No, Ms. Sebelius…Americans Are Not “Confused” About ObamaCare

Kathleen Sebelius appeared on Travis Smiley’s PBS Show a few days ago to talk about ObamaCare. He asked her why Republicans shouldn’t make an effort to repeal the bill given the fact that “poll after poll after poll” shows it to be unpopular. Her answer starts at the 3:00 mark:

” Unfortunately, a lot of the American people are still confused about what’s in the bill and what’s not in the bill…”

Okay, I admit I was confused when Obama said our premiums would go down 3000%….

…there was about eighteen months of intentional misinformation given out day in and day out…”

True dat! – but the misinformation was coming from Obama and his minions.

Sebelius even engaged in a little misinformation, herself,  on The Travis Smiley Show:

“Everybody admits that this bill lowers the deficit by about a $100 billion dollars the first ten years, and then by a trillion, the second ten years.”

Really??? Everybody???

I know the Obami love  to use the “everybody agrees with us” approach, but isn’t Ms. Sebelius a little old to be using the Alinsky hippy drippy 60s radical  playbook? As in:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

We’re supposed to believe that 100% of us agree with them that Obamacare will lower the deficit?

The Heritage Foundation, for one, doesn’t buy it:

Contrary to a key intention of the legislation, the combination of mandates and taxes will not help to reduce the deficit. In fact, the PPACA will likely increase the deficit by an average $75 billion per year, and as a result, the nation’s publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher at the end of 2020. Such astronomical debt crowds out other productive investments and will lead to an estimated 670,000 lost job opportunities per year.

Dynamic Analysis Confirms Fears

It was the goal of health care reform to be deficit neutral—as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—within the first 10 years of enactment. In order to achieve this goal, the new law immediately imposes a combination of new taxes on high-income individuals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals and Medicare spending cuts. In addition, the PPACA delays subsidy payments to help make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes and Medicaid expansions to cover more of the uninsured.

However, the static budget analysis is limited in that it does not account for how the policy combination of spending and taxes alters the macroeconomic performance of the economy and feeds back onto the budget. A dynamic simulation shows that the higher initial costs are not an investment that pays off with a higher return in later years. Indeed, these front-loaded costs slow economic growth with higher inflation and higher interest rates, which overwhelm the benefits the proposal hoped to gain in later years.

The bill’s taxes, penalties, and fees on investors and businesses will decrease the amount of investment in the economy. This reduced investment will in turn lead to a decline in productivity, causing the economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services. A smaller economic pie means that workers earn lower wages and salaries. Higher taxes on investment also put upward pressure on interest rates as investors seek to achieve their after-tax desired rate of return.[1]

Lower wages reduce the amount of taxable income that could otherwise have been achieved. This will both increase the deficit and grow the total debt—which in turn puts upward pressure on interest rates and crowds out some savings that could have gone to new productive business investments.

Higher interest rates mean that more American tax dollars will go toward paying the interest on the federal debt rather than paying down the principal. Simulations using dynamic analysis estimate that the government would spend an average $23 billion more per year on interest rate payments over the 2010–2020 year window than it would without the PPACA.

Once the government begins paying for health insurance for individuals through subsidies and bringing people into the government insurance programs in the latter half of the decade, this growing debt will balloon. By the end of the 10 years, debt held by the public will be $753 billion higher than it otherwise would have been.

Here are the Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After Six Months according to Emily Miller at Human Events:

1. Premiums Have Gone Up.

2. You Can’t Keep Your Current Plan And Doctor.

3. National Budget Deficit Is Worse

4. More Children Are Uninsured

5. Small Business Taxes Increased

6. Small Businesses Health Care Burden Increased

7. More Government Spending

8. Senior Citizens Suffer from Medicare Cuts

9. Minorities Get Worse Health Care

10. Democrats Losing Elections

Hit the link for full details.

The truth is, the more people learn about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.That’s not confusion -it’s clarity.



6 thoughts on “No, Ms. Sebelius…Americans Are Not “Confused” About ObamaCare

  1. Just today, Obama told us that premiums will go down. Specifically,

    Private Medicare plans to see premiums drop
    “The Obama administration announced Tuesday that average premiums paid by individuals for private Medicare Advantage plans, which insure about one-fourth of all beneficiaries, would decline slightly next year, even as insurers provide additional benefits required by the new health care law. ”

    The way I heard it on radio reports was that “premiums will drop”. Not “private Medicare Advantage”; not “slightly”.

    Not reported as much is

    “By contrast, commercial insurance premiums for many people younger than 65 and many small businesses are increasing 10 percent to 25 percent or more. “


  2. Pingback: Presidential Yacht in Un-American Distress; replete with deserting rats | VotingFemale

  3. Pingback: NY Post Socialist Troll Ezra Klein speaking lie to truth; fudges graph to make Obama appear benign | VotingFemale

  4. Pingback: The Democrat Pledge To America « Nice Deb

  5. I know the Obami love to use the “everybody agrees with us” approach, but isn’t Ms. Sebelius a little old to be using the Alinsky hippy drippy 60s radical playbook?

    I don’t know if that’s Alinskyism, I think it’s their secondary Marxism.
    Groucho Marxism that is, “Who you gonna believe, me or you lying eyes?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s