Of course, that question pre-supposes that ObamaTax proponents want to learn, of which there is scant evidence.
What makes me so skeptical?
Here:
"More people will get insured through the Medicaid expansion ... because they now see slower wage and salary growth in the future, meaning that more people will be eligible for the low-income health program."
See the problem here?
People do not "get insured" through Medicaid. They receive medical care entirely paid for by someone else. There are no deductibles, or co-insurance or premiums, and, to drive the point home, one cannot "buy" a Medicaid "policy."
It is simply income redistribution, period (NTTAWWT).
And there's a corollary effect:
"[M]ore will get insured through Medicaid, fewer are expected to get coverage through the exchanges."
As the insured population plummets, insurance companies are enrolling fewer and fewer paying customers, and of course those that do pony up are getting less and less bang for their buck as out-of-pocket costs continue to rise.
Happy days, indeed.
[Hat Tip: Ʀєfùsєηíκ]
What makes me so skeptical?
Here:
"More people will get insured through the Medicaid expansion ... because they now see slower wage and salary growth in the future, meaning that more people will be eligible for the low-income health program."
See the problem here?
People do not "get insured" through Medicaid. They receive medical care entirely paid for by someone else. There are no deductibles, or co-insurance or premiums, and, to drive the point home, one cannot "buy" a Medicaid "policy."
It is simply income redistribution, period (NTTAWWT).
And there's a corollary effect:
"[M]ore will get insured through Medicaid, fewer are expected to get coverage through the exchanges."
As the insured population plummets, insurance companies are enrolling fewer and fewer paying customers, and of course those that do pony up are getting less and less bang for their buck as out-of-pocket costs continue to rise.
Happy days, indeed.
[Hat Tip: Ʀєfùsєηíκ]
Posts
