Can anyone refute this? Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of 4

[devilgrrl]

I don't have time at the moment but I have a feeling that this is total bullshit. Can someone help torpedo it?

Thank you!

=================

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.

What this means for a typical family of four

$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.

Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You?

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.



more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

[devilgrrl]

1. No worries....

Just checked the sources. This is penned by a National Review douche. No wonder it smelled like bullshit.

Thank you anyway.

[gopiscrap]

2. Bullshit I live in a family of 3

we make about 108,000k a year and it's going to lower our insurance by 86.00 this year

[Hoyt]

3. Typical bull. First the $7450, is just $745 per year, if rest of the story were true, and it isn't.

The spending increase that the author uses is additional costs for bringing the 30+ Million uninsured into the program, additional costs for those states wise enough to expand Medicaid, improvements in health insurance policies, etc.

It does not say premiums, deductibles, copays for the "typical family of four" will increase.

The article does not say that the premiums for the typical family of four will increase $7500 (or roughly $750 per year).

Clearly, there will be some increase in national health spending, but unless they increase taxes for folks with incomes less than $250,000, that typical family of four won't be paying anything more (in fact, it appears most will be paying less than under the old system).

While there is "no free lunch," the typical family of four that I am familiar with, will at least get a better meal under ACA.

[Rider3]

4. Yes, it's total bullsh*t

Just another scare tactic by the GOP. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/23/2666391/anti-obamacare-article/

[BlueState]

5. Another poster has shown the error in logic being used here

There is another thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101674151

Which links to ThinkProgress:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/23/2666391/anti-obamacare-article/

[BainsBane]

6. Check factcheck.org

They have some good info on ACA. The Kaiser Family Foundation is also good.

[hughee99]

7. I'm sure the math doesn't work out, but could some of it be related to this story?

'Family Glitch' In Health Law Could Be Painful

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023716980

Basically (from the article)
Congress defined "affordable" as 9.5% or less of an employee's wages, mostly to make sure people did not leave their workplace plans for subsidized coverage through the exchanges. But the "error" was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn't provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges.