The CBO has already revised their cost estimates for what Obamacare will cost. Originally they thought 900 billion. Now they are saying Obamacare will cost us 1.8 trillion dollars the first 10 years. My guess is even that estimate is wrong. With the way Washington works times that by 2 or 3 and that is what likely costs will be.
Economist Lawrence Kudlow had an article about this worrying development. As he mentions, costs like this bankrupt nations.
"A Game-Changer For Romney"
http://news.investors.com/article/61667 ... romney.htm
snippet:
Quote:
...Americans for Tax Reform estimates that ObamaCare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Investor's Business Daily says this comes to a $675 billion tax hike over the next decade. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal editorial board cites CBO estimates that roughly 8 million (or 76% of) middle-class taxpayers earning less than $120,000 a year will shoulder the new Obama-Care tax mandate authorized by Judge Roberts.
And this whole panoply of ObamaCare taxes is already one big drag on the economy. Just in recent days, revised GDP came in at 1.9%, and real consumer spending was essentially flat. Job growth has slowed markedly, as have new factory orders. Economists on Wall Street are looking for only 2% growth this year. The Fed is so worried about the economy it might launch another counterproductive quantitative easing.
Meanwhile, health care premiums are going up, not down. Mandated one-size-fits-all health services and insurance will incentivize businesses to pay the fine and push employees into the state's exchange system. And this will drive up the subsidized entitlement even more.
The CBO now estimates that ObamaCare spending will hit $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a number that started out at only half as much. But that's what happens when you install European-style entitlements. You threaten to bankrupt the nation's finances. Or you threaten to literally tax us into perpetual subpar growth and high unemployment.
The problem is several fold. Thought Walter Russell Mead had a nice quote about every special interest being included in coverage. That is why insurance costs have risen, and why next semester many University students will find themselves with out coverage.
"Obamacare Killing Affordable Student Insurance"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... insurance/ snippet:
Quote:
...One of the problems with the American health care system is the ability of lobbies to persuade Congress and state legislators to mandate coverage for their own pet causes or diseases. Chiropractors, acupuncturists, psychologists, drug companies: everyone wants to be included in mandatory coverage.
Unfortunately, every year special interests will find ways to hook new mandates onto the insurance requirements, and every year the cost of coverage will inexorably rise.
At one level there is nothing wrong with this; the more coverage for consumers, the better. But there’s the question of cost. If all insurance plans have to be gold-plated, full-service — and pre-existing conditions have to be covered — then health insurance is going to be unaffordable for many and perhaps most people. Young people in particular need low cost options; their incomes are low and their health risks are less so for some students choosing a cheap plan with limited coverage makes sense...
Personally, I thought the health care system in Singapore looks attractive. Singapore provides Universal coverage, with quality care at half the cost. They do this by providing their citizens greater freedom to make choices. If Obamacare is repealed, I think this a better option for our financially strapped nation.
"The Singapore Alternative"
excerpt from John Stossel's article:
Quote:
...The country of Singapore is another success story. Singaporeans have universal healthcare, but their system is unique in that it runs on, essentially, the HSA model.
The WHO says that 64 percent of all medical spending in Singapore comes from individuals spending their own money at the doctor's office. In the US it's 13 percent. In France, where the government pays for just about everything, it's 7 percent.
The result? Economist Scott Sumner says:
1. Singapore health care costs only half as much as European health care.
2. Singapore has universal coverage.
3. Singaporeans live much longer than Europeans.
Some of that may be because of differences in culture and crime rates. But Singapore also beats its Asian neighbors that have government-run health care: Singaporeans spend half as much as Japanese, yet have virtually the same life span.
If we do want universal care, more HSAs would be better than Congress’ 2,000 pages of micromanagement.
Read more:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stoss ... z1ztIxY7Jb
06 Jul 2012, 8:40 am
