Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade

interesting.....here is how they plan to reduce the deficit by $50 billion...

Revising down the number of workers projected to receive insurance coverage through an employer relative to the previous estimates, by between 3 million and 4 million in most years, leads to an increase in estimated revenues because a larger share of total compensation will take the form of taxable wages and salaries and a smaller share will be in the form of nontaxable health benefits. In addition, that revision increases the estimated number of employers who will be required to pay penalties. Finally, penalties collected from individuals who do not have health insurance are projected to increase because the number of individuals who will remain uninsured is now estimated to be higher than was estimated in March 2011.
18
Click to expand...


from page 9 of report
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

3-4 million people will lose their employer provided healthcare, will receive higher pay in compensation and thus will pay higher taxes.......brilliant!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
interesting.....here is how they plan to reduce the deficit by $50 billion...




from page 9 of report
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

3-4 million people will lose their employer provided healthcare, will receive higher pay in compensation and thus will pay higher taxes.......brilliant!
Click to expand...


Of course, you ignore a number of other factors that changed the total amount of projected deficit reduction. And, I thought that decoupling insurance from employment was a good thing, no? What seems to be the problem?

I should also note that employees will pay more in taxes because they will receive compensation that is taxable (salary or wages) instead of compensation that is not taxable (health insurance).
 
the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes.

^ this is bullshit and wild speculation

must apologize for obama's gimmicks
 
Yurt said:
the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes.

^ this is bullshit and wild speculation

must apologize for obama's gimmicks
Click to expand...


So are we back to the argument that the CBO is biased and therefore whatever it says is bullshit?
 
Damocles said:
Yet it is infinitely higher than the "savings" previously claimed. Imagine what this cost will be once we fix the truncated payments to doctors that the bill assumed would remain in order to claim net savings.

This bill does nothing about costs of care, it just attempts to hide it under a rug.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would've argued that it would've lowered federal healthcare costs. The argument was for total healthcare costs.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
why am I not surprised that nobody that supported this monstrosity of a nightmare package is outraged over the fact, FACT, that they were LIED to about the cost of this? Could it be that they KNEW they needed to lie in order to pass something they wanted, knowing that if the TRUTH were revealed, they'd never have gotten it passed?
Click to expand...

When did they not admit that the program would cost something on the order of 100 billion a year? They offset the costs with several tax increases.
 
Yurt said:
are you saying that is not wild speculation? that the CBO can predict revenue from penalties without wild speculation? lol.
Click to expand...


The CBO fully discloses its methodologies. Pretending that widely accepted economic forecasting is "wild speculation" and that macroeconomists are engaging in nothing more than wild speculation based on pretty much nothing is facially ridiculous. Your basic claim is that economists are all completely full of shit. Excuse me if I refuse to accept that on your say so. I'll need something a bit more definitive before I toss macroeconomics aside with Phrenology and the like.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The CBO fully discloses its methodologies. Pretending that widely accepted economic forecasting is "wild speculation" and that macroeconomists are engaging in nothing more than wild speculation based on pretty much nothing is facially ridiculous. Your basic claim is that economists are all completely full of shit. Excuse me if I refuse to accept that on your say so. I'll need something a bit more definitive before I toss macroeconomics aside with Phrenology and the like.
Click to expand...

so you think it is not wild speculation to include revenue from penalties....LOL. that is truly funny.
 
Yurt said:
so you think it is not wild speculation to include revenue from penalties....LOL. that is truly funny.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, you think the projections as to costs are totally OK and valid (like in your post below), but the projections as to revenues are mere "wild speculation?" OK. Awesome. That's really smart.
 
You guys should beware of having universal healthcare. Don't forget that if Stephen Hawking were British, he'd be dead by now....
 
Yurt said:
do you need it explained? i gave the link.
Click to expand...

I don't need it explained, but I have a suspicion that you need it explained to you. Thus, I queried what exactly the point was that you thought you were making. I apologies if my question was not terribly clear.
 
Yurt said:
did i say that?
Click to expand...

Yes, you kinda did. You did say that the revenue projections were wild speculation, right. So we've got that part of it. And the conclusion I draw from your various posts in this thread w/r/t the CBO's cost projections is that you think they are accurate. Hence, the OP and the "wool pulled back" (whatever that means. I think you mixed a metaphor there) and the net costs post. Or were you offering them because you think they are wild speculation as well?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Yes, you kinda did. You did say that the revenue projections were wild speculation, right. So we've got that part of it. And the conclusion I draw from your various posts in this thread w/r/t the CBO's cost projections is that you think they are accurate. Hence, the OP and the "wool pulled back" (whatever that means. I think you mixed a metaphor there) and the net costs post. Or were you offering them because you think they are wild speculation as well?
Click to expand...

i "kinda" did....LOL. nice wiggle and dance there. the only aspect i said was wild speculation concerned penalties. why do you constantly misrepresent what people say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top