Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hR General Discussion Forums > Potomac hR Political Air Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Oh, that's all?
  #1  
Old 03-14-2012, 12:38 PM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default Oh, that's all?

Quote:
The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...usly-assessed/

Everyone who was acting like the CBO's word was gospel and there was no way this thing was going to be as expensive as common sense told you, here's a little extra and I expect it to get worse each year we go. There's a reason why the full implementation was delayed until after Obama ran for re-election. This steaming pile of legislation is only going to get hotter as the years go on.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 03-15-2012, 08:56 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

I would have thought one of the people here whose defense of the health care act was the CBO assessment would have chimed in to at least admit they were wrong. Oh well.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:45 AM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Seems like there's some conflicting info out there on this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3136...bo-revised.htm

Quote:
While fewer Americans than originally expected will get coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the coverage provisions of the law will cost about $50 billion less over a 10-year period from 2012-2021. The decrease is due to new laws passed over the last year, changes in economic outlook and a slowdown in the increasing rate of insurance premiums.

The CBO said the combined effects of the changes include a $168 billion increase in outlays for Medicaid and CHIP; a $97 billion decrease in costs for setting up exchanges; a $20 billion decrease in the cost of giving small employers tax credits; and a $99 billion reduction in the deficit due to penalty payments, an excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and tax revenue.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 03-15-2012, 11:42 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

Yeah, just like the conflicting reports between the CBO's first estimate and common sense.
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 03-15-2012, 11:45 AM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
Yeah, just like the conflicting reports between the CBO's first estimate and common sense.
From a semantics sense, both could be right without conflicting. The reevaluation does mean an increased projection but its also taking into account a better economy which means less costs in some areas and more revenues in others.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:05 PM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhhorus View Post
From a semantics sense, both could be right without conflicting. The reevaluation does mean an increased projection but its also taking into account a better economy which means less costs in some areas and more revenues in others.
The point remains that anyone who thought this thing would be a net positive was kidding themselves. The CBO even said in their original assessment that they can't make any guesses and can only go on the numbers they are fed. Like us, they were fed a pile of lies.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:09 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
The point remains that anyone who thought this thing would be a net positive was kidding themselves. The CBO even said in their original assessment that they can't make any guesses and can only go on the numbers they are fed. Like us, they were fed a pile of lies.
I read the CBO report. It says this:
Quote:
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
So, this "Obamacare will cost X more over 10 years" meme is incorrect unless its looking at one portion and not the net cost.

But yes, CBO "projections" are just that.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:19 PM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

Oh the non-partisan Ezra Klein version. It is funny to see how quickly the pushers are throwing out the same caveats now that people like me used before.

The line that it does "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". Whoa, that sure looks like a guess and we're not allowed to assume.

I'll stand by my assumption that it is impossible to cover more people (less than originally thought though), not pay more in taxes and still save money. I also still expect my insurance premiums to go through the roof once the full version is rolled out.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:33 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
Oh the non-partisan Ezra Klein version. It is funny to see how quickly the pushers are throwing out the same caveats now that people like me used before.

The line that it does "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". Whoa, that sure looks like a guess and we're not allowed to assume.

I'll stand by my assumption that it is impossible to cover more people (less than originally thought though), not pay more in taxes and still save money. I also still expect my insurance premiums to go through the roof once the full version is rolled out.
There's nothing in the actual CBO report which supports the claim posted to start this thread. Yes, they are projections but at no point does the CBO claim that the net costs of Obamacare will shoot up. You want to say that the offsets and increases in revenue are projections. Fine. The increases in cost are "estimated" and "projected" also. You can't pick and choose here.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:54 PM
Ibleedburgundy's Avatar
Ibleedburgundy Ibleedburgundy is offline
Chief
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
I'll stand by my assumption that it is impossible to cover more people (less than originally thought though), not pay more in taxes and still save money.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a tax increase (whether or not people want to call it that). It roughly pays for itself in terms of the deficit/national debt. The question is over whether or not it increases the national debt over what it would have been without the law. The original projection was that it would reduce the debt by (IIRC) $150B over 10 years. Now it may be more expensive to the point where it is revenue neutral. I don't see why this development would change anyone's mind on whether or not they support the bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave
I also still expect my insurance premiums to go through the roof once the full version is rolled out.
Your insurance premiums have been headed through the roof for 25 years now. Our healthcare system sucks big time. We pay double and triple what other civilized countries pay for heallthcare, our quality isn't better than theirs, and they have access for all. Our private system that your Republican party is trying so hard to preserve is immensely less efficient than every Government-run system in the world.

The PPAACA fixes some of the problems with our system but not all of them. The insurance pools created under the PPAACA should increase competition and lower premiums - at least in the states where Republican Governors aren't blocking them.
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 03-15-2012, 03:15 PM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

Right, so my taxes and premiums are going up just like I said they would. You guys said there would be no tax increases and my premiums wouldn't go up.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 03-15-2012, 03:20 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
Right, so my taxes and premiums are going up just like I said they would. You guys said there would be no tax increases and my premiums wouldn't go up.
I don't remember saying that, I do remember saying that they should do co-opts and/or the public option to keep pricing down. And that the screaming from both sides meant that we all missed a great opportunity to discuss a change over to a swiss or Dutch/german system of subsidized private insurance or a mandated cheap insurance option to keep costs down across the board.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 03-15-2012, 04:40 PM
Ibleedburgundy's Avatar
Ibleedburgundy Ibleedburgundy is offline
Chief
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
Right, so my taxes and premiums are going up just like I said they would. You guys said there would be no tax increases and my premiums wouldn't go up.
Who specifically said that? I was never under that impression. Healthcare is expensive. Of course insuring 30 million Americans is going to cost money. Only an idiot of monumental proportions would ever have thought otherwise. That's almost as stupid as thinking you could cut taxes by $3 trillion and the Federal Government would magically have an increase in revenue.

Last edited by Ibleedburgundy : 03-15-2012 at 04:43 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 10-23-2013, 07:00 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,557
Default

It's getting more and more expensive by the hour.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

Spin away, lemmings.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 10-23-2013, 08:25 AM
AustinSkin's Avatar
AustinSkin AustinSkin is offline
Healer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Austin, TX - Live Music Capitol of the World
Posts: 3,660
Default

The "Tea-liban" party, and their nervous GOP lackeys want absolutely nothing to do with accessible and affordable healthcare for all. They have absolutely no interest in making healthcare accessible to all. They are dead set against allowing coverage for those who have pre-existing conditions or those who may be deemed high-risk, because they are afraid they might have to pay more out of pocket.

When we had a small business (6 employees), our health insurance premiums were through the roof, and it was nothing for insurance companies to assess 25% increases to our premiums year-over-year. And that was well before the ACA was even on the table. So please don't tell me that the previous system was fine. It wasn't.

The real answer is a focused, bi-partisan plan to make healthcare accessible and affordable. It's going to require some creative thinking, but it's definitely possible. Let both parties argue about who takes credit for the success of the program, rather than stone-walling each other and getting nowhere.
__________________
"What I'm trying to do is be as honest as I can. And I don't normally do that," - Mike Shannahan
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |