• 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 $2 Trillion over next decade, leave 31 million uninsured

SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying that either every other major media outlet is completely lying about the CBO's findings, or the Washington Examiner is wrong. Being the Washington Examiner is not exactly known as a pillar of journalistic integrity, I have a feeling that its not every other media outlet that's lying.
Click to expand...

So yes, you do think in fact that claim that the cost is estimated at 1.993 Trillion, and that the numbers of those net added to the rolls is estimated at 27 million is a lie?

Is the CBO also lying, when it claims that the CBO says that?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
So yes, you do think in fact that claim that the cost is estimated at 1.993 Trillion, and that the numbers of those net added to the rolls is estimated at 27 million is a lie?
Click to expand...

I am saying, and I posted plenty of links to other articles to back up my claim, that every major media outlet is reporting that the ACA is coming under cost estimates primarily due to reduced healthcare inflation. Thus the Washington Examiner is most likely spinning the CBO numbers in a way that is misleading. Where the Examiner is correct is the CBO does estimate that 31 million will still lack coverage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm just a lowly Canadian, but does anyone else find it odd, and not a little troubling, that the CBO comes out with as many alternate scenarios, evaluations, predictions, methodologies, etc. when reporting on costs related to the ACA as climatologists and climate change "gurus" do when sucking and blowing about global warming?
Click to expand...

Aren't the CBO reports generated by request from Congress members? And if so, isn't it possible that these request may incorporate different scenarios themselves?
 
Greenbeard said:
Market dynamics in many rating areas is either bringing in lower priced competitors or forcing existing carriers to mitigate increases (if not outright decrease premiums). Competition works, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

The increased usage of High-Deductible plans probably does indeed play a strong role, but you are well aware (because I have pointed out to you before) that the decrease in rate of growth of healthcare costs started during the Bush administration.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying, and I posted plenty of links to other articles to back up my claim, that every major media outlet is reporting that the ACA is coming under cost estimates primarily due to reduced healthcare inflation. Thus the Washington Examiner is most likely spinning the CBO numbers in a way that is misleading. Where the Examiner is correct is the CBO does estimate that 31 million will still lack coverage.
Click to expand...

Here is the OP:

President Obama's healthcare law will spend about $2 trillion over the next decade on expanding insurance coverage but still leave 31 million Americans uninsured, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office released on Monday.

When Obama pitched the healthcare law to Congress, he said it would cost "around $900 billion" over 10 years. But his statement was misleading because the way the law was designed, the major spending provisions didn't kick in until 2014. This meant that 10-year estimates at the time the law was passed in 2010 were artificially low, because they included four years (2010 through 2013) in which spending was negligible.

The new CBO analysis finds that between fiscal years 2016 and 2025, spending on the law's expansion of Medicaid will cost $920 billion and insurance exchange subsidies will cost nearly $1.1 trillion. The major spending provisions, taken together, will total $1.993 trillion....

By 2025, the end of the projection period, the CBO projects that Obamacare will increase insurance coverage by a net of 27 million, while 31 million will remain uninsured.
Click to expand...

Feel free to point to the section that you think is a lie.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying that either every other major media outlet is completely lying about the CBO's findings, or the Washington Examiner is wrong. Being the Washington Examiner is not exactly known as a pillar of journalistic integrity, I have a feeling that its not every other media outlet that's lying.
Click to expand...

Let's not get carried away here. Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times are hardly pillars of anything, let alone journalistic integrity.

What's fascinating to me is how completely different the takes are, depending on the message that is intended to be given.
 
ocean515 said:
Let's not get carried away here. Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times are hardly pillars of anything, let alone journalistic integrity.

What's fascinating to me is how completely different the takes are, depending on the message that is intended to be given.
Click to expand...

So is Bloomberg liberal spin?
 
cpwill said:
Here is the OP:



Feel free to point to the section that you think is a lie.
Click to expand...

From Bloomberg:

The fate of President Obama's signature healthcare law may turn on a forthcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a new report by the Congressional Budget Office finds that, if left untouched, the Affordable Care Act is poised to become even more so.

Obamacare, as it is commonly known, will cost 20 percent less than previously projected over the next decade, the CBO said Monday. The reason for the revised estimate is a result of a decline of healthcare inflation, the Los Angeles Times reported. In addition, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by 12 million, the CBO estimates, and an additional 12 million are expected to gain insurance by the end of 2016.
Click to expand...

Obamacare Will Cost 20% Less Than Initial Projections, CBO Says - Bloomberg Politics
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am saying that either every other major media outlet is completely lying about the CBO's findings, or the Washington Examiner is wrong. Being the Washington Examiner is not exactly known as a pillar of journalistic integrity, I have a feeling that its not every other media outlet that's lying.
Click to expand...


Seems the Washington Examiner isn't the only one.....huh?



CBO: Deficits To Explode As Obama Leaves Office.....

29.png


Immediately after Obama leaves office, however, deficits are expected to rise steadily thanks mostly to growth in mandatory health care spending programs like Obamacare. By 2025 the CBO estimates that our nation's federal deficits will again top $1 trillion a year. For comparison's sake the highest deficit ever under President Bush was $458 billion.

27.png


According to the CBO, in 2017 the federal government will be spending $384 billion a year on Medicaid, almost double what it spent before Obama became president. Spending on Obamacare's insurance exchanges is also set to rise from $15 billion in 2014 to $93 billion in 2017.....snip~

CBO: Deficits To Explode As Obama Leaves Office - Conn Carroll
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There seems to be some conflicting reporting here. The vast, vast majority of news outlets are reporting that the CBO found the ACA will cost less than predicted:

Obamacare Costs to Drop 20% - The Daily Beast

Obamacare To Cost Far Less Than Estimated, Budget Office Says

Obamacare cost to be 20% less than forecast, budget office says - LA Times

Obamacare Will Cost 20% Less Than*Initial Projections, CBO Says - Bloomberg Politics



That is the problem when you use some rag like the Washington Examiner as a source.
Click to expand...



Seriously you are calling this a rag and using the huff and puff post LA politics now etc top prove it.

Progressives never change......iI stopped believing 98% out of your mouths the day Obama won the nomination.


"You can keep your plan" written for "stupid voters" with "tortured language"......anything claimed by the White House or its followers after than is mysticism.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Seriously you are calling this a rag and using the huff and puff post LA politics now etc top prove it.

Progressives never change......iI stopped believing 98% out of your mouths the day Obama won the nomination.


"You can keep your plan" written for "stupid voters" with "tortured language"......anything claimed by the White House or its followers after than is mysticism.
Click to expand...

I simply gave the Huffpost as an example. I quoted Bloomberg. Is Bloomberg a liberal rag??

From NPR's reporting on the issue:

The CBO also found that implementing the Affordable Care Act will not be as expensive as it originally predicted when the law was passed in 2010. Instead of costing $710 billion through 2019, the complex law will only cost $571 billion through its first decade.

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf attributed the lower cost partly to the 2012 Supreme Court decision ruling that states did not have to participate in the law's expansion of Medicaid. But Elmendorf said much of the savings comes from lower health insurance costs and lower health insurance premiums over the past several years.
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...4/the-cbos-good-news-bad-news-economic-report

Of course being its NPR (widely considered one of the best news media sources on the planet), I am sure you will dismiss that too.
 
MMC said:
Seems the Washington Examiner isn't the only one.....huh?



CBO: Deficits To Explode As Obama Leaves Office.....

29.png


Immediately after Obama leaves office, however, deficits are expected to rise steadily thanks mostly to growth in mandatory health care spending programs like Obamacare. By 2025 the CBO estimates that our nation's federal deficits will again top $1 trillion a year. For comparison's sake the highest deficit ever under President Bush was $458 billion.

27.png


According to the CBO, in 2017 the federal government will be spending $384 billion a year on Medicaid, almost double what it spent before Obama became president. Spending on Obamacare's insurance exchanges is also set to rise from $15 billion in 2014 to $93 billion in 2017.....snip~

CBO: Deficits To Explode As Obama Leaves Office - Conn Carroll
Click to expand...

Its because of an aging population, not the ACA. The ACA has nothing to do with projections for increases in future deficits. For that, you should blame the high fertility rates of the Baby Boomers parents.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its because of an aging population, not the ACA. The ACA has nothing to do with projections for increases in future deficits. For that, you should blame the high fertility rates of the Baby Boomers parents.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that they didn't use the link from the CBO PDF file? Does it change the fact that the rates will explode after BO is gone?
 
Greenbeard said:
The CBO estimates of the price tag of the ACA has been sinking since 2010. From this week's report:

9azfc0.png
Click to expand...

I would also point out that because of the decline in healthcare inflation, the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has increased by several years as well.
 
MMC said:
Are you saying that they didn't use the link from the CBO PDF file? Does it change the fact that the rates will explode after BO is gone?
Click to expand...

Obama could have never been born and future deficits would still increase substantially due to the huge number of Baby Boomers retiring, each of them getting on Medicare, each of them signing up for Social Security. It is demographic trends, not the ACA. In fact, the ACA actually improved the outlook somewhat because healthcare inflation has declined and thus improved the fiscal outlook for the Medicare trust fund. NPR has a good article on the CBO's findings / projections here:

The CBO's Good News, Bad News Economic Report : It's All Politics : NPR
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Obama could have never been born and future deficits would still increase substantially due to the huge number of Baby Boomers retiring, each of them getting on Medicare, each of them signing up for Social Security. It is demographic trends, not the ACA. In fact, the ACA actually improved the outlook somewhat because healthcare inflation has declined and thus improved the fiscal outlook for the Medicare trust fund. NPR has a good article on the CBO's findings / projections here:

The CBO's Good News, Bad News Economic Report : It's All Politics : NPR
Click to expand...

Yet, after all that's said and done over 31 million will still be left without healthcare.
 
MMC said:
Yet, after all that's said and done over 31 million will still be left without healthcare.
Click to expand...

Primarily due to many states not opting for the Medicaid expansion.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I notice you didn't mention anything about the great rise in deductibles and patient copays found in many new plans under the ACA. That can significantly lead to fewer people accessing healthcare thus reducing the overall cost of healthcare. Doesn't necessarily make Americans healthier and could mean that Americans are less wasteful with healthcare dollars, but it seems to me that would be a significant impact on your "cost curve bending".
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why the slowdown has showed up for the public payers, as well. Medicare and Medicaid have experienced the same bending of the cost curve the private sector has. For instance, from this week's CBO report:

After adjusting for inflation (as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures), Medicare spending per beneficiary is expected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent between 2015 and 2025, whereas it averaged real annual growth of 4 percent between 1985 and 2007 (excluding the jump in spending that occurred in 2006 with the implementation of Part D). [...]

A second factor is the slowdown in the growth of Medicare spending across all types of services, beneficiaries, and major geographic regions in recent years. Although the reasons for that slower growth are not yet entirely clear, CBO projects that the slowdown will persist for some years to come.5 For example, since March 2010, CBO has reduced its projection of Medicare outlays in 2020 (the last year included in the March 2010 projection) by $122 billion, or about 14 percent, based on subsequent analysis by its staff and other analysts of data on Medicare spending.
Click to expand...

The bending of the cost curve has appeared across the entirety of the American health care sector over the past few years.
 
Greenbeard said:
The CBO estimates of the price tag of the ACA has been sinking since 2010. From this week's report:

9azfc0.png
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to a CBO estimate of any kind that was accurate 10 years out?
 
Fletch said:
Do you have a link to a CBO estimate of any kind that was accurate 10 years out?
Click to expand...

The argument five years ago was that they were underestimating the costs of the law. Turns out they were overestimating it (e.g., exchange subsidies in FY14 were ~25% lower than the 2010 CBO score assumed).

Over the last five years, it's become apparent that they overestimated the costs of the new spending in the ACA and underestimated the amount of savings we'd see in Medicare.
 
Greenbeard said:
The argument five years ago was that they were underestimating the costs of the law. Turns out they were overestimating it (e.g., exchange subsidies in FY14 were ~25% lower than the 2010 CBO score assumed).

Over the last five years, it's become apparent that they overestimated the costs of the new spending in the ACA and underestimated the amount of savings we'd see in Medicare.
Click to expand...

So we can expect the same sort of accuracy from this group ten years from now?
 
azgreg said:
Aren't the CBO reports generated by request from Congress members? And if so, isn't it possible that these request may incorporate different scenarios themselves?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, and I don't know the answer. I guess it would depend on how independent a body the CBO is or isn't. I thought it operated as an unbiased third party review but if it simply generates reports based on limited or biased input then their findings wouldn't be that valuable.
 
Fletch said:
So we can expect the same sort of accuracy from this group ten years from now?
Click to expand...

They tend to err on the side of caution, so we may well see them continue to revise their estimates downward as time goes on sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom