The gross costs of the national healthcare law rammed through Congress by President Barack Obama will reach an estimated $1.76 trillion over 10 years – nearly twice the amount originally projected.

The figure, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed on Wednesday, is bound to cause embarrassment to the administration as it comes just as debate on “Obamacare” is starting to heat up again, two weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Cohn: "No, Obamacare's Cost Didn't Just Double." In a March 15 post on The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:


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.

[...]

The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.[The New Republic, 3/15/12]

I listed more than that you just don't want to address them. As I said there are over three million hits for the socialism of obozo on google.

You are already in your socialist utopia. Why does it bother you that Americans don't want a socialist country.

The gross costs of the national healthcare law rammed through Congress by President Barack Obama will reach an estimated $1.76 trillion over 10 years – nearly twice the amount originally projected.

CBO: $940 Billion Health Care Bill Would Trim Deficit Over Next Decade

March 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM EDT

President Obama's health care reform bill would cost $940 billion over ten years and reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the same time period while expanding health insurance coverage to 95 percent of the population, according to an estimate released Thursday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The highly anticipated CBO report could set the stage for a House vote on the bill as early as Sunday. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that President Obama will delay a planned trip to Indonesia yet again in order to be present for the final health care reform negotiations. The president was set to leave Sunday morning on the trip, but he'll now wait until June.

According to the CBO, the final bill would cost $940 billion over ten years, which is more than the original Senate bill would have cost.

And Democratic leaders declared themselves thrilled with the cost estimate.

"We are absolutely giddy over the great news," said party whip Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina.

NEWS UPDATE: As of yesterday, my monthly insurance premium increased by $121, thanks to this so-called "health care reform", which seems to only benefit high-profit hospitals, overpaid doctors, nurses, & everyone else who rapes the system at the expense of the rest of us.

The statement is true. The projections are DOUBLE the original projections touted by the administration 2 years ago. A $940 billion pricetag over 10 years was loudly proclaimed & ramrodded through the media via the White House press room in 2010.

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

Reuters: "The Estimated Costs" Of ACA's Insurance Coverage "Have Been Reduced By $48 Billion Through 2021." From a March 13 Reuters article:


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. [Reuters, 3/13/12]

CBSNews.com: "CBO Lowers Health Reform Cost Estimate." A March 14 CBSNews.com article noted:


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. [CBSNews.com, 3/14/12]

The ACA's (Affordable Care Act) provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period," says the CBO report. "[T]hat amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)

Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then," writes Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner. "Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansion are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

Your "revised" figure represents a figure that is fudged by a budgetary line-item insertion of an ESTIMATED PROJECTED return. Actual upfront cost is $1.76 trillion....at least.

TRANSLATION: You give me (at least)$1.76 trillion over 10 years, , I MAY(or may not) give you back up to $510 billion in small random allotments. Good deal!!!

The occasion for this dust-up is a set of updated cost estimates for the coverage provisions of the health-care law. The new estimates reflect a couple of factors. The Congressional Budget Office lists them:

- An increase of $168 billion in projected outlays for Medicaid and CHIP;

- A decrease of $97 billion in projected costs for exchange subsidies and related spending;

- A decrease of $20 billion in the cost of tax credits for small employers; and

- An additional $99 billion in net deficit reductions from penalty payments, the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other effects on tax revenues and outlays—with most of those effects reflecting changes in revenues.

You’ll notice something about the above list: It appears to add up to a net reduction in the cost of the health-care law. And, sure enough, here’s CBO: “the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate.” You would get the opposite impression reading Ransom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama/

According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama. Romney's slight advantage remains within the poll's margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points.

Remember November 6th is fire the liberals/socialists day.

Still waiting on those examples from one particularily prolific poster by the way.

Lets talk about Mitt Romneys tax returns or lack there of same. How come he was willing to reveal 10 years worth when he was being vetted by McCain back in 2008 and will only release one now?

Got to be something he is hiding something else besides his 15% tax rate which I bet is lower than everyone else on this board.

Indeed ... we're all still waiting!

Does he really think they are impressed with his bank account? They need jobs just as badly as we do and they need answers about immigration ... and he's not supplying answers ... just excuses.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/22/504690/romney-doesnt-dispute-he-helped-send-jobs-overseas-tells-press-to-call-it-offshoring-not-outsourcing/

The Washington Post reported today that Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mitt Romney headed for 15 years, invested extensively in companies that moved jobs overseas to low-wage countries like China. The practice contradicts the rhetoric of candidate Romney, who since announcing his presidential ambitions, has criticized government policies that have led to jobs, particularly those in manufacturing, moving offshore.
Rather than dispute the substance of the article, the Romney campaign has responded to the Post piece by parsing words, claiming that the story is “fundamentally flawed” for not differentiating between the technical definitions of “outsourcing” and “offshoring”:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/22/504690/romney-doesnt-dispute-he-helped-send-jobs-overseas-tells-press-to-call-it-offshoring-not-outsourcing/

The Washington Post reported today that Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mitt Romney headed for 15 years, invested extensively in companies that moved jobs overseas to low-wage countries like China. The practice contradicts the rhetoric of candidate Romney, who since announcing his presidential ambitions, has criticized government policies that have led to jobs, particularly those in manufacturing, moving offshore.
Rather than dispute the substance of the article, the Romney campaign has responded to the Post piece by parsing words, claiming that the story is “fundamentally flawed” for not differentiating between the technical definitions of “outsourcing” and “offshoring”:

You should check a globe.... CHINA is NOT part of NORTH AMERICAN

CANADA, USA AND MEXICO ARE NORTH AMERICAN

NAFTA stands for NORTH AMERICAN TRADE ASSOCIATION.

Let me get this right Clinton opens the door to offshoring by signing NAFTA into law and it is Romney's fault a investment company he owned invested in companies that took advantage of the law Clinton passed.

How did Clinton open the door to off shoring by signing the NAFTA agreement?

The data and summation herein provided seem to indicate a huge success in partner trade between the NAFTA country-members, however, many critics are not so merry-and-jolly about the free trade agreement. Most blames the huge loss of jobs, as U.S. companies outsource and ship jobs to Mexico, Latin America and South East Asia as a result of this liberalized trade agreement. “Debate a decade ago over the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, drew loud warnings that liberalized trade with Mexico would lead to huge job losses in the U.S. Trade with Mexico has soared since NAFTA's debut in 1994, but recent studies have concluded that the U.S. did lose more jobs in various industries than it gained because of the pact” (Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2008).

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: NAFTA, the Good, the Best, and the Ugly for the Americas | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/nafta-good-best-and-ugly-americas#ixzz1zQknIGwX

Maybe he "evolved" you know like Obama allegedly has...