All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

New study finds that Obamacare subsidies cost 578% more than CBO estimates

1 Comment

Verum Serum writes about a new Lewin Group study on the cost of Obamacare health care subsidies. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)

Excerpt:

A new study by the Lewin Group estimates that 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 at a projected cost to tax payers in excess of $110 billion. This estimate is dramatically higher (578%) than the cost of these subsidies forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prior to the bill’s enactment into law. If the new estimate is correct, it would mean that instead of lowering the deficit by $143 billion over ten years—a claim widely touted by proponents of the law— the legislation would begin adding to the deficit as early as 2015, only one year after major provisions of the law go into effect.

A central component of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is the establishment of health insurance exchanges starting in 2014, enabling individuals and families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level who do not have insurance to purchase federally subsidized coverage. The CBO’s final analysis of the bill enacted into law projected that only 7 million Americans would begin receiving these subsidies in 2014 at a total budgetary cost of $19 billion. This figure is $91 billion lower than the amount estimated by the Lewin Group.

The Lewin Group study was commissioned by Families USA, a healthcare reform advocacy group based out of Washington D.C. which is closely allied with the White House and leading Democrats in Congress. Then Senator Obama was a keynote speaker at their annual Health Action conference in 2005 and 2007, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the 2008 event. Other leading Democrats who have participated at Families USA events in recent years include Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy.

[…]The CBO’s projection that the healthcare reform bill would reduce the deficit by an estimated $143 billion over 10 years was a critical factor in the enactment of the bill. Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate in January 2010 when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, and ultimately passed the bill in March only through the use of procedural tactics, and without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.

The claim that the bill will reduce the deficit continues to be a leading selling point for proponents of reform. Just last month Families USA repeated this claim in a press release criticizing opponents of the legislation. But if the latest Lewin Group estimate is correct the initial 10-year cost of the bill will be significantly higher than what was forecast by the CBO, and would begin adding to the federal deficit as early as 2015.

So, this is a study commissioned by a left-wing group that did not find what they set out to find. I’m sure you will be hearing more about this study this week, but this finding will probably not be featured.

News

Let’s compare jobs and deficits between Obama and Bush

Leave a comment

Gateway Pundit posted these graphs of unemployment rate and budget deficit from the Obama and Bush presidencies.

(Remember that the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 – they own the 2008 budget and unemployment rate)

Gateway Pundit writes:

48 of 50 states have lost jobs since they rammed through their so-callled Trillion dollar stimulus bill passed. The Obama-Pelosi economic plan resulted in a cumulative 7.5 million jobs deficit. In fact, Barack Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression.

These are called facts. They are not the kinds of things that Barack Obama will mention in his speeches because he prefers to focus on emotions and rhetoric. He is not going to talk about unemployment and budget numbers. He is going to talk about hope and change. Don’t get fooled again.

Commentary

Barbara Kay explains the coming demographic crisis

9 Comments

Here’s Barbara Kay explaining the relationship between feminism and the coming demographic crisis. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

The causes for the coming demographic crisis are not in dispute: improved longevity, urbanization and rising female education. The United States’ total fertility rate is relatively high at 2.06, but when you break it down, the American women with the highest fertility rates are those who have no post-secondary education. The rule is unvarying: The more educated the woman, the fewer her offspring.

If any. Voluntarily childless couples (oops, make that “child-free” couples), once uncomplaining outliers from the matrimonial mainstream, now confidently assert the superior moral standing of environmentally-friendly “hedonic” marriage, in which shared interests and pleasures rather than children form the relationship glue. Some exhibit overt disgust at “breeders” and “moomies” (nursing mothers).

These righteous depopulators are indifferent to the big picture. An article entitled “The Old World” in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine paints a grim demographic portrait of the developed and developing world’s future. By 2018 65-year-olds will outnumber those under five, “a historic first,” and by 2050 the median age–now 28–will be over 40.

Autocratic governments can make people have fewer children, but they can’t make people have more. Singapore tried. While modernizing in the 1960s after gaining independence from the British, Singapore’s newly minted Family Planning and Population Board launched a billboard campaign, messaging “Stop at Two” and “Small Families Brighter Future.” Abortion and sterilization were encouraged at the government’s expense. Maternity leave was denied after two children.

It worked. Singapore reached its fertility rate target of 2.1 in 1976, a 53% plunge over a decade. But it didn’t stop declining, as women’s education rates went up. A reverse strategy was implemented. Abortion wasn’t banned, but pre-op counselling is now required for women with three or fewer children. The billboard and media messaging was changed to “Have Three or More Children if you Can.” But no dice. Singapore’s fertility rate in 1960 was 5.45. Today it is 1.1.

I would like my wife to have advanced degrees to be able to write and speak so she can protect the family by advocating for good policies that will enable us to have autonomy from the government and taxes and politically correct fascism. I think getting an education is an excellent thing for a woman. And she can complete her education by the time she is 25. It’s having a job outside the home when there are young children that is problematic for me. A writing career is an excellent option since research and writing can be done from the home.

The real concern I have about this is children having a lower standard of living than we do. Because of these massive government pension programs (Social Security in the USA, Old Age Security in Canada), children will taxed at very high rates. Either these entitlement programs have to go, or children will be poor. These redistribution schemes cause people to depend too much on the government and not to plan ahead for their own needs (retirement, health care, etc.). It’s immature to expect other people’s children to pay for your health care and retirement. You have to pay – you have to earn and save your money to pay for what you need.

I was reading recently about how George W. Bush, a fine President and a good man, thought that his greatest success was keeping us safe (true) and his worst failure was the failure to privatize Social Security (also true).  It’s the Democrats who are telling us that Social Security doesn’t need reform, just like the Democrats told us that Fannie and Freddie did not need to be regulated and reformed. Until we get serious about keeping them out of power, it’s not really safe to marry and have children.

UPDATE: Alisha found this story about a woman who focused on her career and his now marrying HERSELF.