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

[chikenwing]

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.

Broken freaking record,who do you think is paying now?? same as then.

And ,just like all people like yourself,demonizing a group for your means is par. Not everyone that goes to the E room don't pay their bills,but the truth doesn't matter for people like yourself.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i am only interested in snippets of CBO reports presented by rightwing websites painting obamacare as the debbil.

 

[oldfart]

you don't get it ecinicola, but you were never too bright in the first place ... what the CBO said from the get go that it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer any debt to the national debt... they have based their figures on ten years ... the CBO said that its costing us 5 billion dollars a year less ... meaning it will deduct from the deficit ... now base that on a ten year deduction, that's 50 billion dollars off the national debt you dolts...

First, the CBO report has an estimate of the reduction in cost for the ten years of $104 billion, not $50 billion.

Second, the report is limited to the costs of the insurance requirements, NOT THE ACA AS A WHOLE. Overall, the ACA is projected to reduce the deficit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

According to the report, prices are going to go up, despite Obama's promise to bend the cost curve downward, and all the projected "cost savings" are coming from penalty taxes on people without insurance. The funny thing, since Obama actually delayed the employer mandate until 2016, effectively cancelled the individual mandate for anyone that says that insurance is more expensive, and the CBO report is based on the law as written, it is actually going to cost more than what the CBO report estimates.

By the way, did you notice that the best estimates of people covered range from 7 to 9 million, which is a but smaller than the 12 million the CBO estimates?

But keep pointing to the CBO because we all know it is all you have.

 

[oldfart]

CBO slightly lowers U.S. deficit estimates as health subsidies fall | Reuters

Mandatory spending programs, including Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, will swell to 11.5 percent of GDP in 2024 from 9.5 percent in 2013. In 2024, they will cost $3.1 trillion, CBO said, accounting for more than half of all federal spending.

"If current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end," the CBO said in the report.

Deficits will reach a low point of $469 billion, or 2.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, in fiscal 2015, then gradually start to rise, topping $1 trillion again in 2023 and 2024, a level that would be near 4 percent of GDP.

It was a nice cherry pick though. Even if it makes you look stupid, When has that ever stopped a liberal?

I think your post will be confusing to a lot of people, so let me try to clarify. Yesterday CBO issued two reports, one on the cost of the insurance aspects of ACA and a second updating their baseline economic and budget projections. There is a lot of overlap, but the two reports are separate.

Most of this thread has been about the first report and you are referring to the second in your quote. It is true that the second report projects a growing deficit starting about three years out, fueled in part by rising costs of government health care programs. These costs are a bit lower than initially projected (per the first report). The major driver of these increased health care costs however is demographics, the increasing older population, not costs per participant. And the major driver of the increased deficits is another factor, the interest rate assumptions which are pretty problematical. We might have a good debate elsewhere on the last issue, which is one where I part ways with the CBO model.

I hope this helps, as you obviously read CBO reports rather than just blogger or news summaries of the reports. I don't disagree with you that the deficits will increase starting about 2017, both absolutely, and as a percentage of GDP. The questions are by how much and what the drivers are.

 

[oldfart]

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.

According to the report, prices are going to go up, despite Obama's promise to bend the cost curve downward, and all the projected "cost savings" are coming from penalty taxes on people without insurance.

Nominal prices are projected to go up. There is a table in the CBO report projecting this metric. The same report states that the costs are stabilizing and there is a graph showing that. These are not inconsistent facts. Maybe you should read the actual report.

Nothing in the report states that "all the projected "cost savings" are coming from penalty taxes on people without insurance." If you didn't make this up out of thin air, point us to the page containing such a quote.

The funny thing, since Obama actually delayed the employer mandate until 2016, effectively cancelled the individual mandate for anyone that says that insurance is more expensive, and the CBO report is based on the law as written, it is actually going to cost more than what the CBO report estimates.

Obviously you neither read the notes or are familiar with CBO forecasting procedure. What basis do you have for the untrue statement above?

By the way, did you notice that the best estimates of people covered range from 7 to 9 million, which is a but smaller than the 12 million the CBO estimates?

But keep pointing to the CBO because we all know it is all you have.

By all means rely on Gallup and Rand surveys rather than the real numbers. Both organizations admit their methodology under counts participants (for example not counting spouses and dependents of covered participants). There is only one really reliable non-government source on participant numbers (Gaba) and his numbers are higher than CBO's. But then, you really don't follow the actual numbers do you? Just parrot brain-damaged political flacks.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

So who's paying for those who mooched off the tax payer now? ...oh yeah...the tax payers.
What an ignoranus..

 

[JWBooth]

The CBO is doing satirical comedy in its press releases now?

No govt. program has, or will ever, come in below cost estimates nor achieve what was promised.

 

[Politico]

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!!!!

No I'd stilll say they were full of shit. You and sallow need to get a room at the Leftylusional resort.

 

[Stephanie]

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!!!!

No I'd stilll say they were full of shit. You and sallow need to get a room at the Leftylusional resort.

they need to invite Obama too...orgasms all over the place

 

[Defiant1]

Received a memo today from the County Administrator. Healthcare premiums for next year's budget up 12% due to, you guessed it, Obamacare.

Employees contribution will not increase, so who gets to pay for this??????


The taxpayers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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 bilso ,if led 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

so what you're saying here is if you make 7.20 a hour and the hospital bills you 100,000 dollars ... that they will pay it??? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT !!!!! you aren't dumber then we thought ... not really stephoney ...

[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] has said she gets her care via Medicare.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your cheap whores in Congress have sold us out to the insurance industry and you know it. Keep dancing.

translation= you don't like to have to pay for health care ... you don't like the Idea that all people regardless of wealth gets health care ... we get it ... its all about you...

translation= I'm just gonna ignore that fact that universal health care was a bait and switch to make a killing for the insurance lobby. That we don't have 'universal health care' or anything like it - just a mandate to buy shitty, overpriced insurance.

And yet, lower profits for insurance companies and an end to "shitty overpriced [junk] insurance [policies] is what we've been seeing.

Why is that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

ObamaCare is succeeding but we could fix every single problem ...

 

[Rozman]

Why in the world would we call it ReaganCare...
This is Obama's legacy...

 

[Greenbeard]

Cost who less than projected??

Consumers and the federal government. Anyone paying for private insurance.

Premiums are lower than anticipated (significantly so) and they're projected to grow by less than 3% next year.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

????

Hi Synthaholic

What do you mean there is no loss of liberty?

Before this ACA, people had the freedom to buy insurance at the TIME and the LEVEL or RATES they wanted without fear of penalty that this bill imposes against their beliefs.

Now, we no longer have the liberty to buy insurance when needed, or we will pay a fine to government, EVEN if we believe in paying for health care other ways. That is why so many people have proposed alternative savings to invest in -- instead of insurance or instead of paying govt.

The point is to retain free choice and preserve the same liberty we had before --
to pay for health care without being restricted to just govt mandates or insurance
under those terms. There are other ways to cover costs of more people, by investing in programs that address and reduce the costs of crime and sickness instead of just paying insurance companies which doesn't cure any causes, doesn't train doctors or build any facilities as charities and medical schools do if we retained equal choice to invest there.

Synth: what is the "crime" in wanting to pay for health care by investing in free charity services, medical schools and training, and outreach to prevent and reduce the costs?

Why is "paying for insurance" the ONLY option now, that isn't fined by government?

How can you say there is "no loss of liberty" when before I had the ability to get health care through charity, and use all my salary to pay for historic preservation and nonprofit groups trying to save a historic district. And now, if this mandate isn't removed, then I am under added pressure to pay for health insurance or pay fines to govt when (a) I already committed to longterm projects that depend on almost all my salary going there and
(b) I believe in more cost effective ways of reducing costs and paying for health care for more people, which I used to have the liberty to invest in, instead of paying insurance companies, but now I don't have that choice anymore.

Am I just living in a different world than you are?

So from your perspective, no liberty was lost because you don't believe in other choices?

If so, you remind me of Prolife advocates who don't see any freedom lost
in banning abortion because they see it as murder and "not a choice."

Yet all the prochoice liberals and feminists I know DEMAND to have that choice
free and clear of government regulation (much less fines or penalties, no way!)
EVEN IF THEY DON'T NEED OR EXPECT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE
they still WANT the "freedom from government."

In that perspective, can you understand that opponents of ACA as unconstitutional
want the FREEDOM to make that choice how to pay for health care
and DON'T want govt regulations, fines or penalties on that choice.

Do you see how that is a loss to freedom from a "prochoice" perspective?

 

[emilynghiem]

translation= you don't like to have to pay for health care ... you don't like the Idea that all people regardless of wealth gets health care ... we get it ... its all about you...

translation= I'm just gonna ignore that fact that universal health care was a bait and switch to make a killing for the insurance lobby. That we don't have 'universal health care' or anything like it - just a mandate to buy shitty, overpriced insurance.

And yet, lower profits for insurance companies and an end to "shitty overpriced [junk] insurance [policies] is what we've been seeing.

Why is that?

Why can't the same reforms be done without requiring ALL citizens to purchase a product?

We don't regulate car companies or airlines by requiring everyone to purchase from them.

Why can't discount group rates be negotiated with just the SUPPORTERS of this program who voluntarily participate and get better rates.

And why can't systems be set up to go after the people who do rack up costs in hospitals and/or prisons and make those people pay instead of passing the costs to taxpayers?

If the point is responsibility, why not hold people responsible?

And only ones who COMMIT CRIMES lose their liberties,
while citizens who are responsible for covering costs are rewarded and retain theirs?

Why treat all citizens in advance as criminals who aren't going to pay their costs?
Where is the proof and due process before
deciding WHICH taxpayers had any ill or criminal intent not to pay?

Sorry Luddly if my points don't make any sense to you.

This whole thing doesn't make sense to me either!
Especially not from the Party that is supposed to support "prochoice" principles!

 

[Stephanie]

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 bilso ,if led 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

so what you're saying here is if you make 7.20 a hour and the hospital bills you 100,000 dollars ... that they will pay it??? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT !!!!! you aren't dumber then we thought ... not really stephoney ...

[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] has said she gets her care via Medicare.

You're still a liar and billygoat is just a fucking idiot...I am on nothing from the government....I pay my bills out of pocket on payments if I need to
I am not taking money from my fellow country and men and women and living off their backs like you and billyrocket are

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

????

Hi Synthaholic

What do you mean there is no loss of liberty?

Before this ACA, people had the freedom to buy insurance at the TIME and the LEVEL or RATES they wanted without fear of penalty that this bill imposes against their beliefs.

There was a time when you could drive in this country without having auto insurance.

There was a time when you could drive without a license!

There was a 4 Way Stop leading out of my neighborhood, and now it's a traffic light that I have to wait on to change.

There was a time when factories could hire children.

Did the citizenry lose precious freeeeedoms when each of these examples were changed by government?

The ACA is just a new regulation - that's all.