Tag Archives: Obamacare

7 Obamacare failures that have hurt Americans, by Diana Furchtgott-Rott

From Diana Furchtgott-Roth on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Obamacare barely passed Congress in 2010. If people had known how it would develop, the health-care act would likely never have become law.

Back in 2009, when the law was proposed, and in 2010, when it was signed, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) proponents were giddy with optimism. Proponents proclaimed the many promises of Obamacare. Millions of people would be enrolled by 2016. The number of uninsured would decline dramatically. Health-care costs and premiums would drop. Everyone would have coverage. The federal deficit would decrease. Of course, as President Obama promised, everyone would be able to keep their plans and their doctors.

The truth has turned out to be very different. That’s why all Republican candidates say they want to repeal the program. Here are seven things about Obamacare that turned out to be very bad.

1. Low enrollment. Many people would not have jumped on the Obamacare bandwagon if they had known the relatively small number of Americans who would actually be enrolled on the exchanges by 2016. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that between 9.4 million and 11.4 million signed up in 2016.

In contrast, in March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 21 million people would be enrolled on the exchanges.

2. High numbers of uninsured. Under Obamacare, the number of uninsured was supposed to decline from 50 million to 22 million in 2016 and remain at that level. Instead, there are still 31 million uninsured, and the number is never projected to go below 29 million, according to CBO.

The Kaiser Family Foundation (February 2016) says that around 10% of the population (32.3 million of 316 million Americans) lacks health-insurance coverage. If the goal of health-care reform is to extend insurance coverage to more Americans, there are surely more effective — and less costly — ways to achieve this goal.

3. Lost doctors. In a presidential weekly address on July 18, 2009, President Obama said: “Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be — and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor.”

Various sources note that a common (and popular) way to reduce premium costs has been to reduce the number of doctors in the insurer’s network, which leads to a much greater likelihood of people losing their doctors than without the ACA.

Initially the ACA required only 20% of “essential community providers” to be included in networks, but the number went up to 30% after there was a backlash from hospitals. According to a NIH study, 15% of plans offered on the exchanges exclude doctors from at least one kind of specialty.

To continue reading: 7 Obamacare failures that have hurt Americans

Advertisements

About That ‘Revised’ Q4 GDP—-29% of Growth Due To Health Services Spending, by John R. Graham

SLL WILL BE ON A BUSINESS TRIP FROM 3/2 TO 3/6 AND WILL BE UNABLE TO POST. POSTING WILL RESUME 3/7.

From John R. Graham at the National Center for Policy Analysis, healthblog.ncpa.org:

Today’s second release of Q4 GDP showed the production of goods actually shrank in the fourth quarter. As a result, the (annualized) $26 billion growth in health services spending accounted for 29 percent of GDP growth of $88.2 billion. It comprised 31 percent of services spending growth and 35 percent of growth in personal consumption expenditure (Table I). This means that health services spending continues to devour more of our budgets. The evidence continues to indicate Obamacare is not bending the cost curve.

From 2014 Q4 to 2015 Q4, health services spending grew more moderately, comprising 18 percent of GDP growth, 26 percent of growth in personal consumption expenditure, and 29 percent of services growth (Table II). This is still disproportionately high.

Technical note: When I discuss health services in these quarterly GDP releases, I mean only health services. I do not include purchases of medical equipment, or facilities construction. While I include Medicare and Medicaid, I do not include Veterans Health Administration or other government benefits. So, these dollar figures undercount the amount of our economy consumed by the government-health complex.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/gdp-health-services-are-29-percent-of-growth/#sthash.KQfBFUTB.dpuf

Obamacare’s Cost per Beneficiary Explodes with Shrinking Enrollment, by John R. Graham

From John R. Graham at healthblog.ncpa.org:

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest budget estimate shows Obamacare’s costs per beneficiary have exploded, as enrollment in Obamacare’s broken exchanges collapses. January’s update estimates 2016 exchange enrollment at 13 million people (p. 69). Although the Administration had previously downgraded its estimate of Obamacare enrollment, this is the first significant change by the non-partisan CBO.

What is really shocking is the January update still estimates tax credits, which subsidize insurers participating in exchanges, will cost taxpayers $56 billion this year (p. 182). That amounts to about $4,308 per enrollee (although not all are subsidized). Back in March 2010, CBO estimated that 21 million people would be covered in exchanges in 2016, for a total cost of $59 billion in tax credits (pp. 20-23). That would amount to about $2,810 per enrollee.

As recently as March 2015, CBO was still assuming 21 million enrollees in Obamacare’s exchanges this year (Table 2). In the January update, the CBO has only changed its estimate for 2016 enrollment, not future years. Next March’s update will include a more thorough analysis including future years, and we can expect those estimates to be similarly downgraded.

This leads to the conclusion that Obamacare exchanges are, in fact, high-risk pools for sick individuals who cannot get coverage elsewhere. They are not a properly functioning, broad-based, market for health insurance.

And, by the way, the CBO confirms that Obamacare kills jobs:

CBO anticipates that several developments in federal fiscal policy under current law will affect the economy through their impact on the labor market. The most sizable effects stem from provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA’s largest effect on the labor market—especially as overall employment conditions improve—will come from provisions of the act that raise effective marginal tax rates on earnings, thereby reducing how much some people choose to work. The health insurance subsidies that the act provides through the expansion of Medicaid and the exchanges are phased out for people with higher income, creating an implicit tax on some people’s additional earnings. The act also directly imposes higher taxes on some people’s labor income. Because both effects on labor supply will grow over the next few years, CBO projects, they will subtract from economic growth over that period.

(“The Budget and Economic Outlook, 2016 to 2026,” Congressional Budget Office, January 25, 2016, p. 38.)

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/obamacares-cost-per-beneficiary-explodes-with-shrinking-enrollment/#sthash.U82pWhXs.dpuf

Obamacare plans put big dent in customers’ wallets, from CNBC

From CNBC, with an introduction by Jim Quinn at theburningplatform.com:

So in the real world, the cost of healthcare – even for Obamacare enrollees – uses up at least 10% of people’s annual income. The Obamanistas blather about the low subsidized premiums, but NEVER talk about the $6,000 deductibles because that obliterates their false narrative of affordable healthcare for all.

Our friends at the BLS declare that medical costs only account for 7.7% of household costs and are only going up by 2.9% per year. Isn’t that precious? They underweight the expenses dramatically and then they have the balls to tell you your healthcare expenses are going up at 2.9% per year when you know they are going up by at least 10% per year. Obamacare is essentially a never ending proctology exam for the American people. Bend over folks.

Via CNBC

You might not be reduced to living on Ramen noodles if you buy Obamacare coverage — but your bank account certainly could feel a bit leaner.

A new study reveals that many Obamacare customers pay more than 10 percent of their incomes toward coverage. And the share of income eaten up can be much greater for some people, particularly if they use a lot of health services under their plan.

One in 10 Obamacare customers who earn between just two and five times the federal poverty level will have coverage costs that exceed 21 percent of their incomes, an analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute found.

And the median Obamacare customer who earns in that range spends more than 10 percent of their income on monthly premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses, the analysis found.

“Many who have modest incomes have high financial burdens even with average medical expenses,” the report said. “For those at the top of the [health] spending distribution, financial burdens are very high.”

“You start to get hit pretty hard,” said John Holahan, an Urban Institute fellow, and co-author of the report.

Strong sign-up activity

The study comes as Obama administration officials have touted relatively strong sign-up activity on the federal insurance exchange during the third open-enrollment season. Officials also have stressed the availability of financial assistance to help many consumers purchase coverage, and the value of having insurance to protect oneself from potentially crippling medical bills.

Still, the analysis also suggests that efforts to boost Obamacare enrollment dramatically above current levels is being hampered by the sticker shock that some would-be customers feel when they look at how much they would have to actually pay in plan premiums and deductibles relative to their incomes.

To continue reading: Obamacare plans put big dent in customers’ wallets

Obamacare bailouts prove that the law is flawed and lousy, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Marco Rubio may be leading a charge that Republicans are not 100 percent useless (“may” is used because one can never be certain about anything politicians do or say). From a guest post by Diana Furchtgott-Roth at theburningplatform.com:

This week, as part of the reconciliation bill, Congress may vote on bailing out health-insurance companies losing money from their participation in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. With an $18 trillion national debt, Congress should stand firm and say no to the bailouts.

Sen. Marco Rubio is leading the fight against the bailouts. In a letter to congressional leaders, he wrote: “The reason these health-insurance companies are enduring a financial loss is that ObamaCare is a disastrous law. It broke the promise to lower health-insurance premiums and allow Americans to keep their health care. Now the very architects of this law are attempting to place taxpayers on the hook.”

Last year Rubio limited the bailout of the insurance companies with the ObamaCare Bailout Prevention Act. Some of the provisions were included in last year’s spending bill. The result of the measure was that, in October, the Department of Health and Human Services transferred $362 million to the losing insurance companies, rather than the $2.9 billion that they requested. That’s $2.5 billion more for taxpayers.

The Health Insurance Association of America, under the leadership of Karen Ignagni, lobbied heavily in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies shouldn’t get government money now that their bet is going the wrong way.

Insurance companies thought they would have a captive market of young, healthy people who would be forced to sign up for expensive policies with the threat of penalties. But it was a cynical scheme. The premiums from young people, who do not use much health care because they are rarely sick, would be used to pay for the care of the old and the chronically ill. The Affordable Care Act was structured so that younger, healthy Americans would pay for everyone else, even though the young have higher unemployment rates, less disposable income, more student loans and fewer assets.

Little did these insurance companies know that enrollment would fall far short of predictions. Enrollment in the exchanges is estimated by Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to be 10 million in 2016, compared with 22 million predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in May 2013. Insurance companies are not getting enough premiums to cover the costs of treating enrollees.

The problem is that the Affordable Care Act is simply unsustainable, as I predicted in December 2009. It mandates a generous, comprehensive plan that is also expensive. Young, healthy people do not want to sign up because the premiums are far higher than their health-care costs. They rightly do not see why they have to buy a plan with pediatric dental care if they have no children, and mental-health and drug-abuse coverage if they do not need it. Many would buy a simple plan, covering major catastrophic expenses, but such plans are not allowed to be sold on the exchanges. People who are signing up for Obamacare are not the young. They are sicker than average and have chronic health conditions that make them more expensive to insure.

Insurance companies were relying on payments from the federal government to constrain their losses as part of a device known as “risk corridors.” Risk corridors allow the government to bear a portion of the costs if they become too high. Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act states that the secretary of HHS can reimburse insurance companies if the costs of covering sick people exceed the premiums received. However, the act did not provide an appropriation for these funds. In order for risk-corridor funds to be distributed, Congress has to appropriate them.

Some legislation that includes risk corridors includes an appropriation. For instance, payments for losses under the Medicare Part D plan come from a permanent appropriation from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account. However, the ACA did not include such an appropriation.

Both the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have ruled that a congressional appropriation is required before federal agencies can make risk-corridor payments for losses incurred under the Affordable Care Act.

Enter Rubio, who has figured out that the best way to get rid of the Affordable Care Act is simply to prevent Congress from appropriating the money to pay insurance companies’ losses. If the companies are not reimbursed, they will withdraw from the exchanges. Companies estimate that they will need $2.9 billion next year to stay in business, and they cannot manage without the government subsidy.

To continue reading: Obamacare bailouts prove that the law is flawed and lousy

A new taxpayer bailout to cover up ObamaCare’s failure? by Betsy McCaughey

From Betsy McCaughey at nypost.com:
How dare the Obama administration bail out insurance companies with our money in order to hide ObamaCare’s failures. Thursday, just hours after giant insurer UnitedHealthcare said it’s losing money selling ObamaCare plans and will likely exit the health exchanges next year, the Obama administration quietly promised to bail out insurers for their losses — using your money.

Nearly all insurers are bleeding red ink trying to sell the unworkable plans. Without a bailout, more insurers will abandon ObamaCare, pushing it closer to its demise. A bailout would benefit insurers and the Democratic Party, which is desperate to cover up the health law’s failure. Ironically Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders) bad-mouth bank bailouts but are all for insurance-company bailouts. Truth is, it’s a ripoff for taxpayers, who shouldn’t have to pay for this sleazy coverup.

The pressure is building on Republicans in Congress. Industry groups like the American Health Insurance Plans and giant insurers are joining with the Obama folks to lobby ferociously for a bailout.

UnitedHealthcare’s Thursday bombshell rattled investors, health-plan subscribers and ObamaCare partisans. The insurer currently covers more than half a million ObamaCare plan subscribers in 23 states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The insurer announced losses of $425 million on ObamaCare plans, and CEO Stephen Hemsley said, “We cannot sustain these losses,” and “we saw no indication of anything actually improving.”

To continue reading: A New Taxpayer Bailout to Cover Up Obamacare’s Failure?

This Obamacare News Is One of the Law’s Worst Omens to Date, by David Zeiler

The wheels are falling off Obamacare…as predicted. From David Zeiler at moneymorning.com:

UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) CEO Stephen J. Hemsley unleashed a bombshell of Obamacare news when he announced that his firm is considering a 2017 exit from the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“We are evaluating the viability of the insurance exchange product category for us and will determine during the first half of 2016 the extent to which we can continue to serve the public exchange markets in 2017,” Hemsley said in a Thursday morning conference call. UnitedHealth added that it would cut back on the marketing of its ACA plans.

UnitedHealth is the largest health insurer in the United States. For 2016, it offers Obamacare plans in 35 states and serves half a million customers.

In revising its 2015 earnings outlook downward from $6.25-$6.35 to $6.00, UnitedHealth blamed “pressure” of $425 million, or $0.26 a share, on losses from its Obamacare-related business.

“We cannot sustain these losses,” Hemsley told analysts on a conference call. “We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

This devastating Obamacare news confirmed suspicion that the major insurers aren’t doing well with their ACA plans and eventually could follow UnitedHealth’s lead in abandoning the exchanges.

To continue reading: Obamacare News Is One of the Law’s Worst Omens to Date