Obamacare

Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.” How can this be? Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.


For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

Did I hear coercion?




.

Nice photo.

Achigan wrote:Nice photo.

What does INGSOC stand for, anyway?

  


.

2+2=5

The Washington Times quotes the AP?

Bad, bad, Washington Times.

  

"The AP says the translations on so poor that many users feel they were computer-generated. The name of the site, CuidadoDeSalud.gov, can be literally read as “for the caution of health.”

One health navigator who works in Miami told the wire service that, if anything, the site is written in “Spanglish.”
—Washington Times

(An admixture of English and—mostly—Spanish in everyday cities).


.

WHL wrote:"...For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation..."

.

Good one. One big trainwreck. You know it's too bad because we could really have used some true healthcare reform Reform that would have made it LESS EXPENSIVE and more accessible therefore easier for more people to be covered rather than just running to the E.R. For instance if NH had some competition, don't you think the prices would be better and with better coverage???

WHL wrote:Good one.  One big trainwreck.   You know it's too bad because we could really have used some true healthcare reform  Reform that would have made it LESS EXPENSIVE and more accessible therefore easier for more people to be covered rather than just running to the E.R.  For instance if NH had some competition, don't you think the prices would be better and with better coverage???

Something to think about I guess.