Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The government spends more than it receives. Obviously the problem is that it doesn't receive enough!

---

Article Rakhir Obviously Didn't Read posted:

---

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Article Rakhir Obviously Didn't Read posted:

---

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law.

---

---

Sansfear posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Article Rakhir Obviously Didn't Read posted:

---

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law.

---

---

Thanks for proving my point. We knew up front that they were lying with their estimates, and now we've been proven correct. We just didn't know how badly we'd been lied to until now (actually, we still don't, since next year's estimate will be even higher).

If Obamacare had been estimated to cost $1.76T when it was being debated it never would have passed.

---

Sansfear posted:

---

Cost estimates for 2009-2019 are not the same as cost estimates for 2012-2022. If we had known this at the time it never would have passed!

---

CBO posted:

---

CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Only in a very strange world does that mean Obama lied about the cost for 2009-2019.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

People are too stupid to realize costs from 2009-2019 might not be the same as costs from 2012-2022 therefore Obama lied when he said what the costs from 2009-2019 were!11

---

Libtards posted:

---

It's okay if you deceive people so long as you are technically telling the truth when you do so.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

Not even close to the Republican war costs and it is being spent at home!!

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Libtards posted:

---

It's okay if you deceive people so long as you are technically telling the truth when you do so.

---

Charlatans and con men everywhere appreciate your support.

---

reesescups posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Libtards posted:

---

It's okay if you deceive people so long as you are technically telling the truth when you do so.

---

Charlatans and con men everywhere appreciate your support.

---

The only people being deceived are the people that apparently don't know how to read or understand spoken English...

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

Not even close to the Republican war costs and it is being spent at home!!

---

Sansfear posted:

---

I like to herpa derpa about the differences and similarities between apples and oranges...

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Libtards posted:

---

It's okay if you deceive people so long as you are technically telling the truth when you do so.

---

Charlatans and con men everywhere appreciate your support.

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

You really have no idea what an estimate is, right?

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Libtards posted:

---

It's okay if you deceive people so long as you are technically telling the truth when you do so.

---

Charlatans and con men everywhere appreciate your support.

---

You really have no idea what an estimate is, right?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

SoBaKi posted:

---

You really have no idea what an estimate is, right?

---

In this case it's made up numbers that were known to be wrong but were presented as fact to generate support for a program that would cost more than twice as much.

---

Sansfear posted:

---

In the real world, there are consequences when your estimates are 100%+ off.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

The numbers were absolutely correct using standard actuarial estimates.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

The numbers were absolutely correct using standard actuarial estimates.

---

And so were the numbers for medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP but all of them ended up costing more than double what was estimated.

Were you unaware that statistics can be used in lying?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

And so were the numbers for medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP but all of them ended up costing more than double what was estimated.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

This is good news. It means that the government will crash sooner. And anything that speeds that up is very much welcome by me.

---

Jaedence posted:

---

I am pretty sure people fighting against health care for everyone have to be the stupidest people on the planet.

My wife had a routine DR.'s appt yesterday. We sat in the waiting room for 45 minutes.

I lived in Spain for five years and not only did I never have to wait that long, but the doctor could usually see me immediately or the next morning. My wife had an operation that required a two day hospital visit and the care there was as good as anything I witnessed when my previous wife was in the hospital fighting (and lost) to cancer.

But no. Keep spouting how the rest of the world is wrong, it's better to have a for profit business make decisions concerning an expensive operation you need and keep defending the fact that people lose their homes and go into debt for the rest of their life thanks to medical bills.

You keep defending that.

Go you.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

In this case it's made up numbers that were known to be wrong but were presented as fact to generate support for a program that would cost more than twice as much.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

So you think that adding millions of new patients and no new doctors is going to make wait times shorter?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

I think you should run the math and check your numbers. I'm not sure it adds up the way you think it does.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

You want a link to the absence of something?

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

This is good news. It means that the government will crash sooner. And anything that speeds that up is very much welcome by me.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

So you think that adding millions of new patients and no new doctors is going to make wait times shorter?

---

Link to "no new doctors" being added in the future?

---

Jaedence posted:

---

Many of the main rallying cries from the right against national health care are substandard care and wait times. They try to scare people with horror stories of systems that are doing it wrong.

My example wasn't meant to say that wait times would decrease in the future, just that things were better or equal in Spain.

You can spin that anyway you want Paul but our current system sucks and ranting against national health care is just idiotic.

My brother in law, who I like a great deal except for his RWN political views was telling me how his twins were preemies. He brought them home with a $600,000 bill. He said when this happens you just have to pay it off five dollars at a time.

Yeah, cause that's better than national health care...

He told me the hospital asked him to just keep paying what he could, called him up to get a payment plan set up and he did. He figured out it would be payed off by his daughters grandchildren.

Yeah, cause that's better than national health care...

So, he concluded we didn't need health care people could just pay it off slowly.

Um, welcome to 2012. Your preemie twins (who I love) were born 23 years ago. Hospitals today aren't going to let you pay five dollars a month.

So, five years of this goes by and he is offered to settle. So, see, everything worked out for the best because he only ended up paying like thirty grand total after the settlement.

Gee smart guy - who do you think paid off the off $500,000+? Would it be me who pays massive amounts of my paycheck for my health care?

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

You want a link to the absence of something?

---

I want, just this once, for you to back up some of the bullshit you spew here.

ONE TIME DEALER!

---

Brother_Aerlinthian posted:

---

Brother_Tard and I are going to share a doomsday bunker so when the government will crashes sooner, anything that speeds that up is very much welcome by me.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I want, just this once, for you to back up some of the bullshit you spew here.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

No! But I'm still right anyway!

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

You want a link to the absence of something?

I think you should run your numbers again too.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

This is good news. It means that the government will crash sooner. And anything that speeds that up is very much welcome by me.

---

Man you are something special. I don't even have words for your type of person.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The price of healthcare is shooting up way faster since Obamacare passed than was expected before Obamacare passed.

I'm sure Libtards will blame that on Bush too.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

So you think that adding millions of new patients and no new doctors is going to make wait times shorter?

---

Link to "no new doctors" being added in the future?

---

Look at what is happening and happened in MA when Romneycare went into effect. More doctors will be added eventually, but the wait times here are crazy now.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

You want a link to the absence of something?

I think you should run your numbers again too.

---

Umm, that means you can't prove your statement either, sparky.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The price of healthcare is shooting up way faster since Obamacare passed than was expected before Obamacare passed.

I'm sure Libtards will blame that on Bush too.

---

No it isn't.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The price of healthcare is shooting up way faster since Obamacare passed than was expected before Obamacare passed.

I'm sure Libtards will blame that on Bush too.

---

No it isn't.

---

In 2011 health insurance rates jumped up 9%, the highest increase since 2005.

---

Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation’s economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/#ixzz1p8qh25cJ

Over the past decade, premiums have risen steadily, with double-digit increases seen from 2000-2004, the Kaiser survey and other tracking reports show. Growth in premiums moderated starting in 2006, averaging about 5 percent for several years, the survey found.