can't find anything on the US wait times, but i'll keep looking.
Over the years I've heart other prominent people from around the world flying to the US for care but I can't seem to find a list. The Wiki article lists a few Canadian politicians who voted against "paying for health services" but hypocritically flew to the US for care.
I'm also curious to see a comparison of wait times across the provinces since a few posters have mentioned their wait times are not as long as in the wiki article.
Even if we imagine a scenario where your experience of waiting 6 hours becomes common in the US, that would mean that the trade is: More people have to wait several hours to receive non-critical care, in exchange for insuring 30 million people so they can receive any care at all.
Did not read the entire article but it has a bunch of interesting tables comparing various country expenditure over the years 1970-2001. Showing increases/decreases, mortality rates. Source
I am very excited. I have had 3 pneumothoraxes this year, 2 of which required surgeries and one that required a chest tube out of the hospital for a week. Basically I am like, MVPsC. I will be off my parents plan withing 1-2 years and I think it would be pretty damn hard to find insurance at a reasonable rate with my recurrent issues. Starting in 2014? or 2013? I won't have to worry about not finding insurance because I actually use it with a "pre-existing" condition.
While I think the bill could have been much, much better, it is a start. I think allowing the government to decide what can be mandated in a healthcare plan is very tricky. Obviously the healthcare companies will want more healthcare mandated at a higher price, but that is the trade off you take with this bill. Lobbyists will make a lot of money via the mandates and what gets mandated, that much is sure (if they already haven't).
On July 04 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote: Oh man, this makes me laugh. It also depresses me that democrats are incompetent and spineless enough to lose so often. Propaganda, man.
Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it:
a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations)
Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations.
Blah.
a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $940 billion over 10 years that is stated in the article, I'm not sure where that number comes from, but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 (first page of the report, and CHEAPER than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
On July 04 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote: Oh man, this makes me laugh. It also depresses me that democrats are incompetent and spineless enough to lose so often. Propaganda, man.
Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it:
a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations)
Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations.
Blah.
a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
My guess is that your article is comparing a very old version of 2) with 3).
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks.
Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired?
Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well.
The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world.
In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service.
But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off.
Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free? How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
I would rather sit in an emergency room for 10 hours due to splinters in my forehead from smashing my head into the desk because I was trying to find the logic in your argument.
Nobody is arguing for medicine to be more convenient, they're arguing for it to be more available. Congratulations on your cousin not being a loser, that doesn't mean doctors aren't busy with other patients.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks.
Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired?
Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well.
The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world.
In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service.
But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off.
Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free? How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
I would rather sit in an emergency room for 10 hours due to splinters in my forehead from smashing my head into the desk because I was trying to find the logic in your argument.
Nobody is arguing for medicine to be more convenient, they're arguing for it to be more available. Congratulations on your cousin not being a loser, that doesn't mean doctors aren't busy with other patients.
Emergency rooms are already available to everyone with or without insurance. So there is no argument over emergency room access.
On July 04 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote: Oh man, this makes me laugh. It also depresses me that democrats are incompetent and spineless enough to lose so often. Propaganda, man.
Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it:
a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations)
Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations.
Blah.
a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
You're comparing the NET cost of the insurance coverage provision for 2011-2021 with the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision for 2011-2021.
If you looked at the CBO numbers I linked, the "doubling in cost" is because you've switched what you're measuring, net cost with gross cost.
You're being deceptive here. This is like saying Blizzard's running of the WoW servers in 2011 costs $-200 million because of all the revenue they make off WoW, but in 2012, it costs $100 million, an increase of $300 million, because you've failed to account for the revenue from subscriptions in 2012.
Stop being so deceptive and compare like to like, NET cost with NET cost: NET cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021 as currently estimated by the CBO ~$1.1 trillion with NET cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021 as previously estimated by the CBO: ~$1.15 trillion. Here's what the CBO said in the first page of their latest report:
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
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision, from my last post. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
The old CBO report went up to 2021, this latest one goes to 2022. Where's the massive jump in costs between 2021 and 2022? Where is it?
And again you're completely ignoring the savings and revenue from Obamacare. You have a misplaced and obsessive fixation on costs. This is like saying Blizzard was stupid to do WoW because the servers cost $200 million dollars, while completely neglecting the fact that they make, say, $500 million dollars from subscriptions.
You need to look at the WHOLE Obamacare law, not just the insurance coverage provision which is all the current CBO report is about (which is what you're article is about), it neglects the savings and revenues of the other provisions of Obamacare. All of Obamacare, according to CBO, reduces the deficit by $210 billion from 2012-2021.
Therefore, scrapping Obamacare will make the deficit worse by $210 billion from 2012-2021.
You think I'm stupid enough to be tricked by your deceptive swap in the usage of the word "cost"? You don't even know what cost you're talking about, net cost or gross cost, cost of all of Obamacare or just the insurance coverage provision? And here I've explicitly spelled out the cost of each part which you've deceptively mixed up and erroneously compared.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
It's completely dependent on how dire your situation is. Even if you're "first in line" you'll be continually pushed back further if someone with a more threatening situation comes in. I remember I was told to go to the ER when I was stung by a stingray. They basically asked if the stinger was still in my foot when I got there (it wasn't), so I was deemed not as important. I was next after waiting around 30 minutes when someone went into cardiac arrest, and I wasn't helped for like another hour and a half. I was eventually given Vicodin. While I was in pain, I understood fully.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks.
Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired?
Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well.
The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world.
In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service.
But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off.
Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free? How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
I would rather sit in an emergency room for 10 hours due to splinters in my forehead from smashing my head into the desk because I was trying to find the logic in your argument.
Nobody is arguing for medicine to be more convenient, they're arguing for it to be more available. Congratulations on your cousin not being a loser, that doesn't mean doctors aren't busy with other patients.
Emergency rooms are already available to everyone with or without insurance. So there is no argument over emergency room access.
You have to pay for it though, regardless of if you have insurance or not. And I believe priority is supposed to be given to insured patients, if they can confirm it, but I have absolutely no sources to back that up so I could be completely wrong here... (and feel free to let me know).
Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it:
a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations)
Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations.
Blah.
a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
You're comparing the NET cost of the insurance coverage provision for 2011-2021 with the GROSS cost insureance coverage provision for 2011-2021.
If you looked the number I linked, the "doubling in cost" is because you've switched what you're measuring, net cost with gross cost.
You're being deceptive here. This is like saying Blizzard running the WoW servers in 2011 cost $-200 million because of all the revenue they make off WoW, but in 2012, it costs $100 million, an increase of $300 million, because you failed to account for the revenue from subscriptions in 2012.
Stop being so deceptive and compare like to like, NET cost with NET cost: NET cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021 as currently estimated by the CBO ~$1.1 trillion with NET cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021 as previously estimated by the CBO: ~$1.05 trillion.
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
The old CBO report when up to 2021, this latest one goes to 2022. Where's the massive jump in costs? Where?
And again you're completely ignoring the the savings and revenue from Obamacare. If you a fixation on costs. This is like saying Blizzard was stupid to do WoW because the servers cost $200 million dollars, which neglecting the fact that they make, say, $500 million dollars from subscriptions.
You need to look at the WHOLE Obamacare law, not just the insurance coverage provision which is all the current CBO report is about (which is what you're article is about), it neglects the savings and revenues of the other provisions of Obamacare. Obamacare, according to CBO, reduces the deficit by $210 billion from 2012-2021.
Therefore, scrapping Obamacare will make the deficit worse by $210 billion from 2012-2021.
I think it's time for JonnyB to admit that Fox News is wrong and intentionally misleading.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
On July 07 2012 07:55 Epocalypse wrote: So how long do you guys wait in the Emergency room before you get seen?
Here in Toronto, Canada from personal experience it's 6-10 hours. My cousin sliced off the tip of his finger, it was squirting blood. Took 6 hours waiting in emergency. My other cousin broke a few of his toes and waited 10 hours emergency before he was seen and this was over night, after having worked all day long. Everyone I know at work has similar stories, for minor stuff, for major stuff, you name it. So 6-10 hours across many hospitals in Toronto and surrounding area.
Slicing off the tip of your finger and waiting 6 hours kind of sucks.
Tell me, how much did he have to pay to have it repaired?
Oh yes, your cousin paid ZERO dollars. He might have been charged $20 for a splint if he broke his finger as well.
The reason why your cousin had to wait is because cutting off the tip of your finger IS NOT life-threatening. It hurts and it's a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world.
In the US, there is no guarantee that you would get better service.
But let's say you wait an hour, as opposed to six. You will also receive a bill for a least a thousand dollars if you're uninsured, depending on how much finger you've cut off.
Waiting for 6 hours to get you finger fixed FOR FREE is a great deal.
My cousin works 10-14 hours a day, runs a business, employs I think 8 people. He has earned the money to pay for immediate care but he didn't have the option. Instead he had to waste his time and life and sleep in a hospital waiting for some pretty basic care. You call that free? How much do you think it would cost for someone to splint it? Maybe scan it to check for fracture or break in how many places? My guess, $20 to splint it, $100 max for a scan but I would bet closer to $50. And $50 for the doc's time or $30 for the nurses time. So somewhere in between would be about $150 to fix broken extremities. But that's just a guess. Are you saying someone can't afford $150 while saving 5 hours of their time?
I would rather sit in an emergency room for 10 hours due to splinters in my forehead from smashing my head into the desk because I was trying to find the logic in your argument.
Nobody is arguing for medicine to be more convenient, they're arguing for it to be more available. Congratulations on your cousin not being a loser, that doesn't mean doctors aren't busy with other patients.
Emergency rooms are already available to everyone with or without insurance. So there is no argument over emergency room access.
You have to pay for it though, regardless of if you have insurance or not. And I believe priority is supposed to be given to insured patients, if they can confirm it, but I have absolutely no sources to back that up so I could be completely wrong here... (and feel free to let me know).
While there are few actual reports of uninsured care discrimination, I can guarantee you it does happen. Additionally, the currently fragmented nature of insurance coverage in the US allows for a different sort of discrimination, that being the spotty application of preventative medicine. Consider how many millions simply avoid the medical world out of fear of potentially unforeseen costs, only to end up incurring an even greater cost in the future when an issue such as type-2 diabetes or influenza goes untreated. Anyone who stops at "well, at least the emergency room doesn't deny treatment" clearly doesn't understand how effective healthcare works.
Not having health insurance means everybody loses. If you receive emergency care, you can't pay, so the hospital sucks up the bill. Now they're down money, and you're in debt that can be extremely difficult to get out of, especially as you are probably lower middle class. And of course health insurance companies aren't getting money in any of this. Everyone loses.
It's a universal loss situation. It's a system that doesn't work and doesn't make sense. That's why we're changing it. It's not even socialized medicine, so I'm incredibly confused about why there's such push-back against it.
On July 08 2012 02:28 DoubleReed wrote: Not having health insurance means everybody loses. If you receive emergency care, you can't pay, so the hospital sucks up the bill. Now they're down money, and you're in debt that can be extremely difficult to get out of, especially as you are probably lower middle class. And of course health insurance companies aren't getting money in any of this. Everyone loses.
It's a universal loss situation. It's a system that doesn't work and doesn't make sense. That's why we're changing it. It's not even socialized medicine, so I'm incredibly confused about why there's such push-back against it.
Because socialism is bad keep the government off my medicare!!!!! Who even cares about poor people anyways?
edit: but seriously I think you nailed it with this post.
Propaganda? The video basically says that Obamacare would be more popular if it:
a) was better understood (it was created in a very secretive manner) b) wasn't designed around the needs of political corruption (Obama wanted more campaign donations)
Both those points are pretty terrible (secret creation and corrupt). The video then spouts its own propaganda / stereotyping that Republicans would have bowed even more to corporations.
Blah.
a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision, from my last post. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
So over 10 years ~ $2.5 Trillion like I just posted. That's the REAL cost once fully implemented.
From the CBO report:
"The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."
Gross cost is paid for with taxes. Gross cost is what matters. You do not buy SC2 based on the net cost to Blizzard. You buy it for the retail price. The retail price for Obamacare is (roughly) the gross cost.
On July 06 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision, from my last post. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
So over 10 years ~ $2.5 Trillion like I just posted. That's the REAL cost once fully implemented.
From the CBO report:
"The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."
Gross cost is paid for with taxes. Gross cost is what matters. You do not buy SC2 based on the net cost to Blizzard. You buy it for the retail price. The retail price for Obamacare is (roughly) the gross cost.
Err... so you don't care if provisions cut costs, remove loopholes, or create economic growth (which would raise revenue)? It's not exactly true that revenue = taxes with the government. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty close, but there are other ways that the government has of raising money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision, from my last post. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
So over 10 years ~ $2.5 Trillion like I just posted. That's the REAL cost once fully implemented.
From the CBO report:
"The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."
Gross cost is paid for with taxes. Gross cost is what matters. You do not buy SC2 based on the net cost to Blizzard. You buy it for the retail price. The retail price for Obamacare is (roughly) the gross cost.
Err... so you don't care if provisions cut costs, remove loopholes, or create economic growth (which would raise revenue)? It's not exactly true that revenue = taxes with the government. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty close, but there are other ways that the government has of raising money.
Of course that matters. My point is that the public needs to know how much something will cost so that they can weigh the benefits against it. Greater access to healthcare, cost cutting, economic growth - these are all good benefits. But they don't come free.
Originally my point was that Obamacare would be more popular if it wasn't so complex, deceptive and catered to certain business interests. I still think that is true. When the public is sold on a $900B plan (Obama called it a $900B plan) that jumps to $1.7T in two years and will keep jumping until it is fully implemented - they feel cheated and start to wonder what other parts of the plan are less than advertised.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed."
On July 06 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] a) Oh man, it was created in such a secretive backroom deal that our mole risked rendition by the CIA to get this 6 hours of leaked footage to you:
b) You haven't disputed the fact that basically every provision in Obamacare is very popular, except the mandate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
/sigh
I've been telling you to read the CBO report for the last 3 replies and you continue to demonstrate that you haven't.
The updated $1.76 trillion figure mentioned in the headline of your article is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision from Table 2 of the report:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions (2012 - 2022, last number is total, numbers are in billions): 3 6 66 130 175 197 210 224 234 250 265 1,762
The cost in 2021 is $250 billion and the cost in 2022 is $265. So where's the massive doubling in costs? There is none, it's a misleading news article quoting and comparing unrelated numbers.
And about the $900 billion dollars over 10 years, I'm not sure where your getting that from but the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is $1.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2012–2021 period (first page of the report, and cheaper than was previously estimated by the CBO).
There are many separate concepts that you and the article mix up, probably because it's standard Republican spin, and you're too lazy to read the source: 1) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,497 billion 2) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2021: $1,083 billion 3) Gross cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,762 billion 4) Net cost of insurance coverage provisions 2012-2022: $1,252 billion 5) Net cost of entire Obamacare law 2012-2021 (i.e. the bottom line on the budget): $-210 billion
Obamacare was originally priced at $900B over 10 years. Now it is $1.7T over 10 years.
Yes, the years involved changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the program costs 2X what the public was first told it would cost by independent CBO pricing. If the problem is that the law phases in over time then the CBO should have found a way to account for that so that the public would not be mislead.
When someone says "$900B over 10 years" people assume a degree of linearity to that number - "about $90B a year" - and make a judgement call if they think the program is worth it or not.
But instead we have this situation where every year that goes by the 10 year price tag jumps by a very substantial amount until the program is fully implemented. By then it will be how much? $2.5T over 10 years?
At some price people will think Obamacare is too expensive. Obamacare was clearly designed to be deceptive about how much it would cost.
5) Government is not a business. There is no such thing as a "bottom line." What matters is the gross cost and if people think the benefits are worth the gross cost of not.
There is NO massive jump in cost. Here's the GROSS cost of the insurance coverage provision, from my last post. 2020: 234 2021: 250 2022: 265
So over 10 years ~ $2.5 Trillion like I just posted. That's the REAL cost once fully implemented.
From the CBO report:
"The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."
Gross cost is paid for with taxes. Gross cost is what matters. You do not buy SC2 based on the net cost to Blizzard. You buy it for the retail price. The retail price for Obamacare is (roughly) the gross cost.
You dodged almost all of my post. So where's that massive jump up in costs?
And where are you now pulling this $2.5 trillion number from?
$1762 billion is the GROSS cost of ONE provision of Obamacare it is not the NET cost of ALL of Obamacare.
The NET cost of ALL of Obamacare is what matters, not the gross cost of one provision. No, you don't buy SC2 based on the net cost to Blizzard, you buy it based on the net cost to you, including any benefits to your utility, that offsets the monetary cost. If you were just obsessed with gross costs, you may dismiss buying SC2 for say, $100, even though you might get more than $100 of value and fun out of SC2.
The gross cost is not paid for with taxes only, there are both spending cuts and taxes, and savings, and other economic effects.
Calling for Obamacare to be repealed because of an argument about costs is calling for a permanent increase in the deficit, in the range of $210 billion from 2012-2021.
EPT
