American Thinker, September 25, 2014
An analysis by Bloomberg Government has found that the start up costs for Obamacare “are far greater than anything publicly discussed.” The report shows that the total cost has exceeded $73 billion dollars, with $2 billion alone – and counting – spent on the Obamacare website, healthcare.gov.
Health care analyst Peter Gosselin:
“Whether policymakers and the public judge the $73-billion-plus tab for health reform reasonable or exorbitant may ultimately turn on what’s used as the measuring stick,” wrote senior healthcare analyst Peter Gosselin.
“Measured against the development costs for the F-35 joint strike fighter [$54.9 billion], the Defense Department’s single most expensive weapons system, the tab for the healthcare effort can seem quite high,” he continued.
“Measured against the U.S. healthcare industry that the administration seeks to overhaul, however, the costs of the reform effort appear tiny.”
Why would you want to measure Obamacare start up costs against the entire US health industry? The fact that the rollout of this turkey has cost the US taxpayer more than development costs for a supersonic jet fighter is absurd.
The Weekly Standard, September 22, 2014
Obamacare—or at least the version of it that the president and his advisers currently think they can get away with putting into place—has been upending arrangements and reshuffling the deck in the health system since the beginning of the year. That’s when the new insurance rules, subsidies, and optional state Medicaid expansions went into effect. The law’s defenders say the changes that have been set in motion are irreversible, in large part because several million people are now covered by insurance plans sold through the exchanges, and a few million more are enrolled in Medicaid as a result of Obamacare. President Obama has stated repeatedly that these developments should effectively shut the door on further debate over the matter.
Of course, the president does not get to decide when public debates begin or end, and the public seems to be in no mood to declare the Obamacare case closed. Polling has consistently shown that more Americans oppose the law than support it, and that the opposition is far more intense than the support. The law is built on a foundation of dramatically expanded government power over the nation’s health system, which strikes many voters as a dangerous step toward more bureaucracy, less choice, higher costs, and lower quality care. The beginning of the law’s implementation does not appear to have eased these fears, and in some cases has exacerbated them.
But opponents of Obamacare must also reckon with the reality that the goal of repealing the law and replacing it with real, market-based health reform to bring down costs and enable more people to get covered is no longer aimed at a system that exists only in theory. When President Obama won reelection in 2012, it became inevitable that some version of the law would get implemented starting this year. And it was also a pretty good bet that, despite the law’s internal contradictions and problems, it would not, as some had surmised, collapse on the launch pad. Massive federal spending authority can prop up many a teetering edifice. The surprise is not that some 6 million people or so eligible for nearly free insurance under Obamacare took advantage of the offer; the surprise is that many millions more who were eligible declined to take it.
The Washington Times, August 21, 2014
Research published last week in the British Medical Journal Open provides interesting insight into the cause of rising health care costs. Analysis of the study raises concerns that Obamacare could ultimately bend the cost curve up. The University of California at San Francisco research studied variations in the average charges of 10 commonly ordered outpatient blood tests in California hospitals in 2011, using data from the reports of nonfederal, general acute-care California hospitals to the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development.
The researchers uncovered significant and substantial variation in hospital charges across the Golden State. For example, the median charge for a basic metabolic panel (a routine laboratory test that includes such tests as sodium, potassium and glucose) was $214. Yet, for the 189 California hospitals that reported this test, the charges ranged between $35 and $7,303.
The authors found an even greater range for the 178 California hospitals that reported the charge of a lipid panel. The median California hospital charged $220 for this test with a range of $10 to $10,169. Hence the maximum charge was more than a thousand times the minimum.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, August 19, 2014
Obamacare puts employers in a bind, two New York Federal Reserve surveys show. Employers’ health care costs continue to rise, and the health care law is driving them to hire more part-time labor, CNBC reports.
ebri.org Notes, April, 2014
In 2001, a handful of employers started offering health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs)—a then-new type of health plan. The most prevalent HRA-plan design then had a deductible of at least $1,000 for employee-only coverage along with a tax-preferred account that could be tapped by workers and their families to pay out-of-pocket health care expenses. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 included a provision to allow individuals with certain high-deductible health plans to contribute to a health savings account (HSA).