Can you show me the numbers you are working with? According to the final CBO projection of March 2010 as compared to the current projection, for the same time frame (2012-2019) the net cost of the coverage provisions has actually decreased by $5 billion.
Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Can you show me the numbers you are working with? According to the final CBO projection of March 2010 as compared to the current projection, for the same time frame (2012-2019) the net cost of the coverage provisions has actually decreased by $5 billion.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
British sarcasm has been weighed, measured and been found wanting.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I must be a bit slow as I don't understand what you are trying to say?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I was trying to say that the British are a bit slow and lack the capacity to understand what others are saying.
LOL. Only if you don't consider the fact that they suddenly expect to collect so much in fines that it will cover the actual doubling of the cost and that it still doubles the cost.
Imagine if the promised 940 Billion cost was still there, government would suddenly be a profit venture due to the "expected" fines nearly doubling revenue generated from this costly program that makes all of our health insurance both mandatory and universally suck..
The numbers I use are from the same CBO report you are reading, but aren't understanding. They literally claim now that so many people will not be following the law that they can double their "earnings" on this stupid law by simply taking more to pay for the doubled cost. (Does anybody remember predictions that the costs would balloon and that taxes in the form of fines as well as direct taxation would balloon along with it? That it was designed to collapse on itself?... )
Damo:
I have the present cost figures. What I don't have are the cost figures from March 2010 which you claim are half of the cost projections now. Please show me what figures you are using from March 2010 so that I know what I am responding to. Otherwise, we don't really have much to talk about.
Thanks.
No, you present the "net" figures that assume collection of revenue from fines, just as I said.
Reality: The cost went from 940 Billion to 1.76 Trillion.
Whether they assume they can fine so many people it will make up the difference doesn't change the cost. I use the figures from the original projection as the law was being passed. You know the figure that caused Obama to actually state, "which will cost around $900 Billion, less than we spent on the war..."
Provide me a link, please.
I'm looking at the March 2010 CBO report and comparing the gross costs for the 2012-2019 period to the gross costs for the 2012-2019 period in the March 2012 report and am getting a net difference of $37 billion. Not an insiginificant figure, but it's a whole lot closer to nothing than it is to "double."
What you are doing is comparing the projected gross costs from March 2010 for the 2010-2019 period to the March 2012 projected gross costs for 2012-2022 period. You are adding those three years onto the back end and pretending it is an apples to apples comparison. It's not.
Also, again, you should only use quotation marks when you are actually quoting someone. What you have up there in quotes is not an accurate quotation. In fact, you left out the part where Obama said "over 10 years". And please don't try to pretend that your omission of "over 10 years" was unintentional or that it doesn't completely undermine your argument.
Weak.
Both of the figures are for "over 10 years"... It doesn't undermine my argument, I simply assumed you knew. Common knowledge can be assumed in a reasonable conversation with somebody with your level of intelligence.
And a link to the CBO report has already been provided.
Just do me a favor and only put words in quotation marks when you are actually quoting someone and do not put words in quotation marks if you are not quoting someone. Not too tough.
And, like I said, you are pretending that you are comparing like 10 year periods when you aren't. Get real man. Pretending that Obama's statement means that the Affordable Care Act would cost around $900 billion for each 10 year period into perpetuity is asinine. You are comparing 2010-2019 costs with 2012-2022 costs. That's not a like comparison.
Not to the original report. Which post # should I look to for the figures you are using.
Yeah, because clearly you weren't intelligent enough to assume a 10 year estimate. Instead you assumed it, then tried to play a stupid gotcha game because you don't "like" the way I used quotes. I really don't give a damn if you like it or not. I work from memory and missed two words I assumed you knew... Give it a frickin' rest.
I don't know, but over the past 3 years we've certainly debated its cost often enough to again assume knowledge that you pretend to lack. Or do you really believe that Obama wasn't quoting the CBO number estimates when he was trying to sell this garbage bag legislation to us?
We can either participate in debate or you can wait until I have time to google everything you demand (clearly your google searches didn't net you a favorable link or you'd already have given it.)
I have time to post my opinion and work from memory, I don't have time for stupid, "gimme a link" all the time. Especially when working with somebody more intelligent than a third grader.
The gross cost estimates went from 940 Billion to 1.76 trillion in this most recent report. Again, the assumption that they will collect more in fines is a poor assumption at best, and I still believe that the number hasn't reached reality. It will be far more costly than any estimate they give because the bill didn't reduce costs at all and they will continue to rise.
Yeah, because clearly you weren't intelligent enough to assume a 10 year estimate. Instead you assumed it, then tried to play a stupid gotcha game because you don't "like" the way I used quotes. I really don't give a damn if you like it or not. I work from memory and missed two words I assumed you knew... Give it a frickin' rest.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm calling you out on a dishonest claim. Your claim is that the actual costs are double what Obama said they were, but that's not true.
And it's not a matter of me "liking" the way you use quotes, it's a matter of you using quotation marks in conformity with the norms of Standard Written English.
I guess it really is this difficult to understand that a comparison of 2010-2019 is with 2012-2022 is not an apples to apples comparison. I mean, it's fine to be dishonest, but at least acknowledge that you are being dishonest about the comparison. That's why I asked you for the numbers. Not because I don't have them (I do), but because I thought that maybe you were misled by someone else instead of being dishonest yourself. My hope was that you would look up the numbers and recognize that you were not comparing the same time periods. Apparently not.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
bad news...the CBO report has gone on to say that next year, when they get to add the rest of the expenditures that were loaded beyond the original "ten year projections" the cost will exceed $2trillion.......
the cost of the change from uninsured health care to insured health care is a shift of cost from city and counties to the federal government
we are already paying for that health care, plus we will receive more money from more people having to pay for that health care
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that is the fantasy upon which it is based, yes.....
if you have a link to prove your point please provide it
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
???....did I miss yours?.....
I don't understand the "bad news" part. It'd be bad news if the projections were that the Affordable Care Act would not reduce the deficit or if the costs were projected to exceed increased revenues, but that's not what the projections show. So . . . yeah, over time government programs cost money and given inflation, particularly health care inflation, and population growth, the costs of the ACA, like anything else, will indeed increase over time. But that's not a problem if revenues also increase over time, which they do.
This is a lie being fabricated by the Douches over at Fox
Reuters: "The Estimated Costs" Of ACA's Insurance Coverage "Have Been Reduced By $48 Billion Through 2021." From a March 13 Reuters article:
The estimated net costs of expanding healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's landmark restructuring have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed on Tuesday.