Cost of Obamacare 80% less than the lie Wendy's told

[healthmyths]

You rely on the word of the today admitted liars at these restaurants for your 'facts'.
Minimum wage workers won't be taking the private plan of their employer mainly because better plans exist - including subsidized Medicare in most states - still a cost savings over their current care through emergency rooms.

Obama said:"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,"

GIVEN: Census bureau says 10 million of the 46 million "uninsured' are not citizens… leaving 36 million…
Source: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

Obama was counting ONLY Citizens.. which means 10 million which are not should not be part of the 46 million.. means 36 million!


GIVEN: 14 million are eligible for Medicaid..but they are counted as "uninsured"…. leaving 22 million…
Source: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

Obama was counting ONLY Citizens and people that weren't covered... BUT 14 million WERE eligible! All they had to do was file papers SIMILAR to the 60 pages Obamacare now requires! THEY are covered just not enrolled! So subtract 14 million from 46 million..LEAVES 22 MILLION!

GIVEN:18 million counted as 'Uninsured" make over $50,000, are under 34 and pay an average of $1,000 a year out of pocket instead of taking employers insurance.
Source: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

Obama WAS being DISINGENUOUS at the least DISHONEST at the most.. Counting PEOPLE THAT don't WANT insurance!
18 million turned down employers insurance because they A) didn't need it.. B) paid out of their pocket!

That leaves 4 million truly uninsured that need coverage. 98.7% ARE covered.. of those that want coverage.

So do you STILL believe there are 46 million "UNINSURED? Even though simple math shows there are less then 4 million!

NOW why are you against these 4 million having coverage in the following solution???

Is it right that these 4 million that truly need coverage because many of you defend ambulance chasing millionaire lawyers?

 

[rdean]

You rely on the word of the today admitted liars at these restaurants for your 'facts'.
Minimum wage workers won't be taking the private plan of their employer mainly because better plans exist - including subsidized Medicare in most states - still a cost savings over their current care through emergency rooms.

Obama said:"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,"

GIVEN: Census bureau says 10 million of the 46 million "uninsured' are not citizens… leaving 36 million…
Source: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

Obama was counting ONLY Citizens.. which means 10 million which are not should not be part of the 46 million.. means 36 million!


GIVEN: 14 million are eligible for Medicaid..but they are counted as "uninsured"…. leaving 22 million…
Source: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

Obama was counting ONLY Citizens and people that weren't covered... BUT 14 million WERE eligible! All they had to do was file papers SIMILAR to the 60 pages Obamacare now requires! THEY are covered just not enrolled! So subtract 14 million from 46 million..LEAVES 22 MILLION!

GIVEN:18 million counted as 'Uninsured" make over $50,000, are under 34 and pay an average of $1,000 a year out of pocket instead of taking employers insurance.
Source: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

Obama WAS being DISINGENUOUS at the least DISHONEST at the most.. Counting PEOPLE THAT don't WANT insurance!
18 million turned down employers insurance because they A) didn't need it.. B) paid out of their pocket!

That leaves 4 million truly uninsured that need coverage. 98.7% ARE covered.. of those that want coverage.

So do you STILL believe there are 46 million "UNINSURED? Even though simple math shows there are less then 4 million!

NOW why are you against these 4 million having coverage in the following solution???

Is it right that these 4 million that truly need coverage because many of you defend ambulance chasing millionaire lawyers?

Funny, the Heritage Foundation puts the number at 48.6 million. You right wingers better get your numbers straight or people will think you're idiots.

More Than 48 Million Americans Remain Uninsured | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

[Darkwind]

Your mixing apples and oranges jumping from news of the USUAL rate hikes while the topic at hand was the overall cost to businesses.
But since you insist ion changing focus - rate hikes in insurance have been epidemic for decades. the Obama plan will accomplish the following benefits for the county in that continuing sorry record that your recent Presidential candidate proved possible: 98% coverage and declining insurance rates - the latter accomplished by the big stick the govt can now weld through its cooperative work with insurers to force vendor price stability and eventually it's decline. Those benefits don't even start to accrue for another year.
Massachusetts and Hawaii Offer the Most Cost-Effective Health Insurance Coverage | The Health Care Blog

Look Barak. You failed. Admit it and move on.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade | The Weekly Standard

Since the cost projections for EVERYTHING to do with ObamaCare are constantly being revised upwards, Cruss...I'm finding it hard to see anything to be thrilled about with what we have obligated ourselves to.

CBO's year-by-year projections have changed little since their original March 2010 estimates--and where they have changed, they're generally slightly lower in the February 2013 estimates.

That said, their estimates of Medicare and Medicaid spending have been quite off--they overestimated the programs' costs over this decade by hundreds of billions of dollars. They've been shocked--shocked!--by the dramatic and sustained slowdown in health spending growth economy-wide over the past few years.

The Recent Changes in CBO’s Baseline Reflect Trends That Have Developed Over the Past Few Years

In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.

In response to that slowdown, over the past several years CBO has made a series of downward adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. For example, from the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, technical revisions—mostly reflecting the slower growth in the programs’ spending in recent years—have lowered CBO’s estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion—by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.

For comparison, the net cost of Obamacare's coverage provisions in 2020 is projected to be $149 billion.

Anyone that buys the notion that cost are going to be "lower" than projected by Obama before ObamaCare was rammed through is wearing some serious partisan blinders, Greenie! I'm curious...does your CBO "projections" reflect the recent decision by Congress to get rid of the tax on medical devices that was included in ObamaCare to help fund it? I'm guessing that they don't.

 

[healthmyths]

We seem to have a Breitbart staffer here. The claim that Cho said the exchange would be a 'third world experince" is, ...well, its a lie. An utter and bald faced mis-quote. When you put quotes around something and you drop the not - that's a lie.
Here is the monologue Cho delivered to get people off the dime and working to the end product of the delivery mechanism for the markets.
“The time for debating about the size of the text on the screen, or the color, or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” said Chao. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.” Both Chao and Cohen said that it’s likely that some of the state-based exchanges might not be ready on time, in which case the federal government would step in as a backstop."
Dropping the not before your quotes is a poor way to debate.
some of the red states that are dragging their heels ARE essentially 3rd world countries - Looking at you Mississippi... and they likely will need the federal markets to save them - but there they are - and quite ready to fill in till the backward red states get their act together.
Please don't pull out any more lying quotations - it's quite painful to have to correct them!

OK how about THESE LYING QUOTES and tell me they are TRUE OK prove differently!

Obama said:"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,"

GIVEN: Census bureau says 10 million of the 46 million "uninsured' are not citizens… leaving 36 million…
Source: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

Crussmith..Obama was counting ONLY Citizens.. which means 10 million which are not should not be part of the 46 million.. means 36 million!


GIVEN: 14 million are eligible for Medicaid..but they are counted as "uninsured"…. leaving 22 million…
Source: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

Crussmith..Obama was counting ONLY Citizens and people that weren't covered... BUT 14 million WERE eligible! All they had to do was file papers SIMILAR to the 60 pages Obamacare now requires! THEY are covered just not enrolled! So subtract 14 million from 46 million..LEAVES 22 MILLION!

GIVEN:18 million counted as 'Uninsured" make over $50,000, are under 34 and pay an average of $1,000 a year out of pocket instead of taking employers insurance.
Source: CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

Crussmith..Obama WAS being DISINGENUOUS at the least DISHONEST at the most.. Counting PEOPLE THAT don't WANT insurance!
18 million turned down employers insurance because they A) didn't need it.. B) paid out of their pocket!

That leaves 4 million truly uninsured that need coverage. 98.7% ARE covered.. of those that want coverage.

So do you STILL believe there are 46 million "UNINSURED? Even though simple math shows there are less then 4 million!

NOW why are you against these 4 million having coverage in the following solution???

Is it right that these 4 million that truly need coverage because many of you defend ambulance chasing millionaire lawyers?

You have no problem with tanning salons being taxed 10% because they cause cancer!

YET you defenders of millionaire lawyers don't want to tax 10% of the $200 billion a year they make which could provide a $4,000 a year premium for the truly
4 million uninsured that want insurance?

YOU people would refuse 4 million people coverage in order to defend millionaire lawyers??

What is this world coming to that you have NO compassion for those that don't have insurance!

 

[healthmyths]

How about these Obama lies?
NOW before you consent that Obama knows NOTHING as to how insurance premiums work..
Do you think ACTUARIES may have a better grasp of how much insurance WILL cost??
A nationwide study conducted by Milliman Inc. for the Society of Actuaries found that nationwide the premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014
with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017!!!
Think about THE EXPERTS who calculate Premiums are telling you the rates will increase 122%!!!
Take the time like I did download from the Society of Actuaries SOA - Society of Actuaries - Design and Implementation Considerations of ACA Risk Mitigation Programs


In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has vowed that he will lower the country’s health care costs enough to “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place “by the end of my first term as president of the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?_r=3&
August 6, 2008
OBAMA: A system where we're gonna work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

October 4, 2008
OBAMA: We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.

September 6, 2008
OBAMA: Here's what change is saying to people who already have health insurance and the employers who are providing it: We'll work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

May 3, 2008
OBAMA: I also have a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums.

January 3, 2008
OBAMA: And if you already have health care, then we're gonna reduce costs an average of $2,500 per family on premiums.

October 7, 2008
OBAMA: We're gonna work with your employer to lower the costs of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

Campaign Ad
OBAMA: And we'll cut the costs of a typical family's health care by up to $2,500 per year.

March 14, 2008
OBAMA: And if you've got health care, we're gonna work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

February 23, 2008
OBAMA: And we will lower premiums for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

June 17, 2007
OBAMA: And cut the cost of health care by up to $2,500 per family.

August 17, 2008
OBAMA: And if you already have health care, then we're gonna work with your employer to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

Campaign Ad
EVAN BAYH: Barack's policies will provide health care cost reductions of about $2,500 for the typical family.

June 27, 2008
OBAMA: It's time to bring down the typical family's premium by about $2,500. And it's time to bring down the costs for the entire country.

February 19, 2008
OBAMA: And if you already have health insurance, we will lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

April 22, 2008
OBAMA: We're gonna work with your employer through a catastrophic reinsurance plan to lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

October 15, 2008
OBAMA: The only thing we're gonna try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed on to you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 a year.

March 1, 2008
OBAMA: We'll work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

Campaign Ad
NARRATOR: Barack Obama will provide rural America with affordable health care, and save the typical American family $2,500 a year.

May 30, 2008
OBAMA: And reduces every family's premiums by as much as $2,500.

April 20, 2008
OBAMA: If your employer does offer you health care, then we're gonna work with your employer to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

March 13, 2008
OBAMA: And cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.
FREEDOM EDEN: Obama: 20 Promises for $2,500

 

[Greenbeard]

Anyone that buys the notion that cost are going to be "lower" than projected by Obama before ObamaCare was rammed through is wearing some serious partisan blinders, Greenie!

First of all, as indicated by the quote function, I was responding to your assertion that "EVERYTHING to do with ObamaCare are constantly being revised upwards." This is obviously false, as illustrated by CBO's helpful compilation of the projections they do every year on a single graph.

Secondly, Medicare and Medicaid were already 5% cheaper last year than they were predicted to be when Obamacare passed in March 2010. Their growth continues to be surprisingly--to the CBO--slow, as CBO has now had to revise down their yearly projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending every single time they've released new budget estimates over the past few years.

I'm curious...does your CBO "projections" reflect the recent decision by Congress to get rid of the tax on medical devices that was included in ObamaCare to help fund it? I'm guessing that they don't.

The projections CBO does are of spending, not any revenues that might be raised to cover that spending. Regardless, it doesn't particularly matter anyway--that's the point I'm making here. The assumption in 2009-10 that additional revenues would be needed to pay for roughly half of Obamacare's spending in the first decade have proven to be wrong.

Health spending economy-wide has slowed so much that savings alone are proving to be enough to pay for virtually all of it. As I just pointed out, the unexpected (when Obamacare passed) reduction in government spending on Medicare and Medicaid at the end of the decade (in 2020) due to that slowdown is over $200 billion, whereas new Obamacare spending in that year is under $150 billion.

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks to GOP refusal of a good work SS ID card, those 10 million illegals count, and they're not going anywhere. With O-care, they get cheaper, better care and many will pay....

The dupes are totally misinformed on this. BTW, most fast food workers will go on Medicaid (less than 140% of poverty line) still cheaper than ER/bankruptcy care, functional idiots/haters... Pelosi was right, you morons won't get it till it starts.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sorry, but it's impossible to put lipstick on this pig and make it appealing.

 

[francoHFW]

Sorry, but it's impossible to put lipstick on this pig and make it appealing.

You're now functionnally braindead you're so brainwashed, Dr Rushfoxbeckbot lol.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sorry, but it's impossible to put lipstick on this pig and make it appealing.

You're now functionnally braindead you're so brainwashed, Dr Rushfoxbeckbot lol.

Haha frankie. The pig with lipstick is obamacare. His new law is functionally dysfunctional.

 

[Antares]

Kid you really are a brain dead idiot.

Sorry, but it's impossible to put lipstick on this pig and make it appealing.

You're now functionnally braindead you're so brainwashed, Dr Rushfoxbeckbot lol.

 

[Oldstyle]

Anyone that buys the notion that cost are going to be "lower" than projected by Obama before ObamaCare was rammed through is wearing some serious partisan blinders, Greenie!

First of all, as indicated by the quote function, I was responding to your assertion that "EVERYTHING to do with ObamaCare are constantly being revised upwards." This is obviously false, as illustrated by CBO's helpful compilation of the projections they do every year on a single graph.

Secondly, Medicare and Medicaid were already 5% cheaper last year than they were predicted to be when Obamacare passed in March 2010. Their growth continues to be surprisingly--to the CBO--slow, as CBO has now had to revise down their yearly projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending every single time they've released new budget estimates over the past few years.

I'm curious...does your CBO "projections" reflect the recent decision by Congress to get rid of the tax on medical devices that was included in ObamaCare to help fund it? I'm guessing that they don't.

The projections CBO does are of spending, not any revenues that might be raised to cover that spending. Regardless, it doesn't particularly matter anyway--that's the point I'm making here. The assumption in 2009-10 that additional revenues would be needed to pay for roughly half of Obamacare's spending in the first decade have proven to be wrong.

Health spending economy-wide has slowed so much that savings alone are proving to be enough to pay for virtually all of it. As I just pointed out, the unexpected (when Obamacare passed) reduction in government spending on Medicare and Medicaid at the end of the decade (in 2020) due to that slowdown is over $200 billion, whereas new Obamacare spending in that year is under $150 billion.

You didn't answer my question, Greenie. Since the initial ObamaCare projections were defraying the overall cost with the revenue stream coming from new taxes on medical devices...a tax that was recently voted down by Congress...how is it that we're now going to make up that lost revenue? Since we won't have that money to throw into the pot...I assume that we'll just be borrowing more money to pay for the unfunded portion of the new legislation?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I find it amusing that you've declared that we now know that we won't need additional revenue to pay for ObamaCare. The program hasn't really even started paying out money yet! The real costs start kicking in next year. Since we've just taken away the revenue that was supposed to come from a tax on medical devices...how are we making that up?

 

[Greenbeard]

You didn't answer my question, Greenie. Since the initial ObamaCare projections were defraying the overall cost with the revenue stream coming from new taxes on medical devices...a tax that was recently voted down by Congress...how is it that we're now going to make up that lost revenue? Since we won't have that money to throw into the pot...I assume that we'll just be borrowing more money to pay for the unfunded portion of the new legislation?

I don't know what you're not getting. Perhaps an example will help illustrate how numbers and budgets work. If you want to buy a new car without changing your financial situation (i.e. going into the red), you can cut back on your current expenditures or you can go get a second job to bring in more money. Maybe you do a combination: you reduce existing spending obligations by trimming your food budget and getting rid of cable, and you get a second job. So perhaps roughly half of the ongoing costs of the new car will be paid for out of newly freed up funds from your cutbacks and the other half will come from new money you're bringing home.

That's what the ACA did. For a ten-price tag of around $1 trillion for the coverage expansions, it trimmed Medicare spending by about $500 billion over that period and covered the rest through new revenues. So if you did a before-and-after, comparing the CBO's projections for total spending on Medicare from 2010-2020 that they did in January 2010 (pre-ACA) to the ones they did a few months later in August 2010 (post-ACA), you would find that Medicare spending over that period was about $500 billion lower. That's them pricing in the scheduled slowing of Medicare growth.

Then the (other) slowdown started to show up. The ACA-mandated slowdown in Medicare spending growth has been priced into the CBO's projections since early 2010, but every time they've updated the budget picture since then they've had to revise the Medicare numbers downward further. The reason? Health spending growth throughout the entire economy has unexpectedly slowed to historic lows and that's showing up in the Medicare (and Medicaid) numbers.

If you compare CBO's Medicare projections for 2010-2020 from August 2010 to the ones they released last month, you'll find that today they're about $500 billion lower still. That's an additional $500 billion in savings on top of the ACA's original planned $500 in savings.

Compare the CBO's projections of Medicare spending over the 2010-2020 period from January 2010 (pre-ACA) to those from last month. What you'll find is that Medicare is turning out to be much cheaper this decade than anticipated at the beginning of 2010, due in part to the ACA's planned spending slowdown but also to the economy-wide slowdown in spending. What's the total savings when you compare those two sets of projections? $999 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, net spending on the ACA's coverage expansions over that period is $855 billion. Take away the $20 billion the medical device tax would raise and the net cost is $875 billion. You still come out about $125 billion ahead.

To your delight, you've discovered that your cutbacks and an unexpected slowdown in the growth of your existing spending obligations has freed up enough of the money you already had that you don't need to take on that second job to finance your new car after all (no need "make up" that extra paycheck you now won't be getting, you've more than covered it through your spending restraint). Congratulations!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There's an excellent new book out now called Beating Obamacare by Betsy McCaughey. Explains various ways of screwing it over legally. Excellent read.

 

[Oldstyle]

You didn't answer my question, Greenie. Since the initial ObamaCare projections were defraying the overall cost with the revenue stream coming from new taxes on medical devices...a tax that was recently voted down by Congress...how is it that we're now going to make up that lost revenue? Since we won't have that money to throw into the pot...I assume that we'll just be borrowing more money to pay for the unfunded portion of the new legislation?

I don't know what you're not getting. Perhaps an example will help illustrate how numbers and budgets work. If you want to buy a new car without changing your financial situation (i.e. going into the red), you can cut back on your current expenditures or you can go get a second job to bring in more money. Maybe you do a combination: you reduce existing spending obligations by trimming your food budget and getting rid of cable, and you get a second job. So perhaps roughly half of the ongoing costs of the new car will be paid for out of newly freed up funds from your cutbacks and the other half will come from new money you're bringing home.

That's what the ACA did. For a ten-price tag of around $1 trillion for the coverage expansions, it trimmed Medicare spending by about $500 billion over that period and covered the rest through new revenues. So if you did a before-and-after, comparing the CBO's projections for total spending on Medicare from 2010-2020 that they did in January 2010 (pre-ACA) to the ones they did a few months later in August 2010 (post-ACA), you would find that Medicare spending over that period was about $500 billion lower. That's them pricing in the scheduled slowing of Medicare growth.

Then the (other) slowdown started to show up. The ACA-mandated slowdown in Medicare spending growth has been priced into the CBO's projections since early 2010, but every time they've updated the budget picture since then they've had to revise the Medicare numbers downward further. The reason? Health spending growth throughout the entire economy has unexpectedly slowed to historic lows and that's showing up in the Medicare (and Medicaid) numbers.

If you compare CBO's Medicare projections for 2010-2020 from August 2010 to the ones they released last month, you'll find that today they're about $500 billion lower still. That's an additional $500 billion in savings on top of the ACA's original planned $500 in savings.

Compare the CBO's projections of Medicare spending over the 2010-2020 period from January 2010 (pre-ACA) to those from last month. What you'll find is that Medicare is turning out to be much cheaper this decade than anticipated at the beginning of 2010, due in part to the ACA's planned spending slowdown but also to the economy-wide slowdown in spending. What's the total savings when you compare those two sets of projections? $999 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, net spending on the ACA's coverage expansions over that period is $855 billion. Take away the $20 billion the medical device tax would raise and the net cost is $875 billion. You still come out about $125 billion ahead.

To your delight, you've discovered that your cutbacks and an unexpected slowdown in the growth of your existing spending obligations has freed up enough of the money you already had that you don't need to take on that second job to finance your new car after all (no need "make up" that extra paycheck you now won't be getting, you've more than covered it through your spending restraint). Congratulations!

I've got a "car" analogy that fits what's going on much better than yours, Greenie.

Suppose you went to your parents with a plan to have them help you finance a new car and you sold them on that plan by telling them that yes...you will have a monthly car payment due of $500 but 25% of that will be taken care of by the new part time job that you promise to get...so instead of $500...Mom & Dad will only be on the hook for $375. So Mom & Dad say fine and sign on the dotted line. Only you don't GET the part time job,Greenie. Whoops...it's no longer $375 that your parents have to come up with...it's back to the full $500. That's pretty much the scenario that the American taxpayer has been subjected to. The promise from Obama and the Progressives pushing ObamaCare was that a tax on medical devices and cuts to Medicaid would bring down the costs of this new program...making it "affordable". But now the medical device tax is kaput and they're already talking about postponing the cuts to Medicaid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There's an excellent new book out now called Beating Obamacare by Betsy McCaughey. Explains various ways of screwing it over legally. Excellent read.

I have been curious, couldnt you and a group of friends start your own health insuance company and say at a $1 a month with a trillion dollar deductable? just to say you have it and pay only $12 bucks a year and not obama care/tax?

 

[Greenbeard]

[The promise from Obama and the Progressives pushing ObamaCare was that a tax on medical devices and cuts to Medicaid would bring down the costs of this new program...making it "affordable".

Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. Regardless, the slowdown in health care cost growth has improved the budget picture for both, freeing up enough existing money to pay for virtually the entirety of the ACA (before the new revenues, most of which don't come from the device tax, are even counted). That's the point, and it's the reason the ACA is now paid for one and a half times over.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[The promise from Obama and the Progressives pushing ObamaCare was that a tax on medical devices and cuts to Medicaid would bring down the costs of this new program...making it "affordable".

Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. Regardless, the slowdown in health care cost growth has improved the budget picture for both, freeing up enough existing money to pay for virtually the entirety of the ACA (before the new revenues, most of which don't come from the device tax, are even counted). That's the point, and it's the reason the ACA is now paid for one and a half times over.

just curious why didnt obama just expand medicare?