Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to CBO.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Next time you burst a bubble that loud, please warn me so I can turn down the volume of my speakers.

[mnealtx 0]

Sorry...will do!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,173]

>If you think it's perfectly fine to allow the government to mandate what procedures
>you will and will not have, then you are very naive. Very naive, indeed.

The only one here advocating that is Marks2065.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If you think it's perfectly fine to allow the government to mandate what procedures
>you will and will not have, then you are very naive. Very naive, indeed.

The only one here advocating that is Marks2065.

I'm guessing you haven't had much experience dealing with the V.A.

[billvon 3,173]

>I'm guessing you haven't had much experience dealing with the V.A.

Actually I have, and they will indeed decide what they want to pay for and what they won't. In fact your insurance company will do the same - they will mandate what procedures you will and will not have. Fortunately you can choose which insurance company you want, and even if the one you pick doesn't cover X, you can still pay for the procedure yourself.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I agree. Unfortunately nationalized healthcare removes that option. It also opens the door to more government control over your life and takes away many of the choices you have now.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Sweden, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK and other prosperous places with universal healthcare systems

Um - it doesn't pop my illusion about homogenous societies.

It doesn't pop my illusion about smaller populations.

It does pop the whole thing about wealth disparity, but that ain't my point.

But as the rest of the world catches up to the US in prosperity you'll find that they acquire the same diseases. English are getting fatter, for example. And we'll see that people et themselves into early graves

Obviously, socialism's lack of prosperity will prevent people from things like that. So I guess that long survival is a plus.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,226]

Quote

Quote

US is also behind Sweden, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK and other prosperous places with universal healthcare systems, which seems to pop your illusion.

And the attached graphic *definitely* pops your illusion.

Wrong. Different, partial data ignoring the entire meaning of "health".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Twice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming.

Just out of curiosity, have you guys read the actual CBO report?

Maybe its because I have to read it at work, but it clearly says:

"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period"

A rational and honest discussion would be where people actually read the paper haha

But yes, the projected cost by the CBO (the same study we are talking about in this topic) says that the projected cost ARE LESS than what was previously estimated.


The number 1,762B is the Gross expense (not the Net expense). Its the equivalent of saying Itunes for Apple cost 1.3Billion $ a year therefore Apple should drop Itunes.

And why haven't anyone mentioned RomneyCare and its studies? The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168
The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now.


So yes, point is:
Double the cost my arse. The CBO study indicates that ACA ObamaCare is cheaper than the initial cost projections.


Ah DZ Speaker's Corner. It never changes.

Cheers!
Shc

[ShcShc11 0]

Just out of curiosity, have you guys read the actual CBO report?

Maybe its because I have to read it at work, but it clearly says:

"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period"

A rational and honest discussion would be where people actually read the paper haha

But yes, the projected cost by the CBO (the same study we are talking about in this topic) says that the projected cost ARE LESS than what was previously estimated.


The number 1,762B is the Gross expense (not the Net expense). Its the equivalent of saying Itunes for Apple cost 1.3Billion $ a year therefore Apple should drop Itunes.

And why haven't anyone mentioned RomneyCare and its studies? The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168
The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now.


So yes, point is:
Double the cost my arse. The CBO study indicates that ACA (aka: ObamaCare) is cheaper than the initial cost projections.


Ah DZ Speaker's Corner. It never changes.

Cheers!
Shc"" [/ quote]


I forgot to put Link to CBO Study:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Right - places where you are expected to take oof yourself. As opposed to here, where you can give yourself high blood pressure and diabetes and demand pills for it that others pay for but then be non-compliant with medical advice re: diet.

Actually, Costa Rica has universal health care. They abolished their military to pay for that and education.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote
Right - places where you are expected to take oof yourself. As opposed to here, where you can give yourself high blood pressure and diabetes and demand pills for it that others pay for but then be non-compliant with medical advice re: diet.

Actually, Costa Rica has universal health care. They abolished their military to pay for that and education.

So are you saying that socialized health care prevents obesity and the other diseases of prosperity? I'm saying that yes, it does. At least it forestalls it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Twice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming.

Just out of curiosity, have you guys read the actual CBO report?

Maybe its because I have to read it at work, but it clearly says:

"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period"

A rational and honest discussion would be where people actually read the paper haha

But yes, the projected cost by the CBO (the same study we are talking about in this topic) says that the projected cost ARE LESS than what was previously estimated.


The number 1,762B is the Gross expense (not the Net expense). Its the equivalent of saying Itunes for Apple cost 1.3Billion $ a year therefore Apple should drop Itunes.

And why haven't anyone mentioned RomneyCare and its studies? The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168
The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now.


So yes, point is:
Double the cost my arse. The CBO study indicates that ACA ObamaCare is cheaper than the initial cost projections.


Ah DZ Speaker's Corner. It never changes.

Cheers!
Shc

Obama's initial claim that Obamacare was going to cost 900B (at most) was a gross cost promise. So when comparing, one would then compare today's CBO's gross projection w/Obama's previous gross cost promise. That's where the story is.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Obama's initial claim that Obamacare was going to cost 900B (at most) was a gross cost promise. So when comparing, one would then compare today's CBO's gross projection w/Obama's previous gross cost promise. That's where the story is.

Tell me where the number 940B$ come from.

I'l tell you where it comes from:
Its the estimated cost on a 10-year basis FROM 2010 [/B]. (2010-2020).

The new CBO is based on 2012-2022 and considering how ACA (aka Obamacare) doesn't start until 2014, the budget consideration has not been revised upwards.


Again, this is like saying:
Facebook's average cost 2008-2018 is higher than 2004-2014.

I know its hard to understand how Obamacare's cost is lower than budgeted/predicted, but that is what the CBO says. This whole 1.76T$ non-sense is worse than Enron cooking the number.


Cheers!
Shc

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The number 1,762B is the Gross expense

Yes. Gross expense. The whole campaign point was to keep it under $1 trillion gross expense for the decade. They knew that the only way to do it was to delay implementation until 2014, then claim that the expense would be under $100 billion per year, on average.

It is a gross expense – yes, $1.762 trillion of gross expense. An additional $1.762 billion of gross expense. Note – that’s about our friggin budget deficit the year the thing was passed, so let’s add another expense, eh?

Also note the CBO’s projections. Yes, comparing 2013-2022 to 2012-2021 is a bit apples and oranges. But take a look at what the CBO projected would happen.

First: the CBO now estimates that more people will obtain insurance through Medicaid that it estimated last year, which will cost the government more.

Second: fewer people will be getting their insurance through their employers or the subsidized exchanges.

Third: estimated revenue from new taxes and penalties will offset the cost increases from 1 and 2 above and 2 million fewer people will be covered under the law. (Yep. It won’t mean coverage for everybody. The CBO says this

Fourth: most of the increase of the amount to the $1.762 trillion number comes from the expansion of insurance coverage. The reason why the apples/oranges thing is there is because people will start getting covered in a couple of years. In other words, the true cost was always known to be put forward into the future until after the next presidential election and after revenues started coming it.

Fifth: The CBO notes that by 2022, there will be 3 million fewer people getting insurance through employers, that 17 million will be ADDED to Medicaid, and that 22 million will have coverage through the subsidized exchanges. So it’s an increase of 39 million people under government health care and a decrease in employer-provided healthcare. What was that said about there not being a government takeover of healthcare in the US?

So in a sense we have a much more expensive program than was campaigned.
The increase will be paid for by increased tax revenues and penalties
It will cover fewer people than we were told.
There will be people stuck in the middle who can neither get private insurance nor obtain government insurance.
The costs won’t decrease after 2021, as the CBO initially suggested.

Which is exactly what to expect from a government program. It’ll do less, cost more, and eliminate choice

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

The number 1,762B is the Gross expense

Quote

Yes. Gross expense. The whole campaign point was to keep it under $1 trillion gross expense for the decade. They knew that the only way to do it was to delay implementation until 2014, then claim that the expense would be under $100 billion per year, on average.

I'm not sure anymore if you're arguing in good faith or not. If you look at the CBO Study, the point is to look at Net Expense.

The whole campaign was based on net expense, not Gross Expense. The initial CBO projection was based on net, not gross.

When you look at a firm's Financial Statements, do you look at the Gross Revenue or the Net Income?
Do you look at a company like Dendreon and go: "oh its a great company because its Gross Revenue is high!". Of course not.

There was never any claim of 100B$ per year- and if there was, it was done in bad faith. But as far as I know, this 100B$ is your creation.

Quote

It is a gross expense – yes, $1.762 trillion of gross expense. An additional $1.762 billion of gross expense. Note – that’s about our friggin budget deficit the year the thing was passed, so let’s add another expense, eh?

First, the U.S was/is already paying 17% of its GDP on healthcare without ACA and that in itself is unsustainable. Its the highest among Western countries and quality that is often lacking.

Second, you have to understand how money works. Money that goes through the Government does not necessarily mean that all of it is "wasted". You have to look at the net effect of it. The CBO mentions (quite clearly) that it doesn’t add in other net effects such as medical care cost reductions.

See summary of post in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-health-reform-to-cut-deficit-by-50-billion-more-than-we-thought/2011/08/25/gIQAXgPSES_blog.html

Why yes, it can be a deficit reduction.


Again, I understand that it sounds completely counter-intuitive. If I remember correctly, we also discussed about fiscal policies. Those too sound counter-intuitive, but it is what the numbers say. Past studies show the same trend.

Somehow, I always thought that skydivers (out of all people) would be much more open-minded- to at least look at the details and figure out that there is much more elaborate story to it.

“Because the Government is always bad and wasteful!!!”

Quote

Also note the CBO’s projections. Yes, comparing 2013-2022 to 2012-2021 is a bit apples and oranges. But take a look at what the CBO projected would happen.

The CBO’s current study and past studies indicate that ACA is on track of its costs.

Quote

2 million fewer people will be covered under the law. (Yep. It won’t mean coverage for everybody. The CBO says this

If you want full coverage to everyone, then Universal Health Care is the answer. But that has been rejected quite adamantly in the 1990s. And would obviously gone nowhere in 2010.

Quote

most of the increase of the amount to the $1.762 trillion number comes from the expansion of insurance coverage. The reason why the apples/oranges thing is there is because people will start getting covered in a couple of years. In other words, the true cost was always known to be put forward into the future until after the next presidential election and after revenues started coming it.

Have you read CBO’s past studies?? This has ALWAYS been projected from the beginning.

Quote

So in a sense we have a much more expensive program than was campaigned.
The increase will be paid for by increased tax revenues and penalties
It will cover fewer people than we were told.
There will be people stuck in the middle who can neither get private insurance nor obtain government insurance.
The costs won’t decrease after 2021, as the CBO initially suggested.

Which is exactly what to expect from a government program. It’ll do less, cost more, and eliminate choice

Doom and Gloom.
Have you looked at RomneyCare? Are you going to read the study done on RomneyCare and still proclaim this?

This is more than "Government is good or bad". Its easy to cling on stereotypes, but the ones who have studied them clearly says that they are false.

Hard to believe huh??!

Source:
The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168

Had RomneyCare failed catastrophically, then I would have my doubts too. But the numbers say otherwise.



Cheers!
Shc

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

this is probably spelled out in the CBO report. Perhaps you should read it rather than guess?

So he should read it rather than guess?

Quote

I'd say some get treated, some don't, and some get treated inefficiently, either in terms of cost or in results.

But, you will just go ahead and guess?

his guess was that this 1.76B was the total cost, not the increased cost. That's clearly wrong, given we're spending many times that already. And that was my only stake in this thread.

No, that wasn't my guess. My guess was that the original poster was implying that the $1.76T was an increase in costs paid by the government, and my question was basically how much of that is actually new spending, for treatments previously not received vs how much is simply the government covering costs that were previously written off by caregivers or paid by private insurers and individual patients. Did the total cost of healthcare in the US actually go up by $1.76T, or are we just paying those costs thru a different channel? And if the former, how much of that is for health issues that would have previously gone untreated due to a lack of insurance?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

>I'm guessing you haven't had much experience dealing with the V.A.

Actually I have, and they will indeed decide what they want to pay for and what they won't. In fact your insurance company will do the same - they will mandate what procedures you will and will not have. Fortunately you can choose which insurance company you want, and even if the one you pick doesn't cover X, you can still pay for the procedure yourself.

My insurance doesn't decide which procedures I do and do not have. The simply decide which ones they'll pay for. If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm not sure anymore if you're arguing in good faith or not. If you look at the CBO Study, the point is to look at Net Expense.

The whole campaign was based on net expense, not Gross Expense. The initial CBO projection was based on net, not gross.

When you look at a firm's Financial Statements, do you look at the Gross Revenue or the Net Income?
Do you look at a company like Dendreon and go: "oh its a great company because its Gross Revenue is high!". Of course not.

There was never any claim of 100B$ per year- and if there was, it was done in bad faith. But as far as I know, this 100B$ is your creation.

Absolutely. I know that. I get that. But net expense versus gross wasn't discussed. You're discussing the finer points that don't make a soundbite. Neither side is playing fair with this.

The $100 billion per year is the "keep it under a tirllion for 10 years.

Quote

First, the U.S was/is already paying 17% of its GDP on healthcare without ACA and that in itself is unsustainable. Its the highest among Western countries and quality that is often lacking.

True. And more than 60% of that comes from government (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP). The government was already the big player in health care. Unfortunately, health care became a de facto commons after EMTALA was passed. And we know what happens with commons.

Note also - the health of americans is a disgrace. Why? Because we don't worry about taking care of ourselves because there's a pill to take and somebody else will pay for it.

Also - we know what happens when you choose to have a healthcare system that values high quality and accessibility. It's expensive. The government is choosing to make it cost less, which implicates either quality or accessibility or both.

Quote

Second, you have to understand how money works. Money that goes through the Government does not necessarily mean that all of it is "wasted". You have to look at the net effect of it.

Yes. That's Keynes. It does mean, however, that the money is moved from some to others by fiat. It is inefficient. Nothing is more efficient that point-of-sale purchase with an exchange. I want health care I go to my doctor, cut a check for $50 bucks and I get it. But what about government or even private insurance? I go to doctor, doctor asks for reimbursement and gets reimbursement. That takes back office staff for the doctor and staff from the payor. That is inefficient and adds costs to health care.

the solution is not to take out the extra costs but to try to streamline it. Sure, one can point to benefits to society (employment, etc, for all of those who need to do that work) but it spreads benefits by cost of healthcare.

From a healthcare standpoint, that's "wasted" money. Only governments can point to beneficial policies from it. Those are also subjective, but either way, healthcare financing is inefficient.

Quote

he CBO mentions (quite clearly) that it doesn’t add in other net effects such as medical care cost reductions.

True. Because how can they add in those cost reductions? The easiest way is to pay less. And what will we be seeing? Nurses and PA's having greater responsibilities because they are less expensive than physicians. Mental health will have psychologists getting authority to give prescriptions. Etc. All in the name of less expensive.

Which implicates quality. And that's a choice to make. Why pay a physician to perform that core biopsy when a PA can do it at half the price? they don't know yet how the costs will go down - if at all!

Quote

Why yes, it can be a deficit reduction.

Yes. By a couple of things. First, by cutting subsidies to other things. Also by increasing revenues - which is a deficit reduction. The thing is - WILL it reduce the deficit? No.

The CBO report lists $58 billion in the hole - right now. And "deficit reduction" to me doesn't mean "reduction in the growth of the deficit" like it has always been argued. (Even our so-called "balanced budgets) of the 1990's weren't balanced because the US still had to borrow money. That's because they borrowed the money from off-the-books sources to balance it. That's how politics works.)

Quote

If I remember correctly, we also discussed about fiscal policies. Those too sound counter-intuitive, but it is what the numbers say. P

When fiscal policy controls healthcare, either quality or accessibility must suffer. You can have inexpensive healthcare that is high quality but rationed. You can have inexpensive healthcare that is available on demand but low quality. You can have high quality healthcare that is available on-demand, but it's expensive.

Them's the facts. It is moving the balance in the tripartite relationship to a focus on inexpensive. Tell me how one can have inexpensive healthcare that is high quality and available on demand and I'll listen. I haven't thought of a way.

Quote

Somehow, I always thought that skydivers (out of all people) would be much more open-minded- to at least look at the details and figure out that there is much more elaborate story to it.

Not on here. You've still got people arguing that France has the best healthcare system because a study said it, but the vast majority never read the report which actually studied which countries did the "best" job of socializing medicine.

Quote

Have you read CBO’s past studies?? This has ALWAYS been projected from the beginning.

Yeah. That's why I tried to be fair and cite that the revenues largely balanced out the costs. I saw it. But the CBO study from last year also noted decreases in the costs were expected after 2022.

Quote

Have you looked at RomneyCare? Are you going to read the study done on RomneyCare and still proclaim this?

No. I don't know about Romneycare. I don't care about it when discussing this.

Romneycare is also something for which I have no constitutional objection. A state can require its citizens to do stuff the feds can't. Furthermore, states are a bit more responsive to their citizens.

If the states want to go socialized medicine, all the power to them! Let the states take it on - that's fine. Want coverage for pre-existing conditions? Go to a state where they'll cover you.

My big point - Health care is an exception to economic models. It is not subject to the same rules where you can get more of it, better care and for less cost the more you give it. It doesn't work like, say, computers - where they are faster, smaller, more powerful and less expensive now than they were twenty years ago.

Here's the thing - will a black market exist for health care? One does for Canada - it's called the US.

But the issue is - can you explain to me where health care has ever been inexpensive, high quality and accessible on demand? By focusing on the fiscal aspect, do you agree that either quality or accessibility (or both) must suffer?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Did the total cost of healthcare in the US actually go up by $1.76T

No. Much of it (as I tried to explain) comes from things like dropping subsidies. However, much of it IS an increase that is paid for by new taxes and penalties.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,173]

>If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

That's what I said.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

That's what I said.

Sure enough you did. I guess I just saw the sentence in the middle about mandate and was feeling contrary. That sometimes happens in here lol.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

>If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

That's what I said.

Sure enough you did. I guess I just saw the sentence in the middle about mandate and was feeling contrary. That sometimes happens in here lol.

Blues,
Dave

You're wrong.

No, you are!

Remster

[livendive 8]

Quote

You're wrong.

No, you are!

No, I am. Ohwait...

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

That's what I said.

But now that everyone is going to be insured, the health care providers can charge what they want. It's not like you will see the cost, except for maybe in the premiums.

So the next question is, will you be able to afford it if you choose to pay out of pocket?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything