Every claim made to push Obamacare has been false

• Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.

That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion. …

• Smaller deficits. Increases in the estimated impact of the law on private insurance premiums, along with increases in the estimated cost of health care more generally, have led the Congressional Budget Office to increase its estimate of the budget cost of the law’s coverage expansion. In 2010, CBO estimated the cost per year of expanding coverage at $154 billion; by 2012, the estimated cost grew to $186 billion. Yet CBO still scores the law as reducing the deficit.

How can this be? The positive budget score turns on the fact that the estimated revenues to pay for the law have risen along with its costs. The single largest source of these revenues? Money taken from Medicare in the form of lower Medicare payment rates, mostly in the law’s out-years. Since the law’s passage, however, Congress and the president have undone various scheduled Medicare cuts—including some prescribed by the law itself. ….

• Preservation of existing insurance. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, “If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance.” This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.

This claim is obviously false. Indeed, disruption of people’s existing insurance is one of the law’s stated goals. On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is “essential,” whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the “Cadillac tax” on costly insurance plans.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • ZwilD1

    What’s anybody going to do about it ? Nothing period. They are going to sit watch football and talk about danceing with the stars or maybe belly ache to the tv.

  • schreib

    When will the Senate majority and this “president” finally admit that Obamacare is a wallking total clusterf##k?

  • Lianne

    Obamacare and Minnesota snowbird tax. What a great country we live in.

    • whowon

      sarcasm I assume?

      • Lianne

        Remember what happens when one assumes, but in this case you are safe. Yes, it was heaped with sarcasm. That is about all I can muster these days.

  • whowon

    I am contacting the legislature, too late for so much of the mess. MANY of the fools who voted for O twice are saying “WHAT?” Right kids, you didn’t listen and now the IRS says family of 4 will pay $20,000 a year. This is on the fools who voted for him. Own it.

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    This is all by design; what better way to “cull the herd” at the lowest cost?

  • sbark

    Hey Pelosi and the Dem’cats !!!………..it finally got read 3 yrs later, and we are finding out what is in it………..
    The Only people who can afford ObamaCare……..and those on welfare already

    It could well be…….there wiill be more middle class bankruptcies just due to ObamaCare premiums that before………and the care will have to rationed on top of it yet

  • cylde

    This was intentional to create a demand for relief which will be in the form of a total take over of health care insurance or the end game of completely nationalized health care. It will be sold as free health care for everyone. Many believe that there really are free lunches (food stamps), free housing ( the projects), and free health care and with good reason. They have never paid for any of those things in their entire life with money that they earned them selves.