OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

Unless it was all front loaded savings, which ends up costing 50X that in the years beyond 2015, you mean. If that happens, then it's not a cost savings at all, but a cost shift from one administration to another...also known as kicking the can in political circles.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the cost estimate of 2016-2025 released in 2015 is several billion less than the cost estimate of 2016-2025 released in 2009.

[StrangeSox]

Obama in 2009: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

 

The CBO report in 2015: the program is costing 1.99 trillion from 2016-2025. How it that not anymore misleading than the Daily Mail? Obama is telling people, hey don't worry, this is a decent price, 900 billion over the next 10 years. I won't tell you that for the subsequent 10 years it'll be more than double that. Come on.

 

And the war comparisons are irrelevant. If in October 2011 Bush came out and said we need to invade Iraq and it's going to cost us 900 billion over 10 years to do it, and then 5 years later the projections are more than double that, you wouldn't say "oh well all sorts of things happened in the mean time and the President can't set budgets alone!" You'd nail him for misleading the public about a costly and expensive war that was now way off budget and costing us more and more into the future.

 

This wasn't a budget on a pre-existing program. He had to sell the program at a certain cost and it's now more than that. Yes, the Daily Mail was playing some games by going back to his original projection in 2009 and not including the full projection to 2025, but so what? That's what Obama said. I don't think it's taking it out of context anymore than Obama not telling people the costs would keep going up after those first 10 years.

 

You still don't seem to get it.

 

The program is projected to cost less than it did when Obama made his $900B comment. It has not doubled in cost. It is "off-budget," but it's cheaper than anticipated. The estimates of the costs from 2016-2025 were available in 2009, and those estimates were higher than the estimates done recently. Yes, Obama, being a politician, used the first 10 year period that did give a lower headline number, but it wasn't inaccurate. The projected cost for 2010-2019 was $900B. You can make a political argument that he should have instead $X over the first 20 years, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the program actually increased or decreased in cost.

 

That is not the same as what the Daily Mail did. Obama did not say that the program costs from 2016-2025 would be $900B. He was talking about the costs from 2010-2019. It's not about taking his words out of context. This has nothing to do with setting budgets or "things happened in the mean time." It's about comparing program analyses that are fundamentally different. Any PPACA cost estimate that included years before a majority of the PPACA actually kicked in would always be lower than cost estimates over a time period when the PPACA was fully functional. The Daily Mail managed to prove that running a program costs more than not running a program and publish it as a political attack in their news pages. I really don't know how else to explain it. You don't need war comparisons, you can look at any projected cost analysis that starts before a majority of the program's costs kick in versus one that doesn't and it'd be the same bad comparison.

 

edit: actually, it's even worse than that now that I look at Page 1 of the CBO report. It's not even a crappy slight-of-hand, it's a straight-up lie from the Daily Mail.

 

For the years 2010-2019, the original projected cost was $900B. The revised estimate for 2010-2019 is $139 billion, or 20%, less than the original estimates. So Obama said the 2010-2019 costs would be $900B, but they're actually projected to be $761B.

 

The costs of the program, both long-term and short-term, have been revised downward in each new baseline. The Daily Mail is simply flat-out wrong here.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbo...t-AppendixB.pdf

In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $710 billion during fiscal years 2015 through 2019 (the last year of the 10-year projection period used in that estimate). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $571 billion over that same period, a reduction of 20 percent. For 2019, for example, CBO and JCT projected in March 2010 that the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions would have a net federal cost of $172 billion; the current projections show a cost of $132 billion—a reduction of $40 billion, or 23 percent.

Edited January 27, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Why the amount that has come in under budget just before 2019 is almost enough to pay for 1/5 the cost of the F-35.

[Jake]

As a person who hangs out with a few British ex-pats, The Daily Mail has such poor repute in the UK that I can't adequately compare it to an American publication. Something like The Blaze meets the Enquirer

[Iwritecode]

So last year we were getting our insurance through my wife’s job. When I started my new job and wanted to switch over to the insurance offered by them, we found out that her employer was simply paying for a policy through the marketplace for us.

 

It’s through BCBS and the monthly premiums were around $900 but they were only taking about $90 out of each of her checks. So they were obviously paying the difference. We would get the monthly bills from BCBS but when she talked to her HR department they said to simply ignore them.

 

So when I went to do our taxes yesterday it asked me if we had insurance through an employer or through the marketplace. I’m assuming since her employer was paying for 90% of it, I should check “through employer”. When did that it didn’t ask any more questions.

 

When I checked “through the marketplace” it asked for a 1095-A. We did get a 1095-A, but since we didn’t actually pay the entire monthly premium amount ourselves, I don’t think it would be accurate.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm 95% sure you're "through an employer" in that case and won't have anythign else to worry about.

[StrangeSox]

Oral arguments in King v Burwell, the case that could potentially eliminate subsidies for millions of Americans based on a hyper-literal reading of one clause, were held today. Transcript.

 

Notably, Kennedy raised several federalism concerns that indicate how he might rule against the petitioners.

[Soxfest]

I do not know 1 person who's premiums went down under Obamacare who was not on Medicaid to begin with none!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Soxfest

[StrangeSox]

On average, year-over-year premium increases have slowed since the law was passed. The talk was about "bending the cost curve," not pointing it in the other direction. Using some hypothetical numbers to illustrate, before Obamcare policies rose 10% every year, now they rise 7%. So they're lower than they otherwise would have been.

Edited March 4, 2015 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

Oral arguments in King v Burwell, the case that could potentially eliminate subsidies for millions of Americans based on a hyper-literal reading of one clause, were held today. Transcript.

 

Notably, Kennedy raised several federalism concerns that indicate how he might rule against the petitioners.

By hyper-liberal you mean 'correct'. If you mean it, you put it in the law. Maybe if they would have actually, you know, READ the damn bill first, had a lengthy debate on it and stuff instead of ramming down our throats, they might have caught this little 'oversight'. Kennedy's federalism complaints were over what he feared the Feds would try and do to the states to make them set up exchanges if the subsidies are struck down.

[EvilMonkey]

On average, year-over-year premium increases have slowed since the law was passed. The talk was about "bending the cost curve," not pointing it in the other direction. Using some hypothetical numbers to illustrate, before Obamcare policies rose 10% every year, now they rise 7%. So they're lower than they otherwise would have been.

That is such bulls***. ALL the talk was about how it would save people money, not slow down the rate increases.

[Balta1701]

That is such bulls***. ALL the talk was about how it would save people money, not slow down the rate increases.

Changing from 8% growth per year to 2% growth per year = saving a ridiculous, insane, unbelievable, enormous, ungodly amount of money.

[EvilMonkey]

Changing from 8% growth per year to 2% growth per year = saving a ridiculous, insane, unbelievable, enormous, ungodly amount of money.

In Government speak, sure. Hey we only raised you taxes 6% this year instead of 8%, so we cut your taxes by 2%!!!!! They touted this whole program as a cost cutting move. Not a rate increase cutting move.

[Balta1701]

In Government speak, sure. Hey we only raised you taxes 6% this year instead of 8%, so we cut your taxes by 2%!!!!! They touted this whole program as a cost cutting move. Not a rate increase cutting move.

[StrangeSox]

By hyper-liberal you mean 'correct'. If you mean it, you put it in the law. Maybe if they would have actually, you know, READ the damn bill first, had a lengthy debate on it and stuff instead of ramming down our throats, they might have caught this little 'oversight'. Kennedy's federalism complaints were over what he feared the Feds would try and do to the states to make them set up exchanges if the subsidies are struck down.

No, by hyper-literal I mean four or five words without regard to how that reading would function with the rest of the statute. People had read the damn bill first. It was debated for months and months, and a lot of effort went in to drafting it.

 

This wasn't an "oversight." At worst, it was imprecise language, which leaves it right back with Chevron statutory interpretation. Kennedy's concerns were over what actually happens if the petitioners' claims are accepted. What he feared the Feds "would" do is what the statute requires if you accept King et. al, and what King et. al argues that Congress explicitly and intentionally attempted to do.

[bmags]

Hmm, that is a terrible point.

[StrangeSox]

In Government speak, sure. Hey we only raised you taxes 6% this year instead of 8%, so we cut your taxes by 2%!!!!! They touted this whole program as a cost cutting move. Not a rate increase cutting move.

 

"The Government" is not raising insurance premiums. I'm sure your insurance company would be happy to take the extra premiums since it's obviously not even worthwhile to you.

 

The program was touted as many things because it's a huge, complex bill that does many things. But a core element was "bend the curve," not "immediately make the curve go negative." Just google "bend the cost curve."

[StrangeSox]

well some googling found a report from Kaiser from January on health insurance premium changes year-over-year. A bunch of states/counties actually have negative premium growth rates, so that's a moot point anyway.

 

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/a...e-marketplaces/

[southsider2k5]

well some googling found a report from Kaiser from January on health insurance premium changes year-over-year. A bunch of states/counties actually have negative premium growth rates, so that's a moot point anyway.

 

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/a...e-marketplaces/

 

(If you look at this one specific, highly subsidized plan)

 

[StrangeSox]

(If you look at this one specific, highly subsidized plan)

These are the benchmark plans*, and there's actually two listed, and there's data for both pre and post-tax credit costs. I'll trust Kaiser over "I don't know nobody who's saving money with that Obamacare!"

 

*each state has a specific benchmark plan. Kaiser Family Foundation has decades of strong, non-partisan health care policy analysis here, this wasn't a link to some HuffPo piece.

Edited March 4, 2015 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I also remember the main argument behind Obamacare to be expanded access, but that's just me.

[StrangeSox]

I also remember the main argument behind Obamacare to be expanded access, but that's just me.

It was a whole big bag of things, but "bend the cost curve" was definitely a major talking point.

[farmteam]

Hmm, that is a terrible point.

Which post are you referring to?

[Cknolls]

Changing from 8% growth per year to 2% growth per year = saving a ridiculous, insane, unbelievable, enormous, ungodly amount of money.

 

 

Mine has increased 10+% each of the last two years.. And I have 5% co-insurance now that i never had before...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Cknolls

[Jake]

My self-insured, no-subsidy parents have seen their costs drop around 25% and with much better coverage than before.

 

The other thing that we get with the ACA that is harder to articulate is that the average plan is far better. Even when some people pay more, they're a lot more likely to get their medical costs covered by their insurance. A tremendous portion of the people who have huge medical debts are people who were insured at the time but couldn't get procedures covered due to loopholes/coverage caps/etc.