• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Wisconsin Study Reveals Obamacare "Winners and Losers"

    Last week, the state of Wisconsin released a report summarizing the effects of Obamacare on the Badger State’s health care system.

    The study, which was conducted by Gorman Actuarial and MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber—an Obamacare supporter—and commissioned by former Governor Jim Doyle (D), provides further proof that Obamacare is on track to break the promises President Obama made to the American people regarding his plan for health care reform:

    • “It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don’t.” While there are expected gains in coverage, an estimated 23,000 become newly uninsured in Wisconsin alone under Obamacare. Of those who gain coverage, 27 percent will be dependent on taxpayer-funded subsidies in the new exchanges, and 38 percent will receive public insurance (i.e., Medicaid). In other words, of the 340,000 people who will be newly covered as a result of Obamacare, 65 percent will be dependent on the government for their health care. Ironically, of all those who get public assistance under this plan (either through subsidies or Medicaid), 46 percent of them already had coverage.
    • “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” About 100,000 individuals will be involuntarily dropped from their existing employer-based coverage. This number could grow if more employers respond to Obamacare’s perverse incentives to dump coverage.
    • “We’re going to reduce costs an average of $2,500 per family on premiums.” The Wisconsin study also confirms that Obamacare will, in fact, dramatically increase premiums for many participating in the individual market; 87 percent will see premiums rise by an average of 41 percent. For an unfortunate 41 percent of the market, premiums will grow by more than 50 percent. Even after the subsidies are extended, 59 percent of those in the individual market will still see an average increase in premiums of 31 percent. Among just those receiving subsidized coverage, 38 percent will still experience an average increase in premiums of 29 percent.

    As former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” She was right. Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of coverage by creating market-driven efficiencies, which would reduce expenses for patients and third-party payers alike. Instead, the new law simply shifts increasing costs to federal and state taxpayers through the expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies. At the same time, costly and burdensome insurance regulations will force the cost of coverage upward for businesses, individuals, and families.

    The more the American people learn about this bill, the less they like it. The Wisconsin study provides important new information that backs up what many people already know: This bill falls short on the President’s promises. The Wisconsin study raises further concern over Obamacare’s viability.

    Posted in Featured, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to Wisconsin Study Reveals Obamacare "Winners and Losers"

    1. Bobbie says:

      really Mr. President. Why don't you just admit your scam is exposed. you promised alot of people alot of money and benefits stealing behind the backs of good Americans in the name of your health care scandal, but you'll have to work that out between you and them.

      Hopefully people will feel better about themselves holding accountability in the private sector. Sign of good character.

      You should learn how to respect us as a whole instead of favoring bias with the whole of everyone's money. We can take care of ourselves, we were all born human with brains of our own that needs no outside controlled influence, if you could bring yourself to respect that?!

      Please repeal obamacare, it does not belong in America for good reason, Americans don't deserve the corruption involved.

    2. @USAGeorge says:

      The road to hell,paved with good intentions.BTW why isn't the Supreme court holding judgement?
      WHY? This judgement is being supressed by Obama. We live in America where truth and justice is the light and the way,why are we being denied a ruling? I want a damn answer!

    3. Jeff, Illinois says:

      I think it's called the Affordable Care Act . . and most will end up valuing it . . !!

      • Mike says:

        The naming is truly ironic isn't it, given its true effects on the costs of insurance coverage? But then, that's only for me, you know, one of those people that work and pay taxes. Stay tuned folks. ObaminationCare will be struck down as unconsitutaional by a 5-4 vote (Kagin shouldn't even be voting, but she will) by the SCOTUS sometime next summer, right before the coming election. The only 'value' it will offer at that point is to provide the final millstone around the neck of a completely and utterly failed presidency. Mr. Obama is history next fall, let's just hope we aren't as well due to his utter incompetence.

        • Mike, Wichita Falls says:

          I hope you are wrong about Kagan. As much as she was an advocate, willing or not, of this law as Solicitor General, I think Congress would have justifiable recourse under the "good behavior" clause if she did not recuse herself. If Congress was not aggressive enough, I think the people, as disgusted as they are with this law, would encourage them to be so. I wonder if Obama had any idea he was shooting himself in the foot when he elevated his SG to the SCOTUS.

      • Bobbie says:

        only those mosts that have been manipulated into not knowing any better!!


      It's waste of time and unconstitutional law. REPEAL IT. Ron Paul was right regarding this issue.

    5. Honest Abe says:

      When exactly did the Heritage Foundation abandon the Individual Mandate that Dr. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation authored in 1989? He testified before Congress as to its capitalistic bona fides in 1993, while Republicans were attempting to get the individual mandate signed into law in either of 2 rebuttal bills against Clinton's Employer Mandate—-

      that much is common knowledge. But when, exactly— in what policy paper, when, did the Heritage Foundation abandon its advocacy of the Individual mandate? In 2007? 2008?

      And, more to the point: what was the Constitutionality argument that the Heritage Foundation used in support of the policy for 2 decades?

      • Bobbie says:

        heritage brought forth the whole truth and their dismissal of their support.
        1989, come on Honest Abe! Not doubting the year but perhaps you should investigate in between and most recently instead of dragging this out as a bust!

    6. Bill says:

      When congress writes laws behind closed doors, cutting deals with senators or reps from other states have their votes bought by providing special incentives this is what we get. Other members of congress and the public do not have a chance to review and comment about the contents or language in a major bill being pushed IS NOT AMERICAN. Pelosi and Reid are true radicals to bring this idiocy on the American people. This is pure socialism and should be seen as such. I hope California and Nevada both see how these two have hurt our economy.

    7. Pete Houston says:

      So when we legalize marijuana the Mexican cartels can start smuggling in peanut butter and twinkies to the newly created black market. Can only imagine the headlines. One ton of twinkies being confiscated from border crossings. The liberals want to legalize pot and make twinkies illegal? What will we eat when we get the munchies. Carrots, celery or doritos.

    8. Lloyd Scallan says:

      The American people didn't like it before Obama shoved it down our throats. Let's face facts. ObamaCare would have never passed if Obama gave a damn about the American people or would not have bribe or pay-off the likes of Nelson (D-NE), Landrieu (D-LA), or promised whomever not to include federally funded abortions. Pelosi said it! Now that we know some of what is in it, the question is what are we, or the Supreme Court, is going to do about it?

    9. Daver says:

      Any bill that takes more than 20 pages to explain, delineate, etc… is probably too complicated for our representatives to read and comprehend and subsequently, support or reject. I'd like to see a law limiting the ability of Congress to pass such regulatory nightmares.

      Oh–did I forget to mention, the people don't have the time, access and patience to understand these laws either?

      But even beyond that–what do Medical School admissions, taxing people's home sales, etc.. have to do with healthcare or insurance? It would seem to me the disparity of these ideas is reason enough to reject the 2,700 page bill?

    10. georga collins says:

      Repeal it. Health care, in my experience, is deteriorating. If Obamacare continues the systen will flat line. Maybe it should so it can start over. It's become more expensive and doctors are suffering. You know, doctors are told what they can charge….attorneys are not.
      I like America the way it was, before it became a socialist nation.

    11. B.G. JOHNSON says:

      My hope is that the Supreme Court will declare the entire bill 'unconstitional'. The real loser as usual is the middle class, the working Joe who continues to work and carries the largest burden It seems the bill will create more "free loaders"! What will happen when Obama's "backdoor amnesty" opens the floodgates to millions of illegal aliens? How much more can the American laborer shoulder? May the elections of 2012 effectively stop our slide into sociallism!

      Calem's Mt

    12. Betty P says:

      Please someone tell me why there is a3.8% sales tax on the sale of a home after Jan. 1, 2013 in the HEALTHCARE BILL?? Nobody is talking about this, but it is there. It is to raise more money to fund this monstrosity bill. Outrageous.

    13. Daniel says:

      None of this surprises me. When I was in my teens my father was an editor with the Chicago Sun-Times. Something he told me back then keeps coming to mind: "There's no appreciable difference in Chicago between the mob bosses, the politicians and the union bosses…they all lie, they're all corrupt and can't be trusted." That observation is still true, and Obama is the consummate Chicago politician.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.