This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

CBO - US Economy Set to Soar On Obamacare?

Bruce Krasting's picture




 

 

The Congressional Budget Office put conservative economic thinkers on their ass this week. In this Report (pdf), the CBO concluded that the US budget deficit is about to collapse to insignificance. The improvement in the deficit outlook is so large that it has lead liberal thinkers to start calling for more stimulus spending. If it were not for the three scandals brewing for Obama (Benghazigate, IRSgate and APgate) I think there would be calls to spend some more government money.

The CBO assessment of the deficit profile relies on every trick in the book. The assumption is that all of the variables that weigh on the deficit will be improving over the next few years. Tax collections will remain at historically high levels. Government spending will decline as the economy improves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be kicking $95Bn into the coffers. Social Security will cost less than previously thought, the same favorable result is assumed for both Medicare and Medicaid. And of course, there will be no wars or military incursions that have to be paid for. But, by far, the biggest driver of the reduced deficits will come from a robust economic recovery that is set to occur. This is the CBO forecast for top line GDP growth:

 

cbogdp

 

Wow! 6.5% growth is coming our way! Don't worry at all about the endless recession in Europe. Don't consider the rapid slowdown in China either. And please don't worry about the fact that the Fed is going to be taking its foot off the gas over the next 24 months - all that won't make any difference. The USA is set for a spurt of growth not seen for years.

What could the CBO be hanging its hat on when making this bold predictions of rapid economic expansion? I wonder if the CBO is relying on Obamacare to provide the big boost. This is the only significant economic development on the horizon. It will change everything when it's finally implemented. It will result in 32 odd million more people having access to healthcare. And when those people do have health insurance, they will be going to Doctors, getting treatments and medicines. And with those visits and related spending, the economy will get a lift - at least that is the thinking.

 

There is some evidence that Obamacare is going to ratchet up health spending. The New England Journal of Medicine has done a study on the results of an experiment in Oregon. Some 6,000 people were given access to Medicaid for two years. There was a control group of another 5,000 people who did not get access to health insurance. What did those who won the lottery for the free health benefits do? They went to Doctors of course. The study showed that those with insurance were 2Xs more likely to visit a doctor, and would take twice as many prescription drugs. Obamacare will result in an increase in medical diagnostics; the number of MRI's, X-rays, blood test etc. will increase markedly when free health insurance is available. The cost of all these new medical services will add to GDP, and increase employment in healthcare.

The Oregon study showed that healthcare spending rose by $2,750 for those who had access to Medicaid versus the control group. If these results are applied to all of the 32m people who have no insurance today, it would result in an increase in spending of $90Bn - that comes to 5.5% of GDP. While not all of that spending is going to happen, its pretty clear that Obamacare is going to ramp up the economy by a meaningful amount - a 2% net increase in economic activity is possible.

 

To the extent that Obamacare is measured as a jobs program it may be considered a "success". More medical spending will be the result. The larger question of what it will do for the health profile of Americans is not at all a sure thing. I was surprised by the conclusions drawn by the Oregon study:

 

This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first two years

 

The reason why overall health results were not improved for those with insurance was interesting. People who have healthcare available to them often adopt risky behavior. For example, those who had health insurance in the Oregon study were much much more likely to smoke. (10% increase over those that did not have health insurance) This conclusion confirms what has been observed in other situations. When people have seat belts, they think they are safe, so they drive faster. It appears that the same holds true on health related matters.

The pessimist in me says that the roll-out of Obamacare is going to be anything but a success. The state insurance exchanges will not be up and running on time. Getting those 32m people to sign up for Medicaid will not happen at the pace that is currently anticipated. Obamacare will not be the economic stimulus that is hoped for, it won't improve the nations health levels by much, and it's going to cost an absolute bundle in the form of increased taxes. My guess is that in 2-3 years most folks in the country are going to hate Obamacare, but it it will be impossible to get rid of by then.

 

BO

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 05/18/2013 - 18:26 | 3576531 bunnyswanson
bunnyswanson's picture

Good question.  And if you do not pay for insurance, you are billed for it in IRS along with penalties most probably.  This is going to send people into the ghetto to live to free up their new bill for health care.

Yet we are being fed food that is anything but "food."  Fatty liver disease is found in 20 year olds.  Liver failure will send you 6 ft under.  Everyone, I mean everyone, has fatty livers.  The undigestable ingredients in our food supply, the salt, fat, sugar should be addressed.  Aching backs, lower extremity weightbearing joints from overfed and undernourished patients is epidemic.  Kidney failure as well. 

ObamaCare is ObamaKill in my view.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 08:51 | 3577608 drdolittle
drdolittle's picture

But, how can they afford the promises they made without taking a few years off peoples lives? All planned.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:17 | 3576103 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Heck, why not open the Mexican border for day patients as well?

For how long will the people of the USA be medicated with bullshit?

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:43 | 3576169 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Krasting writes "fre health insurace"? Is that supposed to be a joke?

If paying for more healthcare services is good for the economy, then we should provide healthcare for the whole world. Look at all the medicine and x-rays for 6 billion people. Our economy will be booming. 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:31 | 3576144 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

What a great idea! The pharmaceutical profits alone will boost the GDP by another percent. Bringing in a few more illegals each year will also create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the prison and crime industry. Not to mention all the new gun and home security purchases. It will also drive down the costs of labor in the home services industry  -maybe I can now afford the maid my wife has always wanted. The cost of getting your lawn mowed may decrease by 15-20%.

Bernanke and Obama are gods. Let's get those dead white guys off Mount Rushmore. Blow them up and make a new one. That Washington guy was a slave owner anyway.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:02 | 3578566 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Dunno if you've noticed, but they're heading back over the border in the other direction in droves of late.

Apparently your homes aren't worth looting.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:53 | 3576189 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Don't forget the 50,000 new federal employees making $100,000/yr to make sure your health insurance plan is in compliance.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 15:08 | 3576218 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

At least $100,000- maybe more when all the new tax revenues start coming in and and Bernanke announces his newest, boldest QE. The problem I see is that Obama (or Hillary) will have to do something to force people to sell so the GOV can collect capital gains. once the S&P hits 5,000, you'd be a complete foof to sell  -Anything! People would be terrified to sell for fear of missing the next rally.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 13:12 | 3575954 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Generally speaking healthcare CONSUMES wealth--it is an auxiliary service as opposed to a primary service.

Wealth is things. Some services go into creating, moving and selling things and therefore contribute to wealth--a primary service. Some services consume wealth--an auxiliary service.

An assembly-line worker that makes widgets, the trucker that moves them to market and the salesclerk that sells them create wealth. The barber that cuts these people's hair, though a vital service, does not.

Healthcare is no different than the hair cutting/styling industry. They both provide a vital service and add to "GDP" but both consume the wealth of their customers.

Or put another way: how WEALTHY would we be if we all became barbers, doctors, accountants, lab techs, teachers and not farmers, widget producers, truck drivers or sales clerks?

My point is this: Forced healthcare and it's associated theft, taxes and "premiums," can only further reduce the wealth of the American people.
hujel

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:58 | 3576201 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

We don't need to make things anymore. Use slave labor overseas and blow the shit out of any country that complains. That's the American way. It's called manifest destiny. God has graced America by allowing us to rule over and keep the rest of the world's godless savages in line. We did it to the Indians and we brought blacks into our country, fed them, gave them a roof over their head and saved their souls by converting them to Christianity. Yes, I know there were excesses. Millions of slaves were killed and dumped into the sea on the treacherous voyage over here to the Free World-probably with a Christian burial like we did for Bin Laden. But lot's of those brave sailors lost their lives, and the slave traders put their own capital on the line -at great risk.

Besides, we don't have jobs anway for the $50 million people on food stamps -that's working out well. These people may be  needed someday as a potential threat to keep all the gun crazy Liberty minded conspiracy mongers in line. 30,000 drones won't be enough -they will hide in the woods, or dig tunnels like Hezbollah  where drone warfare will not be as effective. They'll be hard to find, because most will have figured out how to deactivate the government micro-chips that will be forcibly  implanted in their brains. We will have to arm the mobs as (temporarily) as they go into the woods to search out these terrorists and bring them to justice.  

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 13:03 | 3575943 southerncomfort
southerncomfort's picture

I continue to wonder why Obamacare wasn't tagged to be funded by a national resource - like a small surcharge on all oil and gas exported from USA.  Any domestically used oil and gas could be free of this fee. 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:03 | 3578569 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Because petro companies have lobbyists and lawyers.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 12:45 | 3575892 PubliusTacitus
PubliusTacitus's picture

The SoteroCare economic boom is just around the corner, Bruce.

 

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 12:21 | 3575844 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Impeach Obama. Just say no to CIA Care.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:30 | 3577794 brettd
brettd's picture

You mean IRS-Care...

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 12:10 | 3575833 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Of course the only solution is to open up Medicare to everyone."

 

Since when?  How about ending the anti trust medical and insurance industry monopolies and opening medical care to the free market.

 

The government is the one that has created this mess, just as the FED has created the financial mess.  Why give moer power to those who cause the problem in the first place?

 

So called Obamacare is titled the AFFORDABLE Care Act.  The problem is that it isn't affordable, thus the Act is a sham and a fraud.  Single payer will also be a sham and a fraud.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 18:16 | 3576515 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Medical care will become a free(choice) on a...BLACK market. You would want a good care, you go privatetly and pay for it  because the " obamacare marketplace" will be screwed up beyond anything what we experienced before. 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 13:40 | 3576010 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

Right. The single payer system has failed everywhere it has been tried. Just look how much less every other advanced nation pays per person in health care expenditures. Plus, health outcomes are measurably better. How much more proof of failure does one need?

No, the Affordable Care Act is not a Progressive's wet dream. All it does is codify into law the corrupt, inefficient and bloated system we have always had. You got exactly what you asked for. Stop your bitching.

Shorter moneybots: "It's our god given right to pay more for less."

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 00:49 | 3577283 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Yeah, right. Life span 65 for male and 67 for female, euthanasia kits sold for $50 in Netherlands or The Liverpool Care Pathway to Death in UK. 

 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 07:38 | 3577523 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

Now your just making shit up. Your post is a perfect example of why we had the Affordable Care Act jammed down our throats. Barefoot and dumb.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:20 | 3577772 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

You don't know about euthanasia kits or Liverpool pathways? It is true. It must be true. Care for elderly is the most expensive proposition and single payer system has to manage their costs. Eugenics is well developed thought in Western Europe, so....

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:06 | 3578578 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Well you're clearly not exercising your right to mental healthcare.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 06:09 | 3577459 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Of course both systems work, and work VERY WELL.

Unlike the evident "hang on and sod the pain / psychological damage / costs" mindset on ZH, the UK and NL have actually thought about terminal care, from the Patient's perspective, and come up with a system that provides the BEST outcome FOR THE PATIENT.

Are you Americans dumb, or what!! You LIKE to PAY MORE FOR A CRAP SYSTEM, and don't tell me you get "Better Care", cause you DONT. You get "GreedCare" - "lets see how much we can milk this sucker in his/her hour of need" care.

 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 12:14 | 3577781 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Crazy abstract talk from the moma's basement. You need to have life experiences in that area to discuss it. If you really have someone close to you who is older or when you get older, you would think differently. I don't know anyone old one who doesn't want to live.  As soon as they give up on that, they die without the help of "the kit".

Adittionally, America currently has the best care delivery system. Why to destroy it? 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:09 | 3578585 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Your delusional approach to the inevitable is essential to the existing system of milking money from the elderly with next to no real chance of improvement.

If America has the best care delivery system, why are there so many with no meaningful access to healthcare?

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:48 | 3578710 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Because they are mostly not American citizens. Emigrants work for little money in places which cannot afford HC and they tend to send money back home rather or save for different things than premium payments. Most Americans get their health insurances at some point of their life and they have access. 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 22:40 | 3579214 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

FAIL! With 45M uninsured and ~12M illegals, your theory is wrong for 33M people at a minimum.

Thanks for clearing up the question of whether or not your opinions are based on any kind of relationship to reality as we know it.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 23:33 | 3579311 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Do you believe there is only 11 mil illegals? Among these 45 M uninsured (also questionable number) how many make it their choise? Instead of at least catastrophic insurance, new plasma tv or IPhone? Besides you don't change the lives of 300M people for 15M uninsured. 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 19:46 | 3576674 artless
artless's picture

UK has single payer. Canada has single payer. I wouldn't want to use their "success" as a measurement of such an idea.

Western Europe is bakrupt. They all have socialized medicine and they haven't been paying for Empire for decades like we have. And their economies still suck. Sure float the Norway, Sweden, Germeny argument all you want but they are holding on by a thread precisely because they have liberalised their markets not because they have further regulated them. Think China people. Of course you have the magical "growth" that seems to be everyone's wet dream panacea when you go from a totalitarian paradigm and start introducing free markets of any measure. Unfortunately we here in the USSA are going in the other direction and have been for at least a hundred years. All that magical GDP crap is exactly that CRAP. i hate to break it to all the econ types but "health care" is effectively nothing but drain NO MATTER WHO PAYS THE FUCKING BILL. It produces NOTHING.

The issue is COST or as real econmists like to say PRICE. Flood the market with shit tons of money and the prices will go up. Period. Add more layers between the provider and the buyer and prices will go up. Period. No amount of governemnt intervention or so-called smart  guys making plans will change that. Take a look at the post Medicare/Medicaid decades and you will see the data. The only thing that wll bring down prices is competition. Period.

And just so anyone drinking the single-payer or socialist med model koolaid can't wrap their heads around the econ or the numbers, I will give you the often overlooked most importatnt aspect of this whole giant shit show. By what right or through what twisted morality do you or anyone else have the balls to demand that someone else pay your way for ANYTHING. Any form of socialized medicine (along with pretty much everything else in the USSA) is based on me paying for you, and the guy down the road, and anyone else who rolls in for that matter. By what right do you demand that doctors work on any other terms than their own? Are you really good with that? Forcing others to abide by "laws" with the barrel of a gun? Cause if you endorse even the slightest vestiige of any of thiscrap that is what you muct be prepared to defend. And of course that has always worked out quite well throughout history.

You can make whatever nonsense arguments all you want about socialized medicine, costs, single payer and every other wet dream utopian crap you might come up with but it can never over the long run work. Econ like nature has laws.

"Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics."-mises

If you want the model for a successful future in medicine check out The Surgery Center of Oklahoma.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 00:57 | 3577291 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Yes, yes, yes X 100! I wouldn't even want insurances unless for catastrophic care. Do everything cash payments, ask for prices and shop around and save money for the rainy days. Eliminate the middle man, deal directly with a doctor, a clinic, a hospital. Prices would go down immediately. 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:48 | 3576177 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

That's because they are subsidized by us paying more, you idiot. This "free healthcare" act did nothing to reduce drug prices. The people in those countries also cannot sue their healthcare providers for malpractice. If health outcomes are so much better in socialized systems, why was the average lifespan in the USSR 59 years while in the US it was 74 years?

The solution is to allow drugs to be imported from other first world countries where they pay 10% of what we pay and cap medical lawsuit payouts along with reform of medical licensing to get rid of bad doctors.

If you want a single payer system, you and your buddies set up a not-for-profit health insurance company and negotiate drug and medical service prices. Leave me out of it. 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:23 | 3578634 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You think you'll have better luck trying to sue an insurance company with a billion dollar warchest?

You think the prices will remain 10% of what we pay?

If you want to talk about Russian life expectancy, why did it go from 44 years for men in 1938 to 65 years in the 80s?

How much money does an elderly American spend to hobble around during those halcyon years?

You still think malpractice is what makes healthcare expensive? Hahaha. 8% at the outside and that's IF every single test you think is being done to avoid a lawsuit is axed.

Thanks for the laughable attempt at providing "solutions".

 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 18:16 | 3576516 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

If you are going to pull data out of the bowels of your ass, please include all advanced nations. USSR! You fucking rube. It's because of ignorant individuals like you that our democracy flounders.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 10:44 | 3577713 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

He said "was" when he mentioned the USSR, fool.
Although he may have meant an advanced (quasi)nation whose name he mistyped - the EUSSR.

It's funny how socialists always forget that "advanced" nations with socialist healthcare such as those in the EU are doing great in terms of healthcare but are unfortunately all insolvent. Some success!

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 15:42 | 3578194 currencywar
currencywar's picture

"It's funny how socialists always forget that "advanced" nations with socialist healthcare such as those in the EU are doing great in terms of healthcare but are unfortunately all insolvent"

I live in the UK and would like to take issue with the notion that the NHS is doing great.  Many people commenting in favor of these systems have never lived with a socialized medical system and are simply buying into the doctored stats fed to the media by statists.

 

 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 14:20 | 3576113 Balanced Integer
Balanced Integer's picture

While people in single-payer healthcare systems may be paying less per itemized treatment ("may," being the operative word here), I would contest that they are seeing better outcomes. You get what you pay for, to say nothing of the long wait times associated with these single-payer systems. It is no different than any other rationed system. There is never enough money to treat everyone in a timely manner, or to treat everyone with the highest quality possible.

I contend that if the single-payer European system was such a successful model, anyone with enough scratch who needs a heart procedure, for example, wouldn't be coming over to America and its "inferior" healthcare system for an operation.

I'm not saying it couldn't be better here in the States. BS government regulation and an inefficient insurance model has definitely caused prices to balloon, but as someone who is currently on single-payer Medicare, I've noticed the differences I've experienced being in both systems and would far prefer to be back in the former if I had the choice.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 18:24 | 3576527 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

Oh, the long lines canard. If what you grabbed out of your ass is true, where are the bodies. People is these other countries must literally be dying in the streets waiting in these long lines. These citizens, while they are waiting in long lines and dying, must also be clamoring for the importation of the US, employer based health care system.

Jesus Christ! Please think about complex issues for longer than two seconds.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 15:53 | 3578210 currencywar
currencywar's picture

101- there are people dying and even some could say, as importantly, people suffering in pain needlessly for months or longer due to these lines.  I am speaking about family I have in Canada, some of whom have driven to the US to seek treatment out of pocket rather than wait for close to a year for an MRI. 

I ripped my rotator cuff in the UK, it took over 9 months to convince them that I should have a diagnostic test, an ultrasound, not an expensive MRI.  Ultimately, I went back to the US and paid out of pocket to see a orthapedic surgeon and a physical therapist.  It took over a year to recover from an injury that I think could have been resolved much sooner, if I could have seen the right doctors right away.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 23:04 | 3577130 malek
malek's picture

"Long lines canard" - are you stupid?

There is no unlimited free/cheap healthcare with the best treatments for everyone. Never has, never will be.
In other words there will be rationing.

The only choice is if rationing happens by price (affordability) or by bureaucracy / waiting times.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 07:33 | 3577519 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

Where are the bodies? Why the better health outcomes? Hands out of your ass please.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 18:36 | 3578466 malek
malek's picture

"Because I can't see it, it doesn't exist!" <screaming out loud while covering one's eyes>

Also:
We are not in a depression!! Where are the soup lines?

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:40 | 3577816 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

'Accounting 101'  could you take Accounting 201 please and maybe basic macroeconomic class? There is not only debit and credit but also P&L and Balance Sheet and Cash Flow. There is nothing for free in this world. You should learn it by now.

If you socialize medicine you need to take money for it from something else and tax people, and ration your treatment because there is no abundance of it and no unlimited resources. 

Open your eyes or better yet, go to Europe or Canada. Live, work, make money and spend money and pay taxes there for some time and use their one payer system. If you are from there, come here, work, spend your money, pay taxes and use our medical system. You need to have life experiences to compare both. Also remember "Grass is always greener on the other side". 

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:31 | 3578656 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Hey look! I found several billion we could use in advertising budgets for health insurance and pharma companies.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:58 | 3578738 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Maybe take your vacations fund and give it away to some fellow uninsured American towards his premium payment? You see, I found some money! We could use them as well!

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 10:48 | 3577716 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

He forgot to mention the usual: bribes. You want to jump the line or get advanced treatment abroad, you pay a bribe.
Black markets work great!

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:43 | 3577822 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

Of course! People go to private clinics, travel, pay under the table just to have a good treatment or best possible doctor in the time of their greatest need.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 19:31 | 3578660 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You're half right.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 11:57 | 3575818 Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

The way to modify human behavior is to use money as a carrot or stick.

This plan does both.

It will encourage the sickest, fatest, oldest to get insurance since they now can (no pre-existing conditions disqualified).

It will encourage the young or healthy ones to forgo insurance until they need it (again, no pre-existing conditions disqaulified). They will simply pay the MUCH CHEAPER penalty, and worry about insurance if and when the time comes.

Now class, what does this portend for the insurance companies? Think they will eat this cost? Or will you? Hmm.....

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 17:43 | 3576469 mkkby
mkkby's picture

EXCEPT, the caveat is there is A WAITING PERIOD.  If you try to get insurance on the way to the hospital, it won't start for 90 days.  You'll leave the hospital with a $100k bill.

Everyone needs at least a high deductible plan, if only so you don't get charged the insanely inflated rates the uninsured get screwed with.

They aren't stupid enough to let people buy insurnace the day they get sick/injured.  You should be smart enough to assume that.

Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:51 | 3577832 LadyEconomist
LadyEconomist's picture

I went to Obamacare seminar and I didn't hear about 90 days waiting period. There is an insurance mandate for insurance companies starting from Jan 1, 2014. Period.

Right now there is a requirement of having prior insurance (6 months) if you get  a group new insurance and you have preexisting conditions. It is a state requirement CA. But you don't need Obamacare for that. It already exists.

The other requirement of the new law is that the premium for old person cannot the more than 3 times the young one. As a result of that, the young people won't buy an insurance, since their premium would go up the most and the penalty won't be big enough for the next couple of years. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!