Filed under: Economy, Health Care, Freedom, Democrat Corruption, Progressivism, Capitalism, Law | Tags: Obamacare, Smoke and Mirrors, Empty Promises
Back in 2008, three eminent Harvard economists who were advising the Obama campaign on matters economic — David Cutler, David Blumenthal, and Jeffrey Liebman — wrote a memo claiming that Senator Obama’s health-care plan could reduce national health spending by $200 billion a year.
Candidate Obama had already claimed that health care costs were spiraling out of control, were going to destroy the economy, wreck the budget, so reducing the out-of-control cost of health care was a very big deal indeed. The advisers took that figure and divided [it] by the country’s population, multiplied by four—for a family of four, and using economist math, rounded it down a little to a nice round number: $2,500. Mr. Obama, delighted, then took that number out on the campaign trail:
And he said he’d lower premiums by $2,500 in his first term as President of the United States. Avik Roy writes the Apothecary blog at Forbes magazine about health care, so with new numbers from the experts working for Medicare’s actuary, he used the same economist math. He took the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied by four—for a family of four. With the best economist math Obamacare will increase health spending by $7,450 for a typical family of four. He even included a dandy graph:
Health care costs have been going down since 2006. New diagnostic tools are in place and paid for. Important new drugs like Statins are saving lives and a lot of heart surgery. It was the president’s claim of $2,500 savings that was completely wrong, but that was the basis on which ObamaCare was sold.
“I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
This is a touchy point among progressives. But you might remember that George W. Bush’s Medicare Drug plan is the only government program known to have come in under estimates and under budget. That is because it had a built-in incentive to encourage seniors to select generics when they had the opportunity to, in order to avoid the “donut hole” where they wouldn’t get a subsidy unless they really needed it. Democrats, of course, thought that was mean, (they don’t do incentives) and eliminated the “donut hole.”
On the other hand, Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Kentucky and their two boys are just the family of four that should be helped by ObamaCare. They recently got a surprise in the mail.
The insurance charges for the Mangione’s policy was going to almost triple — from $333 a month to $965 a month.
The notice from their insurance company carried this paragraph:
If your policy premium increased, you should know this isn’t unique to Humana — premium increases generally will occur industry-wide.
“Increases aren’t based on your individual claims or changes in health status,” it continued. “Many other factors go in to your premium including: ACA compliance, including the addition of new essential health benefits.”
People who currently choose to purchase a high deductible, low premium policy that’s more affordable for them, are now being required to add all these new benefits to their policy. (Even if they don’t want them).
This tells you how government bureaucrats do economic estimates, and why everything always doubles and triples in cost. (or more) And why you should never believe their numbers.