Printable View
Remember when Obamacare was forced down our throats.
Remember when the CBO said Obamacare would actually cut the deficit by 200 billion over ten years.
Remember how we posted an article by past CBO head Elmendorf who said these numbers are only based on what the Demtards gave them.
Well, now that the real numbers are in...
CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-10-yrs/425831
And that $1.76 TRILLION is really over 9 years not 10!
When they do a full 10 years of spending it's over $2.1 TRILLION, which will add another 1 trillion in debt over 10 years.
I only watched a little of CNN last night, but was supprised I didn't hear about this at all yesterday.
How cool would it be to ONLY add 2 trillion in debt over 10 years. (200 billion X 10)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougles
b.b.
So I guess your premise would cut/eliminate all the other Fed programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
That $2,000,000,000,000 would be on top of the $9,000,000,000,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
What is your point. It's not a intelligent to spend money you don't have along without the means to pay it back. basically it's stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderBob
Consider the alternative. We go back to millions of people not being insured, and instead of getting timely, preventative care, people will get sicker and sicker until they're using the Emergency Room for all their critical health care needs. Then, not only are we paying for it anyway, but in the most expensive and least efficient manner conceivable.Quote:
Originally Posted by WNYresident
Paying for it would be simple if we had adults in Congress and not petulant children.
And it's going to cost less. What the CBO estimate says is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOVEDNY
Yep. I didn't see people dying in our streets because obama care wasn't around. Did you? You simply can't spend money you don't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
If memory serves, people were dying at a rate of 45,000 a year just because they didn't have access to health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by WNYresident
You mean a study in the 1980's should that 40,000 people died because of lack of HEALTH INSURANCE, not health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
So going from "saving" $25 billion (the revised number after Obamacare was passed) but costing $1.1 Trillion to costing $2.1 trillion is going to save even more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Simple math would show that it will add over $1 Trillion in new debt over ten years... if that's what you want to call "savings" we have bigger issues.
People die everyday... There are no less people dying right now on earth because Obama started a health care plan. Seeing we have something called the internets. Point me to your scientific facts that less people are dying less a year because of Obama Care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Just based on your posts on this thread alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
I'd say your memory serves you poorly.
What is the weather like on your planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Tough to justify the expense when Obamacare has caused the number of uninsured to rise 17%.
Check out how Blacks and Hispanics were hardest hit.
Women who are uninsured have risen by double digits also.
We're supposed to be outraged that the Catholics won't let their employees get free birth control.
But the fact that millions of women have lost their insurance under obamacare, no problem.
4 more years of this.http://www.gallup.com/poll/152162/Am...0-%20Wellbeing
ObamaCare Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
ObamaCare was built upon so many lies and deceptions it's hard to keep track, but this week revealed three in particular. What was it that Nancy Pelosi said about having to "pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"?
Lie Number 1: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." --Barack Obama in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress
The Congressional Budget Office at the time did confirm Obama's numbers, but the CBO scores legislation only as written, without any assumptions or reality checks, and therefore accounted for just six years of spending because most provisions of the law don't kick in until 2014. There were other revenue and cost games, too, since it was paramount that the cost be less than the Iraq War so Democrats could sell it as saving money. We weren't fooled then and neither were millions of Americans, but Democrats rammed it through anyway.
This week, the CBO released an updated report that includes three more years of ObamaCare inside that 10-year window. The estimated cost over a decade is now an eye-popping $1.76 trillion, or nearly twice what Democrats told us in 2009. Not only that, but it won't be until next year that we get a truer 10-year cost estimate, assuming the law isn't repealed or overturned by the Supreme Court. That estimate will surpass $2 trillion. Let's hope Justice Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the right side of the bed the day he makes his decision.
Lie Number 2: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." --Barack Obama in August 2009, but repeated often
Obama and his fellow Democrats insisted that ObamaCare was not a government takeover of health care, and that, while all the uninsured would be cared for, none of the currently insured would lose coverage. However, The Hill reports, "Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures, far more than the 1 million people estimated last year." You can check our math, but that's approximately four million more people than Obama promised in his 2009 speech. By 2022, the CBO says that number could reach 20 million. More employers dropping coverage in favor of paying the penalty means a revenue increase, too, improving ObamaCare's bottom line.
As if to make good news out of broken promises, CBS headlined, "CBO lowers health reform cost estimate." This bit of deception referenced the provision meant to cover the uninsured when the real news was about the overall cost increase. It's true that the coverage cost was revised lower, but that's only because some two million fewer people will be insured than originally estimated, not because of any great savings.
Lie Number 3: "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." --Barack Obama in the aforementioned September 2009 address
The Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule this week establishing state health care exchanges, and those plans will collect from each premium payer a $1 surcharge to fund abortions. Obama's HHS will use accounting gimmicks to circumvent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion. Former Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and other Democrats made a grand show over this issue in 2010, refusing to vote for the health care takeover until Obama included a ban on funding abortion. They got their wish, but Obama hasn't upheld his end of the bargain.
It's becoming more and more important that this unconstitutional atrocity be either struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by our alleged representatives. The White House has already mapped out a desperate strategy to boost public support. Perhaps it's no wonder that the law's supporters are organizing a prayer vigil as the Court hears arguments March 26. To whom they will be offering prayer is another matter.
*Source - http://patriotpost.us/edition/2012/03/16/digest/
No Dougles, I mean the 2009 study that said exactly what I remembered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougles
And let's be realistic, these days, health insurance is practically the same as healthcare. Unless you're independantly wealthy, you don't have access to healthcare without insurance.Quote:
A study published online today estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” appears in today’s online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/septem...udy_finds_.php
As Dougles pointed out, there is a difference between health insurance and health care. Since you're an idiot, I wanted to reiterate the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
I addressed that point. Explain how the average American can just go get a liver transplant or heart surgery without going bankrupt -- unless they have insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
You've only succeeded in reiterating your own idocy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
You led with people die due to not having access to healthcare. Which is BS. Changing the topic to affording the procedures does not help you look like less of a fool. There are people with insurance who still can not afford a transplant without going bankrupt.
Of course..instead of actually going after the difficult task of making healthcare more affordable...President Obama simply just wants to cover the tab.
The biggest challenge is that we waste so much money on healthcare every year. A liver transplant does not cost $350,000 to perform. But a liver transplant is billed at $350,000 to cover the waste that can not be covered.
To give you an example, sadly I know the hospital checkout procedure all to well. In the last 3 years a loved one has been in the hospital 6 times. In four of those visits they were kept in the hospital over the weekend simply because discharge was done on Friday in the AM and they could not get processed in time. Since the cost of a night in the hospital is $3k to $5k, that is about $12k to $20k that was wasted simply because of clerical bs. Now this was covered by insurance but not every visit is.
Another example is in the ER. I have a very close friend who is an ER doc in Nevada. Due to several factors about 80% of what they do is 100% unnecessary. Even worse is the majority of their work is for those who do not have insurance. It all adds to the bottom line.
At the end of the day the ability to get a new liver or heart should not be cheap and it should not be free. But if you want to cry about people going bankrupt...
1 - Consider they do not give a f*ck as they are still walking the earth broke
2 - Complain about the waste that adds to their bill.
The whole point of this was to lower insurance costs for EVERYONE who was paying for it, namely employers and employees. Instead it went into a cover everyone plan with government mandates and therefore increasing the cost to people like myself. My premiums jumped bigtime. This is what you call an EPIC FAIL!!!! Everyone who didn't have insurance loves it because they think its "free". WRONG!!!!!:eek:
You still haven't explained how having insurance is not the same as having access to health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
I didn't change the subject, what I said is a fact. Most people are not able to afford even low-level costs, like chemotherapy or getting an MRI, to say nothing of a major surgery. Mandating that the insurance companies couldn't refuse to cover you because you're sick was the right thing to do. Yes, there are flaws, and the actual cost of healthcare needs to be addressed. In the long run, 30 Million more people will be covered, it will save us money over the next decade and reduce the deficit. That's the bottom line.
2009 study from the PNHP or...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Physicians For a National Health program.
No bias here.:applause:
My company's HI premium for family coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by mnb811
2008. $1,570/month.
2012 (We renew on May 1st) $2,190/month.
We pay half of the premium(100% for singles, 70% for couples)
So my employees with family coverage will have to fork over $250/week.
2 have already indicated they will drop the coverage.
And of course we've been hit with mandates that caused this rise.
Yet those so called exchanges are not available yet.
So I guess my employees are SOL.
Millions have lost their HI since Obamacare was passed.
How can this be Mindless?
How delusional can one be? It seems Obama is a wizard and has his followers under a spell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
And the entire CBO, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Broughton
Millions have lost their HI since Obamacare was passed.
How can this be Mindless?
*sigh* Duh. Hover over "2014," and tell the class what you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOVEDNY
DuhQuote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Do you ever read what you link?
I followed the tabs on the Obamacare propaganda site.
I put in the info. based on one of my employees who are going to drop coverage.
You know what options your linked website gave me?
1) Keep coverage via COBRA. Or pay $500/week when they couldn't afford $250/week.
2) Don't get sick until 2014 or die early.
Once again Mindless.
If Obamacare was going to cover 30 million MORE Americans.
How come the uninsured is up 17%?
Any person can walk into a public hospital and by LAW cannot be refused treatment that will stabilize said person. In cases, this includes very costly procedures like dialysis, surgeries and other lifesaving procedures. For a person who claims to work in Doc Management you should be coming in contact with doctors and lawyers on a daily basis and know such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
Health insurance is ONLY a form of payment, Health Care is the ACT of treating an illness.
You seem like the person that would go to a knife fight with a banana.
Oh and the newest CBO report stated that less than 20 million people will be covered. SO the price went up by 1 Trillion and the number of people being covered went down by 50%.
I should not have to explain the obvious...even to idiots like yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
I have always wondered why the delay. if this play is so great why wasn't it put in place right away so Obama could run for reelection on how great it worked. His 10 year plan was flawed from the start. when passed money to pay for it has to start being collected even through it does not start until four rears later, the first four years money is collected with no bills to pay then six years of paying. all of this juggling is so they can average the 6 year cost out over 10 years and make it seem lower.
I ask why is this needed if this plan is so great. now it is too late Obama will run on what he cliams it will do one more time. I see many of my freinds who have already lost coverage because of the rising cost I can not Imagine how many more will loose coverage or their jobs as the full plans cost hits the economy
Yes, you can be treated for life-threatening, emergency conditions and not be turned away. And as I said, when you wait until it gets to that point, and go to the ER, we are all paying for it. That's not just socialism, but the most expensive, least efficient form of socialism. So why not pay a fraction of that cost when it can be resolved with a prescription or simple treatment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougles
Did you pull this out of your butt, too? I've never said such a thing.Quote:
For a person who claims to work in Doc Management you should be coming in contact with doctors and lawyers on a daily basis and know such things.
No, waiting until your only course of action is to go to the emergency room is not healthcare. That's a hail mary to keep yourself alive. Health care is getting regular checkups, having tests done at the first sign of trouble, or engaging in ongoing treatment. Last minute, stabilizing treatment in the ICU is like saying fixing your brakes after they give out is good car care.Quote:
Health insurance is ONLY a form of payment, Health Care is the ACT of treating an illness.
And you keep slipping on the peel and wind up poking yourself.Quote:
You seem like the person that would go to a knife fight with a banana.
You obviously didn't read the report. You read what some right-wing smear machine said the report said. Otherwise, you'd realize how foolish you sound.Quote:
Oh and the newest CBO report stated that less than 20 million people will be covered. SO the price went up by 1 Trillion and the number of people being covered went down by 50%.
Translation: "I can't explain that..."Quote:
Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage have also changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured.
The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections. In that year, CBO and JCT now estimate that there will be 2 million fewer enrollees in insurance exchanges. In the other direction, CBO and JCT now estimate that, in 2016, the ACA will increase enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP slightly more than previously estimated (but considerably more in 2014 and 2015), and it will reduce the number of people with nongroup or other coverage by 3 million less and the number of uninsured people by 2 million less than previously estimated.
Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years.
From 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under prior law.
And here is the key fact.
Changes in the Economic Outlook
In its January 2012 economic forecast, CBO revised its projections of certain economic factors that will affect the number of people eligible for subsidized health insurance coverage under the ACA through Medicaid, CHIP, or the health insurance exchanges. In that forecast, the unemployment rate is higher throughout the projection period than it was in last year’s forecast. CBO also now estimates that wages and salaries will be lower than it previously anticipated.
Those changes yield an increase in the projected number of people eligible for Medicaid and CHIP as a result of the ACA. They also yield a small reduction in the number projected to be eligible for subsidies for purchasing insurance through the exchanges. That reduction is the net effect of two changes resulting from the forecast of lower incomes: More people are now projected to be eligible for Medicaid or CHIP rather than for exchange subsidies, and at the same time, some people whose incomes were expected to be too high for them to be eligible for exchange subsidies are now projected to be eligible for them.
So I guess if I use Mindless logic.
Obamanomics has crippled this economy to such an extent that more of us will be eligable for Da
Gubermint Insurance.
And in Libtard land, this is a good thing.
By RON JOHNSON
One year after the passage of ObamaCare, this paper published an op-ed I wrote ("ObamaCare and Carey's Heart") about how America's health-care system saved my daughter's life, and describing how implementing this law will limit innovation, lead to rationing, and lower the quality of care. Now, two years out, I would like to focus on the budgetary disaster.
As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly claimed that his health-care plan would lower annual family health-insurance premiums by $2,500 before the end of his first term as president. But the Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that the average family premium has increased $2,200 since the start of this administration.
Then there is the higher cost to taxpayers. The CBO's initial estimate in March 2010 of ObamaCare's budget impact showed it saving money, reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years. But that positive estimate was largely the product of gimmicks inserted into the bill by Democratic leaders to hide the law's true cost.
Sure enough, the administration last October announced it would not implement one of those gimmicks, a long-term care program called the Class Act, because it was financially unworkable. The loss of the premiums that would be collected to finance the Class Act wiped out $70 billion of the supposed deficit reduction projected by CBO. And last month the administration's proposed fiscal 2013 budget included $111 billion in additional spending for the premium subsidies in the health law's insurance exchanges—further eroding any confidence in the original ObamaCare projections.
This would not be the first time a government program exceeded its projected cost. When Medicare was passed in 1965, for example, the federal government estimated it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Medicare actually cost $110 billion in 1990.
In the case of ObamaCare, one of the principal sources of the lowball estimate used to justify the law is related to the insurance exchanges. The CBO originally estimated that one million Americans would lose their employer-sponsored care and be forced into the exchanges.
But a McKinsey & Co. study in June 2011 showed that 30%-50% of employers plan to stop offering health insurance to their employees once the health law is implemented in 2014. Last week the CBO breezily dismissed this and other studies on the ground that "it is doubtful that any survey conducted today could provide very accurate predictions of employers' future decisions."
As someone who purchased group health insurance for over 31 years, I fully understand why the McKinsey study is more credible than the CBO.
Why? Because the decision employers face under ObamaCare is straightforward: Do they pay $20,000 per year for family coverage, or do they pay the $2,000 penalty to the government?
It is not as if dropping health coverage will expose their employees to financial risk. They will thereby make employees eligible for huge subsidies in the health-care exchanges—$10,000 if their household income is $64,000 per year. In a competitive environment, ObamaCare provides the incentive for employers to drop coverage.
According to the CBO, 154 million Americans are covered under employer-sponsored plans. What would be the cost to taxpayers if 50% of those individuals lost their coverage and became eligible for subsidies? The answer is difficult to calculate, but CBO's answer is basically: Don't worry, revenues will increase automatically to cover those costs (for example, employees' taxable incomes will increase when they lose employer-provided coverage).
In reality, as government assumes a greater share of health-care costs, pressure to cut payments to providers will be enormous. Reduced government reimbursements to providers will cause massive cost-shifting to those remaining in the private health-insurance market. More employees will lose coverage. Before long, we will have what the left has long sought—a single payer health-care system modeled after Medicaid.
In recent testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told me that America's health insurance system is in a "death spiral." She failed to acknowledge that implementation of ObamaCare will be the cause of that death spiral, and American taxpayers will be left to pick up the tab.
In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Mr. Obama promised: "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what." I'm not sure what you would call that statement, but whatever you call it, it was a doozy.
Mr. Johnson, a Republican, is a senator from Wisconsin.
We need to end our employer based HC system and must move to a private national plan that is funded via a sales tax.