June 18th, 2014

Surprise, surprise [UPDATED]

The only surprise, perhaps, is that the LA Times is covering it:

The large subsidies for health insurance that helped fuel the successful drive to sign up some 8 million Americans for coverage under the Affordable Care Act may push the cost of the law considerably above current projections, a new federal report indicates.

Nearly 9 in 10 Americans who bought health coverage on the federal government’s healthcare marketplaces received government assistance to offset their premiums…

Premiums that normally would have cost $346 a month on average instead cost consumers just $82, with the federal government picking up the balance of the bill.

While the generous subsidies helped consumers, they also risk inflating the new health law’s price tag in its first year.

“The federal government picking up the balance of the bill”—wonder where that money will come from?

Who could have predicted such a thing?

[UPDATE 6/19: I see that the LA Times has changed the headline of the story to "Obamacare subsidies on track to cost billions this year, report says," as well as some of the text, and issued a correction which reads as follows:

Because of an error in calculations, a previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a new federal report indicates that the cost of insurance subsidies under President Obama’s healthcare law may be running above current projections. The figures in the report actually suggest that the cost of the subsidies is roughly in line with current projections from the Congressional Budget Office.

So, in the first version of the piece the Times apparently did the math wrong, or got the projection numbers wrong, or made some other error (which is also no surprise). I can't independently verify whether the Times was correct before, correct now, or correct neither time (it's unlikely they were correct both times, so I'll leave out that choice, but certainly the entire incident does not engender increased faith in the abilities of the Times to report on a story).

I also note the careful wording of the correction: "may be running," "suggest," and "roughly," as well as that phrase "current projections," which occurs twice in the correction. How do "current projections" compare to the projections made at the time the ACA was passed?

At any rate, although it's certainly worse if subsidies are higher than expected versus the same as expected, by far the most important point is whether they are too high. The article says:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in April that the annual cost of subsidies will rise to $23 billion next year and $95 billion in 2024, although the budget office continued to project that all the law’s costs will be offset by additional revenue it raises and by cuts in other federal healthcare spending.

Embedded in that sentence is quite a tale. That's a lot of money any way you slice it, plus a projection about the offset that is still unknown---and of course those other unspecified "cuts" will come from somewhere, almost certainly Medicare.

And although I knew that Obamacare subsidies would be widespread in the exchanges, I find it pretty shocking that it's at the rate of 9 in 10 (assuming, of course, that the Times is reporting that figure correctly). An incredible rate of government dependence, and purposeful.]

11 Responses to “Surprise, surprise [UPDATED]”

  1. parker Says:

    Its no big deal… we will just create IOUs for our great grandchildern to pay off.

  2. Lizzy Says:

    Shocking! /sarc

    And many of us will be just as (non) surprised when, in the name of cost savings, they propose treatment rationing under some innocuous name like “Complete Lives System” or “Liverpool Care Pathway?”

  3. blert Says:

    Why is it called “Single Payer” when EVERYBODY’S paying for it?

  4. Ymarsakar Says:

    Because gov gets the money and decides who needs a little sugar daddying, that makes them the sole authority and thus the single player. Patients are merely ants that they can step on when they feel like it.

  5. Beverly Says:

    In other news, the US Patent Office just stripped the Redskins of their trademark rights. Under no legal justification whatsoever.

    The dictatorship marches on, snapping the necks of all who defy them.

  6. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left will determine when people are born, and what they shall pay for the privilege of dying, for the LEft’s profit. How you live, when you die, how you die, all will be determined by the Leftist alliance for Human Utopian Harmony.

    Eric Holder: “Justice is not blind, For I Am Her Eyes”

  7. parker Says:

    If Eric the Red did not say that, it is still easy to imagine him saying that.

  8. Ymarsakar Says:

    Certainly, it is easy.

  9. Mark in Portland Says:

    In other words, the system is working as intended, though not as advertised. This has always been the Left/Obama’s goal.

  10. parker Says:

    In the bitter end, it will come down to total financial collapse; not just here but globally. Welcome to the new dark age. Prepare accordingly.

  11. ChicagoRefugee Says:

    Well, of course virtually all exchange users are receiving subsidies.

    If you didn’t want a subsidy, you’d have no reason to put yourself through the torture of applying for PeasantCare™, would you?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge