Obama attempted to sell Americans on ObamaCare as a way to save money.
1)Cheaper for the individual.
2)Cheaper as a whole due to increased competition.
3)Cheaper due to Government Control.
4)Lowers costs by spreading the costs.
All the above contentions are untrue.
First, I will be among those who are forced to buy more health-care than I would otherwise buy as insurance. I prefer to purchase catastrophic insurance and cover my other health care costs as needed and this plan will increase my costs. I am not alone.
Second. Government competition is not competition. Governments have endlessly deep pockets and private businesses will not be able to compete. This increases costs for the nation as private alternatives are pushed out of the market leaving government as the only alternative. (Will government lament the lack of competition when they are the only provider.)
Third. Government control is another way of saying you will not get the care you want, but rather the care that is offered. Government controls, in the end, increase cost as efficiencies can't be as easily followed as one regulation or another precludes the efficient choices.
Fourth. Spreading the costs actually increase costs as the costs are not immediately born by the end user, but rather the a middleman (government) . The normal mechanism by which costs are controlled is broken by divorcing provider from end user.
The Department of Health and Human Services (RedState)...
We estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during the calendar years 2010-2019
Although several provisions would help to reduce health care volts growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from coverage expansions.
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
As for the actual cost involved, the penalty will be the higher of either $695 or 2.5% of income. Effectively, those earning below $27,800 would pay the flat rate, and after that point would begin paying the percentage. Once a person earns more than $40,000, the penalty will exceed $1,000. At $59,000, it would reach $1,475.
And Kathleen Sebelius admits she is clueless as to how much the "High Risk Pools" will cost. Estimates are already beyond original expectations.
David Price's vote for this dishonestly promoted travesty should lead to his replacement.