Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the intellectually dishonest thing was to give cost estimates over a ten year span when only 6-7 of those years would be cost-incurring. The dems did that to make the numbers look slightly less bad than they already did. So now, when more reflective numbers are coming out, the libs cry foul and say we shouldn't compare the two estimates. LAUGHABLE!! You libs are quite entertaining, to say the least.
That is how CBO does their estimates, ten years at a time. As one non cost incurring year on the front end is replaced by a cost incurring year on the back end, the estimate will increase. The big lie, in the title, is that the estimate over comparable years some how grew. Looking at the revised letter to Reid and comparing the same years in the latest CBO estimate there is little change, maybe inflation.
I believe the current estimate was lowered from an earlier estimate this year.
I don't expect much from you lying wingnuts, but the year over year growth in the ACA estimate was a known, sad that you guys spin BS like this and aren't honest. But what can you expect from some that believes that 3000% gaff was a promise.
Last edited by buzzards27; 03-15-2012 at 01:31 PM..
One of you is saying the cost estimates went up (and buzzards27 even gave his reasons why), and the other is saying the cost estimates are going down. Which is it?
You can call yourself whatever you like, but since you ALWAYS support the liberal democratic stances on CD, I'll call you a lib.
So, it's the comprehension part that is the problem. That's OK. As to "ALWAYS" taking a Dem stance, means to me that you only "remember" what you want to believe.
No, seems to me buzzard27 has read it and understands what he referenced. By the way, who are you calling a Lib? Centrist baby, Centrist!
Comparing the common years between the revised reid letter and the latest estimate, there is a increase in those years, maybe 10%. The rest of the doubling lie the wimgnuts are pushing OS the result of dropping TWO non cost incurring front end years and adding THREE cost incurring back end years. The extra back end year added $265 billion ($169 if you offset savimgs) on its own.
Not sure why they added that extra year, just like I don't know why the increased their estimates for 2014 thru 2019 by around 10%.
For the record, I'm not a lib either. I have been registered as a republican 16 out of the last 20. I vote based on the candidate, my last vote went to Newt. Don't you lib people that feel they can label you and put you in a box and then impose someone else beliefs on ypu based on the label they threw at you? Pretty lame, but that OS what is wrong with these mindless wingnuts.
That is how CBO does their estimates, ten years at a time. As one non cost incurring year on the front end is replaced by a cost incurring year on the back end, the estimate will increase. The big lie, in the title, is that the estimate over comparable years some how grew. Looking at the revised letter to Reid and comparing the same years in the latest CBO estimate there is little change, maybe inflation.
I believe the current estimate was lowered from an earlier estimate this year.
I don't expect much from you lying wingnuts, but the year over year growth in the ACA estimate was a known, sad that you guys spin BS like this and aren't honest. But what can you expect from some that believes that 3000% gaff was a promise.
No here is the lie.............
""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 (see Table 2, following the text); 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)."
Offset by 510 billion imaginary dollars. Other sources means they will rob from peter to give to paul. Just like the lie that 400 billion in medicaid fraud will pay for it. I haven't seen 400 billion saved by the admin stopping medicaid fraud have you?? You lap up the lies like a good soldier though.
To me, the biggest issue that neither party seems willing to address is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think both sides can agree that putting health insurance out on the market would help drive some of the costs down when people have a say in what they can choose.
I don't agree with that. Do you think you know enough to choose? “I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!” Paul Krugman comments on this very point:
Quote:
There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
That's right. MTA loves the idea of you eating 8 steaks a day, fat and all, and when you have a major heart attack, he doesn't mind paying for it.
Eating 8 steaks a day, fat and all, should have consequences up to and including death by a big fat clogged artery.
Not in MTA's world. He wants you to eat your steaks and the worst that happens is you have a 12" scar in your chest and someone's else's heart in there. Maybe he'll give you his.
Subsidizing does lead to more of whatever is subsidized, even adult-aged-retardation.
""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 (see Table 2, following the text); 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)."
Offset by 510 billion imaginary dollars. Other sources means they will rob from peter to give to paul. Just like the lie that 400 billion in medicaid fraud will pay for it. I haven't seen 400 billion saved by the admin stopping medicaid fraud have you?? You lap up the lies like a good soldier though.
Are you referring to the Medicare savings? Medicaid is run by the States and any savings would be done by them and of course, because more people would have Ins and not use Medicaid. The Medicare savings plans have barely started yet, but here is the plan.
Affordable Health Care: Our budget creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care reform. It also provides reconciliation instructions as a fallback option to consider health care reform in the event Congress has not acted by the fall (if necessary, requiring committees to report a reconciliation bill by October 15). College Affordability: Our budget creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for a College Affordability Initiative. It also provides reconciliation instructions as a fallback option to consider this initiative in the event Congress has not acted by the fall (if necessary, requiring committees to report a reconciliation bill by October 15). Clean Energy: Our budget also creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote energy independence, calling for investments in energy efficiency and clean energy to launch a sustainable era of job creation and make America a global technology leader once again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
