ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away
by Capitol ConfidentialCBO DIRECTOR DOUGLAS ELMENDORF: “Our Judgment Is That That Piece Of The Legislation Would Raise Insurance Premiums.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/22/09)

3 Reasons Premiums Will Increase
New Government Regulations: “[P]remiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market…” (CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Baucus, P. 6, 9/22/09)
New Taxes On Medical Devices, Prescription Drugs And Clinical Labs: “Those projected premium amounts include the effect of the fees that would be imposed under the proposal on manufacturers and importers of brand name drugs and medical devices, on health insurance providers, and on clinical laboratories. Those fees would increase costs for the affected firms, which would be passed on to purchasers and ultimately would raise insurance fees by a corresponding amount.” (Doug Elmendorf, “CBO’s Analysis Of Premiums Under The Chairman’s Mark Of The America’s Healthy Future Act,” CBO Blog, 9/23/09)
New Taxes On High Cost Insurance Plans: “The imposition of the excise tax on insurers can be expected to lead health insurance providers and consumers to take measures to minimize their burden from the tax. As insurers pass along the cost to the consumer by increasing price, the cost of employer provided insurance will increase.” (“Memorandum: Revenue Estimate,” Joint Committee on Taxation, 9/29/09)
HIGHER HEALTH CARE COSTS
HHS’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Systems Actuary: “Total National Health Expenditures Under This Bill Would Increase…” (”Estimated Financial Effects Of The ‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009’ (H.R. 3200), As Reported By The Ways And Means Committee,” Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.3, 10/21/09)
AP: “The nation’s medical costs will keep spiraling upward even faster than they are now under Democratic legislation pending in the House, a report from government economic experts concluded…” (“US Health Care Tab Would Grow Under Overhaul,” AP, 10/21/09)
CBO ON SENATE FINANCE PROPOSAL: Costs Will Grow. “The gross cost of the coverage expansions, consisting of exchange subsidies, the net costs of expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and tax credits for employers: Those provisions have an estimated cost of $180 billion in 2019, and that cost is growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window.” (CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, Letter to Sen. Baucus, P. 10, 10/7/09)
CONSISTENT WITH INDEPENDENT STUDIES
OLIVER WYMAN STUDY: “Average premiums for small employers will increase: Under reform, small employers will experience premium increases as a result of rating rule changes and minimum benefit requirements.” (Oliver Wyman, “Insurance Reforms Must Include A Strong Individual Mandate And Other Key Provisions To Ensure Affordability,” P.3, 10/14/09)
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS STUDY: “There are four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law.” (PricewaterhouseCoopers, “Potential Impact Of Health Reform On The Cost Of Private Health Insurance Coverage,” P.3, 10/11/09)
HAY GROUP STUDY: “Our model results show significantly higher premiums and lower coverage levels than for the most recent version of the Senate Finance Committee bill than our original assumptions would have produced.” (Hay Group, “Impact Of Proposed Senate Finance Committee Health Care Reform Bill On The Nongroup Market,” P.1, 10/5/09)
MILLIMAN STUDY: “The combined effect of immediate implementation of the reform initiatives described above would be expected to increase average premiums over and above normal trend levels in both the small group and individual insurance markets.” (Milliman, “Analysis Of Impact Of Certain Healthcare Reform Initiatives on Health Insurance,” P. 4, 7/13/09)
WELLPOINT STUDY: “Health care reform legislation introduces several new broad taxes and fees that will further drive up health insurance premiums…” (Wellpoint, “Health Care Reform Premium Impact In Ohio,” p.17, 2009)
CONSISTENT WITH AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION
GALLUP POLL: “Americans Have Become More Likely To Say The Costs Their Family Pays For Healthcare Will Get Worse If A Healthcare Bill Passes…” (“In U.S., Half See Own Costs Worsening Under Health Care Bill,” Gallup, 10/22/09)
· 76% Say Their Costs Would Get Worse or Not Change
· 22% Say Their Costs Would Get Better





Subscribe via RSS
66 Comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Clyde: ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away http://bit.ly/bjCff…
These idiots are going from really bad ideas to unimaginably stupid. Common sense has gone out the window and been replaced by the most arrogant bunch of asses this, or any other country, has ever seen.
The only ones to benefit from this disaster will be the far Left kooks since it will put our Country just that much closer to a true socialist nanny state and them in more of a power position.
[...] the rest of this great post here [...]
Premiums will go up, medical costs will rise even faster! Not surprised at all. The government touches it and it goes to hell. Stop with this madness. We the people can find a better way. Congress…take an early vacation and come back in the spring and try again. Next time make it simple and reasonable and you might get support.
[...] original here: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … Posted in Insurance Tags: cbo, current, director, director-douglas, elmendorf, government, [...]
The legislation isn't a final product as of yet, how can it be blamed for the greed of the insurance companies?
These people are the biggest batch of morons in the world's history. They are taking the best health care in the world and breaking it. Instead of focusing on the real problems in the system they are creating a new set of problems that will cost us all not only money but our health and lives too. The sad thing is all the idiots out there who think that this debacle will be free. They have no idea what it will cost them.
They can take this "hope" and "change" and stick it up their a-hole!!!
They know what they are doing. It isn't about health care. It is about control.
Here's what kills me. We have all these studies and not to mention the rules of a economy that says if we do these things, that they will fail. We say "let's take it slow". We are telling Nancy and Harry and KING OBAMA that we don't want this, that this won't work.
And all they can say in response is …. "Trust us. Everything is going to work out just fine?"
Are they serious?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sherry Clanton, Dot and Clyde, Connie Howell. Connie Howell said: RT @STXherry: ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away http://bit.ly/bjCff #tcot #obc50 [...]
URGENT!
Michelle Bachman was on Hannity last nite and she mentioned that on Thursday November 5, 2009 starting at noon she will be on the steps of the House of Rep's and is inviting all to come to her news conference and then after the conference she will lead all through the halls and talk to rep's and tell them NO on this latest boon doggled Health bill!!!
The Conservative Edge
[...] Read the original here: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … [...]
[...] is the original: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … Share and [...]
insurance premiums have doubled in the past 8 years while wages have stagnated. conservatives had a shot at reform. they punted.
now it's our turn. thanks guys!!!
premiums *have* gone up. they've doubled the past 8 years while wages have stagnated. wake up!
we the people did find a better way:)
"They are taking the best health care in the world and breaking it"
by what possible standard is the health care the best in the world? we spend far more, and live far less than most industrialized nations.
seriously. how on earth can you callthe US health care system"the best"?????
We say "let's take it slow".
how slow exactly? health care reform has been on the table for decades. when republicans were in power, they had a chance to do things their way.but they didn't.
all we got was terry schaivo's law and unfunded medicare part d, adding TRILLIONS of debt over 10 years.
you had your chance,conservatives. you blew it. now the progressives will enact real reform because you failed.
Hey everyone it looks like obama and SEIU are trying to corner the market on healthcare and on the funeral buisness at the same time everyone knows that obama want's SEIU to orginize the healthcare workers well guess what SEIU unionized walmart also and friday evening on the news they said that walmart is going to start selling ( caskets ) this sounds like obama and SEIU are cooking something up i checked it out and it's true walmart does have a site online where you can order (CASKETS) this just sounds kinda freeky to me
[...] Excerpt from: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … [...]
Article 02 – The federalist is pessimistic and a realist (NOTE: Human Nature)
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”
— Voltarine de Cleyre
From our initial discussion on the equality of mankind and the associated fact that all men do not live equally due to their own “God given gift” of freewill comes the discussion around what constitutes human nature within this context of “freewill”. In short, what are the factors that make mankind “work” and express themselves within nature as a whole and how does this fit into the context of good/right and bad/wrong? But what is right and wrong? How can we define what is right and what is wrong if we do not first understand how we can determine the line that defines that separation? This concept of a line that defines this separation and the associated decision as to what is considered to be “right” and what is considered to be “wrong” is what we will call the “line of separation”. Through our works, as founding fathers, it became apparent that this “line of separation” was something that could fluctuate between individuals, cultures and governments, and this is the tool in which most of modern man to date has used to manage and manipulate individuals, groups and the masses. There are two general perceptual understandings that we determined were the key to setting up the governing functions for the United States of America. The key was the desire and need to separate, what we called at that time, the “church” and the “state”. Thus, we were able to identify and understand that we had the right as “free men” to determine where that line of separation would fall on those that were to be governed, but more importantly it was not the state’s or federal’s responsibility to determine where that “line of separation” would fall within the lives and struggles of every day men and women within the context of spiritual matters and personal struggles. This understanding of our general concept for these causes, we purposefully implemented a system of government that first protected the individual from possible laws that could be determined to be “wrong” at a personal level and we decided to leave the “bad” decisions of the spirit and heart to those that controlled the spiritual house also known as the “church”.
But we now live in a day that most people do not believe in “right” and “wrong” and most of the population does not attend church on a regular basis. Thus they will discount my words as “old fashion” or “not in the times”, but there is much to learn from the old ways since, for the most part, these old ways is what was necessary to keep general populations alive and in some semblance of working order over the past several thousand years. Was there abuse of these concepts? Yes of course, but we must not forget that the amount of abuse did not overpower the cohesiveness of these ideas that were exercised during the troubling times of the societies of the past. Or in short, in less educated times it was much easier to communicate in terms of what was considered “good/right” and what was considered “bad/wrong” for a group or society. But the more interesting question is this, “What influences, factors or natures, of mankind, will deliver right or wrong decisions?” And the question we attempted to solve was this, “Can these influences, factors and nature, of mankind, be guided properly to maximize freedom and minimize suffering?” Thus, it is again our position, as it was some 250 years ago, that man is capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice if we could properly separate the general concepts of right and wrong decisions such that no one group or individual could oppress another group or individual. This article will demonstrate that this is possible with an applied pessimistic or realistic view of human nature within the context of governance. More specifically, our views, as the founding fathers, mostly aligned with the balancing philosophy of materialism vs. idealism from St. Thomas Aquinas resulting in a moral realism or moral objectivism standpoint that explicitly expresses itself in the Declaration of Independence and the current Constitution of the United States of America.
Within this context of determining what it means to govern within the context of human nature, we must turn to matters of what it means for mankind to be in the possession of something of value. This concept of possession of value specifically can be split into two areas; possession of spiritual abilities and possession of material objects or functional knowledge. Our efforts as founding fathers specifically called out the need to define the rights we possess around our private property or material/knowledge possessions (intellectual knowledge, learned abilities and physical possessions) in which any human might obtain, while it was determined to be self evident that the spiritual world belonged to the “church” as we understood. This article is not intended to dwell on the matters of the spirit but the necessary understanding to define how a group of people should be properly governed; such that this article will only focus on the matters we have called “Private Property”. Why is this important to note? It is critical to note since we must focus our discussion around human nature to those things that are most appropriate within the context of exchange, which then can be potentially open to be regulated by the state. We also must understand that this topic of private property has been defined within other texts and has been debated throughout the ages so that this article is not intended to debate the details or the concerns about private property but to articulate our original intent and convince you that a new Constitutional Convention is needed to further shore up these concepts to protect our freedoms today and for the generations to come.
So as one of our first principles of human nature it has been observed, that, in proportion to the firmness/solidness or precariousness/doubt of the length of time or tenure by which an individual holds private property (knowledge, ability or objects) will an individual invest effort to keep it. Additionally, for positions of governance, an individual will be less attached to what they hold when they hold a momentary or uncertain title or position, than to what they might enjoy by a durable or certain title or position; and, of course, they will be willing to risk more for the sake of the latter, than for the sake of the former. This remark is not less applicable to a political privilege, or honor, or trust, than to any article of ordinary property. The inference from this concept is, that a man or woman that is acting in the capacity of chief magistrate or statesman, whom has an understanding that in a very short time they must lay down their office, they will be apt to feel themselves less attached to the office and thus less likely to risk any material advantage or perplexity, from an effort to exert their powers independently, or from encountering the ill-humors, however transient, which may happen to prevail within their heart, either in a considerable part of the society itself, or even in a predominant faction in the legislative body. If the case should be, that they might have to lay their position of powers down, unless continued by a new choice, and if they should be encouraged to continue with their powers, their wishes, conspiring with their fears, would tend still more powerfully to corrupt their integrity, or debase their fortitude or honesty, thus leading them to most likely choose to continue their office. Thus, within today’s world we have known this concept to be “power begets power”, but we can better formulate this construct within the context of human nature as such, “Any rational individual that finds themselves in a position of power will more freely relinquish their powers if they are expected to do so; where given the opportunity, if one exists, as well as if encouraged by their factions to remain, they will justify the need to remain in power.” In short, the taste of power sweetens the desire to remain in power.
Thus we can further this conversation to say that when an individual obtains “power” through an office or political effort, whether it be through force or democratic institutions, the longer the individual remains in power the more like “property” will the office containing the power be perceived by the holder. Such that this leads to our second principle, “The longer a position of power is held by an individual the more will the holder perceive it as “property” and thus will their desire to continue to hold the power will remain and the further “justification” will permeate in their minds that they are the “rightful” owners of the position of power they hold.” In short, the duration of power inversely relates to their willingness to risk their personal security/property to remain in power. Thus, we have seen this time after time through history as shown by the evolution of the Caesars in Roman times as well as the evolution of the Kings/Queens in the middle ages. There is no royal blood, these men and women are human as is any other human has lived on this planet, but their factions, in which they had been born, after holding power for decades or centuries, continued the tradition of holding that power through the concepts of a Caesar and King/Queen and their associated hold on force to maintain their positions. Thus, we must pose this as the nature of mankind and the risks this imposes on properly forming governance that has the goal to ensure suffering is minimized within the population.
“I am sure there was no man born marked of God above another for none comes into the world with a saddle upon his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him.”
— Richard Rumbold before being hanged for planning an insurrection against the tyrant Charles II, 1679
Such that, we must ask the question, “What is power?” and why is “power” an important concept. “Power” from a political perspective, is the ability to govern mankind within the context of a nation such that rules or guidelines of human behavior are created and enforced . Those that create these rules or enforce these rules would be considered to be in positions of “power”. As we have mentioned in previous discussions outlined in the Federalist Papers this power is delivered at the hands of those that might govern through the use of favors or advantages (influence and taxation) as well as through the use of force (legal means and police). We have also noticed that those that have wielded “power” over those they govern indirectly hold the “perception of safety” through the means of how they govern. This perception of safety can be influenced by threatening the ability of an individual to provide for themselves or their family, or more importantly they can ultimately threaten those they govern with their life. So we come to another principle, “Those who have political power will by definition have power over the subsistence, or the means of providing, of those they govern. And in the general course of human nature, a power over an individual's subsistence amounts to a power over their ability to express their freewill. ” In short, political power is the lock on the “line of separation” for what is acceptable or not acceptable, impacting an individual’s key to freedom and ability to live within their own chosen decisions that are guided by their own “freewill”.
“Intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
— Daniel Webster
Thus, as we have stated before, it is a known fact, in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. So that any political position that is held for any length of time, by definition holds power over an individual subsistence such that they can control an individual’s freewill to their desires or their faction’s desires; where the longer the individual holds that position of power the more likely they will be willing to risk much to keep it; resulting in their need to make efforts to increase their hold on an individual’s subsistence if so doing will further increase their chances of continuing their hold on power. This tendency to use the leverage of a position of power to further influence an individual’s decision, of those they govern, to keep themselves in power by threatening those they govern through their ability to sustain their lifestyle or subsistence is what we have defined, as founding fathers, as an “abuse” of power, that unchecked will eventually, in the end, lead to tyranny. Thus we come to our fourth principle, “Any power that can be abused will be abused and will always expand to fill the limits of the resistance to the abuse. If the people being abused don't resist the abuses of those that govern them, there will be no one to resist the abuses they will inflict once they are governing, such that tyranny, in the end, must prevail. ” As history has shown, governments that are set up to govern men in such a manner that special interests, groups and factions determine their own “line of separation” in such a fashion that parts of the society suffer, will find the tables have turned where that group that suffered will justify the need to inflict the same amount of power and suffering, or more, onto those whom they suffered under. This escalating cycle, in the end must and will result in a government managed by tyrants.
“… a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis
Finally, it is clear that our efforts, as founding fathers, were to somehow short circuit this curious governing behavior that has plagued mankind throughout the ages. We believe in the early days of our nation we did capture this intent and men/women of the United States of America were the truly freest mankind has been as a society while we have existed on the face of this planet. But those times have faded as those of us, founding fathers, have passed away and left the reins to those that followed us. These principles of power, as we have defined here and in our other works, are relentless in their pursuit to evolve and in the end we knew that mankind would eventually find the cracks in the armor such that they would once again take a people and guide them to be slaves of the state. So comes our last and most pivotal of all principles, “For a government to ensure that all of the individuals in which they govern are not lead to suffer through unfair and unjust laws defining the line of separation of right and wrong which could bring an advantage to those whom govern, the government must be constructed on a foundation around what they can do on the behalf of the people as well as clear rules around what they CANNOT do to those they govern, with the correct mechanisms in place to ensure and guarantee that men/women that do gain and decide to wield their power with abandon are quickly removed.”
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Principles of Political Power
#1 – Hold on Political Power is Relative
Any rational individual that finds themselves in a position of power will more freely relinquish their powers if they are expected to do so; where given the opportunity, if one exists, as well as if encouraged by their factions to remain, they will justify the need to remain in power.
#2 – Relative Political Power is based on Length of Time
The longer a position of power is held by an individual the more will the holder perceive it as “property” and thus will their desire to continue to hold the power will remain and the further “justification” will permeate in their minds that they are the “rightful” owners of the position of power they hold.
#3 – Political Power directly impacts Freewill
“Those who have political power will by definition have power over the subsistence, or the means of providing, of those they govern. And in the general course of human nature, a power over an individual's subsistence amounts to a power over their ability to express their freewill.
#4 – Political Power, unchecked, will lead to Tyranny
Any power that can be abused will be abused and will always expands to fill the limits of the resistance to the abuse. If the people being abused don't resist the abuses of those that govern them, there will be no one to resist the abuses they will inflict once they are governing, such that tyranny, in the end, must prevail.
#5 – Governance Can be Crafted to Guarantee Tyrants do not Evolve
For a government to ensure that all of the individuals in which they govern are not lead to suffer through unfair and unjust laws defining the line of separation of right and wrong which could bring an advantage to those whom govern, the government must be constructed on a foundation around what they can do on the behalf of the people as well as clear rules around what they CANNOT do to those they govern, with the correct mechanisms in place to ensure and guarantee that men/women that do gain and decide to wield their power with abandon are quickly removed.
"… freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, …"
— John Locke, Second Treatise, Ch. 4 § 21
– Publius
[...] Read the original here: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … [...]
Damn I hate raining on the parade BUT ….. This debacle WILL be "free" for a large segment of the urban population. All those truly honorable welfare sucking urban dwellers and other similarly aligned groups of non-producers will receive this for free. Mo' Money ! Gimmmeee Gimmeee ! Disgusting people….
I read it…..outstanding. And precise in its reffered points. It's long but worth every minute or a Conervatives time. Excellent and thank you…
I would like to know what planet that say 22% "Their Costs Would Get Better", do these people have a brain or kool-aid between there ears.
"Greed"?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CH...
When you have all these people saying it won't work, don't you think it might be prudent to take a few weeks to go through it line by line to see the true cost?
Not for KING OBAMA (he's not president anymore since he doesn't reconigze the constitution), it's PEDAL TO THE METAL!!!! Ram it through, let nobody read it! Cause if they read it and know what is in it, the public outrage would be epic.
This isn't about health care. This is about government power.
And what if they get it wrong? This is a door that only goes one way. Once we go in, we can't go out.
"Our analysis also indicates that families with income equal to 400 percent of the FPL would probably receive some subsidy because the expected family premiums in 2016 would exceed 13.9 percent of their income (about
$96,000 in 2016)."
So this plan will make insurance costs rise faster than they are now, pushing people over the subsidy threshold.
Effin' brilliant. Who knew that congressman could also underwrite insurance premiums?
The same people who thought that a man who did nothing but vote, be a part of the most corrupt political machine and "community organize" could run two car companies, all the banks, insurance companies and determine what is a 'suitable' news outlet?
"At the same time, premiums in the new insurance exchanges would
tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law
individual market—again with other factors held equal—because the
new policies would have to cover preexisting medical conditions and
could not deny coverage to people with high expected costs for
health care. (CBO has not analyzed the magnitude of that effect.) …"
"… People with low expected costs for health
care, however, would generally pay higher premiums (all else being
equal)."
Geniuses!
Liberal Wishful Thinkers – Meet Cold Hard Reality.
I hear ya buddy. We desperately need people who are more grounded in reality.
Liberals are about 20% of the population, then you have blacks. They will always stand behind this admin.
[...] post: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums [...]
Just wait until the new Health Choices Commissioner gets to wield his new power. We will not have private insurance, since this this is the true objective of PelosiCare:
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/the-pelosicare-heal...
I think Publius is subtly trying to remind us that government run healthcare IS NOT about healthcare. It is about making everyone in the country dependent on the tyrannical regime and thus, expanding / extending the tyrants power. No doubt they will kill grandma and each of us when our time comes (as defined in page 342,965 of the latest secret bill)… but the real tragedy in all of this is the end of our republic.
[...] ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away [...]
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 11/1/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Dennis Prager has a saying. "being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry, never having to say you're wrong and never having to face your faults."
Medicare D is an example of why Republicans are having trouble raising money from their conservative base. Nothing conservative about it. Republican governing as a sort of "progressive lite" just gathers scorn from both sides and pleases no one. Conservative attempts at reform will have to wait until this nightmare passes. I do agree that Republicans blew it…just don't call it conservatism.
“… a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis
This is such a great explanation of the American Left. Thank you.
Why have insurance premiums doubled? Is it because of fraud, mismanagement, or "excessive profit" in the private sector? Or is it because we have a health care coverage system which has assumed liability for the costs of the rising portion of our population which incurs the greatest expense? And we then fail to pay the actual expense of treating those patients, forcing the private sector to supplement those costs, in addition to the increase in costs for the private sector patients.
Wages have stagnated? Why is that? Could it be because we have flooded the labor market with people who have no right to be in this country, let alone work here? Or is it because of the impact of a union-based labor market which denies business flexibility, and encourages them to locate jobs elsewhere?
Conservatives never had the majorities these socialists have. Even so, some Democrats recognize the ruin that the President, Pelosi and Reid would wreak upon this country. May they stand strong until reinforcements arrive!
The recent claim that only 2% would sign up for the public option is a red herring. If public option exists, it becomes the plaything of tyrants and will eat the entire system. The morph of a stump of a program into Leviathan will be done for our own good, in good faith and with 'scientific, economic proof' that these steps are necessary. If public option is in the bill….IT LIVES!!
And what is the exit strategy if it doesn't work out? Funny how you criticize Medicare part D without acknowledging that it was bi-partisan, and criticized on the left for not going far enough. It is also the one program which has cost less than projections, because it uses private market forces.
And I would be cautious of criticizing Terry's Law. Progressives may be in danger if the lives of the brain-dead can be easily terminated.
Ummm, Pickels. I think the President prefers that you say "Just have grandma take a pill." "[K]ill grandma" sounds so, well……true.
[...] ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away Posted at November 1, 2009 ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums Soaring Up, Up, and Away [...]
The one thing I keep going back to in my mind is that despite all the studies done by those in the business and by independents that state otherwise, the supporters of the public option talk as if it would somehow deliver health care paid for by someone else. I truly believe that if a person supports the public option in hopes of free health care they assume an immoral position. It is support of theft, clear and simple. A classic case of the mob voting themselves money.
True, it will be free for the leeches for a little while. When the money runs out the only ones receiving "free" health care will be the dictator and his cronies.
OK. Who has the best healthcare? Don't use the bullsh!t statistics that you get from DailyKOS though. Tell you what, when you need the best surgeon in the world, where do YOU look? Why don't you go to those wonderful countries with, in your opinion, the best health care in the world the next time you need an organ transplant or cancer treatment.
Good luck with that.
God, you need to go back to your progressive websites apparently. When Democrats were in power from 2006 till Obama, what did they do? When Democrats were in charge for 40 years before the Republicans took over in 1996, what did they do?
Stop playing the stupid blame the Republican game. Neither party did a damned thing for healthcare. Define the healthcare problems and fix them one at a time. Don't scrap a system that works for most of us.
I think Walmart has been selling caskets for quite a while now. I don't have a problem with it because they cost a hell of a lot less than buying them at a funeral parlor.
SEIU is organized crime and Walmart wants to be in with them so when the entire country is unionized, Walmart will have been in the family since the beginning and will be able to quash any small businesses that try to compete with them.
[...] Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … [...]
[...] posted here: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums [...]
[...] [...]
[...] Director Douglas Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Baucus, P. 6, 9/22/09) … See the rest here:Â Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums [...]
America needs to realize that the health-care take over is just the beginning. They are already plotting to take other rights and freedoms away from us under the veil of hope and change. Amnesty is next on Obama's agenda. With the stroke of his pen he will legallize millions of illegal aliens (giving them the right to vote for him I'm sure) making them elligible for welfare benefits for them and thier children. It's coming America unless you make your voice heard and contact your reps telling them how you feel about these issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLXDApQ9bs4&feature=player_embedded WalMart is here along with SEIU to save you some money
[...] [...]
[...] the original: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … Share and [...]
[...] has a big bag o’links from all sorts of sources (including the CBO and HHS) confirming that premiums will be going up rather than down. And here’s Joe Lieberman from Sunday saying the same [...]
think Publius is subtly trying to manipulate us by feeding us supposed independent "polls" that are actually written and conducted by a Public Relations firm hired by a consortium of 15 for-profit health companies who are interested in maximizing their profit, and therefore have an agenda that runs counter to the average american consumer (you and i)
[...] More: Big Government » Blog Archive » ObamaCare: Insurance Premiums … [...]