Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 158

Thread: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years

  1. #101
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The failings of that prediction have less to do with an overestimation of economic growth (although that was part of it), and more to do with not predicting what future Congresses would do. In January 2001 the CBO didn't include the deficit-exploding changes of the Bush tax cuts, 9/11, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, cleaning up Hurricane Katrina, annual Medicare doc fixes, economic stimuli, TARP, or plenty of other things. And I would argue that it was perfectly reasonable NOT to include those things, since the CBO had no idea that they were going to happen. The CBO's $5.6 trillion surplus projection was based solely on the policies that were already in place when they made that prediction in January 2001; $5.6 trillion would have been an overestimate anyway, but not nearly as much. It isn't fair to blame the CBO for not predicting the behavior of future Congresses.
    The report also assumes an average annual real GDP growth rate of 3.1%. The next year we were in a recession. Regardless, that's the whole point. We have no way of projecting the potential policy changes, economic shocks, geopolitical events, natural catastrophes, and the million other exogenous factors that contribute to these projections. However, we can project future budgetary expenses much more accurately. You're free to look at my other post regarding Obama's budget revenue projections as well. Note the difference in spending vs. revenues deltas.


    No, this is not correct. At the time the Affordable Care Act was passed, the CBO actually issued projections for the first ten years and the second ten years. Every year in the current projection (2012-2022) had an estimate at the time the law was passed...which were generally pretty similar to the current estimates. There wasn't any waiting involved to the discover the 10-year cost. The CBO just prefers to break its predictions up into 10-year chunks, but they predicted more years into the future than that.
    If you have the report, please link it. As shown in my first post in this thread the March 2010 CBO report sent to Pelosi used 2010-2019 projections to estimate $940 billion in gross costs. I'm assuming that's the figure the President was referring to in his speech. If you have a different report, it would do nothing to dispute the underlying point. Either Obama is referring to only 6 years of actual costs or the projected cost doubled. Your last post seems to contradict your first.
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-29-13 @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,106

    Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

    Guys, the problem is real simple. The medicare offsets were based on several fundamentally flawed theories.

    One: That people would get private insurance and thus not need Medicare. Problem is ruining the economy doesn't make people get private insurance no matter what the incentives or penalties are. Compounding that, is that more taxes hurt the private sector, which drives more people onto Medicare.

    Two: That Obama's great Keynesian Stimulus would cause a massive boost in the economy (even though it has failed every time it was tried in the past). This plan undoubtedly failed by any reasonable measure, and thus the Medicare tax revenues are not there.

    Three: Obama care mandated that states drastically increase medicare and medicaid spending, to covertly cost-shift Medicare onto the states. Instead States have been slashing medicare and medicaid, shifting the burden back on the Federal government.

    Four: They have cut doctor payouts. Which had the unintended consequence of causing doctors to refuse Medicare patients. These patients are forced to go to hospitals to get care, because doctors will not see them. The resulting hospital stay is vastly more expensive than the doctor visit is.

    Five: Preventative care is in theory going to reduce cost, when in reality, it increases cost.

    Now these are just the top 5 reasons. There are more. But the point is, the government's claimed offsets are simply not effective. I predicted in 2009 when Obama care was passed, that it would cost at least double what they claimed, because of these flawed supposed offsets.

  3. #103
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

    I just randomly came across this and the coincidence merited sharing. I realize it doesn't contribute a lot to the debate but it shares the inherent skepticism of CBO analysis:

    Congress's Number Cruncher Comes Under Fire - WSJ.com

    This is unrelated to health care but the full disclosure of the whistleblower:

    Terminated CBO Whistleblower Shares Her Full Story With Zero Hedge, Exposes Deep Conflicts At "Impartial" Budget Office | ZeroHedge
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ar7%202012.pdf
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-29-13 @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,106

    Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    I just randomly came across this and the coincidence merited sharing. I realize it doesn't contribute a lot to the debate but it shares the inherent skepticism of CBO analysis:

    Congress's Number Cruncher Comes Under Fire - WSJ.com

    This is unrelated to health care but the full disclosure of the whistleblower:

    Terminated CBO Whistleblower Shares Her Full Story With Zero Hedge, Exposes Deep Conflicts At "Impartial" Budget Office | ZeroHedge
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ar7%202012.pdf
    All future budget predictions rely on fundamental assumptions. This is true in our private lives as well. When you plan out your next vacation, you makes some fundamental assumptions. Like that your house won't burn down before vacation. That none of your family will get sick, or have some other emergency. That there will not be a hurricane at your vacation location. That you won't lose your job.

    The government has to make assumptions, and every single assumption can be used as a political tool to attack opponents with.

    This claim that the CBO is a front for Wall Street is contradicted in it's own findings.
    alleges supervisors stifled opinions that contradicted economic fixes endorsed by some on Wall Street, including research from a Morgan Stanley economist who served as a CBO adviser.
    Notice, the economist was from Morgan Stanley, and had research that opposed the economic fixes endorsed by Wall Street.

    Notice also, the economic fixes were only endorsed by *SOME* on Wall Street.

    If the CBO was a 'front for Wall Street' as this article claims, the economist from Morgan Stanley would never oppose the Wall Street consensus. And at least there would in fact be a Wall Street consensus.

    The fact that only *SOME* people on Wall Street endorsed the economic fixes, is about as relevant as *SOME* doctors support Obamacare, and *SOME* high school teachers support the stimulus. Big deal, *SOME* of every group support various positions on various issues.

    It's like saying 40% of all sick days are on Monday and Friday.


    Thanks for posting your link. It was an nice read, but there's no real evidence for the claim.

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,031

    Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Congress care didn't reform the health care system, it simply transferred cost with a few good previsions. Real health care reform would start with the overhaul our abolishment of insurance companies.



    In his example you aren't paying for it which was my point



    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    You are failing to make your point because you wont elaborate.

  6. #106
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    You are failing to make your point because you wont elaborate.
    That's because the only access to the net I have at this time is on my phone. Anyways, the basic premise is that health insurance unintentionally drives up prices because no onebegin huntswhile at the same time screwing people over by refusing to cover various treatments

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-29-13 @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,106

    Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    That's because the only access to the net I have at this time is on my phone. Anyways, the basic premise is that health insurance unintentionally drives up prices because no onebegin huntswhile at the same time screwing people over by refusing to cover various treatments

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Which explains why insurance companies operating in states with lax regulations of insurance, have very low premiums, while states with very tight regulations on insurance, have very high premiums.

    Now why would an insurance company not drive up prices in low regulation states?

    Why would insurance companies drastically drive up prices in high regulation states?

    Answer: In states with low regulations, many insurance companies can compete with each other over many varying policies. This competition drives down the price.

    In state with very high regulations, where each policy is a cookie cutter from the government imposed regulation, there's no way to compete. Further, with every expensive service mandated to be covered, the price is pushed up higher and higher.

  8. #108
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    I don't care about the price if insurance. I care about the cost of care

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-29-13 @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,106

    Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    I don't care about the price if insurance. I care about the cost of care

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Insurance doesn't drive up the cost of care.

    The cost of care is simply the result of having good care.

  10. #110
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkles View Post
    Insurance doesn't drive up the cost of care.

    The cost of care is simply the result of having good care.
    Then you need to do some more research. Start with hmos

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •