ObamaCare: It's unsustainable; better to scrap it and start anew
Confirming the disconnect between the empty-promise pretenses on which ObamaCare was sold and its real-world effects in practice is a new report from Medicare actuaries that says health spending in ObamaCare's first 10 years will be about $621 billion higher than it would be without that train wreck of a law.
That's $7,450 more in health spending per family of four through 2022, according to Duke University health-policy expert Chris Conover, writing for The Apothecary, a Forbes blog. And that figure's contrast with candidate Barack Obama's 2008 promise that he'd lower such families' premiums “by up to $2,500” — during his first term! — is both grim and stark.
The Medicare actuaries' report is consistent with their prior reports showing ObamaCare would increase, not decrease, health spending. It's the latest evidence that Mr. Obama made America the “absurd promise” that Mr. Conover says it is.
And contrary to what some “progressives” believe, the bill for that increased health spending ultimately will be paid by America's families. Insurers and the federal government will pass along those higher costs to them — in the form of higher premiums and taxes.
“In short, American families manifestly will be absorbing every single penny” of ObamaCare's $612 billion in additional health spending, Conover says. And while he urges a year's delay to “fix” ObamaCare, better to scrap it entirely and start fresh — without absurd promises or unrealistic scenarios.
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.
- The Export-Import Bank: Bury this zombie once and for all
- Chamber of Commerce awards: Dedication recognized
- Saturday essay: The cabbage cometh
- The Wolf agenda: Coddling unions
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- Seeds of a new endeavor: Connellsville Area Garden Club’s latest plans
- Unsolved McKeesport murders raise concerns
- Mon-Yough communities need evacuation plans for rail disasters
- The Thursday wrap