Obamacare just got $111 BILLION more expensive..WTF???

[Greenbeard]

White House Quietly Increases Budget for Obamacare's Exchange Subsidies by $111 Billion

I would say this says it does.

Again, the change is between the White House's FY12 and FY13 budget requests.

I don't know of anyone who was judging the cost of the exchange subsidies based on the White House's FY12 budget request. Personally, I never bothered looking at that request before today.

The expected cost of the subsidies--the estimates you read in the newspapers--has always been what the CBO has been projecting. For whatever reason, the White House's budget request last year was quite a bit less than what the CBO was projecting. This current budget request--for FY13--brings their request in line with what CBO has been projecting all along.

I'd be fascinated to hear what exactly they were doing with last year's budget request. But again, the expected cost of the law hasn't increased by $111 billion.

 

[Listening]

Folks, relax. The numbers you think of when you think of the cost of the ACA--the numbers it was "sold" on if that's how you prefer to think of it--were the CBO estimates.

The CBO estimates for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions for 2014-2021: $519 billion.

The FY2013 budget request from the White House for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions, 2014-2021: a little less than $524 billion.

A rather small discrepancy.

Why the FY12 White House request undershot the CBO estimates so far, I don't know. But the expected cost of the law hasn't increased by $111 billion.

So see wingnuts? A simple misunderstanding by Faux News. Again.

Why don't you climb out from under Greenbeard's skirt and make your own conclusion.

You are arguing that the fact that the White House is admitting they are ratcheting up the budget by 111 billion means nothing. As in it means they can't get the numbers straight. they undershot the numbers because they don't know. Just like Pelosi does not know. And this isn't the only range of changes.

So see twit, a basic lack of knowledge that causes you to ask a twelve year old how to vote.

 

[Listening]

White House Quietly Increases Budget for Obamacare's Exchange Subsidies by $111 Billion

I would say this says it does.

Again, the change is between the White House's FY12 and FY13 budget requests.

I don't know of anyone who was judging the cost of the exchange subsidies based on the White House's FY12 budget request. Personally, I never bothered looking at that request before today.

The expected cost of the subsidies--the estimates you read in the newspapers--has always been what the CBO has been projecting. For whatever reason, the White House's budget request last year was quite a bit less than what the CBO was projecting. This current budget request--for FY13--brings their request in line with what CBO has been projecting all along.

I'd be fascinated to hear what exactly they were doing with last year's budget request. But again, the expected cost of the law hasn't increased by $111 billion.

That budget offset could have easily been against a different cost within the health care law. Even the White House is admitting they move numbers around through redefinition. This is just one aspect.

They gave a number which it turns out is wrong by 111 billion. And you play it off like it was nothing. Go ahead.

But don't doublespeak in behalf of an incompetent White House.

That closeness probably covers a huge increase (offset) hiding somewhere else.

 

[Listening]

of course it got "more" expensive. They were lying about the original costs.

You can't lie about something you don't know.

If they lied it was in telling us they knew the costs to begin with.

In the end..who cares.

I don't care how much money it might save (and I don't believe for a minute it will save any).

The law is well beyond the 10th amendendment and is unconstitutional.

 

[Sarah G]

Folks, relax. The numbers you think of when you think of the cost of the ACA--the numbers it was "sold" on if that's how you prefer to think of it--were the CBO estimates.

The CBO estimates for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions for 2014-2021: $519 billion.

The FY2013 budget request from the White House for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions, 2014-2021: a little less than $524 billion.

A rather small discrepancy.

Why the FY12 White House request undershot the CBO estimates so far, I don't know. But the expected cost of the law hasn't increased by $111 billion.

So see wingnuts? A simple misunderstanding by Faux News. Again.

Why don't you climb out from under Greenbeard's skirt and make your own conclusion.

You are arguing that the fact that the White House is admitting they are ratcheting up the budget by 111 billion means nothing. As in it means they can't get the numbers straight. they undershot the numbers because they don't know. Just like Pelosi does not know. And this isn't the only range of changes.

So see twit, a basic lack of knowledge that causes you to ask a twelve year old how to vote.

Aww you're bitter, you know you don't really have to repeat what greenbeard said to try and make yourself seem coherent. Just stick to winger talking points. You're probably better at that.

 

[Greenbeard]

They gave a number which it turns out is wrong by 111 billion. And you play it off like it was nothing. Go ahead.

But don't doublespeak in behalf of an incompetent White House.

I'm not playing it off as if it was nothing. I think they need to explain the discrepancy ($413 billion for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions in the FY12 request is substantially below the CBO's estimate of $519 billion over the same time period). And I suspect the answer is an embarrassing arithmetical mistake in the FY12 request. Or some very weird assumptions they've wisely decided to abandon this go around.

But the fact remains: the FY13 budget request reinforces what the exchange subsidies been projected to cost all along: the CBO's estimates. These numbers are not $111 billion more than what the advertised projections have been all along, they're very much in line with them.

 

[Oldstyle]

The question no one seems to be asking is why Republicans are blocking good, cost effective health care for the average American. What? Huh? Let him die? Oh. That's right. Nevermind.

ObamaCare is "good, cost effective health care coverage"? Sorry, Deanie...but ObamaCare is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written and passed by our great country. It doesn't address the costs of healthcare which was what the American people WANTED and it does add another massive unfunded entitlement program at a time when we're struggling to come up with ways to pay for the ones we already have on the books.

You can keep "trying" to paint this joke of a health care reform bill as something other than what it is but with each passing year as the true costs become apparent and as our level of health care is diminished, what's true and what's smoke blown up our asses by progressives trying to get this passed is going to be blatantly obvious. You'd best prepare yourself for a never ending torrent of abuse for supporting it.

 

[Listening]

They gave a number which it turns out is wrong by 111 billion. And you play it off like it was nothing. Go ahead.

But don't doublespeak in behalf of an incompetent White House.

I'm not playing it off as if it was nothing. I think they need to explain the discrepancy ($413 billion for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions in the FY12 request is substantially below the CBO's estimate of $519 billion over the same time period). And I suspect the answer is an embarrassing arithmetical mistake in the FY12 request. Or some very weird assumptions they've wisely decided to abandon this go around.

But the fact remains: the FY13 budget request reinforces what the exchange subsidies been projected to cost all along: the CBO's estimates. These numbers are not $111 billion more than what the advertised projections have been all along, they're very much in line with them.

The fact remains that they didn't get it right. They have not gotten it right from the start and this is just one line item. I just can't wait for them to show us what else they didn't get right.

And by their own admission they are moving things around. It was in their self interest to keep these numbers low. Now, we get the real story.

And people like you are willing to turn a blind eye. No wonder the Tea Party is in such force and you idiots will lose the senate in 2012.

 

[Listening]

So see wingnuts? A simple misunderstanding by Faux News. Again.

Why don't you climb out from under Greenbeard's skirt and make your own conclusion.

You are arguing that the fact that the White House is admitting they are ratcheting up the budget by 111 billion means nothing. As in it means they can't get the numbers straight. they undershot the numbers because they don't know. Just like Pelosi does not know. And this isn't the only range of changes.

So see twit, a basic lack of knowledge that causes you to ask a twelve year old how to vote.

Aww you're bitter, you know you don't really have to repeat what greenbeard said to try and make yourself seem coherent. Just stick to winger talking points. You're probably better at that.

How's the view down there. I hope you're comfortable.

It's unfortunate your reading comprehension is so poor.

There are courses for that. Good luck !

 

[Greenbeard]

ObamaCare is "good, cost effective health care coverage"? Sorry, Deanie...but ObamaCare is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written and passed by our great country. It doesn't address the costs of healthcare which was what the American people WANTED and it does add another massive unfunded entitlement program at a time when we're struggling to come up with ways to pay for the ones we already have on the books.

Another opportunity to point out the uncomfortable truth:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

Of course, it has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume) to move away from inflationary fee-for-service models, greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs.

It even has things both sides enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality. There's also the big drag on health spending, the coming end of the limitless tax subsidy that employer-sponsored insurance plans currently enjoy.

The fact remains that they didn't get it right. They have not gotten it right from the start and this is just one line item. I just can't wait for them to show us what else they didn't get right.

I'm not trying to dispel your obviously deep-seated suspicion that the world is out to fool you. I'm simply pointing out that the premise (and title) of this thread is incorrect.

And people like you are willing to turn a blind eye.

I'm watching very closely, believe me. I'm no more fond of stupid flubs than you.

 

[Listening]

I'm not trying to dispel your obviously deep-seated suspicion that the world is out to fool you. I'm simply pointing out that the premise (and title) of this thread is incorrect.

Unless they cut 111 Billion somewhere else, the title is dead on.

That you don't like the reference point is not a concern for me.

 

[Listening]

Another opportunity to point out the uncomfortable truth:

The ACA's got some of the right's favorite cost control ideas in it, including encouraging more use of higher-deductible plans and HSAs to give consumers more "skin in the game," as well as greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states. It even lifted the tort reform language from a Republican reform bill, Mike Enzi's 2008 "Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act."

There is nothing uncomfortable about any of that.

The fact is that we didn't need a law for any of it. What we needed was to repeal existing laws.

This astringent you hope to put up does nothing to sooth the fact that the bill is a disaster and just a ploy to get to single payer.

I had an HSA long before Obamacare.

It was the government that prevented competition to begin with.

 

[Greenbeard]

This astringent you hope to put up does nothing to sooth the fact that the bill is a disaster and just a ploy to get to single payer.

Again, I'm not here to assuage your paranoia. If there's one thing I've learned from USMB, it's that this is an impossibility with the far right. Indeed, I'm apparently the Cigarette Smoking Man in the imaginations of some of them around here.

I'm simply pointing out that the incentives in the ACA will lead to greater use of HDHPs and HSAs. There's a very strong conviction among many conservatives (and those who take their cues from them) that this is one of the keys to cost control. I don't think that's particularly true but the fact remains that the ACA is going to promote use of high deductible plans. It's also going to allow more plan options/competition by allowing insurers to sell in multiple states.

 

[hortysir]

hmmm faux news.....

seems legit

When one can't rebut the information presented, they often resort to attacking the source

 

[Full-Auto]

hmmm faux news.....

seems legit

When one can't rebut the information presented, they often resort to attacking the source

Great name though, truly representative of the crony mindset.

 

[Conservative]

it would seem the intelligent liberals on this board are either too scared to try and spin this in a positive light, or simply realize they cannot do so.

I would go with option 'C' of both.

well we could try by simply saying that we are gonna spend $111 B on health care for americans, instead of $111B to fight a war in Iraq and rebuild another country. better money spent at home than abroad.

fails to address the point that the cost has gone up by $111 billion, and said increase was hidden in the Presidents new budget... but thanks for playing.

 

[Conservative]

Lawmaker Wants Answers After Cost Estimate For Health Insurance Aid Rises By $111B | Fox News

Cost estimates for a key part of President Obama's health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year's budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent.

So do I.



Yeah. Can't imagine why they were buried in that deep, huh.

About two-thirds of the increase is due to effects of newly signed legislation that raises costs for one part of the health care law, but still saves the government money overall. The rest is due to technical changes in Treasury assumptions about such matters as the distribution of income in America.

I find this difficult to believe, based on the track record of this administration.

Does anyone really think that we would be able to provide healthcare coverage for 30 million Americans at no cost? It think the costs in the long run will be very small in relation to benefits to the nation.

Did anyone mention no cost? no. We DID mention that the cost has not INCREASED by $111 BILLION, and that increase was hidden deep in the budget.

 

[Listening]

This astringent you hope to put up does nothing to sooth the fact that the bill is a disaster and just a ploy to get to single payer.

Again, I'm not here to assuage your paranoia. If there's one thing I've learned from USMB, it's that this is an impossibility with the far right. Indeed, I'm apparently the Cigarette Smoking Man in the imaginations of some of them around here.

I'm simply pointing out that the incentives in the ACA will lead to greater use of HDHPs and HSAs. There's a very strong conviction among many conservatives (and those who take their cues from them) that this is one of the keys to cost control. I don't think that's particularly true but the fact remains that the ACA is going to promote use of high deductible plans. It's also going to allow more plan options/competition by allowing insurers to sell in multiple states.

Uh...did you miss my earlier post that says that the bill did not need to "allow" anything.

HSA's were on the rise as it was. The market was taking care of that.

Next....the only thing needed done was the removal of restrictions. Not the formulation of a huge new bill.

The ACA is going to promote a great many things we don't want.

Your faith in it is is poorly placed.

 

[Conservative]

Folks, relax. The numbers you think of when you think of the cost of the ACA--the numbers it was "sold" on if that's how you prefer to think of it--were the CBO estimates.

The CBO estimates for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions for 2014-2021: $519 billion.

The FY2013 budget request from the White House for exchange subsidies + exchange cost sharing reductions, 2014-2021: a little less than $524 billion.

A rather small discrepancy.

Why the FY12 White House request undershot the CBO estimates so far, I don't know. But the expected cost of the law hasn't increased by $111 billion.

So, the budget does NOT contain an increase of $111 billion in the cost of Obamacare? It's just that Obama undershot the actual figures by $111 billion?

THAT is your spin?

 

[Conservative]

Oops, how did I land in this wingnutty thread..

I'd ask what is wing-nutty about an increase of $111 billion in the cost of Obamacare, but I'm not sure you'd understand the question.