• 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!

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years

Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

AdamT said:
And what is the purpose of the mandate, do you think? The purpose is to dissuade people who can afford insurance from free-riding on you and me.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Ahhh...thanks for telling me that.

So, do you think it's worth the added taxes and fees?

Do you think it's worth it to the woman working two jobs trying to make ends meet?
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

AdamT said:
More accurately, you're probably paying about half the cost or less of your health insurance and your employer is paying the other half. Your employer is deducting its share of the insurance from its taxes, and of course you don't pay income or payroll taxes on the compensation you receive in the form of health insurance. Those tax preferences cost the treasury about $500 billion per year. In other words, people who have health insurance also receive government assistance, and have for many decades.
Click to expand...

Now I see where you are coming from. It's all the government's money.
 
jonny5 said:
No, so Im confused as to why any of that is my problem. I work and pay for my own health care plan, and they treat me fine. So why should I pay for a huge govt program?
Click to expand...

1) you aren't paying for it
2) its crap like what that poster went through as to why 90% of the reforms in congresscare was needed.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

AdamT said:
More accurately, you're probably paying about half the cost or less of your health insurance and your employer is paying the other half. Your employer is deducting its share of the insurance from its taxes, and of course you don't pay income or payroll taxes on the compensation you receive in the form of health insurance. Those tax preferences cost the treasury about $500 billion per year. In other words, people who have health insurance also receive government assistance, and have for many decades.
Click to expand...

My employer pasts any cost down to me, and the govt any deductions down to me through federal taxes, so Im paying for all of it.
 
xpiher said:
1) you aren't paying for it
2) its crap like what that poster went through as to why 90% of the reforms in congresscare was needed.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My paycheck says I am paying for it. Still not sure how the crap the poster may have gone through is my problem to pay for.
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

UtahBill said:
Our son works, and pays, and thought he was covered....

they treat you fine NOW, wait til you need very expensive procedures......

they treated my grandchild fine, when all she had was minor illnesses, but once she got the tumor, all bets are off...first they tried to say her parents knew she had the tumor when they bought the insurance, but that effort failed....so they paid.
THEN, after exhausting all chemo options (5 years on chemo), her doctor got her on an trial drug that seems to work. Her insurance company wants off the hook for quarterly MRI's that would have been required anyway, they want the drug company to pay for them. Sounds almost reasonable, but they aren't stepping up.
Problem is, neither their insurance company or the doctors or hospital told the parents that they would have to pay for the MRI's and doctor visits, etc. during the trial phase. They now owe about $30K....and he is a teacher who hasn't had a pay raise in 4 years, despite finishing his masters degree.
They pay $530 per month for the policy, $1500 annual deductible, then the insurance company is supposed to pay 100%.
The district covers him as part of his benefits, but not his family.
Even that is changing, I read in the paper today that he will have to pay $80 per month starting next fall.
If they got their family insurance thru his school district, it would be $1,000 per month.
14 years teaching, and his pay is about $50K....
If it wasn't for what the wife and I give them, they would be filing bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

So, again, how is this my problem to pay for?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Wrong. Reference the actual report, they are both gross figures:

March 2010 (Table 2)

View attachment 67124061

March 2012 (Table 2)

View attachment 67124062

There is nothing factually incorrect in the OP's article.
Click to expand...



@Redress

I'd like to think you simply made a mistake with the information but here's the issue: You claimed that the article was misleading, went out of your way to show why, but ended up doing the same thing you claimed the article did.

Or are you going to say that March 2010 CBO chart is incorrect?



As an aside, I listened to multiple cable news outlets from CNN, to CNBC and Fox and they all seemed to identify that the costs have indeed almost doubled.
 
Ockham said:
@Redress

I'd like to think you simply made a mistake with the information but here's the issue: You claimed that the article was misleading, went out of your way to show why, but ended up doing the same thing you claimed the article did.

Or are you going to say that March 2010 CBO chart is incorrect?



As an aside, I listened to multiple cable news outlets from CNN, to CNBC and Fox and they all seemed to identify that the costs have indeed almost doubled.
Click to expand...
So far as I can tell every reputable news source in the country has reported the same thing. That projected cost have doubled and furthermore (though I can't recall which candidate said it at which one) this was part of the discussion at one of the debates. The projected cost have doubled, it will be an election issue and IMO anyone wishing to live in a bubble and not acknowledge the fact will have a hard time doing so in coming days. In fact if I were a betting man I'd bet you real money that we still have not seen what the true cost will be and the final cost will far exceed "double" what was billed, in the end.
 
Gie said:
So far as I can tell every reputable news source in the country has reported the same thing. That projected cost have doubled and furthermore (though I can't recall which candidate said it at which one) this was part of the discussion at one of the debates. The projected cost have doubled, it will be an election issue and IMO anyone wishing to live in a bubble and not acknowledge the fact will have a hard time doing so in coming days. In fact if I were a betting man I'd bet you real money that we still have not seen what the true cost will be and the final cost will far exceed "double" what was billed, in the end.
Click to expand...

And the moral here is: Don't trust the media, don't trust other posters, only trust yourself.

Sad actually but that's reality.
 
Ockham said:
And the moral here is: Don't trust the media, don't trust other posters, only trust yourself.

Sad actually but that's reality.
Click to expand...
I have found that we have posters here who have both cited the CBO as evidence of a thing, and in other threads claimed that the CBO is unreliable and not evidence of a single thing. So yes, best to trust to your own intellect.
 
Gie said:
So far as I can tell every reputable news source in the country has reported the same thing. That projected cost have doubled and furthermore (though I can't recall which candidate said it at which one) this was part of the discussion at one of the debates. The projected cost have doubled, it will be an election issue and IMO anyone wishing to live in a bubble and not acknowledge the fact will have a hard time doing so in coming days. In fact if I were a betting man I'd bet you real money that we still have not seen what the true cost will be and the final cost will far exceed "double" what was billed, in the end.
Click to expand...
the estimate is 195% of what it was
what you have failed to have observed is that the new estimate covers a period 167% of what it was
this larger number covers a larger number of years than the old estimate
 
justabubba said:
the estimate is 195% of what it was
what you have failed to have observed is that the new estimate covers a period 167% of what it was
this larger number covers a larger number of years than the old estimate
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of the OP's article:

... to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years."

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate
Click to expand...

All gross costs are rounding errors prior to 2014.

PS: It's actually 150% :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
That was the whole point of the OP's article:



All gross costs are rounding errors prior to 2014.

PS: It's actually 150% :2wave:
Click to expand...
no, the focus was on the expanded estimate

no context was provided to explain that those more costly numbers represented additional years, too
 
justabubba said:
no, the focus was on the expanded estimate

no context was provided to explain that those more costly numbers represented additional years, too
Click to expand...

Well if you white-out the direct quote from the article they don't....

"That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate"
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Well if you white-out the direct quote from the article they don't....

"That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate"
Click to expand...
here you go. the OP's opening remarks
cpwill said:
....that is almost double what we were told as the dang thing was being passed.

Everyone who was foolish enough to buy the line of BS about how "Obamacare will lower the deficit"..... Here's your sign.



and again. as cpwill keeps saying. Obamacare will never be fully implemented. not because of politics, or the supreme court, or anything else, but just plain because we can't. we do not have the fiscal capacity to add this putrid oozing monstrosity to the pile of entitlements we are already sinking under.
Click to expand...
i put in bold his focus, the projected cost increase
now, point out where he placed that in context to indicate those revised numbers included more years covering health care
 
cpwill said:
....that is almost double what we were told as the dang thing was being passed.

Everyone who was foolish enough to buy the line of BS about how "Obamacare will lower the deficit"..... Here's your sign.
Click to expand...

Let's chill for a moment and take a look at what the CBO actually said. First of all, it's misleading for the author of the op-ed to make the following assertion: "President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law." This incorrectly makes it seem as though the budget estimate has worsened considerably, when that isn't the case. The reason that the projection for the NEXT ten years (i.e. 2012-2022) looks worse than the original ten-year projection (i.e. 2010-2020) is because we are two years closer to the main provisions actually taking effect in 2014. So naturally the costs over the next decade will be more than they originally were. As the CBO's report says:

The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012–2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a surprise, it's been part of their estimates since the beginning. The budget picture for equivalent time periods has actually improved slightly ($38 billion) since their last estimate last year. And again, the reasons for this don't have much to do with the ACA itself...they're mostly due to external factors: 1) New legislation which slightly reduced the cost of the ACA, 2) A worse economic outlook which slightly increased the cost of the ACA, 3) A slower growth in private insurance premiums which slightly reduced the cost of the ACA.

and again. as cpwill keeps saying. Obamacare will never be fully implemented. not because of politics, or the supreme court, or anything else, but just plain because we can't. we do not have the fiscal capacity to add this putrid oozing monstrosity to the pile of entitlements we are already sinking under.
Click to expand...

The United States (including governments, corporations, and individuals) spends $2.5 trillion per year on health care. At its peak, the ACA is projected to cost $169 billion per year...or less than 7% our total health care spending. And even most of THAT isn't new spending...it's just a transfer of costs from individuals/businesses to the government. People have to spend their money on health care some way or another. If not through the ACA, then through individual insurance premiums, or through lower salaries to pay for health benefits, or through not having health insurance and getting sick more often and dying sooner. So let's not pretend that this is some brand new cost that just came out of nowhere. If we can't afford the ACA, then we certainly can't afford our existing model of health care.
 
justabubba said:
Rhapsody1447 said:
That was the whole point of the OP's article:
Click to expand...
no, the focus was on the expanded estimate

no context was provided to explain that those more costly numbers represented additional years, too
Click to expand...

Notice the context. I clearly stated that the point of the article was to expose the accounting gimmicks that pushed the full 10-year cost estimate out by four years. Now that we are beginning to get an idea of what the actual 10-year cost of the program is, it exposes the misleading statements made by the President:

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
Click to expand...

It wasn't technically a lie, but it's purposely misleading due to the fact that the program isn't even operating for four out of the ten years the President is referencing. The point of the article was to expose this accounting trick for what it is. If you want to look at the 10-year cost of a program you have to start counting when the program is actually implemented.
 
jonny5 said:
My paycheck says I am paying for it. Still not sure how the crap the poster may have gone through is my problem to pay for.
Click to expand...

You aren't paying for his insurance.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Is it not true that when Obama sold Obamacare, the numbers were projected over a 10 yr period, with no cost for 4 yrs and only cost for 6 yrs. Thus the average for those 10 years was a scam. Now the CBO is taking into account 2 yrs of no spending and 8 yrs of spending. Thus in two more years we'll have a new number that will be higher yet. Senator Sessions is stating it will be 2.5 trillion in cost for a full 10 yr period. So much for saving cost. Obama and clan sold us yet another entitlement that we can't pay for. Thank you very much.
 
xpiher said:
You aren't paying for his insurance.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The taxpayers pay for 800bn a year in medical care. Im a taxpayer. Thus Im paying for someone elses medical care.
 
Kandahar said:
Let's chill for a moment and take a look at what the CBO actually said. First of all, it's misleading for the author of the op-ed to make the following assertion: "President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law." This incorrectly makes it seem as though the budget estimate has worsened considerably, when that isn't the case. The reason that the projection for the NEXT ten years (i.e. 2012-2022) looks worse than the original ten-year projection (i.e. 2010-2020) is because we are two years closer to the main provisions actually taking effect in 2014. So naturally the costs over the next decade will be more than they originally were. As the CBO's report says:
Click to expand...
So in summary, the plan was sold using accounting gimmicks, just like everyone said.

This wasn't a surprise, it's been part of their estimates since the beginning. The budget picture for equivalent time periods has actually improved slightly ($38 billion) since their last estimate last year. And again, the reasons for this don't have much to do with the ACA itself...they're mostly due to external factors: 1) New legislation which slightly reduced the cost of the ACA, 2) A worse economic outlook which slightly increased the cost of the ACA, 3) A slower growth in private insurance premiums which slightly reduced the cost of the ACA.
Click to expand...
A worse economic outlook which was the result of federal government policies.

The United States (including governments, corporations, and individuals) spends $2.5 trillion per year on health care. At its peak, the ACA is projected to cost $169 billion per year...or less than 7% our total health care spending. And even most of THAT isn't new spending...it's just a transfer of costs from individuals/businesses to the government. People have to spend their money on health care some way or another. If not through the ACA, then through individual insurance premiums, or through lower salaries to pay for health benefits, or through not having health insurance and getting sick more often and dying sooner. So let's not pretend that this is some brand new cost that just came out of nowhere. If we can't afford the ACA, then we certainly can't afford our existing model of health care.
Click to expand...

If you look at it from a government accounting page, ACA increases the government's health care spending by 18% per year. Since ACA passed, year over year health care spending has increased beyond the normal increases.
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

jonny5 said:
So, again, how is this my problem to pay for?
Click to expand...

it isn't. but it is an indication that we need health care reform.
BUT, remember your words, they may come back to haunt you. When it is YOU who has to file bankruptcy because the insurance industry has congress under their thumbs, you will be wanting some govt program to protect you....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom