Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Obama's Ego Stroking Will Preempt "A Charlie Brown Christmas" | Main | Mark Steyn: The Chicago Machine Politics of International Climate "Science"
November 30, 2009

CBO: Insurance Premiums Will Increase by 10% Under ObamaCare
Gallup: Near-Majority Opposes ObamaCare

Above-the-Post Update: The CBO says the the curve will in fact be bent -- upwards.

Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill.

The long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) also concluded that subsidies provided by the legislation would make coverage cheaper for those who qualify.

Though Republicans will seize on the projections that insurance premiums for individuals would increase, Democrats will highlight the conclusion that the legislation would lower premiums by 56 to 59 percent for those individuals who would receive subsidies to buy insurance on the exchange created by the legislation. Of those who participate in the exchange, 57 percent would be eligible for subsidies. The subsidy would cover about two-thirds of their premiums, the report says.

This is played as if the higher premiums are offset by subsidies. Which is absurd. There is no offsetting here. Those with insurance will pay more for it. Those without insurance will get subsidies from those who have it. There is no "offsetting;" the people paying the bills don't get the subsidies.

There are winners and losers here. If you've got insurance, you're a loser: Congratulations, you will now basically have a complete stranger's health care added to your premiums as if he's a member of your family, because you can afford it.

If you don't have insurance, you may be a winner... sort of. As regards primary effects you come out ahead -- free money! -- but there will be secondary effects, too, as all health care overall is driven to a lower quality.

Broken record time: This is and always was about only one thing. A fairly direct transfer of wealth, and the services that wealth buys, from the middle class to the lower class. There is plenty of reason for the uninsured and poor to support this plan; there is no reason for anyone middle-class and insured to support it. For the latter, there are no benefits whatsoever, and only costs -- except for the benefit of knowing you have basically added a stranger as a family member to your plan, and you can now enjoy the satisfaction of knowing all the extra money you're paying, and all the treatments you're personally be denied, are going to help someone else. Maybe.

Ed goes on to note that even this analysis is broken, because the plan counts on reaping a lot of tax money from "gold-plated" insurance plans. No. The tax will kill gold-plated insurance plans, and thus that windfall will never accrue.

I should note that Obama and the liberals pushing this on us make two or three contradictory claims about what that "gold-plated" tax will do.

First they tell us that that tax will drive people away from such plans, thus supposedly reducing the overutilization of health care resources, which will then "bend the curve" of costs down by reducing demand.

Then they tell us that the additional resources will be freed up to be used for other people.

And then they tell us that this plan will be funded in part from the extra taxes on such premium plans.

Note that all three assertions are mutually contradictory. If the uninsured and poor now use the supposedly "overutilized" resources that the premium insureds now use, then there can be no "bending the curve," as demand is unchanged -- the demand has simply been shifted from one group of users to another.

Further, you obviously cannot talk up how your tax will discourage buying such premium plans and then start counting all the money that will be rolling in when people continue buying these plans and pay the tax on them.

One or the other, guys. One or the other. I remember taking the LSATs. Or the GMATs. There was a section about logical flaws. One of the questions -- designed to be a gimme, an early, easy question -- offered the hypothetical of environmentalists imposing a hefty tax on roads that ran through forests, in order to cut down on traffic running through them, and also proposed that at current rates of highway usage, they'd get x dollars in new revenues, which could then be used to make additional improvements to the environment.

What's the flaw?, the question asked. Well, duh: You can't both claim you're going to reduce something from current levels and then calculate the taxes that will flow in based on current levels.

Again: This was a gimme. One of the first five questions (questions are arranged in order of increasing difficulty), offered, basically, to distinguish the merely dim from the truly stupid.

And now your President and your Congress offers it to you.

Which tells you they consider you truly stupid.


49% oppose, 44% support, with leaners. As Captain Ed always emphasizes, these are adults, not even registered voters. The friendliest possible sample for Obama.

I can only restate my belief that to actually kill the monster we need 60% opposition (with likely voters, I guess), or thereabouts. Anything less and there is a high risk of Democrats falling on their swords and passing it despite public opposition. Well, if you define "falling on their swords" as taking a high-paying job as a senior bureaucrat or million-a-year lobbyist/fixer.

Independents oppose passage of a bill by 53% to 37%.

Good but still not a guarantee.

Some pundit or analyst -- and I believe he was a Democrat -- speculated that the Democrats' preferred resolution to this is to almost pass the bill, falling short by one or two votes in the Senate and a handful in the House.

So that the bulk of the Democrats can appease their base and get them riled up and energetic -- blame the Republicans! -- and also that independents will be reassured and comforted that the bill actually didn't pass.

I'm not sure if they're actually thinking that way, though. Some, certainly. But enough of them may be getting that robocall from history that Olympia Snowe received a few weeks back.

Recent Comments
mrp: "Who invests in NY real estate? Pension funds? Tru ..."

MAGA_Ken: "You know Trump has some experience with bankruptcy ..."

Bulgaroctonus: "Fay Wray was hot. http://tinyurl.com/ystn7nrp ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Trump should publicly demolish his signature prope ..."

Watch: "have to admit, as cynical as I am that this "judgm ..."

Braenyard: "NYC was bleeding millionaires before this judgemen ..."

Sharkman: "we're gonna need another Cloverfield monster do i ..."

Meade Lux Lewis, Domestic Terrorist: "Paul is an expert in New York real estate and cock ..."

Jonah Goldberg: "[i] I used to like Jonah Goldberg. The thought emb ..."

Mister Scott (Formerly GWS): "Does not skip leg day with those Thighs of Doom. ..."

runner: "Quid pro quo, TX or FL or any R state , sues some ..."

Maj. Healey: ">>>>Too bad King Kong didn't get to finish the job ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64