EPT![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/2yp0pph.png)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2cog8e8.png)
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/wswtbq.png)
(The 2012 total estimates have not been released yet.)
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104
The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
(The 2012 total estimates have not been released yet.) http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104 | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On July 06 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: a) As I explained earlier it wasn't that the bill was being hidden - it was so complex and underwent so many revisions that no-one had a clue as to what the details of the plan were. Obamacare is huge (906 pages according to Wikipedia), and the regulations that followed after are 5931 additional pages. The complexity is so huge that the CBO recently revised the 10 year cost of Obamacare from an original $940 billion to $1.76 trillion - a huge disparity and demonstrates that the law's creators used a lot of gimmicks to hide what was really in the law from other law makers and the public. b) Yes, the general big picture themes of what Obamacare does are very popular. This news story has been debunked hundreds of times. I suggest you stop reading misleading news articles and start reading the CBO reports, which is linked in the news article. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf On the very first page it says: CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period So why is CBO claiming that the total cost is more? Because the new CBO projection calculates the COST of an extra year of Obamacare, but not the savings. Over the same time frame of the previous report the net effect is that Obamacare will cost $50 billion less than the previous estimate. For the extra year, 2022, CBO has only estimated the cost, but they haven't estimated the savings. But if we look at CBO's projections, CBO estimates Obamacare will save money, and while the cost increases rapidly, the saving increases even more rapidly. Read the report. You're argument is like saying, "OMG Blizzard spend $500 million running the WoW servers in 2010, that's $400 million dollars up from 2005. Blizzard is BROKE," while completely ignoring the fact that Blizzard made, say $700 million dollars from WoW subscriptions. Just as you cannot make informed financial decisions by looking only at the expense, but not the revenue, you cannot make informed economic decisions by looking only at the costs, but not the savings. ![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/06/cbo-health-care-spending.jpg) Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
It’s not our business to pass judgment on the health-care law. But we have reviewed the numbers for tax hikes versus tax breaks for the middle class, and we found nothing to dispute Lew’s statements. The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
ACO physicians may thus be reluctant to recommend PSA screening even when the patient is willing to pay for it himself. Patients who test positive will require further downstream procedures such as prostate ultrasounds, MRI scans, or biopsies, which may count against the doctor’s ACO practice statistics. USPSTF guidelines could slowly erode many doctors’ willingness to offer their best honest advice to their patients. If your doctor recommends against a PSA test, can you be sure he’s offering his best medical opinion, without being biased by the bonus he’ll receive for reducing the number of procedures performed by the ACO? Read how ObamaCare will introduce conflicts of interest and reduce the quality of healthcare provided... ==Source== | ||
|
Imzoo
132 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 06 2012 20:50 paralleluniverse wrote: This news story has been debunked hundreds of times. I suggest you stop reading misleading news articles and start reading the CBO reports, which is linked in the news article. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf On the very first page it says: So why is CBO claiming that the total cost is more? Because the new CBO projection calculates the COST of an extra year of Obamacare, but not the savings. Over the same time frame of the previous report the net effect is that Obamacare will cost $50 billion less than the previous estimate. For the extra year, 2022, CBO has only estimated the cost, but they haven't estimated the savings. But if we look at CBO's projections, CBO estimates Obamacare will save money, and while the cost increases rapidly, the saving increases even more rapidly. Read the report. You're argument is like saying, "OMG Blizzard spend $500 million running the WoW servers in 2010, that's $400 million dollars up from 2005. Blizzard is BROKE," while completely ignoring the fact that Blizzard made, say $700 million dollars from WoW subscriptions. Just as you cannot make informed financial decisions by looking only at the expense, but not the revenue, you cannot make informed economic decisions by looking only at the costs, but not the savings. No, my argument is that it will COST more than initially projected - about 2X more. You do realize that the revenue the government gets to pay for the cost comes from taxpayers, right? | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
It'll certainly be worth it with cheaper and more effective healthcare. I used to work at a hospital and I can tell you that they're definitely not doing their job. Hell, a lot of them don't like Medicare because doctors have to pay their own money to take care of them since Medicare doesn't pay enough. This cash leak can be solved by getting rid of the money drain of uninsured ER patients, which Obamacare will do, and save the rest of the country a lot of money in the long run. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On July 07 2012 02:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, my argument is that it will COST more than initially projected - about 2X more. You do realize that the revenue the government gets to pay for the cost comes from taxpayers, right? No, it will not COST more than originally projected over the years of the original projection: 2012-2021. The updated CBO cost figures are for 2013-2022, which excludes a year of nothing, and includes a year of operation. You're comparing to different timepoints, so this comparison is invalid. I suggest you read the CBO report instead of watching Fox News. And costs do not matter. Cost - savings is what matters, and cost - savings < 0, i.e. it reduces the deficit. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On July 06 2012 22:56 Imzoo wrote: Why it's a very good idea? Peaple look at Micheal Moor movie "Sicko" that show how deadly and inhuman is the American healthy system. I think in America it's like you have to success or die. If you don't have money and can't afford your treatment you die whereas in all EU countries/Canada no one die from this. The American philosophy is you work and earn your money and don't want to give a pens to help the others. American stayed at the cold war where socialist was the Devil... Except the fact that America is one of the most charitable nations of the world. I do agree the healthcare system needs to be fixed. The French model is very interesting. However, to say American's do not care about others is really a stupid assumption. | ||
|
samaNo4
Spain245 Posts
On July 07 2012 04:00 ImAbstracT wrote: Except the fact that America is one of the most charitable nations of the world. I do agree the healthcare system needs to be fixed. The French model is very interesting. However, to say American's do not care about others is really a stupid assumption. Source please. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/20/144035063/survey-u-s-takes-top-spot-as-most-charitable-nation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 07 2012 03:50 paralleluniverse wrote: No, it will not COST more than originally projected over the years of the original projection: 2012-2021. The updated CBO cost figures are for 2013-2022, which excludes a year of nothing, and includes a year of operation. You're comparing to different timepoints, so this comparison is invalid. I suggest you read the CBO report instead of watching Fox News. And costs do not matter. Cost - savings is what matters, and cost - savings < 0, i.e. it reduces the deficit. It is not cost - savings, it is cost - (revenue + savings) with revenue far exceeding the savings. So if the cost is 2X the taxes are basically 2X as well. Let me correct my last post, Obamacare was sold to the public as a $900B over 10 year plan when the costs are ~ 2X that. The difference being gimmicks where different taxes and benefits are phased in over time. It is NOT accurate to say it is $900B over 10 years when *GOTCHA* the price tag doubles in a couple short years. | ||
|
AllSalesFinal
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 06 2012 22:37 Epocalypse wrote: Under ObamaCare... Read how ObamaCare will introduce conflicts of interest and reduce the quality of healthcare provided... ==Source== I read an opinion piece about how one provision of the ACA, which could be easily amended, could potentially have a negative impact. Is it too much to ask that you stop scanning the web for articles that say something negative about the ACA and indulge in critical thinking for a change? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 07 2012 04:56 Epocalypse wrote: If people really think that socializing anything make it cheaper/better... then they should be fighting for socialized computing. You think it will get faster, cheaper, better? Ah, socialism. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 07 2012 04:56 Epocalypse wrote: If people really think that socializing anything make it cheaper/better... then they should be fighting for socialized computing. You think it will get faster, cheaper, better? So by wanting some things to be socialized I want everything to be socialized? Please don't speak in absolutes (unless absolutes are implied) and instead actually look at issues in society more closely to actually be able to solve them effectively. ... that awkward moment when you realize you clearly have no idea who you're talking to... | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
It's almost as if there is a huge segment of the American population that believes they don't need health care to ... you know ... survive. They must be the 1/3 of the population that must be stinking rich or believe they won't be the 1/3 of the population that gets cancer. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
| ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 06 2012 22:37 Epocalypse wrote: Under ObamaCare... Read how ObamaCare will introduce conflicts of interest and reduce the quality of healthcare provided... ==Source== All I'm reading is "no PSA screening regardless of age"... I believe prostate cancer is so common that 90% of all elderly men die WITH it, but not FROM it. (The rest die without it or from it.) Question is do you screen it, operate them and put them on chemo, when in fact they have a fair chance of living longer without the poison and the surgery; considering they are much more likely to die of other causes than of prostate cancer. And then there's the age thing. Younger men are not expected to have prostate cancer (or cancer in general); and no way should you screen and test for every fathomable disease when you're in fact healthy. Breast cancer feels VERY proactive in that regard. I have no idea wether it is warranted, but it probably is. Self examination is also a strong possibility here; which is not the case for the prostate (I believe). Maybe you notice issues with peeing etc when you get older, and so it might be time to check your prostate (enlarged prostate often blocks urinal passage). But if you pee just fine, your prostate is most likely not enlarged by a tumour in the first place. Maybe after the age of 50-60, periodic screening every few years can be a good thing. Before that I really don't see the need; and once health starts failing in general; your prostate should not be the most immediate concern. Ultra sound for instance is cheap, can be performed by a nurse for all I know, and is a good tool for detecting cancer. If you're below 40, and have a cancer that can't be detect by ultra sound or other cheap means; then you are very unlucky, and you might aswell go screen for any other sort of cancer while you're at it (and be a complete hypochondriac), cause the chances are gonna be just that low. how important is PSA screening when you use it on any age group? What's next, use it on females aswell? I don't see the point. I googled a random article about this, from fox news I believe, and no where did it say PSA scanning would be abolished, it just said it would not be common irregardless of age; which is only sensible in my point of view. Maybe the only reason you were given regular PSA screenings, regardless of age, was so that the doc could make money off of your insurance? Hmm.. Also I would never come out and accuse my doctor of causing harm on purpose; like that first nested quote claims is a possibility. I highly doubt doctors will start doing harm because of a slight change in the healthcare system. That's just un-called for. Atleast that's what I got out of this. | ||
| ||
