Obamacare costs 1.8 Trillion between 2014-2023

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
It's going to cost a lot more than $1.8Tn over 10 years.

I'm sick of having Presidents, and especially sick of Presidents who believe that govt can perfect humanity.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Obamacare costs 1.8 Trillion between 2014-2023

After reading the article you cut-n-pasted I can see that estimate doesn't include the costs of increased HI premiums paid by taxpayers. E.g., young people paying extra to cover the elderly etc.

It's just increased govt costs, increased taxpayer costs are omitted.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,403
136
After reading the article you cut-n-pasted I can see that estimate doesn't include the costs of increased HI premiums paid by taxpayers. E.g., young people paying extra to cover the elderly etc.

It's just increased govt costs, increased taxpayer costs are omitted.

Fern

So presumably if health care inflation continues at a slower pace than it did before passage of the ACA you will be deducting that from the cost, right?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So presumably if health care inflation continues at a slower pace than it did before passage of the ACA you will be deducting that from the cost, right?

Foreign countries with single payer schemes are all experiencing burdensome, if not unsustainable, health care cost increases. If their programs can't contain it, Obamacare can't either. (Particularly since Obamacare seems aimed primarily at HI, not HC costs themselves.)

Generally costs decrease as supply outpaces demand. Obamacare can be expected to do the opposite - increase demand but not supply (if proponents are correct). Aside from inflation, rationing seems most likely. If wait times for care etc increases, will you blame Obamacare?

Edit: Deflation in costs seems far more likely from other factors such as depressed economic conditions.

Fern
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Edit: Deflation in costs seems far more likely from other factors such as depressed economic conditions.

Fern

Meaning fewer people can afford health care. They go to the hospital and cannot pay but cannot be refused service. The hospitals are then forced to write off the bills or pass them on to the next guy in the form of higher costs, because they have to do that to survive and/or make a profit. The prices actually go up in that case.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,403
136
Foreign countries with single payer schemes are all experiencing burdensome, if not unsustainable, health care cost increases. If their programs can't contain it, Obamacare can't either. (Particularly since Obamacare seems aimed primarily at HI, not HC costs themselves.)

Generally costs decrease as supply outpaces demand. Obamacare can be expected to do the opposite - increase demand but not supply (if proponents are correct). Aside from inflation, rationing seems most likely. If wait times for care etc increases, will you blame Obamacare?

Edit: Deflation in costs seems far more likely from other factors such as depressed economic conditions.

Fern

So in other words you want to count changes in costs against the law, but only if doing so would be a negative for it. Hopefully you can see how absurd that is, as is attempting to discount lower cost trajectories due to a supply demand curve in am intensely regulated market.

All countries are seeing high health inflation, however the more government controlled ones are generally controlling it better.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
All countries are seeing high health inflation, however the more government controlled ones are generally controlling it better.
Maybe the fact that insurance is required to cover everything has to do something with it as well as the fact that drugs are patented here while they're price-fixed elsewhere. Cash-only practices are discouraged because of the govt mandating insurance cover everything.

Also, the fact that M.D.s have monopolies on certain things doesn't help either. It costs money to obtain a prescription for things that should be over the counter.

Keynesians have been wrong about everything and Obama has said that the purpose of the ACA was to raise health care costs. Then we go to single payer and that will only increase costs even more (or physicians simply won't accept it). Pure Socialism (like the Veterans' system) or anarcho-capitalism are the only two systems that meet the goal of containing costs.

In other words, I really think that more public-private partnerships/bureaucrazy are just going to do what they've always done... raise costs.
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
So presumably if health care inflation continues at a slower pace than it did before passage of the ACA you will be deducting that from the cost, right?


How much if any credit do you grant the recession for putting downward pressure on growth of health insurance costs?

Edit: I see Fern already touched on this.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
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.

where do you get your 2/3 figure?