CBO: Obamacare to cost $2 Trillion over next decade, leave 31 million uninsured (1 Viewer)

[minnie616]

Yet, after all that's said and done over 31 million will still be left without healthcare.

Before the ACA there were about 56 million uninsured.

Now within the next 10 years about 92 percent of all Americans will be insured.

There would be more insured if some states had not opted out of the Medicaid expansion.

 

[joG]

Wait - what? I thought it was supposed to cut the deficit along with reducing the cost of our premiums by $2500 and letting people who liked their plans stay on them!

.......I..... I don't understand. Maybe we aren't Hoping hard enough?


Anywho, as was widely predicted:



Oh - but there is good news!



Only 31 million uninsured, and we increase net insurance by 27 million for that cost of $1.993 T

Meaning.... (wait a second, gotta do some math... carry the zero... divide by the imaginary number... convert into and then back out of root 8... seasonally adjust for insurance policies "saved or created....) we're only going to spend an average of a little under $74,000 per individual added to the insurance rolls. Hooray, Government!



:doh

Don't complain! Progress is expensive.

 

[ludin]

Market dynamics in many rating areas is either bringing in lower priced competitors or forcing existing carriers to mitigate increases (if not outright decrease premiums). Competition works, believe it or not.

More Competition Helps Restrain Premiums In Federal Health Marketplace

the premiums for 2015 are out and people are seeing upto a 20% increase if they want to keep their plan.
of course they can change plans to a lower costing one, but that doesn't mean better coverage.

so premiums are still increasing in costs. which pretty much shows obamacare is still failing to reduce prices.

 

[MMC]

Before the ACA there were about 56 million uninsured.

Now within the next 10 years about 92 percent of all Americans will be insured.

There would be more insured if some states had not opted out of the Medicaid expansion.

Yet 31 million wont be, and that don't count what starts tacking on after the decade.

 

[CanadaJohn]

That doesn't explain why the slowdown has showed up for the public payers, as well. Medicare and Medicaid have experienced the same bending of the cost curve the private sector has. For instance, from this week's CBO report:



The bending of the cost curve has appeared across the entirety of the American health care sector over the past few years.

Again, what isn't mentioned is the reduction in rates paid under Medicare starting with the implementation of the ACA and the number of doctors who have opted out of taking new and retaining current Medicare patients.

It's pretty cheeky of you to claim a bending of the cost curve due to the implementation of the ACA when the actual bending of the cost curve related to Medicare was a stripping of some $700 billion from Medicare funds to help pay for the enrollment of newly eligible Medicaid recipients as a result of the ACA.

 

[MMC]

Primarily due to many states not opting for the Medicaid expansion.

At least the CBO admitted this part.....and got it Right, huh?


The budget agency* bases its budget projections on current law*, assuming that temporary provisions will be allowed to expire. However, many temporary laws are routinely extended, including dozens of temporary tax breaks and a provision that prevents steep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.

Future budget deficits would be higher if those provisions are continued. For example, if dozens of temporary tax breaks are extended, they would add $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-d...evel-obama-presidency-190112325--finance.html

 

[Fletch]

They tend to err on the side of caution, so we may well see them continue to revise their estimates downward as time goes on sure.

Well, we will see about that. But being off by 25% in five years doesnt give me a lot of confidence in their ten year projections. If it turns out they under-estimated by 25%, we are going to have serious problems.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, what isn't mentioned is the reduction in rates paid under Medicare starting with the implementation of the ACA and the number of doctors who have opted out of taking new and retaining current Medicare patients.

It's pretty cheeky of you to claim a bending of the cost curve due to the implementation of the ACA when the actual bending of the cost curve related to Medicare was a stripping of some $700 billion from Medicare funds to help pay for the enrollment of newly eligible Medicaid recipients as a result of the ACA.

I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. Health care cost growth in the U.S. has slowed down to unprecedented lows and you seem to agree with me that the ACA is playing a significant role.

By the way, fewer than 1% of American providers opt out of Medicare (most of those are oral surgeons and psychiatrists).

 

[minnie616]

Yet 31 million wont be, and that don't count what starts tacking on after the decade.

92 percent is good.

Remember a lot of the people who won't be covered are homeless or are located in shacks or cabins in the wilderness by their own choice.

 

[Fletch]

the premiums for 2015 are out and people are seeing upto a 20% increase if they want to keep their plan.
of course they can change plans to a lower costing one, but that doesn't mean better coverage.

so premiums are still increasing in costs. which pretty much shows obamacare is still failing to reduce prices.

Right. Last year, to avoid a premium increase, I went for a higher deductible. Not sure why Obamacare should get the credit for keeping my premiums low when health care now is costing me more.

 

[MMC]

92 percent is good.

Remember a lot of the people who won't be covered are homeless or are located in shacks or cabins in the wilderness by their own choice.

It

Post 56 puts the CBO into the correct perspective.....doesn't it?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. Health care cost growth in the U.S. has slowed down to unprecedented lows and you seem to agree with me that the ACA is playing a significant role.

By the way, fewer than 1% of American providers opt out of Medicare (most of those are oral surgeons and psychiatrists).

The disagreement is in emphasis. You seem to be equating the advent of the ACA as playing a significant role when in fact paying for the ACA is what is making Medicare costs decrease per patient. It's a forced deduction in costs in order to fund an increase in costs in another area. It's a shell game and you're trumpeting it as some miracle cure to cost escalation.

 

[CanadaJohn]

92 percent is good.

Remember a lot of the people who won't be covered are homeless or are located in shacks or cabins in the wilderness by their own choice.

Seriously? You have 31 million people homeless and living in shacks or cabins in the wilderness? You have virtually the entire population of Canada homeless?

 

[MMC]

The disagreement is in emphasis. You seem to be equating the advent of the ACA as playing a significant role when in fact paying for the ACA is what is making Medicare costs decrease per patient. It's a forced deduction in costs in order to fund an increase in costs in another area. It's a shell game and you're trumpeting it as some miracle cure to cost escalation.

Yeah, we can see how that plays out eh CJ. :2wave:


“This report should pour cold water on claims our debt problems have been solved,” said former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) and former Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire, the co-chairs of Fix the Debt, an advocacy group, in a statement. “It’s true our deficits have fallen tremendously from recession-era highs, but they will soon be rising again.”

The increased federal outlays will be driven by a huge increase in retirees, more federal subsidies for health insurance, increasing health care costs per beneficiary and rising interest rates on the federal debt, according to CBO.

Assuming no change in current law , CBO projected revenues will equal about 18.5 percent of GDP in 2016 and remain between 18 percent and 18.5 percent through 2025.

“Responsible infrastructure investments will [also] need to be made,” she said. “Now is the time to tackle comprehensive tax reform, Pentagon contracting and compensation issues, as well as entitlements....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dark-shadow-hanging-over-economic-114500827.html

 

[Greenbeard]

The disagreement is in emphasis. You seem to be equating the advent of the ACA as playing a significant role when in fact paying for the ACA is what is making Medicare costs decrease per patient. It's a forced deduction in costs in order to fund an increase in costs in another area. It's a shell game and you're trumpeting it as some miracle cure to cost escalation.

To reiterate: spending growth across the entire health sector has slowed substantially. It's not a Medicare-specific phenomenon, though obviously it hasn't spared Medicare.

And the slowing in Medicare is turning out to be substantially more than the slowing required by the ACA. You can see it by comparing CBO projections for 2014 Medicare spending to reality. Pre-ACA, Medicare spending last year was on track to be $710 billion. Just after the ACA passed, incorporating the law's required slowing of the program's rate growth, the CBO predicted Medicare would cost $645 billion last year (9% lower). In reality, Medicare spending in 2014 was $600 billion, more than 15% below pre-ACA estimates.

Something larger is happening and I would argue it's connected to the delivery system reforms in the ACA (and, where applicable, the introduction of greater market dynamics in the insurance and provider markets). The way health care is delivered is changing, and it's driving quality improvement and slowing cost growth. And that benefits everyone, from Medicare to Medicaid to commercial insurance to the individual consumer.

 

[jimbo]

Interesting report. The money quote, from CBO's explanation of why their spending projections have been falling (23% in 2019 al

The cost curve is bending.

It would seem like the cost curve is bending so far that it tying itself into really
big knots.

 

[jimbo]

I'm just a lowly Canadian, but does anyone else find it odd, and not a little troubling, that the CBO comes out with as many alternate scenarios, evaluations, predictions, methodologies, etc. when reporting on costs related to the ACA as climatologists and climate change "gurus" do when sucking and blowing about global warming?

I think the CBO does not develop its own data, but uses data provided by Congress to develop its conclusions. Hence, when Congress provides new numbers, new conclusions.

Global warming is different. A bunch of "scientists" starting with a conclusion, that the sky is falling, then working back until they find numbers, real or imagined, that fit their conclusion.

 

[ludin]

The disagreement is in emphasis. You seem to be equating the advent of the ACA as playing a significant role when in fact paying for the ACA is what is making Medicare costs decrease per patient. It's a forced deduction in costs in order to fund an increase in costs in another area. It's a shell game and you're trumpeting it as some miracle cure to cost escalation.

what he also fails to mention is that more hospitals are shoving patients into observation and not admitting them into the hospital until after a certain period.
medicare only pays part of the observation. the person is left with the rest of it. so if they get any medication or treatment while in observation medicare won't cover it.

where as before they were being admitted into the hospital in which medicare was paying for it all.

 

[Paschendale]

Seems like there's no shortage of doomsday predictions about Obamacare, and none come close to reality. And, as always, this would all be much simpler and cheaper and more effective if we just had public healthcare like every other industrialized nation in the world.

 

[buck]

The argument five years ago was that they were underestimating the costs of the law. Turns out they were overestimating it (e.g., exchange subsidies in FY14 were ~25% lower than the 2010 CBO score assumed).

Over the last five years, it's become apparent that they overestimated the costs of the new spending in the ACA and underestimated the amount of savings we'd see in Medicare.

What are the causes of these savings? Even the CBO report indicated there is a debate as to the cause... As you know, multiple cites have been provided showing little if any is from Obamacare.. Yet, you still persist in your hope that it's primarily due to Obmacare with little to no proof.

 

[ocean515]

Seriously? You have 31 million people homeless and living in shacks or cabins in the wilderness? You have virtually the entire population of Canada homeless?

Sad isn't it? And after only six years of the Obama Administration. :fly:

 

[minnie616]

Seriously? You have 31 million people homeless and living in shacks or cabins in the wilderness? You have virtually the entire population of Canada homeless?

About 1 percent of our US population is homeless.

Another 1 percent probably lives off the grid by choice.

 

[CanadaJohn]

To reiterate: spending growth across the entire health sector has slowed substantially. It's not a Medicare-specific phenomenon, though obviously it hasn't spared Medicare.

And the slowing in Medicare is turning out to be substantially more than the slowing required by the ACA. You can see it by comparing CBO projections for 2014 Medicare spending to reality. Pre-ACA, Medicare spending last year was on track to be $710 billion. Just after the ACA passed, incorporating the law's required slowing of the program's rate growth, the CBO predicted Medicare would cost $645 billion last year (9% lower). In reality, Medicare spending in 2014 was $600 billion, more than 15% below pre-ACA estimates.

Something larger is happening and I would argue it's connected to the delivery system reforms in the ACA (and, where applicable, the introduction of greater market dynamics in the insurance and provider markets). The way health care is delivered is changing, and it's driving quality improvement and slowing cost growth. And that benefits everyone, from Medicare to Medicaid to commercial insurance to the individual consumer.

That's fine, but everything you've said is speculation. You've presented zero evidence that "health care delivery is driving quality improvements and slowing cost growth". While I've not documented my contentions, it's undoubtedly true that the ACA called for taking $700 billion out of Medicare over a decade to fund Medicaid enrollments for those newly qualifying under the ACA. In addition, with rising deductibles and copays, people with private insurance are likely accessing healthcare to a lesser degree because their insurance costs them more personally to access. People are foregoing healthcare for financial reasons rather than for insurance reasons.

I don't know the answers and I've no way of disputing what you opine. I'm simply stating that there's more than one way to explain what you claim is an ACA driven better health care delivery system. And I would just add that I find it somewhat amusing that a liberal is championing cost reduction over quality/quantity of care when in most instances liberals champion the value of the program, damn the costs.

 

[CanadaJohn]

About 1 percent of our US population is homeless.

Another 1 percent probably lives off the grid by choice.

Even if 6 to 7 million people in the US are considered homeless, that's a disgrace. I find it hard to believe. In Canada, the numbers for the entire country are about 30,000 any given night and a number of unique individuals being homeless in the course of a year is around 200,000. That's dramatically lower than the numbers you're claiming in the world's richest country.

30,000 Canadians are homeless every night - Canada - CBC News

 

[MMC]

Even if 6 to 7 million people in the US are considered homeless, that's a disgrace. I find it hard to believe. In Canada, the numbers for the entire country are about 30,000 any given night and a number of unique individuals being homeless in the course of a year is around 200,000. That's dramatically lower than the numbers you're claiming in the world's richest country.

30,000 Canadians are homeless every night - Canada - CBC News

Yeah.....but we got Mr. Wendal.