Obamacare cost to be 20% less than forecast, budget office says

I agree

You guys are as dishonest as they come.....

Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think runs high risk pools.......

Is ignorance really bliss?

 

What do you call the group of people running your state right now?

 

Only the government can run high-risk pools. That's the whole point here. And yes. States do have governments. They are the government as well.

 

So you want to pile your ignorance on here.

Please tell me where you intend to move the goalpost next

Since I proved everything you have said wrong......

 

Its a lie.

Obama said it was only gonna cost 900 billion, but the real total is over 2.5 trillion.

 

The point being I guess we'll all have to jump into our time machines and go back to the time when the nascent Obama administration decided that everyone, regardless of level of health care coverage at the time, would all be herded into one giant group and forced into a one size fits all health plan that has turned out to be the worst of all possible fixes for a problem involving a reasonably tiny percentage of the public health care pool (those who could not be covered due to preexisting conditions).

Obama and his Gruberite health care bureaucrats have designed a system that has been like using a high caliber machine gun to remove the rodents inside your home.

I don't know what article you refer to
but a theoretical government sponsored pool would not necessarily be single payer.

 

I'm only asking you questions about your beliefs. Those beliefs apparently include the fact that state programs are not government programs. Just trying to wrap my head around that one. No need to get hostile.

 

I'm wondering the same thing...

- - - Updated - - -

Same here. Not to mention the fact that the Fed would also be involved, according to the article and quote he posted.

 

Great News For Obamacare

Reuters | by David Morgan | Posted: 01/27/2015 8:52 am EST
Excerpts:

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters)- "Obamacare will cost 7 percent less than expected over the next decade for federal subsidies to help lower-income people pay for private health insurance, congressional researchers said on Monday.

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)said insurance coverage would cost $964 billion from 2015 to 2024, $68 billion below its April 2014 projection, due to factors including lower than expected enrollment in federal and state insurance exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act.
.......

Even with slower enrollment in private insurance, CBO said higher-than-expected enrollment in the Medicaid program for the poor would help Obamacare reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 19 million this year and by 24 million to 27 million people each year from 2016 onwards.

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/..._6554174.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
......

IMO: It's all good so far, but a single-payer insurance plan is what is needed after watching the vicious fighting in Congress over what is our first universal medical insurance plan. When we can finance many unnecessary wars, look the other way with government waste, dole out funds for other countries, and watch wholesale corruption in our government, why is it so hard to give American citizens a universal medical insurance plan?

We have seen the congressional republicans' 54 attempts to gut this important medical plan because it will serve as President Obama's single most noteworthy legacy he leaves the American people, and they wanted him to serve only one term which failed...he is serving his second term now and in the last 2 years wants to give all he can to try to bring the American people back from massive obstruction from the republicans in Congress for over 6 years.

American 99%ers are entitled to free government medical insurance from qualified doctors with all benefits the same for everyone. It is time for Congress to stop being partisan toward citizens who have carried the 1%ers for decades, been the sponge and paying off every government failure, every Wall Street misadventure, every war instigated by war-mongers, every car bust, all while being the worst welfare suckers in American history despite their obscene wealth.

It is time now for the government to recognize the great work the 99% of American workers that have been the 'engine' of our commerce, services, builders, entrepreneurship, and made the 1&ers able to hold onto their wealth plus having lower tax rates, subsidies, incentives, and sometimes paying less taxes than an ordinary American worker...sometimes nothing at all.

They have been on social welfare so long it has seemed to be an entitlement which workers now want to take back. What would be better than to have free quality medical insurance as a right for the 99%ers?

 

Without a pro-active and viable and workable "alternative"....

the Republicans CAN NOT "repeal Obamacare". Talk about "buying across state lines" and "health savings accounts" and other "ideas" won't cut it....and the Leadership knows it.

At best, they can try to "tweek" a few things and tell their Base "We're sloooooooooowly fixing Obamacare and removing the most egregious elements".....but tthey can't "repeal" it because they can't come up with a replacement plan that wouldn't throw millions off their insurance but NOT be what the Right now calls "socialism".....it's impossible to do both.

 

At some point they will have to improve payments for people on Medicaid, you raise them to match Medicare, its going to cost more money. The system needs more Medicaid doctors.

 

And here's the good news; they never will replace it with anything better down the road. If they haven't done it by now, they never will. All they can do is demonize it while they come up with nothing. What a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

And there are more medical students in school than at any other time. They'll be along.

 

.....No.....their....wont....

Obamacare has not changed the price of becoming a doctor. If they are to make less, its not going to encourage more to take on the burden of student debt and years of schooling.

 

Those things will actually decrease costs by increasing competition....things that Democrats are either uninterested in or simply do not understand.

It is because they are stupid, just ask Gruber.

 

Liberals will come pay the tribute of blind ignorant support to this thread like a herd of lemmings to the cliffs edge.

Nothing but liberal mathematics fraud pushed by the leader in scams, Huff-N-Puked.

Three of the boards most of loyal minions have already checked in.

Truly remarkable isn't it?

A caste of Amercians so obedient that they would not object to being set on fire should it be Obama holding the match.

 

True they don't have to take patients with Medicaid unless ,likely the situation, they are attending at a hospital or part of a medical group that takes it. Likely some will and many more won't in normal practice.

Unless they increase reimbursements.

For example my MMA plan ,among them all its the same, have no eye specialists and few doctors in other specialties like Pain Management and Neurology. I can usually see one out of network if my PCP pushes hard but its like pulling teeth. If they paid the same rates as Medicare it likely wouldn't be the case more doctors would opt in as would other providers.

 

It's odd that the Right predicted years ago "We MUST get rid of Obamacare before 2014 or it'll be too late"....and they were right. It's too late.

Of course now, rather than admit defeat, they'll say "We MUST get a GOP President in 2016 and we can still totally repeal Obamacare."

One good thing about a GOP President and GOP Congress (if the only thing) in January 2017....would be seeing the hurt and disappointed faces of the GOP Base when they are told

"Uh, look...about that 'totally repealing' Obamacare thing....uh...that's not going to happen. We'll FIX it...we'll REFORM it....we'll introduce some 'free-market ideas' into it....but....uh....no, we won't 'totally repeal it.."

- - - Updated - - -

No, but there's a caste of Americans who hate the President so much that if he cured cancer....they'd accuse him of "Trying to put oncologists out of work!".

 

Anyone think it's just by chance this government subsidy ends just when Obama leaves office?


The White House and other Obamacare enthusiasts believe Americans have learned to love the "Affordable Care Act" imposed by Democrats in December 2010. Unfortunately, for them, Democrats running for office in 2014 are not feeling the love.

In 2010, Republicans gained 62 seats in the House of Representatives and 700 state legislative seats across the country after the partisan bill was passed. Fast-forward to 2014 midterm elections and political analysts are predicting something between another Republican wave election and the House of Representatives gaining five to 10 seats as well as significant gains in the Senate.

However, 2016 could be even worse for Democrats. During the 2016 presidential elections, the bill for Obamacare - a political animal since its inception - comes due. Democrats delayed the costs of Obamacare to insurance companies until January 2017. This means, whomever the Republican 2016 presidential candidate is, he or she will benefit from an extreme jump in the costs of healthcare insurance premiums.

Obamacare, by partisan design, was implemented so the U.S. government (taxpayers) would have to refund insurance companies for any money they lose through 2016. After that, the government subsidies to healthcare insurance companies end, and they will need to make up the difference by increasing insurance premiums or go out of business. Mr. Obama and the Democrats figured they could implement the unpopular law and make people learn to love it by 2014, two years before premium rates surge as government subsidies to insurance companies end. However, as more Americans learn more about the details, the law continues to become more unpopular. http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-subsidies-to-insurance-companies-end-2016

 

Not according to these facts; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/813306 What is needed is for Congress to lift the caps on residency funding. And all this has nothing to do with a lack of enrollees.