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.
What a fucking liar!!! But what's another $Trillion or two in debt?
Free market economist Henry Hazlitt wrote a very good book called Economics in One Lesson. In the first chapter of his book, he described what came to be called the Broken Glass theory.
Hazlett postulated, quite correctly, that most economic miscalculations come from failing to measure both sides of the coin. To measure your outflows without measuring in your inflows.
OC, you have done the same thing here. What is the value of the benefits from health care reform?
This is BS! No basis in facts!
That article is fucking bunk. Net (10 Year) is 1.1 Trillion not including other factors which may offset the cost further.
"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 (see Table 1, following the text)."
"Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. 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.4"
"The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions ($1,496 billion through 2021) is about $50 billion higher than last year’s projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO and JCT’s estimates (to $413 billion), leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally."
"Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion."
Cheaper than last years estimates doofus!
"This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. 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 (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources). The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012–2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect."
Net/gross etc..Try Reading Comprehension 101.
-- Modified on 3/14/2012 12:01:37 PM
nevertheless, we are still talking about (at least according to CBO #s, which, as you know, can only be calulated on assumptions submitted, ie, growth rates) 1 trillion/10, or $100B/yr.
This legislation was billed as being a saver.
This legislation was billed as being a saver.
i don't know even close to enough about how all the diiferent facets of the insurance industry to engage in intelligent debate about one approach vs another. but my spidey sense tells me this (ACA) a cobbled together "headline" piece of crap. by that I mean a monstrous POS tossed together by special interest groups, not the least of which being Obama and the Dems. A "headline" piece of legislation in my book is one that pays far less regard to HOW it works but allows pols to paste headlines that, "We overhauled health care", we "reformed banks" etc.
To be "party nuetral", DHS is another example...Really? We need a whole OTHER beaurocracy??? How about we just have the fuckers in charge of security just get their shit together????
If I was to endeavor to engage in the kind of serious analysis you speak of in order to discuss the pros/cons and merits of such hoodwinkery.......
I'd need to bill by the hour!
With that being said...this prgram has yet to be implemented. I'm reserving judgement until results start to pan out. It most certainly is an industry that has been bent out of whack due to profit drivers.
Certain industries, services, etc.. which serve as the foundations of a robust society ought to be required to put the publics needs first.
Right now what we have in terms of health care is akin to having a toilet in your bathroom that requires a quarter per flush. If you happen to take too big of a shit it won't take your quarter, and if you need more than 10 sheets of toilet paper that'll be subject to a 30 day waiting period pending review of your requirements.
Personally, I'm not sure of what the answer ought to be; I have so far been lucky enough to have the financial escape velocity to be above the fray. I have advocated on the behalf of others who don't have the intellect/tenacity to deal with the bureaucracy and have fought for them; i shouldn't of had to fight. These were good people, who legitimately needed help/healing. The medical insurance industry should be in complete alignment with the hippocratic oath and the doctors king. Doctor's need better protection....tort reform....their incomes are erroding as well, not good.
I find it appalling that in this day and age, in what ought to be the greatest country in the world, there are some really sick people who've done no harm to anyone, many of whom had been productive members of society, who are now suffering because they don't fit into the business model.
That's wrong, immoral (ha!), unethical and I daresay mindlessly evil.
To talk about a 1.1 TRILLION cost tag as a good thing!!!!!
Keep defending that, yeah, right...
Hey Moronicus Spoutus Illinformicus Random Bullshitus....
The original proposal was 900bil.
It's now, shy of 1.1 tril.
That's just less than a 200bil offset.
There are other offsets as well, but it's obvious you ain't capable of the 3rd grade math involved.
IOW....still in the ballpark as proposed and accepted.
So, your Chicken Little "Sky Is Falling" alarmist rhetoric is as fucked as your lack of basic comprehension.