7 Prickly Questions for ObamaCare

T

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
Published: Friday, 26 Mar 2010 * 3:19 PM ET

By: Dennis Kneale
CNBC Media & Technology Editor

OK, so it passed. President Obama just rammed through his trillion-dollar gut renovation of U.S. health care. He takes a giddy leap toward government nationalization and one of the biggest redistributions of wealth in U.S. history.

All without one single vote of bipartisanship—what a Change!
Now what? The financial toll already has begun to pile up, and the social and psychological implications will begin to unfold soon. Here are six provocative questions on what we have wrought. The wrong answers could crush our recovery and add hundreds of billions to the cost of this medical Moby Dick.
Question 1: Will ObamaCare end up covering 50 percent more uninsured?
We used to hear, constantly, about 45 million uninsured people.

ObamaCare will insure 32 million of ’em. Those left uncovered are, for the most part, illegal aliens, and the President wants to grant them the status of legal residents. Would that qualify them for ObamaCare and swell the ranks by half—and thereby increase costs by another half a trillion dollars?
So far, the White House hasn’t provided a clear answer on this point.

Question 2: Does ObamaCare’s price tag include corporate writedowns?

We’re told this medical miracle will cost us $938 billion over 10 years. I doubt that sum includes the toll taken this week. AT&T [ATT 26.74 0.10 (+0.38%) ] today said it will take a $1 billion charge related to ObamaCare.

Earlier this week, Caterpillar [CAT 62.44 0.30 (+0.48%) ] drew first blood (its own), taking a $100 million writedown. The heavy-metal giant provides generous drug benefits to retirees, enticed by tax-free subsidies from the feds; that program now will be taxed. Deere [DE 60.56 0.36 (+0.6%) ] says it will take a $150 million hit, and AK Steel [AKS 23.01 0.52 (+2.31%) ] , $31 million.

Betchya other big companies take hits, too. That hurts their shareholders (including pension funds for workers that ObamaCare seeks to help). It may prompt companies to cut back on drug benefits for retirees, all due to a new law with the opposite aim.

Question 3: Will ObamaCare not cover medical treatments for moral reasons?

ObamaCare passed the House by only seven votes, of 431 votes cast. To buy the votes of eight anti-abortion Democrats, the Dems ditched any pretense of being the “pro-choice” party and blocked all funding for abortion in ObamaCare.

Now that we’re rationing care on moral grounds, no need to stop at abortion. Let’s ban liver transplants for alcoholics (they made their bed). And refuse to cover stomach-stapling surgery for the massively and morbidly obese (where’s their will power?). And welch on paying for any treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Oh, and when a drunk driver is maimed horribly in a car accident, let him (or her) pay out of pocket.
Question 4: Will the millionaire tax really have no bad impact at all?
One study says ObamaCare will cost, from the get-go, an extra $46,000 in taxes for a person who earns $1 million a year. No big deal, right? Wrong! That one million bucks is actually $500,000 after-tax; $46k is almost a 10% surcharge. And that means that million-dollar guy or gal will spend $46,000 less on other items that lead to more jobs: cars, private planes, fat-cat pleasure boats, jet skis, vacations, home renovations.

Question 5: Why does ObamaCare subsidize families earning $88,000 a year?

One main aim of this paternalistic program is to insure the poorest Americans. Ninety large ain’t poor. One explanation is that some middle-class Americans’ insurance costs will go up, at first, under ObamaCare, so we need subsidies to offset that pain. Um ... sorry to be picky here, but I thought this facelift was supposed to bring costs down.

Question 6: Will millions drop their insurance coverage because of ObamaCare?

We could be looking at a surge in creative ways to game this loopy new system. Say you’re a freelancer who pays $10,000, out of pocket, for insurance. Now that no insurer can turn you down for a “pre-existing condition,” you can drop your own policy and go bare. Pay the feds’ new penalty fee of, what, $695 a year? Then, after you are diagnosed with lung cancer or after you get hit by a city bus, go ahead and buy insurance again. If you never get sick, you reap a going-bare windfall of $9,000-plus a year.

Now say you’re an employer who insures your workers, at a cost of $10,000 a year per minion. Why not just cut ’em loose to buy insurance on their own? (Or they can go bare and surf the pre-existing-condition wave, see preceding paragraph. Pay the new federal penalty of $3,000 a year, per person. Voila! A $7,000-a-year savings, per head.

Question 7: Will ObamaCare infantilize freeloaders pushing age 30?
This plan forces insurers to let “children” up to age 26 stay under the umbrella of their parents’ plan (sorry for metaphor, Travelers [TRV 54.35 0.27 (+0.5%) ] ). Hey kids, like, why move out at all? Like, ever?

President Obama is especially magnanimous when it comes to filching money from “the rich” to fund entitlements for those who pay almost nothing at all. It will be alternately fascinating and painful to watch the side-effects spill over our country in coming months, only to learn that we couldn’t afford it, after all.

So that ends my column, guys. Your comments welcome, post them below. And to obviate the first few posts, let’s just go ahead and stipulate for the record: I look like Beaker, I’m a shill for Wall Street, I’m incredibly stupid, my forehead is the size of a billboard and CNBC should have fired me long ago. There! Feel better?

Now weigh in with your wisdom rather than your vitriol
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Published: Friday, 26 Mar 2010 * 3:19 PM ET

By: Dennis Kneale
CNBC Media & Technology Editor

OK, so it passed. President Obama just rammed through his trillion-dollar gut renovation of U.S. health care. He takes a giddy leap toward government nationalization and one of the biggest redistributions of wealth in U.S. history.

All without one single vote of bipartisanship—what a Change!
Now what? The financial toll already has begun to pile up, and the social and psychological implications will begin to unfold soon. Here are six provocative questions on what we have wrought. The wrong answers could crush our recovery and add hundreds of billions to the cost of this medical Moby Dick.
Question 1: Will ObamaCare end up covering 50 percent more uninsured?
We used to hear, constantly, about 45 million uninsured people.

ObamaCare will insure 32 million of ’em. Those left uncovered are, for the most part, illegal aliens, and the President wants to grant them the status of legal residents. Would that qualify them for ObamaCare and swell the ranks by half—and thereby increase costs by another half a trillion dollars?
So far, the White House hasn’t provided a clear answer on this point.

Question 2: Does ObamaCare’s price tag include corporate writedowns?

We’re told this medical miracle will cost us $938 billion over 10 years. I doubt that sum includes the toll taken this week. AT&T [ATT 26.74 0.10 (+0.38%) ] today said it will take a $1 billion charge related to ObamaCare.

Earlier this week, Caterpillar [CAT 62.44 0.30 (+0.48%) ] drew first blood (its own), taking a $100 million writedown. The heavy-metal giant provides generous drug benefits to retirees, enticed by tax-free subsidies from the feds; that program now will be taxed. Deere [DE 60.56 0.36 (+0.6%) ] says it will take a $150 million hit, and AK Steel [AKS 23.01 0.52 (+2.31%) ] , $31 million.

Betchya other big companies take hits, too. That hurts their shareholders (including pension funds for workers that ObamaCare seeks to help). It may prompt companies to cut back on drug benefits for retirees, all due to a new law with the opposite aim.

Question 3: Will ObamaCare not cover medical treatments for moral reasons?

ObamaCare passed the House by only seven votes, of 431 votes cast. To buy the votes of eight anti-abortion Democrats, the Dems ditched any pretense of being the “pro-choice” party and blocked all funding for abortion in ObamaCare.

Now that we’re rationing care on moral grounds, no need to stop at abortion. Let’s ban liver transplants for alcoholics (they made their bed). And refuse to cover stomach-stapling surgery for the massively and morbidly obese (where’s their will power?). And welch on paying for any treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Oh, and when a drunk driver is maimed horribly in a car accident, let him (or her) pay out of pocket.
Question 4: Will the millionaire tax really have no bad impact at all?
One study says ObamaCare will cost, from the get-go, an extra $46,000 in taxes for a person who earns $1 million a year. No big deal, right? Wrong! That one million bucks is actually $500,000 after-tax; $46k is almost a 10% surcharge. And that means that million-dollar guy or gal will spend $46,000 less on other items that lead to more jobs: cars, private planes, fat-cat pleasure boats, jet skis, vacations, home renovations.

Question 5: Why does ObamaCare subsidize families earning $88,000 a year?

One main aim of this paternalistic program is to insure the poorest Americans. Ninety large ain’t poor. One explanation is that some middle-class Americans’ insurance costs will go up, at first, under ObamaCare, so we need subsidies to offset that pain. Um ... sorry to be picky here, but I thought this facelift was supposed to bring costs down.

Question 6: Will millions drop their insurance coverage because of ObamaCare?

We could be looking at a surge in creative ways to game this loopy new system. Say you’re a freelancer who pays $10,000, out of pocket, for insurance. Now that no insurer can turn you down for a “pre-existing condition,” you can drop your own policy and go bare. Pay the feds’ new penalty fee of, what, $695 a year? Then, after you are diagnosed with lung cancer or after you get hit by a city bus, go ahead and buy insurance again. If you never get sick, you reap a going-bare windfall of $9,000-plus a year.

Now say you’re an employer who insures your workers, at a cost of $10,000 a year per minion. Why not just cut ’em loose to buy insurance on their own? (Or they can go bare and surf the pre-existing-condition wave, see preceding paragraph. Pay the new federal penalty of $3,000 a year, per person. Voila! A $7,000-a-year savings, per head.

Question 7: Will ObamaCare infantilize freeloaders pushing age 30?
This plan forces insurers to let “children” up to age 26 stay under the umbrella of their parents’ plan (sorry for metaphor, Travelers [TRV 54.35 0.27 (+0.5%) ] ). Hey kids, like, why move out at all? Like, ever?

President Obama is especially magnanimous when it comes to filching money from “the rich” to fund entitlements for those who pay almost nothing at all. It will be alternately fascinating and painful to watch the side-effects spill over our country in coming months, only to learn that we couldn’t afford it, after all.

So that ends my column, guys. Your comments welcome, post them below. And to obviate the first few posts, let’s just go ahead and stipulate for the record: I look like Beaker, I’m a shill for Wall Street, I’m incredibly stupid, my forehead is the size of a billboard and CNBC should have fired me long ago. There! Feel better?

Now weigh in with your wisdom rather than your vitriol
Click to expand...

Good questions, however, there are a couple of things we have to remember. First, what made these situations even possible? Obama could also be blamed for trying to get bipartisan support and not ramming through a straightforward bill a long time ago.

While Obama was trying to get bipartisan support and playing a fair game the opposition manufactured outlandish stories like "death panels" and tried every angle to weaken the bill resulting in the current hodgepodge.

The second thing we must remember is dozens of countries have implemented some form of government health care. Not one country has reverted. Their world hasn't come to an end.

This "medical Moby Dick", this massive redistribution of wealth, has occurred in dozens of countries. Nobody jumped out windows but even if they did the plan was there to help them. :)

The "change", the unparalleled accomplishment, is the first step has been taken on the road to health care becoming a right. One hundred years in the making. Now this and every successive government has an obligation to work within certain parameters. One side can not be discussing how to improve health care while the other side doesn't even want health care. No discussion can take place under those circumstances and that's what's been going on for the last 100 years. It's like one person trying to figure out when and where is the best time to meet and the other person not even interested in meeting. They will never come to an agreement.

The panic is misplaced at best and fear mongering at worst. Dozens of other countries have found solutions, solutions for 40+ years. Countries big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and dictatorships have all accomplished it. The every day running of health care for everyone is not a big thing. It's been completely blown out of proportion.

As soon as the opposition realizes/accepts it's here to stay they will have to deal with it. If not now then when they come to power. Regardless of how many tantrums like the one Mr. Boehner had in Congress it's now a national concern, not a partisan concern. It's in everyone's interest to work together now and fine tune the bill over time.
 
apple0154 said:
Good questions, however, there are a couple of things we have to remember. First, what made these situations even possible? Obama could also be blamed for trying to get bipartisan support and not ramming through a straightforward bill a long time ago.

While Obama was trying to get bipartisan support and playing a fair game the opposition manufactured outlandish stories like "death panels" and tried every angle to weaken the bill resulting in the current hodgepodge.

The second thing we must remember is dozens of countries have implemented some form of government health care. Not one country has reverted. Their world hasn't come to an end.

This "medical Moby Dick", this massive redistribution of wealth, has occurred in dozens of countries. Nobody jumped out windows but even if they did the plan was there to help them. :)

The "change", the unparalleled accomplishment, is the first step has been taken on the road to health care becoming a right. One hundred years in the making. Now this and every successive government has an obligation to work within certain parameters. One side can not be discussing how to improve health care while the other side doesn't even want health care. No discussion can take place under those circumstances and that's what's been going on for the last 100 years. It's like one person trying to figure out when and where is the best time to meet and the other person not even interested in meeting. They will never come to an agreement.

The panic is misplaced at best and fear mongering at worst. Dozens of other countries have found solutions, solutions for 40+ years. Countries big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and dictatorships have all accomplished it. The every day running of health care for everyone is not a big thing. It's been completely blown out of proportion.

As soon as the opposition realizes/accepts it's here to stay they will have to deal with it. If not now then when they come to power. Regardless of how many tantrums like the one Mr. Boehner had in Congress it's now a national concern, not a partisan concern. It's in everyone's interest to work together now and fine tune the bill over time.
Click to expand...

Agreed apple, I told this fat f*ck at the Warriors game tonight that since we are all in this together his fat *ss needs to lose some weight. I know you agree and support me doing that because everyone deserves health care but we all need to watch what our fellow citizens eat because we need to make sure everyone stays healthy.
 
cawacko said:
Agreed apple, I told this fat f*ck at the Warriors game tonight that since we are all in this together his fat *ss needs to lose some weight. I know you agree and support me doing that because everyone deserves health care but we all need to watch what our fellow citizens eat because we need to make sure everyone stays healthy.
Click to expand...

Count me in. I'll leave the guys asses to you and I'll check out the lady's asses.

We have a deal, Bro. :clink:
 
apple0154 said:
Good questions, however, there are a couple of things we have to remember. First, what made these situations even possible? Obama could also be blamed for trying to get bipartisan support and not ramming through a straightforward bill a long time ago.

While Obama was trying to get bipartisan support and playing a fair game the opposition manufactured outlandish stories like "death panels" and tried every angle to weaken the bill resulting in the current hodgepodge.

The second thing we must remember is dozens of countries have implemented some form of government health care. Not one country has reverted. Their world hasn't come to an end.

This "medical Moby Dick", this massive redistribution of wealth, has occurred in dozens of countries. Nobody jumped out windows but even if they did the plan was there to help them. :)

The "change", the unparalleled accomplishment, is the first step has been taken on the road to health care becoming a right. One hundred years in the making. Now this and every successive government has an obligation to work within certain parameters. One side can not be discussing how to improve health care while the other side doesn't even want health care. No discussion can take place under those circumstances and that's what's been going on for the last 100 years. It's like one person trying to figure out when and where is the best time to meet and the other person not even interested in meeting. They will never come to an agreement.

The panic is misplaced at best and fear mongering at worst. Dozens of other countries have found solutions, solutions for 40+ years. Countries big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and dictatorships have all accomplished it. The every day running of health care for everyone is not a big thing. It's been completely blown out of proportion.

As soon as the opposition realizes/accepts it's here to stay they will have to deal with it. If not now then when they come to power. Regardless of how many tantrums like the one Mr. Boehner had in Congress it's now a national concern, not a partisan concern. It's in everyone's interest to work together now and fine tune the bill over time.
Click to expand...

NHC certainly hasn't helped the obesity crisis around the world. There is a crisis in the UK of overweight people, especially with children. It's not just the US and the UK, it's many other countries as well. National healthcare is not the cure-all for everything.
 
rest here


“ObamaCare is really about who commands the country's medical resources,” an editorial in The Wall Street Journal noted the day before the legislation was passed. “It vastly accelerates the march toward a totally state-driven system, in contrast to reforms that would fix today's distorted status quo by putting consumers in control.”

With government already purchasing nearly half of all health care services in America (a system that’s rampant with fraud and anti-competitive price-fixing), just who did you think was responsible for the “distorted status quo” that Obamacare ostensibly seeks to correct?

Here’s a hint – it’s not those "evil" insurance companies, which will be receiving nearly a half-trillion dollars in “Obamacare” subsidies.
 
I think Obamacare is wealth redistribution and that's the only way he could get it. That said Dennis is a rightwing tool.
 
cawacko said:
Agreed apple, I told this fat f*ck at the Warriors game tonight that since we are all in this together his fat *ss needs to lose some weight. I know you agree and support me doing that because everyone deserves health care but we all need to watch what our fellow citizens eat because we need to make sure everyone stays healthy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this guy is immediately going to start losing weight just because you said so. It doesn't work that way. :palm:
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I'm sure this guy is immediately going to start losing weight just because you said so. It doesn't work that way. :palm:
Click to expand...

I can't wait for some RightWing tool to try and tell me face to face.

If they think that passing NHC gives them an excuse to be a douchebag like wacko was to the guy at the Warriors game, then us fatties have the right to kick all you disrespectful douches right in the nuts.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I can't wait for some RightWing tool to try and tell me face to face.

If they think that passing NHC gives them an excuse to be a douchebag like wacko was to the guy at the Warriors game, then us fatties have the right to kick all you disrespectful douches right in the nuts.
Click to expand...

Hit a nerve in there.............................somewhere?


:lmao:
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I can't wait for some RightWing tool to try and tell me face to face.

If they think that passing NHC gives them an excuse to be a douchebag like wacko was to the guy at the Warriors game, then us fatties have the right to kick all you disrespectful douches right in the nuts.
Click to expand...

When they start hauling in a cattle scale before you can enter the grocery store is when you will really start caterwauling.

Until then STFU and STFD.

:cof1:
 
Like that 'anti-tea party' kid in the video Desh posted said "I think everyone deserves to be healthy". In saying that he of course was stating the government has to be involved in that. Well it's kind of our duty as good citizens to help each other out as well. In the past what we wanted to eat or put in our body etc. was our personal choice. Now I don't think letting someone know that smoking or what they are eating might not be good for them is a bad thing. This is not to be said in an annoying or patronizing way but more in the 'it takes a village' type way.

Agreed apple?
 
cawacko said:
Like that 'anti-tea party' kid in the video Desh posted said "I think everyone deserves to be healthy". In saying that he of course was stating the government has to be involved in that. Well it's kind of our duty as good citizens to help each other out as well. In the past what we wanted to eat or put in our body etc. was our personal choice. Now I don't think letting someone know that smoking or what they are eating might not be good for them is a bad thing. This is not to be said in an annoying or patronizing way but more in the 'it takes a village' type way.

Agreed apple?
Click to expand...

You have a really good point! Before, we didn't really have anything vested in the health of another, it was their life and their money for care, and none of our business.... but now, with Obamacare, it is our responsibility as conscientious citizens, to help people stay healthy, so we have less cost in health care. But I don't think we should stop at telling fat people to lose weight, we should be telling smokers to stop smoking, or just make cigs illegal altogether! We also need to implement a national exercise program, everyone should be required to participate... in the name of our health you see, because our health is the most important thing! No-noo... put down that calzone, you need a nice organic salad! Have you done your sit-ups today? How are we supposed to bring down the cost of health care, if you don't participate and do your part?

And what about the unhealthy addict of prescription meds? All of these years, all of the doctors, prescribing pill after pill to chase all kinds of symptoms away... what these people need is a dose of Narcotics Anonymous, and some good healthy dieting! I think we need to establish a governmental department to review what you are taking, and whether or not there is a better way to 'treat' what is wrong! I'm sure that, before government was running things, people got really messed up, so we need for government to take control and get us all straightened out, then we will all be healthier and it won't cost as much.

Yeah, some people will bitch about being told what to do, having their meds taken away, being forced to participate in diet and exercise programs... but we gave this responsibility to government, and we expect government to do the right thing, right? It's for our own good... the "general welfare" as it were... yeah, I think government not only has the right to intervene, but the duty and obligation, now that we've turned it all over to them.
 
I'm investing in big pharma and tabacco. More drugs will be taken and wingnuts don't like god's plant so tabacco is a protest vote.
 
cawacko said:
Like that 'anti-tea party' kid in the video Desh posted said "I think everyone deserves to be healthy". In saying that he of course was stating the government has to be involved in that. Well it's kind of our duty as good citizens to help each other out as well. In the past what we wanted to eat or put in our body etc. was our personal choice. Now I don't think letting someone know that smoking or what they are eating might not be good for them is a bad thing. This is not to be said in an annoying or patronizing way but more in the 'it takes a village' type way.

Agreed apple?
Click to expand...

The government can certainly run public service ads.
 
Dixie said:
You have a really good point! Before, we didn't really have anything vested in the health of another, it was their life and their money for care, and none of our business.... but now, with Obamacare, it is our responsibility as conscientious citizens, to help people stay healthy, so we have less cost in health care. But I don't think we should stop at telling fat people to lose weight, we should be telling smokers to stop smoking, or just make cigs illegal altogether! We also need to implement a national exercise program, everyone should be required to participate... in the name of our health you see, because our health is the most important thing! No-noo... put down that calzone, you need a nice organic salad! Have you done your sit-ups today? How are we supposed to bring down the cost of health care, if you don't participate and do your part?

And what about the unhealthy addict of prescription meds? All of these years, all of the doctors, prescribing pill after pill to chase all kinds of symptoms away... what these people need is a dose of Narcotics Anonymous, and some good healthy dieting! I think we need to establish a governmental department to review what you are taking, and whether or not there is a better way to 'treat' what is wrong! I'm sure that, before government was running things, people got really messed up, so we need for government to take control and get us all straightened out, then we will all be healthier and it won't cost as much.

Yeah, some people will bitch about being told what to do, having their meds taken away, being forced to participate in diet and exercise programs... but we gave this responsibility to government, and we expect government to do the right thing, right? It's for our own good... the "general welfare" as it were... yeah, I think government not only has the right to intervene, but the duty and obligation, now that we've turned it all over to them.
Click to expand...

Now we can be the health care police looking out for tax dollars!!! Take away the fat-boyz twinkies...oh yeah!
 
apple0154 said:
I suppose we could discourage people from participating in many sports, as well. Lots of injuries there.
Click to expand...

Athletics on the whole keep people healthier. Eating junk food, smoking etc. basically does nothing positive. Couldn't peer pressure given to us by others be a good thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top