Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obamacare Will Send Costs Up

February 22, 2013

Calls for repeal of “Obamacare,” the president’s national health care takeover, seemed to fade away after President Barack Obama was re-elected last November....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(31)

promo61

Feb-22-13 5:51 AM

Oooh, never let it be said this editor shies away from contoversy. This will surely bring liberal wrath up from Hades. I for one appreciate the free entertainment.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie

Feb-22-13 6:47 AM

How can Congress fix anything? The intellegence level of Congress is so low they do not understand much. And since they hardly ever are in session they don't have time to do anything. The right wing extremists will only play politics with every issue that comes up. They are not looking to find answers to help Americans but rather just do nothing on everything. Not one debate on this issue. None. No one is even trying to discuss legislation to fix any single part of the law. It is probably better that Boehner keeps them on vacation b/c so many of Congress are just plain stupid and don't even know fact from fiction. This is the worst Congress in our history.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 9:05 AM

So hoopie is ranting that Congress is to blame because they’re not fixing all the nightmarish problems with Obamacare? That’s OBAMAcare? With a capital OBAMA? LOL

And hoopie, you realize Harry Reid’s DEMOCRIT-controlled Senate is an equal part of Congress, too? Where’s your Democrit debate on fixing OBAMAcare? For that matter, where’s your Democrit debate on fixing ANYTHING? The FEDERAL BUDGET, for example?

And hoopie, didn’t Obama give your union a waiver that exempts you from OBAMAcare anyway? So why do you care that the rest of us have to deal with Barry’s O-mess?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Feb-22-13 11:10 AM

"Health insurance premiums for people who buy policies themselves will go up by as much as 13 percent in 2016, as a result of Obamacare, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded recently. ... Many people who like the insurance they have will lose it or have to buy higher-cost policies, some researchers have noted." Has anyone priced private health insurance policies? If anyone can afford one, a decent one, now, and "like" it, they're the kind of folks, with money, who ain't gonna notice a "13 percent" increase by "2016". This editorial is just bellyaching by the penny-pinching privileged few, who are likely, in total honesty, to be more concerned about preserving their status of privilege than their pennies.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Feb-22-13 11:39 AM

Well said GEO! "takeover". What a load that is. Every time Mike talks about the AHCA or the "War on Coal", his trousers burst into flames. lol.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 1:14 PM

WVUGEO “they're the kind of folks, with money... the penny-pinching privileged few... their status of privilege”

Sounds like someone has a little envy problem. LOL

Maybe there are a few struggling middle class families who are having difficulty coming up with Barry Obamascare’s 13 percent increase in health care cost, too?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

Feb-22-13 4:58 PM

Was anyones health insurance going DOWN before Obamacares?

Were right wing wackos whining when their health insurance premiums were increasing at record rates while health insurance companies and pharmas were making record profits from 2001-2009? Wonder why they didnt whine then?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Howard

Feb-22-13 5:04 PM

I do think it would have been nice if those who voted this miserable piece of legislation into law would have taken the time to read it before they voted on it. Pelosi advised them to vote on it after saying we can read it later. Now that's the kind of thinking you havde to admire.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 5:12 PM

Goosy, you mean during the “but BUSH!” years? I think it was you liberals who were doing all the whining then. Come to think of it, you still are. LOL

Maybe because we were getting what we were paying for. Now you freeloaders are getting what we're still paying even more for. LOL

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvujeff

Feb-22-13 6:08 PM

This world is filled with idiots. Take TrollSlayer, for example, who actually pretends to have intelligence. The Democratic Party and Obama are stuck trying to fix the mess the Republitards created under GW Bush. The need for higher taxes is there, as without sufficient tax revenues the government cannot pay down the ballooning National Debt.

The tax cuts and tax loopholes that led to the problem were Republican Party creations, not Democratic Party creations. The Republican Party always wants to cut assistance programs for the people, give businesses tax breaks, and cut taxes on the rich. They also want to increase spending on NASA and other useless programs. Do you see a problem with this whole thing yet? You cannot, as a government, fail to realize enough tax revenue to pay off your debts, and cutting programs doesn't provide sufficient enough savings to make up for the lost tax revenue. Hence, a deficit begins to build. The Democrats didn't do this.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 7:50 PM

Always amusing when one who uses a term like “Republitards” calls conservatives idiots. LOL

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 7:53 PM

wvujeff “The need for higher taxes is there, as without sufficient tax revenues the government cannot pay down the ballooning National Debt.”

Educate us with a little WVU math, Jeff, and tell us what tax rate on the “rich” would be sufficient to pay down the National Debt. We “Republitards” seek your vast wisdom.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-22-13 8:00 PM

wvujeff “Do you see a problem with this whole thing yet? You cannot, as a government, fail to realize enough tax revenue to pay off your debts, and cutting programs doesn't provide sufficient enough savings to make up for the lost tax revenue. Hence, a deficit begins to build.”

Double negatives aside, tell us, Jeff, why cutting programs doesn’t provide “sufficient enough” savings to reduce the deficit. Considering the deficit is MOSTLY programs that need to be cut. I hope you’re not a wvu finance major, Jeff. Or I hope you can figure out how to put fries in little bags when the bell rings. Or do I have to feed you and pay for your health insurance, too? LOL

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-22-13 9:16 PM

Tax revenue as a % of GDP will be 19.2% by 2015. The last Clinton budget it was 19.5%. Liberals constantly point out the "tax rates" of that fabled era and how great things were. What they won't point out is that Federal spending during that year was 18.2% while 2015 will be 22.5%! If spending levels were the same as the Clinton years we'd be close to a balanced budget. It's the spending stupid!!!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-22-13 9:31 PM

Howard Rich 8/10/11

"The latest cost overrun associated with ObamaCare? A $500 billion "error" associated with insuring the spouses and children of new entitlement recipients. That's $500 billion in additional deficit spending — although it didn't stem from an "error" so much as it was the result of a deliberate miscalculation. As it attempted to calculate ObamaCare's true fiscal impact, the Congressional Budget Office was explicitly instructed to ignore the cost of covering family members under new eligibility requirements for low-income private sector employees. "The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this (because) they were expressly told to do their modeling on single coverage," researcher Richard Burkhauser told the Daily Caller this month.

Documents .. demonstrate the lengths to which Obama supporters went in an effort to hide these costs from the tax

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-22-13 9:31 PM

Obviously this isn't the first "oversight" associated with this unconstitutional abomination. In March of 2011, Obama's heath care czarina Kathleen Sebelius was forced to acknowledge under oath that the government double-counted $529 billion in "savings" associated with the implementation of the legislation.

Numerous other errors and omissions have been uncovered within ObamaCare's fuzzy math — including a $52 billion raid of Social Security and a $72 billion repayment obligation for a new "long-term care trust fund."

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates released on the eve of its passage in March 2010, ObamaCare was originally projected to add $109 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years. We can now add more than $1 trillion to that total (and counting), shredding once and for all Obama's ridiculous claim that his signature legislation is "one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history."

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-22-13 9:40 PM

WVUJerk, figures a loser from WVU can't figure out government finance 101.

Bill BJ Clinton added $1.6 Trillion to the debt, Bush added $4.9 Trillion, Both in 8 years, and the undisputed DEBT CHAMP Barack Owebama added $6.2 Trillion in FOUR {bleeping} years!!!!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rover1958

Feb-22-13 10:09 PM

Oh, bwhahahahahahah!!!

Talk about a badly timed article!

The King of the Tea Party Gov. Rick Scott of Florida ran his campaign on not giving in to 'ObamaCare'....well, he's just done a 180 with a bittersweet 'mea culpa' as he brayed, “This country is the greatest in the world, and it’s the greatest largely because of how we value the weakest among us,.... “It shouldn’t depend on your Zip code or your tax bracket. No mother or father should despair over whether they have access to high-quality health care for their sick child.” With federal funds covering the cost, “I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care.”.

In a word....HE'S EMBRACED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (aka: ObamaCare)

Rick's munching that humble pie and crow. Wonder when our own Disciple of Everything Stupid (Wrat) will roll his eyes, shout to the heavens and from his drooling lips embrace Barack Obama as his political savior? daWraith da Democrat sees the light.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-23-13 5:57 AM

Bloviator has no idea what he is drooling about.

Most states are REFUSING to set up their own health care program, instead want the FEDS to do and FALL on their A&&ES.

The Feds have NO IDEA how to set up a state program. Blink leading the Blind into costly Oblivion.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-23-13 6:01 AM

Idiots! From a few weeks ago:

"– In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS. The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan. “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says."

OOOOH, saves you a LOT of money, eh???

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

Feb-23-13 8:12 AM

I didnt think ANY ONE of the right wing extremists, US hating, President hating, everyday whining, blowhards would answer the question:

"Was anyones health insurance going DOWN before Obamacares?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Feb-23-13 8:36 AM

Oh, sorry Goosy. I neglected to give you the response you deserved.

“but BUUUHSSSSSH!!!”???

There. Feel better? LOL

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldmansvan

Feb-23-13 10:06 AM

Trolls LOL means lack of logic.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-23-13 10:10 AM

I think Goose has somewhat of a point here. Healthcare spending increases have slowed a bit. When you have so many people un(under)employed it adds greatly to Medicaid rolls. Medicaid reimburse Doctors well below market price.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie

Feb-23-13 2:26 PM

The health care in the taft hartley funds I'm involved with are under $700 month for family coverage and that includes low deductible OOP caps at $500, RX at $5/$10 deductibles, dental, eye, disability, life, ad&d and ortho. We are anticipating huge savings as projected by the consultants by going to the exchanges. We will monitor this. If this becomes reality, we will bargain those savings into wages. Things are looking quite good!

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: