3 Obamacare Revelations That Might Astound (and Confound) You

Could anything about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, surprise anyone at this point? Maybe so.

A recent report from market research firm S&P Capital IQ revealed some intriguing findings about the impact of Obamacare. Insurers submitting their 2015 premium costs to several states have also stirred things a bit. Here are three revelations that just might astound you -- and maybe confound you, too.

1. The S&P 500 could pocket an extra $700 billion.
Over two-thirds of a trillion dollars could be finding its way into big corporations' treasure chests, according to S&P Capital IQ Global Market Intelligence. The firm estimates that large employers will save almost $700 billion through 2025 because of Obamacare. 

Source: WhiteHouse.gov

That prediction probably surprises many. It wasn't even a year ago that Delta Airlines (NYSE: DAL  ) projected just the opposite. In a letter to an Obama administration official, the airline expressed concerns that their health-related costs could jump by as much as $100 million annually.

But the skies might be friendlier for Delta and other major employers than previously thought. S&P Capital IQ analysts expect that large organizations will shift many employees and retirees to public and private health insurance exchanges, saving big bucks in the process.

This idea makes sense for lower income workers who qualify for federal subsidies, but what about other employees who receive health insurance through their employers currently? S&P Capital IQ says that even if the delayed Obamacare employer mandate is ultimately implemented, the penalties won't be enough to make it financially attractive for many companies to continue offering health coverage to their workers. Lower health care costs means higher bottom lines for these corporations.

United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS  ) , for example, dropped coverage for working spouses of its non-union workers last year. The large shipping and logistics company attributed the move to rising health-care costs in general -- and costs associated with Obamacare. The result? $60 million in expected annual savings.

2. Obamacare fans and foes were both right about premium increases.
Plenty of critics of Obamacare have predicted that insurers will jack up their rates after the first year of operating on the health exchanges. Supporters of the health reform legislation maintained that increases will be in the single digits, similar to the trend from past years. So far, it's looking like both sides are partially right.

Virginia released proposed 2015 rates from insurers a few days ago. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States came in on the low end of the range, raising premiums by only 3.3%. On the other hand, CareFirst BlueChoice proposed to hike rates for its members by 14.7%. 

The state of Washington made its rate proposals public soon after Virginia, with some more extreme results. Molina Healthcare actually cut its proposed premiums by 6.8%. Meanwhile, Time Insurance Company plans to kick rates up by a whopping 26%. 

Overall, results from these two states provide some level of comfort to Obamacare supporters. However, the worst could be still to come. Residents of states that experienced poor enrollment could see significantly higher premiums next year. Likewise, states that allowed insurers to permit members to keep previously canceled plans could see bigger rate hikes. We'll have to wait a little longer to find out which side's predictions were more accurate than the other's. 

3. Employees will pay more -- then less -- of health insurance premiums.
With premiums going up and employers potentially shifting responsibility for obtaining health insurance to workers, will employees pay more for their insurance? Yes, they will. But then they will later pay less -- if S&P Capital IQ is right.

In 2012, employers shouldered 24.5% of total health-care premium costs. That figure will rise significantly according to S&P Capital IQ's analysis, reaching 34% by 2018. After that, though, the percentage will reportedly taper off to a little over 26%.

With employers paying less and employees also eventually paying less, who's picking up the tab? Uncle Sam.

S&P Capital IQ projects that the federal government's share of total health-care premium costs will skyrocket from just below 4% in 2016 to over 41% by 2025. Most of that huge jump will occur over the next six years. 

From astounding to abounding
At least one thing isn't surprising: there's still a path to make money from the Obamacare trends. You could potentially profit from buying stocks of companies like UPS that should have better bottom lines from lower health-care costs as a result of moving people off their plans. A more direct way to benefit, though, could be by investing in private health exchange operators.

EHealth (NASDAQ: EHTH  ) stands out as the publicly traded company getting the most attention when it comes to the public Obamacare exchanges. The company won a contract that allows it to sell the same plans online that are offered by the federally operated Healthcare.gov website. However, the stock comes at a steep price -- trading at a sky-high 84 times its forward earnings.

Look to other private health exchange operators for better bargains. Marsh & McLennan (NYSE: MMC  ) is in the thick of the private exchange game with its Mercer business unit. Mercer recently teamed up with privately held GetInsured, which landed a federal contract like eHealth did.

The Mercer Marketplace online exchange currently supports 67 employers with 282,000 members, including employees, retirees, and family members. Mercer allows these members to access individual medical plans on the public Obamacare exchanges as well as other plans from a single point of access. Marsh & McLennan appears possibly poised to reap rewards with its Mercer subsidiary as employers get out of actively managing health insurance.

Expect more surprises along the way as the impact of the health reform legislation is felt more fully. Twists and turns along the way, though, present abounding opportunities for astute investors.

Could this stock lead to astounding returns for you?
Give me five minutes and I'll show how you could own the best stock for 2014. Every year, The Motley Fool's chief investment officer hand-picks 1 stock with outstanding potential. But it's not just any run-of-the-mill company. It's a stock perfectly positioned to cash in on one of the upcoming year's most lucrative trends. Last year his pick skyrocketed 134%. And previous top picks have gained upwards of 908%, 1,252% and 1,303% over the subsequent years! Believe me, you don't want to miss what could be his biggest winner yet! Just click here to download your free copy of "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2014" today.


Read/Post Comments (52) | Recommend This Article (20)

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 18, 2014, at 3:48 PM, jmgconsultants wrote:

    Obamacare is a con game that has already hurt millions of Americans with million more are projected to get hurt by it this year. If you want to look into the future of what could happen if Obamacare stays just look at the VA and all those veterans dying while waiting to get their claims processed or even examined. Obamacare is a disaster and so is the other government run healthcare the VA.

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 5:56 PM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    Employers currently shoulder between 75 and 100% of the health insurance premiums of their employees, so if they shift the employees into the exchanges or on the free market than the savings especially for larger companies will translate into higher profits and as a result the stock price will climb !

    This is the THEORY but in real life things are a bit more complicated .

    The first consideration that must be made is that for many companies insurance benefits pose a important tool to attract and retain talent , the role of benefits will be even more important with rising health insurance premiums, keeping this in mind companies will be shifting employees on the lower pay scale that can be easily replaced to the insurance exchanges while retaining benefits for the more qualified workers , this however will limit the cost savings that can be achieved .

    The cost savings are even further reduced if the employer mandate and the associated penalty kicks in !

    Then there is yet another problem waiting in the wings as employees who got dumped may sue their employers for discrimination especially if the employer continues to offer benefits for higher skilled employees.

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 6:14 PM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    Cutting employee health benefits does not eliminate the cost burden it merely shifts it from the company to the employee or the government , either way there will be a impact on the company bottom line that should not be under estimated !

    So lets say company stops offering benefits and as result now saves $480 per employee, so now the employee has to go out and find himself insurance , if our employee wants a plan that is similar in deductibles and out of pocket costs than his employer plan he more than likely will have to pay $600-$900 per month , this because group policies especially for large groups come with big discounts on the premiums, but even if the employee opts for a plan with a higher deductible he/she will still pay more than before especially if the employer paid 100% of the premium before.

    Now two things can happen , if our employee makes too much $ to qualify for subsidies the premiums will reduce the buying power and reduce discretionary spending this reduction will directly a variety of industries in the US causing a drop in revenue and as a result affecting the stock price !

    The second possibility kicks in for employees who do qualify for subsidies , in this case the cost burden will be largely shifted to the government but the government has to get the money from somewhere so its either more debt or higher taxes both of which will have a affect on the stock market in the long run , lastly the mentioned reduction in buying power can still take place if the subsidies only cover part of the premiums and the new premiums are higher than what the employee paid in the past !

    Then off course lets not forget the negative PR any large company will receive as a result from dumping their employees into the exchanges , this PR in turn also can cause a reduction in revenue

    So as much as I respect S&P I don't think that they have thought this whole thing through in all aspects

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 8:30 PM, SLTom992 wrote:

    It is certainly interesting that we see that so far Obama-care is awful but it's going to get better - we promise.

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Ardadius wrote:

    So companies kicking employees off of their health care rolls is a good thing?

    Nice to see where Motley Fool stands on workers rights. Oh, and I suppose that it will all be free for the workers, too.

    Right.

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 10:44 PM, radioman47 wrote:

    Voter backlash may cause a large disruption in the obummer care law.

  • Report this Comment On May 18, 2014, at 11:36 PM, jimwolf511 wrote:

    Let me get this straight... Eventually the bill from Obamacare will jump to our government over the next 9 years from 4% to 41%.. Please tell me who gives our government their money?? Oh yeah, its the dam US Taxpayers.. Do you think "we the people" will be forced to pay this enormous payment.. Dam right.. Please vote republican so we can end these mandates before this train wreck ruins America..

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Barrysoetoro wrote:

    Obamessiah and ObamaCare is the greatest thing that every happened since sliced bread. This will allow for Obama's promised Fundamental Transformation of Amerika, into something our founding fathers would never recognize.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 4:17 AM, NostradamusII wrote:

    First, ask why Obama bought 30,000 guillotines?

    Obamacare has nothing to do with providing health insurance. It is so he can have access to the medical history of "millions." Particularly young men and women. The electric chair and lethal injections destroy body parts. Beheadings would allow body parts to be harvested for the New World Order, who would like nothing more than to kill of millions. Then, they would have an endless supply of body parts that could keep them alive for who knows how long?

    Now ask, who is he going to use these guillotines on? Christians? Those who oppose the New World Order? AMERICANS???????

    Someone should be asking the questions!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 4:26 AM, NostradamusII wrote:

    In a provocative new paper, an Italian neuroscientist outlines how to perform a complete human head transplant, arguing that such a surgical procedure is now within the realm of possibility.

    Switching heads sounds pretty "Frankenstein," for sure. But for decades researchers have been trying the procedure on animals. In 1970, the first head "linkage" was achieved in a monkey. But no one knew how to hook up the transplanted head to the spinal cord.

    Now Dr. Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group says he knows how to solve that problem.

    "The greatest technical hurdle to such endeavor is of course the reconnection of the donor's and recipient's spinal cords," Dr. Canavero wrote in the paper. "It is my contention that the technology only now exists for such linkage. This paper sketches out a possible human scenario and outlines the technology to reconnect the severed cord (project GEMINI)."

    He went on to say that several now-hopeless medical conditions might be addressed with the procedure, which would cost about $13 million.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 4:26 AM, NostradamusII wrote:

    In a provocative new paper, an Italian neuroscientist outlines how to perform a complete human head transplant, arguing that such a surgical procedure is now within the realm of possibility.

    Switching heads sounds pretty "Frankenstein," for sure. But for decades researchers have been trying the procedure on animals. In 1970, the first head "linkage" was achieved in a monkey. But no one knew how to hook up the transplanted head to the spinal cord.

    Now Dr. Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group says he knows how to solve that problem.

    "The greatest technical hurdle to such endeavor is of course the reconnection of the donor's and recipient's spinal cords," Dr. Canavero wrote in the paper. "It is my contention that the technology only now exists for such linkage. This paper sketches out a possible human scenario and outlines the technology to reconnect the severed cord (project GEMINI)."

    He went on to say that several now-hopeless medical conditions might be addressed with the procedure, which would cost about $13 million.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 4:38 AM, VintageV12 wrote:

    The more corps try to find ways to increase the bottom line, the faster they will bring about their own demise

    Capitalists create socialists.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 7:38 AM, man4451 wrote:

    I HEAR, the united states IS the richest country in the world, then how come all them POOR countries have better health care than the U.S.A. ?

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 8:16 AM, greyhound44 wrote:

    Guess I'll keep my DAL sky miles despite their being mostly useless.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 8:22 AM, TerryFlowers wrote:

    I am neither confounded nor astounded by these facts. When ACA was adopted in favor of a true single-payer healthcare financing plan such as Hr 676 I knew from the start that investors, health care insurance companies and other health care pharmaceutical, medical supply industries would profit at the expense of the "consumer".

    I don't like the term "consumer" in regard to health care. Health care consumers are patients and their families. These are "consumers" that can least afford the hight cost of treatment.

    Medical care is not like other commodities. Seldom do we choose to access our health care providers as it is generally forced upon us out of need. If we had our choice we would not have to see them. Vehicles, homes, etc. on the other hand, are items that most of us would seek out to improve our standard of living and social status.

    HR 676 would correct so many of the inequities in our society. Comprehensive health care financing for everyone (womb to tomb) including medical, dental and vision. This with no copays, no deductibles, no out-of-pocket medical bills.

    Who would this hurt? Primarily the health care insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical supply/equipment industries. It may alter many financial port-folios as well.

    Who would this benefit? The average Joe/Jane and their families. 98% of us would pay less in additional taxes to fund HR 676 than we currently pay in insurance premiums. More money for the middle-class and a little less for the 1-2%.

    Search it out for yourself...don't take my word for it.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 8:32 AM, ferdiefor wrote:

    My sister-in-law is here from London. Her take on HHS is this... if you have life threatening issues the 100% public HHS is excellent and treats everyone the same. But there are limits to how much care will be provided including strict cutoffs on end of life care.

    However, if you have chronic disorders HHS is the LAST system to rely on and for that reason she and millions of other Londoners purchase the best supplemental insurance one can afford.

    The US is already morphing into a two-tier health system where those who take the state exchange subsidy accept various forms of rationing and those who purchase their insurance outside the exchanges are being treated better and having the same provider options as before.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 8:33 AM, gh578 wrote:

    I live in WA and I heard that one of our hospitals here (Overlake) and some of the casinos dropped health benefits for spouses as well. Very sad. One of the spouses told me she had to find other insurance which was more expensive and has a higher deductible.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Chevynuts33 wrote:

    By 2018, compounding every year in costs will likely bring a situation where Employers will save an average of 2500$, some as much as 5000$ a year.

    I would be surprised to see even 50% of Employers still providing in 2019 and by 2022 perhaps as low as 20%. Huge implications on spending from consumers as to dollars available

    for discretionary spending.

    When the bulk of the middle class is coming out of pocket 10% gross of paychecks for Healthcare, essentially 15% gross of pay disappears.

    Other costs are rising as well and we could well see gross attempts by the Central government to cover all revenue collections without the remaining middle class spending that income but once, to only a couple sectors benefiting, Virtually, fiat acceleration will slow.

    Heaven help us when Energy gets the 'Carbon taxation' going also, we may be seeing a return to the days of old where even 50-60% of income being simply for taxation was a dream world we wish we could return to.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 9:23 AM, CFPCowboy wrote:

    We have an ACA case that is beginning to rival Veterans procedures. A child, last year, was dropped from Medicaid (CHIPS) because her parents made too much money. This year the parents applied for and received ACA coverage, but the Navigator refused to add the child to the parent's policy (for free), as it was procedure to run the kids through Medicaid first. Even though the child was denied coverage last year, under the same criteria, it has been four months with no decision and no coverage for the child who may need surgery. Neither the doctors nor hospitals are willing to take on the task for fear of not being paid. The bureaucracy may actually kill this child. CONGRATULATIONS ACA.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Acadia2700 wrote:

    "With employers paying less and employees also eventually paying less, who's picking up the tab? Uncle Sam."

    And, of course, Uncle Sam picking up the tab means we, the taxpayers, will be picking up the tab.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 9:56 AM, randydevinney wrote:

    Let's see, companies have to spend more money to comply with ACA, tons more, so they eliminate insuring spouses to offset the additional spending. Net change, zero. How does that translate into higher profits?

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:03 AM, tcandadai wrote:

    In spite of all these mambo-jumbo, ACA, Obamacare, etc. etc., I still think we should pay our medical expenses. I don't mean the catastrophic illness, but ordinary ones such as cough, cold, fever, etc. etc. There should be some common sense. And I know it is difficult, especially since we have been pampered with insurance payments in the past. Now the reality has caught up with us.

    And we also should start viewing the health service with the understanding/realization that we are all going to die. If we have that perspective, we will start using common sense.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:04 AM, floydhowardjr wrote:

    America If you lose your coverage, your doctor, your insurance, your job, BLAME a Democrat. If your rates go up astronomically and you can’t get what you were promised……Next time you go and vote...remember WHO did this to YOU! DEMOCRATS!

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, cy8675309 wrote:

    This article is good, but naively assumes a "zero sum" game. For example, my company dumping people to Obamacare would save money, if we could retain my employees after we did it. I just experienced having to pay people $8K more per year when hiring them from another contractor organization because my company's deductible and max-out-of-pocket was way higher than they had elsewhere. How much more in salary would I have to give if I offered NO insurance? It's going to destabilize the labor market because people won't be comparing apples to apples.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:16 AM, silverdragon8448 wrote:

    When they raise minimum wage you will pay more for insurance because the subsidy will be less. You might loose your job and all other prices for commodities will rise.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:17 AM, cy8675309 wrote:

    I wish the general public would not only read this article, but understand the implications in terms of costs to the taxpayer. Obamacare is a bit like eating at a restaurant and being asked how you like the meal before getting the bill. If you and your wife just ate at Chili's but got a bill for $738, you'd feel very differently about the meal than if they told you it was "free right now" and to enjoy your day. Obamacare is essentially "free right now" as we fund it through debt. Eventually the taxpayer has to pay the bill.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:37 AM, earth2sterling wrote:

    According to the article, employees pay 24.5% of their premiums and then later they pay 26% of their premiums which is paying less of their premiums.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Packard27 wrote:

    To paraphrase Oscar Wilde:

    One would have to have a heart of stone to not now laugh at the rubes who elected Barrack Obama. Needless to say, these are also the same folks who are just discovering the cost of their promised "free Obamacare lunches."

    TANSTAAFL

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 11:39 AM, ck63 wrote:

    One way or the other, it's the tax payer who will end up footing the bill

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 12:15 PM, JimmyDave wrote:

    Obviously everyone on this site is into the stock market which means you guys should absolutely see this. Made some real profits last few months due to this site >> mcmstocks.com <<. Pretty awesome and hope this helps someone :)

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 12:21 PM, JASLMS123 wrote:

    Employers giving up ALL Company Health Insurance Plans?

    I wonder- imagine CEO coming home to spoiled BW and announcing that he is saving the Co, $$$ by putting ALL Fulltime Employees,including HIM, on OBAMACARE -BW has to go on ObamaCare Exchange, TOO, same as Common People- SLEEP IN GUEST ROOM,SUCKER ...CEO's will cut Part Time, maybe Retirees over 65 ,Working Spouses BUT NOT HIS BW -Fed law MANDATES ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES BE TREATED EQUALLY IN REGARDS COMPANY HEATH CARE BENEFITS

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 12:55 PM, cmm912 wrote:

    Dear Keith Speights (author of this piece),

    It is NOT an "astounding revelation" that employers will end up benefiting from obamacare. Conservatives and Republicans have been saying this since 2009.

    I guess you were too busy being an obamacare cheerleader, drowning out our voices, to notice.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 1:20 PM, ObamaStinks wrote:

    Results as follows:

    A destroyed healthcare industry that will suck

    Hugely higher out of pocket costs for Americans

    Higher taxes to cover government costs and pensions

    Government death panels rejecting care and drugs

    illegals get free healthcare, citizens pay for it

    Workers drop out of workforce for healthcare welfare

    Good Doctors quitting by the thousands

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 1:26 PM, cmm912 wrote:

    Dear Terry Flowers,

    You wrote that you support HR 676, which by your account, is total government controlled healthcare. Socialized medicine.

    You also wrote:

    "Who would this hurt? Primarily the health care insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical supply/equipment industries. It may alter many financial port-folios as well."

    My reply:

    WHY would you want to "hurt" the industries you are depending on to keep you well?!? So you'll have government paying your health costs "womb to tomb" - but you won't be able to get the care you need because the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical device companies will be waning - yeah, sounds like an idiotic plan to me.

    And excuse me if I don't think it is a wise idea for retirees, living on their investments, to have their portfolios "altered."

    Why do people like you always try to FORCE socialized medicine down our throats? If you want this so bad, just MOVE to a country that ALREADY HAS socialized medicine. No one is stopping you. You can drive to Canada.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 2:07 PM, wnd45acp wrote:

    This whole thing is a scam and one bad joke on working Americans and their families. My daughter has been to Hades and back with their BC/BS plan via ObamaNO CARE since the beginning of the year for her pregnancy that started in late 2013. They keep changing their benefits on them, their deductible is extremely high for two healthy 30 something adults and one very healthy 3 year old.. first she is covered then she's not back and forth not what she needs to hear being in the hospital presently in labor...Friday she talked to the financial office and everything was ok.. checked in early this morning and was told BC/BS said they had no coverage for unpaid premiums which they have deduced automatically from their account every months.. they were told up to them to prove the money was deducted.. all while she is standing there in labor a few hours ago. he husband called the bank said yes money was deducted but like earlier in the year then suddenly its returned for no reason.. first time they wanted 3 months up front.. now they are demanding 6 months up front for payment - what the heck is this ????? Her husband ripped on BC/BS and then hour later suddenly oh everything is ok ... she said its been a nightmare since we were forced out of our old plan and into this one we can afford.. $900/month up hundreds of dollar from last years and $9000 deductible before anything is covered.. they will eat the whole cost of the pregnancy, labor and delivery to satisfy her part of the deductible and 2/3 of the total so they have paid a lot of money out and got NOTHING but headaches and stress in return. She is not the first horror story I have heard first hand... more like the 10th since January of people I have known for years and who are not stupid when it comes to insurance, costs etc. WAKE UP AMERICA WE HAVE BEEN HAD !

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 2:29 PM, lingerer485 wrote:

    Currently it is being revealed, the fiasco of the running, of the VA Healthcare for veterans.

    So let's put the whole healthcare system under the same government control. Yeh, that really makes sense.

    Also, while in the senate, Obama' was on the oversight committee for the VA.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 3:40 PM, foolishlycuriose wrote:

    For further consideration:

    "The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes."

    From Milton Friedman's essay on How To Cure Health Care. Link below:

    http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/729...

    The Preamble to the Constitution clearly outlines the six (6) responsibilities of our government:

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Number four on the list specifically states "promote the general welfare" - NOT provide it.

    To our Founding Fathers, health care was an individual's responsibility. Under President Obama, health care has become THE lifeline to our nation's slowing GDP via federally mandated consumer spending.

    So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 4:22 PM, TRILLIBRO wrote:

    I covered VA hospitals for 16 years, and I can tell you the news about vets dying while waiting for care is not new. It was heart breaking to see these patriots wither away while waiting for treatment, and Obamacare will do the same for the general population.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 5:22 PM, JunieBee wrote:

    The biggest question is how much will Obama profit from the ACA?

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 5:41 PM, sheldonross wrote:

    Question #2 appears misleading to me. I don't doubt that premiums 'only' increased by single digits to low double digits on average. But what about deductibles? Anecdotal, but our company insurance costs remained about the same this year, but our deductible DOUBLED. IE from "kinda high, but I can make it work", to "I'll have to sell the car if I need medical help".

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 6:09 PM, margeanncullen wrote:

    I covered VA hospitals for 16 years, and I can tell you the news about vets dying while waiting for care is not new. It was heart breaking to see these patriots wither away while waiting for treatment, and Obamacare will do the same for the general population.

    Note Tillibro said nothing new. Obama has not been around 16 years. It is too early to say what results are going to be with ACA. But I say folks that didn't have a hope of having insurance can now have some. SS was not perfect at first either. Geeze my country is so selfish when it comes to others.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 6:31 PM, jnovaro27 wrote:

    So another article reveals that the ACA will do exactly what democrats intended it to do. Dump tens of millions of people who already had insurance into government run exchanges where they will obtain insurance that controls costs by limiting choices and increasing deductibles and thus creating another huge government entitlement.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 7:26 PM, cyfan2000 wrote:

    I just read that the Administration had to finally admit that only about 25% of the enrollees were previously insured. So Obamacare threw more people off insurance than he brought on.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 7:29 PM, cyfan2000 wrote:

    Margeanncullen: As one of the people footing the bill all the time for these entitlement programs, yes I get a little "selfish". This country is like having a house full of teenagers. They'll suck every last dime from you and hate you right after you handed over the money. Yes, I'm tired of the stories where people are so excited that Obamacare is so affordable that now they can go on vacation. Really? I'm financing vacations now with my tax dollars.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Nadrakas wrote:

    "S&P Capital IQ projects that the federal government's share of total health-care premium costs will skyrocket from just below 4% in 2016 to over 41% by 2025. Most of that huge jump will occur over the next six years."

    So...in the end, the American People are going to be paying for it anyway. And Obamacare was supposed to lower costs -- just more Snake Oil from a Flem Flam Man.

    ~ N

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2014, at 10:50 PM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On May 19, 2014, at 7:26 PM, cyfan2000 wrote:

    "I just read that the Administration had to finally admit that only about 25% of the enrollees were previously insured. So Obamacare threw more people off insurance than he brought on."

    Yup.

    See, below.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/10/new-mck...

    New McKinsey Survey: 74% Of Obamacare Sign-Ups Were Previously Insured

    5/10/14

    These young leaders at The Fool sure are naïve’.

    They need to stick with evaluating stocks and forget the social issues.

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 8:09 AM, wvowell wrote:

    Are you just an OBAMA pawn or one of the useful idiots?

    For you to write an article that has a positive take on this government take over of our lives is so misleading and a joke!!

    You write that employers pay less, employees pay less and this sounds great.

    You throw in " With employers paying less and employees also eventually paying less, who's picking up the tab? Uncle Sam.".

    Well who in hell is "Uncle Sam"? That is US!!!!

    You don't own any of the stocks you are reporting on. Please crawl under a rock and let us liberty minded people take our country back!!!

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 10:06 AM, EvaBrain wrote:

    Obamessiah and ObamaCare is the greatest thing that every happened since sliced bread. This will allow for Obama's promised Fundamental Transformation of Amerika, into something our founding fathers would never recognize.

    Obama said http://bit.ly/1ngIPEi

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 10:17 AM, marginjim wrote:

    It is amazing how many people so thoroughly understand the 3000 page Obamacare document that they can tell exactly how things are going to work out.

    I, on the other hand, don't see things that clearly. But there is one thing that is worth considering:

    One of the major reasons why the USA had the most expensive health care in the universe - but by no means the most effective - was that a huge percentage of employees had their health care paid for by their employees, while the premiums were not considered income and, therefore, not taxed. Under that situation there was no incentive, on the part of the providers or the patients, to pay any attention to costs or even to real needs when deciding how to deal with health care issues. The only source of control was the insurance companies, who could impose maximums and limit coverage; but that wasn't usually applied to the employees of the big companies, just the poor suckers who had their own coverage or worked for smaller companies.

    Now, with more individual payers having responsibility for their premiums and their deductibles, the possibility exists that providers and consumers will start factoring costs into the decision about how to deal with medical conditions. I think that's how a market economy is supposed to function' and it may, for the first time in a very long time, put a check on our national health care bill.

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 12:36 PM, marginjim wrote:

    Sorry. There's a typo in my earlier note. It should have read that "a huge percentage of employees had their health care paid for by their employers...."

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 6:47 PM, AnotherVoR wrote:

    "With employers paying less and employees also eventually paying less, who's picking up the tab? Uncle Sam."

    And who pays Uncle Sam?

    Employers and Employees.

    So who is actually paying less?

    Close to no one.

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 9:46 AM, marginjim wrote:

    "With employers paying less and employees also eventually paying less, who's picking up the tab?"

    Here's a remarkable idea: When demand is under control (cf. Adam Smith's "Invisible hand.") the tab gets smaller. So no one else is picking it up. That's all there is.

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: 2962004, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/30/2014 2:36:17 PM

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