Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Create Account

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

21 comments, 170 views, posted 9:44 pm 11/07/2012 in Politics by Quaektem
Quaektem has 12867 posts, 1579 threads, 404 points, location: Thank you for your casual objectification.
Tweet

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:

The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.

"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."

The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.

As the chart notes, "Estimates of the gross outlays under the President's health care law in nominal dollars using CBO estimates of major coverage provisions, as well as Senate Budget Committee Republican projections based on CBO estimates of the remaining costs."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

Gee, what a surprise.

Extra Points Given by:

evolution (5)

Comments

[1]

10:29 pm 11/07/2012

Cnik

How much will lost productivity cost us if the poor, and middle class cant get care? Also don't forget that the less the poor and middle class have to pay for coverage (while still getting things like preventive care...which saves money in the long run) the more disposable income they have... which in turn is most likely to be spent on items which boost the economy.

So a healthier populaton with more disposable income = better economy.....

Basic Econ 101

10:41 pm 11/07/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Cnik:

How much will lost productivity cost us if the poor, and middle class cant get care?

They can get care now. In fact, the poor already have access to free health insurance and almost all of the middle class gets health insurance through work. Considering that these people had been in the same spot during the Regan and Clinton economic booms, this is a red herring. Now, the increased costs to businesses to compensate for increased insurance rates will have a much worse effect on productivity than anything else.

Quote by Cnik:

Also don't forget that the less the poor and middle class have to pay for coverage (while still getting things like preventive care...which saves money in the long run) the more disposable income they have...

Um.... where are you getting the idea that Obamacare provides free health coverage? They still have to pay for insurance, they just get taxed if they can't afford it. Add to that the increase in insurance costs anticipated under this bill (as happened here in MA under Romneycare) and how much disposable income will people have?

Quote by Cnik:

Basic Econ 101

You may want to check out a free online course...

10:44 pm 11/07/2012

z0phi3l

Quote by Cnik:

Who's going to PAY for this? Print more worthless dollars? Some economists give us less than 5 years before we go completely insolvent, SPENDING any money is not the answer, especially on a bill we didn't need in the first place. Or are you ready to get taxed for half or so of your income, hell it could be more, to fund this disaster? Do you want to be so taxed you will need food stamps to survive? Beck when this was first proposed, and before Obama added a few more trillions into the debt, economists were coming up with tax hikes across the board in the 50+% range for any and all income earners, not just the "evil" rich, but everyone

11:08 pm 11/07/2012

Quaektem

$2.6 trillion to force us to buy something...

1:00 am 12/07/2012

Cnik

I never said free health care... which is what the GOP forgets. It's affordable care... It prevents the hospital from having to pick up the bill, which in turn they would usually pass on to YOU the person who has insurance.
Like I said, it's basic econ 101... if you dont pay $$$ vto make sure your kid is ok, then you have disposable income for ohter things.. just like a stimulus check or a welfare check... it goes right into the economy. GE, Samsung, Macy's, etc makes money, and can suddenly hire more people when people are spending money... unlike if you just expect cutting taxes on the wealthy to produce jobs.

By the way... the mandate was a republican idea..... they just wasted 8 years fighting useless wars and forgot to spend time on implementing it.

1:01 am 12/07/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Cnik:

By the way... the mandate was a republican idea.....

They don't always come up with good ones

11:52 am 12/07/2012

tomcat025

I was speaking to a neighbor here in lovely Montana. He was reaffirming his vows to his wife. He happened to be a Finland native that's quite passionate and informed about the US political atmosphere.

I do have to say that I agree with his one single question.

"What is the big debate about socialized medicine."

His father went through a quadruple bypass and it cost a total of ~US$150.

What do we spend? We need to iron out the details....seriously.

12:22 pm 12/07/2012

tomcat025

Quote by z0phi3l:

Back when this was first proposed, and before Obama added a few more trillions into the debt.

Last I saw it was Bush who added to the debt. Obama has actually decreased spending, but who's keeping count?

I will agree, however, that the bill needs ironing out.

Socialized medicine IS NOT evil. For some reason people in this country hear the word "socialized" and they equate it with evil....

6:33 pm 12/07/2012

griffin

Quote by tomcat025:

"What is the big debate about socialized medicine."

We already spend twice as much per head as anyone else, and we don't even cover everyone. We could easily add another 50% to that and still not come close to covering everyone (and I think this is exactly what Obamacare will achieve). Quite apart from any ideological problems, from a practical standpoint the assclowns in DC clearly are not up to the task. A quick glance at the current situation clearly shows this.

6:33 pm 12/07/2012

griffin

Quote by tomcat025:

Last I saw it was Bush who added to the debt.

Missed the last few years, have you?

9:44 pm 12/07/2012

Quaektem

Quote by tomcat025:

For some reason people in this country hear the word "socialized" and they equate it with evil....

I equate it with wrong, erroneous and inept... not evil.

I see non-politician socialists as believing in a system that they think will work, they just don't have the information, perspective or willingness to see how it is doomed to failure outside a utopian society. They have all the best intentions though.

12:52 am 13/07/2012

Viscera

Quote:

For some reason people in this country hear the word "socialized" and they equate it with evil....

The reason people equate it with "evil" is because if the populous doesn't want it, and it is enacted, then the money to pay for it is stolen from the citizens. to give to others. Where I come form, taking what isn't yours, even under the auspice of doing "good" with it, is still theft.Theft is wrong.

5:21 am 13/07/2012

evolution

It's a tax, not theft. The state has a responsibility to do good, and citizens have the responsibility to help. It is theft when the state takes funds from citizens to build roads? Is it theft when the state takes funds from citizens to operate schools? How about when the state takes funds from citizens to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? How conveniently the mantra, "Spending is not the answer," is disregarded when the nation goes to war; 3.2 trillion v. 2.6.

That said, Obama's initiatives in the healthcare sector is not only increasing spending, but also increasing savings. HIPAA and HITECH will offset the cost of Healthcare - largely by the development of an infrastructure that will allow for the electronic storage and exchange of health records.

Quaektem, you are absolutely right that the poor and middle class already have health insurance, but it's still an industry centered around profit rather than the well-being of citizens. People have to put up quite a fight to get the healthcare they need, and even then they may not get what they require. Employers offer health insurance, but that does not necessarily include Vision or Dental, and until recently insurance companies could deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. It shouldn't have to be that way. Yes, a more socialistic system can and will create opportunities for abuse, but the risk is relatively low. Most people are not being disingenuous when they say that they need medical treatment and healthcare.

12:07 pm 13/07/2012

Quaektem

Quote by evolution:

Quaektem, you are absolutely right that the poor and middle class already have health insurance, but it's still an industry centered around profit rather than the well-being of citizens.

And the tax system is organized to make you conform to a certain way of living. Now instead of people making choices and fighting for those choices you'll be up against the government... good luck if Uncle Sam decides whatever you happen to be suffering from isn't worth the expense to the 'collective good'. Do you think it's a mistake that the most ruthless government organization is being put in charge of enforcing this?

Quote by evolution:

Employers offer health insurance, but that does not necessarily include Vision or Dental, and until recently insurance companies could deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Did you know that it's not the responsibility of your employer to do anything more than compensate you for your work? Did you also know that private individuals can purchase both dental and vision insurance if they choose to? Hell, I've advocated for years to take the employer out of the center of our healthcare coverage decisions and place the individual in that spot.

As for pre-existing conditions... do you think it's reasonable to call up an auto insurance company five minutes after an accident to sign up for coverage? The problem here would be fixed by forcing insurance companies to pay for the total costs of conditions that occur under there policies even beyond when a customer is dropped (or changes companies) rather than allowing them to play a game of hot-potato with the perpetually ill by having company after company drop them or jacking up there premiums until they end up on Medicaid.... which is what pretty much what will happen under Obamacare (why do you think the high-risk pools have been set up if insurance companies didn't have some way out of covering pre-existing conditions?)

Quote by evolution:

Yes, a more socialistic system can and will create opportunities for abuse, but the risk is relatively low.

Just like food Stamp, Welfare, and Disability programs, right? Hell, that's not even the biggest issue. Obama has already talked about giving the sick a pill instead of an operation. Care is going to be rationed and be subject to the bureaucratic inefficiencies of government.

Quote by evolution:

Most people are not being disingenuous when they say that they need medical treatment and healthcare.

Nope, and under our current system... THEY GET IT.

12:11 pm 13/07/2012

Quaektem

Here's a quick question for you... they say that there are 30,000,000 uninsured, right? At a $12,000 average for yearly premiums why not just pay for them to get insurance?

$360 billion is far less than $2.6 trillion and does the same exact thing.

(Unless those 'rare' opportunities for abuse are somehow going to inflate that number exponentially...)

2:29 pm 13/07/2012

Viscera

evo, the problem with the whole "common good" is at what point does the will of the people come into play? If that were the precedent set, are you prepared for the representatives that are elected to "tell you" that abortion isn't for the common good? Or that a belief in a higher power must be taught because in their collective opinions that a belief in a higher power is consistent for the common good? I am not against the idea of medical care for all, as Q said, it is available for all, that isn't the issue from the politicians. It is a basic change of the system that we presently have.

I'm not sure if you saw the thread about Cambridge MA deciding that sugared beverages are bad for you, and they want them banned. Common good clause will be invoked. Insert whatever an issue that is important to you, and I imagine that there are some pollys who don't value it as much as you.

4:48 am 14/07/2012

evolution

Sometimes ethics supercedes the will of the people. In some Islamic theocracies the execution of women for adultery (alleged or confirmed) is considered perfectly acceptable - even applauded. Sod the will of the people. They're wrong.

In the case of Healthcare, however, people do want it. Not everyone wants it, but a lot of people definitely do. I couldn't tell you how many. Conservative sources will lead me to believe that the majority of people do not want Healthcare reform. Liberal sources, however, will lead me believe the opposite. I don't know who is correct - maybe it's 50-50. I do know this: A lot of people who are opposed to Healthcare reform are not opposed to general idea of Healthcare, but rather they are opposed to some specific aspect of the reform, or they are opposed simply because they do not think it is good enough. Consequently the numbers may not be an accurate representation, regardless of the source.

I admit that drawing the line can be a tricky task, V, but I would prefer the sway the line farther than closer, especially where healthcare is concerned. As I mentioned earlier, it's not going to be perfect. People will abuse the system. But I would rather have Healthcare knowing that some people will abuse the system than reject Healthcare reform knowing that people who really need proper medical care and treatment will not receive it.

10:26 am 14/07/2012

Viscera

I can understand that. TBH, my only complaint is, I don't think it's appropriate for the govt to be able to compel someone to "purchase" something against their will. Can the argument be made that the person "needs" it? I suppose it can be. But the govt isn't doing this because they care about me (or you) they are doing it for nefarious reasons (whether it's to stay in power, to ingratiate themselves to the public to be able to claim they are "serving the people", or the ever popular conspiracy theory that the govt wants more control) regardless, their activity is not welcome in my life.

Take Q's example. Why can't the govt just pay for the individuals who apply for healthcare individually? I pay $1200/month for insurance. (half us half my wfe's employer pays) so that is $14,400.00 a year so the 12K number isn't that far off. We would save millions (MILLIONS) of dollars in premiums off the budget, and the people in need get what they need. (That is Blue Cross/Blue Shield btw, when I was on Medicare it was $150.00/month) So, why can't we do domething like that instead of everyone being effected?

11:23 am 14/07/2012

griffin

Quote by evolution:

Sometimes ethics supercedes the will of the people.

Better be careful with that, mein comrade fuhrer.

2:03 pm 14/07/2012

tomcat025

Quote by Viscera:

TBH, my only complaint is, I don't think it's appropriate for the govt to be able to compel someone to "purchase" something against their will.

That is my biggest beef with it.

2:33 pm 14/07/2012

Quaektem

Quote by evolution:

In the case of Healthcare, however, people do want it.

Obamacare doesn't address healthcare (which anyone can already get), it addresses health insurance which may not make sense for everyone. For most 20-30 year olds, an inexpensive catastrophic plan is all they need yet they are going to be forced to pay into a system that provides the same coverage to a diabetic octogenarian.

As for whether people want Obamacare, the midterm elections went heavily in favor of anti-Obamacare candidates... even MA elected a Republican that ran on voting against the bill (and was subsequent prevented from voting on the issue). The next 'official poll' takes place in November, let's see how the congressional races shake out.

[1]

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!

Teh Nook • MayrHayasdan • JaranWeb • AngryShirts • GoneGeek • Eat Liver