posted January 02, 2015 01:48 PM            

Obama adviser Jonathan Gruber seems to be carving out a new career as the go-to guy for those of us who were and still are opposed to a government takeover of the health care sector.

Statements he made while the Democrats were crafting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show to what depths they sank to deceive the public to get the bill passed.

First, Gruber once said that "the stupidity of the American voter ... was really, really critical" to the passage of ObamaCare. He gleefully admitted that "the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" for ramrodding the bill through Congress.

Now, thanks to the Daily Caller, the public knows that Gruber, who was an ObamaCare architect, knew that the "affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act was a lie and expressed it in an October 2009 lecture at Syracuse University.

"There's a real debate about what is affordable, and there's no right answer here," Gruber said in a talk that became a policy brief. "The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can't mandate insurance that's not affordable."

Cost controls, he said, could just come later, after everyone was covered. And one way to control costs, he explained, would be to tell patients "they can't have something they want."

So along with a lack of affordability, there isn't full patient protection under ObamaCare, either. Patients can still be denied care.

Three years after he made his remarks at Syracuse, Gruber said in a podcast — also exposed by the Daily Caller — that he wished "President Obama could have stood up and said, 'You know, I don't know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not.'"

On the other side of the aisle, however, Republicans were talking about ObamaCare's unaffordability. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin called it "a fiscal Frankenstein." Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming said that "this bill is anything but affordable."

The kicker is the Democrats knew it, too, but publicly denied the facts all the way to the bill-signing ceremony and beyond. Honesty and openness were sacrificed for the sake of a bill that won't work as promised and the country doesn't even like.

posted January 03, 2015 10:07 AM            

CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion

Got it now Droolers?

O'BomberCare is going to cost US taxpayers 2 Trillion Dollars more than premiums collected. Here's the reason O'Bomber droolers.

87% of O'BomberCare signees are getting their insurance premiums subsidized by the productive working people of America.

posted January 04, 2015 01:04 PM            

Under Obamacare, Medicaid has increased to the highest numbers imaginable in MI.

Guess who pays for the largest portion of it.

According to MotleyFool, the cost is just going to keep rising.

quote:

---

Looking ahead
For those who obtain coverage through their employers, the bad news is that organizations will probably keep shifting more costs to workers. For many Americans benefiting from federal subsidies for individual health insurance, 2015 could be a pivotal year. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could lead to the unraveling of Obamacare in 36 states that don't operate their own health insurance marketplaces.

There are a couple of things you can count on. First, health insurance premiums will continue to rise. Second, how much you actually pay for health insurance will continue to depend on lots of variables, especially the type of coverage and how much you're willing to pay out of pocket. Ultimately, there's no such thing as an average American when it comes to health insurance.

---

Lets hope Obamacare is unraveled!!

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/04/heres-what-the-average-american-pays-for-health-in.aspx

posted January 05, 2015 03:06 PM            

CBO and JCT have updated their baseline estimates of the budgetary effects of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions many times since that legislation was enacted in March 2010. As time has passed, the period spanned by the estimates has changed, but a year-by-year comparison shows that CBO and JCT’s estimates of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the past four years.

The first part of this section describes the factors that led to changes in CBO and JCT’s estimates since February 2014, the second part summarizes the changes themselves, and the third part discusses changes in projected budgetary effects since the legislation was enacted in March 2010. http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

"The net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the last four years."

posted January 05, 2015 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

but wishing this were unraveled would probably be unhealthy.

---

How so? The bill in particular or the monetary fallout?

posted January 06, 2015 09:20 AM            

quote:

---

Is that going to be cheaper than a program that's already saving the government money?

---

How on earth has it saved the gov. money?

If it has, is it because the taxpayers get knifed for higher premiums , deductables and tax fines ?
More of their tax dollar going to fund free medical for state aid recipients?

Certainly it`s a win-win for big pharm tho.

posted January 06, 2015 11:29 AM            

So, wasn't it just wonderful when all those professors and union leaders were spouting off about the glories of O'BomberCare?

They thought they were insulated against bearing any of the personal financial costs of the O'BomberCare crap sandwich.

Well, now they've found out differently and outrage abounds. How dare anyone ask these leftist queens to pay more of the cost of their own healthcare...just like everyone else.

Bye the way, the cost of O'BomberCare over and above what insurance premiums will fleece from policy holders is about 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. THAT'S TRILLIONS, NOT BILLIONS TO BE PAID BY TAXPAYERS. Nice going Marxist Messiah and your now unemployed congressional comrades.

January 6, 2015
The Obamacare soap opera gets better and better
By Silvio Canto, Jr.

They say in Latin America that telenovelas, or soap operas, get better week by week. Perhaps Obamacare will go down as one of the greatest telenovelas, because it is getting better every week.

The latest episode involves Harvard University professors, as reported by The New York Times:

For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to theHarvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

You can't make this up.

Like some of the labor unions, the Harvard faculty is learning that "universal care" is a better speech than governing. It sounds great until you implement it and throw supply and demand into disarray.

In the meantime, that fellow that you see complaining about health care at the next liberal meeting is probably a Harvard college professor.

Just walk over, introduce yourself, and say two things:

1) Hope and change.

posted January 14, 2015 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

Saving the government money? It's costing us $2 billion! How is that saving money? Unravel it? Trash it!

---

Why are you asking questions I already answered? What's the point in that?

"The net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the last four years."

quote:

---

Using a knitting analogy,
They could unravel without changing the pattern. The design can be changed but the basic pattern remains untouched.

---

I agree that, in theory, that is possible.

quote:

---

How on earth has it saved the gov. money?

---

Because the government was on the hook for ALL medical expenses paid throughout the nation in cases where the citizen didn't have insurance or otherwise couldn't pay. I thought you guys already knew this.

quote:

---

Bye the way, the cost of O'BomberCare over and above what insurance premiums will fleece from policy holders is about 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. THAT'S TRILLIONS, NOT BILLIONS TO BE PAID BY TAXPAYERS. Nice going Marxist Messiah and your now unemployed congressional comrades.

---

Care to source this, Jwhop? I ask, because that particular number is NO WHERE to be found in CBO estimates. Over one trillion can be found...spent over a series of years.

Were you a victim of the commercial shown in this article?: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2 012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/

From the article:

The TV ad says that the health care law "could cost up to $2 trillion, double what we were promised." Actually, only part of the health care law -- the gross costs -- could cost up to $1.76 trillion. That’s only a slight increase from what was originally promised -- not close to double.

The number also doesn’t account for the portions of the law that pay for that spending, both new taxes and cost reductions.

The ad’s source -- the Congressional Budget Office -- specifically rebutted the charge that the costs had doubled, and they issued that rebuttal months ago. The CBO said that its latest estimates "are quite similar to the estimates we released when the legislation was being considered in March 2010."

posted January 14, 2015 07:05 PM            

quote:

---

Because the government was on the hook for ALL medical expenses paid throughout the nation in cases where the citizen didn't have insurance or otherwise couldn't pay. I thought you guys already knew this.

---

If that were true, why do people file medical bankruptcy?

posted January 14, 2015 08:01 PM            

If you are earning anything the"inability" is generally not recognized. .. so only people willing to incur big black marks on their credit really get that option. If you have assets they will be in jeopardy...and so on and on.