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
Threaded Mode
