Obamacare will cost the Feds 20% less than expected

I am in favor of the plan - but "will" cost?

So it's a change in a projection or a change in a guess.

So what.

whew! I'm just glad "the Feds" are paying for it instead of us taxpayers!

Randy Oldman wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obamacare-cost-20150126-story.html

Gee, what a shock. If everyone would have STFU and waited to see what everything looked like when the dust settled, maybe we would be able to have constructive dialog to fix the bad parts.............Nah, better to try and score cheap political points to pander to your base.

a5r67 wrote:

Gee, what a shock. If everyone would have STFU and waited to see what everything looked like when the dust settled, maybe we would be able to have constructive dialog to fix the bad parts.............Nah, better to try and score cheap political points to pander to your base.

Yeah - you need to pass it to know what's in it.

Randy Oldman wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obamacare-cost-20150126-story.html

You must love shopping at JC Penny. You "save" so much money off what the items are originally marked. Never mind they jack-up the "original" prices so that the new prices look cheap in comparison.

It's always in the interest of the government (or anyone) to predict a high cost at the beginning. That way, you can "come in under budget". If you predicted a lower number, but end with the same net cost, it looks bad coming in "over budget". If it costs $100, it looks better if you predicted $120 instead of $80. It still costs $100, though.

Daily Mail article on the same CBO report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html

Interesting how they present it in contrast to the LA Times. Per their article, program will cost $1.9 Trillion over 10 years, but will be offset by $643 Billion in new taxes as part of the package, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of $1.3 Trillion over 10 years and they cite approximately 30 million people still won't have insurance. The article cites a cost of $50,000 for each person Obamacare brings into the program. My insurance for a family of 4 is $16,000 a year (I pay 1/3, my employer covers 2/3s of the cost) So is the LA Times or Daily Mail spinning the facts here? Either way, it is a hell of a price tag.

"approximately 30 million people still won't have insurance"

mostly conservative op-outers (tea party types).

most medical groups are run by "investment" groups who are trying to get as much profit as possible.

this article is COMPLETE BULLSHlT

Randy Oldman wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obamacare-cost-20150126-story.html

Someone, somewhere is bullshitting.

a5r67 wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obamacare-cost-20150126-story.html

mmmmmm.........I don't have a base. I do have a career in health insurance. Based on that, I can tell you that describing obamacare as something with "bad parts" is comically retarded.

Gitmo is a wonderful vacation destination - just has a few 'bad parts', LOL..

Gee, what a shock. If everyone would have STFU and waited to see what everything looked like when the dust settled, maybe we would be able to have constructive dialog to fix the bad parts.............Nah, better to try and score cheap political points to pander to your base.

stick with eharmony wrote:

this article is COMPLETE BULLSHlT

YOU BUTTHURT BRO?

RANDY ORTON wrote:

stick with eharmony wrote:

this article is COMPLETE BULLSHlT

YOU BUTTHURT BRO?

This is when you know the argument is going south for the liberal. Let the insults and name calling begin! Wait until the next thread on gay marriage and see if this turd asks someone if their butt hurts. What an A-HOLE!

RANDY SAVAGE wrote:

RANDY ORTON wrote:

YOU BUTTHURT BRO?

This is when you know the argument is going south for the liberal. Let the insults and name calling begin! Wait until the next thread on gay marriage and see if this turd asks someone if their butt hurts. What an A-HOLE!

Argument going south for the liberal?

You mean the solid argument was the line that went "this article is COMPLETE BULLSHlT"?

Nice debate technique.

L L wrote:

RANDY SAVAGE wrote:

This is when you know the argument is going south for the liberal. Let the insults and name calling begin! Wait until the next thread on gay marriage and see if this turd asks someone if their butt hurts. What an A-HOLE!

Argument going south for the liberal?

You mean the solid argument was the line that went "this article is COMPLETE BULLSHlT"?

Nice debate technique.

Thank you sir! I knew we could get a compliment out of a liberal today!

Hilarious rubbish, cites the CBO but doesn't cite where the CBO has basically thrown up their hands trying to score it.

Do you people really believed it saves money? Do you know ANYTHING about economics?

From the report:

"Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects. Because the provisions of the ACA that relate to health insurance coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs and because those provisions have mostly just begun to be implemented,CBO and JCT have produced separate estimates of the effects of the provisions as part of the baseline process. By contrast, because the provisions of the ACA that do not relate directly to health insurance coverage generally modified existing federal programs (such as Medicare) or made various changes to the tax code, determining what would have happened since the enactment of the ACA had the law not been in effect is becoming increasingly difficult. The incremental budgetary effects of those noncoverage provisions are embedded in CBO’s baseline projections for those programs and tax revenues, respectively, but they cannot all be separately identified using the agency’s normal procedures. As a result, CBO does not produce estimates of the budgetary effects of the ACA as a whole as part of the baseline process."

Read more:

http://www.atr.org/cbo-still-refuses-score-obamacare-ignores-15-tax-hikes-healthcare-law#ixzz3Q4Ag5oDM

Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter

Barrister wrote:

Daily Mail article on the same CBO report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html

Interesting how they present it in contrast to the LA Times. Per their article, program will cost $1.9 Trillion over 10 years, but will be offset by $643 Billion in new taxes as part of the package, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of $1.3 Trillion over 10 years and they cite approximately 30 million people still won't have insurance. The article cites a cost of $50,000 for each person Obamacare brings into the program. My insurance for a family of 4 is $16,000 a year (I pay 1/3, my employer covers 2/3s of the cost) So is the LA Times or Daily Mail spinning the facts here? Either way, it is a hell of a price tag.

The 50k$ cost is for 10 years worth of insurance.

5k$ per year per uninsured person.

RANDY SAVAGE wrote:

RANDY ORTON wrote:

YOU BUTTHURT BRO?

This is when you know the argument is going south for the liberal. Let the insults and name calling begin! Wait until the next thread on gay marriage and see if this turd asks someone if their butt hurts. What an A-HOLE!

Oh, the irony!

You mean the newly insured aren't wasting their time going to the doctors for frivolous things like boo boos and the common cold? Shocker...

It takes the British press to show this as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC are so in the tank for obama that they would never cover this story.

obama lied about the $2500 savings over and over again but then later was busted on the lie (about the same time the "you can keep your doctor" and "you can keep your policy" proved to be false).

Of course, Huffington Post disciples defend, defend, defend. No wonder they are so pro-gay rights as far as they are up obama's butt. Blind but how does it taste?