Howard Dean gets his rosy ObamaCare predictions stuffed where the sun doesn’t shine

Howard Dean was on TV with Chris Wallace and an unnamed doctor and spent some time admitting that while there have been problems with the ObamaCare kickoff, things are smoothing out and by March things will be fine.

Enjoy Howard getting his head handed to him.

If you look at the demographic data, at the state level because they’re not putting out the national data from, you see that it’s likely that sicker people are signing up.

Photo from Dean's Declaration of Candidacy spe...Howard was forced to agree with that.

It’s unfortunate that they didn’t get into two things, one directly on this point and one that is a flat out lie that the Democrats have been peddling about ObamaCare.

With respect to the signups, it’s crucial to the success of ObamaCare that 40% of the signups have to be in the 35 and younger group. Those consumers don’t use healthcare and their premiums are needed to offset the people who are signing up now in the gold and platinum plans. Without the young people, insurers will be paying out significantly more than they’re taking in in premiums and we get the ObamaCare Death Spiral.

Without those young people rates for 2015 will be based on 2014 actual performance and they will go up dramatically. It’s fun to note that rates for 2015 will be available in the September-October time frame next year, just before the mid-term elections.

With respect to the out-and-out lie, ObamaCare is NOT based on a study done by the Heritage Foundation.

The ‘mandates’ laid out by the Heritage Foundation were of an entirely different nature, as they focused on two areas: 1) Employer Mandate, requiring all large companies to provide healthcare coverage and 2) A Catastrophic Insurance Mandate, intended to protect the public from absorbing the costs for uncovered emergency care.

Routine health care was always regarded as an individual obligation.

The author of the study has an interesting article in USA Today where he talks about how the market has changed in the last 20 years (the study in question was done in the early 90s to refute Clinton’s HillaryCare) and why he no longer believes any mandates should be required.

So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?

First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn’t needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage.


Also, advances in “risk adjustment” tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees’ coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That’s why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have “invented” has changed over time.

The bottom line is that the Democrats are relying on a study that is 20 years old that did not address the health insurance/health care market in the way they are insisting it did. Like everything else in the real world – as opposed to a government mandated lifestyle – things have changed dramatically in the last 20 years and will change even more dramatically in the next 20, assuming we can repeal the monstrosity known as ObamaCare.

In addition, the term “individual mandate” has changed. Democrats high jacked the term and changed its meaning to sell the idea that it’s been around for 20 years.

Finally, even if everything the Democrats said about ObamaCare being the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, it’s author now believes they were dead wrong in the 90s and that President Obama is dead wrong about it today.

So is Howard Dean.

Related articles

Curmudgeon - Check Out 600w 200h

Enhanced by Zemanta
Now Liberals Want an Obamacare Czar, Telling Obama to Name 'CEO'
The NYT tries to pull Hillary’s Benghazi acorns out of the fire, they get burned
  • Lawrence Westlake

    The other elephant in the room (over which there will be a complete media embargo) is that a material percentage of these fresh Obamacare signups are being done by the very same people who recently lost their coverages because of Obamacare itself, e.g., people who were switched from full-time to part-time under 30 hours or spouses who lost spousal coverages because their spouses’ employers dropped them. Concerning the young person conundrum, indeed, that is and will continue to be a total fiasco. But it’s not at all surprising. The Jersey Shore and Big Brother generation is so dumbed down they wouldn’t know a deductible from a dirigible or a co-pay from PayPal. No chance in hell that they sign up in large numbers, much less sufficiently large enough numbers. Finally, however, don’t get all that excited about the mid-terms. RoboDemocrats still reflexively will vote for Democrats, skyrocketing premiums or otherwise. And with an Angle2 here, an Akin2 there, and a Mourdock2 over there, Harry Reid is all but certain to remain Majority Leader.

  • GarandFan

    “It’s fun to note that rates for 2015 will be available in the
    September-October time frame next year, just before the mid-term

    I’m sure that King Barack the Magnificent will order an embargo on any unfavorable rate information prior to the elections in order to “insure a fair and balanced” group of “informed” voters.

    Hell, they put off the changes to Medicare for one year, to avoid repercussions in the 2012 elections. The changes, as mandated by “the law of the land” were to occur in October 2012 – those changes were moved to October 2013.

    The “law” is whatever King Barack says it is.

  • The unnamed doctor is Scott Gottlieb.

  • JannyFayRay

    Funny thing is, it doesn’t even seem to bother Howard Dean that he said two different things. At first he said that healthy people were signing up and there wouldn’t be a “run to the Dr.” on January 1st and at the end he admitted it was older, less healthy people who were signing up. I HATE politicians!

  • What happens with a Ponzi scheme when the suckers don’t show on cue?

  • What happens with a Ponzi scheme when the suckers don’t show on cue?