Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law

[red states rule]

Are you one of the 7 million people that will lose their coverage?

If you are I feel very sorry for you and I hope you voted for Obama last November






President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.


CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.


But the non-partisan agency also expects fewer people to have to pay individual penalties to the IRS than it earlier projects, because of a better method for calculating incomes that found more people will be exempt.


Overall, the new health provisions are expected to cost the government $1.165 trillion over the next decade — the same as last year's projection.


With other spending cuts and tax increases called for in the health law, though, CBO still says Mr. Obama's signature achievement will reduce budget deficits in the short term.


During the health care debate Mr. Obama had said individuals would be able to keep their plans.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/#ixzz2KT21z9O5
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)



and the cost continues to edge upward


Obama health law will cost $1.3T, CBO says

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/281213-cbo-says-obama-health-law-will-cost-13t#ixzz2KT2YmuPu
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill) | TheHill on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill)


and check out how much time we will spend complying with Obamacare

Obamacare red tape burden: 127,602,371 hours yearly

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-red-tape-burden-127602371-hours-yearly/article/2520712

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you one of the 7 million people that will lose their coverage?

If you are I feel very sorry for you and I hope you voted for Obama last November

If they are black and are one of the 7 million people losing their coverage you can bet your last dollar that they voted for obama. That "messiah" just keeps on giving, eh??

[red states rule]

I have to laugh at libs who actually thought the government could do heath care cheaper and more efficient then the private sector; that Obamacare would actually lower their cost of insurance; and that they would be able to keep their current coverage and Doctor

Oh well, the idiots who voted for Obama deserve everything they are about to get

[Robert A Whit]

I caught Larry Kudlow on my local radio and an expert informed his audience that Obama care will result in the typical family of 3 to pay $20,000 per year for plain health care.

I am lucky to be on medicare.

For now.

[logroller]

I've never thought businesses should provide insurance at all. Makes about as much sense as paying employees with coupons and gift cards. No really, money's fine! :2up:

[red states rule]

I've never thought businesses should provide insurance at all. Makes about as much sense as paying employees with coupons and gift cards. No really, money's fine! :2up:

LR you are missing the point of the thread.

As always with do gooder libs when they interfere with the private sector, the very people they claim they will help end up getting screwed

Here the facts of Obamacare

1) Employers have ran the numbers and are electing to pay the fine (or fee) for not providing coverage for the their employees

2) Or employers are cutting the hours their full time workers work to below 30 hours to avoid Obamacare

3) In both cases, the employee MUST go out and BUY coverage on their own or they will be fined

I wonder how many of these people who are being screwed over by Obamacare voted for Obama thinking they were going to get "free" health= ins courtesy of Obama Claus. Instead they have their work hours reduced by 25% and have to fork out their own money for coverage

BTW I have a thread on this and the IRS says the CHEAPEST plan for a family of 4 is $20,000.yr

As Pelosi said they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it

[taft2012]

I've always wondered why so many people who do not have employer-based health insurance, opted to pay for these expensive policies themselves? Why not go for the catastrophic-only coverage, which would cover hospital emergencies and surgeries?

A normal family of four... they might have a doctor's office visit once or twice a year. It's probably safe to say that would translate to a maximum of 8 visits a year. If an office visit costs $100, that's $800 a year maximum. So why lay out the $20K?

If my employer had allowed me the option of a catastrophic only policy, and pocketing a percentage of the difference between it and the whole health insurance policy, I would have taken that option. Or the option to put the difference into a medical savings account IRA or something.

Of course, Obamacare does not allow those catastrophic only policies to count as an exemption to the health insurance mandate. So that option is off the table permanently.

[red states rule]

I've always wondered why so many people who do not have employer-based health insurance, opted to pay for these expensive policies themselves? Why not go for the catastrophic-only coverage, which would cover hospital emergencies and surgeries?

A normal family of four... they might have a doctor's office visit once or twice a year. It's probably safe to say that would translate to a maximum of 8 visits a year. If an office visit costs $100, that's $800 a year maximum. So why lay out the $20K?

If my employer had allowed me the option of a catastrophic only policy, and pocketing a percentage of the difference between it and the whole health insurance policy, I would have taken that option. Or the option to put the difference into a medical savings account IRA or something.

Of course, Obamacare does not allow those catastrophic only policies to count as an exemption to the health insurance mandate. So that option is off the table permanently.

I am glad I took all the extras at work Taft. I took the medical plan, and LTD. (short term was a perk form my employer)

Then I had to get treatment for Stage 3 colon cancer and the insurance company paid every claim without bitching. The LTD ins company was great and they paid the claim on time without dragging me through a mountain of paperwork

When it comes to ins Taft I would rather have it and not need it

Then need it and not have it

[taft2012]

I am glad I took all the extras at work Taft. I took the medical plan, and LTD. (short term was a perk form my employer)

Then I had to get treatment for Stage 3 colon cancer and the insurance company paid every claim without bitching. The LTD ins company was great and they paid the claim on time without dragging me through a mountain of paperwork

When it comes to ins Taft I would rather have it and not need it

Then need it and not have it

I understand that, but wouldn't a catastrophic policy cover that anyway, at about 1/10 the price?

Unrelated anecdote.

I was getting a car insurance quote from Liberty Mutual. With a $500 deductible on the collision the quote was $1200. I asked what it would be with a $200 deductible, and was quoted a price of $1500.

I said "That can't be right."

I was told, "That's the price."

I said "Does that make *ANY* sense to you?"

I was told, "Yes."

I said "The idea of paying a $300 insurance premium on the chance you might collect $300 worth of insurance payment makes sense to you?"

I think because a lot of people don't look closely at insurance premiums, the insurance companies think they can get away with anything. That's probably even more true when people aren't paying for the insurance themselves in the first place, as with health insurance.

[logroller]

LR you are missing the point of the thread.

As always with do gooder libs when they interfere with the private sector, the very people they claim they will help end up getting screwed

Here the facts of Obamacare

1) Employers have ran the numbers and are electing to pay the fine (or fee) for not providing coverage for the their employees

2) Or employers are cutting the hours their full time workers work to below 30 hours to avoid Obamacare

3) In both cases, the employee MUST go out and BUY coverage on their own or they will be fined

I wonder how many of these people who are being screwed over by Obamacare voted for Obama thinking they were going to get "free" health= ins courtesy of Obama Claus. Instead they have their work hours reduced by 25% and have to fork out their own money for coverage

BTW I have a thread on this and the IRS says the CHEAPEST plan for a family of 4 is $20,000.yr

As Pelosi said they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it
The point, as you say, is that people want to point fingers; I think it a pointless exercise. If you believe that people should not be required to have health coverage, fair enough; but to debate the brass tacks of a bill you disagree with wholly is like debating what size bandage to apply to a diseased limb you believe should be amputated. My point, in case you missed it, was that an individual health insurance mandate should be the responsibility of the individual, not their employer. It undermines personal responsibility and restricts the freedom of employment.

[red states rule]

The point, as you say, is that people want to point fingers; I think it a pointless exercise. If you believe that people should not be required to have health coverage, fair enough; but to debate the brass tacks of a bill you disagree with wholly is like debating what size bandage to apply to a diseased limb you believe should be amputated. My point, in case you missed it, was that an individual health insurance mandate should be the responsibility of the individual, not their employer. It undermines personal responsibility and restricts the freedom of employment.

So it is "pointing fingers" to show the actual results of Obamacare and how it harms the very people we were told it was going to help? Of course, those opposed to government run healthcare said this is would what happened - but were ignored and savaged by the liberal media

I am sure that after having their work hours reduced or laid off form their job - those folks will gladly comply with Obamacare and purchase their own policy - or pay the fine - or have their tax refund check withheld to pay the fine.

Obama will need that money as Obamacare will also explode the debt in years to come

BTW I believe employers started offering health ins as a benefit to attract good workers after the government placed a wage and price freeze in the 1950's

[red states rule]

and the news keeps getting worse as more is learned about Obamacare

and the solutions offered up by liberals




Doctors and health policy analysts have been screaming the same three-part message since 2009: 1) ObamaCare hurts (not protects) patients; 2) is impossibly expensive (not affordable); and 3) expanding health insurance will not expand care, quite the opposite.



Apparently, lawmakers in California now recognize ObamaCare for what it is: a shell game with no pea. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obamacare_a_shell_game_with_no_pea.html) State Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), chairman of the California Health Committee recently exclaimed, "What good is it if they [people] are going to have a health insurance card but no access to doctors?"

(http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story)

There was a doctor shortage (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/who_will_provide_my_health_care.html) before ObamaCare but the President's signature bill and grand theft will exacerbate the shortage. It is a "grand theft" because to pay for his >$1 trillion expansion of bureaucracy, Obama will take money from patient care services: $716 billion from Medicare. As Robert Moffit, PhD (Heritage Foundation) testified before Congress, "You cannot get more of something [viz., doctor care] by paying less for it."



To solve this ObamaCare-created problem -- more insured patients and even fewer doctors -- California will make things worse. It plans to allow less, probably inadequately qualified individuals to practice medicine. To cope with the ObamaCare-induced lack of access to care, California (and other States) must increase medical risks to patients.
It will also escalate financial "risk." Costs will go up, not down. Less qualified and certainly less experienced care providers will order more tests, prescribe unnecessary medications or procedures, and make more mistakes.



ObamaCare: puts patients at risk; is not affordable; and reduces care. Might the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148, ObamaCare) be the most disingenuously titled Law of all time?



Deane Waldman, MD MBA, gave up practicing clinical medicine after the 2012 election saying, "I cannot practice ethical medicine under ObamaCare." He is the author of "Uproot US Healthcare" and "Not Right! - Conversations with We The Patients" (May 2013) as well as Adjunct Scholar for the Rio Grande Foundation in New Mexico.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/obamacare_shell_game_now_apparent.html#ixzz2KdbNZq Bc
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca021413dBP20130212114620.jpg