The "numbers" you liberals/progressives/Democrats spew is all spin. You really should have read the article.
Color me unsurprised that you're unaware that article doesn't refute anything I've posted. Maybe if you were able to articulate some kind of argument, it'd be easier to figure out why you're under the mistaken impression your article addresses any of my points.
I do like the use of "numbers" in quotation marks, though. That about sums you up.
Obama and his Democratic allies manipulated the Congressional Budget Office scoring process and announced to the American people that Obamacare would cost less than $1 trillion over a decade. At the time the Senate passed the bill, the CBO said Obamacare would cost $871 billion. At the time of the House vote, it said it would cost $938 billion. This February, it said it would cost $2 trillion.
In 2010, the CBO projected it would cost $940 billion over the 2010-19 period.
Taking as accurate
Bloomberg Government's analysis that the law has cost $73 billion through FY14 and adding on the
estimated FY15-19 cost of the coverage expansions from the CBO's latest analysis, $755 billion, we find that the real initial 10-year cost of the law is $828 billion. Or 12% cheaper than advertised.
Which is exactly what I've said multiple times now: the law is turning out to be cheaper than expected. On a year-by-year basis, costs are coming in well below what CBO was saying four years ago. A point the CBO itself has acknowledged multiple times, though I doubt that fact or admission has filtered down into any of the, ah, "news" sources you read.
Using that same CBO process, Obama and his Democratic allies told the public that a 2,700-page legislative effort to provide taxpayer-subsidized insurance for tens of millions of uninsured people would—presto!—reduce federal deficits.
As already mentioned, the deficit
has been reduced. Substantially.
The Federal Deficit is Now Smaller than the Average Since the 1980s | WSJ
In fact, adjusted for the size of the economy, today’s deficit is now smaller than the average deficit going back to the 1980s. The 2014 deficit came in at 2.8% according to the CBO estimate, compared to the 3.2% average since 1980. By that measure, President Barack Obama‘s deficit this year is one that would have been acceptable to President Ronald Reagan. During Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the deficit averaged 4% of GDP.
Obama and his Democratic allies told Americans that Obamacare’s subsidies wouldn’t fund abortion. The Government Accountability Office now says that more than 1,000 Obamacare plans cover abortion-on-demand. In five states, every Obamacare plan covers abortion-on-demand.
Obama and his Democratic allies said, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” Since then, Obamacare has taken away millions of people’s health plans.
Obama and his Democratic allies said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” But of the millions who lost their plans, many have lost their doctors as well—and Obamacare’s doctor networks are notoriously narrow.
What does any of this have to do with anything I posted?
The president said, “I . . . have a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums,” and many of his Democratic allies echoed the claim. But even before the Senate voted on Obamacare, the CBO said that, by 2016, premiums for the average family in the individual market would be $2,100—or 16 percent—higher under Obamacare than in the absence of Obamacare. Many Americans are already experiencing such spikes, or worse ones, firsthand.
Interesting story about those 2009 predictions, and one that goes directly to the point that not only is the law cheaper today than expected back then but so is insurance and health care more generally:
Updated Estimates of the Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, April 2014 | CBO
The net downward revision since March 2010 to CBO and JCT’s estimates of the net federal cost of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions (when measured on a year- by-year basis) is attributable to many factors. . . A notable influence is the substantial downward revision to projected health care costs both for the federal government and for the private sector. For example, since early 2010, CBO and JCT have revised downward their projections of insurance premiums for policies purchased through the exchanges in 2016 by roughly 15 percent, and CBO has revised downward its projection of total Medicaid spending per beneficiary in 2016 by roughly half that percentage.
The CBO overestimated all of those things four years ago.
Mycroft said:
Oh...and that's not even addressing the outrageous and unsustainable deductibles people are saddled with in those insurance plans they are required...by law...to buy. Now they have insurance...but can't afford to use it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-the-doctor.html?src=twr
You think people shouldn't be allowed to buy high deductible plans and/or HSAs if they want?
