• 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

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,793
Reaction score
40,054
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wait - what? I thought it was supposed to cut the deficit along with reducing the cost of our premiums by $2500 and letting people who liked their plans stay on them!

.......I..... I don't understand. :( Maybe we aren't Hoping hard enough? :(


Anywho, as was widely predicted:

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....
Click to expand...

Oh - but there is good news!

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...

Only 31 million uninsured, and we increase net insurance by 27 million for that cost of $1.993 T

Meaning.... (wait a second, gotta do some math... carry the zero... divide by the imaginary number... convert into and then back out of root 8... seasonally adjust for insurance policies "saved or created....) we're only going to spend an average of a little under $74,000 per individual added to the insurance rolls. Hooray, Government!



:doh
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Wait - what? I thought it was supposed to cut the deficit along with reducing the cost of our premiums by $2500 and letting people who liked their plans stay on them!

I don't understand. Are we not Hoping hard enough?


Anywho, as was widely predicted:



Oh - but there is good news!



Only 31 million uninsured, and we increase net insurance by 27 million for that cost of $1.993 T

Meaning.... (wait a second, gotta do some math... carry the zero... divide by the imaginary number... convert into and then back out of root 8... seasonally adjust for insurance policies "saved or created....) we're only going to spend an average of a little under $74,000 per individual added to the insurance rolls. Hooray, Government!



:doh
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the fruits of dynamic scoring!
 
How dare you count the wrong decade. ;)
 
Kushinator said:
Ahhh, the fruits of dynamic scoring!
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting. Scanning it I don't see where they highlighted that change in methodology. Can you point to it?
 
can't wait to see all the but but but's that come from obamacare lovers on this site.

not to mention that people on the exchange some saw a 20% increase in their healthcare if they kept the same plan as they did before.
that obamacare site automatically enrolled people in the 2nd lowest costing silver plan if they didn't renew their current plan.

which probably meant lower coverage and more out of pocket expenses but hey you get it cheap right?

mean while insurance companies continue to throw the overages onto company and working people to help sure up the shortages.
next year I will be switching to an HSA plan through my company.

I just hope they decide front load the plan more than what they do now.
 
cpwill said:
Now that's interesting. Scanning it I don't see where they highlighted that change in methodology. Can you point to it?
Click to expand...

Can you provide the actual CBO analysis?
 
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

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...

That is the problem when you use some rag like the Washington Examiner as a source.
 
Of course, the Washington Examiner will have done its job being that I am sure this thread will go on for hundreds of posts despite the fact the premise is total horse****.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course, the Washington Examiner will have done its job being that I am sure this thread will go on for hundreds of posts despite the fact the premise is total horse****.
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting. You are arguing that the premise of this thread (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 total horse****?
 
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...

Of course PPACA cost less than was "guessed" by the CBO in the initial decade because its implementation was delayed and the SCOTUS eliminated the mandatory Medicaid expansion.
 
I just read this article.... but it was the DailyMail version.

Obamacare program costs $50,000 for every American who gets health insurance | Daily Mail Online


Oh how American's are so easily duped by Obama. It would have been easier and cheaper and less divisive to just put the uninsured into Medicaid and be done with it. Instead Democrats and Obama forced an entire change of the US Healthcare system which as I said from the beginning, was no where near affordable and certainly did not improve quality or expand care. A complete and very expensive failure - an expense which will continue to go up as more taxes kick in to pay for the system that may work on a state level, but obviously is an abortion at a national level.

Perhaps that was the plan - fail horribly and then again sell American's on the new and improved snake oil --- single payer. The anticipation is making me..... well sick.
smiley96.gif
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Wait - what? I thought it was supposed to cut the deficit along with reducing the cost of our premiums by $2500 and letting people who liked their plans stay on them!

.......I..... I don't understand. :( Maybe we aren't Hoping hard enough? :(


Anywho, as was widely predicted:



Oh - but there is good news!



Only 31 million uninsured, and we increase net insurance by 27 million for that cost of $1.993 T

Meaning.... (wait a second, gotta do some math... carry the zero... divide by the imaginary number... convert into and then back out of root 8... seasonally adjust for insurance policies "saved or created....) we're only going to spend an average of a little under $74,000 per individual added to the insurance rolls. Hooray, Government!



:doh
Click to expand...

Does that mean that all we have to do is not initiate any more wars and
it will pay for itself with savings generated by lack of barbarism and
terror? But what will happen to the poor foresaken billionaires that make
a living from death, chaos, destruction and our very profitable wars?
 
Interesting report. The money quote, from CBO's explanation of why their spending projections have been falling (23% in 2019 alone):

Another notable influence on the downward revision to projected federal costs is the slowdown in the growth of health care costs that has been experienced by private insurers, as well as by the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although views differ on how much of the slowdown is attributable to the recession and its aftermath and how much to other factors, the slower growth has been sufficiently broad and persistent to persuade the agencies to significantly lower their projections of federal health care spending. In particular, since early 2010, CBO and JCT have reduced their 2016 projections of both insurance premiums for policies purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid spending per beneficiary by between 10 percent and 15 percent.
Click to expand...

The cost curve is bending.
 
Ockham said:
I just read this article.... but it was the DailyMail version.

Obamacare program costs $50,000 for every American who gets health insurance | Daily Mail Online


Oh how American's are so easily duped by Obama. It would have been easier and cheaper and less divisive to just put the uninsured into Medicaid and be done with it. Instead Democrats and Obama forced an entire change of the US Healthcare system which as I said from the beginning, was no where near affordable and certainly did not improve quality or expand care. A complete and very expensive failure - an expense which will continue to go up as more taxes kick in to pay for the system that may work on a state level, but obviously is an abortion at a national level.

Perhaps that was the plan - fail horribly and then again sell American's on the new and improved snake oil --- single payer. The anticipation is making me..... well sick.
smiley96.gif
Click to expand...

that is exactly what it was about. to try and crash the insurance market by flooding it with sick people. the insurance market wouldn't be able to cover the costs and people would be screaming for a government solution.

the problem is that insurance companies have hiked the rates to adjust across the board.
so they are continuing to make money. although now healthcare costs have skyrocketed. even on the exchange people saw a 20% increase or more for their plan.

that doesn't count private businesses.

that will be the next excuse healthcare is now to expensive for private people to pay anymore so we need a UHC system in which we will need a 30-40% tax
to pay for.

I mean look at Vermont. it was going to cost them an additional 2b dollars to have a UHS.

so lets do it this way. most nations spend per capita 3500 per person.

there is approximately 300m people living in the US. that would cost 1 trillion dollars.
however I see the cost being way higher than that. I mean look at Obamacare it was suppose to cost 900b and it is at 2 trillion.

so we might was well triple the cost of a UHS to 3 trillion just to be on the safe side.
that would equate to about 10k a person. which is the average cost of a healthcare plan now for a family not a person.
 
Kushinator said:
We should expect an even more interesting revision this spring.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Likely downward:

However, CBO and JCT expect to revise their estimates of premiums in the baseline projections to be published this spring. Those revisions will incorporate the economic projections that are included in this report, additional analysis of the available information about health care costs and insurance premiums, and revised estimates of the demographics of people receiving coverage through the exchanges. On the basis of the early stages of that analysis, CBO and JCT anticipate lowering their projections of premiums and thus the federal cost of exchange subsidies during the 2016–2025 period—though changes in other aspects of the coverage estimates and further analysis might lead to different conclusions.
Click to expand...

That has been the pattern lately.
 
ludin said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/u...rdable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0

say what again?
how is it that premiums going up to 20% in some cases showing the cost going down? ol yea it isn't.
Click to expand...

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.

More Competition Helps Restrain Premiums In Federal Health Marketplace
A surge in health insurer competition appears to be helping restrain premium increases in hundreds of counties next year, with prices dropping in many places where newcomers are offering the least expensive plans, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal premium records. . .

The number of insurers offering silver plans, the most popular type of plan in 2014, is increasing in two-thirds of counties, according to the analysis. In counties that are adding at least one insurer next year, premiums for the least expensive silver plan are rising 1 percent on average. Where the number of insurers is not changing, premiums are growing 7 percent on average.
Click to expand...
 
According to this April 2014 CBO report

CBO and JCT have updated their baseline estimates of the budgetary effects of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions many times since that legislation was enacted in March 2010. As time has passed, the period spanned by the estimates has changed
But a year-by-year comparison shows that CBO and JCT’s estimates of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the past four years (see the figure below).

That net downward revision is attributable to many factors, including changes in law, revisions to CBO’s economic projections, judicial decisions, administrative actions, new data, numerous improvements in CBO and JCT’s modeling, and lower projected health care costs for both the federal government and the private sector.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231
 
From the CBO report

The net cost estimate is 1.5 trillion but there are budgetary cuts included which will in effect reduce the federal deficits.

CBO and JCT Estimate That the Coverage Provisions of the ACA Will Have a Net Cost to the Federal Government of $1.5 Trillion Over the 2015–2024 Period
In the current interim projections, CBO and JCT estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in a net cost to the federal government of $41 billion in 2014 and $1,487 billion over the 2015–2024 period. (All of the dollar amounts discussed here are for federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 through September 30.) Compared with last year’s projections, which spanned the 2014–2023 period, the new estimate represents a downward revision of $9 billion in the net costs of those provisions over that 10-year period. (That revision is discussed in more detail in the last section.)

The estimated net costs in 2014 stem almost entirely from spending for subsidies that will be provided through exchanges and from an increase in spending for Medicaid. For the 2015–2024 period, the projected net costs consist of the following:

Gross costs of $2,004 billion for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), subsidies and related spending for insurance obtained through exchanges, and tax credits for small employers; and
Receipts of $517 billion from penalties on certain uninsured people and certain employers, an excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects—mostly increases in tax revenues.
The annual net costs are projected to rise noticeably over the next few years—to $151 billion in 2018— and then grow by more modest amounts in the following several years, reaching $173 billion in 2024.

All told, CBO and JCT now anticipate that, in each year during the period from 2017 through 2024, as a result of the ACA:

About 24 million or 25 million people will obtain health insurance each year through exchanges;
About 12 million or 13 million people will be added to the Medicaid and CHIP rolls;
About 6 million or 7 million fewer people will obtain insurance through their employer;
About 5 million fewer people will have nongroup or other coverage; and
About 25 million fewer people will be uninsured.
Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA; they do not constitute all of the act’s budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are projected to reduce budget deficits.

Considering all of the coverage provisions and the other provisions together, CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (the most recent comprehensive estimates) that the total effect of the ACA would be to reduce federal deficits. (See Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45159
 
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?
 
Greenbeard said:
Interesting report. The money quote, from CBO's explanation of why their spending projections have been falling (23% in 2019 alone):



The cost curve is bending.
Click to expand...

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".
 
cpwill said:
Now that's interesting. You are arguing that the premise of this thread (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 total horse****?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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...

Shhhh....ObamaCare is reducing healthcare costs ( by increasing it ).

They need a victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom