• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Budget Office Lowers Its Estimate on Federal Spending for Health Care

One other item that liberals want to ignore is because of Obamacare taxes and penalties (more tax) are going up. This of course is never figured in the cost of healthcare, yet it's money out of the peoples pocket and into governments.

The real problem is the liberals give the CBO a certain criteria to use so that it shows the results it wants. However threegoofs own posted article said cost are going up. I would think he would have read his own article as it goes completely against what he was boasting.

Ah. Now the CBO is a liberal tool.

No- what I pretty clearly stated was that the GDP projections were going down. And that's not because we project less seniors to be getting Medicare in the future, it's because we have got working cost controls for Medicare.
 
Shifted costs? How so? People have NOT seen much of a rise in premiums, or any of the other things you allege. It's actually been pretty reasona

Rising premiums, increased deductibles and OOP maximums, additional taxes on DMG's, businesses required to provide insurance (and pay a portion of the premiums) and you don't understand the phrase shifted costs?

Where do you think the money comes from to provide the subsidies? If you don't believe that's not a portion of shifted costs, I really don't think you need to be in this thread...
 
Shifted costs? How so? People have NOT seen much of a rise in premiums, or any of the other things you allege. It's actually been pretty reasonable inflation overall. So the control of overall healthcare costs has been rising much slower than historically, and I'm guessing we can probably credit the ACA for some of that, although time will tell.

The cost being unsustainable is a subjective observation. I think it looks like it is a heck of a lot more sustainable than it did in 2007!

Seriously? Did you even read your own OP for God's sake? My costs have skyrocketed as have most of everyone else.

If you would just... you know what - never mind. I've tried. Someone else can bang their head on that brick wall of ideological blindness you've put up in front of you.
 
Rising premiums, increased deductibles and OOP maximums, additional taxes on DMG's, businesses required to provide insurance (and pay a portion of the premiums) and you don't understand the phrase shifted costs?

Where do you think the money comes from to provide the subsidies? If you don't believe that's not a portion of shifted costs, I really don't think you need to be in this thread...

He's the thread OP and has been arguing with me over facts that I point out are in his own damned OP post!!! Sad, but hilarious... for a while anyway. I have better things to do at this point than try to teach a member how to read their own posts and fact check their claims.
 
Ah. Now the CBO is a liberal tool.

It's not just a liberal tool, both parties use it to skew the results in their favor. Garbage in garbage out. As a result I don't put a much faith in any CBO report from either party.
 
Seriously? Did you even read your own OP for God's sake? My costs have skyrocketed as have most of everyone else.

If you would just... you know what - never mind. I've tried. Someone else can bang their head on that brick wall of ideological blindness you've put up in front of you.

Funny. 30k people work in my company. My premium went up $3/mo. Not one person I know that I work with has complained about skyrocketing premiums.

In fact, I believe there was a whole thread that discussed the BS claim of skyrocketing premiums, complete with multiple references.

You should read it.
 
WASHINGTON — The growth of federal spending on health care will continue to decline as a proportion of the overall economy in the coming decades, in part because of cost controls mandated by President Obama’s health care law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

The budget office said in its annual 25-year forecast that federal spending on major health care programs would amount to 8 percent of gross domestic product by 2039, one-tenth of a percentage point lower than its previous projection.

With the latest revision, the budget office has now reduced its 10-year estimate for spending by Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs by $1.23 trillion starting in 2010, the year the health care law took effect. By 2039, the savings would amount to $250 billion a year today, or about 1.5 percent of the economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/b...-of-federal-spending-on-health-care.html?_r=0

This is the biggest news that no one is talking about. I guess scary stories are better for pageviews and eyeballs.

This is a massive shift. In fact, its exactly what Obama discussed when he talked about 'bending the cost curve' of Medicare. Exactly.

Heres a nice graph showing the budget impact.

15_cbo_budget_outlook_fig1-1.png


Thats total federal government spending... a massively lower projection.

Interesting. I must be missing something.

The report they issued contained this:

Federal spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act—would rise sharply, to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2039, twice the 7 percent average seen over the past 40 years. That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs.​

What am I missing?
 
It's not just a liberal tool, both parties use it to skew the results in their favor. Garbage in garbage out. As a result I don't put a much faith in any CBO report from either party.

Because you just go with your gut.

I know lots of people like that. They all fail in math and science.
 
Funny. 30k people work in my company. My premium went up $3/mo. Not one person I know that I work with has complained about skyrocketing premiums.

In fact, I believe there was a whole thread that discussed the BS claim of skyrocketing premiums, complete with multiple references.

You should read it.

Unsupported anecdotes are not very compelling.
 
Because you just go with your gut.

I know lots of people like that. They all fail in math and science.

You are the one arguing anecdotes to prove insurance premiums didn't skyrocket.
 
Seriously? Did you even read your own OP for God's sake? My costs have skyrocketed as have most of everyone else.

If you would just... you know what - never mind. I've tried. Someone else can bang their head on that brick wall of ideological blindness you've put up in front of you.

Let me tell you about the ideological brick wall.

Last year, all we heard from conservatives would be how the ACA will lead to 'skyrocketing' costs, 'skyrocketing' premiums, massive loss of coverage (still a nutty concept), etc etc etc.

Come November, I remember being concerned about reenrolling in my same Heath plan. Would it change dramatically? Would it get unaffordable?

Nope. Mostly the same plan. Lower increase than usual. I heard the same story from friends who own companies, and friends who work for forms both large and small. A big nothingburger.

But guys like you are still seeing skyrockets.

You can only cry wolf so many times before losing credibility. The GOP lost me in about 2002. I think there are a long line of refugees behind me.
 
You are the one arguing anecdotes to prove insurance premiums didn't skyrocket.

As I said earlier, there was an entire thread on this previously, with lots of references. I'm not going to spoonfeed you- feel free to look it up.
 
As I said earlier, there was an entire thread on this previously, with lots of references. I'm not going to spoonfeed you- feel free to look it up.

I am well aware that there are plenty of threads where you willfully ignore the facts. The real world is unimpressed with propaganda as premiums skyrocket.
 
Funny. 30k people work in my company. My premium went up $3/mo. Not one person I know that I work with has complained about skyrocketing premiums.

In fact, I believe there was a whole thread that discussed the BS claim of skyrocketing premiums, complete with multiple references.

You should read it.

My daughters insurance premium doubled, and the number of providers shrunk. You should avoid blanket statements, they can scientifically prove the limitations of the theorist involved.
 
Heres a nice graph showing the budget impact.

15_cbo_budget_outlook_fig1-1.png


Thats total federal government spending... a massively lower projection.

Question on your graph. How can CBO estimates from 2009 and 2014 both have different pictures of the Federal Health Spending/GDP prior to 2009?
 
Let's see the logic here... A graph that shows only a revision of the path from a little less than 10% of rise in costs to GDP to a ~7.5% of a rise in costs to GDP , which still shows a path toward unsustainable spending (as stated in the OP's own article), potential fiscal collapse and economic destruction... is a good thing.

Amazing logic.

It sure beats the "let's not change anything and watch as costs increase faster and faster because that's how we avoid potential fiscal collapse and economic destruction"

:roll:
 
It sure beats the "let's not change anything and watch as costs increase faster and faster because that's how we avoid potential fiscal collapse and economic destruction"

:roll:

Roll your eyes all you wish sangha. The post you quoted was part of an overall argument/conversation, and if taken out of context it allows you to do your normal hit and run. However, because you and I have been communicating rather well as of late, I chose to reply.

First, read all the posts, then go back and look at this one in particular once again and read the linked article: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/199661-budget-office-lowers-its-estimate-federal-spending-health-care-4.html#post1063550407
 
Roll your eyes all you wish sangha. The post you quoted was part of an overall argument/conversation, and if taken out of context it allows you to do your normal hit and run. However, because you and I have been communicating rather well as of late, I chose to reply.

First, read all the posts, then go back and look at this one in particular once again and read the linked article: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/199661-budget-office-lowers-its-estimate-federal-spending-health-care-4.html#post1063550407

Yes, I've read all about the Morgan Stanley survey. If you had done the same, you'd understand why it's so dishonest for you to refer to it
 

The Morgan Stanley survey was not "debunked", the use of it in the Forbes article was successfully corrected. The WMUR author correctly pointed out that a state by state evaluation was not a good use of the study given the counts in some states, as Morgan Stanley pointed out in the survey. But then Morgan Stanley sticks by their overall evaluation of the market based on aggregated survey data, and your article fails to adequately invalidate the full study. The overall Morgan Stanley finding was still a steep increase in nationwide in 1Q of 2014 and 4Q 2013.

But the author goes a bridge too far by trying to then prove the opposite is true:

"Morgan Stanley never promised that this survey was based on actual insurance rate data in each state. But if you are interested in that the state Insurance Department hired an outside firm to do that analysis. They found that, after you factor in subsidies in the new health care law, the average premium would actually decrease eight percent this year."

Bzzzzzzt!

The WMUR author needed to count subsidies to show a "decrease", which obviously to any sane person isn't a valid way to determine if insurance premiums actually declined. Morgan Stanely's findings of a steep increase in 1Q premiums stands, and WMUR gets caught with it's hand in the ideological cookie jar.

I debunked your debunk.
 
Last edited:
Heres an interesting chart as well

45471-land-figure1b.png


A CBO blog post yesterday noted that federal spending is projected to rise noticeably relative to the size of the economy over the long term because of growth in spending for Social Security, major health care programs, and interest on the government’s debt. Today we will discuss the factors that account for the projected growth in the first two of those major components of the budget.

Under current law, spending for Social Security would increase from almost 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 to more than 6 percent in 2039 and beyond (see the figure below). Even more of the anticipated growth is expected to come from the government’s major health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies offered through health insurance exchanges): CBO projects that, under current law, total outlays for those programs, net of Medicare premiums and certain other offsetting receipts, would grow much faster than the overall economy, increasing from just below 5 percent of GDP now to 8 percent in 2039.

It appears we're just shifting costs around, with federal spending on healthcare, the subject in the op that is apparently supposed to be lower, dominating federal spending.

What Are the Causes of Projected Growth in Spending for Social Security and Major Health Care Programs? - CBO
 
The Morgan Stanley survey was not "debunked", the use of it in the Forbes article was successfully corrected.

:lamo

In other words, it was debunked


The WMUR author correctly pointed out that a state by state evaluation was not a good use of the study given the counts in some states, as Morgan Stanley pointed out in the survey. But then Morgan Stanley sticks by their overall evaluation of the market based on aggregated survey data, and your article fails to adequately invalidate the full study. The overall Morgan Stanley finding was still a steep increase in nationwide in 1Q of 2014 and 4Q 2013.

IOW, the study is wrong, but it's right!! :screwy

But the author goes a bridge too far by trying to then prove the opposite is true:

"Morgan Stanley never promised that this survey was based on actual insurance rate data in each state. But if you are interested in that the state Insurance Department hired an outside firm to do that analysis. They found that, after you factor in subsidies in the new health care law, the average premium would actually decrease eight percent this year."

Bzzzzzzt!

The WMUR author needed to count subsidies to show a "decrease", which obviously to any sane person isn't a valid way to determine if insurance premiums actually declined. Morgan Stanely's findings of a steep increase in 1Q premiums stands, and WMUR gets caught with it's hand in the ideological cookie jar.

I debunked your debunk.

Umm, the right predicted people's costs would skyrocket and the opposite happened and premiums did not go up 90% as MS claimed.
 
Back
Top Bottom