Additional Spending For Health Care Plan Put in Perspective (illegal, premium, Reid)

[padcrasher]

149 Billion in excise taxes on so called Cadillac Insurance plans.
131 Billion in new taxes for Households earning over $350K per year.

A total 280 Billion in additional spending over ten years or 28 Billion per year for health services.

That's less than 1% of the yearly Federal Budget or 4.4% of our bloated defense budget.

Per Page 4 of latest CBO Estimate

.http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc...tion_Noted.pdf

Estimated Budgetary Impact

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act with the manager’s amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget
deficits of $132 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent
decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be continued reductions in
federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented. Those
estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $614 billion over 10 years for the proposed
expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $871 billion in
subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs
are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance
plans and $108 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net
cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other
spending changes that CBO estimates would save $483 billion and other provisions that JCT
and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $264 billion.2
In total, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would increase outlays by $366 billion
and increase revenues by $498 billion between 2010 and 2019 (see Table 2).

Keep in mind the CBO overestimated the 2008 Budget deficit and they overestimated the cost of the Bank bailout. So spare us the the bogus argument that CBO estimates are politically skewed.


The math.

871 Billion Gross cost.

less 149 Billion in excise taxes ( taken out by CBO at this point because it's collected by the States)

less 108 Billion in savings

Net "Federal" cost 641 Billion

Less 481 Billion in savings and Federal monies being shifted to new plan.

131 Billion cost to Federal taxpayers for new health care spending.

132 Billion cost to Federal taxpayers above and beyond program costs allocated for deficit reduction.

Interested to see if anyone disputes these figures?

[HappyTexan]

How can one dispute "projections" ? They are only that..educated guesses at best.

You'll have to wait a few years and see what the true costs are.
Based on current programs and costs though (SS, medicaid, medicare) the estimates have been too conservative and these programs are now running in the red. So I would just assume here that this healthcare bill will also end up in the red as well. There is nothing in it to keep costs under control.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

149 Billion in excise taxes on so called Cadillac Insurance plans.
131 Billion in new taxes for Households earning over $350K per year.

A total 280 Billion in additional spending over ten years or 28 Billion per year for health services.

That's less than 1% of the yearly Federal Budget or 4.4% of our bloated defense budget.

Per Page 4 of latest CBO Estimate

.http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc...tion_Noted.pdf

Estimated Budgetary Impact

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act with the manager’s amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget
deficits of $132 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent
decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be continued reductions in
federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented. Those
estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $614 billion over 10 years for the proposed
expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $871 billion in
subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs
are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance
plans and $108 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net
cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other
spending changes that CBO estimates would save $483 billion and other provisions that JCT
and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $264 billion.2
In total, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would increase outlays by $366 billion
and increase revenues by $498 billion between 2010 and 2019 (see Table 2).

Keep in mind the CBO overestimated the 2008 Budget deficit and they overestimated the cost of the Bank bailout. So spare us the the bogus argument that CBO estimates are politically skewed.


The math.

871 Billion Gross cost.

less 149 Billion in excise taxes ( taken out by CBO at this point because it's collected by the States)

less 108 Billion in savings

Net "Federal" cost 641 Billion

Less 481 Billion in savings and Federal monies being shifted to new plan.

131 Billion cost to Federal taxpayers for new health care spending.

132 Billion cost to Federal taxpayers above and beyond program costs allocated for deficit reduction.

Interested to see if anyone disputes these figures?

Can you speak to the fact that the head man of CBO said on Thursday that the $132 billion became over -$170 billion once they figured in the Medicare money they plan to take away each year? I guess you haven't seen any of the threads about that, huh? Only a blind prog doesn't see that about half of the cost of this thing is to come from Medicare and that money is to be used for the new part of the Medicaid group. CBO says it is illegal to take money from one entitlement fund and put it in another entitlement fund. Maybe Dirty Harry didn't know this and maybe they think they can slip it through.

[BigJon3475]

http://sessions.senate.gov/public/in...2-994c27a457c4

The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits.

In other words you got bamboozled.

1 : to deceive by underhanded methods : dupe, hoodwink
2 : to confuse, frustrate, or throw off thoroughly or completely <a quarterback bamboozled by an unexpected defense>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/BAMBOOZLED