The affordable health care bill was passed with no Republican support. They told us that there would be no way that costs wouldn't increas. pelosi told us that they had to pass it before they would know what was in it. The President himself told us that the health care bill wouldn't add one cent in additional costs. Among other bogus statements. Well now what do know? The CBO has just come out with a report that the bill will ADD over $6,trillion in additional costs.
How can this be? Were we lied too? Are you still happy that this was rammed through ?
Are you still in denial?
The answer truly is simple:
You GOP cowards are TERRIFIED that "Obamacare" will WORK. Because, if it does, then the next time you pricks get into power (assuming that ever happens again), you're all going to have to explain to an electorate who have seen Obamacare save their children's lives or healed a seriously-ill spouse exactly WHY you are trying to get rid of it.
That will be a mighty hard row to hoe. And from what I've seen, not one of you is smart enough to come up with a big enough lie to excuse ripping it up.
Facts are a hard thing to accept aren't they Snagg? This is from the CBO, not some made up numbers. What is your excuse for "this will not cost one dime more"? By the way. What's up with the name calling? Oh, you're a liberal and that's what you always fall back on as an answer to opposition.
might help if you actually READ the report....instead of cadging it from antiobama sites that hand you your conclusions pre-spun...plus everytime there is a court challenge, it adds to the cost...everytime some dumbass antievolutionary biblepounding pinheaded zealot challenges the law, it adds to the cost and everytime some whiney old eunuch spins another unfounded email tale, it adds to the cost
The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted in March 2010, on the long-term fiscal outlook depends largely on whether elements in PPACA designed to control cost growth are sustained. There was notable improvement in the longer-term outlook after the enactment of PPACA under GAO's Fall 2010 Baseline Extended simulation, which assumes both the expansion of health care coverage and the full implementation and effectiveness of the cost-containment provisions over the entire 75-year simulation period. However, the federal budget remains on an unsustainable path. Further, questions about the implementation and sustainability of these provisions have been raised by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Office of the Actuary and others, due in part to challenges in sustaining increased health care productivity. The Fall 2010 Alternative simulation assumed cost containment mechanisms specified in PPACA were phased out over time while the additional costs associated with expanding federal health care coverage remained. Under these assumptions, the long-term outlook worsened slightly compared to the pre-PPACA January 2010 simulation.
Federal health care spending is expected to continue growing faster than the economy. In the near term, this is driven by increasing enrollment in federal health care programs due to the aging of the population and expanded eligibility. Over the longer term, excess cost growth (the extent to which growth of health care spending per capita exceeds growth of income per capita) is a key driver. Slowing the rate of health care cost growth would help put the budget on a more sustainable path. There is general agreement that technological advancement has been the key factor in health care cost growth in the past, along with the effects of expanding health insurance coverage and increasing income, but there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of the impact that the different factors will have on future health care cost growth.
GAO regularly prepares long-term federal budget simulations under different assumptions about broad fiscal policy decisions. GAO's Baseline Extended simulation illustrates the long-term outlook assuming current law at the time the simulation was run is generally continued, while the Alternative simulation illustrates the long-term outlook assuming historical trends and past policy preferences continue. Under either set of assumptions, these simulations show that the federal budget is on an unsustainable fiscal path driven on the spending side by rising health care costs and the aging of the population. PPACA provides for expanded eligibility for Medicaid and federal subsidies to help individuals obtain private health insurance and includes provisions designed to slow the growth of federal health care spending.
GAO was asked to describe the longterm effects of PPACA on the federal fiscal outlook under both its Baseline Extended and Alternative simulations; how changes in assumptions for federal health care cost growth might affect the outlook; and the key drivers of health care cost growth and how the uncertainty associated with each may influence future health care spending. To do this, GAO compared the results of its long-term fiscal simulations from before and after the enactment of PPACA and examined the key factors that contributed to changes in revenue and spending components; reviewed trends in health care cost growth and performed a sensitivity analysis varying rates of excess cost growth; and reviewed literature describing key drivers of health care cost growth and areas of uncertainty related to projections of federal health care costs.
what you are whining about is the fact that things MIGHT be this or MIGHT be that...first of all, medical costs are insurance driven. every medical procedure has an insurance based cost whether it is the doctor's malpractice premium (insurance), the hospital's liability and malpractice premiums (insurance), the pharmaceutical companies' liability premiums (insurance) or the cost of doctor visits and outpatient procedures which is based partially on medical insurance paying for visits and procedures that are priced to pay for... you guessed it...medical liability and maltpractice insurance premiums....so what makes you think that was going to change whether the affordable health care act was passed or defeated...the large insurance companies already made sure they would continue to profit either way by using their lobbyists and campaign contributions to tailor the bill to fit themselves as well
You know of course you might as well be Sheldon Cooper explaining string theory to right wingers.
This is worth watching, it is an interview with Steven Brill about the high cost of medical practices and it seems that insurance is not the ONLY culprit, so are hospitals and they are making a lot of money, not the doctors or nurses, the hospitals. Our healthcare system needs a complete overhaul.
The interview is from an article in Time Magazine.
the insurance scam is such a great tool....on the one hand they charge the doctors and arm and a leg for the malpractice insurance...then the doctor charges more for his services to pay those premiums (like 250K A YEAR)...which then causes your insurance company to up your health insurance rates so they can pay the high prices caused by them charging more for malpractice insurance...kinda like being the guy who sells bandages to both of the boxers in the ring
nothing wrong with a properly structured tort reform....but you do know that the bush tort reform was actually orchestrated by karl rove as he was being paid as a lobbyist by large corporations seeking to limit any liability they had for product defects and negligence?
it was bush jr (the dim bulb) who got reform thru in texas to perteck all them nice corporations what hep him run fer office and stuff.
Actually, we don't know what the ACA will bring as to cost, in that health care is economically inelastic, that is, if you spend more money, you spend more money with little increase in supply of capacity to provide health care services. You can only have so many doctors, trained medical personal and facilitates which can only increase much more slowly that demand at best. Clinicians can take 8 years or more to train, assuming you have a supply of candidates to train to an appropriate level of education and experience. The other option is to expect more foreign medical graduates and clinicians to come to America to make more money and have a better opportunity to practice.
The other thing about ACA is that when is enough, enough?
Of course, only the death panels will know, but as a matter of fact, little therapeutic results occur because of the amount of medical services provided. Of course, there is a direct correlation to the lack of services provided AND when, as to results. And further there is always patient compliance as to whether they take their medicine as prescribe or do what is required vs. what is convenient and lazy such as smoking at all or eating in excess.
What has been applied up to now by ACA are insurance and benefit changes that traditionally limit supply of services with coverage limitations, copays and deductibles. The next step are limits on provider payments to create the $600 or so, billion "savings" in what funds are made available to pay providers.
As the coverage expands so will costs, it is inevitable. As coverage expands the idea is that so will payments to providers, so, even if the payments made the provider are less per service, there will be more payments made, fewer losses in charity care and bad debt, therefore, the total revenue per provider will also increase making the loss actually a gain, or so it works in theory.