Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Just a little off on the numbers.

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Wed, Mar 14, 12 at 18:48

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Who's numbers? Brian Koenig's numbers? Hysterical.

TheNewAmerican.com
DailyCaller.com
RealClearPolitics.com
AmericanThinker.com


-Ron-


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Try CBO Ron....you know how to google if you don't like my link?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

This story comes from the Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world�s most popular websites.
Do you have a story to tell? Become a Yahoo! contributor

Mrs, did you see that wording at the top of your yahoo post?

if you want to learn about something the CBO did, why no just go straight to their website? That way you can avoid some of the "unique perspectives "(which in this case are flat out wrong) that anonymous writers have.

Here is the link. Your guy left out quite a bit...including the tiny little fact that the estimates are NOT for 10 yrs, they are for 11. Enjoy.

Here is a link that might be useful: The facts


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

What is this guy's estimate on 11 more years of defense spending?

You know, just to compare.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Oh I'm sure the numbers will be way off eventually just like that popular war after all the privateers sucked on it with their no bid contracts. That Rumsfeld speech was one of the best things ever. Funny thing about these figures being off it's due a lot o decreased salaries & revenues from those decreased salaries. Ah well Still waiting for a response to Krugmans article on fiscal phonies I link it again to make this fair and balanced.
This is sort of like that Financial Koan show me the figures of the budget in 2014 before the opposition screws it over.
Refutation is in order all around here unless your just interested in gotcha budgetary games. Next year I'm sure it will be even lousier figures.

Here is a link that might be useful: Krugman


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Why am I not surprised that the link wasn't to a reputable news source?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

could it be because it's just the same old, same old pattern and we've seen it before far too many times to be surprised by it?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

it was a reputable link, nancy....yahoo...

yahoo, which clearly identifies itself as ONLY a conduit. and they didn't even bury their role in the small print!


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

This is really very funny!

Hey, MrsK, were you the anonymous contributor that wrote that? Did you really think you'd get that by the people on this forum? Really?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Ridiculous. The difference in estimates is mostly book keeping in that it reflects the addition of a group of people whose income would have ordinarily qualified them for Medicaid. Those people will now get their insurance from the free market exchanges that Obamacare sets up and will qualify for subsidies (rather than having their care paid for by the Gov't under Medicaid). The added cost of the subsidies (under Obamacare) is MORE THAN offset by the savings in Medicaid which is projected to save TWICE the cost of the added subsidies.

Once again, thank you Mrskjun for bringing this topic up so the truth can come out about the SAVINGS that the Affordable Care Act will bring while it improves the quality of our healthcare. You did a great public service in letting me debunk that silly GOP talking point.

After the Affordable Care Act became law, the administration became aware of glitch in the law: Some working- and middle-class people, making up to four times the poverty rate, could have qualified for Medicaid. That was never the law's intent, because Medicaid is a program for low-income Americans. The glitch, if left in place, would have increased the law's cost overall.

Congress responded by amending the law, to redefine who would be eligible for Medicaid. Republicans know all about this, since many of them voted for the fix. As a result, some people who would have gotten their insurance through Medicaid will now get their health insurance through the new exchanges. They will also be eligible for subsidies, depending on their incomes. That makes the overall cost of subsidies a lot higher. Throw in some changes in economic forecasting, and you get that extra $111 billion in subsidies.

But that's only half the story! The cost of subsidies has gone up, because more people will be getting insurance through the exchanges. But the cost of Medicaid has gone down, because, among other things, fewer people will be getting coverage through that program. Overall, the administration now projects the ten-year Medicaid cost to decline by $272 billion.

So, yes, it now looks like we're going to spend more money to give people private insurance through Obamacare. But it also looks like we're going to spend less money to give people Medicaid through Obamacare. In fact, we'll be spending less in additional subsidies than we'll be saving in forgone Medicaid, which means - just looking at these two moving pieces the overall cost of Obamacare is, if anything, lower than it seemed a year ago.

Here is a link that might be useful: GOP gets the numbers wrong AGAIN


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

I predict a (drop subject start) brand new thread.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office..."

Surprise surprise! Conservatives saw this "miscalculation" coming from a mile away.

The good news is that those costs go out the window and we can start over, if the SCOTUS throws out Obamacare, and the American people throw out Obama.

Our problem is that we are an extraordinary nation, but our leadership is not.

With respectful leadership that is willing to listen to them, Americans can go back the the drawing board. Everybody knows we can do better on healthcare...and everything else. The only thing we lack is the leadership to take us there. For now.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

With respectful leadership that is willing to listen to them

Slam.

The only thing we lack is the leadership to take us there.

Slam again.

But you're wrong in thinking that Americans weren't listened to. You just happen to disagree with the Americans that he listened to.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

According to all the polls since he signed it esh, the only people he has listened to are democrats. Overwhelmingly, republicans and independents are against it.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Unbelievable, you just ignore facts. Especially you Mrskjun considering your family risk factors and need for preventive services - something we lose if Obamacare is abolished. If you want to put politics before your family's health then its pointless to debate this any longer.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Every so often I do a phrase search on google for some repeated and egregiously partisan comments that appear in HT. You would be surprised at the number of exact quotes that are posted here (without attribution) and their clones in the blogosphere.

I report; you decide.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Aren't you a smoker mrskjun?
Anyway, whether you smoke or have family risk factors that someone mentioned you might have, you and others with those possible health concerns should embrace the Aff HC Act.
You never know, it might end up saving you or someone in your family a lot of money one day.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Overwhelmingly, republicans and independents are against it.

Only because Obama is for it. They would have loved it if Romney or Gingrich proposed it, like they both have in the past.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

None of these tirades about Obamacare ever point out any alternatives.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

None of these tirades about Obamacare ever point out any facts.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Overwhelmingly, republicans and independents are against it.

Well the ones that already have good insurance and no pre-existing conditions, that is. "I got mine, you figure out yours on your own."


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Overwhelmingly, republicans and independents are against it.

actually, when 'Obamacare' is broken down into specific elements, there is rather wide spread agreement on almost all of the aspects of the program.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"None of these tirades about Obamacare ever point out any facts."

Funny how that works, isn't it?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Overwhelmingly, republicans and independents are against it.

from link:
The poll also sought opinions of the health-care law. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said it should be repealed, the same percentage as the first time Bloomberg asked the question in July 2010. Eleven percent said it should be left alone, the smallest percentage in the four polls during which the question has been asked. Just under half, 46 percent, said the law "may need small modifications, but we should see how it works."
--------------------

11% said leave it alone
46% said let's see how it works and then make necessary changes

That's a total of 57% not wanting to repeal it, and 37% wanting to repeal it.

Doesn't sound so overwhelming to me.

Here is a link that might be useful: Not so overwhelming


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Well it needs to come back as the McConnell plan which will be only different in where the put the periods. Then the hop skip & jump crowd will say oh & that is so much better.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"But you're wrong in thinking that Americans weren't listened to. You just happen to disagree with the Americans that he listened to."

You got it. Democrats listened to each other and passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote. See what it got for them? They lost the House. And the SCOTUS is going to decide if it's even constitutional.

The best thing we have going for us as a nation is that the American people get to decide whether they want four more years of despair and decline for the USA, or a fresh start.

I think new leadership and new health care legislation would go a long way toward putting us on track to a brighter future. It's still out there, but we won't get there with Obama. Got my fingers crossed the electorate has had enough Hope and Change for a long, long time.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

I think new leadership and new health care legislation would go a long way toward putting us on track to a brighter future.

Why don't you tell us what you would do different in your version of health care legislation? And why you think it would be better than what Obama did.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

I think you will be disappointed nik. Obamacare will very likely be upheld.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Nik reminds me of Bagdad Bob pronouncing the end of the American army in Iraq.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"I think you will be disappointed nik. Obamacare will very likely be upheld."

You could be right. The American people won't be happy, but who cares?

"Nik reminds me of Bagdad Bob pronouncing the end of the American army in Iraq."

Nah. It's up to the American people to pronounce the end of Obama's presidency. They'll let us know if they've had enough. Works just fine for me.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Yet you continue to pretend to speak for a nation with absurd statements and grandiose pronouncements that ignore facts and belie your actual numbers - sounds like Bagdad Bob to me.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Just spewed my wine!

You really should try reading the news instead of partisan blogs and passing them off as news.

You have no credibility.

Here is a link that might be useful: Hopelessly partisan


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

The best thing we have going for us as a nation is that the American people get to decide whether they want four more years of despair and decline for the USA, or a fresh start.

If you think that anything the Republicans have to offer is a "fresh start", you really have got your blinders on.

despair and decline for the USA - that's what Republican leadership will bring!


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

The writing on the wall couldn't be clearer, Esh, but some can't bring themselves to admit it. Republicans haven't offered us anything except more economic and environmental ruin, and more personally intrusive government, which will grow said government.

I couldn't even hold my nose and vote for any one of this round's Republicans. I have to vote Democrat.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"If you think that anything the Republicans have to offer is a "fresh start", you really have got your blinders on."

I do think "fresh start" has a nice ring to it, but what I think doesn't much matter.

It only matters what America thinks, and that works for me. How about you?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Works for me, Nik.

We have seen what people other than myself thought, and what it hath wrought.

If they want four more years of what we've had and Obamacare in our future, then it looks like we'll get it.

I'm not so sure that everyone that voted for Obama in the last election will vote for him again; I doubt many that voted for McCain and Palin will vote for Obama this time around. So it becomes a matter of numbers.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

I believe that Independents generally have the largest impact on outcomes.

While I think Mitt Romney could grab a significant number of Independents I think a Santorum candidacy will drive them away in droves.

Whatever it is, it will be what the American people decide it will be both through their efforts leading up to the election and through the votes the cast...or don't.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Kudos, Nik, Demi, and Chase! Voices of reason--thank you for that (sincerely)~~


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Elvis,to be clear, my comments only align as it relates to the American people deciding. I don't agree with either of these folks as it relates to President Obama's presidency.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

That's cool, Chase.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

One would think that nobody could argue with the fact that it is the American people that decide who the next President will be. I mean, that's (part of) what a democracy is, right?

Except that the GOP is always trying to limit the rights of minorities to vote. Minorities are Americans, you know.

And, let's not forget that in 2000, it was SCOTUS that decided.

Here's hoping that none of that comes into play this time around and there is a clear winner. Just like 4 years ago.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

I think Mitt Romney could grab a significant number of Independents

You hope, Chase...you hope...


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

No I don't Heri but you can't to seem to keep my politics straight.

I hope that President Obama is reelected and I hope it is with a strong mandate. That said, I am not so stupid as to not see that there others who hold a different view.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Me, for instance. I had high hopes for Obama; why wouldn't everyone?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 17, 12 at 17:15

Obama still has some hope left in him and the change is just starting to kick in. If by Nov the choice is between him and the one of the 3 Stooges or Shemp then the choice is clear.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"I'm not so sure that everyone that voted for Obama in the last election will vote for him again;"

Ya THINK? LOL! That hopey changey stuff doesn't look all that appetizing three years later.

"Except that the GOP is always trying to limit the rights of minorities to vote. Minorities are Americans, you know."

No, all minorities are NOT Americans. All minorities who live here are NOT citizens. Look it up.

Where did you get the idea there is a "minority right" to vote? The right to vote comes with American citizenship. Minority status has nothing to do with it. Look it up.

This is America. Citizens elect their own leaders. Non-citizens have no role to play in voting for our president.
Look it up.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

What a bizarre twist of a post Nik and you actually document the original words in your post just to show us how loopy your interpretation is - LOL. You know the numbers actually show FEWER people voting in Republican primaries, LOWER approval ratings for the Republican candidates among core Republicans, LOWER approval rating for Republicans among hispanics, LOWER approval ratings for Republicans among blacks, LOWER approval ratings for Republicans among women even Republican women. I know it will probably be a close election in the fall, but you certainly have no basis for doing a premature victory dance. Your numbers look atrocious - your party's platform is basically resentment, fear, and loathing.


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

Which party's platform is "basically resentment, fear, and loathing?" I hope that is not what you are feeling. What purpose does making a remark like that serve?


 o
RE: Just a little off on the numbers.

"Except that the GOP is always trying to limit the rights of minorities to vote. Minorities are Americans, you know."

No, all minorities are NOT Americans. All minorities who live here are NOT citizens. Look it up.

Where did you get the idea there is a "minority right" to vote? The right to vote comes with American citizenship. Minority status has nothing to do with it. Look it up.

This is America. Citizens elect their own leaders. Non-citizens have no role to play in voting for our president.
Look it up.

Um, where exactly did I say ALL minorities are citizens? What a ridiculous statement. There are, however, a lot of minorities that are citizens, and the right wing should stop trying to keep them from voting.

And where exactly did I say that there is a "minority right to vote"? Where did you get the idea that I had that idea? Some right wingers act like ALL minorities are NOT citizens.

You are right about one thing -- minority status has nothing to do with is. Therefore, the GOP should stop trying to prevent them from voting.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here