It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs(double Obama's esitmate)

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Wait a minute! Obama said it would only cost $900 billion over ten years when he ramrodded it down the nation's throat. It's not even in full swing and we are already doubling the ESTIMATE!!

Wow!


President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

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.

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...

Sorry Suckers!! I would expect this new Estimate to Double by the time 2014 rolls around.

Just for posterity remember Obama's speech to the joint session


Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Now how about that $4 trillion shaved off the deficit... I'm sure that estimate was off as well!!!

Amazing!!

edit on 13-3-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I really don't understand so what if it costs alot? (Iam sure the defense budget will cost more) free healthcare is a good thing and also the moral thing for any society to have.
I don't mind paying higher taxes in the UK for the NHS, I care for my fellow human being when they are sick.
If you have a workforce which is not worried about healthcare you will have a workforce that is happy and also not sick.
I read somewhere it can cost upto $15k to give birth to your kids in the US...guess what it costs nothing in the UK.
edit on 13-3-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Can't say I'm shocked by this, fully expected it. Granted i expected the numbers to be a little bigger but its still early
Congrats Congress! Remember the mantra: "We need to pass the Bill to find out whats in it!" hahaha 4 more years of this and Tide wont be the only thing sold on the blackmarket haha



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
In 2009 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $200 billion

that's $200 BILLION in just one year alone.

Don't you think there are more worthy things to complain about?



edit on 3/13/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
In 2009 the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $200 billion

that's $200 BILLION in just one year alone.

Don't you think there are more worthy things to complain about?


So as long as there is a gun to your head forcing you to pay for government war, then why not for government everything else, too?

Very logical



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I really don't understand so what if it costs alot? (Iam sure the defense budget will cost more) free healthcare is a good thing and also the moral thing for any society to have.
I don't mind paying higher taxes in the UK for the NHS, I care for my fellow human being when they are sick.
If you have a workforce which is not worried about healthcare you will have a workforce that is happy and also not sick.


Free Healthcare? last time i checked it was paid for by Tax Payer $'s so i would hardly call it free.
Defense Budget? ya cut the defense budget with these morons in Congress and how safe do you feel...
In America, anyone can walk into an Emergency Room and get healthcare. Its expensive for those who actually pay for it, but many people don't pay their Emergency Room bills and let the company eat it. If you want free healthcare, go to a Catholic Hospital Emergency Room and then prove to them you can't afford to pay your bill, they write it off because their all non profit.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Not at all, I'm just simply pointing out to the OP that there are more outrageous things to complain about like the War in Afghanistan and "terrorism" which cost U.S tax payers $200 billion dollars in 2009 alone

unless he had an agenda.......



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Person A brings up position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Intentional or not, I applaud your strawman tactics, sir.

The point of the OP is that the price of mandated healthcare has doubled before implementation. Basically, Washington lied, what else is new, right?
edit on 13-3-2012 by METACOMET because: fx



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by roaland
 


Yes I know it isn't free we just call it that and like I said we pay for it in our taxes.
Anyone in the UK can get life saving treatment even if they have not payed a single bit of tax.
We get prescription drugs which may cost 100's of pounds per pill for about £7.40.
I just don't know why intelligent kind people in the US are so against a system like ours.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Three points.

1) Healthy people are less expensive to the economy than sick people. Healthy people go to work every day and contribute to the economy. Sick people can't work. This results in a net saving to the economy as a whole. Highways cost a lot of money too, but they actually contribute more money to the economy than they absorb (many times more).

2) Much of the 'Obamacare' costs are already accounted for by Medicare/Medicaid. In those cases, where Obamacare estimates go up, Medicare/Medicaid costs go down by an equal amount. This is a restructuring of responsibility between the programs, not suddenly discovered extra costs.

3) The figures from the HBO, while surprising on first glance are a result of changing reference windows. Some estimations have been calculated over 9 years, some over 7 years; some beginning in 2010, some in 2012. To quote the second reference below, "That’s kind of like saying the cost of pizza went up by comparing last year’s price for a 12-inch pie with this year’s price for a 16-inch pie."

In summary, the indignation by opponents is a beat up.

We should certainly be keeping an eye on these things, we just need to understand what we are seeing. The overall benefit to the nation and the economy is positive, but opponents will twist the numbers anyway they can to make a pigs ear out of a silk purse. We should keep that in mind while watching the talking heads trying to make political hay from it.

Good News! Obamacare will cost less than projected!

Obamacare and the myth of rising cost estimates
edit on 13/3/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


It all boils down, for me personally, how much I am willing to give to our government for multiple programs. IMHO they take entirely too much of my money already and would much rather this issue be taken up in the private sector, which is having its costs driven up by the same government that wants to lower the cost of (insert product name here) so, as i see it, they can come in and "save the day" with a "New Government Program" that will change the world. I wouldn't trust these people to balance my check book, i sure as heck ain't gonna trust them to ensure they can run a healthcare system to keep me alive when I'm older.
edit on 13-3-2012 by roaland because: spelling



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by roaland
 


Well I understand that and we in the UK do go on about how much it costs in tax but seeing that it only costs the taxpayer £1500 per year each (rough estimate) I think we are getting a good deal, compared to what you pay.
Here are some stats (from 2009) but it gives you a rough picture.
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Wait a minute! Obama said it would only cost $900 billion over ten years when he ramrodded it down the nation's throat.


Wow, I didn't see this one coming...government run anything is great right?



I mean they are the Midas touch of efficiency.

"Just vote for it!" said, Nancy...we don't know what's in it but it'll be great...

Kool-Aid, kool-aid, can’t wait...kool-aid kool aid - tastes great!

Save money...

Awesome... now we'll all have the ability to suffer the same - except for those who pushed the bill the hardest - they (congress and the unions...) are of course exempt.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


What a program costs means very little to me. What means more to me is why do we need Government to hold our hands in every aspect of our lives with a Government program that controls our actions from the kitchen to flushing the toilet. Every time the Government gets their hands in something the cost of that something sky rockets. Now why do you think that is? Name me one Government program that isn't hemorrhaging Tax Dollars or being used as a leverage to push the states? Look at the Highway Money from the Feds to the States. back in the 80's or 90's Ohio changed their seat belt laws to mandatory. Do you know why? because the federal Government said, "Hey Ohio, take away the drivers choice of putting on that belt away and we'll give you more federal roads funding. But if you don't do it, we're not going to be giving you as much for upkeep on federal highways." If i would of followed that seat belt law, I'd have a tombstone that says i Died Xmas Day 1997. Thanks Federal Government.
edit on 13-3-2012 by roaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by roaland
 


Look no system is perfect but we have to try and make them as cost effective as possible. I can only talk as a person from the UK so we have no state laws our laws cover the whole UK.
Seat belts do save lives you may have died if you had one on but that is a a rare thing I would have lost my first born if not for a seat belt.

The founder of the NHS said this.

The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.

I agree with him.

Our government has to try and look out for it's people because sometimes we can be stupid that is why we should vote for people who are not. (cough cough Sarah Palin)

edit on 13-3-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
But we .....

have to ....

pass the bill ...

[arms waving like a maniac]

[cheap street smile while talking]






(youtube caption


Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it."





Do YOU Know Whats in it NOW !!!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


People in the USA aren't being denied medical treatment because of lack of funds now because of reasons i stated in a previous post. How many charitable organizations exist in the US that help cancer patients and people with other stuff going on that can't afford the treatments? Tons of them if you do some digging. They might even be better funded too if people had more of their own money put back into their pockets. My point is that the public sector can do much to help this problem then Government will ever be able to do.

I was mainly using the seat belt thing as a personal example from my own experience. Sorry to hear that your son had to go through that. I wasn't advocating that no one should wear seat belts, i was only pointing out that if we are given the freedom to make our own choices, that we can make better decisions for ourselves then an overbearing, ever watchful Government ever dreamed of. We don't need bigger Government, we need Personal Responsibility.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Seat belts do save lives you may have died if you had one on but that is a rare thing I would have lost my first born if not for a seat belt.


The test for a law should be who it protects from whom. In this case a seatbelt law for children protects them (the children) from the poor decisions of their parents or guardians. I can get behind that almost.

However, when it comes to an adult - wear it, don't wear it I could care less. Let me caveat that by saying if your insurance finds that you were not wearing it you should be completely liable for the cost of your own care.

Can't afford it - sucks to be stupid I guess. Honestly - if we protect people from themselves we are in fact draining the water from the deep end of the gene pool by protecting idiots.


Originally posted by boymonkey74

The founder of the NHS said this.

The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.


Sounds like a ninny to me.


Originally posted by boymonkey74

I agree with him.

Our government has to try and look out for it's people because sometimes we can be stupid that is why we should vote for people who are not.


Respectfully speaking this is ok to a point - but my question is why should anyone be allowed to take by force of law the fruits of one person's labor to underwrite the poor decision making skills of another.

I'd say a maybe a onetime poor decision is a matter for debate - a series of lifetime poor decisions; say smoking that result in poor health should not be underwritten by the public by force.

I say let these people bask in the glory of their decisions - drown in fluids, suffocate in them for all I care.

Take not a dime of mine for this type nonsense.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
This is old news.

Note the date of this article and the date Obamacare was signed into law 3/23/2010.

CBO Hikes ObamaCare Cost Estimate By $115 Billion
May 11, 2010

blogs.investors.com...


“(L)arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.
The CBO estimated in March that the net cost of the overhaul would be $788 billion over 10 years, but cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.(italics mine)

The House should have waited to vote on the sweeping government health care bill until there was something approaching a true accounting of the costs.



Do you think the fact that the CBO needed and asked for more time to estimate the program cost might have been a reason why nobody had time to read the bill????????? Was it rushed through congress because the actual program costs would have shown how expensive this healthcare would be?

The stupidest thing I ever heard was Pelosi saying: "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it."
USA you got scammed.
edit on 3/13/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: change word



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join