• 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!

Obamacare adds $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities

ZIRP4EVA

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
94
Reaction score
34
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap...

The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.

Obamacare | Shortfall | Jeff Sessions | The Daily Caller

I distinctly remember Obama saying the law "wouldn't add a dime" to the debt total.
 
Obamacare | Shortfall | Jeff Sessions | The Daily Caller

I distinctly remember Obama saying the law "wouldn't add a dime" to the debt total.

Are you serious? A Senate Republican staffer came up with this revelation? And they're just now getting around to reading the bill? :lol:

AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.
 
Are you serious? A Senate Republican staffer came up with this revelation? And they're just now getting around to reading the bill? :lol:

AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.

In fairness to the CBO do you really believe the assumptions that they were asked to score? Why do some continue with the same tired arguments that almost noone believes is true.

If we can't have a honest discussion why waste people's time?
 
In fairness to the CBO do you really believe the assumptions that they were asked to score? Why do some continue with the same tired arguments that almost noone believes is true.

If we can't have a honest discussion why waste people's time?

If you want to have a serious discussion, why don't you start by naming the assumptions that you think are unrealistic?
 
If you want to have a serious discussion, why don't you start by naming the assumptions that you think are unrealistic?


OK I have not read the whole thing but here are some examples.

- The $500 billion of unspecified savings from medicare. Even when/if people come up with savings it will be needed just to keep medicare solvent.

- Most people will get to keep the insurance they have. There have been some detailed studies from capable consulting forms that say the numbers of folks thrown
off their employer based system will be orders of magnitude higher than the bill states.

- No realistic annual increases to doctors and hospitals, the so-called doc fix that gets added each year.

- No provision to increase the supply of doctors although demand will increase. I jokingly asked a doctor the other day how many extra hours a day he will work to
cover a large increase in potential consumers.

- Expecting that the mandate which in the early years is only a fine of about $800 bucks per year will "force people into the system" which costs a lot more than that.
Might have been realistic if they had a catastropic insurance program for the healthy young that are willing to take their chances.

- The taxes built into the program. Obama is calling for higher taxes in many forms already for the wealthy. How many times can you count the same tax increase.

- I don't know what they used for health care inflation but am willing to bet it is lower than what our actual experience has/ will be.

That was a couple of minutes of thinking. Now I don't know or acknowledge the $17 trillion number, probably BS as well.

Just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't give tens of millions of people something for free and expect it to have a cost of below zero.
 
OK I have not read the whole thing but here are some examples.

- The $500 billion of unspecified savings from medicare. Even when/if people come up with savings it will be needed just to keep medicare solvent.

The savings are not "unsepcified".

"Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. PolitiFact | $500 billion from Medicare for Obamacare, Mitt Romney says

- Most people will get to keep the insurance they have. There have been some detailed studies from capable consulting forms that say the numbers of folks thrown
off their employer based system will be orders of magnitude higher than the bill states.

There are been reports that come out on every side of the question. Personally I see no reason why employers would drop coverage. And in fact, we don't have to guess what would happen. In Massachusettes, where Romney instituted a nearly identical plan, employer coverage actually increased by 3%.

- No realistic annual increases to doctors and hospitals, the so-called doc fix that gets added each year.

The doc fix isn't part of AHCA. It's been going on for years and it will probably continue with or without AHCA.

- No provision to increase the supply of doctors although demand will increase. I jokingly asked a doctor the other day how many extra hours a day he will work to
cover a large increase in potential consumers.

I agree that it's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's a structural rather than a cost problem and so has nothing to do with the CBO's cost estimates.

- Expecting that the mandate which in the early years is only a fine of about $800 bucks per year will "force people into the system" which costs a lot more than that.
Might have been realistic if they had a catastropic insurance program for the healthy young that are willing to take their chances.

Again, we don't have to guess. The Massachusettes example suggests that it would be effective.

- The taxes built into the program. Obama is calling for higher taxes in many forms already for the wealthy. How many times can you count the same tax increase.

The CBO does not assume taxes that haven't been proposed.

- I don't know what they used for health care inflation

Why am I not surprised?

That was a couple of minutes of thinking. Now I don't know or acknowledge the $17 trillion number, probably BS as well.

Just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't give tens of millions of people something for free and expect it to have a cost of below zero.

You should have taken a few more minutes to think about it. None of the alleged false assumptions you listed appear to be false assumptions.
 
It is so imperative that the SCOTUS throws Obamacare out..............It will bankrupt our country.....
 
Are you serious? A Senate Republican staffer came up with this revelation? And they're just now getting around to reading the bill? :lol:

AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.

Actually if I recall correctly they only measured what was known of the bill at the time. Remember, when they did their estimate the bill wasn't even signed into law yet.

Unless they have done another one since that I am not aware of?
 
Obamacare | Shortfall | Jeff Sessions | The Daily Caller

I distinctly remember Obama saying the law "wouldn't add a dime" to the debt total.

When did Obama say that? The agreement was for 1 trillion over the first 10 years, which the program met. In fact this whole thing is a ****ing joke. Random republicans make claims about **** that might happen 75 years from now...somehow that just does not convince me. Really, projecting 10 years from now is painfully inaccurate, and this random republican claims he can predict 75 years from now?
 
Actually if I recall correctly they only measured what was known of the bill at the time. Remember, when they did their estimate the bill wasn't even signed into law yet.

Unless they have done another one since that I am not aware of?

There has been a couple more since the bill wasfinalized.
 
It is so imperative that the SCOTUS throws Obamacare out..............It will bankrupt our country.....

So the job of the Supreme Court is not to rule just on constitutionality? Where did you get that idea my left wing activist judge supporting friend?
 
So the job of the Supreme Court is not to rule just on constitutionality? Where did you get that idea my left wing activist judge supporting friend?

Well, SCOTUS did order the EPA to run more tests beyond what Congress had mandated of them. What did that have to do with the Constitution?
 
When did Obama say that? The agreement was for 1 trillion over the first 10 years, which the program met. In fact this whole thing is a ****ing joke. Random republicans make claims about **** that might happen 75 years from now...somehow that just does not convince me. Really, projecting 10 years from now is painfully inaccurate, and this random republican claims he can predict 75 years from now?

Except Obama misleadingly referred to the first 10 years after the PASSAGE of the bill and not the IMPLEMENTATION of the bill. In doing so, he could exclude 4 years of costs from the "cost" of the program and thus make it seem half as expensive as it really was.
 
Except Obama misleadingly referred to the first 10 years after the PASSAGE of the bill and not the IMPLEMENTATION of the bill. In doing so, he could exclude 4 years of costs from the "cost" of the program and thus make it seem half as expensive as it really was.

So saying "10 years after passage" is misleading? No one claimed after implementation. The fact that it was not fully implemented for 10 years was something debated and discussed prior to the bills passage. And yet it is misleading....
 
Well, SCOTUS did order the EPA to run more tests beyond what Congress had mandated of them. What did that have to do with the Constitution?

What are you talking about and what does it have to do with what I said?
 
So saying "10 years after passage" is misleading? No one claimed after implementation. The fact that it was not fully implemented for 10 years was something debated and discussed prior to the bills passage. And yet it is misleading....

It's misleading to describe the 6 year cost of a program as a 10 year cost.
 
It's misleading to describe the 6 year cost of a program as a 10 year cost.

But it is not misleading to say that the cost of the program from now until 10 years is X. The cost was done in a completely aboveboard manner, with plenty of documentation.
 
But it is not misleading to say that the cost of the program from now until 10 years is X. The cost was done in a completely aboveboard manner, with plenty of documentation.

Obviously the term misleading is highly subjective. My point is that when you make the announcement as follows, you are hardly being explicit:

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.
 
Obviously the term misleading is highly subjective. My point is that when you make the announcement as follows, you are hardly being explicit:

His statement was factually correct. So what is the problem?
 
AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.

by counting more years of taxes than benefits and having a whole host of false assumptions, yes.

you may want to read some more up-to date analysis : CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion

and that's just in the shift to 2012: $836 Billion added. Imagine when we hit 2014 and we are scoring a full actual 10 years of costs.
 
Last edited:
AdamT:
Care to explain this one:
"The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama's health care law 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.

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

Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion,"

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

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck... this law needs to be redone.
 
Last edited:
But it is not misleading to say that the cost of the program from now until 10 years is X.

interesting. would you say it is not misleading to wave a 10-year score of the Ryan Budget, and say that it does not cut a single dime from Medicare?
 
interesting. would you say it is not misleading to wave a 10-year score of the Ryan Budget, and say that it does not cut a single dime from Medicare?
yes, please, if only the democrats could be consistent enough to apply the same standards to republican bills...
 
Back
Top Bottom