Skip to comments.Could ObamaCare Make The Uninsured Problem Worse?
Posted on 07/25/2012 5:10:29 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
When President Obama was selling health reform, he often talked about providing universal coverage. But a Congressional Budget Office report out this week finds that goal getting more elusive. The report found that despite ObamaCares $1.2 trillion price tag, it would only cut the ranks of the uninsured in half, leaving 30 million without coverage. Thats seven million more uninsured than the CBO first projected in March 2010. [snip] But the uninsured problem under ObamaCare could be much worse than the CBO projects.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Another product of "You Got To Pass it To See What's In IT"
What a fiasco!
The article is wrong about one thing. As I understand it, insurance plans CAN charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions ... how much higher was to be determined.
Meanwhile it set out specific ratios that insurance comapanies can up-charge smokers and older persons (it did not put an age on the term ‘older person’ that I am aware).
The law is very capricious. Why only charge smokers and ‘older people” more. Why not people who do illegal drugs, or who engage in risky sex practices or who have very dangerous jobs or hobbies (for examples) ?
Rule of thumb: More government makes everything worse.
If the uninsured will have health insurance coverage under Obamacare, I wish them luck actually getting health care!
If you liked Jimmy Carter's gas lines, you're going to love Barack Hussein Obama's emergency room lines!
REF:”As a result, ObamaCare will likely cover far fewer uninsured than advertized. There's even a chance that, if all goes wrong, it could actually make the uninsured problem worse.
The individual mandate, for example, is a cornerstone of ObamaCare’s effort to expand coverage. But tax experts who've studied how the IRS will enforce the mandate conclude that it's likely to be ineffective, because the law makes it virtually impossible for the IRS to collect the tax penalty from those who don't pay it.
Under normal circumstances, the IRS has broad powers to collect taxes from those who don't pay what they owe. It can charge civil and criminal penalties, impose liens, and seize assets and bank accounts.
But ObamaCare specifically blocks the IRS from using these enforcement tools when it comes to collecting any unpaid ObamaCare tax penalties.
These restrictions “make it unlikely the IRS can effectively enforce the individual mandate,” according to a detailed analysis of the tax penalty by Jordan Barry and Bryan Camp, law professors at the University of San Diego and Texas Tech University, respectively.
“The individual mandate,” they conclude, “may not actually be mandatory after all.”
The problem is that if the mandate doesn't work, ObamaCare could make the uninsured problem worse, at least in the individual insurance market.”
What a silly question. Name one thing the government has gotten its claws into that it DIDN'T eventually 'make worse'!
IM THINKING THEY WILL GIVE THE POWERS TO THE IRS..AND WHO NEEDS MORE IRS? JUST LIKE THEIR GREEDY EYES ARE ON INTERNET SALES...THEY WILL FIND A WAY..NONE OF THEM WILL DO THE WISE THING AND STOP SPENDING..AND BELIEVE ME ..THEY ARE POURING IT DOWN A RAT HOLE AND ITS LANDING IN THEIR POCKETS.
In the "inner city", the Democrats have "block captains", who report to "precinct captains". Their official duty is to get Dem voters motivated and to the polls. One important way they do it is by solving problems for Dems in their area. They make sure that you are signed up for every social program and benefit that they can possibly get you onto, and deal with the bureaucrats for you when you have a problem.
Now extend that concept: if you need medical care and it's denied, you have to go to your Dem precinct captain. If you are a good and active Dem, then he will solve your problem. If you are NOT a good Dem (or, worse, a Republican), you will NOT get your medical care issue solved. Thus, your life, and the lives of your family, will depend on being seen as a good little Dem.
EXCERPT Obamacare calls for states to set up “marketplaces,” in which it sap-happily supposes that people with no employer-based health insurance can shop for coverage at competitive rates........these state “insurance exchanges” constitute the key to O’care’s success or failure b/c Without these new state bureaucracies, Obamacare cannot work.
Significantly, the law doesn’t actually require states to set up “marketplaces” and there is no rational incentive for them to do so....except for sap-happy pols who rely on giveaways to get reelected.
States that create “exchanges” will be soaking taxpayers another $10 million to $100 million per year to run one.
Since most states are already in deep doo-doo for previous giveaways, its not likely taxpayers will embrace these costs with enthusiasm.........more at americanspectator.com
They did give it to the IRS in the bill but prohibited them from enforcing it beyond keeping tax refunds. This was because they ended up passing the Senate version of the bill with some budget related changes.
Eventually if public opinion changes a future congress could give the IRS the authority to really enforce it, as the House version of the bill.
If your employer drops coverage and dumps you into a non-existent exchange in a state which has refused to fund one and for which Obamacare has no funds to start its own?
The worst pat of Obamacare for me personally is that it will outlaw catastrophic insurance. And I can’t afford anything else (but I make too much for government subsidies under O-care), so I will end up with nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.