ObamaCare 'benefits': The lie is exposed
ObamaCare's negative consequences — sharply higher premiums, lower payments to treatment providers, reduced access — are looming so predictably that they can't be called “unintended.”
Physician Scott Gottlieb, an American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, writes for Forbes about a California insurance broker who sells health plans to individuals and small businesses. She's “prepping her clients for a sticker shock” this fall when insurers will unveil how they'll cope with ObamaCare's full brunt.
He says they're “hinting to her that premiums may triple” — and that double-digit hikes are likely nationwide.
Dr. Gottlieb notes that ObamaCare empowers state regulators to block such premium increases and created a federal agency to oversee rates. But the regulators are mum on what's looming. He says that's because it's all part of ObamaCare's design, which doesn't increase efficiency or competition.
If regulators force insurers to price coverage below what it costs under ObamaCare, insurers will lose money and leave markets — hence the coming hikes. Washington's notion of controlling costs will be cutting payments to providers until they “fall below the rates where things will be readily supplied,” he says.
That's similar to what happened under Massachusetts' health care “reform,” the model for ObamaCare's architects. They've known of its inevitable, anything-but-unintended consequences all along. And, soon, we'll all pay a stiff price indeed for the latest government overreach, courtesy of the Nanny State.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Orphan sinkhole
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Work’s the thing
- Confidentiality & carnage: Something has to give
- ‘No man, no problem’
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes