40 million will be damaged by Obamacare...

[healthmyths]

so says:Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives.

In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare.
Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a "train wreck."
A Democratic colleague, West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller, described the massive Affordable Care Act as "beyond comprehension."
Henry Chao, the government's chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying "I'm pretty nervous . . . Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience."

These individuals are worried for good reason. The unpopular health-care law's rollout is going to be rough. It will also administer several price (and other) shocks to tens of millions of Americans.

Daniel Kessler: The Coming ObamaCare Shock - WSJ.com

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Obamacare puttin' the hurt on peoples' jobs an' paychecks...

Obamacare Already 'Hurting Jobs and Paychecks,' Republican Senator Says
May 3, 2013 - The Democrats' health care law is "hurting jobs, it's hurting care, and it's hurting Americans' paychecks," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Fox News's Neil Cavuto on Thursday.

Barrasso called Obamacare "an anchor around the neck of the economy," and he says its effects soon will be reflected in the monthly unemployment numbers. "We have 20 million Americans who are out of work, are unemployed or underemployed. Millions more have given up looking for work, and it's because of the impact of this health care law," Barrasso said.

Part of the problem is full-time workers: If a company has more than 50, it must pay for "Washington-mandated, one-size-fits all health insurance, which is very expensive. So businesses are not hiring," Barrasso said. "They're keeping their numbers under 50. "The other thing that has happened at a number of these bars, restaurants and fast-food places is in terms of total number of hours. You're considered a part-time employee if you're under 30 hours. So, even the city of Long Beach, California, just came out and said for our 1,600 part-time employees, we're going to get your numbers down below 30 hours, because if you're above 30, then you have to be considered a full-time employee."

The 2,000-page law, which passed without a single Republican vote, will take full effect in 2014. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is writing all the rules and regulations. "We printed them off," Barrasso said. "There are 20,000 pages now of rules and regulations. It`s a red tape tower that is over seven feet tall...And they have missed deadline after deadline."

Writing in the May 2 "Investors Business Daily," Barrasso said: "The economy can't grow until we get Americans back to work. People can't get back to work if there aren't more jobs. Employers aren't hiring because of the health care law." He is urging Congress to "repeal the president's disastrous law."

Obamacare Already 'Hurting Jobs and Paychecks,' Republican Senator Says | CNS News

See also:

New Obamacare Challenge: Lawsuit Says IRS Is Flouting the Law As Written by Congress
May 2, 2013 - Here comes another legal challenge to Obamacare: On Thursday, a group of small business owners and individuals in six states sued the federal government over an IRS regulation that they say goes beyond the "plain language" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs argue that federal subsidies intended to help lower-income people afford insurance are going to states that should not get them. The way the Affordable Care Act is written, states that refuse to set up their own health care exchanges are not eligible for the federal premium subsidies. But the IRS rule says lower-income people living in those states will get federal subsidies to help them pay for their insurance premiums -- even though the Affordable Care Act's statutory language limits those subsidies to exchanges established by the states. The lawsuit says because of the IRS rule that illegally expands federal subsidies to all states, the plaintiffs "will be forced to either purchase or sponsor specific insurance that they otherwise would not purchase or sponsor, or expose themselves to financial penalties."

Bottom line: The plaintiffs want nothing to do with Obamacare, and they say the availability of federal subsidies will force them into it -- or penalize them for avoiding it. Here's the background: To encourage states to establish their own health insurance exchanges, Congress offered low- and moderate- income residents premium assistance - in the form of refundable tax credits -- to help them buy insurance on state health exchanges. States that refused to establish their own exchanges -- leaving it to the federal government instead -- would not get subsidized premiums. As it turns out, a majority of states (33) have refused to establish their own health care exchanges. But regardless of statutory language limiting subsidized premiums to exchanges established by the states, the IRS has issued a rule authorizing federal subsidies even in states that are letting the federal government establish their exchanges for them.

Disbursing monies from the U.S. Treasury in this way exceeds the authority granted by Obamacare, the plaintiffs argue. As the lawsuit put it, "The IRS Rule squarely contravenes the express text of the ACA, ignoring the clear limitations that Congress imposed on the availability of the federal subsidies." “Agencies are bound by the laws enacted by Congress,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which is coordinating the lawsuit. “Obamacare is already an incredibly massive program. For the IRS to expand it even more, without congressional authorization and in a manner aimed at undercutting state choice, is flagrantly illegal.”

The plaintiffs say while most subsidies benefit the recipient, the Obamacare subsidies "financially injure and restrict the economic choices" of certain individuals. Here's why: If they were not eligible for federal subsidies, the plaintiffs say they would be exempt from Obamacare's individual mandate under a clause that applies to people for whom insurance is "unaffordable." But with the federal subsidies, more people will be subject to the individual mandate, which requires just about everyone to buy health insurance, whether they want it or not – or pay a penalty.

MORE

 

[Londoner]

You gotta love this garbage.

The findings from this piece of partisan trash were made by consultants from Oliver Wyman - one of the firms whose clients stood to lose big when ObamaCare challenged their monopolized control over the health insurance market.

But it gets worse.

Oliver Wyman was the unnamed consulting firm that in 2005 recommended to Citigroup's "senior-most management" to expand parts of its fixed income business, including in collateralised debt obligations (CDO), which led to more than US$50 billion in losses and ultimately a rescue by the U.S. government

Oliver Wyman in 2007 named Anglo Irish Bank as the best bank in the world. The following year the Irish Government was forced to bail it out to the tune of 25 billion dollars. It proved to be one of the most corruptly mismanaged banks in the world - but yet this partisan rightwing consulting firm gave it a top score.

So now they're putting a hit job on ObamaCare. What a surprise.

 

[healthmyths]

The true idiocy of Obamacare is there NEVER have been 46 million people that are qualified - 10 million are not citizens. 14 million say they are uninsured but all they have to do is register with Medicaid and they're covered! But the biggest falsehood was lumping 18 million people that don't WANT health insurance even though they make over $50k per year they refuse their employers' coverage. They rather pay their health services costs out of pocket. They average about $1,000 a year as they are also under age 34!
That means there is less then 4 million that want and need coverage!

But Obama WANTS these 18 million included because from his stupidity and his idiots around him, HE thinks that will lower the COSTS!
They have this big myth of "expanding the pool"!

The far simpler method is when you subtract that 42 million that are not citizens,that all the need to do is register and the 18 million that don't want you have 4 million! Take $20 billion a year and pay an insurance premium for the 4 million that want insurance and go into the emergency room for medical help.

Then force hospitals NOT to pad and pass the unreimbursed costs on to Medicare/insurance companies.

Oh did I mention that the $20 billion can come from the $200 billion lawyers earn? The same lawyers that created the $850 billion a year in defensive medicine costs because providers are fearful of being sued so they duplicate tests.. not needed but fear. Refer to specialists.. not needed FEAR!
Obamacare taxed 10% on tanning salons why not lawyers?

Between auditing hospitals so they don't pad and pass and taxing lawyers that the tax goes down when the $850 billion declines.. easily
$100 billion a year in savings. ALL the 4 million that want and need are insured!
That simple!

 

[healthmyths]

You gotta love this garbage.

The findings from this piece of partisan trash were made by consultants from Oliver Wyman - one of the firms whose clients stood to lose big when ObamaCare challenged their monopolized control over the health insurance market.

But it gets worse.

Oliver Wyman was the unnamed consulting firm that in 2005 recommended to Citigroup's "senior-most management" to expand parts of its fixed income business, including in collateralised debt obligations (CDO), which led to more than US$50 billion in losses and ultimately a rescue by the U.S. government

Oliver Wyman in 2007 named Anglo Irish Bank as the best bank in the world. The following year the Irish Government was forced to bail it out to the tune of 25 billion dollars. It proved to be one of the most corruptly mismanaged banks in the world - but yet this partisan rightwing consulting firm gave it a top score.

So now they're putting a hit job on ObamaCare. What a surprise.

Since when are 1,300 health insurance companies considered a MONOPOLY?
Why didn't Obama have tort reform that would reduce the $850 billion the experts i.e. physicians say they bill these 1,300 insurance companies and Medicare
because of fear of lawsuits? Because Obama/Congress received $300 million in donations from lawyers to keep tort reform out of Obamacare.

YET Obamacare went after those big bad evil tanning salons taxing them 10%!
Talk about collusion!

 

[waltky]

healthmyths wrote: Since when are 1,300 health insurance companies considered a MONOPOLY?

It's more like price fixing...

... like when the gas stations in Louisville follow the leading oil company...

... and jack up the price of gas during events...

... such as the Derby, State fair, etc.when there are...

... a lot of out of town people visiting the event...

... sure, there are a lot of gas stations in Louisville...

... and it may not be a monopoly per se...

... but the gas stations have a captive market...

... and the effect is the same.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

so they want all of us to buy health insurance, and what happens when most of us cannot get an urgent appt? can u imagine calling your doctor for an appt only to find out he is booked for the next three weeks? by that time u will be 5 feet under!