ObamaCare costs higher than expected

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Wiseacre, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Dunno what the SCOTUS ruling will be, but I think it ain't going to work as it is. Medicaid is going to absolutely bankrupt most states, they can't make up the shortfall between what the feds give 'em and what they'll need to cover all the HC costs.


    snippet:
    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary (OACT) just released its projections for national health spending through 2021. The picture isn’t pretty, as health spending will continue to increase at a much faster rate than the gross domestic product (GDP), consuming 19.6 percent (almost one-fifth) of the nation’s economy in 2021.
    Growth in health spending will remain modest until 2014, when Obamacare expands Medicaid to an additional 19.6 million Americans and creates exchanges to regulate private insurance and administer new federal subsidies. Once these changes go into effect, Medicaid spending will increase by 18 percent, and private health insurance spending will increase by 7.9 percent, since more people will gain coverage through the government-run exchanges. According to OACT, “Together, Medicaid and private health insurance spending contribute to an overall acceleration in projected national health spending growth to 7.4 percent, which is 2.1 percentage points faster than would be expected in the absence of health reform.”

    New Report Shows Health Spending Spikes Under Obamacare
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    The pessimistic tone doesn't seem justified by the source material. The last pre-reform projection for national health expenditures (released in March 2010) projected that national health spending would be ~$4,787.5 billion in 2020. The projections they released this week now peg that number at ~$4,501.9 billion. That's nearly $300 billion less in a single year; I don't particularly feel like going year by year to figure how much lower their projections for the entire decade are now compared to the pre-reform estimates two years ago (Karen Davis says it's around $1.7 trillion lower over the decade). And that's with 22 million more insured folks in the system relative to the pre-reform baseline.

    Heritage wants to make hay out of the temporary jump in the growth rate of expenditures in 2014 as those people enter the ranks of the insured. As they said, that year health spending will grow "2.1 percentage points faster than would be expected in the absence of health reform." Then it will fall back down the following year. 22 million people will become insured that year and health spending will grow 2% faster than normal then fall back down the following year. That's actually rather astonishing.
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,943
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,685
    4.78 Trillion? Over a decade right?

    Obama/Pelosi said ObamaCare would cost $940 billion over a decade:

    Obamacare's Gross Costs Double to $1.76 Trillion, CBO Projects

    GreanBeard, that means the projected cost has gone UP nearly 5 fold!

    Oh but we're supposed to believe that it's because "the economy is slower than expected".

    You know, you f*ck sticks on the Left claimed that ObamaCare would do two things:

    1. Save Money
    2. Create Jobs

    You obviously failed at both and won't admit it. I'll bet you bastards wanna' Blame Bush Tax Cuts for THIS TOO?

    People like GreenBeard come in here and start threads about a small part of ObamaCare and give us a slide show presentation about something miniscule that just baffles everyone. Reams of information and propaganda that we ALL know now is BULLSH*T!
     
  4. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    National health expenditures are every dollar in our economy that goes toward health care, public and private. The numbers you're talking about are the sum total of new federal commitments to Medicaid and exchange tax credits under the ACA, a small piece of total national health expenditures.

    Comparing different things will indeed result in the appearance of incongruities.
     
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,943
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,685
    Oh, "appearance of incongruities" eh?

    It wasn't advertised as costing this much and now you wanna' act like that's the way it was supposed to be all along had I just paid attention right?

    Like it's OUR FAULT right?

    This is why Americans want ObamaCare repealed. This bullsh*t will NEVER end!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. oldernwiser
    Offline

    oldernwiser VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +154
    I guess it's all in who does the number crunching. The article in Health Affairs paints a different picture (along with their justifications). Health spending is expected to continue to increase at a modest rate throughout the 2011-2021 period. You should keep in mind that they are also basing some of their figures on a fairly optimistic increased annual job growth which - again depending on who crunches the figures - is something we haven't seen as yet.

    Also, their numbers count on the 2% reduction of Medicare payments to providers from 2013 to 2022. They do not take that 2% and add it to the other 3rd party payers which is how the providers will recoup those losses - and there is no reason to believe that providers won't continue to do business as usual and shift the financial burdens to those who can pay more for services.

    As I've said before, managing insurance in order to control health care costs is insane. Even if you kick the doors wide open, health care is still going to account for the largest percentage of our GDP for the foreseeable future.
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    The "advertisements" you're referring to are not the numbers being discussed here. Hence the incongruity.

    You want to talk about CBO numbers, which are only about new federal spending committed by the ACA.

    This thread is about about national health expenditures projected by the CMS actuaries, which is everything everyone spends on health care, not just the federal government when it's implementing new things under the ACA.

    If it seems like the dollar amounts you feel were "advertised" are only ~2-3 percent of the dollar amounts (over the next decade) being discussed in this thread, that's because they are. The new federal commitments under the ACA (the law's price tag) are miniscule compared to national health expenditures. The ACA's spending is a small piece of the full puzzle being considered here.

    Let go of your paranoia for a moment and grasp this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2012
  8. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,943
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,685
    No! I've seen this story before, on everything else the gov't does! Go look at the F-22 thread:

    Expensive to start with.
    Gets more expensive as it's built.
    Problems cost more money to fix.
    Operating costs go up.
    The plane is declared "obsolete".
    Contract is awarded for an even MORE expensive fighter to replace it.

    It's the same thing, just replace "F-22" with "Health Care".

    We're witnessing the birth of the Medical Industrial Complex. This is the ONE time Abortion should be legal!
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2012
  9. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Was not the ACA originally sold as being revenue neutral? Wasn't going to cost taxpayers anything?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. starcraftzzz
    Offline

    starcraftzzz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,263
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +120
    yep and now it will reduce the deficit by trillions how horrible
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

obamacare costs higher than expected