Obamacare Will Add $7,450 To Family Of 4 Health Costs

[_bcspace]

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.

What this means for a typical family of four

$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected population and multiplied the result by 4.

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.” The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four

[_Albion]

So, the alternative plan from Republicans to tackle the healthcare problem is what exactly?

[_Albion]

So, the alternative plan from Republicans to tackle the healthcare problem is what exactly?

[_bcspace]

To do nothing at all is far better than Obamacare as one can plainly see. So the argument that Republicans must propose an alternative is bogus.

However, the Republicans have indeed proposed alternative plans and if you say you don't know about any I would say you are lying or you get your news only from government approved sources.

The better plan is to eliminate health care mandates and allow consumers to design their own coverage. The government can use the Medicare and Medicaid programs to take care of the worst cases. We all know that all social spending can be cut in half and the recipients receive the same or more in benefits.

Both private insurers and the government should heavily penalize unhealthy behavior such as smoking and drinking and yes, even some types of obesity etc. There is no reason why you should pay for my lifestyle choice of seven children and there is no reason why I should be forced to pay for someone else's unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Cafeteria or section 125 plans, which insurance companies hate because they encourage less spending on insurance premiums, should be advanced more than they are now (heavily restricted under Obamacare because of insurance company pressure). They are the only benefit that pays out more than 100 cents on the dollar whereas insurance is often less than 20 cents on the dollar.

[_Res Ipsa]

What's bogus is conflate the actual effect on premium cost for a "typical family of four" with total healthcare spending divided by the the number of people. The effect on a "typical" family of four is not calculated by computing a numerical average and multiplying by 4. It is determined by defining what constitutes a "typical family of four" and then determining the actual change that will result. The article is a prime example of lying with statistics.

[_Analytics]

Let's break it down. According to the expert report cited by the blog, the ACA will:

-Cause healthcare spending to go up by $600,000,000,000 over 10 years

-Cause 30,000,000 more Americans to have insurance

If you divide the $600 billion by the 120 months in the projection period, it would result in $5 billion a month more in health care. Divide that by the 30 million people who will have insurance and you get $167 per new insured per month.

If the result was the opposite, Republicans would be shreeking about how the ACA was causing people who needed health care from receiving it. But as it is, More Americans will get the healthcare their doctors recommend; Republicans are outraged about that.

[_Analytics]

For an honest and competent look at the CMS numbers that bcspace's edititorial references, consider this quote from a working paper by MIT's Jonathan Gruber:

The best available projections of the impact of the ACA on the level and growth of health care costs in the near term come from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services Office of the Actuary (CMS). 10 With U.S. health care spending already accounting for 17 percent of GDP and growing, there is also concern about policies that increase this spending. And, as the CMS actuary points out, the ACA will increase national health care expenditures. At the peak of its effect on spending in 2016, the law will increase health care expenditures by about 2 percent; by 2019, the ACA-related increase will be 1 percent, or 0.2 percent of GDP.

It is worth noting that these increases are quite small relative to the gains in coverage under the new law. The CMS predicts that 34 million more people will be insured by 2019 (which is similar to the independent estimate of CBO) relative to a base of 254 million insured. The agency also estimates that without this reform, health care costs would grow by 6.6 percent per year between 2010–2019. So the ACA will be increasing the ranks of the insured by more than 13 percent at a cost that is less than one sixth of one year’s growth in national health care expenditures.

Alternatively, consider the fact that under this legislation, by 2019, the United States will be spending $46 billion more on medical care than we do today. In 2010 dollars, this amount to only $800 per newly insured person, quite a low cost compared, for example, to the $5,050 average single premium for employer-sponsored insurance (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010).

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829

[_bcspace]

For an honest and competent look at the CMS numbers that bcspace's edititorial references,

Hate to disappoint you, but the proof is in the pudding. Plus we've already caught several states, notably California, lying about the "savings".

-Cause 30,000,000 more Americans to have insurance

To have to buy insurance that is. More often than not, on a reduced salary or no salary. And while the overall share of total out of pocket spending is expected to decline as insurance becomes more overburdened (thus increasing cost), out of pocket spending by individuals is expected to double. There are just far too many gotcha's in Obamacare for it's supporters to hide from.

[_Analytics]

For an honest and competent look at the CMS numbers that bcspace's edititorial references,

Hate to disappoint you, but the proof is in the pudding.

Claiming "the proof is in the pudding" (and who knows what in the hell you mean by that) somehow refutes your own numbers?

-Cause 30,000,000 more Americans to have insurance

To have to buy insurance that is. More often than not, on a reduced salary or no salary.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What do you think it means to "have to buy insurance on a reduced salary or no salary"? By "salary" do you mean premium?

And while the overall share of total out of pocket spending is expected to decline as insurance becomes more overburdened (thus increasing cost), out of pocket spending by individuals is expected to double.

What are you talking about? What is "overall share of total out of pocket spending" and what is "out of pocket spending by individuals?" Whoever thinks out of pocket spending is going to double while total out of pocket spending goes down is clearly math challenged.

There are just far too many gotcha's in Obamacare for it's supporters to hide from.

If that were the case, why can't you name a single one?

[_bcspace]

Hate to disappoint you, but the proof is in the pudding.

Claiming "the proof is in the pudding" (and who knows what in the hell you mean by that) somehow refutes your own numbers?

There is nothing in "my own" numbers to refute.

To have to buy insurance that is. More often than not, on a reduced salary or no salary.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What do you think it means to "have to buy insurance on a reduced salary or no salary"? By "salary" do you mean premium?

All you seem to be aware of is Democratic talking points. People are having their hours reduced to part time so they can be kicked off insurance (not to mention those not hired due to a depressed economy exacerbated by Obamacare). Such a person now is required to purchase health insurance and, because of reduced hours, they have 25% less income to do it with.

What are you talking about? What is "overall share of total out of pocket spending" and what is "out of pocket spending by individuals?"

You've never had insurance before and had to pay out of pocket?

Whoever thinks out of pocket spending is going to double while total out of pocket spending goes down is clearly math challenged.

I think you need to read the numbers presented more carefully.

There are just far too many gotcha's in Obamacare for it's supporters to hide from.

If that were the case, why can't you name a single one?

I just listed having to purchase insurance with reduced salary and increased out of pocket. Seems to me that you're intentionally playing dumb.