An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly

[epiktetos]

WTF does it matter what the initial assumption was???!? The final price tag came to 410 billion that was the ACTUAL COST.

Because Republicans passed the bill based on the initial assumption, they didn't care that nearly a trillion dollar would be added to the debt because of it.

Secondly i posted the CBO's actual numbers which show the net cost will be 1.25 trillion over 8 years which means a 10 year projection will easily have it at 1.5. Keep in mind the fact that this pricetag has already doubled from the original numbers Obama and company gave, so it will likely come in much higher once it is implemented.

Two problems with your argument.

First, you posted COSTS while ignoring OFFSETS that would pay for the increased costs.

Second, the pricetag didn't double, the budget window shifted. Earlier window included the time period when the law wasn't in full effect i.e. until 2014.

From the CBO

"The increase owes almost entirely to the shift in the budget window; as you can see in the figure below, the revisions in any single year are quite small. Over the eight-year period (2012-2019) that is common to our original analysis and the most recent one, the net cost of the coverage provisions is now 2 percent higher than CBO and JCT estimated in March 2010.

According to our latest comprehensive estimate of the legislation, the net effect of changes in direct spending and revenues is a reduction in budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021period. "

Do you not understand how ridiculous your argument that Obamacare will save us money is? Tell me something just humour me for one second. Answer 1 simple question.

I am basing it on facts, you are basing it on assumptions based on faulty reading of the CBO report.

Do you actually believe the cost of healthcare is going to go DOWN drastically once the government starts subsidizing people, and we add 50 million new people to the roles?

Yes, because it forces HEALTHY people to contribute and everyone is in the same pool. Right now, people put off buying insurance and when they get sick, either go to the emergency room pushing up costs for everyone or rely on government services like Medicaid. As Romney showed in MA, the reforms can bend cost curves with sensible market based reforms.

 

[Max E.]

WTF are you talking about? Only 410 Bilion over 10 years was added to the deficit that was the actual cost, the initial assumption was 650 billion.... thats a long ways from a trillion.....

Quote from epiktetos:

Because Republicans passed the bill based on the initial assumption, they didn't care that nearly a trillion dollar would be added to the debt because of it.

 

[Max E.]

Ok, this is my last post to you, your shilling has hit epic proportions.....

Here it is right from Obamas mouth that it would only cost us 900 billion, and that was gross numbers, now it is going to cost us 1.7 trillion and this is only on an 8 year gross cost actual 10 year gross will be 2.5 trillion thats 3 times the cost he initially proposed.... I cant even believe that you would defend this shit.... The bottom line is that the Net cost will be atleast 150 billion per year when its all said and done, and thats if we go by the assumption that the government does this efficiently....Given the fact that his original numbers were a complete fabrication why would anyone in their right mind trust him this time?

Do you not think that Obama was intentionally misleading people with the initial cost that was only 6 years, which he counted as 10?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6zkh01AXKqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is the CBO's Numbers, Note the "Net Cost"

Quote from epiktetos:



Two problems with your argument.

First, you posted COSTS while ignoring OFFSETS that would pay for the increased costs.

Second, the pricetag didn't double, the budget window shifted. Earlier window included the time period when the law wasn't in full effect i.e. until 2014.

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

WTF are you talking about? Only 410 Bilion over 10 years was added to the deficit that was the actual cost, the initial assumption was 650 billion.... thats a long ways from a trillion.....

The actual cost is lower because a lot less people signed up for it, the initial cost was projected to be much higher when the program passed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Ok, this is my last post to you, your shilling has hit epic proportions.....

Says the guy who never ONCE addressed the issue of deficit caused by Obamacare, you keep talking costs which you are completely wrong about too.

Quote from Max E. Pad:
Here it is right from Obamas mouth that it would only cost us 900 billion, and that was gross numbers, now it is going to cost us 1.7 trillion and this is only on an 8 year gross cost actual 10 year gross will be 2.5 trillion thats 3 times the cost he initially proposed.... I cant even believe that you would defend this shit.... The bottom line is that the Net cost will be atleast 150 billion per year when its all said and done, and thats if we go by the assumption that the government does this efficiently....Given the fact that his original numbers were a complete fabrication why would anyone in their right mind trust him this time?

And what? He is talking about the budget window between 2010 to 2020 of which 4 years included only partial costs since the law goes fully into effect only in 2014. Why is this so complicated to understand? The current costs are LOWER than projected earlier while you are arguing the opposite.

I can't believe you are blabbering about something you have absolutely NO idea about. How many times do I have to post the CBO report again? Can you even read?

Here is some basic reading material before you embarass yourself further.


The estimated net costs of expanding healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's landmark restructuring have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed on Tuesday.


By reducing the estimated net 2012-2021 costs to $1.083 trillion from $1.131 trillion a year ago, the CBO report could help Democrats blunt some of the criticism over the high costs of extending coverage to some 47 million uninsured Americans, as they try to tout savings elsewhere in the law.

These cost reductions are largely due to lower estimates for subsidies and tax credits associated with the law's planned insurance exchanges for individual coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/usa-budget-deficit-idUSL2E8EDJ0I20120314

Congressional economists are estimating somewhat lower costs for covering the uninsured under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, as well as slightly fewer people gaining coverage.

Assuming the Supreme Court does not overturn the law, the Congressional Budget Office would reduce the number of uninsured by 30 million in 2016, or 2 million fewer people than estimated last year. Total costs from 2012-2021 are about $50 billion lower than estimated last year. That's due to a combination of factors, including overall health care costs rising more slowly than in the recent past

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57397032/cbo-lowers-health-reform-cost-estimate/


If CBO had truly determined that health care reform's cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion -- the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It's only slightly more money than the previous year's outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don't start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-fox

Clear enough? This is why you shouldn't read Conservative blogs, they lie about even the most basic facts.

Quote from Max E. Pad:Do you not think that Obama was intentionally misleading people with the initial cost that was only 6 years, which he counted as 10?

For the last time, he was talking about 10 years as well but from the year 2010 to 2020. Now the budget window has shifted from 2012 to 2022 which is why the cost projections have increased since the law goes into full effect in 2014 when all the major spending items kick in.

Quote from Max E. Pad:This is the CBO's Numbers, Note the "Net Cost"

Thanks for stating the obvious, now why don't you point out the deficit numbers or even the budgetary offsets. Why do you keep ignoring those bits. Between, did you notice the part where it says "11 year total"

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Do you not think that Obama was intentionally misleading people with the initial cost that was only 6 years, which he counted as 10?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6zkh01AXKqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is the CBO's Numbers, Note the "Net Cost"

[/B]

Your chart backs up exactly what Obama said!

Let's do some basic math based on your table.

From 2010 to 2020, the cost is indeed 900 trillion or so. Just add up the cost numbers from Fy 2010 to FY 2020

Now change that window and use FY 2011 to FY 2022 (11 year as your table says and NOT 10), add up the numbers and see what that gives you.

 

[Max E.]

Do you see that chart right above you? That is the CBO's actual numbers to 2022, right from their site..... the reason i said it was only 8 years of spending is because nothing kicks in until 2014, and in 2014, its only half the spending of the subsequent years....2012, and 2013 cost nothing cause nothing kicks in until then......if the net cost from 2014-2022(8 years) is 1.25 trillion what do you think the net cost will be on an actual 10 year basis its simple fucking math.... it will easily cost 1.5 trillion for 10 years at that point...... take 1.2 divide it by 8 and you have 1.5 per year..... now times that by 10 and you have 150 billion per year..... You get it?

Quote from epiktetos:



By reducing the estimated net 2012-2021 costs to $1.083 trillion from $1.131 trillion a year ago, the CBO report could help Democrats blunt some of the criticism over the high costs of extending coverage to some 47 million uninsured Americans, as they try to tout savings elsewhere in the law.

[/B]

 

[Max E.]

I never denied that i simply said that it was twice the number the dems were initially trying to sell to the public, because Obama dishonestly did a 10 year projection based on 6 years of spending..... you get it? You really think that was an accident on his part?

What would you have said about Bush if he tried to show the public the cost of the Iraq war and he did a 10 year estimate of the Iraq war starting from 1999? Do you think that would have been just a little bit disingenous?

Quote from epiktetos:

Your chart backs up exactly what Obama said!

Let's do some basic math based on your table.

From 2010 to 2020, the cost is indeed 900 trillion or so. Just add up the cost numbers from Fy 2010 to FY 2020

Now change that window and use FY 2011 to FY 2022 (11 year as your table says and NOT 10), add up the numbers and see what that gives you.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Ok, this is my last post to you, your shilling has hit epic proportions.....

He went 10 months without posting, now that Odumbo may be in trouble.
He shows up touting all things Obama.

 

[Ricter]

I thought this debate must have ballooned overnight due to the excellent rebuttal I read in, curiously, Huffington Post, which I think does Obama's discretionary spending calculations a bit more fairly. However, at the end of the article and recalculations, Obama still comes up as not a very big spender, at least not yet. Assuming that Obamacare's net costs land on the budget years in the future, then they will, to be fair, "belong" to the president of that time since, as we've been told in this thread, Obama "owns" the deficits that Bush set in motion (because Obama could have "let" the tax cuts expire, etc. - lol).