Some Nuggets from Obamacare

From the AP:

When fully phased in, 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans will have coverage, compared with 83 percent now.

What? Not 100 percent like we were all led to believe?

$938 billion over 10 years for the coverage expansion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Does this sound to anyone else like seeing something for sale for $9.49? It's a pricing gimmick, made to make you think it's less expensive than it is. Most people won't round it up to the $1 trillion that it is or realize that the CBO is never, ever correct in their estimates. They always estimate way, way under what the actual cost of things end up being.

Almost everyone will be required to be insured or else pay a fine, which takes effect in 2014. There is an exemption for low-income people.

There always is, isn't there? I thought this whole thing was about them and those who couldn't afford health care. Why not offer a cheap government program just for these people and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives? Boom. One page health care bill. It's because this has never been about health care.

Starting this year, insurers will be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents will be able to keep children on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool will offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards will also take effect in 2014. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers will not be able to charge women more.

So health insurance companies are now prohibited from dropping people who are a bad risk or are losing them money. They will be required to cover people who are bad risks and can't even charge more to people on whom they will be spending more money? The economic consequences of this are obvious - it's going to run private insurance companies out of business, forcing everyone eventually onto government-run health insurance (which doesn't have to make a profit).

If the Senate approves a package of changes this week, a special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity would be eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, would remain.

Shameful.

The bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income and wages of individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or married couples above $250,000.

Wait. Hold on. That's a new tax. I invest, and I hope that my investment income goes up and up and up. I also hope someday to make more than $250,000. But the Washington Post assured me that nothing for me would change and that my taxes wouldn't be going up.

The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent if the Senate acts on a package of changes this week — higher than originally proposed. If the Senate follows through, the legislation also would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018.

Emphasis mine. Three days after the thing was passed and they're already busting the numbers and breaking promises? Also, doesn't it seem odd that there's a tax in here that doesn't even go into effect for EIGHT YEARS!??! Why in the world would they do that? Could it be that they were trying to hide it? Eight years from now you'll be hit with a sucker-punch tax out of nowhere and the people who passed it will be long gone and completely unaccountable. Shameful and abusive.

Employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. Contingent on approval by the Senate this week, the $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement.

Translation: the government is now requiring businesses to offer health insurance whether they can afford it or not. But if they can't afford it and have to have the government subsidize their employee's coverage that they're required by law to offer, then they will be penalized $2000 per person for every employee in the company. Is it just me, or is this kinda like a bank charging huge overdraft fees to a person who doesn't have enough money in their checking account to cover what they already owe, especially if the fees are as a result of the bank previously charging overdraft fees? If a company can't afford to offer health insurance before, how are they going to be able to afford mandated health coverage (even if partially subsidized) and $2000 per employee? This is going to run countless mom and pop businesses out of businesses.

Businesses with 25 or fewer employees that offer health coverage to their work force will get tax credits. The credits will start this year and rise in 2014 to a maximum of 50 percent of the cost of premiums offered by the smallest businesses, those with 10 or fewer workers.

Odd that this number is 25 and not 49. Why is there such a gap?

Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges will offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms will not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange, and insurers could not deny them coverage.

Buh-huh? There are already private co-ops like this. Why the need for the government to interfere? Oh, wait. It's all about control. And that last sentence - there's the government forcing insurance companies to take on bad risk again. Hmmm. This is sure starting to sound to health care like what the government did to the housing market when it required lenders to give low-interest loans to people who couldn't afford to pay for what they were getting. But that's okay- nothing bad happened with that, right?

The legislation cuts about $455 billion over 10 years from projected payment increases to hospitals, insurance companies and others under Medicare and other government health programs. Revenue increases over 10 years include: $210 billion from increasing the Medicare payroll tax; $107 billion from fees on insurance companies, drug makers and medical device manufacturers; $32 billion from the excise tax on high-value insurance plans; and $2.7 billion from a tax on indoor tanning services.

They're increasing demand for doctors' services and cutting funding for the services they are mandating. And would you look at all the new taxes they're imposing... Anyone who thinks that either companies who are being taxed in such a way won't pass the cost on to consumers or go out of business if they're not allowed to is stupid, or a Democrat... or both.

And I wonder why indoor tanning places are such a scourge on society tat they are not only specifically targeted but were made the first, immediate tax increase? What about ice cream shops, or convenience stores or fast food restaurants or ... oh, just wait. It's coming.

And why not a tax credit for people who belong to gyms? If you're going to punish unhealthy behavior, why not reward those who engage in activities that make them healthier? Because it's not about health care. It's about control.

No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges will have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans will be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.

Bullcrap. What part of any of this isn't being mandated and gerrymandered by the government? And what is Medicaid, if not a government-run health care plan? Exchange plans may, indeed, be private, but by being "overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress," that pretty much makes them government-run, doesn't it?