|
Omamacare new cost estimates skyrocket to nearly double the initial estimates; I've been saying this since it was passed.
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 17 2013, 12:50 AM (185 Views)
|
|
Pat
|
Mar 17 2013, 12:50 AM
Post #1
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
This is one example that I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about being right among a chorus of naysayers. Maybe some brillian member here can tell me how we are going to afford to pay another $trillion dollars over the next ten years? That's a trillion with a T. Oh and it gets worse, these estimates are expected to rise.
Read the quote from Barrack Obama at the end of the article. Should we now insist he join congress in either revising the plan or legislating it out of existence? So that he can keep his promise.
As I have said in the past, congress will starve this beast to extinction because republicans are not going to over-fund the lie. It's really as simple as that. Either the court intervene or congress will deny funding. Which is the ethical and logical thing to do, you don't take on another $hundred-billion a year in expenses when a president is running trillion dollar deficits..
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/13/surprise_obamacares_price_tag_nearly_doubles
Surprise: Obamacare's Price Tag Nearly Doubles
Guy Benson Political Editor, Townhall.com
Mar 13, 2012 05:43 PM EST
Two years ago this month, Democrats were on the brink of jamming through a massive federal intrusion into the American healthcare system. Despite a year-long drumbeat of fear-mongering, claptrap promises, and disingenuous cajoling from the president, public opposition to the proposal remained firm. As the fateful vote approached, Democrat leaders desperately needed a fig leaf to conceal the budget-busting math of their statist designs. To that end, they handed the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office a hopelessly distorted set of "facts" and assumptions, off of which the group was required to render a cost estimate known as a "scoring." Pelosi et al got what they asked for. CBO spat out a ten-year Obamacare price tag of $940 Billion, a figure that the White House and Congressional Democrats repeated endlessly in the media. This scoring, they bragged, would result in tens of billions in deficit savings over the same decade. Voters were asked to ignore the counter-intuitive message ("we're saving money by creating a giant new entitlement program!") and join the celebration. Though average Americans never got on board, just enough House Democrats did, many of whom wrapped themselves a $940 Billion veil of "fiscal responsibility" to rationalize their decision. At every step of the process, conservatives predicted that the law would end up far exceeding this estimate, which relied on phony math and mind-blowing gimmicks. Today, the hideous and unaffordable truth was laid bare by the very same CBO:
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. 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.
The enraging reality is that Democrats absolutely knew this was coming -- some accidentally admitted it -- yet they kept up the charade just long enough the ensure passage. It's comforting to know more than a few paid dearly for their perfidy in 2010, but that doesn't change the fact that taxpayers and future generations will remain saddled with this monstrosity unless it's thrown out by the Supreme Court or legislatively repealed. We cannot afford Obamacare. Hell, we can't afford the healthcare programs we already had in place pre-Obamacare. Democrats intentionally misled a deeply skeptical public to achieve their mammoth power grab -- behavior better known as "lying." The only way to make this right is to defeat this president and fully repeal his signature "achievement." I'll leave you with two clips. Up first is Obama describing his deep commitment to deficit reduction via entitlement expansion (think about that!) during his infamous smoke-and-mirrors address to Congress in 2009 (skip ahead to the 29-minute mark):
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” Quote Barrack Obama
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 17 2013, 12:57 AM
Post #2
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 17 2013, 12:50 AM
This is one example that I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about being right among a chorus of naysayers. Maybe some brillian member here can tell me how we are going to afford to pay another $trillion dollars over the next ten years? That's a trillion with a T. Oh and it gets worse, these estimates are expected to rise. Read the quote from Barrack Obama at the end of the article. Should we now insist he join congress in either revising the plan or legislating it out of existence? So that he can keep his promise. As I have said in the past, congress will starve this beast to extinction because republicans are not going to over-fund the lie. It's really as simple as that. Either the court intervene or congress will deny funding. Which is the ethical and logical thing to do, you don't take on another $hundred-billion a year in expenses when a president is running trillion dollar deficits.. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/13/surprise_obamacares_price_tag_nearly_doublesSurprise: Obamacare's Price Tag Nearly Doubles Guy Benson Political Editor, Townhall.com Mar 13, 2012 05:43 PM EST Two years ago this month, Democrats were on the brink of jamming through a massive federal intrusion into the American healthcare system. Despite a year-long drumbeat of fear-mongering, claptrap promises, and disingenuous cajoling from the president, public opposition to the proposal remained firm. As the fateful vote approached, Democrat leaders desperately needed a fig leaf to conceal the budget-busting math of their statist designs. To that end, they handed the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office a hopelessly distorted set of "facts" and assumptions, off of which the group was required to render a cost estimate known as a "scoring." Pelosi et al got what they asked for. CBO spat out a ten-year Obamacare price tag of $940 Billion, a figure that the White House and Congressional Democrats repeated endlessly in the media. This scoring, they bragged, would result in tens of billions in deficit savings over the same decade. Voters were asked to ignore the counter-intuitive message ("we're saving money by creating a giant new entitlement program!") and join the celebration. Though average Americans never got on board, just enough House Democrats did, many of whom wrapped themselves a $940 Billion veil of "fiscal responsibility" to rationalize their decision. At every step of the process, conservatives predicted that the law would end up far exceeding this estimate, which relied on phony math and mind-blowing gimmicks. Today, the hideous and unaffordable truth was laid bare by the very same CBO: 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. 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.
The enraging reality is that Democrats absolutely knew this was coming -- some accidentally admitted it -- yet they kept up the charade just long enough the ensure passage. It's comforting to know more than a few paid dearly for their perfidy in 2010, but that doesn't change the fact that taxpayers and future generations will remain saddled with this monstrosity unless it's thrown out by the Supreme Court or legislatively repealed. We cannot afford Obamacare. Hell, we can't afford the healthcare programs we already had in place pre-Obamacare. Democrats intentionally misled a deeply skeptical public to achieve their mammoth power grab -- behavior better known as "lying." The only way to make this right is to defeat this president and fully repeal his signature "achievement." I'll leave you with two clips. Up first is Obama describing his deep commitment to deficit reduction via entitlement expansion (think about that!) during his infamous smoke-and-mirrors address to Congress in 2009 (skip ahead to the 29-minute mark): “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” Quote Barrack Obama Wouldn't it be nice if the author bothered to tell us how much Obamacare will save over the same period of time. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of Obamacare, one would have to deduct savings from expenditures. We don't have that information, so the article is misleading.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 17 2013, 01:14 AM
Post #3
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
Yes we do have those estimates. But as has pointed out by me and others, they too were lies, half truths and smoke and mirrors. Medicare was one area that we discussed here in depth.
|
|
|
| |
|
Brewster
|
Mar 17 2013, 01:24 AM
Post #4
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,226
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
Odd. I remember the subject of costs coming up many times. As best I can recall, the savings have rarely been mentioned.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 17 2013, 01:44 AM
Post #5
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Brewster
- Mar 17 2013, 01:24 AM
Odd. I remember the subject of costs coming up many times. As best I can recall, the savings have rarely been mentioned. I've never heard anything about savings either. Perhaps Pat can direct us to a thread where that was mentioned and verified.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 17 2013, 01:55 AM
Post #6
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 17 2013, 12:57 AM
- Pat
- Mar 17 2013, 12:50 AM
This is one example that I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about being right among a chorus of naysayers. Maybe some brillian member here can tell me how we are going to afford to pay another $trillion dollars over the next ten years? That's a trillion with a T. Oh and it gets worse, these estimates are expected to rise. Read the quote from Barrack Obama at the end of the article. Should we now insist he join congress in either revising the plan or legislating it out of existence? So that he can keep his promise. As I have said in the past, congress will starve this beast to extinction because republicans are not going to over-fund the lie. It's really as simple as that. Either the court intervene or congress will deny funding. Which is the ethical and logical thing to do, you don't take on another $hundred-billion a year in expenses when a president is running trillion dollar deficits.. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/13/surprise_obamacares_price_tag_nearly_doublesSurprise: Obamacare's Price Tag Nearly Doubles Guy Benson Political Editor, Townhall.com Mar 13, 2012 05:43 PM EST Two years ago this month, Democrats were on the brink of jamming through a massive federal intrusion into the American healthcare system. Despite a year-long drumbeat of fear-mongering, claptrap promises, and disingenuous cajoling from the president, public opposition to the proposal remained firm. As the fateful vote approached, Democrat leaders desperately needed a fig leaf to conceal the budget-busting math of their statist designs. To that end, they handed the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office a hopelessly distorted set of "facts" and assumptions, off of which the group was required to render a cost estimate known as a "scoring." Pelosi et al got what they asked for. CBO spat out a ten-year Obamacare price tag of $940 Billion, a figure that the White House and Congressional Democrats repeated endlessly in the media. This scoring, they bragged, would result in tens of billions in deficit savings over the same decade. Voters were asked to ignore the counter-intuitive message ("we're saving money by creating a giant new entitlement program!") and join the celebration. Though average Americans never got on board, just enough House Democrats did, many of whom wrapped themselves a $940 Billion veil of "fiscal responsibility" to rationalize their decision. At every step of the process, conservatives predicted that the law would end up far exceeding this estimate, which relied on phony math and mind-blowing gimmicks. Today, the hideous and unaffordable truth was laid bare by the very same CBO: 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. 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.
The enraging reality is that Democrats absolutely knew this was coming -- some accidentally admitted it -- yet they kept up the charade just long enough the ensure passage. It's comforting to know more than a few paid dearly for their perfidy in 2010, but that doesn't change the fact that taxpayers and future generations will remain saddled with this monstrosity unless it's thrown out by the Supreme Court or legislatively repealed. We cannot afford Obamacare. Hell, we can't afford the healthcare programs we already had in place pre-Obamacare. Democrats intentionally misled a deeply skeptical public to achieve their mammoth power grab -- behavior better known as "lying." The only way to make this right is to defeat this president and fully repeal his signature "achievement." I'll leave you with two clips. Up first is Obama describing his deep commitment to deficit reduction via entitlement expansion (think about that!) during his infamous smoke-and-mirrors address to Congress in 2009 (skip ahead to the 29-minute mark): “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” Quote Barrack Obama
Wouldn't it be nice if the author bothered to tell us how much Obamacare will save over the same period of time. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of Obamacare, one would have to deduct savings from expenditures. We don't have that information, so the article is misleading. If the author did that the right wing "Town Hall" would never publish it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 17 2013, 02:20 AM
Post #7
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
If the liberal here would do one thing, it is answer the question I raised in my first post. How are the cost overruns going to be funded? What other programs would you prefer being cut out than this one? It's a matter of priority and choices because new taxes are not available and won't be.
|
|
|
| |
|
Brewster
|
Mar 17 2013, 02:28 AM
Post #8
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,226
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
Pat, as far as I have ever heard there will BE no cost overruns.
Since we never get a definitive list of savings, it's hard to calculate.
Until someone lists costs vs savings, we will never know.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 17 2013, 02:57 AM
Post #9
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Brewster
- Mar 17 2013, 02:28 AM
Pat, as far as I have ever heard there will BE no cost overruns.
Since we never get a definitive list of savings, it's hard to calculate.
Until someone lists costs vs savings, we will never know.
If that is the method being used Brew, then the whole lot of them need tossed out, advisers, economists and all. Why would any sane people embark on a plan involving 100's of billions of dollars, and have no savings cost estimates? At the end of the prescribed time, you could be left with again, $billions upon billions of unfunded liabilities. So assuming they are not all idiots, there are estimates.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 17 2013, 05:05 AM
Post #10
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
One thing we can do is turn to the Canadian experience where the adoption of single payer program reduced total costs rather than increased them.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|