Obamacare’s costs: The hits just keep on coming
Posted on this blog, March 19, 2010:
To show you how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone, Democrats were pleased yesterday when the Congressional Budget Office gave the two ObamaCare bills … a combined cost of “only” $940,000,000,000 over 10 years (see page 8). But as you already know if you’ve been paying attention to this blog, there’s more here than the headline number suggests. …
If we begin the 10-year clock for this bill in 2014, and assume the 7.5 percent growth in annual gross costs which the CBO applies in 2018 and 2019 would continue in later years, the cost from 2014-2023 would be $2 trillion. … Even if we are more charitable, and begin counting next year rather than this year with the same assumptions as above, the 10-year cost from 2011-2020 would be $1.2 trillion. (links and emphasis original)
From Philip Klein, writing at the Washington Examiner yesterday:
President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. …
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That’s because we now have estimates for Obamacare’s first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we’re likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised. (emphasis added)
Ahem.
The only way in which Obamacare critics were wrong in our protests that the law would cost far more than advertised was that we underestimated the damage, by about $40 billion from 2014-2023 if the cost figure continues to grow at the minimum 6 percent annually CBO is now using. That would make it $2.04 trillion during those 10 years.
This is in part because, as Obamacare opponents explained at length at the time, congressional Democrats had rigged the score by beginning the tax increases before the spending kicked in. That made the 10-year figures both for the gross cost and the deficit “savings” look better than they would have if we considered 10 years of Obamacare fully implemented.
But it’s also because, as I’ve explained here recently, the estimates were faulty. Take three years in which there’s an overlap between the two estimates: 2017-2019. The new estimate for the total costs during that time span is now $147 billion, or 30 percent, higher than the original estimate just two years ago. The new estimate for “savings” has fallen by $314 billion, or 63 percent.
The result is that the effect on the federal budget from 2017-2019 has gone from a projected “savings” of $8 billion to an increased deficit of $453 billion.
And it’s only going to get worse in future years, if the new projections hold. That’s because they see the revenue portions holding steady while the expenses keep going up, up, up.
Oh — and this fiscal worsening is taking place while the projected increase in the number of people who are insured by 2019 thanks to Obamacare has fallen by 1 million.
What a disaster. Unless the Supreme Court bails us out, repealing this law and replacing it with a more market-oriented solution is critical.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
244 comments Add your comment
Erik von Reis
March 14th, 2012
2:16 pm
Kyle, did you bother to read the CBO report? Because the CBO seems to think that Obamacare doesn’t increase the deficit. But hey, don’t let the what the CBO thinks affect your so called reporting on what the CBO thinks.
If you did read the CBO report, then you probably owe your readers an explanation for why you are lying to them.
St Simons - we're on Island time
March 14th, 2012
2:16 pm
“Obama 2012: Nothing a pile of money can’t solve.”
Generic Republican 2012: Nothing a pile of (something) can’t solve
HDB
March 14th, 2012
2:17 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
1:47 pm
To answer your question — from EXPERIENCE!!
Here’s why free market solutions WON’T work:
1) Take a health insurance policy sold in MS to a patient in NY. That policy will only cover as MS-rates. Same patient has cancer and gets treated at Sloan-Kettering/MD Anderson. MS rates plus deductible will not cover treatment rates of Sloan-Kettering. Patient goes bankrupt.
2) Patient purchases multiple coverages to cover the hole in coverage. Insurance companies argue over who has primary coverage…and NEITHER pays. Patient goes bankrupt while suing insurance companies over coverage
3) Doctors in one HMO coverage may not be accepted by insurance companies although the coverage is exactly the same. Example: HMO doctors in BCBS/Iowa will not be paid by BCBS/GA for routine maintenance although the networks and negotiated costs are the same!!
My family and I have EXPERIENCED these….the only way is universal health care. That coverage has negotiated rates by the government which will drop the costs to the consumer…spread the costs…..
Another option is a hybrid of universal coverage: a govenment-level HMO with purchased coverage for catastrophic occurrances.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:21 pm
Remember, folks, when discussing ANY CBO report:
1. The “C” in CBO stands for “Congressional”. When was the last time Congress got anything right?
2. The “C” in CBO stands for “Congressional”. That means they work FOR Congress and are beholden to them for their jobs. They do not look at the whole picture, just those parameters which whatever group (GOP or Dems) happens to give them to do their studies. In other words, the old computer programming term applies to every CBO report: “Garbage In – Garbage Out”.
Hillbilly D
March 14th, 2012
2:22 pm
Single payer doesn’t address the issue of COST.
I’d agree with that for the most part. There could be some administrative costs savings in a doctor’s office, just due to not having to deal with so many different policies, etc. but that would be a small percentage, in the grand scheme of things, I would think. It also would take out the profit of the 3rd party, which again, is probably not that great of a percentage.
The fact is, nobody’s plan that I’ve seen, from single payer to let ‘em eat cake or anything in between, deals with costs in any way.
k sibelius
March 14th, 2012
2:22 pm
ragnar @ 1:23 : math is not hard. 2 trillion plus 2 trillion = 3 trillion saved (or created).
See how easy that was.
BTW – we’ll pretend to be shocked when that math ‘unexpectedly’ turns out to be something different.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:24 pm
HDB, your experience is worth NOTHING, as you have not experienced anything remotely as envisioned by the GOP’s multiple solutions to the cost and accessibility to health care.
Nice try, though (NOT!).
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
2:24 pm
“When was the last time Congress got anything right?”
You are right Tiberius, Robamneycare could very well end up costing a lot less than the CBO projections.
TBone
March 14th, 2012
2:26 pm
This administration can’t help itself when it comes to running up costs on every facet of life. It’s just political payback to those hardcore constituents. Besides this dreadful piece of legislation look at some of the regulations HIS administration is adopting. The public swimming pool rule to go into effect tomorrow is a prime example as payback to the lowly trial lawyers. Extorting public pools to retrofit a lift for wheel chairs into pools is just what this country needs for summer. Who benefits when the first chair bound swimmer drowns?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:31 pm
DannyX, we’ve been through this multiple times before. There is little resemblance to the Massachusetts health care law and Obamacare in scope, funding, cost and implementation, plus we have delineated the differences for you ad nausem.
Now, you can continue to refer to it by your juvenile name in complete ignorance of the facts, or not.
Your problem, not mine.
@@
March 14th, 2012
2:32 pm
Obamacare comes up short? Whodathunkit!!??!!
Forget about Obozo…can we call him President Pipsqueak?
schnirt
Erik von Reis
March 14th, 2012
2:33 pm
Tiberius, the only thing Republicans did for health care recently is Medicare D which actually did add hundreds of billions to the deficit, unlike Obama care. Other than that they seem to be fine with the status quo.
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
2:34 pm
I stick by my comment Tiberius,
“Robamneycare could very well end up costing a lot less than the CBO projections.”
Rush Limbaugh:Wanting Insurance to Cover Birth Control Makes Sandra Fluke a
March 14th, 2012
2:36 pm
[...] financial disaster rather than trying to buy votes with over promising and under delivering. Obamacare’s costs: The hits just keep on coming | Kyle Wingfield "President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, [...]
Jefferson
March 14th, 2012
2:39 pm
t- anyone ever tried to teach you to sing, they wasted their time now didn’t they ? You already knew how to sing better than anyone.
Cosby
March 14th, 2012
2:42 pm
But wait, were we not told by Barry aka Obama, Harry and Nancy that this would actually lower the debt….damn more lies from the Dems and the white house and now, as of today, good old Kathy is telling us we the taxpayers have to pay for abortions….more and more government intrusion..time fer a change as this changy thing is not working out
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
2:49 pm
“Tiberius, the only thing Republicans did for health care recently is Medicare D which actually did add hundreds of billions to the deficit, unlike Obama care. Other than that they seem to be fine with the status quo.”
Right you are Erik, unfunded socialist Medicare Part D did add billions to our deficit. The Republicans probably thought the Bush tax cuts would pay for it.
The CBO got it wrong, just as Tiberius thinks will be the case with Robamneycare. In fact the CBO projected Medicare Part D would cost a lot MORE than it has. Imagine that.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:50 pm
“Tiberius, the only thing Republicans did for health care recently is Medicare D which actually did add hundreds of billions to the deficit, unlike Obama care. Other than that they seem to be fine with the status quo.”
Erik, you must have missed the 7 (at minimum) proposals put forth in Nancy Pelosi’s House by Republicans that actually addressed heath care access and cost. Guess how many got past (or even in front of) a Democrat-led Congressional hearing?
Answer: None.
So your conclusion is false regarding what the GOP wished to do.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:53 pm
I have yet to see a single government program which actually cost us less than it was projected to do, DannyX.
You?
So why do you even remotely think that Obamacare will be the first to do so, when the bill was crafted with little input from the people who actually know health care?
AmVet
March 14th, 2012
2:54 pm
There could be some administrative costs savings in a doctor’s office, just due to not having to deal with so many different policies, etc. but that would be a small percentage, in the grand scheme of things, I would think.
Hillbilly, you’d be surprised.
As of 2008, we spent $7,129 per capita on health care—more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the industrialized world. And it certainly has gone up since then.
And they of course, provide services for all of their citizens. We have tens of millions without any. Resulting in 18,000 Americans who die needlessly each year because they cannot afford health care.
As you alluded to in our current system, there are thousands of different payers of health care fees. With layer after layer after layer of paper pushers and people who are employed to find a myriad of devious ways to just say no to claims.
It is a system that is a bureaucratic nightmare, wasting $350 billion—close to a third of all health care spending on things that have nothing to do with health care—overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.
And lets not forget the part that our “free market” excels in – the over $200 billion in computerized billing fraud and abuse.
I was and still am, adamantly against ObamaCare.
Butwhat is worse is to what the do nothings want to do. Which is of course, do nothing. Or as close as humanly possible to that as they can get. A few meaningless tweaks here and there, with a few canards about tort reform, etc.
But that’s about it.
Bart Abel
March 14th, 2012
2:54 pm
Kyle @2:05
Sorry. Three months into 2012, and I still forget that it’s not 2011 anymore. As a result, I though that pdf was a few weeks old. Here’s the link to the report that the CBO just released: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
Here are some excerpts:
“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…”
“Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law.”
“Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years”
“CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.”
To review, original CBO estimates were that there would be slight savings in the first decade (2010 – 2019) and about $1 trillion in savings in the second decade (2020-2029). Overall, the health care law results in coverage for millions of Americans and is likely to reduce deficits over the course of decades. That’s not my opinion or “spin.” That’s what the CBO says.
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
2:59 pm
“I have yet to see a single government program which actually cost us less than it was projected to do, DannyX.
You?”
Umm, yes I have Tiberius, as I pointed out at 2:49, Medicare Part D has cost a lot less than CBO projections.
HDB
March 14th, 2012
3:00 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
2:24 pm
Tort reform didn’t work…..look at the rise in health care costs in TEXAS as example…..plus all tort reform does is to deny and/or limit a person the right to seek redress. Isn’t that unconstitutional??
Plus….this is an interesting take…..
The Republican case for implementing Obamacare
David Merritt, who formerly ran Newt Gingrich’s Center for Health Care Transformation and currently advises the candidate on health policy issues, argues that Republicans should get going on implementing President Obama’s health reform law — even if they really don’t like it:
On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services released a final rule governing the exchanges. The rule sets an ambitious timeline for getting the exchanges up and running in every state by January 1, 2014. Between now and then, states can either build their own exchanges and tailor them as much as federal law will allow or decide not to build exchanges at all.
But there’s a catch: If states don’t build their own exchanges, the federal government will do it for them.
If states do not move forward on their own, the federal government will. Because of this fact alone, states should move forward with creating their own exchanges. It’s better for states to exert some control over the structure of their exchanges than to abdicate control to Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-republican-case-for-implementing-obamacare/2012/03/14/gIQAt6YkBS_blog.html
@@
March 14th, 2012
3:01 pm
Hillbilly:
The fact is, nobody’s plan that I’ve seen, from single payer to let ‘em eat cake or anything in between, deals with costs in any way.
Right now I’m dealing with my own costs. Before renewing our insurance coverage (catastrophic)…a physical was required. I go for the physical and the primary care physician orders some standard tests…one being a chest
X-ray. I go for several of the tests (insurance pays since they required the physical). Anyhoo, due to work schedule, I put off the chest X-ray. In the meantime, I get this shoulder thingy. It, too, requires an X-ray. So what do I do? I have the chest and shoulder X-rayed at the same time. Lo and behold, the insurance company says they can’t pay for the chest X-ray since I had the shoulder X-ray done at the same time. My response?
THE HELL YOU SAY!!!!
They’re paying for the chest X-ray.
Now I’ll be dealing with my primary care doctor AND the orthopaedist since both are sending me to their preferred X-ray facilities. Insurance company says they exceed customary cost.
Step two is in play. I have a list of facilities where cost is in line with what my insurance pays. They get to choose one that’s not THEIR preferred. If they DON’T choose, I’ll be choosing different doctors.
It’s hard work but somebody’s gotta do it.
(ISH)
Penny Pincher
March 14th, 2012
3:04 pm
HDB
March 14th, 2012
12:55 pm
How do you know tort reform and cross border sales will not work?
Bart Abel
March 14th, 2012
3:05 pm
Kyle,
Your guy, Phillip Klein updated his post. In his update, while criticizing the law, this time he had the integrity to compare previous estimates for a ten year window with current estimates for the same ten year window. He also correctly offset CBO updates to costs with CBO updates to revenues and savings. In his update, readers get more context.
What did he find? “These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years [2012 through 2021] to be $48 billion lower [than previously projected].”
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-boosts-its-obamacare-medicaid-cost-estimate/425966
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:06 pm
“including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending”
Which is then pushed off the the STATES to pay for, so no reductions at all.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:07 pm
“Umm, yes I have Tiberius, as I pointed out at 2:49, Medicare Part D has cost a lot less than CBO projections.”
That would be incorrect, DannyX, as the vast majority of your posts seem to be.
Fail.
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
3:11 pm
“That would be incorrect, DannyX, as the vast majority of your posts seem to be.”
Yes, it is correct. Medicare Part D has come in way under CBO estimates.
http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-6-11health.pdf
There are tons of other sources that will verify it, the Wall St Journal for one.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:11 pm
“Tort reform didn’t work…..look at the rise in health care costs in TEXAS as example…..”
One could rightly argue that Texas heath care costs are rising SLOWER than projected before tort reform, however, tort reform alone doesn’t get us to where we need to be.
“plus all tort reform does is to deny and/or limit a person the right to seek redress. Isn’t that unconstitutional??”
If it actually denied redress, yes, it would be unconstitutional, but to limit redress? Nope. Not one damned bit.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 14th, 2012
3:12 pm
That means they work FOR Congress and are beholden to them for their jobs.
That’s BS. When you are hired to give objective analysis, if you don’t have the stones to put out the best work you can – not the best work some individual wants – then you have embraced corruption. I say you give those folks the benefit of objective analysis.
Remember, this isn’t the Heritage Foundation.
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
3:23 pm
“The Medicare trustees report that federal outlays for Part D, netting out premiums paid by enrollees and payments made by states to “claw back” some Medicaid savings, totaled $214 billion through 2010. By 2013, we will have spent $375 billion — 32 percent less than the CBO estimate.”
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/06/15/what_does_medicare_part_d_say_about_the_ryan_plan_99074.html
32% less than CBO estimates, WOW. Tiberius, I think you owe me an apology.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:23 pm
DannyX, from a letter to Bill Thomas on Ways and Means in 2005:
“That change added about $6 billion to the projected cost of the Part D program over the 2004-2013 period, raising it from $552 billion to $558 billion.”
Ten years, estimated to be $558 billion.
Now look where the current 10 year cycle gets us:
“Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.”
Just a bit higher, wouldn’t you agree (but what’s 30% increases when it’s not YOUR money, right)?
Again, failure on your part.
Off to mow the south 40 . . .
HDB
March 14th, 2012
3:30 pm
Penny Pincher
March 14th, 2012
3:04 pm
Note my 2:17 and the experiences I’ve had with cross-border insurance, particularly with BCBS/HMO!!
@@
March 14th, 2012
3:30 pm
More than half a million NHS procedures and treatments a year are bungled. And yet only 5,000 of them…less than 1 percent…lead to a claim for compensation. Why?
Peter Walsh of Action Against Medical Accidents says it’s because “They’re embarrassed to even raise the question of potential compensation. And people tell us often that this is because of the stigma attached to seeking compensation or suing health professionals or the NHS.”
Afraid to look a gift horse in the mouth? What better way to rid themselves of cost than for government to shame them into submission.
From one extreme here in America, to another extreme in the U.K.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/british-reluctant-sue-health-system
Gm
March 14th, 2012
3:31 pm
Let see, we wasted billions in Iraq building up their infrastructure from the last President, W. did not attemp to tackle healthcare yet the right have a problem with saving the lives of 31 million Americans without health care.
Please all you righties put your flags back inside your homes or trailers, and the next 911 attack please spare us the fake loyalty you have to America.
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
3:34 pm
“The Medicare trustees report that federal outlays for Part D, netting out premiums paid by enrollees and payments made by states to “claw back” some Medicaid savings, totaled $214 billion through 2010. By 2013, we will have spent $375 billion — 32 percent less than the CBO estimate.”
You better high tail it out of here Tiberius. Your “letter” proves nothing at all.
My link proves the case I made. The CBO projections were 32% higher than the actual cost!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:36 pm
“Let see, we wasted billions in Iraq building up their infrastructure from the last President, W.”
Deflection.
“did not attemp to tackle healthcare”
Lie.
“yet the right have a problem with saving the lives of 31 million Americans without health care. ”
Lacking proof.
But other than that, Gm, you nailed it!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 14th, 2012
3:40 pm
“My link proves the case I made. The CBO projections were 32% higher than the actual cost!”
I suggest you re-read your link, DannyX. It’s not saying what you think it’s saying (I realize depth isn’t what you specialize in).
We’ll see if you can figure it out.
Linda
March 14th, 2012
3:42 pm
A book on the New York Times bestselling list is the Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists & Other Anti-American Extremists. Included in the book is a description of the strategy behind the health care bill, written in federal prison by Robert Creamer, who wrote at the Huffington Post that “the critical battles being fought in 2009 are not about ‘policies’–they are about the distribution of wealth & power.”
http://www.wnd.com/2010/06/166629/
Liberals are still pushing Obamacare, the strategy for which was written in federal prison by a bank robber, married to an Illinois Democratic congresswoman & passed by a Democratic congress, which had a lower approval rating than Creamer’s Big House mates: child molesters, murderers & rapists, & which (as I have said all along) has no objectives to improve health, care, insurance or cost.
Carl
March 14th, 2012
3:46 pm
Replace Obama’s Affordable Care Act by reforming the tax code to grant individuals the same tax advantages that businesses currently enjoy when buying health insurance. It would do wonders to stimulate competition. So would permitting people to purchase insurance across state lines. And market-friendly tools such as health savings accounts, health reimbursement accounts, flexible spending accounts, high-deductible health plans, and vouchers for seniors, the working poor, and the chronically uninsured would both expand coverage and lower costs.
President Obama’s way isn’t the only way out.
HDB
March 14th, 2012
3:46 pm
Penny Pincher
March 14th, 2012
3:04 pm
Also…check tort reform in Georgia and Texas; health care costs are still increasing at the rate of over 20%/year…and the quality of health care in Texas has DECLINED….
Gm
March 14th, 2012
3:47 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
Name one bill W. pushed to over haul health care? I’m still waiting
I guess Obama spent the billions in Iraq? you hate him that bad that you are out of reality and facts
Name 3 important things W. did for America?
1. 4500 America Troops dead in Iraq
2. 3500 Americans died in NY
3. Caused the worst economy collaps in America history.
Yet you right nuts wings have the nerve to talk about President Obama, what a joke
Don't Tread
March 14th, 2012
3:47 pm
This is further proof that Democrats will lie about anything (and twist arms, intimidate, make promises later broken, etc) to get their agenda passed. (The biggest lie about this monstrosity and assault on freedom was to call it the “Affordable” Care Act.) People recognized this in 2010 and voted them out en masse. Obamacare needs to follow them out the door.
“Obama 2012: Nothing a pile of money can’t solve.” Gotta love that.
HDB
March 14th, 2012
3:49 pm
…for those who use Texas as an example….
Texas health premiums cost more, buy less
By TODD ACKERMAN, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Updated 12:09 p.m., Monday, November 21, 2011
Texas employer-sponsored health insurance is costing more and buying less, a new report says.
The state-by-state report, released Thursday, found that between 2003 and 2010 such premiums in Texas rose 52 percent for families and 46 percent for individuals. In addition, both groups’ deductibles more than doubled, regardless of whether the person worked in a small or large firm.
“This is a national trend, but Texas’ numbers are particularly pronounced,” said Cathy Schoen, the report’s lead author and the senior vice president for The Commonwealth Fund, which has produced the report the last three years. “They’ve gone from rising slower than the national average to faster.”
The report shows health insurance costs’ continuing strain on the budgets of U.S. families and individuals. Employer premiums now account for at least 20 percent of the average household incomes of people under 65 in a majority of states, including Texas.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-health-premiums-cost-more-buy-less-2273332.php
DannyX
March 14th, 2012
3:54 pm
Tiberius, I could provide links all day long that prove my point, but of course you are just to stubborn and think you are right about everything.
Btw, here’s another link,
“If you use the Congressional Budget Office numbers, the savings are somewhat lower. In addition, two analysts we spoke with said you have to subtract the premiums that patients pay, as well as contributions from the states. If you account for those sources of revenue, the program comes in about 28 percent below budget, said Edwin Park, an analyst with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He walked us through his analysis, and it seemed like a reasonable, though different, way to calculate costs.
Whether it’s 40 percent or 28 percent, though, we found wide consensus that the program is coming in under budget.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/15/rick-santorum/did-medicare-part-d-come-40-percent-under-budget-b/
Now, where is that apology?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 14th, 2012
3:56 pm
For those of you still thinking Big O isn’t pretty smart, consider:
His champion, for the third time in five years, is UNC.
Nuff said
1961_Xer
March 14th, 2012
3:57 pm
The interesting thing about these comments is: the liberals/Democrats don’t even deny that it was a lie, and that it will break the bank. Instead, they try to offset the anger at the lie by chanting “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq”. These are two separate and mutually exclusive events.
That W got us into the slog that is Iraq is not justification for mortgaging the future of our children and our country. One isn’t excused for burning down his house because his wife maxed out the credit card.
@@
March 14th, 2012
3:59 pm
Liar Liar is off the blog for handle-stealing. Once again, @@ makes ‘em so mad as to go batty.
AHhh MAN! I missed “it” AGAIN!!!!
Was is something I said downstairs? ‘Cause I hadn’t even posted up here.
Is it a permanent ban, Kyle? I’m opposed to those since I was the recipient of one.
carlosgvv
March 14th, 2012
3:59 pm
The bottom line of Obamacare is that it will cut into the obsene profits of America’s Medical Industry. Since this industry makes substantial contirbutions to the Republican Party, it’s no suprise that Republican politicians and their minions will attact Obamacare any way and every way they can. That more people will be covered and less will die because of lack of coverage is a poor substitute for money and political power to some people.