CBO: ACA Will Cost Less Than Projected, Cover 12 Million Uninsured People This Year

[Synthaholic]

CBO: Obamacare Will Cost Less Than Projected, Cover 12 Million Uninsured People This Year



WASHINGTON -- The Congressional Budget Office has released updated estimates on the Affordable Care Act's impact on both the budget and the health insurance industry. The findings show that the president's signature health care law is actually growing cheaper to implement, costing the government $5 billion less in 2014 than was previously projected. The law also is projected to cover more individuals than previously believed, owing, in part, to some broader workforce trends.

But a significant portion of the population will remain uninsured even with the law fully implemented. And the costs to individuals and employers, while lower than previous estimates, still provide critics of the law with ample fodder.

Below are some additional highlights from the CBO report:

Twelve million more non-elderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than if Obamacare had not become law. CBO's projections on this crucial measure of the law's success are higher than recent surveys from the Rand Corp., which estimated a 9.3 million reduction, and from Gallup, which shows a 3.5 million decline.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's getting worse and worse for Republicans.

 

[Synthaholic]

Thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

 

[Rozman]

The CBO says a lot of things...

 

[Rozman]

Thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

So you do recognize him as your GOD?....

 

[Katzndogz]

People will decide for themselves whether they are paying more or not. Telling them they aren't paying more when they know they are will not be effective.

 

[boedicca]

Obama promised that ObamaCare would not add one dime to the deficit.

Well, the CBO estimates add up to a Whole Lot Of Dimes.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's getting worse and worse for Republicans.

Dear Synthaholic:

If spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens,
there would be an even more drastic drop in crime, abuse, addiction, disease of all kinds,
and costs of the consequences of crime, addiction and disease.

But it is still NOT the federal govt's duty to impose on citizens' private choices,
where it is not legally necessary or "compelling" as with crime or national defense.

Freedom to pay for health care by making better health care choices,
business and financial choices, investing in schools or charities
IS NOT A CRIME.

If you believe the benefits are greater, and it doesn't bother you to give up your liberty,
you have the right to make that choice.

But not to impose it on others who have equal right and freedom to choose for themselves.

Just remember this same argument when it comes to:
* Prolife people who believe the benefits of banning and stopping abortion
are GREATER and justify giving up the freedom of choice
* Christians or Muslims who believe that the "one way" they believe is right
is GREATER than the freedom of choosing any other way which our laws protect

If we allow freedom of choice of abortion, with the understanding abortion can be prevented WITHOUT forcing bans by law "as the only way"; why can't we understand that health care for all can be achieved without forcing mandates by law "as the only way"?

Why can't this be done voluntarily, as some of the best programs already operate?

If insurance companies need to be regulated to prevent fraud, that is one thing.
But we can still regulate companies WITHOUT forcing consumers to buy services!

I believe it makes more sense that if people commit CRIMES
then THOSE people can be required to meet federal requirements for paying their costs to the public.

But not if they haven't committed any crimes or have no such intent.
Do you see the difference?

If the govt is not going after the CRIMINALS who are CONVICTED of crimes
***and cost taxpayers thousands if not millions of dollars***;
why go after lawabiding taxpayers who haven't committed crimes and impose mandates and penalties on THEM?

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we hold those people responsible for their crimes and costs first?
And use that money to pay back taxpayers instead of charging more costs for abuses?
Punishing "lawabiding" citizens forced to give up our liberty because the govt doesn't have a system of collecting back from abusers?
Why not fix that problem instead of putting it on the taxpayers by making us pay or give up our rights we had before?

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama promised that ObamaCare would not add one dime to the deficit.

Well, the CBO estimates add up to a Whole Lot Of Dimes.

How much was the insurance bailout? 1.5 trillion?

No other companies I know require all citizens to purchase their services by law
before passing regulations.

Whatever deal was made with insurance companies,
this contract should be paid for by them and the Parties that agreed to the contract.

Whatever members of Congress or Courts agreed to this 'business contract'
those are the ones who should be under it, manage it and pay for it, along with all the
members of the public who agree to those terms. And leave the rest to their own.

No need to argue which is better or worse, people are happier sticking to what they decide and should retain equal freedom to follow what represents them and their beliefs.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama promised that ObamaCare would not add one dime to the deficit.

Well, the CBO estimates add up to a Whole Lot Of Dimes.

Report Actually Says Federal Deficit Will Decline If Health Care Law Is Fully Implemented

GAO: Health Care Law Will Increase Deficit Only If Cost-Containment Provisions Are "Phased Out Over Time." The GAO report cited by Sessions and conservative media looked at two scenarios and found that the health care law will increase the long-term deficit under a scenario in which cost-cutting provisions of the law are phased out:

The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted in March 2010, on the long-term fiscal outlook depends largely on whether elements in PPACA designed to control cost growth are sustained.
[...]


The Fall 2010 Alternative simulation assumed cost containment mechanisms specified in PPACA were phased out over time while the additional costs associated with expanding federal health care coverage remained. Under these assumptions, the long-term outlook worsened slightly compared to the pre-PPACA January 2010 simulation. [Government Accountability Office, January 2013]
​

 

[Synthaholic]

It's getting worse and worse for Republicans.

Dear Synthaholic:

If spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens,
there would be an even more drastic drop in crime, abuse, addiction, disease of all kinds,
and costs of the consequences of crime, addiction and disease.

But it is still NOT the federal govt's duty to impose on citizens' private choices,
where it is not legally necessary or "compelling" as with crime or national defense.

Freedom to pay for health care by making better health care choices,
business and financial choices, investing in schools or charities
IS NOT A CRIME.

If you believe the benefits are greater, and it doesn't bother you to give up your liberty,
you have the right to make that choice.

But not to impose it on others who have equal right and freedom to choose for themselves.

Just remember this same argument when it comes to:
* Prolife people who believe the benefits of banning and stopping abortion
are GREATER and justify giving up the freedom of choice
* Christians or Muslims who believe that the "one way" they believe is right
is GREATER than the freedom of choosing any other way which our laws protect

If we allow freedom of choice of abortion, with the understanding abortion can be prevented WITHOUT forcing bans by law "as the only way"; why can't we understand that health care for all can be achieved without forcing mandates by law "as the only way"?

Why can't this be done voluntarily, as some of the best programs already operate?

If insurance companies need to be regulated to prevent fraud, that is one thing.
But we can still regulate companies WITHOUT forcing consumers to buy services!

I believe it makes more sense that if people commit CRIMES
then THOSE people can be required to meet federal requirements for paying their costs to the public.

But not if they haven't committed any crimes or have no such intent.
Do you see the difference?

If the govt is not going after the CRIMINALS who are CONVICTED of crimes
***and cost taxpayers thousands if not millions of dollars***;
why go after lawabiding taxpayers who haven't committed crimes and impose mandates and penalties on THEM?

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we hold those people responsible for their crimes and costs first?
And use that money to pay back taxpayers instead of charging more costs for abuses?
Punishing "lawabiding" citizens forced to give up our liberty because the govt doesn't have a system of collecting back from abusers?
Why not fix that problem instead of putting it on the taxpayers by making us pay or give up our rights we had before?

This is a bunch of happy horseshit.

There is no loss of liberty.

There is no loss of freedom.

Except the freedom to mooch off the taxpayer by going to the emergency room without insurance.

 

[dblack]

Cost who less than projected??

 

[dblack]

This is a bunch of happy horseshit.

There is no loss of liberty.

There is no loss of freedom.

Except the freedom to mooch off the taxpayer by going to the emergency room without insurance.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize liberty if it bit you in the ass.

 

[Politico]

The CBO says a lot of things...

In this case the opposite of what is actually happening.

 

[Stephanie]

It's getting worse and worse for Republicans.

Dear Synthaholic:

If spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens,
there would be an even more drastic drop in crime, abuse, addiction, disease of all kinds,
and costs of the consequences of crime, addiction and disease.

But it is still NOT the federal govt's duty to impose on citizens' private choices,
where it is not legally necessary or "compelling" as with crime or national defense.

Freedom to pay for health care by making better health care choices,
business and financial choices, investing in schools or charities
IS NOT A CRIME.

If you believe the benefits are greater, and it doesn't bother you to give up your liberty,
you have the right to make that choice.

But not to impose it on others who have equal right and freedom to choose for themselves.

Just remember this same argument when it comes to:
* Prolife people who believe the benefits of banning and stopping abortion
are GREATER and justify giving up the freedom of choice
* Christians or Muslims who believe that the "one way" they believe is right
is GREATER than the freedom of choosing any other way which our laws protect

If we allow freedom of choice of abortion, with the understanding abortion can be prevented WITHOUT forcing bans by law "as the only way"; why can't we understand that health care for all can be achieved without forcing mandates by law "as the only way"?

Why can't this be done voluntarily, as some of the best programs already operate?

If insurance companies need to be regulated to prevent fraud, that is one thing.
But we can still regulate companies WITHOUT forcing consumers to buy services!

I believe it makes more sense that if people commit CRIMES
then THOSE people can be required to meet federal requirements for paying their costs to the public.

But not if they haven't committed any crimes or have no such intent.
Do you see the difference?

If the govt is not going after the CRIMINALS who are CONVICTED of crimes
***and cost taxpayers thousands if not millions of dollars***;
why go after lawabiding taxpayers who haven't committed crimes and impose mandates and penalties on THEM?

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we hold those people responsible for their crimes and costs first?
And use that money to pay back taxpayers instead of charging more costs for abuses?
Punishing "lawabiding" citizens forced to give up our liberty because the govt doesn't have a system of collecting back from abusers?
Why not fix that problem instead of putting it on the taxpayers by making us pay or give up our rights we had before?

excellent post dear, but I'm afraid too many people are willing to give up their freedoms for the government to make all their life decisions...the op is fine example...it's sad to watch us become slave to the government

 

[Stephanie]

This is a bunch of happy horseshit.

There is no loss of liberty.

There is no loss of freedom.

Except the freedom to mooch off the taxpayer by going to the emergency room without insurance.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize liberty if it bit you in the ass.

you notice that's the one thing they can come up for needing this fascist Federal Government entitlement enslavement? He thinks people don't get bills from emergency or and hospitals and and get billed and MAKE PAYMENTS on them just like they do electricity, gas, water etc
this kind of stupid is why Obama was able to DUPE so many to give up their liberty and freedom of choice to live our live how we want not how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT want's us to

 

[Sallow]

The CBO says a lot of things...

And you only believe the CBO when it favors what you are preaching.

 

[Sallow]

This is a bunch of happy horseshit.

There is no loss of liberty.

There is no loss of freedom.

Except the freedom to mooch off the taxpayer by going to the emergency room without insurance.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize liberty if it bit you in the ass.

you notice that's the one thing they can come up for needing this fascist Federal Government entitlement enslavement? He thinks people don't get bills from emergency or and hospitals and and get billed and MAKE PAYMENTS on them just like they do electricity, gas, water etc
this kind of stupid is why Obama was able to DUPE so many to give up their liberty and freedom of choice to live our live how we want not how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT want's us to

You go to emergency rooms?

 

[billyerock1991]

It's getting worse and worse for Republicans.

the good thing is they're too stupid to realize it ... what the CBO was saying is, and this will piss these republicans off, there weren't as many subsidies as they predicted ....

 

[billyerock1991]

The CBO says a lot of things...

if the CBO had said it has cost us more then they predicted you'd be all over it, now wouldn't you, loser!!!!