Add ObamaCare to the long list of federal government programs whose rosy initial cost projections become far less clear the longer the programs are in place.
There was never any sound reason to think that ObamaCare could bring tens of millions of Americans onto government health care without making costs go up.
And now, those high-dollar fears are looking increasingly justified.
The expected cost of ObamaCare's attempt to make medical coverage more "affordable" by providing subsidies to some middle-class Americans, starting in 2014, has suddenly and massively risen.
How massively?
Well, the budget put forth last year guesstimated that the subsidies in question would cost $367 billion from 2014 through 2021. That's a lot of money, but hold on to your hats: This year's budget puts the cost of those very same subsidies at a newly "adjusted" $478 billion for the same time period!
What accounts for that $111 billion gap? "Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities ...," The Associated Press reported.
Those are some awfully big technicalities, wouldn't you say?
The Obama administration says most of the mammoth difference came from a recently enacted law that closed a loophole that might have let some people get almost free coverage. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that legislation shouldn't have the cost effect that the administration is claiming. So the real cause of the change in the subsidy cost is murky at best.
And remember, these subsidies are only one part of ObamaCare. Don't you get the distinct feeling that this is just one of many big-cost "surprises" ObamaCare is going to be imposing over the coming years as its burdensome provisions take effect and federal and state bureaucrats, insurers and ordinary people begin trying to figure out its thousands of pages of regulations?
And don't you suspect that if supporters of unpopular ObamaCare had leveled with the American people early about its true costs and its potential to do grave harm to our economy, it might never have become law?
This was a fascinating editorial until I tried checking for accuracy. Does the nonpartisan CBO make an issue of this? No. Does the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan organization which focuses on reducing the deficit, even mention it in a press release? No. In fact, you would be hard put to find any mention of it at all except from those who do not want the Affordable Healthcare Act to succeed. It is just malicious interpretation not factual irresponsibility.
Those who really care about fixing problems in our country know that naysayers and spin doctors spreading hate and fear don't help anyone. They are disloyal to their congressional peers who passed the legislation, the President who signed it, and the basic responsibility to pass better legislation if they don't like it. The Congressional Affordable Health Care Act is a major piece of legislation spreading out the responsiblities for the solution, end of story. Those who do not wish to be part of the solution simply gripe, obstruct, and try to destroy.
I'm curious why the Free Press, so steeped in the liquor of "small government mania" and getting the government "out of our business" and ranting endlessly (and obnoxiously) about how President Obama wants more and more government intrusion in our lives cannot suck it up and summon the gumption to write a single line to say these Republican cranks forcing women to undergo governmemt mandated, medically unnecessary invasion of their genitals are misogynistic fascists and do not represent any but a small, theocratic slice of their constituency. HEY EDITOR - YOUR SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE IS BROADCASTING YOUR HYPOCRISY TO THE WORLD. IF YOU BELIEVED IN FREEDOM AND SMALLER GOVERNMENT, YOU WOULD BE WRITING ON THIS EVERY EFFIN DAY.
478 billion dollars to get what? Health care for how many tens of millions of people?
What value do you put on the lives saved? Have you ever offered us the level truth about the benefits of the health care reform law?
Or do you think the people being sick would have no costs? Will they just die quickly? Will those health providers who do treat them not charge you more to pay for those who can't?
But tell you what, why don't you bring up your editorials where you complained about bad Republican cost estimates?
The Right's war on the Affordable Care Act, never mentions a viable alternative. Prior to the law there were 45 million citizens without access to health care. A Harvard study revealed that nearly 40,000 citizens die annually because they do not have the means to pay for doctors visits, prescription drugs or needed treatments. Revoking the law without a replacement will return us to that disgraceful situation.
Republican candidates for president offer as a solution "turning it over to the states" Like that's some sort of magic bullet that addresses the problem. How can states, many of which are already suffering severe fiscal problems, come up with the funds to take on health care? Yet they talk like this is a free solution.
We live in the greatest country in the world. We spend 10 times more on defense then the next industrialized country (China) yet we have one of the two major political parties unconcerned about making sure all citizens have access to health care. It's really incredible when you think about it.
Did I miss the 2002 editorial entitled "Iraq War costs estimates off by 1.8 trillion." There is just as much reason in 2012 to believe that the Affordable Care Act will be as expensive as some think, as to believe in 2002 that the Iraq war would be as inexpensive as the Bush administration claimed ($100 billion versus today’s estimate of at least $ 1.9 trillion).
However, the Affordable Care Act at least has the potential of providing less expensive and better health care access for all Americans but decreasing the profits of the health insurance industry while the invasion of Iraq guaranteed death and destruction for Iraqis and the soldiers sent to their country while vastly increasing the profits of defense contractors. It's obvious on which kind of policy this conservative writer and those he fronts for prefer to gamble our lives and money.
dfclapp ,thanks! You saved me a lot of typing.
Or login with:
New Account