President Obama and the Democrats lied about how Affordable the Affordable Care Act Is

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 29th, 2013

Week in Review

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was to make health care affordable.  In fact, it was going to be free.  Sort of.  Not health care per se.  But the Affordable Care Act.  For it was going to take the $1 trillion over 10 years the U.S. was spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use it to pay for Obamacare.  So as far as the American people were concerned who had grown accustomed to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Obamacare would be free.  That is, all the wonderful free stuff included in Obamacare would come without a single dime of new federal taxes or spending.  Of course, President Obama and the Democrats were lying to the American people (see New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014 by S.A. Miller and Geoff Earle posted 12/25/2013 on the New York Post).

Here comes the ObamaCare tax bill…

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.

But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”

The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.

The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.

There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site…

Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.

Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years…

Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

They’re adding an Obamacare tax/fee/levy to all health insurance policies we buy.  And a $2 fee per policy in addition to the others taxes/fees/levies.  Insurers have to pay a 3.5% user fee for the privilege of selling their policies on the health care exchanges.  Which, of course, they will recover by increasing the price of their polices that the government is forcing us to buy.  There’s a medical-device tax.  And a Medicare surtax.  As well as an extra 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income.  And if that wasn’t bad enough, on top of all of these new taxes, fees, levies, user fees, surtaxes, etc., taking more money out of our pockets they’ve also reduced the amount of out-of-pocket medical expenses we can claim as a tax deduction.  Meaning we will pay more of our income as income taxes.  Making the Affordable Care Act anything but affordable.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion and Birth Control are Bankrupting Social Security and Medicare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

For the first time in history a credit reporting agency (Standard and Poor’s) downgraded the U.S bond rating in 2011.  Why?  The agency said they needed to see $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.  The best Congress could do was $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years.  And the creation of a super-committee to find another $1.5 trillion.  For a total of $2.417 trillion in spending cuts.  At least, on paper.  That never happened.  After winning reelection the president held out for and got increases in tax rates.  So he could increase spending.

So how did the U.S. get to where they needed to cut $4 trillion in spending?  Well, a large part of it has to do with abortion (see 55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 by Steven Ertelt posted 1/18/2013 on LifeNews.com).

The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

Taxpayers pay taxes.  And how do we get taxpayers?  By having babies.  So when we aborted over 55 million babies the effect on tax revenue was profound.  We can see how by making some assumptions.  And doing a little math.

First of all, 55,772,015 abortions over 39 years come to on average 1,430,052 abortions a year.  Dividing this number by two to pair off couples for baby-making that comes to 715,026 couples.  Without abortion available we’ll assume about 80% of these couples will have children.

The first babies of the 715,026 enter the workforce 20 years later.  So in that year the number of additional workers paying taxes equals 2,002,072 (1,430,052 + (0.8 X 715,026)).  The following year the second child of this couple enters the workforce while another couple’s first child enters the workforce.  This brings the additional workers paying taxes equal 3,146,114.  And so on until each couple brings in three new taxpayers into the workforce. Over a decade the number of new workers paying taxes equals 110,685,999.

Assuming a median income of $50,000 these 110,685,999 taxpayers earn a total of $5.5 trillion over ten years.  Assuming an effective federal income tax rate of 18% the total federal income tax these people would have paid equals approximately $996 billion.

Using the 12.4% Social Security tax rate (both employer and employee) the amount of Social Security taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $686 billion.

Using the 2.9% Medicare tax rate the amount of Medicare taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $160 billion.

Adding these taxes together (Social Security and Medicare) they add up to $847 billion.  Adding this to the amount of federal income taxes brings the amount of taxes these people would have provided over ten years to about $1.8 trillion.

When they wrote Social Security and Medicare into law the average family size had fallen from around 5 to about 3.5 over a decade or so.  If you take that $1.8 trillion and adjust it for 3.5 children (1.8/3 X 3.5) the lost tax revenue equals $2.15 trillion.  At 4 children that lost tax revenue comes to $2.5 trillion.  At 5 children that lost tax revenue comes to $3.1 trillion.  At 6 children it’s $3.7 trillion.

Today’s seniors entered child-bearing age long before women’s liberation, birth control and abortion.  So most women got married and had children.  It is not uncommon for today’s seniors to come from families of 10 children or more.  This is significant because when the actuaries set up Social Security and Medicare they assumed these trends would continue.  But they didn’t.  The birth rate (and the population growth rate) declined since Social Security and Medicare became law.  Causing the population to age.  More people are now leaving the workforce and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits than there are workers entering the workforce to pay for them.

Abortion has been a part of this decline.  In a current 10-year projection we are seeing anywhere from $1.8 trillion to $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenue due to abortion.  If Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion and the Left didn’t assault the family (encouraging women NOT to get married or have children) during the Seventies as radical feminism took off there would have been a lot more births.  Perhaps as many as those actuaries thought there would be when they calculated the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

If normal family patterns had continued not only would these abortions not have happened families may have had more children.  Producing more taxpayers.  There were 3,136,965 live births in 1973.  The average family size then was about 2.5.  If you divide the number of births by average family size you get about 1,254,786 families having children.  If each of these families had one additional child that additional 1,254,786 children would be approximately 87.7% of the average number of abortions.  If these children grew up to have three children of their own we can calculate this additional tax revenue the same way we did for the loss revenue from abortion.  Or we can multiply the loss revenue from abortion ($1.8 trillion) by 87.7% to approximate what those additional children in 1973 would contribute in a ten-year projection today.  Approximately $1.9 trillion.  Adding the losses from abortion and families having one less child brings the total of loss tax revenue to $4.04 trillion.  Which equals the $4 trillion S&P was looking for in spending cuts.

So what is the cause for America’s deficits?   Is it because the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes?  No.  It’s because of abortion and birth control.  And radical feminism.  That attacked the family and encouraged women to do anything but get married and have children.  Something FDR and his New Dealers never designed Social Security and Medicare to take into account.  For FDR and his New Dealers were sexists.  As are Social Security and Medicare.  These programs require women to marry and have children to stay solvent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Medicare Cost Savings are Cost Transfers to Private Sector Businesses

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 12th, 2011

Private Health Insurance Costs rising Faster than Medicare Costs

Looking at graphs makes problems easy to see.  They can make you jump to the wrong conclusions, but you can see the problems more clearly.  And the good news is that Medicare doesn’t have any problems.  At least cost-wise.  It’s the free market that does.  Because it operates without the keen and wise oversight of government.  As a result they can charge whatever they want for their insurance.  Well, the government doesn’t allow this in Medicare.  Therefore, the government way is the better way.  Just look at the graphs (see It’s the Health Care Costs, Stupid by Paul Krugman posted 6/12/2011 on The New York Times).

The larger point is that we don’t have a Medicare problem, we have a health care cost problem. And Medicare actually does a better job of controlling costs than private insurers — not remotely good enough, but better…

If Medicare costs had risen as fast as private insurance premiums, it would cost around 40 percent more than it does. If private insurers had done as well as Medicare at controlling costs, insurance would be a lot cheaper.

But graphs can be misleading.  Looking at them does support everything he says.  However, the graphs don’t explain why.  And if you want to know the ‘why’ talk to a doctor.  Ask about his or her Medicare billings.  You won’t hear a happy story.  The government keeps cutting the amount they will pay.  Because they can.  And every year further ‘automatic’ cuts have to be postponed by Congressional action.  Which usually happens.  Because these future cuts are so steep that, if enacted, will make a lot of doctors stop seeing Medicare patients.

But if the government isn’t paying doctors fairly, how can they stay in business?  Isn’t the fact that they are staying in business prove that the government-determined prices are fair?  No.  Costs are costs.  Those unpaid by the government still have to be paid.  And guess by who?  That’s right.  Private insurance.  That’s one reason why private insurance costs are so high.  They’re picking up the unpaid Medicare costs.  And unpaid Medicaid costs.  And a large part of costs incurred by people using the emergency room in lieu of buying health insurance.  Through inflated billings to private insurance companies.  Because costs are costs.  And someone has to pay them.

Of course, it’s the people who pay for private insurance who end up paying.  And because health insurance is an employee benefit, the employers ultimately pay.  Businesses.  And the more unpaid Medicare costs are passed on to businesses, the higher their health insurance premiums get.  Forcing them to make cuts elsewhere.  Make the employee share in part of the costs.  Or they simply quit providing health insurance.  So these remarkable cost savings the government achieves are nothing more than an additional Medicare tax.  That private sector businesses pay.

And when businesses have to pay more for unpaid Medicare benefits, they have less to pay their employees.  Or simply can’t afford to hire more people.  Which means a net reduction in consumer spending.  Either through lower wages.  Or less job creation.  So the more the government ‘saves’ on Medicare, the less economic activity there will be.  And possibly the less Medicare there will be (if further cuts make doctors drop out of the system).

So, yes, the graphs are accurate.  But they don’t tell the whole story.  They show a smaller rise in Medicare costs than private insurance costs.  But it’s just smoke and mirrors.  Misdirection.  A magician’s trick to make us look one way.  So we don’t see what’s really happening elsewhere.

Health Care Costs are Rising in the Military, Too

About 60% of government spending covers Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and defense.  Each at approximately 20%.  We continue to spend more and more on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  And yet these programs are projected to go bankrupt.  Defense spending has gone up, too.  But it is the only one of the three programs that ever sees any real cuts.

The U.S. population is a little over 300,000,000.  And about 40% of the federal budget covers the elderly (approximately) of that 300 billion.  About 13% of the U.S. population.  Or about 39 million people.  It’s this 39 million that is bankrupting America with their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Those who passed Obamacare want universal single-payer health care for all 300,000,000 people.  You don’t need a higher degree in math to see that adding some 260 million more to the 39 million is going to make a bad financial situation worse.

Meanwhile the U.S. military has approximately a million and a half people on active duty and another million and a half in the reserves.  In addition to this 3 million there are about another 2 million in retirement (850,000 who are collecting a pension).  So that’s about 5 million (approximately) in our military health care and retirement programs.  These numbers are very approximate.  But the order of magnitude is accurate.  And telling.  Because even though 5 million people are a whole lot fewer than 39 million people, the health care and retirement costs in the military are unsustainable (see Panetta: Military healthcare costs are on my radar by John T. Bennett posted 6/12/2011 on The Hill).

The Obama administration is proposing increasing TRICARE fees for retirees of working age, which have remained the same for a decade. Specifically, the proposal would raise premiums for family plans by $5 per month, and by $2.50 for individuals…

“Even with the estimated savings from the healthcare efficiencies proposed in the … 2012 budget, the cost of the Military Health System continues to increase as a percentage of the DOD budget and will exceed 10 percent of the budget in just a few years,” Panetta told the committee…

“Part of this is understanding where the money is,” Mullen said. “Two of the big places the money is is [sic] in healthcare, and it’s in pay and benefits.”

First you increase the beneficiaries’ cost.  And when that no longer works you start the rationing.  The ultimate result of any single-payer system.  Just like in the UK.  Where one of the goals of their ongoing NHS reform debates is cutting wait times.  Because with the high costs of their single-payer system, people have to wait a long time for some medical tests or procedures.  Because their costs prevent them having a lot of these tests or procedures available to the UK citizenry.

Destroying the Private Health Insurance Market

Social Security and Medicare Light (military health care and retirement) isn’t working with only some 5 million people in the system.  Regular Social Security and Medicare isn’t working with only some 39 million people in the system.  And expanding Medicare-like health care to another 260 million people probably isn’t going to help.  Unless your goal is to destroy the private health insurance market.  Which will happen.  Because private insurance (i.e., businesses) simply cannot afford to pick up the unpaid medical costs of another 260 million people.

And once you’ve destroyed the private health insurance market, all those unpaid Medicare costs (and the new unpaid Obamacare costs) will have to be transferred somewhere else.  To the taxpayer.  Both businesses.  And consumers.  Which will further reduce consumer spending.  Which will reduce economic activity.  Despite all the promises of a single-payer system.  Because costs are costs.  And someone has to pay them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,