No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare Report Released

No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare Report Released
Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Far from providing "affordable"
care for everyone, ObamaCare would result in higher insurance premiums, more
and higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living and an
erosion of privacy and individual liberty.

This is the conclusion of a new report, "No Free Lunch: The True Cost of
ObamaCare," by policy analyst Matt Patterson just released by the National
Center for Public Policy Research.

"Instead of providing "affordable" health care for everybody, ObamaCare will
in fact lead to dramatically higher health insurance premiums, as well as
higher taxes, reduced Medicare benefits, lower wages, and fewer jobs for low
and middle-income Americans," said Patterson.

The paper says adoption of one of the "ObamaCare" proposals percolating in
Congress would lead to:

Higher Premiums - Billions in new taxes and fees would be imposed on medical
companies and health insurers to pay for ObamaCare - costs which would be
passed on to the consumer as higher insurance premiums.

Higher Taxes - ObamaCare would be paid for with massive tax increases,
amounting to an estimated increased tax burden of $2.3 trillion in the coming

Lower Wages/Fewer Jobs - New taxes and fees imposed on businesses by ObamaCare
would result in fewer jobs and lower wages for low- and middle-income workers.

Standard of Living - The massive government spending required would explode
the federal deficit with ruinous consequences for every American's standard of

Medicare Benefits - ObamaCare aims to pay for itself, in part, with hundreds
of billions in devastating cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Privacy - ObamaCare regulations would result in a larger, more powerful IRS
and ensure that more personal information is shared with more people.

Your Freedom - ObamaCare would require, under threat of penalty, every
American to have insurance whether they want or need it.

No votes yet

Ack...double post...please delete.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Anyone with any intelligence at all would know that it's not possible to do what they want to do with the health care bill without it costing a fortune. A fortune we don't have I might add.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

The article should have added the following disclaimer:

"...according to conservatives who were voted out of office, have no ideas, & have generally put the country in a deep hole over the last decade."

That being said, Obama doesn't have the political balls to do the right thing and just extend Medicare coverage to anyone wanting to buy into it.

Pink Slip

No, Obama doesn't have the political balls to stand up to the trial lawyers that bankroll the Democratic party and support tort reform.

Quite frankly, health care, health insurance, and tort reforms need to go hand in hand.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Tort reform is a Republican talking point that means nothing. Malpractice lawsuits only account for a few percent of health care costs and more states have tort reform then don’t.

Heck, we’ve had tort reform here in Ohio for over 5 years. How much has your health insurance gone down in the last 5 years? Just another Republican, red herring.

A few percent? More like 0.5%....but your point is solid Sensor. Doesn't matter though, the Dems could agree to more tort reform and deregulating the insurance industry and the Stupid Party (stole that from Mad Jack) would find other crazy ideas to complain about. It's a game--delay, obstruct, delay...

Pink Slip

Above is examples one and two of why grown people can't have a legitimate and constructive debate.

The correct answer is: no, at best we have extremely watered down tort reform. IF we had real tort reform, those figures that you so glibly threw out there would be much higher. If you're not going to acknowledge the monetary influence and power the trial lawyer lobby carries in the Democratic party, then quite frankly you're no better than the Republicans.

Unlike partisans, I can think for myself. I don't need Republicans or Democrats to tell me how to think. And since I've written a couple books myself, I think I'm more than capable of coming up with my own talking points.

The number one impediment to having an actual honest debate about the REAL problems with healthcare is politics. Partisans on both sides, Republicans, Democrats, pre-law, pre-med, same thing, are too beholden to their special interest groups to actually solve the problem and putting government in charge of health care when they've proven to be utterly incompetent in running just about everything else is the all time worst idea I've ever heard.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Considering that trial lawyers are often the last line of defense for consumers against corporations, I won't shed any tears over the GOP's failed attempts to protect Big Business.

As for your continual "partisan" jabs American Heartland:

CBO study from 2004 (Bush administration) says medical malpractice costs equal two percent of health care costs:

WellPoint (big insurance company--non partisan last I checked)---says medical malpractice costs have "little impact" on high premiums:

Bloomberg News---says medical malpractice a "red herring"

How's that for partisan, jackass?

Pink Slip

Pink Slip, you really need to take off your partisan glasses. I've never said one word about protecting big business. Big Business isn't the ones who would benefit proportionally the most from common sense tort reform- small business and consumers would.

You see, if you're against tort reform, then you must think it's okay for rich trial lawyer to conduct what is essentially legalized extortion- that is, you pay me a nominal settlement for my questionable claim and I'll go away. Now, who gets hurt the most by that- one guess- it's not big business who can more easily absorb the extra insurance cost or simply self-insure the amount themselves.

No, it's mom and pop businesses, small businesses, ordinary homeowners, etal...who end up taking the hit proportionally.

Did you know that if I simply slip and fall on your property that I can make your insurance company pay my medical bills, even though you weren't the least bit negligent?

Did you also know that in the name of cost control Medicare, in its infinite wisdom, refuses to pay medical claims that do not go through the property owners medical payments coverage first? Government mismanages the hell out of Medicare, what will they do with a public option? And who will end up paying proportionally through the nose- middle class and lower-middle class America.

Your problem is that you continue to see things as Democrats vs. Republicans. I could care less which party has the best idea as long as it would help ordinary Americans who've long since been left behind in an ocean of rising costs and flat lined wages.

I am all for reforming healthcare, health insurance, and tort reform. The sad thing is what we'll get is the same ol' watered down 'reform' that benefits both parties special interest groups and not ordinary Americans who need it the most.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

AH, if you re-read my comment--I addressed you in regard to the continual "partisan" jabs, not the Big Business comment.

To be honest, I'm not "against" tort reform. However, I do try to point out it's not the big problem that conservatives try to make it out to be. And I've cited many sources (notice the GOP CBO study, and the Well Point article).

I agree that health care "reform" will continue to get watered down, and will probably turn out to be a huge giveaway to the insurance companies. And for this, I blame the Dems. It's no use for me to criticize the GOP--they are sooo far gone it's no use. The Dems control the WH, the House, and the Senate and yet they continue to be beholden onto lobbyists and corporations. As long as this continues, there will be no real change. There are really only a handful of Dems I actually like (Kaptur and Brown are 2). And I'm a really big fan of Ron Paul.

That being said. We have a two party system. We will always have a two party system unless we start publicly funding campaigns and/or implement instant runoff voting. So, we as voters can do one of two things---vote third party and throw your vote away and not be represented (these are the types that complain about both parties, but don't really try to change anything)....or work to try to change a party from within. I do not like the current state of the Democratic Party, but rather than sitting on the sidelines I'd rather work to change the party from within so that they are more progressive. I don't think this makes me partisan, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

Pink Slip

"It's a game--delay, obstruct, delay..." and it's working. Pretty good for a party that by all accounts had one foot in the grave a year ago.

Despite all of the Dem's tries they have only managed to scare old people. They haven't passed anything. Hell they can't even bring it to a vote. Now with the "opt-out" they're doing nothing more than watering it down to the point where most of it will be deemed definitely unconstitutional. So just like the stimulus we're spending a lot of money to do very little.

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. That's the countdown. If they don't get it before the New Year it won't make it to the floor next year. Not with as many Dem seats up for election as Repubs (nice cabinet appointment BTW).

Repubs don't even need to really win next year to win all told. They need to pick up 1 Senate seat. They will at least get 3 and lose 2 at the worst. They need 40 seats in the House. They will get at least 20. Likely is 30. The other 10 will be Blue Dogs who win on such close margins they will turn so purple in order to keep their seat the President will find his next two years mired in gridlock only to face opposition from Hillary again. And all this is a win for Repubs who really didn't do anything other than say "they're spending your money and we are not them".

In fact I wonder if we'll see a fiscal conservative Dem backlash if the Dems lose more than 30 seats in the house. That means a splintered party for 2012. It might not be Hope and Change but it will at least be a change.


A post borrowed from another BBS.

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.