133 share
high reader interest
In November of 2009,
we were given a detailed report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with regard to projections relating to the "Affordable Care Act." The report is critical news, even today, because it's reporting was based on numbers generated by the Democrat Party, itself, and given to the CBO for analysis. To this day, five years after its publication, this report remains an authoritative and comprehensive evaluative tool as to any discussion concerning ObamaCare. There are reasons why we are discussing this early-date paper in this post, but first, a brief summary of some of its predictions:
Specifically, its
significance is this: the report, published four months before the law’s
signing on March 23 of 2010, predicted higher premium costs (10 to 13 percent higher in 2016) and a total uninsured population of 52 million in 2016 at a time when Obama was preaching a $2,500 premium reduction and "universal" enrollment.
In other words, the Administration had no expectation of actually lowering premiums and this CBO report is proof of that fact. Again, you need to know that the CBO predictions were based on the numbers given to it, by the Obama Administration. The Administration's predictive numbers and the promises it was making regarding the healthcare act, were two very different things - evidence that is self-incriminating on its face. As mentioned above, it is during this very time, that Obama and his minions were busy bragging about a $2,500 reduction in premiums "for a typical family of four," a promise, told over and over again, that was never going to be a reality according to this CBO report/projection and the Administration's own numerology.
More than this, the Administration's own expectations concerning its claim of "universal" health care, would see 52 million uninsured Americans, six years after the healthcare proposal became law. The reform bill was, therefore, never about "universal" health care.
While the Administration will argue that the new tax law reduces "the rate of expanding health care costs," that was not the promise used to sell this law to the general population. And this brings me to the question, "Why reference a six year old report, now?"
Our answer includes the following: the report remains a current evaluation, having relevance, today. But, more than this, beginning with September of this year, just weeks before the coming mid-term elections, America will be introduced to another round of truth, as to the actual costs and enrollment numbers of the ACA. No later than September, all States are to report annual and revised numbers as to the various costs of this legislation, and, according to first reports, much of this reporting will prove to be bad news for the Democrat Party.
In short, just in time for the 2014 midterm elections, the Dems are going to be back on defense as to ObamaCare. Costs were not reduced, penalties were increased substantially, 14 million enrollees is hardly "universal," and the "Cadillac" policies supplied by the unions, will be taxed an additional 40%, increasing monthly premiums by that amount . . . . . all this and more, will be part of the national news cycle.
Suddenly, the 2009 CBO report, will be "current" news, again, constantly compared to the sad realities of the broken promises and failings that is ObamaCare, at a time when more bad news is the last thing Dems need, as the coming election cycle overwhelms their verbal defenses. Keep in mind, that this same situation will present itself, again, just before the 2016 campaign cycle.
Stay tuned. September will see the national healthcare debate back in the news, front page and above the fold. While the Dems celebrated ObamaCare as "their" bill, back in 2010 - to the exclusion of the GOP, the historical fact of the matter finds this circumstance to be an increasing curse for the Progressive Socialists within the Democrat Party.
While the Administration will argue that the new tax law reduces "the rate of expanding health care costs," that was not the promise used to sell this law to the general population. And this brings me to the question, "Why reference a six year old report, now?"
Our answer includes the following: the report remains a current evaluation, having relevance, today. But, more than this, beginning with September of this year, just weeks before the coming mid-term elections, America will be introduced to another round of truth, as to the actual costs and enrollment numbers of the ACA. No later than September, all States are to report annual and revised numbers as to the various costs of this legislation, and, according to first reports, much of this reporting will prove to be bad news for the Democrat Party.
In short, just in time for the 2014 midterm elections, the Dems are going to be back on defense as to ObamaCare. Costs were not reduced, penalties were increased substantially, 14 million enrollees is hardly "universal," and the "Cadillac" policies supplied by the unions, will be taxed an additional 40%, increasing monthly premiums by that amount . . . . . all this and more, will be part of the national news cycle.
Suddenly, the 2009 CBO report, will be "current" news, again, constantly compared to the sad realities of the broken promises and failings that is ObamaCare, at a time when more bad news is the last thing Dems need, as the coming election cycle overwhelms their verbal defenses. Keep in mind, that this same situation will present itself, again, just before the 2016 campaign cycle.
Stay tuned. September will see the national healthcare debate back in the news, front page and above the fold. While the Dems celebrated ObamaCare as "their" bill, back in 2010 - to the exclusion of the GOP, the historical fact of the matter finds this circumstance to be an increasing curse for the Progressive Socialists within the Democrat Party.
____________________
Verbatim quotes for the 2009 CBO report
CBO and JCT estimate that the
average premium per person covered (including
dependents) for new nongroup
policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent
higher in 2016 than the
average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year
under current law. About half
of those enrollees would receive government
subsidies that would reduce
their costs well below the premiums that would be
charged for such policies
under current law (p.4)
Average premiums per policy
in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly
$5,800 for single policies
and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal,
compared with roughly $5,500
for single policies and $13,100 for family policies
under current law. (p
6)
By CBO and JCT’s estimate,
the average premium per policy in the small group
market would be in the
vicinity of $7,800 for single policies and $19,200 for
family policies under the
proposal, compared with about $7,800 and $19,300
under current law. In the
large group market, average premiums would be roughly
$7,300 for single policies
and $20,100 for family policies under the proposal,
compared with about $7,400
and $20,300 under current law.
The reductions in premiums
described above also exclude the effects of the excise
tax on high-premium insurance
policies offered through employers, which would
have a significant impact on
premiums for the affected workers but which would
affect only a portion of the
market in 2016.
As in the nongroup market,
the effects on the premiums paid by some people for coverage provided through
their employer could vary significantly from the average effects on premiums,
particularly in the small group market. (p8)
About 14 million people are
expected to be covered by nongroup policies in 2016
under current law. p.18
By contrast, the 52 million
people who are expected to be uninsured under current
law in 2016 p.18
CBO and JCT expect that some
people would obtain coverage because of the penalties
that would be levied for not
complying with the mandate (which would be
$750 per adult and $375 per
child in 2016) and that others would obtain
coverage simply because of
the existence of a mandate p.20
The legislation would impose
an excise tax on employment-based policies whose
total premium (including the
amounts paid by both the employer and the
employee) exceeded a
specified threshold. The tax on such policies would be
40 percent of the amount by
which the premium exceeded the threshold. p25
