Your cost claims are bogus. Here is the slight of hand that the Repubs are playing. The 900 billion estimate was for the 10 year period from 2009 to 2019 and since the first few years of that period only a few of the features were enacted costs were low. This goes from 2012 to 2022, The Repubs are using this sliding window effect to create a false impression. Not only that they are giving a bad figure, the figure the CBO actally reports is $1.496 trillion. Nor does the report factor in the budgetary impacts of the various unimplemented budget provisions which will actually bring down the deficits when they are implemented in 2014. In fact the CBO still states that the law will bring down the deficit by billions of dollars over the period, they just don't do it in this report. Here is the actual CBO report. We have 50+ million people in this nation who make to much to qualify for medicaid or free clinics, but don't make enough pay for even minimal hospitalization policies with very high deductibles. Before we married 10 years ago, my wife had one of those, she paid $200 per month for a policy that didn't cover anything but hospitalization after the first $5,000 deductible. It only paid the hospital, not the doctor's etc. It had a cap of $150,000. At the time he was making less than $24,000 per year (HVAC field Tech). Most of the other techs at that company had no coverage whatsoever, the owner was covered by his wifes coverage provided by a large corporation) On her income at that time, that was the best she could afford. It was crap insurance, and had she had a serious illness, it would have burned through in a few weeks. I have seen nothing proposed by the Republicans that would do anything to help these people get coverage. Their most often offered solution is to allow people to buy across state lines, the problem with this is that insurer's will do exactly what the credit card companies did when federal usery laws were repealed in the late 60's and early '70's, they will incorporate in those states where the legal protections for consumers are weakest, and the legal protections for the lenders are the strongest, a complete race to the bottom. My own state was one of them, and we have attracted great business to our state, but if you have one of these credit cards in your pocket and you run into problems, you're pretty much screwed, since our state laws offer you no protection at all. The same thing will happen with health insurance, it's how the insurance companies will maximize their profit. Another common idea are insurance pools for those with pre-existing conditions. Good idea if properly subsidized, but nowhere where they have been implemented are the properly subsidized. Either the cost is still to high for many of those who need such help, or there are years long waiting lists to get into the programs. The real irony of all of this, is that the AHA, as implemented is almost exactly the same plan that was proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as a counter to HillaryCare. Now here is my alternative for those who don't want to be forced to purchase coverage. They can provide proof to the hospitals and ambulance services in their communities that the have the werewithal to pay for any and all treatment they might receive before they receive it, or the hospital and doctors are under no obligation to provide any care gratis to them at all for any reason. Our local hospital had to provide nearly $25 million in uncompensated emergency room care last year, that cost was passed on to those who were able to pay and those who have insurance in higher premiums. The mandate is designed to get rid of that free-rider problem.
Sorry to break this to you but the 900 billion number came from the CBO and the dems knew it would not pass if it went over a tilklion so they fixed the books to make it look good. The new number is also from the non partisan CBO.
"""Life is a matter of Cash"""?? Tell us, Io, what are you smoking these days. In this state we have State Health Care. It is a States Rights issue, not a federal ISSUE. It is up to each state to decide what THEY want, and what they want to pay for. That's called FREEDOM, unlike where you come from. You talk about having a mater, go look in the mirror, slave.
Then the people can tell the legislature to drop it or we will drop them. Since the majority of Americans are against Obama Care I believe we would see it dropped.
Cur, the government has ALREADY said it will cost 1.73 trillion in the first ten years, up from the 9 billion Obama quoted and it hasn't even gone into effect yet. And, Cur, these are NOT Republican figures, they are the Governments, go look them up. And your 50+ million is what is bogus. 20+ million of those are illegals and deserve nothing. 19 million are 30 and under and make 50,000 a year but don't want to put out the money. 10 million are coverd by welfare.
A little follow up for you, Cur; http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/c...-health-care-program-balloon-by-1-7-trillion/ http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...s-its-obamacare-medicaid-cost-estimate/425966 So the Conservitive out look is correct and your liberal one is the one that's wrong. With that in mind I will post this also; http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/03/cbo-obamacare-will-cost-more-money-insure-less-people/ Just as I said.
And unlike you I keep looking; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-obama-budget-produces-2013-201118642.html Over the coming decade, CBO says Obama's policies would result in deficits totaling $6.4 trillion. Deficits would be even higher were it not for Obama's proposals to raise taxes on higher-income people http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120317/NATION/203170334/1020/rss09 Over the coming decade, CBO says Obama's policies would result in deficits totaling $6.4 trillion. Deficits would be even higher were it not for Obama's proposals to raise taxes on higher-income people. The White House seized on the figures as validation of its claims that Obama's budget brings the deficit under control at least when measured against the economy, the measure used by most economistst. for all our sakes I hope the USSC throws this piece of garbage on the trash heap.
citing ultra-right wing propaganda outlets is not evidence. here are some sources that disagree with those you cite http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57397032/cbo-lowers-health-reform-cost-estimate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ce-their-latest-effort-to-mislead-the-public/
FTA: Still doesn't change the fact that Obama and the Dems sold it to the public as costing 900 billion which was never true to begin with. You can see that they used the years that it would not be in effect to falsify the number.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/david...as-health-care-duplicity-no-longer-debatable/ http://news.yahoo.com/video/politic...-costs-of-obama-health-care-law-28613828.html http://www.thereporteronline.com/ar...e-real-(high)-cost-of-obama-s-health-care-act
They didn't lie because when it was being sold, the numbers were correct, just like they are today. And if the CBO projections aren't taking into account measures that would reduce the cost and the deficit that haven't been enacted yet, the report is effectively inconclusive.
The reason they were false is that they double counted some savings and used a savings of 500 billion cutting back on Medicare, something that won't happen and another program that is in trouble. I will not be surprised when the final budget numbers for Obamacare more than double what the current estimate is.
If that's what happens, then it is, as long as those numbers are factually correct and not slanted to favor one sides rhetoric over the other. As Lewis Black once said "Democrats have one set of facts, Republicans have another set of facts. Well, there has to be some FACT FACTS!"
