Careless

When then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that we would have to pass ObamaCare to find out what's in it, she was guilty of imprecision. She should have said that if we pass it we will find out sooner or later what is in it. It is getting later fast, and the picture is getting worse as it gets clearer.

Here is a snapshot, courtesy of the Boston Herald:

This week a report by the respected McKinsey & Co. found that at least 30 percent of employers are likely to stop offering their workers health insurance as a routine benefit once the federal law kicks in.

As many as half of those 1,300 companies surveyed said they would "definitely" or "probably" drop such coverage even with a government imposed penalty of as much as $2,000 per worker for companies with more than 50 employees.

We have already seen the first of wave of Obamacare's unintended consequences with the government granting more than 1,372 waivers to companies, unions and insurers who wanted to continue to offer low cost plans that didn't necessarily meet the new and rather expansive and expensive Obamacare guidelines.

When the law really kicks in by 2014 and those waivers end, the McKinsey study tells us countless businesses will be mapping plans to either drop coverage and take a hit from the fine, or offer coverage to only a select group of workers at the high end of the pay scale who wouldn't qualify for subsidized coverage under the new law…

One McKinsey analyst reported to business leaders earlier that some 80 million to 100 million Americans who currently have some form of health care coverage will have to change plans after 2014. So much for Barack Obama's promise of being able to keep the plan you like.

It is a little unfair to blame the President for not getting it right. How was he to know? It is equally unfair to blame the "countless businesses" for sitting on their capital while the economy stalls. How are they to know what ObamaCare is going to cost them?

This looks like a train wreck all on its own. Unfortunately, there are other trains coming in. Fox News covers another story that the New York Times and the Washington Post somehow missed.

Chuck Blahous and Robert Reischauer, the two independent trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund, had a sober warning Friday: act quickly or the nation's two most popular entitlements are in serious danger.

"The earlier we act to deal with these problems, the better off we're gonna be, certainly better off the vulnerable populations are gonna be," said Blahous, referring to low-income seniors and those already receiving benefits.

What are the consequences of waiting?

The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2036 and under current law, seniors will face a 23 percent across-the-board cut in benefits. If lawmakers wait until then, the magnitude of the problem is exponentially bigger.

"In 2036, if you wanted all benefit constraints to apply only prospectively, you wouldn't have a system in balance even if 100 percent of those benefits for new retirees were cut off," Blahous said.

The Democrats, having passed ObamaCare by using every trick in the book, can't wait to see what's in it. As for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, their strategy is to do nothing and allow nothing to be done. They are content to demonize anyone who suggests anything that might actually move these programs toward solvency.

If all they care about is winning the next election, this may make sense. If they want to actually save the programs they claim to care about, well, the only possibility is that they somehow think that the collapse of the system will somehow bring about the welfare state that they have always dreamed of. They are destroying the village in order to save it. Or maybe they just aren't thinking beyond 2012.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

" ... they somehow think that the collapse of the system will somehow bring about the welfare state that they have always dreamed of. They are destroying the village in order to save it ..."

What a beautiful theory! Suppose that it doesn't work in the real world?

[Donald Pay]

The McKinsey & Company will not release the study particulars. It is junk, causing many in the company to disavow it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/multiple-sources-throw-controversial-mckinsey-health-care-study-under-the-bus.php

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: great! Now: take two waivers and go back to sleep.

[duggersd]

Donald:
Take a bucket filled with water. Now keep adding water with a hose. Now cut a hole in the bucket that allows water to escape slightly faster than what is going in with the hose. Eventually, that bucket is going to be running on empty. Sure, the hose will still add water, but it will never get ahead of the game. And if there are some animals that need that water to drink, some of those animals are going to die of thirst. But maybe it is different in Wisconsin.

[Donald Pay]

One of the things we shouldn't do is use junk studies to make decisions.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/08/some-healthy-skepticism-of-the-mckinsey-study-on-employer-insurance/

[Dave]

Too bad we couldn't just do single payer and take the burden off the shoulders of business all together... (Like the rest of the industrialized world) Oh, that's right... GOPers want US to be a 3rd world nation... Never-mind...

[Dave]

Too bad we couldn't just do single payer and take the burden off the shoulders of business all together... (Like the rest of the industrialized world) Oh, that's right... GOPers want US to be a 3rd world nation... Never-mind...

[A.I.]

"They are destroying the village in order to save it." You know KB, a lot of Democrats believe the same about Republican policies--an with no less justification. But saying so really gets all of us nowhere.

[Donald Pay]

Let's deal with some reality. Corporations have dumped employees onto state medicaid programs for about 15-20 years. In some cases, this is the result of predatory and monopolistic practices In the health insurance industry that gouge businesses to the point where the business can not afford the coverage. In some cases it's just the result of a small company that can't generate a big enough pool to drive down prices enough to make it pay. But in some cases this is the result of corporate policy.

In Wisconsin 40 percent of Badger Care participants work at Walmart. In fact as soon as you become a Walmart employee in Wisconsin, they tell you that you should sign up for one of the state medical insurance programs, because the company will not cover you. Walmart loves the state's single payer health care plan, began by Tommy Thompson, a Republican. In Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay for Walmart's employees' medical care. Under health care reform, the company will be required to pay a penalty for dumping it's employees' health care onto the taxpayer. In my opinion the penalty is far too little, and needs to be substantially increased.

This is the price of trying to keep the current health insurance leeches in business. The far better approach is to have single payer system, and get rid of the health insurance industry.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Gotta agree with you on that one, Donald. At least, an economic feasibility study should be done to see what sort of dedicated national retail-sales-tax level would allow us to get corporations out of the health payment business altogether. Along with population control, health care represents one issue on which I take a radical leftist stand. Guess the Tea Party would never have me.

There are times when everyone must sacrifice for the common good. World War II would represent an excellent example; so might the current deficit problem. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems to me as if our politicians twist the notion into something like "No common good can come about unless everyone becomes miserable -- everyone except the Washington elite, of course."

[Stan Gibilisco]

Just brainstorming on this Paha Sapa night ... as the most recent round of thundershowers moves off toward Murdo and zones beyond ...

If a conscious or subconscious plan exists among certain elites to crash the U.S. economy (and I believe that it might), I don't think the government deserves all the blame.

Certain commentators (Jim Rogers and Glenn Beck come to mind) would have us all hoard cash and gold and commodities to the extent that shortages and stagflation could result. Has anyone noticed how those two fellows wear perpetual smirks? Makes me suspicious of their motives.

Are guys like these simply economic pyromaniacs? Do they have no other way to validate themselves than to set the world to panic? If so, then they're worse than the wildest leftist radicals, who at least imagine that they might bring about some good in the end.

And then there's The Donald ... where's his mind at these days, anyhow?

[William]

"In fact as soon as you become a Walmart employee in Wisconsin, they tell you that you should sign up for one of the state medical insurance programs, because the company will not cover you."

Where do you come up with this? My daughter works at Wal-Mart and has great medical insurance through the company.

[duggersd]

Donald, what you are failing to realize is a company is not obligated to pay for the health insurance of its employees. The government is not responsible either. Believe it or not, health insurance is a product. The practice of businesses offering health insurance goes back to WWII, I believe. The health insurance was offered to attract workers because businesses were not allowed to increase wages. Health insurance did not count.
Many companies offer employees the chance to purchase health insurance. Some companies pay for a portion of it. The fact of the matter is if the company is paying for your health insurance, then it is not paying you as much in cash as you could be making. Each employee has to be worth what he/she is paid and the other expenses that go with the job. That can be in the forms of either money or benefits. But the bottom line is if that employee cannot be worth more than what he/she is costing, there will not be a job.
I know a lot of people like to complain about Walmart. I do not know what their practices are for benefits, but I also know that when there is a job opening they do not have any trouble filling it. If you are going to force a company to pay more in the form of benefits, then YOU will be paying more for what that company offers. But then that is OK, right?

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: If we want to get somewhere, maybe we need a plan. The President and the Democrats in Congress propose nothing. They attack anyone who proposes anything. Where will that get us?

[Ali]

It depends what you wantTop bnifeet coverIntermediate bnifeet coverBasic coverWho it is to cover, single, couples, single parent, family. And if you want optional extras, such pregnancy and birth etc, and if you want to pay a excess fee or not. I am Medibank private member, with just Blue ribbon extra's and no hospital cover.

[Lisa]

INDIA AND SRILANKA BOTH ARE YOUNG TEAMS>>HOPE THINGS WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING>>>ALSO I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO A CLOSE CONTEST>..HERE ARE THE TALENTED PLAYED FROM INDIAO VIRAT KOHLIO rainaand one fast bolewr Yadavhe is a very fast bolewr and bowled faster than dirk nannes in ipl (0)