Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Middle class will face higher premiums, taxes PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

Last week in the News-Review, the front page featured what I consider was yet another perfect example of government deception perpetrated on the American people.

The story outlined a Sept. 25, Health and Human Services (HHS) report in which the nation was informed that “The average premium nationally for the second lowest-cost silver plan is $328 before tax credits, or 16% below projections based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. About 95% of uninsured people eligible for the Marketplace live in a state where their average premium is lower than projections.”

However, before one can fully analyze the much-touted cost savings, one must know the fundamental component missing from the equation. And that component is the rates that were in place before the law took effect on Oct. 1, which when learned, will not bolster confidence in government honesty.

According to a comprehensive 50-state analysis performed by the Heritage Foundation, insurance premiums will increase under the first year of ObamaCare in 45 of 50 states. In the remaining five states that do see a decrease, the existing rates were inordinately high to begin with, resulting in skewed outcomes. Therefore, the following rate increases that I have compiled are based on a 45-state average.

A 27-year-old individual will incur a 72% increase, 50-year-olds a 46% spike and a family of four will be subjected to a 16% rise in monthly premiums.

As it turns out, the 16% decrease as touted by HHS is based on Congressional Budget Office projections for 2016 as compared to the findings of HHS itself, making the entire savings issue a ruse merely to steer public perception in a positive direction after people realized that Barack Obama broke a key promise that the health-care law would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

To add insult to injury, the higher premiums do not take into account the common doubling and tripling of out-of-pocket costs in the form of deductibles that typically range from $5,000 to $15,000 which must be paid by the policyholder before the actual insurance kicks in.

And even though the above percentages are before government subsidies, the entitlement protects mostly lower-income folks, leaving middle-class Americans facing higher insurance premiums and taxes to pay for other people’s subsidies, highlighting one of Barack Obama’s deeply flawed ideological tenets that teaches, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

For more information, including the 50-state study, please search online: “Study: ObamaCare Results in Premium Increase in 45 States,” and “ObamaCare Metal Plans-HealthPocket.”

Frank Gabl

Prospect Heights, Ill.

and Eagle River

Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:54 PM


-19 #47 Frank Gabl 2013-10-30 19:30
I'm so happy to see the three of you engaged in such a serious and sanctimonious discussion at my expense.

First of all, even if you were able to get some others to hop on your "freedom of expression train," which I guarantee is at full capacity right now, John's more than massive ego would never allow this half-baked proposition to come to fruition.

Sorry to burst your blow bubbles but I'm having way too much fun these days since I've unequivocally proven my point that John's standard operating procedure around here shamelessly consists of shtick (he calls "material") which he employs to distort....oh you know the drill.

But, Good Luck anyway!
-19 #46 Frank Gabl 2013-10-30 19:06

Arkansas is "federally-run" just like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and if the tables were turned, you know that I know you'd be going berserk over a response like you're trying to sheepishly get away with.

And then there's still the fact that you said: "You said Wisconsin was state run" - when you know that I never said any such thing.
+1 #45 Denny Erardi 2013-10-30 16:14
The very nature of these forums, where each person sits behind the relative safety and emboldening of the computer keyboard, presents rife opportunity for abuse and attack.
Confidence turns into overbearing arrogance, disagreement turns into pejorative derision, ridicule and name calling. I can get down and dirty with the best of them, and have found it difficult to refrain in light of some of the commentary dispensed here. Similarly to Tim, it's why I don't comment much here.
I'm commenting now because I sense a change, or at least a voicing of displeasure about the overriding tone that has come to rest in these pages. Spirited, non personalized debate is a great way to voice opinion and share perspective. It's provided me with the occasion to learn from my "opponents", and to moderate my opinions from time to time. The sniping, vituperative comments herein which are primarily intended to provoke,not probe, are antithetical to learning and sharing, for me.
+10 #44 Jeff Laadt 2013-10-30 13:13

I agree completely with the thoughts you expressed in post 33. Please add me to the list.

Free speech is a valuable thing, but it should not take dozens of posts to get an idea across. After that it is just useless name-calling.

Jeff Laadt
+11 #43 2013-10-30 13:03
Very true Denny...

But I somewhat doubt those are an accurate method, even though it appears that for the moment, they are quite high.

I only say that because all you have to do is change a few settings and you can "re-thumb". Usually it takes a few days, but I am sure that at some point, even my earlier posting will have a slew of negative feedback simply because I am the one posting it (I think). Let's give it a few days first, and see if we get any reaction from either party.
+8 #42 Denny Erardi 2013-10-30 11:25

Not sure that I agree with you regarding the one yay and one nay. If the little "thumbs" haven't been manipulated (and I'm well aware that from time to time, they are!), there are at least 9 people who support what you said.
+12 #41 2013-10-30 10:33

You are right... but if you look at it, it is just as crazy as the SNL skit.

I agree with you that SNL is just not as funny as it used to be either. The recent one with Sebelius on there was pretty funny though. I didn't watch it that night, but saw excerpts from the news and looked it up online. Kind of reminded me of back when it was funny.
+14 #40 2013-10-30 10:30
Okay, so I have one yay, and what I can only assume to be one nay.

How many others out there would be willing to support this idea?

You are right Ian, it is freedom of speech... A limited freedom of speech because it is moderated by the staff at the VCNR.

But what we now have is a situation of: you said, I said, he said, they said, I didn't say, he did this, they did that. All of it perpetuated by really only two individuals always at each others' throats.

I have backed off of this site considerably since I came to the conclusion that it is relatively pointless to bring anything up. I was hoping that this is not another effort in futility.

But I still have not heard a final answer from John or Frank.
+16 #39 2013-10-30 10:07
Frank, no distortions. You said WI had the same setup as WI and it does not. You are factually wrong as I was wrong regarding Penn's setup.
-21 #38 Frank Gabl 2013-10-30 09:34

Are you proclaiming that you have a problem with my spreading of the truth to counter John's standard operating procedure which usually consists of distortions, mischaracteriza tions and fabrications that he considers "material"?

Or, something other than that?

Please expound since you are the lonely one to agree with Tim's suggestion.

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.

Security code