The ObamaCare mess II: ... & more losers
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
It's ever more apparent that ObamaCare's promises of keeping one's doctor and lowering a typical family's premiums by as much as $2,500 annually are worthless — particularly for middle- and lower-class Americans forced to seek individual-market coverage amid the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare's “exchanges.”
A new Heritage Foundation study finds individual-market premiums will rise in 45 states under ObamaCare. Speaking at a Heritage event, that study's author blamed ObamaCare's many regulations, mandates and taxes for the surge in premiums.
The exchanges rely on signing up younger, healthier, less-costly-to-insure Americans to offset the expense of covering those who are older, sicker and more costly to insure — despite premiums costing the young far more than the tax for being uninsured. And ObamaCare encourages health-care consolidation and curbs access to services.
Its annual Medicare reimbursement cuts are spurring hospital layoffs. And service cuts could lead one in four hospitals to reject Medicare patients and ration care, according to The Washington Free Beacon. Those reimbursement cuts also are disincentives for primary-care doctors, already in short supply, to practice in rural areas.
It all adds up to an especially hard hit for middle- and lower-class Americans. Yet the Congressional Budget Office projects ObamaCare still will leave 31 million Americans uninsured by 2023. Even at its most basic, “universal coverage” level, ObamaCare is a failure that shouldn't continue.
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 Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Common Core: Garbage in, garbage out
- More reefer sanity
- The Thursday wrap
- ‘Climate change’: Politics over science
- Abuse in Harrisburg: The per-diem party
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- Big Labor’s losses