Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to CBO.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

You seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care would have cost without the legislation. Without that number, we can't tell how much extra the population is spending.

and is that not what this number represents? The add-on cost?
We spent 2.6T in 2010 alone. This is the cost of the change, for better or worse. The fact that they tried to average down the costs with the first 3 dead years gives an indication that it's not cheap.

It is difficult to project the future as-is, as our current systems is clearly untenable. But like SS, it's an open question as to when it will fall apart.

I could be wrong, but I thought the number mentioned in the original post was how much the government spent. Presumably, before this legislation, the corresponding health care was either not given, or was given and charged to the individuals or written off by doctors. My guess would be that right now, treatment for arthritis (e.g.) doesn't cost much more than it used to, however now there are more people able to avail themselves of it rather than suffer without care, and there are fewer doctors writing off costs of treatment (i.e. passing the costs on to other patients who can pay). If the United States government paid 1.76 trillion for various healthcare services last year, how much of that would the American public have paid without this legislation. If that number is also somewhere near 1.76 trillion, than the real cost to the people is essentially the same. I have no idea if that is the case, and can't form an opinion on the original post without such a perspective.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I could be wrong, but I thought the number mentioned in the original post was how much the government spent. Presumably, before this legislation, the corresponding health care was either not given, or was given and charged to the individuals or written off by doctors. My guess would be that right now, treatment for arthritis (e.g.) doesn't cost much more than it used to, however now there are more people able to avail themselves of it rather than suffer without care, and there are fewer doctors writing off costs of treatment (i.e. passing the costs on to other patients who can pay). If the United States government paid 1.76 trillion for various healthcare services last year, how much of that would the American public have paid without this legislation. If that number is also somewhere near 1.76 trillion, than the real cost to the people is essentially the same. I have no idea if that is the case, and can't form an opinion on the original post without such a perspective.

Blues,
Dave

Medicare spending alone in 2010 was 524B. With the boomers retiring in mass, it's expected to drift up past 800B/annually by the end of the decade. The number you're looking at is not total cost over the decade.

And of course medicare spending is not what "Obamacare" is focused on, though the tired promise of cutting MC costs is part of it.

[livendive 8]

The costs of Obamacare are associated with some treatments of some patients. Prior to Obamacare, did similar patients just go untreated? Or did they get treated, but someone else write the checks to cover the costs?

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The costs of Obamacare are associated with some treatments of some patients. Prior to Obamacare, did similar patients just go untreated? Or did they get treated, but someone else write the checks to cover the costs?

this is probably spelled out in the CBO report. Perhaps you should read it rather than guess?

I'd say some get treated, some don't, and some get treated inefficiently, either in terms of cost or in results.

Mandating insurance without cost controls in the hopes that cost control will result is an example of costs that will be born by us rather than the fed budget.

[okalb 78]

Quote

this is probably spelled out in the CBO report. Perhaps you should read it rather than guess?

So he should read it rather than guess?

Quote

I'd say some get treated, some don't, and some get treated inefficiently, either in terms of cost or in results.

But, you will just go ahead and guess?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

this is probably spelled out in the CBO report. Perhaps you should read it rather than guess?

So he should read it rather than guess?

Quote

I'd say some get treated, some don't, and some get treated inefficiently, either in terms of cost or in results.

But, you will just go ahead and guess?

his guess was that this 1.76B was the total cost, not the increased cost. That's clearly wrong, given we're spending many times that already. And that was my only stake in this thread.

Figuring out the impact of the change is the more difficult part. The CBO made some assumptions over how things are and how they will change to arrive at this final figure. I listed the various outcomes that need to be measured. I didn't bother to guess the ratios.

[tkhayes 126]

http://costofwar.com/en/

shaddup already......

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yes, let's transition from a war we can no longer afford to a national healthcare program that we can not afford. That will solve our budget problems.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Yes, let's transition from a war we can no longer afford to a national healthcare program that we can not afford. That will solve our budget problems.

What I see is everybody arguing about where the money is spent. What I hear is "The war is a waste of money" or" the health care bill is ging to cost a fortune", I want the money to go here or there. Lets just look at the problem from a different angle, like, Why are they spending money we don't have! It doesn't make a difference what it is spent on, either way we are broke.

If the government receives 2.1 trillion it can only spend 2.1 trillion. lets start to argue that. Many of the programs could be funded just off the intrest being paid on the debt. lets start to tell the government that your checkbook is out of money and you have to stop writing checks.

[beowulf 1]

It's because there is no easy solution. Greece is a fine example what we will need to deal with in the future. No one really want's to acknowledge the real problems. Nothing has been done to address this issue at all.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

We could have been "socialists" and had the not for profit single-payer system Obama wanted with lower costs.

Let me ask you something:

With health care there are three goals. We want healthcare to be:
(1) High quality
(2) Accessible on Demand; and
(3) Inexpensive.

Problem: you cannot have all three. Presently in the US we have a high quality, accessible on demand healthcare system that is expensive

Accessible on demand? Well, not really for those who can't afford it. And we still have life expectancies that are behind some 3rd world countries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[charlie5 0]

Quote

And we still have life expectancies that are behind some 3rd world countries.

That's some straight up bs that has nothing to do with healthcare.

That has to do with unhealthy eating and exercise habits.

Don't confuse that with poor medical attention.

Also I don't see too many 3rd world countries ahead of us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

And we still have life expectancies that are behind some 3rd world countries.

That's some straight up bs that has nothing to do with healthcare.

I guess you don't understand the meaning of "health".

I don't see being #36, level with CUBA and behind Costa Rica, Martinique, Cyprus and Chile, as being anything to be proud about. YMMV, and apparently it does.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[charlie5 0]

I understand "health" but we're talking about "healthCARE".

Again, our life expectancy has to do with our sloth, modern comforts and over indulgence. Nothing to do with healthCARE.

If we were all so broke that all we could afford was 1000 calories a day with basic vegetables and a small serving of meat our life spans would be much higher, there's no debate there.

But to equate life expectancy with healthcare is wrong.

I don't see where being "proud" of our life expectancy was ever a topic.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>Again, our life expectancy has to do with our sloth, modern comforts and over
>indulgence. Nothing to do with healthCARE.

Exercise, a good diet and nutritional supplements are indeed all part of healthcare. That's why there are healthcare workers called physical therapists, dieticians etc.

>If we were all so broke that all we could afford was 1000 calories a day with basic
>vegetables and a small serving of meat our life spans would be much higher, there's
>no debate there.

?? That's not true in countries where people are that poor. They die in childbirth, of malnutrition, of easily curable diseases (scurvy, pneumonia) etc.

>But to equate life expectancy with healthcare is wrong.

While they are not equal they are very strongly related.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>If we were all so broke that all we could afford was 1000 calories a day with basic
>vegetables and a small serving of meat our life spans would be much higher, there's
>no debate there.

?? That's not true in countries where people are that poor. They die in childbirth, of malnutrition, of easily curable diseases (scurvy, pneumonia) etc.

we didn't place behind very many countries like that.

Costa Rica is a developing nation, but it's hardly sub Sahara Africa. People there do more physical labor, and don't eat to excess in remotely the same rate that Americans do. Both of these are clearly demonstrated factors in longevity, and completely beyond the means of our health care system to counteract.

Even if you put aside obesity, it is well established that a lower calorie lifestyle is better if the only criteria is lifespan. But no middle class (or even "poor") American is going to jump on a prescription of a rice and beans diet. We are a meat loving population and have the means to afford it.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

I understand "health" but we're talking about "healthCARE".

Again, our life expectancy has to do with our sloth, modern comforts and over indulgence. Nothing to do with healthCARE.

If we were all so broke that all we could afford was 1000 calories a day with basic vegetables and a small serving of meat our life spans would be much higher, there's no debate there.

But to equate life expectancy with healthcare is wrong.

I don't see where being "proud" of our life expectancy was ever a topic.

You mean to tell me that Sodium Nitrate, Butylated hydroxyanisole, Propyl gallate, Aspartame, and Potassium bromate while extending the shelf life of a twinky won't extend mine?

Sir, I am insulted and demand satisfaction!!!!!!!!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Gravitymaster 0]

Isn't it interesting that the same people who are advocates for the government mandating Socialized Medicine and Healthcare are the same ones upset when the government mandates women have ultra-sounds before an abortion?

Be careful what you ask for. When you give the government more and more control over your life, they might not always make the same decisions for you that you would have made for yourself. They might also use the current power you have given them to exercise even more control over your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Isn't it interesting that the same people who are advocates for the government mandating Socialized Medicine and Healthcare are the same ones upset when the government mandates women have ultra-sounds before an abortion?

And the award for the worst non sequitur...Gravity!

"ObamaCare avocates oppose rape. How dare they!"

If these transvaginal ultrasounds had any medical value, there might be a semblance of a point. But they don't, it's just a shallow attempt to punish women for exercising their rights. But no....you've got it - this is exactly the same as advocating health care for all.

Gravity - it should embarrass you that the party that claims to be about as little government as possible floats out this sort of bullshit in their war against anyone, but especially women, having fun in life.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Isn't it interesting that the same people who are advocates for the government mandating Socialized Medicine and Healthcare are the same ones upset when the government mandates women have ultra-sounds before an abortion?

And the award for the worst non sequitur...Gravity!

"ObamaCare avocates oppose rape. How dare they!"

If these transvaginal ultrasounds had any medical value, there might be a semblance of a point. But they don't, it's just a shallow attempt to punish women for exercising their rights. But no....you've got it - this is exactly the same as advocating health care for all.

Gravity - it should embarrass you that the party that claims to be about as little government as possible floats out this sort of bullshit in their war against anyone, but especially women, having fun in life.

It's about the consequences of giving the government more and more control over your life. It's about allowing the government to make medical decisions for you. If you think it's perfectly fine to allow the government to mandate what procedures you will and will not have, then you are very naive. Very naive, indeed.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Gravity - it should embarrass you that the party that claims to be about as little government as possible floats out this sort of bullshit in their war against anyone, but especially women, having fun in life.

Why should I be embarrassed? I don't support this kind of nonsense. Too bad you can't see past the partisan bullshit and see both the healthcare laws and this ultra-sound law are both examples of the government exercising more control over your life.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I understand "health" but we're talking about "healthCARE".

QED. Thanks for making my point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I guess you don't understand the meaning of "health".

I don't see being #36, level with CUBA and behind Costa Rica, Martinique, Cyprus and Chile, as being anything to be proud about. YMMV, and apparently it does.

Right - places where you are expected to take oof yourself. As opposed to here, where you can give yourself high blood pressure and diabetes and demand pills for it that others pay for but then be non-compliant with medical advice re: diet.

Also - note that you've listed places with fairly homogenous populations (i.e., Chile is 95% white or mestizo). Ntoe you've listed places with populations 1/20th of the US at most. Note that you've listed places with massive incomes equality and huge poverty issues.

What kills Americans are diseases of prosperity. A population that manages to be calorie overdone and malnourished at the same time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I guess you don't understand the meaning of "health".

I don't see being #36, level with CUBA and behind Costa Rica, Martinique, Cyprus and Chile, as being anything to be proud about. YMMV, and apparently it does.

Right - places where you are expected to take oof yourself. As opposed to here, where you can give yourself high blood pressure and diabetes and demand pills for it that others pay for but then be non-compliant with medical advice re: diet.

Also - note that you've listed places with fairly homogenous populations (i.e., Chile is 95% white or mestizo). Ntoe you've listed places with populations 1/20th of the US at most. Note that you've listed places with massive incomes equality and huge poverty issues.

What kills Americans are diseases of prosperity. A population that manages to be calorie overdone and malnourished at the same time.

US is also behind Sweden, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK and other prosperous places with universal healthcare systems, which seems to pop your illusion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

US is also behind Sweden, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK and other prosperous places with universal healthcare systems, which seems to pop your illusion.

And the attached graphic *definitely* pops your illusion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706