Obamacare has over 540,000 signups in the first week

WTF frightr00? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_774167.html

Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.” How can this be? Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

But that’s exactly what it will do—unless Republicans take action. As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).” He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”

In other words, insurance purchased through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges isn’t even full-fledged private insurance; rather, it’s a sort of private-public hybrid. Private insurance companies pay for costs below $45,000, then taxpayers generously pick up the tab—a tab that their president hasn’t ever bothered to tell them he has opened up on their behalf—for four-fifths of the next $200,000-plus worth of costs. In this way, and so many others, Obamacare takes a major step toward the government monopoly over American medicine (“single payer”) that liberals drool about in their sleep.

In other words: another bailout of BIG BUSINESS ... the scourge of the liberals.

In other words: another bailout of BIG BUSINESS ... the scourge of the liberals. Originally Posted by LexusLover

But NOT if they own a piece of the big business or someone in their family does or they're getting campaign contributions or contributions to their " foundation " !

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1057482921

Like I said ... one does not spend $200 billion a year to "cover" 11 million people. [/QUOTE]

The 200 billion a year to cover 40 million people was a March 2010 estimate. That estimate has been revised. That estimate was revised in March 2015. The estimate is down to 120 billion. See the graph by the Congressional Budget Office (Figure A-1) in the link below.


http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/

The 200 billion a year to cover 40 million people was a March 2010 estimate. That estimate has been revised. That estimate was revised in March 2015. The estimate is down to 120 billion. See the graph by the Congressional Budget Office (Figure A-1) in the link below.


http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/ Originally Posted by flghtr65

"ESTIMATE" .... ? Forgive me ... I recall someone once talking about that ...

... but he was at the time discussing "MILLIONS" ... I'll revise it for current events!

"A billion here and a billion there soon adds up to big money"! My revision is:

We don't spend 120 BILLION to insure 11 million people.

But the real flaw in your "analysis" is estimates are just that ... estimates ... and the current estimates are based on the projected income stream from the ACA that includes the "taxes" and repayment of subsidies, not to mention the COSTS of bailouts of the failed carriers under the "re-insure" provisions of the ACA. It also does not factor in the increased COSTS to the private sector insureds who are now paying higher premiums and higher deductibles and copays....along with reduced benefits, which means either less healthcare or more out of pocket expenditures.

Despite the experience that J.D. Barleycorn had with the ACA, people are signing up. The enrollment numbers are higher than the previous year. It is better to be insured than uninsured.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-in-first-week Originally Posted by flghtr65

Running out of time. Sign up period getting down to zero. What's the number so far? Remember, they need at least 30 million.

Running out of time. .... Remember, they need at least 30 million. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I won't change what you wrote in your quote, but I'll rewrite it below!

"Remember, they need at least 30 million TO SIGN UP AND PAY THEIR PREMIUMS FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR FOR WHICH THEY ARE SIGNED UP AND FOR EACH AND EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

"ESTIMATE" .... ? Forgive me ... I recall someone once talking about that ...

... but he was at the time discussing "MILLIONS" ... I'll revise it for current events!

"A billion here and a billion there soon adds up to big money"! My revision is:

We don't spend 120 BILLION to insure 11 million people.

But the real flaw in your "analysis" is estimates are just that ... estimates ... and the current estimates are based on the projected income stream from the ACA that includes the "taxes" and repayment of subsidies, not to mention the COSTS of bailouts of the failed carriers under the "re-insure" provisions of the ACA. It also does not factor in the increased COSTS to the private sector insureds who are now paying higher premiums and higher deductibles and copays....along with reduced benefits, which means either less healthcare or more out of pocket expenditures. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, don't know where you get your information from, apparently not from the CBO. The CBO has estimated the cost to be 1 trillion over a TEN YEAR PERIOD. It's all in table 1 which you refuse to read. The risk corridors (bailouts) for the insurance companies that lost money on the exchanges is only for three years and ends in 2016. You should stop posting about things you know NOTHING ABOUT.

Table 1 from the link below.


10-YEAR EFFECTS ON THE FEDERAL DEFICIT, 2012-2021d,e
(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year)
Medicaid and CHIP Outlays
627
795
168
Exchange Subsidies and Related Spendingf
777
681
-97
Small Employer Tax Creditsg
41
21
-20
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions
1,445
1,496
51
Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals
-34
-45
-11
Penalty Payments by Employersg
-81
-96
-15
Excise Tax on High-Premium Insurance Plansg
-87
-79
8
Other Effects on Tax Revenues and Outlaysh
-113
-193
-81
Net Cost of Coverage Provisions
1,131
1,083
-48

Medicare Part D, signed into law by your hero BUSH43 is a cost of 727 Billion over TEN YEARS and all it does is help seniors pay for their prescription drugs. To treat a Long term illness cost a lot more than prescription drugs.

From the Medicare Part D link:

As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[17] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions). Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

Running out of time. Sign up period getting down to zero. What's the number so far? Remember, they need at least 30 million. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, where did you get 30 million from? The CBO certainly did not project that. There are 12 million new people who purchased a private plan on the exchanges for 2015. The CBO projects just 23 million people getting a private plan on the government exchanges by 2018. Even if every single family or individual that is in the individual market signs up, you will never get 30 million people. The projection for the number of people getting the expanded Medicaid is 16 million in 2018. So, 37 million more people will become insured, but only 23 million will have a private health insurance plan. This estimate was done in March 2012. READ TABLE 3.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

Obamacare isn't shit. It's a fly by night operation. This link proves it. It's the beginning of the end to this healthcare charade.

Jim


http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...mpaign=article

Obamacare isn't shit. It's a fly by night operation. This link proves it. It's the beginning of the end to this healthcare charade.

Jim


http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...mpaign=article Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

In JD's case, it's either Obamacare or back to the VA for him. I believe that is what he posted.

In JD's case, it's either Obamacare or back to the VA for him. I believe that is what he posted. Originally Posted by flghtr65

in your case it's progressive socialism or nothing.

in your case it's progressive socialism or nothing. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Was Bush43 a socialist when he signed into law Medicare Part D which helps seniors pay for prescriptions they can't afford on their own? It's an entitlement program that cost taxpayers 727 BILLION dollars. Whose is the socialist now? You should stick to handicapping College Football.

Was Bush43 a socialist when he signed into law Medicare Part D which helps seniors pay for prescriptions they can't afford on their own? It's an entitlement program that cost taxpayers 727 BILLION dollars. Whose is the socialist now? You should stick to handicapping College Football. Originally Posted by flghtr65

you should stick to being an idiot.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...mpaign=article

The Nation's Largest Insurer Just Dropped a Bombshell on Obamacare

..Medicare Part D which helps seniors pay for prescriptions they can't afford on their own? It's an entitlement program that cost taxpayers 727 BILLION dollars. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You probably need to do some factual research ......

.... "cost taxpayers 727 BILLION dollars" ..... when?

Also, the prescriptions "authorized" in Plan D do not cover just any drugs. (Many or excluded as "unnecessary")

And while you are comparing "Medicare" and talking about "Seniors" (who for the most part have contributed to the FUNDS over their working lifetimes (whether as wage earners or self-employed)) you ought to factor in those persons who are "disabled" and receive Medicare assistance who HAVE NOT PAID IN OVER THEIR LIFETIMES.

"Diabetes" creates a "disability" group.

Persons receiving Plan D benefits pay a premium, so it's not an "entitlement"!