Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[Eyeron]

Do you believe that every cost to the US is measurable in taxes? Might there be other costs that aren't measured in dollars and cents?

There might be, but I think that behind everything there is some sort of tax that has some sort of influence with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course, consider that 6 trillion/decade is 600B/year or 600B/300M people, $2000 per year per person or $8k for a family of four.

That's believable in a fairly efficient delivery system, which is not what we are talking about.

Now what did the lying liars claim it would cost?

The figures in question are the impact the bill would have on the federal budget. ETA: You seem to be thinking of these figures as the total per capita national expenditure on healthcare. That's not what the CBO report gives (which is what BaC's citing of the Cato Institute's figures were contesting).

It doesn't make sense though, because they're considering premiums paid to private insurers as if they were taxes, and then it counts those taxes as an increase in the cost of this program to the federal budget.

It's completely nonsensical.

The Democrats are saying that this bill won't increase the federal budget deficit--and may even reduce it. The CBO agrees with that general estimate.

 

[AvalonXQ]

 

[mhaze]

The figures in question are the impact the bill would have on the federal budget. ETA: You seem to be thinking of these figures as the total per capita national expenditure on healthcare. That's not what the CBO report gives (which is what BaC's citing of the Cato Institute's figures were contesting).

It doesn't make sense though, because they're considering premiums paid to private insurers as if they were taxes, and then it counts those taxes as an increase in the cost of this program to the federal budget.

It's completely nonsensical.

The Democrats are saying that this bill won't increase the federal budget deficit--and may even reduce it. The CBO agrees with that general estimate.

what is nonsensical, joe is the following:

1. Tax for 10 years, promise benefit s for 6
2. Offload expenses to state budgets
3. Offload expenses to the citizens, by forcing them to buy insurance they wouldn't have otherwise bought
4. claim that after offloading costs in two other directions, and giving out for about half the years you've stolen money for, you claim like Martha Stewart used to say:

"It's a good thing".

Of course, that was before she was hauled off to her little room.

Now what else do these lying liars have to say? They are getting to the level of absurdity of Spirew Agnew, I am afraid.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

what is nonsensical, joe is the following:

1. Tax for 10 years, promise benefit s for 6
2. Offload expenses to state budgets
3. Offload expenses to the citizens, by forcing them to buy insurance they wouldn't have otherwise bought
4. claim that after offloading costs in two other directions, and giving out for about half the years you've stolen money for, you claim like Martha Stewart used to say:

"It's a good thing".

Of course, that was before she was hauled off to her little room.

Now what else do these lying liars have to say? They are getting to the level of absurdity of Spirew Agnew, I am afraid.

Your rhetoric is getting pretty flighty.

What "lying liars" are you referring to? What "stolen funds" are you referring to? What offloading of costs to states are you talking about?

A 10 year CBO estimate like this is generally what we look for in assessing how the bill will impact the federal budget. The CBO report shows figures for each year and for 5 year periods as well as the 10 year totals. There's no chicanery in trying to hide what is thought to happen, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.

Are you suggesting a less complete CBO estimate would have been preferable? Like one that ignored the first 4 years, and then started giving estimates starting the 5th year?

My point was that you were trying to make the figures that this thread is debating (the estimates of the effect of the bill on the federal budget) out to be the same as the per capita healthcare cost to the nation.

You're mixing and comparing apples and oranges.

Similarly, BaC seems to think premiums paid to private insurance companies are taxes, and that "taxes" somehow increase the cost to the federal budget when most people consider taxes to be revenues for the fed.

 

[mhaze]

Your rhetoric is getting pretty flighty.

What "lying liars" are you referring to? What "stolen funds" are you referring to? What offloading of costs to states are you talking about?

A 10 year CBO estimate like this is generally what we look for in assessing how the bill will impact the federal budget.....

The lying liars I refer to are those whom you like to defend, the stolen funds are those you would like them to keep, and the offloading of costs to the states are those which are stated in the senate health care bill.

You are guilty of a derail. I restate the OP:

Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?​

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...op-6-trillion/
​

"Real 10 year cost" is the subject matter of the thread. I have accurately stated the issues, CATO has done a good job of laying them out in comprehensive detail, BeAChooser has brought up the issue which is a good one.....and you'd like to slither the subject sideways so that this, uh, uncomfortable subject not be discussed.

Mmmm mmmm mmm.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The lying liars I refer to are those whom you like to defend, the stolen funds are those you would like them to keep, and the offloading of costs to the states are those which are stated in the senate health care bill.

You are guilty of a derail. I restate the OP:

Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?​

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...op-6-trillion/
​

"Real 10 year cost" is the subject matter of the thread. I have accurately stated the issues, CATO has done a good job of laying them out in comprehensive detail, BeAChooser has brought up the issue which is a good one.....and you'd like to slither the subject sideways so that this, uh, uncomfortable subject not be discussed.

Mmmm mmmm mmm.

And yet this has been shown to be a big steaming heap.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's worse than that. As I pointed out, mhaze seems to think the Cato estimate (criticizing the CBO's estimate) is not about the effect of the bill on the federal budget.

He'll just spew words like "lying liars" and "stolen" without even quite knowing what he's trying to argue about.

Again, the CBO estimate was about the effect on the federal budget.

Conspiracy theories about the CBO using gimmicks to hide a $6 trillion increase in the deficit are complete hogwash.

 

[BeAChooser]

The only place I have seen you remark about the unreliability of the CBO is in this thread, where it just so happens that their estimates do not accord with the argument you're trying to make.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

LOL! In post #199 of this thread I listed some statements I've made over the past few months on other threads regarding the CBO estimates. One statement I noted came from a post I made to Corsair115 back in June where I stated:

And whether you like it or not, we still have to base our decisions about the future on "something" and CBO predictions are about the best we have. By the way, I think they've tended to underestimate future deficits. And these are probably no exception.

and then proceeded to list 3 sources supporting the view that the CBO estimates underestimate the likely deficits over the next decade or so. Here's the thread that came from:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...45738&highlight=underestimate+future+deficits

 

[BeAChooser]

The Democrats are saying that this bill won't increase the federal budget deficit--and may even reduce it. The CBO agrees with that general estimate.

Does it?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

CBO has been asked for additional information about the projected effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the pending health care reform legislation, on the federal budget and on the balance in the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, from which Medicare Part A benefits are paid. Specifically, CBO has been asked whether the reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues under the legislation can provide additional resources to pay future Medicare benefits while simultaneously providing resources to pay for new programs outside of Medicare. Our answer is basically no.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-care-increase-federal-deficit/

In his letter to Sessions, Elmendorf wrote that government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

"The key point is that the savings to the (Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) 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," Elmendorf wrote.

"To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position," he wrote.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/23/now-they-tell-us-cbo-double-co

Sen. Jeff Sessions, after conversing with CBO director Doug Elmendorf, said that without the revenue from the Medicare cuts, the bill would actually increase deficts by nearly $300 billion, FoxNews reports.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35001

The Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday that Democrats are double-counting savings in their so-called "reform" bill which passed the Senate on a party-line vote on Thursday morning of 60-39, with only retiring Republican Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) not voting.

Senate Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) claims of deficit reduction are based almost entirely on the money “saved” in Medicare reductions. But those cuts have yet to be made, and Congress has routinely refused to do. Not just once, but for decades.

... snip ...

The sleight-of-hand, covering about $300 billion over 10 years, means that the Senate bill, even with its massive up-front tax hikes and delayed “benefits”, will add about $170 billion to the deficit (and that's accepting the Democrats' unrealistic assumptions) rather than the initial claim that it will cut $130 billion. In all likelihood, the numbers will be much worse as consumers and employers change their behavior to avoid costs or get their free lunch.

 

[mhaze]

It's worse than that. As I pointed out, mhaze seems to think the Cato estimate (criticizing the CBO's estimate) is not about the effect of the bill on the federal budget.

He'll just spew words like "lying liars" and "stolen" without even quite knowing what he's trying to argue about.

Again, the CBO estimate was about the effect on the federal budget.

Conspiracy theories about the CBO using gimmicks to hide a $6 trillion increase in the deficit are complete hogwash.

You are well into lameville tactics now. Try to focus on the OP, instead of reframing the argument into a construct where you have a shred of support:

"Real 10 year cost" is the subject matter of the thread.
​

So what part of "Real 10 year cost" do you not understand?

 

[johnny karate]

LOL! In post #199 of this thread I listed some statements I've made over the past few months on other threads regarding the CBO estimates. One statement I noted came from a post I made to Corsair115 back in June where I stated... and then proceeded to list 3 sources supporting the view that the CBO estimates underestimate the likely deficits over the next decade or so. Here's the thread that came from:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...45738&highlight=underestimate+future+deficits

Yeah, and that's a thread where you were once again dismiss both the Obama administration and the CBO healthcare cost estimates, preferring to cite the figures provided by a partisan consulting group funded by the McCain campaign as the "true cost".

I'm actually looking for an example of you using CBO esitmates to support your argument, and offering a caveat that you find them unreliable. So far, I've only seen you comment on their unreliability when their estimates don't support your arguments. Like you've done in this thread, for instance.

Please try again.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, and that's a thread where you were once again dismiss both the Obama administration and the CBO healthcare cost estimates

LOL! Does this:

And whether you like it or not, we still have to base our decisions about the future on "something" and CBO predictions are about the best we have.

sound like I was dismissing the CBO healthcare cost estimate? I was using it to prove that the Obama administration is not just looking through rose colored glasses, but red ones when it comes to economic projections. Just like I'm doing in this thread. I fail to see why you are unable to grasp this fact. Other than the likelihood that you aren't actually bothering to read the threads where I've posted before you respond because you have your own set of colored glasses. Other than the likelihood that your intent here is merely to derail rather than look skeptically at the Obama administration's rosy red economic projections.

 

[drkitten]

I was using it to prove that the Obama administration is not just looking through rose colored glasses, but red ones when it comes to economic projections.

And as usual, you simply proved instead that you can't read any credible sources but love to spout proven lies generated by the right-wing echo chamber.

 

[BeAChooser]

And as usual, you simply proved instead that you can't read any credible sources but love to spout proven lies generated by the right-wing echo chamber.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I take it we're pretty much done with any substantive discussion of the numbers and facts surrounding the health care bill?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are well into lameville tactics now. Try to focus on the OP, instead of reframing the argument into a construct where you have a shred of support:

"Real 10 year cost" is the subject matter of the thread.
​

So what part of "Real 10 year cost" do you not understand?

Read the OP. It's a criticism of the figures given by the CBO estimate. The CBO cost estimate refers only to the effect of the bill on the federal budget.

ETA: From the OP (my bolding):

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Again, this is addressing the CBO cost estimate--that is, the cost to the federal budget. Sorry, mhaze. You're wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does it?

Yes, it does.

 

[mhaze]

Read the OP. It's a criticism of the figures given by the CBO estimate. The CBO cost estimate refers only to the effect of the bill on the federal budget.

ETA: From the OP (my bolding):

Again, this is addressing the CBO cost estimate--that is, the cost to the federal budget. Sorry, mhaze. You're wrong.

Yes, you can take this out of context and use it to support your reframing of the argument such that you can argue the subject which you would like to argue. But the article goes forward, in the section you left out, to say...

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.

"Total cost", is where the key number came from, the $6T. "Total cost", as the article says, "counting both on-and off-budget costs", is not just "addressing the CBO cost estimate", which you've improperly claimed.

That's the plan that you are arguing for, the $6 trillion dollar plan. Why are you trying to minimize it's cost? Why not just admit that you like every bit of that money your friends want to steal, and the more, the merrier?

Don't worry - it has yet to go through committee, so the cost will go up yet again.

 

[BeAChooser]

Don't worry - it has yet to go through committee, so the cost will go up yet again.

A little pork here, a little pork there. Buying votes is costly business.