Do you remember back in March 2010 when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy”? And Pelosi told an audience of Planned Parenthood workers, college students, parents, and children, that she is “very proud” of ObamaCare (1:35 mark). She also, despite over 60 percent of the US population being against ObamaCare, said, “the politics be damned.”
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as ObamaCare, to quote John Hayward in a Human Events article, is, “The greatest legislative disaster of the new millennium, ObamaCare, just keeps getting worse.” When campaigning in 2008, Obama promised a drop in family health insurance premiums by $2500 annually. But what has actually happened is that the premium amount rose by $3000 since Obama took office. Further, premium amounts have risen more rapidly during the Obama administration than they did during the last four years of the Bush administration. But higher healthcare premiums must be acceptable since Pelosi is “very proud” of ObamaCare. And, in an interview in March 2010, with Brett Baier, Obama said, “What the American people care about is the fact that their premiums are going up 25, 40, 60 percent, and I’m going to do something about it.”
And ObamaCare just keeps on giving. “Hospitals who re-admit patients within 30 days after they were discharged will now have to, under an ObamaCare provision, pay fines as of October 1, 2012,….” The little-known provision was put into ObamaCare in order to cut costs, but the result is that many hospitals will now provide substandard care for the poor, the elderly, and the chronically ill. Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who studies hospital readmissions, says, “Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates. So, which would we rather have, a hospital readmission or a death?”
Here is another ObamaCare gift. Darden Restaurants owns Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Darden announced on October 9, 2012, that it is reducing full-time employees in favor of more part-time employees. The employee shift is being tested in four markets to see how well it works. Why? Darden is trying to see if the employee shift works when ObamaCare starts in 2014, when ObamaCare requires that companies provide healthcare to full-time employees. Other industries, such as low profit margin retail, cleaning, and hospitality services, are expected to follow Darden. So, criticise Darden if you want to, but the fact still remains that economic adjustments are being made. Besides, better to have corporations stay in business, providing any jobs, than go out of business, therefore providing no jobs of any kind, by having their costs increase through no action of there own. And Darden Restaurants isn’t the only company experimenting.
All you Democrats/liberals/progressives will say that corporations are greedy, that they already make too much profit and money. But there are (at least) three things wrong with that argument. First, corporations, by being profitable, provide jobs, something Obama has been unable to do. They may not be the jobs you Democrats/liberals/progressives want, but at least they are jobs. Plus, y’all are free to create all the jobs y’all want. Second, corporations are people. In August 2011, Mitt Romney said that. When challenged, he said, “Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” Third, the people (stockholders) are the ones spurring on corporations to be “greedy,” to earn higher profits, and to pay higher investment returns. I’ll wager that even Democrats/liberals/progressives fall into the stockholder category. But I digress, this article is about ObamaCare.
Obama, in 2008, said, “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, your taxes will not go up.” While The Washington Post‘s fact-checker gave the statement only one Pinocchio, the source says, “Obama claims the mandate is not a tax, even though the government argued it was a tax before the Supreme Court during arguments on whether the law is constitutional.” So, is ObamaCare a tax or not? Well, the Supreme Court said it is a tax.
So, taking the word of the Supreme Court, let’s see just who will pay the ObamaCare tax (Individual Mandate Penalties Under the Affordable Care Act). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) offers a table (page 3), based on the 2016 estimate of what the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) of $24,600 for a family of four will be, that illustrates that anyone making $123,000 (500 percent of the FPL) or less will have to pay the tax, er, penalty, er, tax. Help me here. My conservative math may be faulty. First, $123,000 is less than the $250,000 family income that Obama said was the tax increase ceiling. Second, the CBO estimates 5.9 million taxpayers is more than no families’ taxes increases. It sure seems to me that ObamaCare is levying an additional tax on families making under $250,000.
Let’s not forget that ObamaCare was supposed to save money by reducing Medicare costs by $500 billion (it turned out to be $716 billion). But, upon further examination, the $716 billion Obama shifted from Medicare to ObamaCare was not a cost reduction. Rather, it was a cost transfer that actually saved nothing. Richard Foster, Medicare actuary, said that savings, “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the [Medicare] trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.” Put simply, money shifted from Medicare to ObamaCare cannot be counted twice, once as Medicare savings, and again as ObamaCare expansion.
Obama also said ObamaCare would be deficit neutral. Even Obama dispelled that notion. In a March 17, 2010, interview on Special Report With Bret Baier, Obama typically blames others for the “doctor fix,” then blames the “fix” on why ObamaCare is not deficit neutral.
BAIER: And you call this deficit neutral, but you also set aside the doctor fix, more than $200 billion. People look at this and say, how can it be deficit neutral?
OBAMA: But the – as you well know, the doctors problem, as you mentioned, the “doctors fix,” is one that has been there four years now. That wasn’t of our making, and that has nothing to do with my health care bill.
BAIER: But you wanted to change Washington, Mr. President. And now you’re doing it the same way.
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish my – my answers here. Now, if suddenly, you’ve got, over the last decade, a problem that’s been built up. And the suggestion is somehow that, because that’s not fixed within this bill, that that’s a reason to vote against the bill, that doesn’t make any sense. That’s a problem that I inherited. That was a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. It’s a problem that needs to be solved, but it’s not created by my bill. And I don’t think you would dispute that.
The CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would eliminate a $109 billion surplus that ObamaCare creates. That is the justification that ObamaCare supporters point to in order to say it is reducing healthcare costs. The problem is that the surplus has nothing to do with healthcare costs. “The half-trillion dollars in tax hikes and half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare funding together total more than the cost of the new [ObamaCare] entitlements during the next 10 years,” thus yielding the surplus. But repeal would eliminate Medicare funds shifts, lower taxes, and greatly reduce government spending. So, the $½ trillion in tax increases and the $½ trillion in Medicare funds shift produces a “surplus.” Only with Democrats/liberals/progressives can a tax hike and a funds shift produce a surplus. The conservative mind boggles.
- A majority of US citizens were against ObamaCare, yet it was rammed down our throats, er, passed, and Pelosi was “very proud” of it.
- ObamaCare was supposed to reduce healthcare insurance premiums, but the opposite occurred.
- ObamaCare was supposed to force employers to provide healthcare, but the actual result is an employment reduction.
- Obama said that he would not increase taxes, but the ObamaCare mandate does just that.
- ObamaCare is supposed to reduce Medicare spending. It accomplishes that by increasing ObamaCare spending.
- ObamaCare was supposed to be deficit neutral, but that claim was too much for even Obama.
- ObamaCare supporters say it reduces healthcare costs by creating a surplus. The problem is that the surplus is created by a tax hike and a funds shift.
America’s healtcare system may not be perfect, but at least it was better before Obama started meddling with it, as this article illustrates.
But that’s just my opinion.Powered by Sidelines