“In our most dynamic case, when all covered employees are compensated in higher wages to offset their payment
of the full ESI premium in order that some will be able to take full advantage of an affordable coverage rule that
is broadly interpreted to mean affordable family coverage, we estimate that the movement of workers out of ESI
and into exchange-based coverage will: 1) overwhelm the number of workers moving into ESI by currently
uninsured workers in large firms due to the mandates; 2) cause the provision of health care insurance to working
Americans to become more sharply segregated based on family income; and 3) cost taxpayers up to $5 billion
dollars in gross subsidies for every one million workers who switch from being an ESI main policy holder to
receiving subsidized exchange coverage, all else equal. As a result, we estimate that increased exchange use in
the most dynamic case will require about $47.5 billion more in gross yearly subsidy payments than in the least
dynamic case.”
“Bernie Marcus co-founded Home Depot (HD) in 1978 and brought it public in 1981 as the U.S. was suffering from the worst recession and unemployment in 40 years. The company thrived, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and redefining home improvement retailing… ‘His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that’s probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.'”
“A major provision of the healthcare reform law designed to prevent businesses from dropping coverage for their workers could inadvertently leave families without access to subsidized health insurance. The problem is a huge headache for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, because it could leave families unable to buy affordable health insurance when the healthcare law requires that everyone be insured starting in 2014.”
“President Obama used to claim Medicare would save money by implementing the principle that if the ‘red pill’ works just as well as the ‘blue pill,’ but costs half as much, patients should get the red pill. That dangerously simplistic notion now boasts an enforcer created by last year’s Obamacare legislation.”
“Most American workers value their employer-provided health insurance. It gives them the security of knowing they can get the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford.
All that will change drastically if the president’s health care law remains on the books. That’s not just a warning from a conservative Republican – the administration’s own chief actuary of Medicare estimated that more than 14 million people would lose their employer coverage over the next eight years.”
“Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a ‘Recovery Summer.’ Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring. The law significantly raises business costs and creates considerable uncertainty about the future. To encourage hiring, Congress should repeal ObamaCare.”
“Lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced bipartisan legislation Thursday to remove restrictions on tax-exempt health spending accounts, the latest provision of the healthcare reform law to come under attack by Democrats.
The bill would nix a provision that since January has required a prescription for buying over-the-counter medicines with medical savings accounts such as Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Savings Accounts. The language was added as a way to keep the bill’s costs down because it was estimated to save $5 billion over 10 years by cutting down on unnecessary drug purchases.”
“The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was created based on the premise that decisions about the pricing of health benefits offered by Medicare are simply too contentious to be adequately handled by our present political system. But these decisions are precisely the kinds of consequential choices that should be subject to close public scrutiny and an open, rigorous, and transparent decision-making process that engages with Medicare’s stakeholders. Changes to the way Medicare pays for and covers medical services affect too many people in significant ways to be made behind the closed doors of an insulated committee.”
“Democrats don’t use such hyperbole, but more than half a dozen have signed on as cosponsors of a bill that would repeal the board. And many more, particularly Democrats in the House, never supported creating the board in the first place… [I]t could end up driving Medicare payments so low that providers will simply leave the program, or else go bankrupt if they can’t.”
“Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its proposed regulations for the Obamacare version of health insurance exchanges. State lawmakers are a key audience for these regulations, which is why HHS wrapped its announcement in talk of ‘state flexibility.’
In truth, the proposed regulations don’t give states any additional flexibility beyond what they are permitted under Obamacare anyway, and in some places they may further limit state lawmakers’ options.”