• 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

jonny5 said:
The taxpayers pay for 800bn a year in medical care. Im a taxpayer. Thus Im paying for someone elses medical care.
Click to expand...

you always have, and always will....there are MANY who can afford insurance, but would rather spend it on dining out, cable TV, cell phones, etc. than buying insurance. So when their kid breaks his arm, YOU the taxpayer, will be subsiizing their life style when they take the kid to the emergency room, and never pay for the care....
I had an 18 month gap between retiring and getting my Navy Reserve retirement benefits at age 60, and had no medical care coverage from employer, so I bought a major medical policy for that 18 months. Those policies are cheap, yet too many slackers refuse to buy them, letting the rest of us pay the costs.
Health care insurance should be required for those who can afford it....
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

UtahBill said:
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....
Click to expand...

No, I wont. I can take care of myself. If you want reform, then get the govt out of it so you have more control. Leave me alone.
 
UtahBill said:
you always have, and always will....there are MANY who can afford insurance, but would rather spend it on dining out, cable TV, cell phones, etc. than buying insurance. So when their kid breaks his arm, YOU the taxpayer, will be subsiizing their life style when they take the kid to the emergency room, and never pay for the care....
I had an 18 month gap between retiring and getting my Navy Reserve retirement benefits at age 60, and had no medical care coverage from employer, so I bought a major medical policy for that 18 months. Those policies are cheap, yet too many slackers refuse to buy them, letting the rest of us pay the costs.
Health care insurance should be required for those who can afford it....
Click to expand...

Im paying for it because you make me. Stop charging me, and the problem is solved. If you want to force people to have health insurance, amend the constitution or do it at the state level.
 
Samhain said:
So in summary, the plan was sold using accounting gimmicks, just like everyone said.
Click to expand...

Depends what you consider an "accounting gimmick." The main provisions of the ACA were always slated to start in 2014, so it's not as if it's some surprise that the ten-year cost increases every year as we get closer to 2014. You can call that an accounting gimmick if you like, but it was always baked into the ACA from the beginning. Furthermore, the CBO has projected that the ACA will save more money in the second ten years than it does in the first ten years, so if it's just an accounting gimmick it's not a very effective one. Per the CBO, savings actually start to INCREASE beyond the first ten years.

A worse economic outlook which was the result of federal government policies.
Click to expand...

That may be your opinion and it's a topic for a different thread, but it's still an external factor. A worsening economic outlook will tend to make MOST government programs cost more...this is nothing unique to the ACA. Furthermore, the other two variables that the CBO mentioned slightly reduced the cost of the ACA, which resulted in a slight lowering of the overall projected costs.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that we SHOULDN'T look at it from purely a government accounting standpoint, because those health care costs are already part of the economy in one way or another. It's just moving the costs from one place to another, rather than incurring an entirely new cost. Ultimately, we the people are the ones who are funding the government. So if we're spending too much on our health care (which we are), THAT is the problem. Not the fact that we are now paying for it via taxes rather than via insurance premiums, lower salaries, and/or chronic sickness.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Im paying for it because you make me. Stop charging me, and the problem is solved. If you want to force people to have health insurance, amend the constitution or do it at the state level.
Click to expand...

I am not making you do anything....I don't like subsidizing others any more than you....
BUT, we are, as long as slackers exist, we will subsidize them.
Sorry you can't see that....
 
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

UtahBill said:
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....
Click to expand...

We have Obamacare, is that not the reform your speaking of, or are you suggesting we need to repeal Obamacare and start over? If it's the latter I agree.
 
New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

New CBO Health Law Estimate Shows Much Higher Spending Past First 10 Years | Fox News

The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama's [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]health [COLOR=blue !important]care [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]law[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive -- twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.
In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO's update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.


Read more: New CBO Health Law Estimate Shows Much Higher Spending Past First 10 Years | Fox News
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see when the mainstream media reports this in full. I'll hold my breath.

Would bend-over Georgie Snuffaluffagos even dare ask Obama this question in a debate?
 
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

Same topic was posted in another forum. The bottom line is that the new estimate actually predicts that the net cost of HCR will be $48 billion LOWER than previously estimated due to lower insurance cost and higher revenue projections.
 
Last edited:
Re: CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs (Oooops... that's double what t

Born Free said:
We have Obamacare, is that not the reform your speaking of, or are you suggesting we need to repeal Obamacare and start over? If it's the latter I agree.
Click to expand...

start over, no......fix what we have, otherwise it will be a decade before any results....

IMO, we all need another card similar to SS card. It tells health care providers if you are current in your insurance payments, like proof of insurance you show the traffic cop when he asks for it. If not, you go to the back of the line. Adults who can afford insurance but just refuse to sign up, get shown the exit. And it should be very easy for health care providers to attach wages, intercept tax refunds, etc. or whatever it takes to get the money due from the slackers...
I have many relatives who are slackers, some directly related, some not so direct, and they have money for smokes, beer, dining out, expensive toys, etc.
If you are on the government teat, you live accoringly.....basic needs, no luxuries....
 
UtahBill said:
I am not making you do anything....I don't like subsidizing others any more than you....
BUT, we are, as long as slackers exist, we will subsidize them.
Sorry you can't see that....
Click to expand...

You support the policies which make me pay for it. Thus you are making me pay for it. Sorry you cant see that....
 
jonny5 said:
You support the policies which make me pay for it. Thus you are making me pay for it. Sorry you cant see that....
Click to expand...

If we make everyone have their own insurance, which is MY policy, how does that make you pay?

Also, there is no such thing as complete independence, self sufficiency, etc. We are all part of the social matrix that is the USA, like it or not. The existing infrastructure was paid for by all tax payer, and is also maintained by all taxpayers.
There is no free ride on those things either...
 
UtahBill said:
If we make everyone have their own insurance, which is MY policy, how does that make you pay?

Also, there is no such thing as complete independence, self sufficiency, etc. We are all part of the social matrix that is the USA, like it or not. The existing infrastructure was paid for by all tax payer, and is also maintained by all taxpayers.
There is no free ride on those things either...
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay for the people who dont? Me, right? And we arent talking about complete independance, only not having federal control of healthcare. I am 100% ok with eliminating all federal programs that regulate healthcare beyond constitutional powers.
 
jonny5 said:
Who is going to pay for the people who dont? Me, right? And we arent talking about complete independance, only not having federal control of healthcare. I am 100% ok with eliminating all federal programs that regulate healthcare beyond constitutional powers.
Click to expand...

the people who don't, get fined, have their tax refunds taken, have their wages attached....
those who TRULY can't, we take care of like a good country, christian or not, should....
The number who truly cannot pay for insurance is likely a very small number.
The number of adults who just scam the system, should be allowed to remain untreated unless they pay cash in advance.
 
UtahBill said:
the people who don't, get fined, have their tax refunds taken, have their wages attached....
those who TRULY can't, we take care of like a good country, christian or not, should....
The number who truly cannot pay for insurance is likely a very small number.
The number of adults who just scam the system, should be allowed to remain untreated unless they pay cash in advance.
Click to expand...

So, yes, I will have to pay. So youve now forced me to purchase something, and made me pay for someone who didnt abide your dictatorship. Why not just leave me out of it? You can buy insurance and pay for others, and Ill take care of myself. We'll call it the free market.
 
jonny5 said:
So, yes, I will have to pay. So youve now forced me to purchase something, and made me pay for someone who didnt abide your dictatorship. Why not just leave me out of it? You can buy insurance and pay for others, and Ill take care of myself. We'll call it the free market.
Click to expand...

you don't think the "free" market is screwing you financially?
 
I don't know why people are complaining about this. We're supposed to understand that this is for our own good no matter what it costs. I think.
 
Meanwhile, all of our premiums have gone up. Thanks, President Butthead.
 
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

AdamT said:
Same topic was posted in another forum. The bottom line is that the new estimate actually predicts that the net cost of HCR will be $48 billion LOWER than previously estimated due to lower insurance cost and higher revenue projections.
Click to expand...

:doh the $48 Bn loss is due to lower employment than originally projected, and the higher revenue projections are based on the same fallacious assumptions that produced the claim that we would be sitting on 6.5% unemployment today.
 
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

cpwill said:
:doh the $48 Bn loss is due to lower employment than originally projected,
Click to expand...

So? A weaker economy will tend to raise the costs of MOST federal programs. This isn't something unique to the ACA.

and the higher revenue projections are based on the same fallacious assumptions that produced the claim that we would be sitting on 6.5% unemployment today.
Click to expand...

You mean a misreading / overestimation of the current state of the economy? That may be possible, but there's really no way to know in advance, and it might just as easily be underestimating the current state of the economy. All the CBO can do is make the best estimates with the data they currently have.
 
Born Free said:
We have Obamacare, is that not the reform your speaking of, or are you suggesting we need to repeal Obamacare and start over? If it's the latter I agree.
Click to expand...

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.

jonny5 said:
The taxpayers pay for 800bn a year in medical care. Im a taxpayer. Thus Im paying for someone elses medical care.
Click to expand...

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

Kandahar said:
You mean a misreading / overestimation of the current state of the economy? That may be possible, but there's really no way to know in advance, and it might just as easily be underestimating the current state of the economy. All the CBO can do is make the best estimates with the data they currently have.
Click to expand...

That's the point. That's why conservatives only care about the gross cost estimates. They recognize that revenue projections in 2021, and consequently "deficit savings", are completely unreliable. Frankly the fact that the CBO predicts it will "save" an extra $48 billion over the next 10 years is irrelevant in comparison to the projection it will cost an extra $822 billion.
 
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

Rhapsody1447 said:
That's the point. That's why conservatives only care about the gross cost estimates. They recognize that revenue projections in 2021, and consequently "deficit savings", are completely unreliable.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that there is no predictive value whatsoever in CBO estimates? I agree that they don't have a crystal ball and their numbers are likely to be off...sometimes by quite a bit depending on the program. But the estimates still have value in informing the relative scale of the changes.

Frankly the fact that the CBO predicts it will "save" an extra $48 billion over the next 10 years is irrelevant
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. $48 billion is just noise...a better way to phrase it is to say that the numbers essentially have not changed since last year and the prediction is still on track.

in comparison to the projection it will cost an extra $822 billion.
Click to expand...

There is no such projection. As I mentioned earlier, this "extra" cost simply comes from the fact that we're one year closer to the provisions actually taking effect in 2014, so they're eliminating a year from the ten-year estimate (2011) in which they were not in effect and adding a year (2022) in which they are. Obviously that's going to increase the ten-year cost; it's nothing surprising or unanticipated. The CBO's report acknowledges as much.
 
Last edited:
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

Kandahar said:
So you're suggesting that there is no predictive value whatsoever in CBO estimates? I agree that they don't have a crystal ball and their numbers are likely to be off...sometimes by quite a bit depending on the program. But the estimates still have value in informing the relative scale of the changes.
Click to expand...

To say they have zero predictive value would be a little hard on the kind folks over at the CBO. I mean, after all, they did project a $5.610 trillion surplus through fiscal year 2011 in 2002. The reality is that projecting economic growth rates 10-years into the future is literally impossible.

Kandahar said:
There is no such projection. As I mentioned earlier, this "extra" cost simply comes from the fact that we're one year closer to the provisions actually taking effect in 2014, so they're eliminating a year from the ten-year estimate (2011) in which they were not in effect and adding a year (2022) in which they are. Obviously that's going to increase the ten-year cost; it's nothing surprising or unanticipated. The CBO's report acknowledges as much.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. That was the point of the article and a point I clearly acknowledged in my previous post. That is why when the President said the program would cost $900 billion over 10 years he was being terribly misleading. It would take 3 years just to know what the 10 year cost will be.
 
Re: New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

Rhapsody1447 said:
To say they have zero predictive value would be a little hard on the kind folks over at the CBO. I mean, after all, they did project a $5.610 trillion surplus through fiscal year 2011 in 2002. The reality is that projecting economic growth rates 10-years into the future is literally impossible.
Click to expand...

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.

Yes, I understand. That was the point of the article and a point I clearly acknowledged in my previous post. That is why when the President said the program would cost $900 billion over 10 years he was being terribly misleading. It would take 3 years just to know what the 10 year cost will be.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom