Obama Care Pricetag

scotty · #1 03-15-2012, 05:58 AM

New CBO health law estimate shows much higher spending past first 10 years

"The bill spends more than the president promised, it covers fewer people -- probably 2 million fewer people -- and it taxes more than was expected," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee.

Cost more, covers less, raises taxes.

Sessions notes that the $1.76 trillion estimate includes only the costs of coverage, not implementation and other costs.

And we still won't know exactly how high it will go, this is the low estimate.

"If you have a big spending program and you count 10 years of it instead of eight years, you get a much bigger number, which is what we've done.

Glad to see we learned from Clinton. His so called "budget surplus" looked good in the short term, nobody ran the real numbers out. And he, like Obama, was hoping nobody would until he was well out of office.

But one Democratic lawmaker says competition will lower costs.
"There are no public options. There's no big new government health plan being offered. It's all private sector options, and we hope they compete against each other to get prices down," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.

So it's based on the "hope" that the private sector competition lowers prices. When has this ever worked in the world of healthcare? Has it lowered any prices?

The CBO model also assumes that between 3 million and 5 million people will lose health care coverage from their employers and there will be 1 million to 2 million more people who won't qualify for the exchanges but will go on Medicaid instead. In all, some 30 million people will remain without health coverage, according to the estimate.

Look, I am all for healthcare for everyone, but seriously? Sure, who doesn't want to save the world, but who can afford to. Sometimes the phrase " at all cost" is simply irresponsible.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1pBZ1pAKd

Pressing-On · #2 03-15-2012, 06:29 AM

And please support, push and vote for Romney! We want "mandated", "unconstitutional" healthcare coverage!!

Quote:

The answer to controlling health care costs and increasing access to care lies with giving consumers more control over their health care spending while increasing competition in the health care marketplace- not in mandates, subsidies, and regulation. That is the lesson we should be drawing from the failure of RomneyCare.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo...cpr30n1-1.html

bbyrd009 · #3 03-15-2012, 08:39 AM

Or, you could wake up and press "None of the above."

scotty · #4 03-15-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Or, you could wake up and press "None of the above."

If only......

If only that was an option on the ballot.

I truly believe this year that "none of the above" would win the presidency.

Jack Shephard · #5 03-15-2012, 10:22 AM

I've read the whole aritcle. The article never mentioned raising taxes or anything though. Which makes me scratch my head and have questions. I think that taxes will increase big time, but it is not mentioned specifically in the article.

Pressing-On · #6 03-15-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I've read the whole aritcle. The article never mentioned raising taxes or anything though. Which makes me scratch my head and have questions. I think that taxes will increase big time, but it is not mentioned specifically in the article.

March 14, 2012 - 11:00 a.m.

Quote:

Obamacare: Higher Taxes, More Uninsured, Says CBO

...The primary reason for this change is that more individuals will lose their employer-provided coverage than originally anticipated, and the government will collect $99 billion more in taxes and penalties.

...The legislation needs to be repealed before things get any worse.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/14/...ured-says-cbo/

bbyrd009 · #7 03-15-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty

If only......

If only that was an option on the ballot.

I truly believe this year that "none of the above" would win the presidency.

Lol, you know what, i just always assumed that was an option, ever since that movie?

Jack Shephard · #8 03-15-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

March 14, 2012 - 11:00 a.m.

I saw that. But I did not take it as they were raising taxes further than the original plan which is why I was scratching my head. But it doesn't actually say it would raise your taxes, or mine. It could just be from big businesses...but I think it will be us that takes the hit in the long run.

scotty · #9 03-15-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I saw that. But I did not take it as they were raising taxes further than the original plan which is why I was scratching my head. But it doesn't actually say it would raise your taxes, or mine. It could just be from big businesses...but I think it will be us that takes the hit in the long run.

They will have to raise our taxes, there is no other way to fund it.

They tout the penalty income, but I don't think that will be enough and here is why.

Can you imagine the run on hospitals and doctors once it takes affect that healthcare is free? Think about all the pain pill poppers that will be going every 2 weeks cause their back hurts. All the ones who have minor illnesses that can be taken care of with over the counter meds that will now go to dr's because its free. And these will be the citizens that don't pay taxes anyway, most wont even have a job. Yes, I'm talkin about the welfare riders of our society.

Only now, dr's and hospitals wont turn them away because its garranteed money in their pocket.

Jack Shephard · #10 03-15-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty

They will have to raise our taxes, there is no other way to fund it.

They tout the penalty income, but I don't think that will be enough and here is why.

Can you imagine the run on hospitals and doctors once it takes affect that healthcare is free? Think about all the pain pill poppers that will be going every 2 weeks cause their back hurts. All the ones who have minor illnesses that can be taken care of with over the counter meds that will now go to dr's because its free. And these will be the citizens that don't pay taxes anyway, most wont even have a job. Yes, I'm talkin about the welfare riders of our society.

Only now, dr's and hospitals wont turn them away because its garranteed money in their pocket.

I agree with you. But the article doesn't really mention that. I would have thoguht that Fox would have hammered on that. They are afterall very conservative.