5 Overblown Fears About Healthcare Reform

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Obviously, this writer is taking the word of the advocates of this atrocity of a healthcare plan. Obviously he hasn't read it. Around Austin, we're calling the medicare slashing, with apologies to Hitler, "The final solution to the Social Security Problem".

Bob Brown of NY 12:37PM April 21, 2010

If the Doctors who are in it to "get rich" are driven out, the supply of Doctors will be reduced. Reducing supplies leads to higher prices, not lower prices. The CBO estimate was based on deeply flawed assumptions 1) tax increases on such items as using tanning beds couldn't reduce consumption 2) backwards time travel being possible (after 2010 had begun but before the bill passed it was scored as if it would take effect at the start of 2010) 3) 10 years of taxes with 6 years of benefits in the first 10 years could make it appear not to be a budget buster, but the second 10 year period with every year having taxes AND benefits is sure to balloon the deficit.

James of IL 8:09AM April 20, 2010

Once docs see their salaries drop, the will do the following
1) those who can retire will do so.
2) those too young to retire will unionize.
The real problem is for those bright undergraduates who contemplated a job in medicine who now realize that for the privilage of spending or borrowing $200,000 for med school, staying up all night taking care of a stranger, possibly acquiring some lethal infectious disease and being sued in the process, they will be compensated like a doctor in Europe (like a school teacher). Those bright undergraduates will drop pre med and pursue law or business.

Robb MD MPH of MN 1:37PM April 19, 2010

The rosy picture this article paints hinges on alot of "maybe" scenarios.
"there's no reason to expect that will change IF they can't manage costs some other way."
"And if cost controls discourage the docs who are in it to get rich, MAYBE that will help bring costs down for everybody else."
Big "if" and "maybe". This article is filled with "if" and "maybe" statements being used to support the opinion of the writer. So much for facts.

EJ of PA 1:29PM April 19, 2010

For Dave in MI-- You have made an excellent point when you say "because Obamacare creates a limitless entitlement that will entice employers across the nation to dump coverage and simply pay the fine. That will be far cheaper than covering employees." Hopefully future Congresses will have the intestinal fortitude to take on this ridiculous situation and "make the punishment fit the crime" by making the fine fit the facts!

Sal of AZ 12:13PM April 19, 2010

In 1949 life expectancy for a male was less than 61 years. Most men were dead four years before they could collect at 65. Today male life expectancy is over 78 and average retirement age is 62. By my math the average man collects 16 years. The money needs to come from somewhere. For many it is their primary source of income. So Gary how do I like that government run program. I hope to collect for more than 16 years instead of minus 4 years. Call me crazy, I like todays deal better than the 1949 deal.

Barry of CT 2:36AM April 19, 2010

And when insurers are forced to jack up premiums to cover the fact that -- oops -- Obamacare does *nothing* to reduce costs (unless you count Medicare doctor reimbursement cuts, which will *never* happen to the extent envisioned as demonstrated again this month), then the saviors in Washington will decry the evil insurers once again and demand the only possible solution -- the cost-efficiency of single-payer government-run healthcare.
As to doctors leaving the profession, yours is the unfortunate argument that they've got no place else to go. Maybe that's the case with many, and they certainly won't be cut off completely. But if you seek to solve a cost problem with price controls (which is all Obamacare does -- there's no means for rewarding innovative care or increasing the "supply" of care, because the bill is too busy being welfare and using taxes and the strapped Medicare program to pay for it), you get shortages. Maybe wait times for primary care and specialists increase 10%. Maybe 20 or 40%. You can't say because by your way of thinking, doctors are stuck.
It's a massive wealth transfer from young to old, built on enormous additions to the deficit. Here's why: the CBO's phony surplus (which it admitted was speculative at best) is based on 10 years of revenue and 6 years of benefit payouts/subsidies. Once the program is actually in place, that's about $166B a year in spending, $115B a year in revenue on average, based on Obamacare's fantasy numbers (spending will be much higher, revenues lower -- but let's pretend anyway). To be kind, let's say that's only an addition of about $40 billion a year to the deficit. If you think that lowball estimate is small potatoes, good for you. But since it's a naked lie -- and since we're being told Obamacare is actually a defecit reducer -- you've lost all credibility.

Dave of MI 1:02AM April 18, 2010

Rick - This piece unfortunately reads like Democratic talking points rather than honest analysis, because it so perfectly hews the line of their misleading argument. If you simply looked a few years down the road (necessary because Pres. Obama and the Democrats understood how much trouble and how much increased cost this bill will bring once it's actually applied, so they delayed the most significant negative provisions for four years), you'd see this bill will do everything you're suggesting is "overblown," and in short order.
Nothing's changing, right? Umm, why then declare it's the most significant piece of legislation since Social Security or Medicare was enacted and cements Obama's place in history, perhaps next to Lincoln, perhaps towering over him?
In truth, this bill is a complete mess. It's nonsensical. For instance: it claims to reduce costs by increasing subsidies for and thereby demand for healthcare. Nonsense.
It claims you can keep your current health insurance -- but only if it stays exactly the same in perpetuity. Otherwise, you're forced into the one-size-fits-all exchangs, whose plans, rates, benefits, co-pays, and limits are defined by Democrats down to the left pinky nail. Within a few years, everyone not covered by a very large, high-profit-margin company will be left with a choice of government-designed plans with premiums that make today's look good by comparison -- because Obamacare creates a limitless entitlement that will entice employers across the nation to dump coverage and simply pay the fine. That will be far cheaper than covering employees.

Dave of MI 1:01AM April 18, 2010

Fortunately your opinion is shared by the minority. Social security in 1949 was paid 3% by employees and 3% by employers. Now we are paying almost combined 16% and climbing. In 2008 the amount that employees/employers in dollars have to pay in is up 5600% since 1949, while inflation in the same time period is up only 900%. This info was taken from the US Census. How do you like that government run program. History always repeats itself. Go back to school.

gary of ID 2:33PM April 17, 2010

I've taken note that proponents of the plan always cite "you won't have to or be required to change your current health plan". How about if the company you work for and offers you the insurance decides to? Maybe they will pay the fine & let you go into the exchanges?

LuLu of NJ 10:51AM April 08, 2010