Thanks to Karen, from whom I also stole borrowed the ObaminableCare icon in the left, I found this article:
By Alex Nussbaum | December 13, 2012 @ 12:01 AM ETHealth insurance premiums may as much as double for some small businesses and individual buyers in the U.S. when the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions start in 2014, Aetna Inc.’s chief executive officer said.
While subsidies in the law will shield some people, other consumers who make too much for assistance are in for “premium rate shock,” Mark Bertolini, who runs the third-biggest U.S. health-insurance company, told analysts yesterday at a conference in New York. The prospect has spurred discussion of having Congress delay or phase in parts of the law, he said.
“We’ve shared it all with the people in Washington and I think it’s a big concern,” the CEO said. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as as 100 percent.”
Bertolini’s prediction is at odds with Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will have little effect on small and large-employer plans and the Obama administration’s projections that middle-class families will actually save money. The 2010 law is expected to extend health care to about 30 million people who otherwise couldn’t get insurance, paid for by new taxes and fees on companies and wealthier individuals.
Those taxes will make coverage more expensive for insurers, as will other provisions such as a ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions, Bertolini said. Premiums are likely to increase 25 percent to 50 percent on average in the small-group and individual markets, he said, citing projections by his Hartford, Connecticut-based company.
More at the link.
So, who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the Congressional Budget Office, a (supposedly) non-partisan body which analyses programs and gives cost estimates? Are you going to believe the economic gurus of the White House, who have a vested interest in telling you that the health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will reduce the growth of health care costs? Or are you going to believe the Chief Executive Officer of a major health insurance company, someone who is actually responsible for paying health care bills and maintaining his company in a profitable mode?
And Phineas noted how a group of sixteen Democratic senators, all of whom voted for the PP&ACA, now wants to delay the imposition of the 2.3% tax on
medical devices, which comedian Senator Al Franken (D-MN) called a “job-killing tax.”
We told you so!
Long ago, legend has it, Pandora unleashed a wealth of ills on the world by opening a box out of curiosity. The same could be said for Obamacare — after all, we had to pass it to find out what was in it. But maybe, again like Pandora’s box, a small bit of hope for the PPACA’s repeal was also released: With all the taxes unleashed and all the regulations engendered by this abomination, maybe people will become so annoyed and angry and frustrated that they’ll demand its repeal.
And that's something that the Democrats actually anticipate — not that they'd ever say so — because, in the end, the PP&ACA is not what they want. I said, 2½ years ago, that the Democrats wanted something, anything passed, to establish “the principle that, in the end, the government was responsible for seeing to it that the individual could get his health care paid.”
In swallowing a bill you did not like, just to get the principle passed, y’all sold your souls. I don’t think you’ve got much of a legitimate complaint that things aren’t going to work the way you want them to work when you forced this through, without a single Republican vote, when the things the Republicans told you would happen start to happen.
As for the Democrats? Well, our own liberal from Lewes told us that the PP&ACA, by “forcing younger and healthier folks to be insured spreads the risk over a healthier total population thus lowering premiums.” Yet now we are hearing that no, premiums won't be lowered, but that, for many people, they will rise significantly, maybe even doubling, from the CEO of the third largest health insurance company in the country.
Perry's statement, of course, was made in May of 2010, when we were operating under the initial, lower estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of what ObaminableCare would cost, $940 billion over ten years. Two years later, the CBO estimated the costs again, and, to no one's surprise, the cost estimates nearly doubled, to $1.76 trillion.
Two years prior to that, I wrote, on May 10, 2010:
There’s no free lunch, and there never was a free lunch; everything has to be paid for, somehow. Of course, the bill doesn’t come into complete effect until 2014, and that’s only if President Jeb Bush can’t derail it in 2013. Then you’ll start to see more and more of these stories, then you’ll start to see how the estimates given us by the Democrats were just totally bogus.
I was just joking about President Jeb Bush; I figured that the notion of yet another President Bush would send the liberals into fits of apoplexy. But what I said about the costs of ObaminableCare was dead on: the original cost estimates were totally bogus, and that we'd be seeing a rash of stories about how the costs keep going up.
In the 2½ years since the PP&ACA was passed, everything that the opponents said would be the result of that law has been coming true; in the 2½ years since the PP&ACA was passed, everything the proponents claimed the law would do for people, all of the money the proponents claimed it would save us, is falling apart, and the law hasn't even entered full effect yet. In other words, we were right, and they were wrong.