Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Recliner Pilot

CBO: Obamacare to cost twice what we were told.

Recommended Posts

"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

 

Awesome! :doublethumbsup:

 

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

 

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

 

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

 

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bump this again in 2015. :doublethumbsup:

By then they will realize this disaster of a bill will cost 50 times more than we were told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunner, should be a ton of apologies in this thread.. We will all hold our breath in anticipation..

 

Funny thing is that $1.7 trillion is low balling and we all know it. Well, those of us that aren't completely focking retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunner, should be a ton of apologies in this thread.. We will all hold our breath in anticipation..

 

Funny thing is that $1.7 trillion is low balling and we all know it. Well, those of us that aren't completely focking retarded.

 

 

Medstoopid should be on the top of the apology list. He was the most vocal of the libtards saying this would be revenue neutral, or save money. Ya know, cuz he was an expert since he was in med school.

 

Poor kid has so much growing up to do before he has a clue how the real world works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medstoopid should be on the top of the apology list. He was the most vocal of the libtards saying this would be revenue neutral, or save money. Ya know, cuz he was an expert since he was in med school.

 

Poor kid has so much growing up to do before he has a clue how the real world works.

 

I give him a pass on most things because of that.

 

Others who are out of school/training/residency/etc. and have been working for some time are the true focking retards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give him a pass on most things because of that.

 

Others who are out of school/training/residency/etc. and have been working for some time are the true focking retards.

I'd give him a pass to, if he wasn't so arrogant about thinking he knows more than anyone else here when it comes to this stuff. For that, he doesn't get a pass. Not that he will nut up and admit he was wrong........

 

 

And I'm here to tell ya, those in the profession hate this turd of a bill. My wife has been calling on Docs for 13 years, and she has watched a ton of them get out of seeing medicare patients because of losing money on low reimbursements. And there have been several of her Docs who have opted out of medicine altogether. In this area they can run cattle and make as much, or more money, without all the headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly never understood how this wasn't obvious. It's, I dunno, 5th grade math? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly never understood how this wasn't obvious. It's, I dunno, 5th grade math? :dunno:

Same way the supporters completely ignore Obama's Department of Health and Human Services telling Congress the bill would make health care more expensive.

 

Like a 5 year old sticking his fingers in his ears and yell "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm here to tell ya, those in the profession hate this turd of a bill. My wife has been calling on Docs for 13 years, and she has watched a ton of them get out of seeing medicare patients because of losing money on low reimbursements. And there have been several of her Docs who have opted out of medicine altogether. In this area they can run cattle and make as much, or more money, without all the headaches.

 

Whoda thunk those greedy c0cksuckers wouldn't support a bill that limits their ridiculous charges? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give him a pass to, if he wasn't so arrogant about thinking he knows more than anyone else here when it comes to this stuff.

 

 

I hate when people act like they know it all. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1331692173[/url]' post='4716076']

Medstoopid should be on the top of the apology list. He was the most vocal of the libtards saying this would be revenue neutral, or save money. Ya know, cuz he was an expert since he was in med school.

 

Poor kid has so much growing up to do before he has a clue how the real world works.

 

Please show me where the cbo says it will not be revenue neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me where the cbo says it will not be revenue neutral.

 

I've met people on the CBO, their accounting is fuzzy at best, everyone with a higher than eighth grade education can easily see this will cost us a boatload of money. The revenue neutral part is the way they do the accounting taking in account tax breaks that are supposed to be pulled but no politician in their right mind would do so. "tax break for single moms" should be coming off, let's add that to the revenue of this bill... Type stuff.

 

To even think its going to revenue neutral is completely ludicrous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly never understood how this wasn't obvious. It's, I dunno, 5th grade math? :dunno:

 

 

Yeah, the whole argument that it could actually save money was absurd. You can't put more people on the dole and tell me it will save the .gov money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me where the cbo says it will not be revenue neutral.

 

The CBO says it will cost twice the estimate when it was passed. Please show me where the money coming in to pay for it has doubled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1331732428[/url]' post='4716206']

The CBO says it will cost twice the estimate when it was passed. Please show me where the money coming in to pay for it has doubled.

 

This is actually a reduction in estimated costs for these years. And according to the CBO it is revenue neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big dig of national health care bill :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoda thunk those greedy c0cksuckers wouldn't support a bill that limits their ridiculous charges? :rolleyes:

 

I have met a few docs who do support the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a reduction in estimated costs for these years. And according to the CBO it is revenue neutral.

 

 

You just don't get it do you! :overhead:

 

Fool you once shame on them,

fool you every time :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the big dig not worth it?

 

Like I said in the contraception thread, if your position is that it is for the better good of society to provide this service, then own that position and let's have that debate. It is a fair one and worth discussing. Don't insult our intelligence with this "revenue neutral" crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the big dig not worth it?

 

For me, no. I live on the north shore and never need the ted williams tunnel and or drive through Boston via 93 south

 

For the majority of people, yes.

 

I was talking about the big dig the other day to people at work.

 

One of the greatest things Boston has ever done. However, it was run by the gubment so it was focked up time and time again. It's original 2 billion price tag ended up costing 17 billion+

 

Was it worth it? considering how little 15 billion dollars is, compared to the national debt, yes.

 

How much is obamacare going to cost? trillions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, no. I live on the north shore and never need the ted williams tunnel and or drive through Boston via 93 south

 

For the majority of people, yes.

 

 

 

Federal money went into that tunnel so no it does not come close to the majority of people.

 

 

Long before it became known as the Big Dig, it was ``Tip's Tunnel," a sardonic testament to the extraordinary political muscle of the House speaker from Cambridge who plowed the project forward in Washington while skeptics were powerless before his will.

 

As deadlines passed and costs skyrocketed from $1 billion to more than $14 billion, the Central Artery/Tunnel project championed by the late Democratic speaker, Thomas P. ``Tip" O'Neill Jr., came to represent the worst excesses of pork-barrel politics. Many members of Congress cheered when the federal government finally moved to stop cutting checks in 2000.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/06/big_dig_failures_threaten_federal_funding/?page=full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by twice you mean 10 times, then I can believe it. It's the poison pill. It's the cancer that destroys our country's economy once and for all, on the state and federal level. A stake in the heart. It's over, Johnnie, it's over. Get your supplies now before price gouging kicks in. And some eye gouging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, no. I live on the north shore and never need the ted williams tunnel and or drive through Boston via 93 south

 

For the majority of people, yes.

 

I was talking about the big dig the other day to people at work.

 

One of the greatest things Boston has ever done. However, it was run by the gubment so it was focked up time and time again. It's original 2 billion price tag ended up costing 17 billion+

 

Was it worth it? considering how little 15 billion dollars is, compared to the national debt, yes.

 

How much is obamacare going to cost? trillions?

 

I too live on the north shore, but commute to the south shore, and use it consistently. The city is becoming a different place also, as the dank green eyesore that cut the downtown/fanueil hall area off from the north end and the wharf is gone. F that was ugly. What is the impact of this? Jobs? Revenue? I don't know, but if they said back then this going to cost 17 billion, would they have done it. I guess not, and the city would still look like shiat.

 

That said, it is amazing and sad that it came in at 15ish billion over budget. Could the private sector hold all the contracts more accountable than the gov't?

 

 

Like I said in the contraception thread, if your position is that it is for the better good of society to provide this service, then own that position and let's have that debate. It is a fair one and worth discussing. Don't insult our intelligence with this "revenue neutral" crap.

 

This happens all the time, like when McCain said we need to get into Iraq in March, so we can be out by the time the hot summer comes around. The people aren't always intelligent, or involved, enough to have a complete debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This happens all the time, like when McCain said we need to get into Iraq in March, so we can be out by the time the hot summer comes around. The people aren't always intelligent, or involved, enough to have a complete debate.

 

If your point is that the administration made a mistake in its estimate of the cost of this thing, I call bullshiot, but I'll play along... now that we know better, can we lay this "revenue neutral" crap to rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your point is that the administration made a mistake in its estimate of the cost of this thing, I call bullshiot, but I'll play along... now that we know better, can we lay this "revenue neutral" crap to rest?

 

Only if a few more posters hurl insults at Medstudent before he has a chance to reply. Then they'll have "won" and all that's left is to post a victory emoticon - thread over.

 

:first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if a few more posters hurl insults at Medstudent before he has a chance to reply. Then they'll have "won" and all that's left is to post a victory emoticon - thread over.

 

:first:

 

He has replied. He doubled down on the "revenue neutral" yaksqueeze.

 

You are really dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medstoopid should be on the top of the apology list. He was the most vocal of the libtards saying this would be revenue neutral, or save money. Ya know, cuz he was an expert since he was in med school.

 

Poor kid has so much growing up to do before he has a clue how the real world works.

 

It was actually the CBO saying that it would reduce deficits. You know, the same CBO that gave the projections you posted in the first post of this thread.

 

But as usual we believe the CBO 100% when it confirms what we already believe and discount the CBO 100% when its projections run counter to what we believe.

 

For reference:

 

CBO's Health Law Estimate Indicates 10-Year Net Deficit Decrease Of $210 Billion

 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2011/march/31/elmendorf-and-foster.aspx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was actually the CBO saying that it would reduce deficits. You know, the same CBO that gave the projections you posted in the first post of this thread.

 

But as usual we believe the CBO 100% when it confirms what we already believe and discount the CBO 100% when its projections run counter to what we believe.

 

For reference:

 

 

Link to when the CBO was ever correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the text in the source of the article above where they mention the $1.76 trillion price tag. The source shows...

 

The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period ... that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion... The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA

 

However...

 

CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA

 

This leads me to believe that the CBO has not actually released anything that says whether their previous estimate as to the effects would change. Their previous estimate came a bit later. It says the following (emphasis mine)

 

CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated

 

I may be interpreting this wrong (I also did not go through all of the gory details of the source document), but it sounds like they are saying that the overall cost will still be less then what it supposedly saves of the next 10 years. (See also this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to when the CBO was ever correct!

 

Are you saying RP's article was all a big lie?

 

Also, do you understand the concept of an "estimate?" Do you realize that this is not intended to be 100% accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, no. I live on the north shore and never need the ted williams tunnel and or drive through Boston via 93 south

 

For the majority of people, yes.

 

I was talking about the big dig the other day to people at work.

 

One of the greatest things Boston has ever done. However, it was run by the gubment so it was focked up time and time again. It's original 2 billion price tag ended up costing 17 billion+

 

Was it worth it? considering how little 15 billion dollars is, compared to the national debt, yes.

 

How much is obamacare going to cost? trillions?

They didn't include inflation in the original estimate. Their were also the myriad mismangagement issues caused by govt oversight and control... That said it fundamentally changed the city in a positive way. The project wasn't the problem, it was the govt and its greasy hands bumbling the process. Have it competively bid and managed by private industry and you would have had a professional operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying RP's article was all a big lie?

 

Also, do you understand the concept of an "estimate?" Do you realize that this is not intended to be 100% accurate?

Do you realize you can easily doctor a proforma to say whatever you want to say... Its all in the assumptions... Taking 10 years of revenue and only paying out for 6 years in expenses to get to 900 bil of cost is clearly a smoke and mirror show...

 

Takes years to drag the truth out of these schiesters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1331743252[/url]' post='4716343']

I may be interpreting this wrong (I also did not go through all of the gory details of the source document), but it sounds like they are saying that the overall cost will still be less then what it supposedly saves of the next 10 years. (See also this.)

Very good. Someone actually read the source not the republitard spin.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1331751914[/url]' post='4716519']

They didn't include inflation in the original estimate. Their were also the myriad mismangagement issues caused by govt oversight and control... That said it fundamentally changed the city in a positive way. The project wasn't the problem, it was the govt and its greasy hands bumbling the process. Have it competively bid and managed by private industry and you would have had a professional operation.

 

The private engineering firm running the project focked up pretty good.

http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/bechtel/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have met a few docs who do support the bill.

 

Those would be the ones who actually got into medicine for the right reasons, namely helping people, not being some big shot dooshbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×