultaneously plan to use these cuts to pay for new entitlement programs. Capretta explains that “If the Medicare cuts and tax hikes for the hospital trust fund (about $400 billion over 10 years, according to CBO) are used solely to improve the capacity of the government to pay future Medicare claims, then the health law becomes a massive exercise in deficit spending.” – Underestimated Loss of Employer Coverage: CBO estimates that just 3 million Americans will lose employer-sponsored insurance and receive coverage in the new exchanges instead, but because of new incentives for employers to dump coverage and pay a penalty in its case, the more likely effects are much more dramatic. Capretta cites a study by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith of the American Action Forum, which predicts that as many as 35 million will lose employer coverage and receive subsidies instead, which would add to the cost of Obamacare by upwards of $400 billion over a decade. The costs of Obamacare will supposedly be paid for through new taxes and spending cuts, many of which take the form of Medicare payment reductions to providers. Because of the limitations these will put on Medicare enrollees access to doctors, they are unlikely to occur—and if they do, will reduce the quality of care that seniors receive. As the cost of Obamacare grows as a result, future generations will be faced with the feat of paying for it—for real.

I guess you would rather play the blame game because that would take your focus off the present administration and all His spending.

and, there's just not enough money out there anymore for the government to take from us. They are draining us dry with their programs and give aways and projects. The number of government jobs are quickly growing greater than the number of private sector jobs, that are out there to pay for them. It is becoming unsustainable. Greece, here we come!

I don't. I believe that all people are to be treated equally, no matter what you do for a living. I don't care if you're a movie star, I don't watch many movies. I don't watch sports or purchase anything that promotes entertainment. Why do you feel that teachers, nurses, social workers, military, police, firemen,etc. are treated like crap? I don't think they are. I see people respecting these professions. Do you feel that the amount of your paycheck determines your respect? If you do, then you are wrong. The amount of your paycheck is what you get for the job you do. Period. Should we put your picture on a cup and hand them out with happy meals at McDonald's because you are a teacher? I work in a nursing home caring for the elderly, and I feel it is an honorable job, yet I don't feel as though I am treated like crap because of the amount of money I recieve. I understand that the money has to come from somewhere. For every dollar that you earn, someone else had to work hard at their job to pay you it.

This is just like a liberal. Expecting the government to ensure your retirement or make a plan for you. MY plan is to work hard and put a fair percentage of my funds away to SAVE for my retirement. Yes, SAVE. That dirty word. "You mean we have to prepare for our retirement ourselves?" We have invested in multi family rental property so that when we are at retirement age we can collect rents and upkeep the apartments and get paid for renting them out. We have a savings account. We have a 401K. My husband has invested in stocks. We have an insurance plan. My husband has a pension plan. We may even get some of the Social security we are forced to pay in, but we're not counting on it. In other words, we didn't put all our eggs into one basket, and we PLANNED. We are not depending on the government to provide for us. This is the problem with liberals. They feel the need for dependency upon the government for everythiing they should be doing for themselves as grown, mature adults!

CEO's, Jocks and Celebrities get multi million dollar paychecks because they are not being paid by force from the American peoples hard earned money. They are in their own businesses. Congress gets grand paychecks because they choose to. They line their own pockets with our money and make it difficult to change their paychecks with the laws they enact. Those jobs that the public pays for are subject to the rule of the public. Like teachers, for instance. When the public pays your salary for you, you need to be subject to them. If they can't get a raise from their own employers because the economy is bad, then what makes you think that you should get a raise from them? This whole debate was because here in CT, where the teachers are making betwwen $64,000. and $84,000. a year, they were pissed that they were even asked to forgo a raise this year because the budget wouldn't allow it. The nerve!!!! Come on now! They make THAT much money and they complain???!!! They have the gall to say that we don't care about the 'children'. "It's for the children." They say. What? You mean the children are going to get a lesser education because you're going to make the same pay as you got last year?:rolleyes:Right!

Cleo's poet: Healthcare is paid for Is that what you think?

IT DOESN"T MATTER ANY MORE! It's in the past and it can't be changed. You can only work on the present and the future. And that's in Obama's hand now. So constantly going back to what Bush did and excusing Obama's deeds because "Bush did it" or "Bush did it even worse" is lame. Stop doing it.

Awesome post. I enjoy your writing style.

Because the morals of a human being says EVERYTHING about their character. A person who doesn't care about the life in a womb will not care about anyones life but their own. A person who will cheat on their wife, will decieve their constituients. The person who would lie about serving in the war will lie to everyone else and not bat an eyelash, and then can never be trusted. Morals mean everything. They are your character.

Maybe a 'rethuglican' can't, but I just did.

To pay for ObamaCare, same-sex benefits for federal government employees, future stimulus spending, payments to the United Nations, pork-barrel projects and other government waste projects, the president must placate to the China Communist Party. But you will just ignore that post, I'm sure. THIS IS OBAMA'S SPENDING!!!! $13 TRILLION!

.......................................................................

One of LBT policies is NO name calling. If you can't be respectful to me, then I will not be conversing with you any longer.

YOU can't tell ANYONE who to value! If I choose not to 'value' sports players, that's my business. And if I choose not to 'value' movie stars, that's my business. No one can tell others who to value. That's my point.

I don't care who caused it. Rep or dem. This is the here and now! I know you don't like to concentrate on the here and now, cause you like to compare everything that Obama is doing to the things Bush has done, but you can't change the past. I'm NOT a Republican. I am an Independent. I vote for the better of the 2 evils. That's all I can do. Right now, Obama is the one who has the reigns and I see him blasting the spending like no tomorrow. Why doesn't he stop? Obama and Democrats Push Fed Debt over $13 Trillion by Tom McGregor Fri, Jun 4, 2010, 11:50 AM Does President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.) or Senate Leader Harry Reid (R.-Nv.) have any intention of holding down the federal deficit bubble that has just surpassed the $13 trillion mark as of Tuesday? Of course not, but American voters can at least sweep Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid out of power with the upcoming mid-term elections this November. The Washington Times reports that, 'the federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, the Treasury Department reported Wednesday, marking the first time the government has sunk taht far into debt and putting a sharp point on the spending debate in Capitol Hill." By calculating down to the last penny, the debt amounted to $13,050,826,460,886.97 as of Tuesday, surging nearly $60 billion since Friday, the previous day for which statistics were released. The debt problem does not bode well for Obama if he faces any conflicts with China. Beijing is the largest holder of U.S. Treasury Securities. To pay for ObamaCare, same-sex benefits for federal government employees, future stimulus spending, payments to the United Nations, pork-barrel projects and other government waste projects, the president must placate to the China Communist Party. According to the Washington Times, "at $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 50 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats." On Wednesday, the White House, spokesmen for the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees are refusing to comment on-the-record about the debt catastrophe. To read the entire article from the Washington Times, link here: Tmcgregordallas@yahoo.com

I certainly don't think that sports players should be making more than anyone else, cause it's just a game they play, but it is not anyones business to say who others should value or not. I know that Cleo's would love to be able to regulate that, but she can't!:tt2:

Not if there weren't any jobs out there!

Like I said, most teachers in this country make much, much more than you do. You're making $558. a week. That's decent paycheck. If you're not happy with your pay, you can always tutor on the side. Many people have to take on side jobs these days to get by. My point is that when the rest of the country is sacrificing and forgoing their raises, teachers are no better then the rest of us. They need to forgo their raises as well. I feel the same way about government employees of any kind. The private sector, who pays these government employees, have to give up alot in this recession, and so should those on our payrolls.(government jobs)

But let me add one more thing. I make $15.00 an hour where I work. If they told me that they had to lower my wage to $7.50 (half) in order to keep their doors open, I would work for half. Why? Because jobs are hard to find right now and because I like my job, and because it's all they could afford to pay me. I would not be happy with that, but I would still work for that wage. Now, my company isn't going to ask me to work for half pay and NO ONE asked teachers to work for half pay, they only asked them NOT TO GET A RAISE THIS YEAR TO HELP THE BUDGET! AND every teacher out there is able to go and look for a job somewhere else if they are not happy with their pay.

Are you really that dense???!!! I would NOT work for half my salary, And I don't expect teachers to either, DUH! It was a figure of speech. "If they "really" cared about the kids, then they'd work for half their pay" (you know, quit belly aching about not getting a raise when EVERYONE else in the country didn't get one this year either!!! What the heck don't you get about that!?

That's because dems aren't JUST spenders, they are also crazy kooks who think it's okay to murder babies in the womb and they think it's just peachy to let homosexuals form marriages, and they feel that it's okay to redistribute the wealth around. "Share and Share alike!" There is more than JUST one reason to not vote democrat!