How the Affordable Care Act benefits you

[Danzig]

yet another take on obamacare:

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-stil...070000003.html

some snippets:

ObamaCare places a tax on medical equipment manufacturers, to raise $20 billion for the federal coffers when it goes into full effect in 2013. As a result, some medical device manufacturers are already closing up shop or downsizing to reflect lower profits under ObamaCare. Some canceled plans for new U.S. plants, looking to other parts of the world. Many manufacturers have already announced significant layoffs, and most also look to other alternatives, including cutting research and development, and passing along the tax's costs to the patients.



The Congressional Budget Office just released new figures on the 10-year cost of ObamaCare. Starting in 2010, government began taxing for ObamaCare to build up revenues. So for the first four years, ObamaCare takes in tax money but does not start spending in any significant amount until 2014. This was a tactic designed to make ObamaCare seem more "affordable."

But even with this gimmick, the CBO just doubled its original projections for the cost of ObamaCare. Now, the CBO pegs the cost to taxpayers at $1.76 trillion over the next decade. And, critics point out, this price tag is only for the cost of insurance subsidies, Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). It doesn't include implementation or other costs, which will likely send the taxpayers' bill soaring past $2 trillion.
Obama said his plan would save American families $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. The new CBO report says premiums will rise 10 to 13 percent, and that up to 20 million people could lose their employer-provided health insurance every year from 2019 to 2022, a sharp revisal of its previous estimate of up to 3 million.


yes, look at all the ways it 'benefits' us.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yet another take on obamacare:

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-stil...070000003.html

some snippets:

ObamaCare places a tax on medical equipment manufacturers, to raise $20 billion for the federal coffers when it goes into full effect in 2013. As a result, some medical device manufacturers are already closing up shop or downsizing to reflect lower profits under ObamaCare. Some canceled plans for new U.S. plants, looking to other parts of the world. Many manufacturers have already announced significant layoffs, and most also look to other alternatives, including cutting research and development, and passing along the tax's costs to the patients.



The Congressional Budget Office just released new figures on the 10-year cost of ObamaCare. Starting in 2010, government began taxing for ObamaCare to build up revenues. So for the first four years, ObamaCare takes in tax money but does not start spending in any significant amount until 2014. This was a tactic designed to make ObamaCare seem more "affordable."

But even with this gimmick, the CBO just doubled its original projections for the cost of ObamaCare. Now, the CBO pegs the cost to taxpayers at $1.76 trillion over the next decade. And, critics point out, this price tag is only for the cost of insurance subsidies, Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). It doesn't include implementation or other costs, which will likely send the taxpayers' bill soaring past $2 trillion.
Obama said his plan would save American families $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. The new CBO report says premiums will rise 10 to 13 percent, and that up to 20 million people could lose their employer-provided health insurance every year from 2019 to 2022, a sharp revisal of its previous estimate of up to 3 million.


yes, look at all the ways it 'benefits' us.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that it paid for itself...
Why would the CBO look at it any other way?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Pretty sure I read somewhere that it paid for itself...
Why would the CBO look at it any other way?

i'm pretty sure the cbo has to figure as well as possible what it will actually cost. politicians however can say what they wish, so maybe that's why you heard it paid for itself? there's no way that it could. what govt program does?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm pretty sure the cbo has to figure as well as possible what it will actually cost. politicians however can say what they wish, so maybe that's why you heard it paid for itself? there's no way that it could. what govt program does?

Tongue in cheek, I read that it paid for itself here. If ya know what I mean.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Tongue in cheek, I read that it paid for itself here. If ya know what I mean.

Yes. The CBO initial evaluation, when the bill was passed, was that it paid for itself, and adds nothing to the deficit. Public information at the time, widely disseminated. The final vote couldn't be held until the Congressional Budget Office scoring was in, which is why the vote was delayed for a week at the time.

So you can be "tongue in cheek" all you want. You can read those original reports by the CBO, here, by going to this page and clicking on the links.

The most recent previous estimate of those effects was prepared in March 2011. For more details on the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, you can see CBO’s cost estimate for the health care legislation, which was issued in March 2010.
The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080

[Antitrust32]

and now the evalutation is that is costs double the initial eval.

So the newest numbers are the ones that are actually accurate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and now the evalutation is that is costs double the initial eval.

So the newest numbers are the ones that are actually accurate.

Yup. And 'Zig article cherry picks costs, but leaves out the new income, which offsets those costs.

Below is the original CBO report, below, in full - with all the numbers. Including the $176 trillion (which is a weird number, and I think should be $176 billion, and is miswritten in 'Zigs article I think - because see below, SCHIPS etc. is only 1.5 trillion)

What is left out of 'Zigs article about the $176 trillion is the offsets, which results in the ACA having a net cost of $50 billion less than previously estimated over the next 10 years than estimated last year. Yes, the costs go up, because more people (the baby boomers) will be using it, but the income and cost savings go up to cover it, too.

So yes: the March 13, 2012 CBO update on the cost of the ACA has a net cost, in the end, of $50 billion less than previously published last year.

Below is the entire original report, minus charts and graphs, from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080 that 'Zig's article is talking about. 'Zig's article simply leaves out alot of the facts.

CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act

March 13, 2012

In preparing the March 2012 baseline budget projections, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have updated estimates of the budgetary effects of the health insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010. Those provisions:

* Establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance;
* Create insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families may receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance;
* Significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid;
* Impose an excise tax on certain health insurance plans with relatively high premiums;
* Establish penalties on certain employers who do not provide minimum health benefits to their employees; and
* Make other changes to prior law.

The most recent previous estimate of those effects was prepared in March 2011. For more details on the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, you can see CBO’s cost estimate for the health care legislation, which was issued in March 2010.

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

CBO and JCT now estimate that 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 for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.)

The net costs--specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending--reflect:

* Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly established exchanges and related costs, and tax credits for small employers,
* Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenues).

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA. They do not include federal administrative costs, which will be subject to future appropriation action. Also, they do not include the effects of the many other provisions of the law, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending relative to that under prior law and others that will generate added tax revenues relative those under prior law.

CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.

Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher

The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions—$1,496 billion through 2021—is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates—to $413 billion—leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.

Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.

The net cost was boosted by:

* An additional $168 billion in estimated costs for Medicaid and CHIP, and
* $8 billion less in estimated revenues from the excise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans.

But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:

* $97 billion in the projected costs for the tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending
* $20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and
* $107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and penalty payments and from other small changes in estimated spending.

The Revisions in Estimates Reflect Legislative, Economic, and Technical Changes

The major sources for the differences between the March 2011 and March 2012 projections are the following:

* New Legislation. Several laws were enacted during the past year that changed the estimated budgetary effects of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.
* Changes in the Economic Outlook. The March 2012 baseline incorporates CBO’s macroeconomic forecast published in January 2012, which reflects a slower recovery when compared with the forecast published in January 2011 (which was used in producing the March 2011 baseline).
* Technical Changes. The March 2012 baseline incorporates updated projections of the growth in private health insurance premiums, reflecting slower growth than the previous projections. In addition, CBO and JCT made a number of other technical changes in their estimating procedures.

The Number of the Nonelderly Uninsured Is Higher Than Previously Estimated

CBO and JCT's projections of health insurance coverage have changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the change in insurance coverage varies from year to year.

Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3 at the end of the report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent in 2016 and subsequent years. That share rose to 95 percent in CBO and JCT's previous estimate.

According to the current estimates, from 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million additional people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP as a result of ACA. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under prior law

Estimates Through Fiscal Year 2022

This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).

The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012-2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect. CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits.

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43076

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and now the evalutation is that is costs double the initial eval.

So the newest numbers are the ones that are actually accurate.

actually, we're probably just looking at it all wrong. we're not smart enough to figure out the right way to look at it!
thing is, until everyone cuts their coverage and makes all their employees go thru the exchanges (which many states have yet to even set up) no one knows for sure how many will end up without. but, they used a small # initially-which kept that magic number below that trillion that so many said was the cutoff to produce a nay, rather than a yea vote. funny, isn't it? now, after it's passed-why the cost is steadily climbing. and like i posted in the '13 budget thread, the white house consistently uses incorrect numbers to get a rosier view on things.

and as for the exchanges...

they will go by income levels to know what your subsidy is-which means the computers will have to have access to the irs records.
you have to be a citizen-so they will also have to have access to records of who's who-are you an illegal? or legal but not a citizen? there will be so many levels of info needed... i can only imagine the nightmare to come with trying to set all this up in each state. and only a licensed agent can give insurance info-but they don't plan to use agents, they plan to use 'navigators' who don't have to be licensed. but you have to have a license to give insurance advice!!! lol

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Tongue in cheek, I read that it paid for itself here. If ya know what I mean.

ah, gotcha.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yet another take on obamacare:

It's an opinion piece that starts out with the imagined premise that the ACA will cause worse care and doctors leaving the country, falsely compares it to socialized government-run medicine in England (not even close), then goes downhill from there. It completely ignores multiple factors within the bill that provide revenue for the program. A very half-azzed piece. Erase all the false references to other countries and "socialized medicine" and there's only a few sentences left in this story.

Why are people wasting time on opinion pieces, when they can read the original themselves?

Why do people question my Lord and Savior Barack Christ? Why? Bawwwwww!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Why do people question my Lord and Savior Barack Christ? Why? Bawwwwww!!

Why are people so blindly and dumbly zombie-like in their dislike?

The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land, passed by the House and Senate, for two years. It's not going away. The current minority leader of the Senate knows it's fine, it works, and has public said he isn't going to try and repeal it.

At this point, with thousands now insured and getting health care that were not, and thousands more - even the complainers here - now covered by protections that prevent them from being thrown off their insurance in multiple ways, it's simply manufactured red meat on the campaign trail for those stuck in the Palin "death panel!" meme from three years ago.

Romney, Santorum - none of them can singularly, as the Executive Branch, repeal a law passed legally by the Congress, and they know that. Their audience apparently does not.

The only thing haters of this signature domestic policy initiative (yes, a Republican one from the 1990's) can hope is that the Supremes turn over the individual mandate, but that doesn't look likely at all based upon lower court interpretations. But hey, this high court does what they like.

And there's no real reason for them to dislike the law other than it was accomplished, finally, by a Democrat, and not by Bush, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Bush I, Johnson, etc. who all tried before to do the same: reform health care.

Our health care is 17% of our GDP. It's only 9% in other countries, who provide better care. If we want to erase our deficit, and live within our means, and have a strong economy, we must reform our massively broken healthcare system. Every single congress and president has known that over the years.

Why did Obama go forward with healthcare reform? It was more an economic issue. The healthcare reform contained within isn't any massive overhaul of the system, or a move to single payer (why the far left doesn't like it) it's mostly consumer protections.

The funny thing is that this law isn't "massive health care reform" in a single payer model as was discussed three years ago, it's basically only insurance reforms intent upon trying to keep your insurance company from screwing you, and trying to make Americans a little healthier with preventive care and more access.

If they have problems with parts of the law? They simply have to change it in the Congress. Not a hard thing to do.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Why do people question my Lord and Savior Barack Christ? Why? Bawwwwww!!

hatahs gotta hate.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Why do people question my Lord and Savior Barack Christ? Why? Bawwwwww!!

no-thinking.jpg

[Danzig]

obamacare-gimmicks.jpg

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Attachment 1949

Post 36 has the original report source for your numbers posted here in it's entirety, so you don't even have to click. It also has the offsets the above graph ignores listed.