Obamacare: The Law of Unintended Consequences

Some see Obamacare as the law that will bring health insurance to millions who previously couldn't afford it. Others see the legislation as the law that made government too involved in health care. Regardless of one's perspective on Obamacare, there's one thing that it seems headed to become: the law of unintended consequences. 

As full implementation of the law nears, several potential trouble spots have emerged. Here are three that the framers of Obamacare probably didn't see coming.

1. Less availability of health care 
The primary reasoning behind Obamacare was to bring access to health care to more people. Unfortunately, the opposite could occur in some places. 

Obamacare imposes steep funding cuts on hospitals, particularly those that serve poor and uninsured patients, with the assumption that more of the hospitals' patients would be covered by Medicaid. However, the law's requirement that forced states to expand Medicaid was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hospitals in at least 15 states that won't pursue Medicaid expansion will be squeezed heavily.

Some hospitals will have to eliminate jobs or even shut their doors with the cuts, resulting in less health-care access for many. The White House has proposed delaying the cuts for a year, but they're still on track to be implemented as of now.

2. Higher Medicare medication spending
Obamacare gradually closes what has been called the Medicare donut hole. The Medicare Part D prescription drug program requires seniors to pay 25% of drug costs up to a certain threshold, 100% of costs from that point to a higher level, then only 5% of drug costs beyond that level. This middle range makes up the often-mentioned donut hole.

Helping seniors pay for drugs in the donut hole sounds like a good idea. However, the structure was created to control drug costs by giving seniors incentives to use generic drugs. Actuaries used extensive historical statistical data to set the threshold spending levels.

This goal was achieved. Medicare Part D will actually cost $334 billion less than original estimates. And it has a 90% approval rating.

Closing the donut hole, though, could inadvertently wipe out those cost savings. Without financial incentives to purchase generic drugs, more individuals are likely to stick with higher-cost brand prescription drugs and drive up total costs for the program.

3. Higher insurance premiums
The Affordable Care Act could be a misnomer for many Americans. Higher insurance premiums appear to be on the way for millions.

Who will pay more? Premiums for younger individuals will likely rise to effectively subsidize insurance costs for older Americans. This increase stems in part from an Obamacare provision that limits premiums for older members to a maximum of three times that of younger members.

Men will also pay up. Because health care costs for women are typically higher, their insurance premiums are also frequently higher. Under Obamacare, though, insurers can't charge different premiums based on gender. The result will be that insurance rates charged to men will jump.

Some of these premium increases will be quite steep. WellPoint estimates that small group premiums will go up 13% to 23% on average. Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said that some people could see their insurance costs double, with an average increase of 32%. 

Implications
These unintended consequences could have implications for investors. Hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, and insurers alike will potentially be affected.

Publicly traded hospitals will experience some pain from the impending hospital cuts, particularly those that operate in states that won't expand Medicaid. Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC  ) , for example, has estimated that the cuts will cost $35 million in the fourth quarter. The company, which is the nation's third-largest for-profit hospital chain, lost $83 million in the first quarter. Tenet operates facilities in at least five states that won't expand Medicaid, including Texas -- which accounts for 20% of the company's total beds.

Higher spending on brand drugs as a result of the closing of the Medicare donut hole means more profits for pharmaceutical firms. Goldman Sachs estimated that there could be up to $20 billion in added drug spending through 2019. This could benefit companies like AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV  ) , whose top-selling drug Humira loses patent protection in 2016. 

Without the donut hole, seniors could be more likely to keep taking Humira even if lower-cost alternatives become available. AbbVie would certainly love to preserve as much revenue as it could, since the company made $9.2 billion last year from the drug -- accounting for over half of its total sales.

What impact will higher premiums make for insurers? Maybe very little, since the increased rates will be a reaction to higher costs. However, if insurers don't adjust appropriately, their bottom lines could feel the impact.

Intentions
Did lawmakers intend for any of these adverse effects to occur? I doubt it. The truth is that many pieces of legislation have effects that weren't foreseen. The more complex a law is, the more likely unintended consequences are to arise.

We should also note that unexpected positives can also emerge. Few predicted, for example, that Medicare Part D would ultimately cost less than estimates. We'll have to wait a few years to find out how the Obamacare law of unintended consequences fully plays out. 

Obamacare will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects. The Motley Fool's new free report, "Everything You Need to Know About Obamacare," lets you know how your health insurance, your taxes, and your portfolio will be affected. Click here to read more. 


Read/Post Comments (46) | Recommend This Article (12)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 16, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Yxfpfmp wrote:

    This is the biggest crock of bull I've ever heard and is all based on a rich Republican's point of view. A total crock!!!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 2:27 AM, frk1099 wrote:

    That's what happens when we elect a community disorganizer for president.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 3:32 AM, bugmenot wrote:

    ...and the best part is unmentioned. When your parents, or YOU, are triaged by the death panels because you are too old for expensive care.

    That is when hunting season for government bureaucrats will be open.

    It is isn't a question of another civil war in this country, only what will be the causation of it.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:00 AM, rojiopero wrote:

    Lets see what happens when the unintended consequences kick in. Like Nancy Polosi said we have to pass it to see whats in it. Heck of a way to run a country.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:29 AM, timmy212661 wrote:

    I see no mention of the non healthcare business that will have to cut hours to not have to pay for insurance. Or the business that can sustain the added costs so go under. Or the business that cut there coverage because you can go on Obama care. Or the fact that it is unaffordable. Dr.'s will have to persue cheaper less effective treatments because of the lower payouts of insurance due to higher costs. That or the insurance, hospitals or both will go out of business. Then no healthcare for anyone.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:32 AM, dsagrtgaf wrote:

    Lets see pay a $95 fine at the start of the year or pay $400+ a month for insurance. Not really a hard choice there.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, frk1099 wrote:

    An army of 29 hour a week workers will be

    created.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 5:00 AM, sbruce715 wrote:

    The nonhealthcare related consequenses may be the most devastating of these "consequenses". Our economy has yet to be impacted by PPACA but it will. Many businesses will have to significantly alter their business models over the next 7 months, myself included. These changes will affect everything from future forecasts, capital expenditures, hiring policies, and how they value their goods and services(pricing). This will impact the strength of the economy. Many small and medium sized businesses will experience layoffs and many will have to change to a part time workforce. Others still, will have to decide whether they can even remain in business under these new pressures.

    Most of us have remained quiet because as soon as we open our mouths, many of us have been targeted. But it won't be much longer before many of us will have no choice but to voice our concerns. The immediate assumption of everyone on the left is to assume that the only reason we voice our discontent is because we are afraid of losing our stacks of "ill gotten gains". But this couldn't be further from the truth.

    In my case, I currently offer a healthcare plan to which I contribute, as well as a benefits package. But the unprecedented rise in healthcare plan premiums puts these in jeopardy. Granted, the benefits plan I currently offer is not without benefit to me, as it does help me retain a quality workforce, but that certainly is not the only reason I offered it. Believe it or not, I do have a genuine concern for the lives and welfare of my employees, and want nothing more than to see them prosper. But PPACA may threaten all that. I hope it won't, but no matter what, it will force me and many others like myself, to make some rather distasteful decisions in the months to come.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 5:42 AM, copywrites wrote:

    It is questionable to suggest that when a provision of a law is struck down, that the unintended consequences of removing that provision was not considered by the original authors of the bill. The true unintended consequences of less available healthcare falls squarely on the shoulders of the states that elected to NOT implement the part of the program to expand Medicaid.

    Further it was fully expected that men's insurance would rise - not only expected, it was mandated when the provision was provided to require equity in insurance rates between men and women. No one in their right mind would have expected that the only effect would have been for women's rates to drop!?! Not with health care costs increasing by double digit rates each year for the past decade.

    One final note - you need to have a filter to remove comments from obviously ignorant readers like Bugmenot that continue to spew inaccurate information like the concept of Death Panels. It really pains your intelligent readers to have to sift through such missinformation from people that get theur facts from their imagination only.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Seaboundhome wrote:

    This is no surprise. Nancy Pelosi herself said, "..we'll find out what it means when we implement it". It wasn't funny then, and it's not funny now.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 6:32 AM, andreasjva wrote:

    Remember Pelosi? "Let's just get it out there, and see what's in it."

    This is what happens when we pass a 2700 page bill, most of which never even read it, let alone understood it. It now stands at nearly 20,000 pages and growing. The longer it exists, the less we know about.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 6:42 AM, flimbok wrote:

    I'd just as soon forget Pelosi. Remember, the operative word here is "consequences." With recent revelations of the IRS' inquisitions into TEA party activity, one can only wonder how the healthcare arm of the IRS will mete out services. Given the attitude and tendencies of the administration and the accompanying partisan beaurocrats, this may be a case of political genocide in the making. You play or you die. I put nothing past them.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 6:53 AM, KristinLav wrote:

    "Copywrites" is not as "intelligent" as he thinks if he wants talk of death panels "filtered." Of course there isn't going to be some Stalinistic tribunal, or people in black hoods, that patients are dragged before and told they must die, but just about EVERYBODY, even on the far left, agrees that the shorthand phrase "death panels" is not inaccurate. These already exist - meaning the effect is the same - in Oregon, where patients are told that some cancer drugs are not covered, but they will happily cover hospice painkillers while the patient dies. This is not an isolated case.

    A friend of mine founded a major Bioethics institute (you would recognize the name) and years ago said there are certain countries he would not set foot in, because their various health care laws have morphed into "protocols" in which teams of doctors make life and death decisions even against the wishes of the patient and family.

    These kinds of things will explode with a vengeance under Obamacare, and several other bioethicists and as well as practitioners KNOW it is inevitable and have told me so personally, or I have read their comments. Even a very little research shows what is happening all over right now, and it will only be exacerbated.

    People let their hatred of Sarah Palin get in the way of the fact that her phrase "death panels" is merely shorthand for a complex web of of decisions that add up to the same result of the way Obamacare is set up. Too much decision-making power is in the hands of the government, and the act is too vague, often just saying that someone like Sibelius (groan) will have final say.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 6:57 AM, Dadw5boys wrote:

    Hospital payment rules demand payment in 30 days. Most people who spent time in a Hospital are hit from all sides expically the poor.

    Hospitals are quick to write off the bills and send them to Bill Collectors, that they own.

    While getting money from Medicad for those write off from the State they are on the other end destroying the credit or the person who was sick. If the person did not lose their job, many do, while in the Hospital destorying their credit sure puts them on the list to go these days.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 7:11 AM, KristinLav wrote:

    Flimbok is right. The administration was aided by the 6 million dollars Soros gave to media groups specifically to pressure the IRS to target conservatives. Yet the IRS is the one who is supposed to enforce Obamacare! (They decide who gets subsidies, and threaten financial penalties, and will have unlimited access to your information).

    As Jen Kuzninski put it, "The way that the IPAB or 'death panel' works is that if Medicare costs get too high, it triggers a 15 member panel of political appointees who will recommend what gets cut. If the panel doesn't do its job, Sebelius makes the recommendation and sends it to Congress....let's say that the IPAB determines that all pacemakers are outlawed over 75, and someone well-connected politically to the ruling party wants their mom to receive one. It's not a leap to understand that she'll get a waiver and your conservative mother will get a pill.

    It's not a leap because waivers have already been given politically, and conservatives have already been flagged by the IRS, and the IRS has already shared their information with well-funded political enemies."

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 7:14 AM, rdmcdonald48 wrote:

    For any of you who "think" these consequences are, or were, unintended - you've got another think coming. This whole process was designed with one goal in mind - "single payer" system health care. These professional politicians knew that the country would never accept single payer unless the system put in place was so complex and so divisive that single payer would actually be an improvement upon it. The plan is working perfectly.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 7:38 AM, indy06 wrote:

    "Did lawmakers intend for any of these adverse effects to occur? I doubt it. The truth is that many pieces of legislation have effects that weren't foreseen."

    That's funny because we were warned of all three of these things, plus the effect on full time jobs BEFORE this law was even passed. They just did it anyways!

    Copywrites, if we filtered inaccurate information your post wouldn't be seen. It's the trillions in cost to state and federal goverments that is the underlying issue of which you speak.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 7:49 AM, sandyclaws99 wrote:

    The US went from being the greatest country in the world to becoming the world's largest banana republic, with half our population living at the poverty level.

    We are the only industrialized nation without a single-payer national health care plan. We pay through the nose because providers (not doctors or nurses) rip the system off. It's level of corruption and waste is rivaled only by the Pentagon.

    The American Medical Association rates our health care system in the bottom 25% of the industrialized world. The World Health Organization adds in third-world countries, and we drop to 37th, about where we rank in literacy, science and math.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 8:28 AM, beekeeper6 wrote:

    A huge sweeping law enacted by the government has unintended consequences? I'm SHOCKED. Not really. They shouldn't have even passed this law, either do a single-payer "all in" type bill or don't do ANYTHING.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 8:32 AM, AquaScooter wrote:

    Important to remember, if in 5 - 10 years the whole Obamacare thing is not working for whatever reasons and everyone wants to go back to the "old" system, too bad. Our current system will no longer exist and Obamacare and all it's "benefits" will be what we live and die with.

    Scary to think many states are wrestling with the confusion of just setting up their exchanges. Everything goes into effect in 7 months. Enjoy!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, crazycris29 wrote:

    @Yxfpfmp. Tell us why you think this report is not correct instead of just talking out your a--. Which part of this article do you not agree with and why?

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Headusher wrote:

    Hmmmmm! Passed without a single Republican vote. Passed in spite of We The People not wanting this law. Politicians coerced by the Obama Administration (reid, pelosi) into passing it, back door deals, bribes. Not giving the lawmakers time to read the law. Must pass the law to find out what's in it- Pelosi! Bribing Unions into being in favor of the law and Visa-Versa. Payoffs to supporters of the bill. Gee I know there is more but this gets the point across.

    Now we are stuck with this piece of crap law. You voted for him - I didn't!!!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 9:18 AM, rodape wrote:

    As a few folks have pointed out in this thread, these consequences were intended by the creators of this abortifacient for our health care system.

    The either naivete or complicit propagandizing that articles such as this serve only to perpetuate and support the evil system bent on destroying our country.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 9:19 AM, higgytown wrote:

    To anyone who thinks this article is false, you are wrong. I am a teacher, and will have a 15% increase in my insurance premiums beginning with my new contract year in August. Also, the district's HR department head told all of us in a meeting that this is just the first of 4 years of increases. I am so angry, I want to scream at all the idiots who elected Obama. How can ANYONE think that the government will ever actually FIX anything? They always make things worse.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 9:32 AM, FoolishMark2855 wrote:

    Under Obama care a company may charge up to 9% of their employees income for a healthcare contribution should their employees elect to take the health care option. The company I am in therefore currently offers two plans. The first plan is excellent. It is also free. It does not meet all of the Obamacare requirements though. The second plan would cost me 9% of my $100,000 income($9000). It does meet Obamacare requirements. Some of the extremely wealthy executives do take the more expensive plan, however not even one of the hourly employees does. Since the company offers the Obamacare plan they are off the hook for penalties. My free insurance will no longer be free beginning next year because I will have to pay a penalty to the government of $95 for not spending $9000 on insurance. Obamacare is a welfare program, only useful to those being subsidized by the government.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, MsAbby wrote:

    Here's an unintended consequence. I employ 122 people. I provide health care. Last year my premiums increased 17%, this year another 5%. My tax rate went up, I got 78 new government regulations to read through and implement. I'm through.

    I'm shutting my doors end of this year. I refuse to support a government that insults me, and does not respect the fact that I had to work hard to get where I got. I had to pay for my education, I had to work menial jobs to save to start the business, I took a second mortgage out on my home to keep the business going, yet all the liberals want is more more more.

    During the last election I truly believed that people of this country would see through all this and know what the results would be of liberalism. That didn't happen.

    Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

    I'm not even sure the TAKERS fell for the line, but they didn't want to lose their free stuff so the voted accordingly. Even unions joined in. The government subsidizes them, they get the money and their members vote as they are told. Then the incestuous cycle starts all over again.

    I will work local charities as I have done for over 5 years, but that will be the extent of my working and earning money.

    122 jobs lost and all the taxes that they paid.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 10:10 AM, yrag01 wrote:

    Republicans leaders had EIGHT YEARS UNDER BUSH TO ADDRESS HEALTHCARE, AND UTTERLY NEGLECTED the Americans were suffering at the behest of price gouging big HMOs, drug companies and medical insurance companies who were donating/bribing the GOP WITH MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS—LET THE GOUGING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONTINUE—right Repubs?

    Even now as they attacking and claim they'll repeal 'Obamacare', Republicans STILL have ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN ON HOW TO FIX OUR OUT OF CONTROL HEALTHCARE MESS, except to supposedly 'request' big HMOs to discuss the issue. WHAT, DO YOU TAKE US ALL FOR IDIOTS? Average sensible people KNOW Republican views are 100% financed by HMOs, drug companies and medical insurance companies—and they LOVE the status quo because it makes them RICH.

    btw when Romney (remember him?) put the same conditions for health care in effect in Massachusetts he called it a 'mandate', but when Obama does it Repubs NOW claim it's a 'tax'—what two-faced hypocrites!

    The line Republican leaders have been feeding to their followers is basically that Democrats haven't cleaned up the mess created by Bush Jr. and themselves fast enough.

    The the premise behind Republican calls to repeal "Obamacare," is: "Healthcare reform will cost $1 trillion". Yet it's an extrapolation of an extrapolation, and only half the story at that. The Congressional Budget Office, the best source of data on the cost of healthcare reform, estimates that new government costs associated with reform between 2010 and 2020 will add up to about $1.2 trillion. That's the figure cited by critics of the plan. But CBO also says those costs will be offset by more than $1.3 trillion in cost savings and new revenue, which will lower the national debt by about $170 billion over that time period--not raise it. Accounting for just the costs, and not the offsets, is like calculating your household finances by adding up all your bills but leaving out the income used to pay for them.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, cityperson wrote:

    Well you liberal ans socialist now you know what is in the Obamacare after it was signed. More taxes higher insurance premiums higher everything and much less of everything. Plus stealing money form our Medicare savings to support the Obamacare. This will not stop until Obama and his gang is stopped. This is only the beginning of problems for the public. Then we have the IRS clowns going to over see this?

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 10:53 AM, charatree wrote:

    This was not well thought out. There are businesses cutting workers hours or if they are a big enough company, they decide it is cheaper to pay the fine than to provide insurance for their employees.

    Way to go Mr. President!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:14 AM, stormerF wrote:

    The only unintended consequence is that the fools that voted for this and passed it are still in office.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Buck1501 wrote:

    All I know, is that my deductibles and premiums have doubled in the past year. Am I better off under Obamacare? Absolutely not. It seems like another squeeze on the working, middle class. How much more can an average budget take?

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Tom50555 wrote:

    Obama is the captain of this ship. Rank has it's rewards as well as it's responsibilities. As the military, and subsequently business, has known for thousands of years as portrayed in the writings of Sun Tzu "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory to be thoroughly studied." He called this "study" estimates, run the numbers, in other words - planning. Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance - the 7Ps of management, of leadership. It is ludicrous to portray (read spin) this as "unintended consequence" when in reality it is a well documented case of piss poor planning at best. I believe it was Nancy P who said basically "pass the bill first, then we can read it". Zero planning for all to see. Captain of his ship indeed, his ship of fools!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:44 AM, AnotherVoR wrote:

    "Did lawmakers intend for any of these adverse effects to occur? I doubt it."

    Of course the adverse effects are intended. All of them were both foreseeable and foreseen. But the "unintended consequences" are used as a rationale for further government intervention, until finally the call for single-payer gains traction as the only real solution.

    Barney Frank has already stated that this health care law is only the first step toward single-payer. If Obamacare didn't create health care problems, then there would be no incentive to socialize the medical industry any further.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:44 AM, starmann wrote:

    As a business owner I recommend to other business owners:

    keep staff below 28

    outsource as much as you can.

    move expensive operations to Mexico or Canada.

    Sorry Mr Obama, we don't want to play!

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 11:53 AM, saenoamericano wrote:

    Unintended Consequences perfectly describes the administration. Screw the kenyan and his policies I revoke consent and he can keep his change while real Americans will hope that the stains can be eventually be removed

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 12:06 PM, JeanJavert wrote:

    These may have been unintended consequences but less availability of healthcare, higher cost for spending – with higher profits for pharmaceuticals (who helped worked closely with the Democrat controlled congress to write the legislation) and higher medication premiums were exactly what those opposed to this legislation predicted.

    You will also see hospitals consolidate – leaving communities with fewer hospitals and fewer jobs. Basically, everyone will have healthcare . . . it will just go from very good to very bad for everyone. (This is called healthcare equality.)

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Hibiscusanole wrote:

    It has been obvious that Obama wants Communism for a while, and that the law drives the country to bankruptcy. It drives the poor to bankruptcy with its absurd tax that leaves them no insurance.

    This week a new law was published that Obama raised the permissible levels of nuclear radioactivity in water from that which will cause the deaths of 1 in 100,000 people to 1 in 23. People across the Atlantic are concerned about the effects. The law denies us humanitarian aid in a disaster, like the Somalis being denied the delivery of food by Islamics, leaving hundreds of thousands to starve.

    How concerned can Obama be concerned about health, at all, with such a law? How many people remained on the fence about voting because he was a green candidate, and the health care might be affordable? How sinister might the health care law prove to be?

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Xyzmygate wrote:

    Copywriters post concerns me. To want to filter out something that he does not agree with is an attack on free speech. I realize there are many, even in our government who are trying to limit our first amendment rights, but thinking people would not be approving nor helping them accomplish that limitation.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 12:52 PM, RenegadeIAm wrote:

    The same bureaucracy that targeted the sitting president's political opponents will be in charge of ObamaCare.

    The same organization that intimidated and stalled people for their political beliefs will be involved in deciding who gets healthcare.

    Once they are in charge of people's health, they will have total control of dissent.

    As intended.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 1:23 PM, EdHamox wrote:

    Small, little steps of chip, chip, chipping away at the constitution and liberties of the American people..and the voters love them for the promises of more 'free stuff'.

    ''Americans will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the guise of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socilist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened''.

    ~ Norman Mattoon Thomas ~

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 1:39 PM, dd9999 wrote:

    "Unintended Consequences" is a euphemism for incompetence. The Bill was not even read by any of the people voting for it, including Obama! If it wasn't read, it certainly was reviewed. In the business world this would be called pure incompetence and the CEO and leaders would be fired by the Board. You don't make a major new policy that is going to cost billions without a review unless you are a Democrat.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 1:39 PM, radioman47 wrote:

    When America finds out what obama care is going to cost the average working person there is going to be an outcry so loud even the dem's will hear it.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Boonman wrote:

    it was never about health care. The government getting a hold of 1/6 of the economy was always the plan. The idiots that voted for this law need to be put in jail, including obama himself.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 2:40 PM, sagehopper wrote:

    2,700 pages, written by Insurance corp lawyers, and Execs, not read by those who passed it, almost bankrupt..I mean..what could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:01 PM, doco177 wrote:

    1. Millions are and will lose the insurance Obama promised they could keep. Because ObamaCare forces employers to offer expensive Cadillac plans but also offers the option of paying a fine for not providing health insurance that can be cheaper than providing it, between seven and twenty million Americans are likely to lose their health insurance coverage according to the Congressional Budget Office. The original estimate was closer to four million.

    2. The cost of healthcare premiums is about to further skyrocket. Premium costs have already exploded, but that is a slow-motion explosion. In the near future, we could see costs double or worse. Naturally, these costs will hit an already burdened middle class hardest.

    3. Lost jobs. Lost jobs.

    The Federal Reserve's March beige book on economic activity noted that businesses "cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."

    Meanwhile, human resources consulting firm Adecco found that half of the small businesses it surveyed in January either plan to cut their workforce, not hire new workers, or shift to part-time or temporary help because of ObamaCare.

    4. Potential doctor shortages that will mean rationing: The healthcare industry is already a bureaucratic quagmire. ObamaCare is about to add steroids. As the profession becomes tyrannized by government, the talented people currently practicing medicine plan to get out sooner than expected. Who knows how many will choose not to get in.

    Doctor shortages are what lead to the nightmare known as rationed care. Here's an unsettling example already being practiced.

    5. Somewhere around $800 billion in tax increases will hit America's middle class. This added burden will not only further oppress a middle class already reeling from a drop in wages over the last few years, but could damage the overall economy.

    6. Inflation, the cruelest tax on the poor. When businesses get socked with added costs brought about by higher taxes and burdensome government mandates, they pass those cost along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

    7. Added bureaucracy. Even those Obama lapdogs over at the Washington Post's Wonk Blog are admitting that applying for health care is about to get more burdensome than the byzantine paperwork involved in buying a home.

    8. To cut costs or to avoid having to provide insurance, workers on the economic margins are already losing hours, which means a lower paycheck. There are a million sad stories in ObamaVille; here are just a few of them.

    9. ObamaCare is projected to add $6.2 TRILLION to a deficit the GAO has already declared "unsustainable." That's "trillion" with a "t".

    10. More taxes than currently estimated are likely to hit because of situations like this one.

    Three years ago, Obama, Democrats, and his media lied to us about cutting the cost of health care, being able to keep our insurance, and not taxing the middle class.

    Today, those lies and what ObamaCare is and will do to the working and middle class are the biggest untold story in America.

    The govt becoming more involved in health care is the reason the costs have increased. So...Govt creates a crisis, then provides a solution that comes at the expense of liberty and freedom, costs trillions, and by most accounts won't solve the problem but in fact make it far worse.Corruption, incompetence, disregard of the Constitution, and above all lying are integral to the way that this country is being run.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Newt5858 wrote:

    Not only has my son's and daughter's hour been cut back at work, it has raised my property taxes. That may seem like a stretch but when the federal government cut back $1M dollars in Medicare payments to the county old folks home, the county commisioners were forced to raise property taxes to cover the shortfall.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2435567, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/24/2014 3:48:20 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement