Tuesday, March 27, 2012

New York Times Inadvertantly Argues Against ObamaCare

The New York Times tries to make the case that ObamaCare's impact, even if upheld, will be barely noticeable. So, why should we grant such expansive powers to government if it won't accomplish anything? We're surrendering authority that will almost certainly be abused for nothing?
Using a simulation model based on 2011 data, the researchers concluded that a third of the United States population under 65 would be exempt from the law’s provisions, primarily because they fall beneath income thresholds. Other exemptions are available for Native Americans, those with religious objections and those who can demonstrate economic hardship. Nearly three-fourths of those who would be exempt already have health coverage of some kind, according to the study.

Of the remaining 181 million nonelderly Americans (the elderly are almost universally covered by Medicare), 86 percent are estimated to have health coverage now. Almost all would be expected to continue to have coverage once the health care act is fully carried out in 2014, when the insurance mandate takes effect.

Of the 18.2 million uninsured people who would be required to buy coverage under the mandate, nearly 11 million would be eligible for subsidized premiums offered through health insurance exchanges that would be established in 2014. That would leave 7.3 million people – 3 percent of the nonelderly population – who would be required by the mandate to buy coverage at full cost or pay a penalty.
Wait a minute! Why do Native Americans get a religious exemption while Catholics don't?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home