Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade

Aoxomoxoa said:
It seems to me, from a European viewpoint, that providing a universal healthcare service is profoundly justified, from an humanitarian point of view.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....we aren't Europe and we have no desire to be Europe......most of you are already bankrupt and trying to stave off collapse by cutting expenditures.....we're simply trying to take those steps BEFORE we turn out like you.......
 
General Sherman said:
Pretty reasonable pricetag for universal healthcare. That's not a quarter of what medicaid will cost.
Click to expand...

Yet it is infinitely higher than the "savings" previously claimed. Imagine what this cost will be once we fix the truncated payments to doctors that the bill assumed would remain in order to claim net savings.

This bill does nothing about costs of care, it just attempts to hide it under a rug.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it is infinitely higher than the "savings" previously claimed. Imagine what this cost will be once we fix the truncated payments to doctors that the bill assumed would remain in order to claim net savings.

This bill does nothing about costs of care, it just attempts to hide it under a rug.
Click to expand...


Uh, go ahead and quote someone on the "savings" you are talking about and then we can address the "infinitely higher" claim.
 
Damocles said:
Are you really trying to claim that those in support of this law didn't claim a net savings from it?
Click to expand...


No, I'm asking you for a quote. And, by the way, in the report cited in the OP the CBO projects an increase in net savings of $50 billion as compared to its March 2011 projection. Like I said in my first post in this thread, it takes a special breed to turn a report of increased savings of $50 billion into a negative thing.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
No, I'm asking you for a quote. And, by the way, in the report cited in the OP the CBO projects an increase in net savings of $50 billion as compared to its March 2011 projection. Like I said in my first post in this thread, it takes a special breed to turn a report of increased savings of $50 billion into a negative thing.
Click to expand...

The report says that the original cost projection was 940 Billion, now they are projecting 1.76 Trillion. That isn't an increased savings of 50 Billion.
 
Damocles said:
The report says that the original cost projection was 940 Billion, now they are projecting 1.76 Trillion. That isn't an increased savings of 50 Billion.
Click to expand...

He is talking about this portion...

The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower.
Click to expand...

More shell games from the politicians in DC. Funny how if you create enough smoke and mirrors and then have the CBO use all your gimmicks in their 'projections' (which they are required to do)... amazing how you can continue 'lowering the deficit'.
 
Damocles said:
The report says that the original cost projection was 940 Billion, now they are projecting 1.76 Trillion. That isn't an increased savings of 50 Billion.
Click to expand...


You should read the CBO report instead of something someone wrote about what the CBO report says. And you should also be aware that gross costs for the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and the net savings of the entire ACA are two different things. Even assuming the numbers you have above are accurate, with the $1.76 T price tag on the insurance coverage provisions, the entire act reduces the deficit by $50 billion more than previously projected.
 
Damocles said:
The report says that the original cost projection was 940 Billion, now they are projecting 1.76 Trillion. That isn't an increased savings of 50 Billion.
Click to expand...

Damo, at the bottom of the article linked in the OP there is an updated article the author wrote and in that one it states

""The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower."""


To me this still doesn't pass the sniff test. For example when I use to underwrite the acquisitions of office towers I could change assumptions so you could get a 15% return at purchase prices of both $700/sq.ft. and $800/sq.ft. It's the same thing here to me. They can show these savings all they want on paper but we know in reality the costs are going to far exceed what is being projected. If I am wrong in the future I will gladly come eat crow but I don't think that is going to be the case.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am just trying to introduce some sense of perspective into the debate, vast amounts are wasted in effective subsidies to US military suppliers.
Click to expand...

There is indeed a lot we could do if we just brought our military back within our borders and let the rest of the world go to hell. There is also a vast amount of waste within the DoD as you mention. Regardless of these facts, the pretense that Obamacare is going to save money is a friggin joke. It is nothing more than accounting tricks that all but the hacktacular diehard Dems can see.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am just trying to introduce some sense of perspective into the debate, vast amounts are wasted in effective subsidies to US military suppliers.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that we are never going to have affordable health care, whether via a nationalized plan or everyone having individual plans or something in between, until we come to grips with our cultures 'live to eat, while refusing any personal responsibility' mindset.

People can choose to 'live to eat' or 'eat to live'... or they can find a balance in between. But right now we are far closer to the former and need to move towards the latter. That is what is driving up costs more than anything (outside of aging of the boomers). Nationalizing won't resolve the problem. It simply lets the government dictate what 'must' be covered for 'everyone' and then simply allows them yet another reason to tax the crap out of us and waste our money in an inefficient manner.
 
why am I not surprised that nobody that supported this monstrosity of a nightmare package is outraged over the fact, FACT, that they were LIED to about the cost of this? Could it be that they KNEW they needed to lie in order to pass something they wanted, knowing that if the TRUTH were revealed, they'd never have gotten it passed?
 
Yurt said:
they why throw out the idea of a 10% cut? NASA isn't subsidized...it is a government agency, not a private entity like boeing. the subsidies to boeing have little to do with the military, rather, to compete with other corps such as airbus who is subsidized a far greater amount. funny you don't have a problem with that. or do you?

tom, my thinking is this:

instead of creating another government agency, why not simply expand medicare? it would accomplish the same goals. with far less red tape and far less bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

NASA isn't just a civilian agency though, is it? It also performs tasks on behalf of the military. Indeed they had a large say in the design of the Space Shuttle, it was their insistence that caused the loading bay to be increased in size to handle all potential military payloads. Boeing and Lockheed Martin receive huge subsidies from the military and have done since WW2.

Isn't proposing that Medicare be expanded to cover everybody goddamn socialism? It's a good idea but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top