CBO estimates cost of Obamacare even lower than before

[piasabird]

A lot of ACA costs are pushed onto the individual tax payers in the form of fines, overpayments of subsidies, and higher premium costs and higher copays and deductibles.

 

[piasabird]

Then there is the unfunded liability and costs it takes to run a state's exchange for insurance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A lot of ACA costs are pushed onto the individual tax payers in the form of fines, overpayments of subsidies, and higher premium costs and higher copays and deductibles.

That was my point...which seems to have flown right over his head.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then there is the unfunded liability and costs it takes to run a state's exchange for insurance.

I'm sure only the "rich" pay for these as well.

 

[bshole]

I'm sure only the "rich" pay for these as well.

Do you want Obamacare to fail or succeed? What we had before was a freight train to disaster. Don't you see this as only the first step toward a sustainable solution?

 

[inachu]

This is incorrect, if anything your interview backs up what I said. Did you read your own link?

The first line:


If you're looking for what the CBO said on the issue I will direct you here:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447

What the CBO said specifically:



It appears that you were concerned that this news meant the CBO no longer believed the ACA would reduce deficits. Presumably now you're much happier as you know that's not the case, correct?

LOL!!!!!!!!! A Kaiser URL!!!!! They are the ones who instigated HMO's who put people into HMO hell!

I fault Nixon for liking Kaiser. If he paid them no mind then no HMO's would be in America.

 

[fskimospy]

Then there is the unfunded liability and costs it takes to run a state's exchange for insurance.

That is not an unfunded liability.

No state is required to spend any money to set up its own exchange.

 

[inachu]

The lower costs are at least in part due to fewer people gaining coverage.

The CBO predicted 11 million people will be enrolled in insurance exchanges in 2015, rising to 21 million next year. Both of those are lower than initial projections.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you want Obamacare to fail or succeed? What we had before was a freight train to disaster. Don't you see this as only the first step toward a sustainable solution?

I think we need to be honest that it has good points for the poor and middle class and some negatives as well. One of my major concerns is that it will further exasperate the wealth inequity problem.

 

[berzerker60]

Went from a horrible system, or a slightly less horrible system that looks to cost a little less.

This is a very accurate, concise way of putting it.

Now let's hope we can go from here to an even better, cheaper system rather than reverting to the earlier, worse one.

 

[First]

That was my point...which seems to have flown right over his head.

I'm sure only the "rich" pay for these as well.

Your point isn't true, though, since nothing piasabird stated is true or verifiable, be it premium increases, fines, subsidy overpayments, ec. None of these are taxes even if they existed but hell, even *if* all of it existed they'd have to be significant and onerous to warrant any attention, which of course they aren't, and you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it. Shame on you for pretending otherwise and feigning concern while simultaneously giving weight to Repub's ACA "alternatives" that by every indication and measure would be verifiably worse than ACA (granted, with what little details Repubs have released).

 

[theeedude]

I was talking about the mandates. The SCOTUS called these taxes which is the reason I quoted the word.

Reagan #1 :thumbsup:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Reagan #1 :thumbsup:

I like him too!

 

[theeedude]

Yep, jacked up taxes on everyone but the super rich.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your point isn't true, though, since nothing piasabird stated is true or verifiable, be it premium increases, fines, subsidy overpayments, ec. None of these are taxes even if they existed but hell, even *if* all of it existed they'd have to be significant and onerous to warrant any attention, which of course they aren't, and you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it. Shame on you for pretending otherwise and feigning concern while simultaneously giving weight to Repub's ACA "alternatives" that by every indication and measure would be verifiably worse than ACA (granted, with what little details Repubs have released).

Failure to follow the mandate results in a tax penalty. SCOTUS plainly said it's a tax and their entire decision rested on this very point. Am I missing something here?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577480371370927862

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yep, jacked up taxes on everyone but the super rich.

The upper middle class and uber rich got hit fairly hard.

 

[OverVolt]

Just wait until everyone evades the cadillac tax in 2018 considering its an excise tax on good health insurance plans.

Like how there is an excise tax on cigarettes to reduce their consumption. Cause thats what will make us healthier. Worse insurance.

The gift that keeps on giving will soon hit those "low deductible" employer plans. Its pegged to inflation because over the long-term we know how well healthcare spending tracks the CPI. Sure hope you guys knew what you were talking about when you say these $2000 deductible plans are great, cause you'll have one soon.

 

[First]

Failure to follow the mandate results in a tax penalty. SCOTUS plainly said it's a tax and their entire decision rested on this very point. Am I missing something here?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577480371370927862

The decision to avoid health insurance results in a tax penalty for the very few people that either don't know about the law or don't care, most of which will be taken from the refund people get and so will hardly be onerous in any traditional sense of the word. And given that one-time penalties are entirely avoidable and can be subsidized significantly if you don't have the financial means to afford the health insurance, I find it difficult to call that a "tax" on the middle class, as you did, given that taxes exist in perpetuity while the mandate penalties are simple economic carrot and stick to induce health insurance purchases. There is no mandate tax if you have health insurance, which millions more of the country now does.

Now on SCOTUS, the 2012 decision said nothing about "middles class 'taxes'", while your original statement did. SCOTUS did not call ACA a middle class "tax", it said it was constitutional based on Congress' power to tax.

The upper middle class and uber rich got hit fairly hard.

Define upper middle class. In about 95% of the landmass in this country, upper middle class is hundreds of thousands of dollars grossed annually. I find it difficult to believe you think these individuals cannot afford increased capital gains taxes. I'd love to see stories about the hardship this has caused those income earners, I'd be interested to hear what sort of cutbacks they've had to make in their household(s) decision-making.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The cost for the school district healthcare plan where my wife works, just went up 13%.

 

[dank69]

The cost for the school district healthcare plan where my wife works, just went up 13%.

Cost of plan went up or district paying less percentage of it? Or both?

 

[OverVolt]

Cost of plan went up or district paying less percentage of it? Or both?

2018 It won't matter honestly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...ls-royce-new-irs-guidance-makes-it-a-lemon/2/

The theory of the law is apparently that health insurance should be the great leveler. The Affordable Care Act included the Cadillac tax as a tool to cut health care costs. It puts direct and forceful pressure on employers to offer less-generous health insurance plans than in the past. Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes a 40% tax on the cost of individual health plans above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for family coverage.

These thresholds are indexed to inflation. In evaluating these dreaded thresholds, both employer and worker contributions are included. The tax is decidedly punitive. The tax applies to every dollar above those thresholds. Like a cliff, the dollars are taxed at a 40% rate.

What’s more, the tax is not deductible by the employer. The Cadillac tax makes sure that more health insurance dollars are spent across a greater number of people. It was probably a bad idea even before the news broke that a once famous and now nearly infamous adviser had a big hand in it. It seems almost dastardly now, a real bait and switch. The tax is projected to collect $80 billion between 2018 and 2023.

However, many excise tax figures turn out not to be remotely close to correct. Indeed, excise taxes are often enacted to discourage particular behavior. Here, a reasonable response to the Cadillac tax is likely to be cutting of health insurance. Why would employers want to offer generous health insurance that triggers a 40% excise tax that they must pay and that they cannot deduct?

Less generous coverage will presumably be provided. Of course, it is possible that some employers will buck this trend. Perhaps public employers such as cities employing union workers may be among them. In a curious twist, American taxpayers could end up carrying the burden of the tax.


In large part, the result is likely to higher costs for employees, higher deductibles, and other add-ons that will harm employees. Doesn’t that go directly contrary to what proponents of the Affordable Care Act–including the President–represented?

Like I was saying... because healthcare spending totally tracks the CPI that $10,200 individual coverage isn't looking too cadillac by 2018.

So of course to get the premium down it will mean high deductibles for the more benefited. I'm getting way better insurance at my current job for half the obamacare premium. Actually my deductible is $0 now, hooray. By 2018 I'd imagine is my second round of getting buggered by obamacare. Employer contributions are included. Do you know how much your plan really cost? Hmm?? Hopefully you did that math on it when you voted for it back in 2010 surely? Hey I'm young what do I care. I don't have to go through all the trouble to be a stick in the mud. So in summary... whatever. I have my plan on dealing with it, which going by this forum is better than everyone elses plan who has no clue.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL!!!!!!!!! A Kaiser URL!!!!! They are the ones who instigated HMO's who put people into HMO hell!

I fault Nixon for liking Kaiser. If he paid them no mind then no HMO's would be in America.

Dunno about other HMO's, but Kaiser has been good to me & my family for 30 years.

 

[OverVolt]

Cost of plan went up or district paying less percentage of it? Or both?

So many questions!?!?! IKR!?!?!?

 

[OverVolt]

Dunno about other HMO's, but Kaiser has been good to me & my family for 30 years.

Yea you are a shining beacon of health.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The decision to avoid health insurance results in a tax penalty for the very few people that either don't know about the law or don't care, most of which will be taken from the refund people get and so will hardly be onerous in any traditional sense of the word. And given that one-time penalties are entirely avoidable and can be subsidized significantly if you don't have the financial means to afford the health insurance, I find it difficult to call that a "tax" on the middle class, as you did, given that taxes exist in perpetuity while the mandate penalties are simple economic carrot and stick to induce health insurance purchases. There is no mandate tax if you have health insurance, which millions more of the country now does.

The SCOTUS called the mandate a tax so I'm going to defer to their opinion. If it wasn't considered a type of tax, the ACA mandate would have been struck down. It's really that simple.

Now on SCOTUS, the 2012 decision said nothing about "middles class 'taxes'", while your original statement did. SCOTUS did not call ACA a middle class "tax", it said it was constitutional based on Congress' power to tax.

I NEVER said the 2012 SCOTUS decision said anything about "middle class" taxes...I said they deemed the mandate to be effectively a tax, which accordingly, Congress is empowered to authorize. I was saying I personally thought of it as a punitive middle class tax. If you feel that I mislead you in some way on this point, please elaborate. In addition, I'm very curious about the logic you used to conclude that the mandate wasn't a tax since the Constitutionality of the ACA mandate revolved entirely around this very issue. I really don't get this...my head is spinning!