Posts Tagged ‘ ObamaCare ’

"Desperate to shore up lagging enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges (and also no doubt desperate to counter the movement, led by Campaign for Liberty activists, to get state governments to opt-out of ObamaCare’s exchanges and Medicaid expansion) the Department of Health and Human Services has signed a multi-million dollar contract with PR firm Weber Shandwick to promote the exchanges." (05/01/13)

"The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance plans to spend at least 85 percent of their premium income on medical care and no more than 20 percent on 'administrative costs' -- the portion of insurance premiums that are not spent on medical care. Here's one immediate problem: no one knows how to define 'administration.'" (04/15/13)

"The Affordable Care Act is expected to add up to 16 million more Medicaid enrollees and will significantly expand eligibility for families with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Initially, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of the newly eligible, newly enrolled populations and 95 percent of costs through 2019. However, hidden costs will strain state budgets, and states will still find their share unaffordable." (04/10/11)

"Obamacare was ill-conceived from the start, and couldn't 'work' because its foundation is coercion rather than free, voluntary choice. Repealing Obamacare, and getting the federal government out of medical care completely, is the only MORAL course." (04/08/13)

"Senior citizens are major losers in health reform. More than half the cost of the reform will be paid for by $523 billion of cuts in Medicare spending over the next ten years. Although there are some new benefits for seniors (mainly new drug coverage), the costs exceed the benefits by a factor of more than ten to one." (04/08/13)

"The problem with managed competition under the Affordable Care Act is that the pressures to act on the incentives will be much more intense. In the health insurance exchanges, health plans will be forced to charge the same premium, regardless of health status, and potential enrollees will be able to easily compare premiums. In this way, the insurers will be forced to aggressively compete on price." (03/25/13)

"Quite apart from the perverse economic incentives the subsidies of the Affordable Care Act create, the subsidies are completely arbitrary and unfair. For example, a $31,200-a-year family (about 133 percent of poverty) getting health insurance at work gets less than one-fourth as much help from the government, compared to a family making nearly three times that much income and getting insurance in the exchange." (03/18/13)

"The Affordable Care Act offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance—at work, through an exchange, or through Medicaid. These subsidies are arbitrary, unfair, and even regressive. Along with the accompanying mandates, they will cause millions of employees to lose their employer plans and maybe their jobs as well." (03/13/13)

"The new healthcare law creates subsidies for employer-provided insurance for retirees, but these new subsidies phase out in 2014. Moreover, the subsidies go not to individuals but to employers. Indeed, one of the ironies of the new health law is that the first subsidies are going not to low-income, uninsured families, but to General Motors, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Alcoa, Intel, Pfizer, and other large companies." (02/27/13)

"In almost every case under the Affordable Care Act, married couples will fare poorly compared to unmarried couples. The reason: subsidies in the newly created health insurance exchange will treat two singles better than a married couple." (02/20/13)

"In the last few days, there have been two ominous signs about our future under ObamaCare. Both suggest the term 'ObamaCare' is more accurate than the more-often used term 'Affordable Care Act,' because both suggest that the term 'affordable' is strongly out of place." (02/01/13)

"John Goodman posted yesterday on another post by law professor Jill Horwitz and economics professor Helen Levy. In their post, Professors Horwitz and Levy defend Obamacare from various criticisms. I won't bother repeating John Goodman's arguments. Rather, what I note is that their criticism repeats two common misunderstandings about insurance." (06/05/12)

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' has undergone oral arguments before the Supreme Court, and its constitutionality is now being pondered by the nine justices. The court’s decision is due out sometime in June. While the 2010 health-care law is atrocious public policy and clearly an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government, there is no guarantee the court will overturn it." (04/20/12)

"Obamacare had a bad couple of days before the Supreme Court -- so bad that President Obama made some ill-considered comments about the Court from which he still hasn't totally backpedaled. Though the oral arguments over the individual mandate and severability were encouraging, we cannot count on the Supremes to kill Obamacare. Opponents must keep fighting it on all fronts. The most important front right now is to ensure that states do not create the health-insurance exchanges Obamacare needs in order to operate." (04/12/12)

Cartoon. (04/06/12)

"Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the administration's health law, aka ObamaCare. Opponents are giddy with the possibility that the law might be struck down. But what then?" (04/03/12)

"Those of us who have been challenging the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate have been serious the whole time. We thought we had put to rest the slurs about our cases being frivolous or political sour grapes when multiple federal judges denied the government’s motions to dismiss them. Or when those same judges struck down the individual mandate. Or when an appellate court, including a judge appointed by President Clinton, affirmed one of those rulings." (04/02/12)