- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CBO: Obamacare will have lower premiums, insure more, and cost government less
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:13 pm to Eurocat
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:13 pm to Eurocat
quote:
* "12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than would have had it in the absence of the ACA;"
How is it possible that Obamacare signs up at best 7 million, yet provides insurance to 12 million new people? Is this Common Core math?
1
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:30 pm to wickowick
I liked this portion on page 17.
So the long term goal is to reduce employer sponsered insurance to capture that tax benefit. That will create a small increase in SS benefits for the very poor, but the net loss to workers saves the government $152 billion over 10 years.
Frick this law.
That is basically $152 billion out of the pockets of the middle class. The upper will still have employer sponsered plans.
quote:
CBO and JCT project that, as a result of
the ACA, between 7 million and 8 million fewer people
will have employment-based insurance each year from
2016 through 2024 than would have been the case in the
absence of the ACA.
quote:quote:
In 2019, for example, an estimated 13 million people
who would have enrolled in employment-based coverage
in the absence of the ACA will not have an offer of such
coverage under the ACA;
That shift in compensation will boost federal
tax receipts. Partially offsetting those added receipts
will be an estimated $7 billion increase in Social Security
benefits that will arise from the higher wages paid to
workers. All told, CBO and JCT project, those effects
will reduce federal budget deficits by $152 billion over
the 2015–2024 period.
So the long term goal is to reduce employer sponsered insurance to capture that tax benefit. That will create a small increase in SS benefits for the very poor, but the net loss to workers saves the government $152 billion over 10 years.
Frick this law.
That is basically $152 billion out of the pockets of the middle class. The upper will still have employer sponsered plans.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:49 pm to ironsides
quote:
Would be interested in seeing how their projections for 2014 worked out from 2010 / 2011. Anyone have any historical perspective on how accurate their projections are?
The March, 2012, CBO projection was that the net cost figure for 2014 would be $58B, compared to this new report's updated figure of $36B for 2014.
The 2014 figure is meaningless because, as the 2012 figure proved to be, the data input is more fluid than water.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 4:15 pm to Eurocat
This is good news! As more people sign up the premiums will continue to shrink.
The US already spends way, way more per capita on health (with poor results) than anywhere else in the world. This will level the playing field and become a first step in bringing us up to the level of healthcare the rest of the industrialized world enjoys.
Yes, this is a first step to a single payer nationalized system like France has. Enjoy!
Secretly, big US corporations are rooting for this to succeed so it will take the onus off of their backs and allow them to compete more evenly with other foreign multinationals.
The US already spends way, way more per capita on health (with poor results) than anywhere else in the world. This will level the playing field and become a first step in bringing us up to the level of healthcare the rest of the industrialized world enjoys.
Yes, this is a first step to a single payer nationalized system like France has. Enjoy!
Secretly, big US corporations are rooting for this to succeed so it will take the onus off of their backs and allow them to compete more evenly with other foreign multinationals.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 4:30 pm to Eurocat
quote:
That was the plan all along to get the unisured number of folks really down.
I don't think people care about insurance I think they care about healthcare. Government controlled insurance does not equal high quality healthcare, doctor and hospital access.
Let's just face it. Anytime you speak about insurance it let's everyone know you do not know the definition of insurance. What you speak of is not insurance.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 4:46 pm to Choctaw
quote:
quote:
Relative to their previous projections made in February 2014, CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government:
looks like someone got a phone call
Yep, you knew it was coming with the mid-terms near at hand.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:33 pm to Eurocat
quote:
The number of uninsured will fall to 30 million by 2017 and will remain there through 2024, absent other reforms;
All of this bullshite, 1.4 trillion in costs over a decade... and 30 million still wont be covered.
What a lump of crapola legislation.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:42 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
CBO is non partisan.
And rely on the numbers that are submitted to them. If the numbers they are given are fudged, they don't care. They just put out a report on the information that was given to them. No more, no less.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:54 pm to NHTIGER
quote:It's all good.
The March, 2012, CBO projection was that the net cost figure for 2014 would be $58B, compared to this new report's updated figure of $36B for 2014.
The 2014 figure is meaningless because, as the 2012 figure proved to be, the data input is more fluid than water.
Insurance companies are set to reassess exchange plan costs for this fall's offerings.
We'll see soon enough if costs go up or down.
Insurance cost escalation this year was one of the largest ever, at the same time actual healthcare inflation was very low.
As pocketbooks talk, the political spin will walk.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:34 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:It will not be good news when they actually use real numbers and not guesstiments. The CBO is basing their projection on what the numbers will be based on the numbers they have. The real numbers have not even been released.
This is good news! As more people sign up the premiums will continue to shrink.
Also, as another poster pointed out this is a just a lowering of a projection that was made earlier. They never said actual premiums will go down.
Premiums are projected to increase in 2015. Not decrease.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:44 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
This is good news! As more people sign up the premiums will continue to shrink. It will not be good news when they actually use real numbers and not guesstiments. The CBO is basing their projection on what the numbers will be based on the numbers they have. The real numbers have not even been released. Also, as another poster pointed out this is a just a lowering of a projection that was made earlier. They never said actual premiums will go down. Premiums are projected to increase in 2015. Not decrease.
So you are of the opinion that the fundamental laws of Supply and Demand aren't valid? As the pool gets bigger and more healthy people are brought into it the costs will subside. I haven't heard anyone reputable dispute basic facts like that. Just because the Dems are getting credit for using a basically Repub proposal doesn't mean that the sun now rises in the West.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:12 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:What are you babbling about. This has nothing to do with supply and demand.
So you are of the opinion that the fundamental laws of Supply and Demand aren't valid?
quote:No they will not. Healthcare cost have not subsided in Japan, or France, or England, or the Netherlands. The cost of healthcare will continue to rise. The individual policy holders will be expected to share more of the cost to keep premiums in check.
As the pool gets bigger and more healthy people are brought into it the costs will subside
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:38 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
quote:So you are of the opinion that the fundamental laws of Supply and Demand aren't valid? What are you babbling about. This has nothing to do with supply and demand. quote: As the pool gets bigger and more healthy people are brought into it the costs will subsideNo they will not. Healthcare cost have not subsided in Japan, or France, or England, or the Netherlands. The cost of healthcare will continue to rise. The individual policy holders will be expected to share more of the cost to keep premiums in check.
Wow! Only here can someone argue for economic principles and then deny that they are arguing for it. I'm assuming that you have no idea how the world works. Have you had college Econ?
Healthcare is a commodity...just like any other widget. As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease.
The Health pools thus far created by Obamacare are preponderously populated by the "unhealthy"...those that couldn't get healthcare under the prior system in place...they cost more. As the health pools get larger and with more healthy people the costs per unit will go down from what they are now. Our HMO's use this currently. This is basic Supply & Demand principles in action.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:41 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:
As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease.
"economies of scale" is not how risk pools work. at all.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:49 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:Well well, this Autumn likely has quite a surprise awaiting your cost decrease thesis.
Healthcare is a commodity...just like any other widget. As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:52 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
quote:As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease. "economies of scale" is not how risk pools work. at all.
Of course risk pools take economy of scale into consideration.
Edit...this is the same model that HMO's use...you surely aren't saying that the entire industry is wrong are you?
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:54 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:You have no freaking idea what you are talking about and you have no clue how insurance works.
Wow! Only here can someone argue for economic principles and then deny that they are arguing for it. I'm assuming that you have no idea how the world works. Have you had college Econ?
Healthcare is a commodity...just like any other widget. As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease.
quote:" Sigh"
The Health pools thus far created by Obamacare are preponderously populated by the "unhealthy"...those that couldn't get healthcare under the prior system in place...they cost more. As the health pools get larger and with more healthy people the costs per unit will go down from what they are now. Our HMO's use this currently. This is basic Supply & Demand principles in action.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:56 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:Healthcare is a commodity...just like any other widget. As the economy of scale increases the costs per unit decrease. Well well, this Autumn likely has quite a surprise awaiting your cost decrease thesis.
Why have you limited the time scale to essentially one quarter. It sounds like you are whistling past the graveyard. I can't predict in which quarter the effects will begin to show.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 8:00 pm to Flame Salamander
quote:need "economy of scale" there too?
time scale
Posted on 4/14/14 at 8:10 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
this article is saying that ACA will have lower premiums, insure more, and cost gov less...... Than the CBO projections previously indicated.
Yep. It's like if the Astros go 62-100. Obots would call that a great season--after all, they won more games than the Vegas books projected. So what if they lost 100 games and finished last?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News