Decade of Obamacare Will Cost $1,160 billion

[red states rule]

and I am sure the actual cost wil be much higher. Who the hell is going to pay this?





How much will Obamacare -- call it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if you like -- cost over the next 10 years?More than you've been led to believe, reports Charles Blahous of George Mason University's Mercatus Center. To be specific, he projects it will add $1,160 billion to net federal spending over the next 10 years and at least $340 billion to federal budget deficits in that time.

Blahous was appointed by Barack Obama as one of two public trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs. He worked on these issues in George W. Bush's administration and submitted his Mercatus paper for anonymous peer review.

Why does he say Obamacare will increase spending when the Obama administration, citing Congressional Budget Office numbers, promised it will save money?

One reason is that the CBO said Obamacare's "Class Act" provisions would save money, since the government would collect premiums immediately but not pay off policyholders until later.
But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has conceded that the Class Act is unworkable, and so Blahous zeroes out those phantom savings.

Another reason Obamacare was supposed to save money is that it raises the Medicare tax 0.9 percent for high earners. It then dedicates those resources both to Medicare and to general revenues, with the CBO counting the savings twice.

That's because under a 1985 internal ruling (not a full-fledged law passed by Congress), the CBO scores the costs of legislation against a hypothetical baseline rather than against current law.

But, as Sebelius conceded to Congress in March 2011, that's double counting. The government can't spend the same money twice. Medicare tax revenues dedicated to current Medicare spending can't be used to reduce the budget deficit. That's true "in practice," Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster wrote last year, despite the CBO's scoring procedure.

And, as Blahous points out, if the funds don't go to Medicare, then under current law,
Medicare will go broke faster and be forced to reduce benefits. Since Congress is not likely to let that happen any sooner than it has to, the deficit reduction promised by the CBO score and claimed by the Obama administration simply ain't going to happen, no how, no way.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/ouch_decade_of_obamacare_will_cost_1_160_billion

[ConHog]

and I am sure the actual cost wil be much higher. Who the hell is going to pay this?

Truthfully, who the hell knows RSR? No one could possibly interpret that bill and make any sort of accurate estimates. It's a quagmire, purposely so IMHO.

[red states rule]

Truthfully, who the hell knows RSR? No one could possibly interpret that bill and make any sort of accurate estimates. It's a quagmire, purposely so IMHO.

Correction CH

Many said this while the Dems were ramming the bill thru

Dems said this would "save" money because they are using ten years of tax increases while providing only six years of "benefits

This is not a shock. Anyone who paid attention knew this was the case, but the Dems and liberal media ignored these facts

Now someone has to pay the bill and it will be the broke US taxpayers

[ConHog]

Correction CH

Many said this while the Dems were ramming the bill thru

Dems said this would "save" money because they are using ten years of tax increases while providing only six years of "benefits

This is not a shock. Anyone who paid attention knew this was the case, but the Dems and liberal media ignored these facts

Now someone has to pay the bill and it will be the broke US taxpayers

I'm not saying those who claimed this bill would save anyone any money were right either. I'm saying that who could tell by "reading" the bill?

However, all of that is moot because we don't have to read the bill to realize that the government doesn't have a history of running ANYTHING in any sort of financially responsible manner.

[red states rule]

I'm not saying those who claimed this bill would save anyone any money were right either. I'm saying that who could tell by "reading" the bill?

However, all of that is moot because we don't have to read the bill to realize that the government doesn't have a history of running ANYTHING in any sort of financially responsible manner.

It was real easy CH. Dems said they would delay the benefits until after the 32012 election but most of the taxes started day one

It does not take a college professor to run the numbers

[Dilloduck]

Obama gets to look like a president who cares about people's health while America will slowly learns that we can't afford it and it doesn't work any better than the old system.
There will always be sick and dying people and there will always be some better treatment out there that we just can't get without big bucks or connections.

[Kathianne]

Truthfully, who the hell knows RSR? No one could possibly interpret that bill and make any sort of accurate estimates. It's a quagmire, purposely so IMHO.

So you're of the school that says, "You'll understand it once it's implemented."

[logroller]

So you're of the school that says, "You'll understand it once it's implemented."

Truth is, most great changes weren't known to be so until after implementation. From a-bombs to Viagra. Ex post analysis is the pragmatic kernel of change.

One thing I'd like to discuss here is the anticipated cost increases in healthcare without ACA. Is the $1.xx billion additional to anticipated healthcare cost increases without reform?

Along those lines, and just to give some perspective,
Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over ten times the $256 billion spent in 1980.[1] (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote1) The rate of growth in recent years has slowed relative to the late 1990s and early 2000s, but is still expected to grow faster than national income over the foreseeable future.[2] (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote2) ...
Since 2001, employer-sponsored health coverage for family premiums have increased by 113%, placing increasing cost burdens on employers and workers. [3] (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote3) In the public sector, Medicare covers the elderly and people with disabilities, and Medicaid provides coverage to low-income families. Enrollment has grown in Medicare with the aging of the baby boomers and in Medicaid due to the recession.[1], [4] (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote4) This means that total government spending has increased considerably, straining federal and state budgets. In total, health spending accounted for 17.9% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010. [5] (http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx#footnote5) http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx

What's $1.16 billion plus $2.6 trillion....Doesn't even make the notation cutoff. And that's over a decade, the GDP is annual. So really, what's 1.16 billion plus $26 trillion ?

[jafar00]

Its a small price to pay for the good health of US citizens when you consider that $7 trillion or so would be spent on the military at current levels over the same period

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Its a small price to pay for the good health of US citizens when you consider that $7 trillion or so would be spent on the military at current levels over the same period

Military spending of supreme importance , mandated by the Constitution in order to defend the nation! For without a military we would last about as long as a fart in a whirlwind . The healthcare bill is about far more than just healthcare. Its about big government control being ceded in exchange for a bit of false security. I give up my freedom to no man or government body. Roberts be damned ... Just that simple. How about you?-Tyr

[aboutime]

and I am sure the actual cost wil be much higher. Who the hell is going to pay this?


OBAMA, the people who voted for him once, and the Democrats who need to spend to make sure they get re-elected. Really do not care, when you ask. "WHO the hell is going to pay this?"

Obama, and members of Congress are all SET FOR LIFE. Not a money worry in the world. So they don't care. And the people who have voted for Obama, and the Dems, over, and over again. Don't care either since IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY. They don't earn it. Just hold out their hands, make a Democrat Wish...and POOOOF...Obama Cash, blessed by the Democrats just appears from the U.S. Treasury as...Monopoly Money....3547

[Dilloduck]

And we keep bitchin and electing more. We need to face our weakness.

[logroller]

Military spending of supreme importance , mandated by the Constitution in order to defend the nation! For without a military we would last about as long as a fart in a whirlwind . The healthcare bill is about far more than just healthcare. Its about big government control being ceded in exchange for a bit of false security. I give up my freedom to no man or government body. Roberts be damned ... Just that simple. How about you?-Tyr
What about a woman or her body? ;)

[OCA]

What about a woman or her body? ;)

Isn't the hypocricy delicious?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What about a woman or her body? ;)

Not comparable at all amigo. My words spoke of being controlled by a person or persons that are immensely independent of my actual influence as is this big ,ever growing bigger, Federal government.. My free choice to marry was just that a voluntarily choice. A decision to unite for a family, common good and love of another is what allows for civilisation to exist. The current government "monster" grows only to grow ever more powerful. My wife does not do that and frankly the comparison is a bit ridiculous IMHO. My statement still stands well as written despite your attempt to invalidate it with that question.--Tyr

[OCA]

Not comparable at all amigo. My words spoke of being controlled by a person or persons that are immensely independent of my actual influence as is this big ,ever growing bigger, Federal government.. My free choice to marry was just that a voluntarily choice. A decision to unite for a family, common good and love of another is what allows for civilisation to exist. The current government "monster" grows only to grow ever more powerful. My wife does not do that and frankly the comparison is a bit ridiculous IMHO. My statement still stands well as written despite your attempt to invalidate it with that question.--Tyr

No, the comparison is valid despite your refusal to acknowledge that elementary fact.

[logroller]

Not comparable at all amigo. My words spoke of being controlled by a person or persons that are immensely independent of my actual influence as is this big ,ever growing bigger, Federal government.. My free choice to marry was just that a voluntarily choice. A decision to unite for a family, common good and love of another is what allows for civilisation to exist. The current government "monster" grows only to grow ever more powerful. My wife does not do that and frankly the comparison is a bit ridiculous IMHO. My statement still stands well as written despite your attempt to invalidate it with that question.--Tyr
Well it was just a joke-- hence the wink-- made more funny by your response IMHO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well it was just a joke-- hence the wink-- made more funny by your response IMHO.

Why, was my response not honest enough for you ? Or too honest thus making it funny?
Myself, I never found an honest answer to be funny unless it was intended to be so.
My statement still stands well joke or not. -Tyr

[logroller]

Why, was my response not honest enough for you ? Or too honest thus making it funny?
Myself, I never found an honest answer to be funny unless it was intended to be so.
My statement still stands well joke or not. -Tyr

Sheesh, chill out man. I was talking about my joke being funny, not your response. The fact you didn't get it was a joke and responded so seriously makes my joke funnier...to me atleast. Laugh and the world laughs with you...

[jafar00]

Military spending of supreme importance , mandated by the Constitution in order to defend the nation! For without a military we would last about as long as a fart in a whirlwind . The healthcare bill is about far more than just healthcare. Its about big government control being ceded in exchange for a bit of false security. I give up my freedom to no man or government body. Roberts be damned ... Just that simple. How about you?-Tyr

You could 1/2 military spending in the USA and still spend twice as much as the next nearest military juggernaut, China. Over a ten year period 3.5 trillion could be saved and obamacare would be more than covered.

I find it hard to believe the USA needs to spend more money money than the combined military spending of China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey just to feel safe.

Then you complain about spending a fraction of that on the welfare of your own people. In Australia, higher income earners such as myself pay an extra 1.5% Medicare levy in order to help pay for the country's healthcare system where the less well off can get subsidised or free healthcare when they need it. I am proud to be able to do my small part in ensuring that my fellow Australians who may not be as fortunate as I am can have access to quality healthcare when they don't have the ability to pay for it themselves.

[red states rule]

You could 1/2 military spending in the USA and still spend twice as much as the next nearest military juggernaut, China. Over a ten year period 3.5 trillion could be saved and obamacare would be more than covered.

I find it hard to believe the USA needs to spend more money money than the combined military spending of China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey just to feel safe.

Then you complain about spending a fraction of that on the welfare of your own people. In Australia, higher income earners such as myself pay an extra 1.5% Medicare levy in order to help pay for the country's healthcare system where the less well off can get subsidised or free healthcare when they need it. I am proud to be able to do my small part in ensuring that my fellow Australians who may not be as fortunate as I am can have access to quality healthcare when they don't have the ability to pay for it themselves.


Under Obamacare, not only has the cost DOUBLED from what we were told, but now it ic clear illegals will be to get coverage and US taxpayers will pay the bill. Care will be rationed and this is Obama's answer to our nations helath care "problems"

So what if a majority still want Obamacare repealed and are happy with the ins they currenlty have

Obama's goal was to put private ins companies out of business by any means necessary. Now it is up to the voters to elect people who will REPEAL Obamacare

[red states rule]

http://radioactiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/pelosi-demdebt-card.jpg

[Drummond]

Just thought I'd add this ... this thread started off with the words ..


Decade of Obamacare Will Cost $1,160 billion

Now, I've seen a Wikipedia entry which claims that America's GDP is running at £15.1 trillion ?

Well ... if you were to check, you'd find that expenditure on our NHS system in the UK takes up around 9 percent of our annual GDP expenditure. The figure quoted of £1.160 billion seems to me to be a conservative one, unless, of course, 'Obamacare' only represents (as I'm sure it does) only a fraction of the healthcare 'innovation' experienced by the UK ?

I think it reasonable to suppose that if the US undertook to create for itself a duplicate of our NHS, and apply it throughout the US, the $1.160 billion figure would turn into an ANNUAL expenditure, not a decade-long one.

... and, for what ? To create a system which had just enough spent on it to prove to be as catastrophe-ridden as the UK's is .. ????

[red states rule]

Just thought I'd add this ... this thread started off with the words ..



Now, I've seen a Wikipedia entry which claims that America's GDP is running at £15.1 trillion ?

Well ... if you were to check, you'd find that expenditure on our NHS system in the UK takes up around 9 percent of our annual GDP expenditure. The figure quoted of £1.160 billion seems to me to be a conservative one, unless, of course, 'Obamacare' only represents (as I'm sure it does) only a fraction of the healthcare 'innovation' experienced by the UK ?

I think it reasonable to suppose that if the US undertook to create for itself a duplicate of our NHS, and apply it throughout the US, the $1.160 billion figure would turn into an ANNUAL expenditure, not a decade-long one.

... and, for what ? To create a system which had just enough spent on it to prove to be as catastrophe-ridden as the UK's is .. ????


I saw a bumber sticker this morning in the Wal Mart parking lot which summed up Obama's 3 1/2 years in office perfectly

If Al Qaeda Wants To destroy Americ, They Better Hurry

Obama Is Beathing Them To It

[aboutime]

http://radioactiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/pelosi-demdebt-card.jpg

Whenever I see any photo, or cartoon of Pelosi. I am reminded that she represents "D's", that stand for Democrats, Dummies, Dirt Bags, and Most of all DOUCHEBAGS.

[jafar00]

If Al Qaeda Wants To destroy Americ, They Better Hurry

Obama Is Beathing Them To It

No. Al Qaeda already won that battle. Try taking a bottle of water on a plane these days.

[red states rule]

No. Al Qaeda already won that battle. Try taking a bottle of water on a plane these days.

Or try asking for a photo ID when someone shows up to vote and watch the reaction from the liberal media, libs, Obama, and the Obama Injustice Dept

It is much worse then what happens when you try to take a bottle of water on a plane

[Drummond]

Talking about personal freedoms, rights, and that sort of thing .. and returning this thread to something akin to consideration of the quality of healthcare ...

... well, here's a recent story from the UK media about a patient who also had problems with availability of water.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ected-son.html


A young patient who died of dehydration at a leading teaching hospital phoned police from his bed because he was so thirsty, an inquest heard yesterday.
Officers arrived at Kane Gorny's bedside, but were told by nurses that he was in a confused state and were sent away.

The keen footballer and runner, 22, died of dehydration a few hours later.


A coroner had such grave concerns about the case that she referred it to police.


Yesterday an inquest was told how Mr Gorny died after blunders and neglect by 'lazy and careless' medical staff at St George's Hospital in Tooting, South London.


His mother Rita Cronin, a civil servant told Westminster Coroner's Court that staff tutted at her and repeatedly refused to listen to her concerns that her son hadn't been given vital medication.

At one point he became so desperate and upset that staff sedated and restrained him – and on the night before his death, his mother said, he was not checked on by medical staff, despite being in a room on his own.


Following his death, a nurse allegedly inquired whether the family, from Balham, South-West London, was 'finished' and asked a matron in front of them whether she could 'bag him up'.

This, I suggest, is what can happen in a 'service' which is State run, where lack of accountability can become the norm.

.. and in case anyone imagines this account to be just a one-off, I absolutely assure you that it's NOT ...

Just to prove the point (.. and I can provide more of these examples ...) ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1390925/Elderly-patients-dying-thirst-Doctors-forced-prescribe-drinking-water-old-alive-reveals-devastating-report-hospital-care.html



Doctors are prescribing drinking water for neglected elderly patients to stop them dying of thirst in hospital.

The measure – to remind nurses of the most basic necessity – is revealed in a damning report on pensioner care in NHS wards.


Some trusts are neglecting the elderly on such a fundamental level their wards could face closure orders.


The snapshot study, triggered by a Mail campaign, found staff routinely ignored patients’ calls for help and forgot to check that they had had enough to eat and drink.


Dehydration contributes to the death of more than 800 hospital patients every year.

[red states rule]

http://obamacare411.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obamacare2.jpg