With Bev trapped in a world without Commentarama Access, I thought I’d share some interesting Obamacare numbers with you. The left has been screaming that Obamacare is working, and they point to various numbers to prove it. But there is something wrong with the numbers they use.
The first claim the left loves is that Obamacare has slowed the rate of growth of medical costs. In other words, while it’s still getting more expensive, it’s not getting as expensive as fast as it has been. As a result, Obamacare will cost 20% less than expected over its first five years.
Here’s the thing...
Obamacare will be cheaper, but not because it caused costs to go down. Instead, it will be cheaper because fewer people are enrolling. When created, the CBO expected 13 million would be signed up by the end of this year. They have since lowered their estimate to 12 million. Moreover, the real number is likely to be around 9 million. Nine million is 30% less than estimated. Thus, while Obamacare may be 20% cheaper, getting the reduction has been the result of cutting the number of participants by 30%. That’s nothing to brag about. Moreover, you would think that a 30% reduction in participants should lead at least to a 30% cut in costs, not a 20% cut. So any bragging about cost cuts is completely misleading the public.
A corollary claim to this is that by cutting costs, Obamacare has made Medicare cheaper as well. But that claim causes the same problem: the Medicare cuts are not the result of cost savings, they are the result of Obama simply removing those moneys from the Medicare program, i.e. rationing.
At the same time the left brags about the cost of Obamacare going down, they also like to claim that Obamacare is signing up more people than expected. But this is misleading. When the law was passed, the Democratic-controlled CBO estimated that 13 million would sign up by the end of 2014. By 2015, the number is supposed to rise to 21 million. But we aren’t even close to those numbers. Instead, Team Obama has revise the number down to nine million and now pats themselves on the back for meeting that lowered goal. Pathetic. That’s 43% of the initial estimate.
At other times, they combine Medicare/Medicaid signups, even though those people are counted separately under the CBO estimates.
What’s more, they now estimate that ultimately 31 million people will remain uninsured despite the program. But if that’s the case, then why did we do this? And how can the program be considered a success when it only reached 37% of the people it was designed to reach?
You tell me.
The first claim the left loves is that Obamacare has slowed the rate of growth of medical costs. In other words, while it’s still getting more expensive, it’s not getting as expensive as fast as it has been. As a result, Obamacare will cost 20% less than expected over its first five years.
Here’s the thing...
Obamacare will be cheaper, but not because it caused costs to go down. Instead, it will be cheaper because fewer people are enrolling. When created, the CBO expected 13 million would be signed up by the end of this year. They have since lowered their estimate to 12 million. Moreover, the real number is likely to be around 9 million. Nine million is 30% less than estimated. Thus, while Obamacare may be 20% cheaper, getting the reduction has been the result of cutting the number of participants by 30%. That’s nothing to brag about. Moreover, you would think that a 30% reduction in participants should lead at least to a 30% cut in costs, not a 20% cut. So any bragging about cost cuts is completely misleading the public.
A corollary claim to this is that by cutting costs, Obamacare has made Medicare cheaper as well. But that claim causes the same problem: the Medicare cuts are not the result of cost savings, they are the result of Obama simply removing those moneys from the Medicare program, i.e. rationing.
At the same time the left brags about the cost of Obamacare going down, they also like to claim that Obamacare is signing up more people than expected. But this is misleading. When the law was passed, the Democratic-controlled CBO estimated that 13 million would sign up by the end of 2014. By 2015, the number is supposed to rise to 21 million. But we aren’t even close to those numbers. Instead, Team Obama has revise the number down to nine million and now pats themselves on the back for meeting that lowered goal. Pathetic. That’s 43% of the initial estimate.
At other times, they combine Medicare/Medicaid signups, even though those people are counted separately under the CBO estimates.
What’s more, they now estimate that ultimately 31 million people will remain uninsured despite the program. But if that’s the case, then why did we do this? And how can the program be considered a success when it only reached 37% of the people it was designed to reach?
You tell me.
It is amazing how much of a disaster Obamacare has been.
ReplyDeleteI remember Jonah Goldberg saying of the website, "We had no idea that they would farm that thing out to the finest computer programmers in the Amish community."
Kit, I don't think they ever considered that the numbers would be this bad.
ReplyDeletewas it not Saamuel Clements who once opined "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics" And yet, I believe there are plnty of folks who so want Tinker Bell to come back to life they lap this bullshit up like candy
ReplyDeleteNot much to add. It will be interesting to see how big an issue the ongoing disaster that is Ocare will be in 2016.
ReplyDeleteMaybe eating gay shrimp will cure all of our medical ails?
ReplyDeleteI am back!!! Just a warning...don't ever try to travel east during January/February. I was warned that my astrological sign was in "retrograde" but I had no idea I would be thrust into the 5th level of airport hell.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo - To add to this, I just had a conversation with a hard-core Dem friend who was shocked...SHOCKED at how Obamacare would cause her cost to rise so dramatically. She asked me "is this what you were trying to warn us about?" All I said was "Yes, yes it was." She finally understood the folly of her adoration.
Oh, and the IRS is having major issues with this new tax season where now people will have to declare all of this on their returns and face possibly losing their supplements to pay for their premiums they get for their exchange policies. Obama has already started floating another executive order for more "waivers"...
Bev,
ReplyDeleteA law that requires this many waivers must not be a good law.
Jed, Nicely mixed literary references! Bravo!
ReplyDeleteYeah, sadly, there are people who will want to believe it's all working no matter what.So they will listen to any lie. But the truth is out there and documented.
Anthony, That's an excellent question to which I have no idea. I can say that every step seems to upset people more and more and with the IRS involved now that we have the tax provisions active, I suspect that 40+ million people are in for a very unpleasant surprise.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, That does indeed sound like a miracle cure! LOL!
ReplyDeleteBev, Welcome back! Yeah, if you're going to fly in the Northeast during the winter, bring a sleeping bag.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad your friend had a moment of clarity, but sadly you know she'll fall right back under their spell at the next opportunity.
The IRS issue will be interesting. First, a large percentage of the 40 million without insurance will be shocked to be fined. Another group who did sign up will be shocked to discover that they need to pay back their subsidy because they got too much. Others will be shocked to discover that the rules on deductability have changed. None of this will make these people happy.
Kit, That's an excellent observation.
ReplyDeleteKit - One would think, wouldn't one? And anyway, were there only supposed to be only 45 million who didn't have insurance who were desperately in need? Oh, btw, Cuomo is floating the idea to add a "tax" in NY on insurance plans to cover what we won't be getting from the Feds this year. What a plan! More taxes in NY! Yay!!! or "Surprise!!!".
ReplyDeleteHave you read that Vermont, the only state that opted for a "single payer" plan is now backing off because...SURPRISE!...it is too expensive and not feasible. Imagine...too expensive! Poor socialist Bernie Sanders ;-(
LINK