I can't beleive this

[NCRAVEN]

The first figures we got were wrong???

I can't believe it.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-10-yrs/425831

[Galen Sevinne]

The first figures we got were wrong???

I can't believe it.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-10-yrs/425831

Lol ... your partisan Wash. Examiner hack suffered premature ejaculation. Maybe you guys can clean up your mess together?

His second post:

The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...stimate/425966

Try reading a less partisan source than the Examiner:


The law's coverage provisions are now expected to cost $1.083 trillion over the next 10 years, $50 billion less than the $1.131 trillion projected last year. That's due in part to slower growth in healthcare spending resulting in an 8 percent drop in premiums, as well as taxes and penalties paid by employers and their workers as struggling businesses cut down on employer-sponsored coverage.

While the coverage provisions still add to the deficit, the law in its entirety cuts the deficit because of unrelated provisions, including $500 billion in cuts to Medicare spending.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-first-thought

If you really want to read about the effects of A.C.A. then feel free to learn about how it is already lowering the costs of Medicare - as it stated it would:


there are indications that Medicare spending growth has slowed. One highly visible gauge of Medicare spending trends is the standard monthly Part B premium, which is set by the Medicare actuary to cover one quarter of total Part B spending. In August 2011, the actuary projected that the Part B premium for 2012 would be $106.60, but the actual premium was set in November at only $99.90. A much broader indicator of a slowing trend is the fact that growth in Medicare outlays per enrollee in 2010 and 2011 was roughly in line with growth in the economy (see graphExcess Medicare Spending Growth.). And in January 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a $69 billion downward revision to its 10-year Medicare spending projection — a technical correction that reflects emerging data showing surprisingly slow growth in outlays. Similar slowing trends have led to positive earnings surprises for publicly traded insurers.

and

The framers of the ACA perceived broad provider-payment reform as the best prospect for slowing the long-term spending trend. But they needed scoreable savings, and they could ill afford to alienate backers by forcing through major payment reforms at the same time. The ACA planted the seeds for accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payment for episodes of care, patient-centered medical homes, and incentives for reducing readmissions. Now those seeds offer a way forward.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...featured_home&

Feel free though to remain enamored with the Examiner if it makes you feel better; just recognize that you are ill-informed,

[AirFlacco]

This confirms what we already knew. The CBO can only score what is given to them. Medicare costs nine times what the original estimate for the program was. So all we gotta do is raise taxes, cut the military, dismantle all our nukes, sell them to Iran, print more money and everything will be cool.

Actually, the gov't is hoping that revenue collected from penalties from both corporations and individuals will offset the increases. The penalties come from people not buying coverage at all -
wealthy people that don't need it. They will be taxes something like 2% of their income so if
someone like Rush doesnt buy insurance and he's making $100M pr yr IRS will collect a penalty
tax of 2% of his total salary - OUCH!

That's why this is in the Supreme Court right now because two federal lower courts ruled it's unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance. Back to taxes, nobody knows if anything will be offset until there are actual penalties.


HEY GALEN - Freel feel to remain enamored with your ill-informed partisan sites of MSNBC and the TIMES and nejm from NE of all places - the place with malfunctioning score boards.. Nobody believes anything from there or your phony nunmbers.

[AirFlacco]

So Galen didnt like the Wash Examiner - heh?

Maybe he'll like the WSJ talking about bogus OBUMMER CARE's bogus savings.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[NCRAVEN]

Galen,

The projected increase in the amount is going to cost is the gross cost.

The savings you're listing is projected based on assumed revenue.

While the article did only use the gross projections, it was right that we won't know the true cost due to phony accounting, which is the whole point.

What is interesting to note is the CBO list some of the revenue comes from the PENALTY paid by individuals and not from a TAX, which is about to be argued in front of the SCOTUS (Friday I believe)

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...0Estimates.pdf

Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals