Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
Another Obama lie. New Report. Obamcare will raise
Another Obama lie. New Report. Obamcare will raise
A big government entitlement program is going to raise projected spending? Didn't see that coming!
but what the asswipe demonrats said was,, "it will save a trillion dollars"
This is Medicare Actuary report is why Obama-Pelosi-Reid were in a frenzy to pass ObamaCare before it could be completed. Congress is able to cook the CBO score with gimmicks (10 years of taxes, 6 years of benefits, transfer of funds from Medicare, SS, and CLASS) - but they can't affect the Medicare Actuary Report.
McConnell received this letter from the Chief Actuary in March:
Dear Senator McConnell:
This letter is in preliminary response to your inquiry of March 19 requesting an updated analysis by the Office of the Actuary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as passed by the Senate) as it would be modified by the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (as released by the House Committee on Rules on March 18). The request was made jointly by yourself and 10 other members of the House and Senate Republican Leadership.
In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation. We will, however, continue working to estimate the financial, coverage, and other impacts of the health reform package and will provide these results to you as quickly as possible.
As you know, the Office of the Actuary has assisted Congressional Administration policy makers on health legislative and policy initiatives for many years, including the original Medicare legislation in 1965, all subsequent amendments to this program, Medicaid amendments since 1976, and the Clinton Administrations proposed Health Security Act in 1993-94. Our goal has always been to provide independent, objective technical information for use by policy makers as they deliberate Medicare, Medicaid, and national health reform proposals.
We issued an analysis of the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a memorandum dated January 8, 2010. While it is reasonable to expect that our updated analysis of this legislation, as modified by the reconciliation amendments, would be generally similar to the results in the January 8 memorandum, I cannot confirm this expectation without a full evaluation of the amendments and re-estimation of the provisions.
I am sending a similar letter to House Republican Leader Boehner, and, for expediency, will email copies to the other cosigners of your request. I am sorry that we cannot respond more quickly. Please let us know if you have any other questions we can assist with.
Sincerely,
Richard. S. Foster
Chief Actuary
Obama's Medicare Actuary Unable to Review Bill Before Vote - Daniel Foster - The Corner on National Review Online
And notice liberals won't even try to pop their head in here and refute.
They KNEW Obama was lying and they know it isn't about helping the "poor."
It's about getting so much control of the populace they will be forced to vote Democrat for fear they will lose their health benefits.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
Report says health care will cover more, cost more - Yahoo! News
Oh really? You mean Obamacare isn't the "Christmas present" the panacea liberals promised???????
This is another ponzi scheme that is ultimately unsustainable?????
Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!
Liberals promised on something they can't deliver? What do they care! It still justifies raising taxes, and that's what they really want anyway.
Disgusting!
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
It's not even that. The report is saying that total national spending on health care is projected to increase by one percent. It's not saying that the deficit will increase because of it. Also, the report shows that national spending on health care increases by two percent until 2015. After 2015, you start to see a lot more cost savings. So, if anything, this report undermines their arguments.
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
It's not even that. The report is saying that total national spending on health care is projected to increase by one percent. It's not saying that the deficit will increase because of it. Also, the report shows that national spending on health care increases by two percent until 2015. After 2015, you start to see a lot more cost savings. So, if anything, this report undermines their arguments.
Medical care costs are projected to rise by no more than 2% before 2015? Two percent annually, I assume. Why would this inflation rate drop from 4% (give or take) to 2% in 2010/2011?
I'm not complaining, I'm curious. Seems like I must not be comparing apples to oranges here somewhere, but damned if I see where I made a wrong turn.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
Report says health care will cover more, cost more - Yahoo! News
Oh really? You mean Obamacare isn't the "Christmas present" the panacea liberals promised???????
This is another ponzi scheme that is ultimately unsustainable?????
Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!
Liberals promised on something they can't deliver? What do they care! It still justifies raising taxes, and that's what they really want anyway.
Disgusting!
teapartysamuri, "health care costs" are not synonymous with "government spending on Medicare" etc.
Health care costs are the rates charged by drug companies, pharmacies, hospitals, labs, doctors, ambulances, nursing homes, etc. They are somewhat elastic and can change between payors (traditionally the government pays the lowest rate going) but to a large degree, they are the expenses whether they are borne by private insurers, the patient, the government or my Aunt Fannie's charity.
Many people are very alarmed about the existing levels of health care costs and the rate of inflation for them compared to consumer goods generally. Prescription drugs are a huge offender in the catagory, rising by a annual rate of X+ even for Medical Costs inflation rates.. Beyond that is a fear that drug companies with certain very needed drugs under patent have engaged in profiteering through "extraordinary price increases".
U.S. GAO - Brand-Name Prescription Drug Pricing: Lack of Therapeutically Equivalent Drugs and Limited Competition May Contribute to Extraordinary Price Increases
U.S. Medical Cost Inflation 2000-2009
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2000 = 4.1%
2001 = 4.6%
2002 = 4.7%
2003 = 4.0%
2004 = 4.4%
2005 = 4.2%
2006 = 4.0%
2007 = 4.4%
2008 = 3.70%
U.S. Price Inflation (CPI-U, Dec to Dec) 2000-2009
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2000 = 3.40%
2001 = 1.6%
2002 = 2.4%
2003 = 1.9%
2004 = 3.30%
2005 = 3.40%
2006 = 2.5%
2007 = 4.1%
2008 = 0.1%
Tom's Inflation Calculator
Bear with me. I'm not an economist and finding this data from its original source was just beyond me atm.
Look at the year 2003 for example. The overall US inflation rate was 1.9%, but the Medical Cost inflation rate was 4.0%. That gap is widest in 2008, when overall inflation was 0.1% and yet Medical Cost inflation was 3.70%. In other words, in 2008 Medical Cost inflation was almost 400 Percent higher than inflation generally. No one believes that these skyrocketing cost increases are sustainable, and a whole lot of lobbying goes into trying to persuade Congress that whatever is done, it does not affect Big Phamra, or whichever segment of the medical care industry is fighting to maintain profit levels at that moment. No one wants his ox to be gored, yet everyone agrees....we cannot pay these costs under ANY constellation of private and public payor systems.
No one really expected that the health care law would have a magic bullet to solve this problem. It didn't arise overnight and it won't be solved that way either. It may be the single biggest threat to US citizen security we now have on our plates, and that's no exaggeration. The fact that the health care law is failing to completely contain these costs DOES drive up the cost to the government for Medicare, etc. It DOES make it more likely that the law will not turn out to be "budget neutral". But not because the government ended up buying more than was thought....rather, because the goods and services it planned to buy cost much more. If these medical goods and services had been purchased instead by a private payor, the resulting increase would have been the SAME or even higher...and private payors could not meet these expense levels either.
Substitute "Nursing homes and home health care" for "medical goods and services" in the above, and you can see why long term care plans, government OR private, are on shaky ground as to future solvency.
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
It's not even that. The report is saying that total national spending on health care is projected to increase by one percent. It's not saying that the deficit will increase because of it. Also, the report shows that national spending on health care increases by two percent until 2015. After 2015, you start to see a lot more cost savings. So, if anything, this report undermines their arguments.
The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
It's not even that. The report is saying that total national spending on health care is projected to increase by one percent. It's not saying that the deficit will increase because of it. Also, the report shows that national spending on health care increases by two percent until 2015. After 2015, you start to see a lot more cost savings. So, if anything, this report undermines their arguments.
Yeah! You want to see the original projections for Medicare????????
Is that a trick question Polk? We do still plan to have a Defense, Judiciary, etc. Right?
Makes me nervous when you ask these deceptively simple questions.
It's not even that. The report is saying that total national spending on health care is projected to increase by one percent. It's not saying that the deficit will increase because of it. Also, the report shows that national spending on health care increases by two percent until 2015. After 2015, you start to see a lot more cost savings. So, if anything, this report undermines their arguments.
Yeah! You want to see the original projections for Medicare????????
The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
The Medicare Monster - Reason Magazine
That underminds YOUR argument. The government does not have a great reacord when it comes to accurate projections.
