Pro-Obamacare Survey Shows Costs
Understated
Every American is aware of the political battle that
resulted in the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act or Obamacare. Most
every voter knows there was no contest about this particular piece of
legislation presented in last year's presidential election because both
candidates supported the basis of the bill.
But, notwithstanding where one stands on the
legislation, all the previous projections about the cost to the government are
wildly inaccurate. The cost--and resulting increase in the national
debt--seemingly grow by the hour.
In a recent survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund--an agency which
wants to prove the necessity for implementation of the Act and is an advocate
for improved healthcare--it was
concluded almost half of all working Americans have little or none health care
coverage for the time period ending Dec. 31, 2012.
This figure should have sent shock waves through Washington because, if
you'll remember during the argument over the merits of the legislation in 2009,
it was determined less than 30% of all working Americans needed insurance
coverage to be provided by this bill.
So how did we arrive at more than a 40% increase in less than four years,
an increase for which I have seen no additional expense allocated to the
government's obligation under the Act from either the CBO or the GAO (since
there has been no budget adoption it is impossible to refer to any such increase
that might be considered there)?
Now the Commonwealth Fund's figures for its study focused on working
Americans only and found that there are 84 million either underinsured or
completely without insurance, allegedly only 3 million more than the number
figured to be in that classification in 2010 when the bill was signed. But, and
here the Rant will follow Barack Obama's
infamous tactic to get a point across and bring up the "but", accessing old
speeches on the subject, that figure wasn't used anywhere. The number most often
referred to was the number of uninsured only, 30 million strong.
Also disclosed by the study was the dire fact 80 million did not see a
doctor or failed to fill a prescription because of the cost. The study's release did not indicate whether or
not this 80 million was in addition to the 84 million previously mentioned or
came wholly from the 84 million workers found in the study.
But it is known that at least 85% of the 84 million will become eligible
for the taxpayer subsidized benefits outlined in the Act.
The survey used as a talking point the younger workers. The group of
workers from age 19-25 who were uninsured fell by 7% from the time the Act was
passed until the survey's conclusion.
Great news! except for the fact the study didn't provide any indication on how
the unemployment figure for this age group was factored in because unemployment
figures for the younger generation is rising and the survey's focus was allegedly on "working
Americans."
The survey was gracious enough to concede the fact the bill allows parents
to keep "children up to age 26 on their plans" and 1.9 million thus-designated
over-age children contributed hugely to the alleged drop in uninsured
youth.
Sara Collins, vice president for affordable health insurance at
Commonwealth, said in a prepared statement, "It will be critical to continue to
monitor the effects of the law as the major provisions go into effect in 2014
and beyond to ensure it achieves its goal of near-universal, comprehensive
health insurance."
If you are going to "monitor the effects" you should also be charged with
monitoring the additional costs. This monstrosity is one of the things forcing
would-be employers to not fill jobs because of the unintended, unknown cost
factors.
What is galling is the CBO has projected the extension of healthcare
coverage will go to "about 27 million more Americans by 2012." That's all the
cost factor it has figured into the passage of the Act. That doesn't come close
to handling the 84 million the study disclosed. This gap has been conveniently
disregarded from any recent public discourse on the Act.
Anyway you try to slice the pie, the campaign's non-issue issue of
Obamacare still hasn't been directly addressed by anyone without an agenda.
The numbers continue to shift like quicksand underfoot. The bill, however,
cannot and will not do what it was intended to do without a considerable
increase in the amount of theft (taxation) the government will require to keep
this unworkable idea afloat. And that is reality, not merely a hope or a
projection.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility
to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas
Jefferson
Rant Extra:
I was asked to address a group earlier in the week. I was trying
to find a way to highlight the problems of America without the usual mundane
economic sackcloth and ashes approach. The following poem resulted:
We are going through a culture revolution. The
liberals say they'll overcome them all. But while they're blowing smoke on air
pollution, we're hanging on with help from Geritol.
Gays now run San Francisco. The markets are a farce
in New York. Government lost its credibility when it denied the app of Robert
Bork.
The wheels in liberal media keep spinning; they
decided truth just had to go. But conservatives keep looking for it, even in
places as remote as Idaho.
Liberal push diversity and say illegals are just
swell. They can keep their damn diversity, that ain't what rings my Liberty
Bell.
And we still make beer in Milwaukee. Still do the
waltz in Tennessee. Still run the derby in Kentucky and cling to gunfire
harmony. Let's keep God in our country. Let's make things the way they used to
be. 'Cause if the U.S. has its' honor, that'll be good enough for
me.
The author acknowledges the lyrics will not make the public-education hit
parade or political roundtables but it fits him better than the Campbell soup
song honoring the Administration California was singing. Please remember all
comments and suggestions for the Rant are appreciated and gladly
accepted--Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment