Obamacare costs 1.8 Trillion between 2014-2023

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Must read for those wondering about the cost of the subsidizes and medicaid expansion. I don't fault politicians for not touching this aspect of the law, but it's importance makes that all the more disappointing.


Obamacare’s Impact on Today’s and Tomorrow’s Taxpayers: An Update
At a time when the nation has nearly $17 trillion in national debt and is running annual trillion-dollar budget deficits, largely attributed to existing entitlements, Obamacare creates two new entitlements projected to cost nearly $1.8 trillion over the next decade.

While Obamacare is technically scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as a deficit reducer, when rational assumptions are made and budget gimmicks are omitted, the law is far from paid for, likely increasing future budget deficits and further burdening current taxpayers and future generations.

New Spending
The two main coverage components of Obamacare are a massive Medicaid expansion and new government subsidies to purchase coverage in the government-run state exchanges. The new spending on these provisions will cost taxpayers nearly $1.8 trillion from 2014 to 2023.

Beginning in 2014, Obamacare expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) in any state that chooses to accept this expansion. This expansion is projected to add an additional 13 million Americans to Medicaid by 2023, mostly childless adults, costing federal taxpayers $709 billion from 2014 to 2023.

In addition, Obamacare creates government subsidies for individuals and families earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the FPL. In 2013, 400 percent of the FPL was almost $46,000 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four. By 2023, 19 million people will receive subsidies, costing taxpayers over $1 trillion from 2014 to 2023.

New Taxes and Penalties
Obamacare’s new spending is offset in part by the imposition of 18 new taxes and penalties. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation project that Obamacare’s taxes will raise $771 billion in new government revenue from 2013 to 2022.[5] The taxes have been phased in since the law’s passage, with a few still waiting to start.

Continue Reading

The article continues and has a list of the new taxes that have been implemented since 2010. The especially frustrating thing of note is the CBO estimates for the law which are so clearly misleading.

1.8 Trillion is a such a substantial burden I can see why it has been 86'd from any podium discussion Obama gives on the thing.
 
Last edited:

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
899
126
Only 1.8 Trillion for health care for 10 years, not bad. Better than pissing away the money to fight wars.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
No kidding. While I can accept that the CBO's analysis is somewhat flawed, it's a sure bet that Heritage's analysis is shamelessly biased. No sale.

That's rather ironic given that the HF is where the idea for Obamacare came from, at least according to liberals.

Fern
 

WTSherman

Member
May 18, 2013
91
0
0
I get a kick out of this speech today by Obama where he's offended that one of the other branches of government dares to oppose him. He's got the Senate and the supreme court in the bag, and when they passed ObamaCare he had the house too. Never mind that 2/3 of the people don't want it. It shows how much representation we actually have considering this entrenched ruling class in washington, democrats and republicans.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
haha sounds like a STEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dont we spend that much just maintaining our military EVERY YEAR??
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
That's rather ironic given that the HF is where the idea for Obamacare came from, at least according to liberals.

Fern
There's nothing ironic about that at all. It's quite consistent with the one-sided propaganda Heritage produces.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Probably because Obamacare doesn't address the issues of transparency and how poorly our healthcare system works.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Just mainly looking at getting a legit picture of what Obamacare will cost from 2014-2023 as a representation of it's first 10 years as opposed to the popularized budget talk that counts from 2010-2020 (includes tax revenues from 2010-2013 but of course benefits from avoiding brunt of the cost during those years). Still any cost can be offset in a number of budgeting gimmicks, but heritage was the first one I found that gave a reasonable number at 1.8T before having it walked back by various savings and revenue adjustments that may or may not be reasonable.

What are the more appropriate numbers for the first 10 years of cost, based on the above criteria (before tax and savings offsets), that we are expecting from this? I thought it was 1.5T minimum. It was pretty clear the subsidizes are going to run up to 100billion per year before they are walked back by additional taxes and "other". I'm surprised on media there isn't more talk about the true cost of it, the Republicans are jumping on the possible jobs impacts, but that's shaky ground.
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Someone help figure out what an average subsidy is going to be. It looks like most folks will qualify for at least some amount. I'd expect if it were low that the Obama admin would be pressing that out to combat R resistance on cost grounds. Leaves a fairly singular alternative which is frankly being pushed as "large subsidies are great" when it's condensed.

The subsidies are great if they make it much more affordable, but isn't there a quite ready flip side to this?

Families hit hard by the recessionary downturn look to be helped the most. I doubt you'd find 1 in 10 who are really against that outcome applied in a vacuum. The resistance is more pragmatic even if built on shaky or largely unknown ground.

The math on the thing is all over the place, 2+2 can equal widely different numbers based on which bias is applied by various enlightened political hacks.

Every way I chop it, the subsidies are going to be very expensive to provide. What's the thoughts on that? I know it can be easily argued it's worth it, but that viewpoint gets focused with more tangible and realistic numbers. It's clearly a more reasonable tradeoff at 10billion per year than it would be at 250billion per year, particularly if you agree that the cost gets filtered to the middle class in the end no matter what. Without figuring out the real cost I don't see how there is any incentive to make the thing better (more efficient, affordable, realistic). Main gripe with the left who cheerlead the thing is that by omitting unpleasant characteristics of policy they tend to leave the unpleasant aspects in place and uncorrected due to lack of reasonable attention. Ridicule of those poking around with flash lights is not an appropriate solution.
 
Last edited:

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
I get a kick out of this speech today by Obama where he's offended that one of the other branches of government dares to oppose him. He's got the Senate and the supreme court in the bag, and when they passed ObamaCare he had the house too. Never mind that 2/3 of the people don't want it. It shows how much representation we actually have considering this entrenched ruling class in washington, democrats and republicans.

Errrrrr... Rephrased for correctness.

2/3 of the people "DO NOT UNDERSTAND" what it means to have healthcare.
Because under insurance for profit with absolutely no competition 2/3 rds of Americans live without ... Or ... on that thin life line of care today, none tomorrow.
Lost your job, lose your care.
Work at McDonalds, Walmart, forget employer based healthcare or affordability.

The biggest misconception being pushed by so many nut jobs using twisted ideology based values, or lack of basic values, is that Americans don't like healthcare.
Don't want healthcare.
Feel it's more desirable to be uninsured and vulnerable to physical and financial disaster than have the opportunity for healthcare.
I mean... How stupid do they think people are?
I'll tell you that answer. Pretty G-damn stupid.

Do you have car insurance for protection of that costly hunk of metal?
Insurance for the possibly of death, to avoid leaving your family financially devastated?
Insurance on that brand new $700 iPhone 5s ?

Well... So when was it that insuring your own health became some undesirable concept?
Or your child's health?

I can see where some 21 year old might feel they need not health insurance.
But how about your child? Wife?
And if you are single, and discover that love of your life where you want to marry and start a family together, do you not want affordable available family health insurance them?

Well, if the nut jobs had their way, you'd never have that chance. Never!

This isn't rocket science.
The deception from those that know well better is reprehensible.
And all, not some, but all of them HAVE healthcare of their own, no doubt.
They simply hope you are too stupid to figure it out.
Don't be too stupid to figure this out.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Well, for those willing and capable, Obamacare should be an eye opener whichever way it eventually plays out.

In that respect I find it hard not to root for it, because the intention of those behind it is clearly a side I want to find stability on and ultimately more success for folks in the USA going forward. Managing a truly affordable way for folks to get health insurance and ultimately exceptional health care is a success.

It's importance as a barometer of political thought/process vs outcomes can't be understated. Perhaps bias won't be able to shade over the truth of how this ultimately pans out.
 
Last edited:

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Well now I'm convinced! You and the Heritage Foundation have swayed me from reality to your alternate version. Thanks.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Well now I'm convinced! You and the Heritage Foundation have swayed me from reality to your alternate version. Thanks.

This kind of substantiated debate is what really lifts the forum up.

Reality check please. In your universe how much does it cost?



You can check the latest estimates from CBO which peg it between 1.65 to 2.6 trillion depending on who's bias is bleeding through. Heritage at 1.8T isn't really screaming as an outlier, it frames the cost as substantial on it's face which I get is upsetting to some who don't like worrying about how much stuff costs.

Bottom lined: That's a lot of cost to pick up with creative accounting or otherwise. Given Obama touted cost as ~900B, this really doesn't need to be a one way street of importance.
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Just mainly looking at getting a legit picture of what Obamacare will cost from 2014-2023 as a representation of it's first 10 years as opposed to the popularized budget talk that counts from 2010-2020 (includes tax revenues from 2010-2013 but of course benefits from avoiding brunt of the cost during those years). Still any cost can be offset in a number of budgeting gimmicks, but heritage was the first one I found that gave a reasonable number at 1.8T before having it walked back by various savings and revenue adjustments that may or may not be reasonable.

What are the more appropriate numbers for the first 10 years of cost, based on the above criteria (before tax and savings offsets), that we are expecting from this? I thought it was 1.5T minimum. It was pretty clear the subsidizes are going to run up to 100billion per year before they are walked back by additional taxes and "other". I'm surprised on media there isn't more talk about the true cost of it, the Republicans are jumping on the possible jobs impacts, but that's shaky ground.
most likely you are looking in the wrong places for your answers.....
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
most likely you are looking in the wrong places for your answers.....

Or the answers get changed when looked at closely.

Remember, there were a lot of TBDs in that white paper/thesis that was published as the savior to the health care system. Every TBD is worth $50-100m. Same with exemptions.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Well now I'm convinced! You and the Heritage Foundation have swayed me from reality to your alternate version. Thanks.

As long as Obama and the Dems are running the show, from your POV nothing can go wrong.

As long as the other costs go up insurance costs will go up. What you have now is a larger base to pass the bills around when they come due.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
example....

a good employer in my town, prepared for obama care.....

they now offer two insurance benifits packages, one for part time, one for full time.. exactly the same coverage, bc/bs, 20 dollar copay, free generics...40 for part time...... both cost 11 bucks a month to the employee... every single employee that works there gets it.. it's an indian casino btw.

that's what will happen across the country when everyone is forced to comply; the smart companys already did it... the die hard neo cons are going to bitch and moan and go out of business trying to not treat there own employees decently... because, when they dont.. they'll get fined HARD. (and said wronged employee will STILL GET IT NOW, and wont even feel the hit, they dont actually pay any income tax as it is, they dont hit the first bracket, thus, full refund, out of which, the ACA fine to them will be payed, so they'll get 800 bucks back in april instead of 1000.....................nobody even remembers what they got the year before, so it's a NON ISSUE to them. the only ones who will hurt are the greedy employers... and they could have avoided it.. all they had to do was provide there own LIVELIHOOD (there employees) some insurance... they cannot/will not, swallow there pride and just for once help someone else out...........

so, the right thing will happen, it's the way of this universe, we know this.. there shit will fold, they'll get upset and stock ammo, maybe some will shoot up malls, schools, etc... but good riddance.. we dont need that kind of selfishness on the Earth.

think how much that will help joe six pack who has say........chronic pain...or anxiety problems... otherwise he'd pay 200 bucks a month to some doctor, and 150 a month for meds.

it's a no brainer... those ridiculous money grubbing docs who charge 20 patients a day 150 bucks each........ well sorry..... get the fuck out... this is America.. that shit is some old world slave owning, treating your fellow human being like a dog's fecal matter type shit. if there's other unseen problems (like drug companys causing it all to skyrocket) lets fucking fix the controlled substance system..

why do i need to pay some doctor who lives in the biggest house in his small town...to write me some shit that grows on a plant.. a poppy.. for free... why can't i grow a poppy??

it's just like the anti piracy bullshit. you dont want me to pirate your shit?? get smarter.. prevent me.

because right now, i'm smarter, i'm pirating your shit, i'm playing your system, and we're winning.
 
Last edited:

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
Have you noticed that every post you make ends up being about drugs? We've noticed.

It's said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's too late for you.

i dont even use drugs anyomore, but if your too dense to see what is causing almost every single problem in today's society, then i'm sorry...... i'm just not that dense.

what exactly do you think this whole hearthcare fiasco in our country is right now all about???