CBO scored it with a "Net" cost of 1.08 Trillion...and I think they are both wrong by a multiple of 2

Kind of sobering isn't it?

Obama and the Democrats believe the law will control skyrocketing costs and curtail government "red ink."

Can anyone name one government program that has curtailed government "red ink"?

There is as much evidence from this "republicon with a negative view of the ACA" in his statements as there is obama and the democrats position.

...and I think they are both wrong by a multiple of 2

I think it's more like 2.5 by the time all the costs kick in which will happen in 2014.

SI

Can anyone name one entitlement program that hasn't created a dependency class rife with cheats and didn't have it's budget blow up?

its easy to complain as the republicans have about the health care law..there are some good ideas in it, however..there are no real cost controls since it was the health care industry and insurance groups that helped to put this law together. But..nothing the republicans have come up with are any better..except maybe for the insurance companies which will surely increase their own profits from the republican ideas..which of course..these same insurance companies have dumped lots on money into the republican campains so far. Like it or not..this is all about money and profits. The losers in either of the health care ideas are the middle class and the poor. And there are plenty of lobbyist with lots of money to see their ideas are the ones that get used..which..benefits the wealthy greatly.

So this is news? The greedy insurance company's stick with the Greedy Old Party.....what a shock.

This seems the have the basic flaw that most of the Republican number crunchers use. It assumes that healthcare costs NOT under the ACA would not have cost increases anywhere near what they have had historically and accelerating over the last few years and they are only comparing short term versus long term costs. They're also ignoring long term health costs shifted to the Federal Government for the uninsured and lack of preventative treatment which is an ever increasing cost to all of us. They also assume that people living longer is somehow a bad thing since that increases costs for people who would otherwise permanently drop out of the system.

Healthcare without the ACA is expected to rise 10-15% a year at a minimum and up to 25% for some people. The ACA investment costs do have some front loaded expenses which will generate long term savings. Counting costs without accounting for savings is fuzzy math. Assuming whatever growth rates for costs to back up your political ideology is using numbers that simply don't bear out. I wouldn't trust any numbers other than what the CBO publishes and even they are subject to change as the numerous variables change.

So, it's easy to say for example that if the ACA is estimated to increase costs 10% a year for the first five years and they see those increases offset by savings over the next ten, while at the same time claiming that the existing health care system not under ACA would remain the same or rise by a small margin shows the deltas they want over whatever time frame and assumptions they choose to cherry pick.

Many people falsely assume that the rise in health care costs that they have seen since the passage of the bill is a direct correlation, but the bulk of the bill doesn't even go into effect for another year or two, and although spun otherwise by the insurance companies, those increases would have occurred anyway since they still reflect the old health care system with its out of control costs.

Maybe someone can explain how reducing overhead costs, streamlining processes, applying bulk purchasing power, and using more preventative treatment to reduce higher future costs isn't the way to control costs while letting an unregulated free market protected from lawsuits for malpractice and liability and able to charge whatever the market will bear somehow will. In a nutshell, that's the GOP is trying to sell as an alternative. The ACA isn't perfect, but Congress should work together to improve the parts that can be better done, though there isn't much support for any bipartisanship these days either by elected officials or the voters.

If by some chance the SCOTUS find Obamacare constitutional, every single company that offers employee health care will drop their programs like a hot potato. The proposed fine will be far smaller than the actual cost to the company to provide the benefit. In return, each person will a voucher from Uncle Sam for $10K. This sounds like a budget busting plan if I've ever heard one. Wait, the budget was busted long ago. Never the less, government run health care will only compound the budget problems. The only way costs will ever be controlled and even reduced is a system that creates competition between health care providers.

the health care reform act, was dead as soon as the public option was removed from the law; it is a insurance and pharmaceutical company dream act; the idiots in congress who voted for this monster, should all be removed from office, health care reform is needed not this crazy thing.

Without Insurance Companies...there is no ACA

Which is why we need single payer, cut out the greedy middleman.

The only way to reduce current and future healthcare cost for the federal government and individuals is to put the burden of healthcare cost back on the care recipients...a hospital would not charge you $70 for an aspirin, nor would you allow them to...eating healthy, regular exercise, and avoidence of known health detriments would be 47,000% more appealing if you knew it would cost you in the end...and the ACA does exactly the opposite, not only will insurance companies get the bill more often, but everyone knows that reguardless of how healthy or unhealthy you choose to be, those costs will be paid (shared) by others

IE...Purchase price of a pack of cigarettes + cost of smoking on your healthcare bill = I Quit

IE...Purchace price for an Exercise Bike - Reduced cost of your healthcare bill = 10 more minutes, 4 more days a week

Who pays?

The U.S.A.'s population is 313,334,971

There are 113,376,575 U.S income tax payers.

The remaining population is government funded.

Tell me again who is footing the bill??

GuyLittle,

The population number includes children and other people of no income who are listed as dependents. The total head of household wage earner number is what should be used, though I don't know what that actual number is. Taxpayers still foot the bill, but it isn't as inflated as you imply.

Jo Ann-666954... Quit trying to persuade people with facts. It'll only confuse them.

Post #1.10

Great Post!

How much does it cost Americans if we DON'T have Obamacare---in the long run, ALOT MORE!

@Bart

That is the beauty of Obamacare, it doesn't cost any of us anything...we have been penniless for almost 30 years, it is the next 5 generations of Americans who get the bill...and who cares what they have to pay anyway

Although I question these specific numbers due to the source, it is in line with other non-Republican estimates I've seen. The bill added health care options (i.e.; increased demand) with any significant cost controls - of course it's going to increase costs. We either need to change completely (ex: single payer), or make changes to get costs under control (ex: tort reform, allow interstate competition, reduce mandatory minimum coverages, etc.).

like i keep saying. take away all health care benefits and other benefits from congress and the complainers and their pay raises for 10 years and have them all live on min. wage without insurance. just sayin

Well..., suprise..., suprise..., suprise!

Medicare was created in 1965. Here it is 47 years later and Medicare has an 82 Trillion dollar unfunded Liability and the Prescription drug program has an unfunded liability of 20 trillion dollars.

Medicare is a perfect example of what a Government run Single Payer program would look like after a few decades.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Medicare unfunded Liability = $82,113,729,568,000.00

Prescription drug liability = $20,584,772,500,000.00

Any one who dismisses the cost projections of the ACA simply because its not coming from the Democrats propaganda spin machine must be a part of the "Are you In?" crowd, as in "Are you in Denial".

All you have to do is look at Medicare as an example to see where Obama Care will be in a Couple of decades.

While the ACA isn't ideal, nor is it what most democrats wanted, it is much better than what is available and affordable now. What the country desperately needs is a government run "universal health care" program with a "single payer" system. The ACA will serve as a great springboard to jump onto such a system. What we have now is the costliest, most inefficient, hodge podge of mismanaged corruption existing anywhere. The present system, except for medicare, simply cannot be sustained. The costs of chronic or acute medical conditions are so high they are rapidly becoming prohibitive for those of middle or lower incomes. Additionally, procedures, drugs, etc. are expensive, generally ineffective, and often quite dangerous. We are at present, wasting Hundreds of Billions per year on this mess, enriching insurers, and providers, and receiving damn little of value in return. We can pay this money we are spending now on something that works.

John,

Which is why we need single payer, cut out the greedy middleman.

Great idea if we want another system witch the government will bankrupt, can you give me any examples of efficacy of the FEDS, I can give you some that haven't worked SS, the Post Office, Medic ad, Welfare all on the verge of bankruptcy. Lets give the government even more control over our lives and let the deiced what I buy and when I buy it. I know there are a few that seem to like the government to take care of them but it is not the answer. We need to reform welfare and tell these mothers that have 10 kids with no job, look we will keep the system in place for the kids you already have but we are not paying for any more after (add the date) and not just for women that have 10 kids for all that work the system. Or put the all to work for the checks. It is this entitlement thinking that has gotten us in the mess we are in.

Welfare should come with required community service...You need Public assistance??, well the Public would like a little assistance in return...You have 10 kids and no job?? well that is perfect, it just so happens we have a park that needs to be cleaned and 11 sounds like the perfect number of cleaners

Imagine that, a Republican skyrocketing the costs of ACA. Figures.

For those doubting that government programs can save money, here you go:

"

So if I told you there was a government program that actually saved the government $3.4 billion in 2008, you’d probably think this was a program that politicians would support. Especially if I told you it was a program that provided millions of men and women with important primary and preventive health care services such as cancer screenings and STI testing. No politician can argue with that, right?

Wrong.

Leaders in congress have proposed drastic cuts to family planning funding, including totally eliminating the incredibly successful Title X program. Title X is the only source of federal funding exclusively devoted to family planning and reproductive health care. In 2008, over 5 million men and women received care at the 4,500 Title X funded community clinics, which provide services such as contraception, cervical cancer screenings, annual gynecological exams, and STI testing and treatment."

http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/congresss-latest-fiscal-strategy-cutting-programs-save-money-and-protect-womens-health

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html

TRY THIS

Current CBo says 1.7 Bln, not under $1 Bln as advertised. Did anyone notice that a large sum of money was shifted to the IRS to collect taxes / fines (whichever term is most convenient at the moment). Was this included? I do know that the CUTS TO MEDICARE that the republicans didn't want and will get blamed for were counted 2 times. With $1.7 bln being the CBO current estimate, $3.5 Bln isn't too far fetched now is it?

WE CAN'T WAIT! - ABO -2012!!!!

@Akron

DC doesn't even bend over to pick up 1.7 Bln (or 3.5 for that matter) when they drop it on the floor...I think you may have meant Trillion

@Bill1488 #1.30: Your as full of it as a constipated elephant. Fed X and UPS cannot touch the value and efficiency of the US Postal Service. It is self sustaining at present and always has been. Fact, paid the retirement benefits on Its workers 75 years in advance. Social security and Medicare are good examples of the government providing efficient programs, even though the Congress grabbed most of the cash on hand, and spent it somewhere else. Federal government has done a good job with education until the states began messing up the various school districts. Look at vaccination programs for kids. Look at our freeway and road systems. look at school lunch programs until the states decided to give these to private concerns. Look at Veterans care. Look at the defense of the country. look at all major medical research. Why do you think private enterprise wants to control all these entities? They want the money. Republicans know government programs work. That is why they hate them so much, and do everything they can to block them. Those goddamn sorry sons-a-bitches will always sacrifice the citizenry for money.

No, not everything was included in the Bill. 4000 new IRS agents are being hired to enforce the tax/fine at the cost of $500 Million from unnamed other parts of the current budget. Wonder what else they may do.

Oops I meant Trillion - but what is 3 more zeros to a politician anyhow, he isn't going to pay for it.

@Judi

Thank you for that information. The excellent analysis of this story by Jonathon Chait should be read along with the article. The trouble is that people who want to believe misinformation will not look for the truth, and Blahous is counting on that to mislead them.

Obama, Ried, Pelosi...some times three Zero's makes all the difference

Oh for God's sake. Join the rest of the world and have National Heath Care for everyone and cut out the greedy insurance companies. Our health shouldn't be something for companies to gamble on.

@Binkie...Join the rest of the world, maybe you have seen the news lately, the rest of the world that you think we should emulate is heading down the toilet

My plan does cut out the insurance companies (for the most part), but it doesn't turn over to the federal government or the Politacal Party that controls the White House the final word in your or my healthcare...It would also reduce healthcare costs for everyone including the government, not just add it to the DC Credit Card for our grandkids to pay

Price Caps!!! People in the healthcare industry make too much damn money, that is the REAL problem. Start at the root of the problem, overpriced medical schools then hospitals and pharmaceutical companies should be next. Outlaw medical insurance and life insurance, it's a scam, insurance is supposed to be a safety net for unforeseen disasters and accidents. We will ALL get sick and someday die.

The hard truth is that alot of the retired pension holders who currently get the best healthcare in the world are gonna have to put up with a slightly lower level of care than they currently receive so that everybody can get equal treatment. That is what they are fighting soooo hard against and what nobody seems to want to admit.

Mr.Phea, Are you gonna lay it out or just keep talking about it?

I smell somthing! Did I step in something?

If Obamacare is so great, will BHO and the Congress participate in this fabulous health care program with the American people??

I see how our great veterans are treated with their government provided health care after (RISKING THE ULTIMATE) laying their lives on the line for this country.

I see how well the socialized medicine is working in other countries.

I do not have allot of confidence in this current narcissistic administration.

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.

It is more than 144 characters, i wasn't if nobody actually cared and were just here to call everybody names

Imagine an Octagon, divided into 8 pie slices, No, not Octo-mom, though that would be funny too...Imagine that Octagon as a Building, place it somewhere in central Kansas...Each State would have a "octagon" of their own as well

Pie Slice 1....Individuals...

Pie Slice 2....Hospitals...

Pie Slice 3....Doctors and Nurses...

Pie Slice 4....Health-care Education

Pie Slice 5....Health-care Administration

Pie Slice 6.....Health-care Investment

Pie Slice 7.....Healthcare adjudication

Pie Slice 8....Federal Health-care Contribution

This Octagon would be Governed by 57 representatives (one from each state), either appointed or elected from the state (each state will decide)...with any logic and luck these "governors" would be retired health-care professionals, and from these 57, one would be elected by the other 56, I'll call him Surgeon General

I call this Octagon, FNHCRSB, First National Health-care Reimbursement and Savings Bank....

If you wish me continue...just ask

social security(old age and disability trust), was never meant to include, all the welfare programs it is now burdened with, it also was meant to receive interest on the Treasury bonds that are issued by the Federal Reserve banks, none has been paid since 1942, just a IOU, with no interest.interest was to be paid at 1.4%, factor 1.4% for 70 years compounded , social security would be floating in money, social security was never to be part of the general fund (LBJ in 1965 raided the then gigantic surplus to pay for (buy votes) his great society.

Medicare , also pays for medicaid from the taxes all workers pay per year(about 850 dollars per year per worker), Medicaid has no separate funding.

our elected officials are now and have been out of control , out to lunch, and out of touch, and they do not give a damn.

Charles Blahous... One of Bushes Economic Advisers. Do we really need Bush fuzzy math?

Here's an idea --

Do exactly what the RWNJ propose - repeal Obamacare - search for scapegoats - ignore the problem.

Health care costs are going to increase. It is inevitable. One out of every two workers in today's labor force will be eligible to retire over the next twenty years. Elder care simply costs more than kiddie care.

The 'cost controls' in Obamacare are really controls on profits - with defined limits on how much money can be diverted away from providing medical services. THAT is the reason Obamacare is hated - it limits the amount of profits that can be sucked out of retirement accounts and government.

Wall Street has been salivating for 30 years - waiting for all the profits to be 'earned' from providing medical care to the Boomers. Obamacare simply threatens the ability of the parasites to feed off of retirement assets and the government. Of course, the 'business friendly' political party wants to repeal it.

Reforming health care is no longer an option - it is a necessity. Repealing Obamacare will remove the only real obstacle to single payer - universal health care. SCOTUS will be doing us all a favor if they rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Universal health care WILL happen - that is inevitable, too. The health care industry is 'too big to fail', after all.

There is no such thing as global warming

Smoking does not cause cancer

Tax breaks for "job creators" will lead to jobs

Obamacare will increase health care costs (over what would have happened if we did nothing)

These and other studies funded by members of the Republican Party.

Actually, I would rather have a competitively run government option, which would seriously challenge private business and fraud - but "oh,no" that's to "socialist" to have a government run program compete with private health insurers. Horsefeathers!

We have reached the point where monopolies control the market, under those conditions government regulation is the only way to re-establish free markets.

What Blahous and Republicans refuse to bring up with ACA is the projection of health care costs in the future if some kind of cost controls are not implemented now. But coming from anybody who was part of the 2.0 W Bush administration this pile of bullsh1t coming from the right shouldn't surprise anyone! Please keep in mind that pharmaceuticals are huge ultra-conservative campaign donors plus they are of those conglomerates that receive tax subsidies and they hate Obama for his fight to end tax loop holes. How much have the pharms put into campaign financing and how much do they actually pay in taxes? Betcha their tax payments aren't even close to what they pay in lobbyists and campaign finance.

The pharmaceuticals were pretty successful in their lobby efforts with this administration. Nothing in the ACA touches them. No cost controls for pharma. So, just how much do they hate Obama?

Would we rather that our government saw some cost increases if the ACA becomes law, or would we rather see our own health insurance and healthcare costs continue to spike until very few of us can actually afford healthcare insurance and/or afford to see a doctor either?

If the ACA is shot down by the Supreme Court, it will be back to business as usual for our health insurers. Here in Colorado business as usual meant an average 24% annual rate increase in health insurance premiums between 1999 and 2009, even though the health insurers were allowed to cherry-pick their customers and dump anyone who was guilty of having a "pre-existing" condition, on top of doubling and tripling copays and then imposing annual deductibles and lifetime caps, and cutting-off your kid's healthcare coverage at age 19 too.

In 2000 my employer had Anthem, the cost was $127 per month, and the only copays were for name-brand prescription drugs. Contrast that with his current health insurance plan, which now costs $434/month, with a $1500.00 annual deductible, and then 10% of all annual medical expenses thereafter. Our plan in 2000 paid for 40 annual visits to a therapist and it also paid for 21 days of inpatient substance abuse or mental health care annually too, along with the cost of weekly outpatient substance abuse treatment too, whereas our current plan pays for none of these items.

So, in 2000, my annual out-of-pocket costs for healthcare was $1524 plus any name-brand prescription drug copays, on an annual salary of $49K. In 2011, my employer's health insurance cost his employees $5208, plus the $1500 deductible, ($6708), plus 10% of the cost of any provided medical service or prescription drug thereafter, and, my pay has only increased by 22% since 2000 too.

So, if we continue the non-ACA logical progression of healthcare insurance and medical costs for another 11 years, (if my boss is still in business and still chooses to provide the same healthcare insurance coverage as today), in the year 2022, my annual out-of-pocket cost will be $33,540, and if my pay increases by another 22% I will then be earning $73K annually.

Then, if we continue the non-ACA rate of increase as well as my 11-year average rate of pay increase for another 5 & 1/2 years, in 2028 my out-of-pocket healthcare costs will be $83,850, and my pay will then only be $81K, and it will be impossible for me to afford healthcare insurance, and I am firmly middle class here in Denver, CO too.

Is that what you Republicans want so badly, the absolute end of healthcare insurance for everyone but the wealthiest 10% of Americans within the next 10-15 years, as that is the direction that we are heading if the ACA is thrown out???

Puh-lease -- Agreed. Non-partisan studies are more meaningful.

Old Timer-88224 -- Also agreed. Even if ACA does increase deficits, what is the alternative?

The Teapublican solution of keeping the current broken health care system is NOT a solution.

Reality check:

1. Who among us pays less for Health Insurance that you paid 3 years ago?

2. Who is better off today than you were 3 years ago?

3. Who looks forward to a brighter future?

4. Who thinks that Obama has the political savvy to work with congress to get America on track? That's right folks: it takes political savvy like Bill Clinton had.

5. Who among us think that as a nation we are more united than we were 3 years ago?

6. Who among us think that your job situation is better than it was 3 years ago?

This is not to blame or credit Obama. Let's take race off the table because I am not white.

Mac,

Fed X and UPS cannot touch the value and efficiency of the US Postal Service. It is self sustaining at present and always has been. Fact, paid the retirement benefits on Its workers 75 years in advance. Social security and Medicare are good examples of the government providing efficient programs, even though the Congress grabbed most of the cash on hand, and spent it somewhere else.

The post office is bankrupt they are closing them by the hundreds, they had a short fall of $7 billion in 2010 that mean they didn't make any money and haven't been for many years. Nobody said that FED Ex or UPS could give you a better deal, but they are thriving businesses that didn't loose $7 billion. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/02/losing-money-isnt-the-u-s-postal-services-only-problem/

Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy, what do you think all the debates in Congress are for because it is doing fine, do you know that they say we need to add 5 years to the retirement age that would make it 70 years old after 2032. That is to bring cost down because the current system is not sustainable. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41425

What you said about states messing up our schools, no, that is also the FEDS doing.

Look at our freeway and road systems.

Our freeways, roads and bridges are in very bad disrepair.

By the way CONGRESS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, everyone except you knows this.

Those goddamn sorry sons-a-bitches will always sacrifice the citizenry for money.

You mean like Obama is doing with our tax dollars he gave to his friends that owned the tree green companies that went bankrupt costing the American tax payers roughly $800 billion dollars, or like Obama does taking away our induvidual rights, or like Obama does disreguarding our Constitution as he has done so many, many times.

Received 42 likes and my comment was collapsed. So I will copy & paste my post again. I didn't read the article because I don't need a study to figure out my expenses. Oh, I know this is not a necessity but MSNBC is just reporting that our cable bill rises about 6 percent every year.

Five major things have drastically gone up under Obama:

the US debt, # of people on food stamps, health care premiums, food and gas.

In Obama's 2008 campaign he promised he would end the rise of the things I mentioned.

Great. That's the solution, huh? We all just pay our own way, stay healthy or else, but get to save on our taxes? Gee what a wonderful idea.

What if I get kidney cancer and the treatment costs $250K that I don't have? The rich would of course get their treatment and still vote for the GOP. I, however, would just die as a sick Democrat. Gee that sounds fair and wonderful. What a great country.

That's not MY America. I don't mind paying more taxes and getting everyone covered fairly. This study is obviously biased and means nothing, but even if Obamacare costs more it's worth it in other ways. Period.

aquatone... if medical goods and services actually represented real value would you have a problem paying your own way?

As for getting kidney cancer and the treatment costs of $250K, probably inflated dollars because medical costs are highly negotiable depending on method of payment.

Yes those who could afford the $250K, not just Republicans but also folks like the President Oprah, Susan Sarandon, tax dodgers like Wesley Snipes and Timmy the Fed would most assuredly pay the cost for their own care while protesting for your right to get free care at the expense of the 52% who actually pay taxes and the good portion of those who pay the inflated costs of medical insurance.

As for your America....the inflated costs we pay have very little to do with those who are indigent or truly in need of extraordinary care....it has much more to do with waste and intentional corruption which has so morphed the representation of real dollars for medical care.

I truly hope that you do not get kidney cancer because based on the actions of the AMA in response to the inflated cost of medical care you probably would not be offered a reasonable avenue to discovery and diagnosis before you are actually terminal....keeping in mind that the AMA is beginning to announce changes in protocol and what tests are truly necessary based on broad strokes instead of targeted care based on symptoms.

Pie slice 1...you would go 250k in the whole and pay it off over time like any other loan...but if you had taken the money you were paying for insurance and deposited into your account @FNHCRSB...and accounted for the savings from your tax bill and supporting the Health Insurance industry, your surgery would have only cost 140k...and because doctors and hospital wouldn't be jacking up your price to pay for the un-insured and dead beats...and because you probably would have looked for the most affordable doctors/hospitals for your surgery and doctors and hosppital would have to compete for your business...your operation may have only cost 90k and you would likley still have 50-60k still in the bank...of course if you didn't get kidney cancer, you would still have 150-200k in the bank to pay for your kids braces and your husbands face lift and knee replacement (god knows he could use it)

@txmom32 -- Our health care system is already 'socialized'. Your private insurance premiums are paying for the uninsured right now. How do you think medical service providers recover their costs for treating the uninsured?

Ignorance is bliss.

You can insert any health issue or cost into my statement above, it was just a hypothetical, as was my inability to pay for some imaginary health concern.

The point is, people get (or were born with) serious and expensive health issues all the time through no fault of their own. If they are poor, they can also get adequate treatment for it at any public (and many private) hospital(s), paid for by all other paying users through inflated costs that Obamacare attempts to control. That situation would continue indefinitely without serious health care reform. Between that and completely unnecessary insurance profits, we have a deadly serious problem providing health care in this country and I remain willing to pay more in taxes if it ultimately proves necessary to cure the health care problem fairly and humanely. That also goes for many of the other ills affecting this nation.

It makes no sense to keep taxes artificially low and insurance profits high, when we just have to pay more for health care services and insurance as individuals. It is far better to get everyone on some kind of a plan and to provide as much early preventive care as possible, rather than free emergency treatment at the last second. Even if it costs more in the end, it's better and fairer. And that's the country I want to live in...and not the GOP fantasy of America as a self-reliant nation of entrepreneurs. That may sound good to some, but it's just not reality and never was.

Bill1488#1.59: The post office isn't even sick much less broke. The balance of your rebuttal is just more republican talking points. Course I will agree with you about our roads and freeway systems. If the republicans have their way we'll all be lucky to have paths sometime in the next 50 years. Gotta get rid of the republicans. Romney and Santorum will be good beginnings.

The point is, If you want to curb healthcare costs for all Americans and America, you force a doctor or hospital to look in the patients eyes, and say "I'm going to charge you 10 times what this should cost because I need a new boat and my malpractice insurance is due and or is being raised...that does not change with a single payer system, simply because these hospitals and doctors and big pharma are campaign donors...do you really think a politician is going to bite the hand that feeds them...

Yes there are going to be destitute people with healthcare needs...that is why there is a Pie Slice 8...which will allow tax deductible charitable contribution from individuals, institutions as well as a Federal (and state) kicker to a general fund to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves

Bill:

Regarding the postal service, congressional republicans broke it, I suspect as a favor to the other carriers:

In 2006 the Bush Administration and Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) that mandated the USPS to fund future retiree health care premiums for seventy-five years within a ten-year period ending in 2016. This mandate requires the Postal Service to pay $5.5 billion a year for a total of $55 billion. No other government agency or private corporation has to make this kind of pre-fund payment. Because of this law, the agency is pre-funding health care premiums for workers that haven’t even been hired. Basically the USPS must start out each year $5.5 billion in debt. Independent audits have shown that without this pre-fund requirement, the Postal Service would have had income exceeding expenses for this time period. In addition, audits completed by The Office of the Inspector General and The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have determined that the formula used to determine the amount of pre-funding was incorrect and the USPS has over-paid by $10-25 billion. OPM also concluded that the Postal Service has over-paid into its retirement accounts by billions of dollars but it cannot return this money without congressional authorization.

Know who the largest lobbying group is in Washington?

Nope not the NRA

Nope not the oil companies

yup healthcare.

this project is smoke and mirrors on both sides. It hands over tons of money to big insurance while promising to cover all.

Who wins? Washington and big healthcare and big pharmaceuticals

Who loses? The American people.

We need real healthcare reform like ALL of the rest of the civilized first world.

Because this is such a huge windfall for Washington on both sides of the aisle, I predict it will be upheld and Big Business will continue it's rape of the American people with the governments blessing.

Bill:

Social security used to put its money into a trust. If that money were still there, it would be running in the black. Unfortunately, Congress just couldn't resist raiding that fund, leaving IOUs there instead. Al Gore's idea, when he ran against Bush in 2000, was to put the money in a 'lock box', unavailable to congressional appropriation, remember that one? The idea didn't go anywhere, perhaps because it was not very exciting (though, as we can see now, it was very necessary).

Our freeways, roads and bridges, which repair would add jobs, and so is continually blocked by republicans who want to see Obama fail, conduct an enormous amount of commerce each and every day. Without them, our economy would collapse immediately. They most certainly do not cost more than they allow our businesses to make.

Bill:

As for our education system, I think the real culprit behind its decline is Religion, the adherents of which tireless try to prevent anything from being taught which might contradict their various beliefs.

Now that makes perfect sense...the decay of America's Education System has happened along side the decay of America's Religious Orginizations...that has to mean something right???

Now, it's not possible that there is another institution in America thats very existence depends on Americans be stupid and godless...maybe one who's held sway in every class room from K through Harvard for the last 50 years...hhhhmmmmmm

America's religious organizations in decay? Huh. Looks like they're in the ascendancy right now, they have huge numbers, lots of political pull, etc.

What 'institution' are you talking about? I'd like to know, because apparently I belong to it.

Judging from the kinds of things the religious oppose these days, I'd have to say the dichotomy is really 'stupid OR godless'. Just my godless opinion.

Snakebone: You are a beam of light in the pits of dark ignorance, and dishonesty. Be watching for you. Thanks and best Regards.

Obama healthcare law could sharply worsen deficits: study Gosh, No, Really ?? Why else would a majority of U.S. Citizens have opposed the passage of this boondoggle, which does NOTHING to truly lower individual healthcare costs and little to fix what was and still is wrong with our current private health care system.

I would have liked to have seen a limited government run health care system, to cover the care of government employees / dependents / retirees, military dependents / retirees, veterans (which would remove the burden of healthcare on the VA and allow a smaller VA organization to focus on the other pressing needs of Vets) and those unable to obtain private healthcare who ACTUALLY need it !! Of course, that had little chance of passage, since it MAKES SENSE and would upset the Status Quo without ending our current private health care system (which would be less burdened with folks seeking treatment who HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of ever paying for it) !!

you know what they say about "opinions"...yep...who cares?

" I think the real culprit behind its decline is Religion, the adherents of which tireless try to prevent anything from being taught which might contradict their various beliefs."

religion isn't allowed in liberal public school , so that's probably not the problem , got anything else?

Mac: Thanks, and right back at you.

I will be retiring soon...so I really don't care , as I won't be paying into the system to pay for your health care. You , on the other hand , need to make sure that you are keeping yourselves employed so you can pay for mine. I also expect you to make sure that your children get jobs asap and begin to pay for the unneccessary stuff that a I am going to get treated , every sniffle , ache , injury due to play-assing around in my retirement , and I expect you to be paying you taxes promptly. Since I have no children or remaining family I am going to bleed the bleeding heart liberals for every nickle I can get ! , it is going to be a fun and exciting ride , so thanks in advance.

I'll definitely be getting my money's worth of health-care...I'll get every test available as often as it is available, if I step on a Doritos, I'll be going to the podiatrist in the back of an ambulance...I'm going to be the healthiest person on the planet...If your buying dinner, I'm having Lobster

"right on" Mr. P

you boys and girls need to get up in Obama's backside to get you some federal jobs going , you know , like more highways and bridges and welfare offices , because if you don't have jobs you won't be able to pay for the retirement lifestyles that we are going to demand , thanks for the effort.

"Bush Tax Cuts More Than Twice Dems HealthCare Bill"

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

mike-464,

This seems the have the basic flaw that most of the Republican number crunchers use. It assumes that healthcare costs NOT under the ACA would not have cost increases anywhere near what they have had historically and accelerating over the last few years and they are only comparing short term versus long term costs. They're also ignoring long term health costs shifted to the Federal Government for the uninsured and lack of preventative treatment which is an ever increasing cost to all of us. They also assume that people living longer is somehow a bad thing since that increases costs for people who would otherwise permanently drop out of the system.

LOL! I love it when people bring in the worn out preventive treatment argument. Recent studies suggest that free preventive care has resulted in higher net costs to the health care system. Sure sounds good though. You spend $10 million to find a few treatable diseases in their early states. Sure it's great for the individuals that you find with these diseases but the cost greatly outstrips the benefit. It ends up costing more to find the diseases than what it would have taken to treat the disease if it was found later. The biggest lie is the one regarding Statins. Lipitor is the most prescribed medication in the US. The cost is astronomical. Since 1997 Pfizer has made $81 billion on it. Here's the secret nobody is talking about. How can you measure its effectiveness? How can you measure how many individuals haven't had a heart attack since they started taking it. You can't. It's like how many jobs has the Obama administration saved during his presidency?

Here's a link to The New England Journal of Medicine's article on the cost benefits or preventive care:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

There are two drivers to the increasing cost of health care in the US.

1. The inability of insurers to sell across state lines. In Massachusetts a health insurer is required to cover in vitro fertilization per the State's mandate. Not only are they required to cover it but they are required to cover it for up to 6 attempts. At $10,000 to $15,000 a treatment the worst case scenario with the best price is $60,000. The insurers in MA don't absorb this cost. It is passed on to every policy holder in the State. That's just one of the many mandates they have. In Utah, the least mandated State in the Union, this coverage is not mandated. Why shouldn't a MA resident have the choice to buy their insurance from an insurer in Utah? If this were allowed the number of MA residents covered by an MA insurer would plummet. The cost to purchase insurance in MA would become so cost prohibitive that MA would have one of two choices. Either get rid of the everything but the kitchen sink mandates and allow the mandates to be ridered or leave it the way it is and the only ones left insured on a MA plan would be the extremely wealthy.

2. The cost of malpractice insurance and the defensive medicine that goes along with it. The solution is Tort Reform. Change the model to the British loser pays model. frivolous lawsuits would be reduced drastically. Texas, Georgia, and California already have this. Texas not only saw a reduction in suits but immediately saw the number of physicians applying to practice rise by 60 percent.

By just implementing just these two changes in 5 years health care costs would be somewhere around 9th on the list of concerns of US citizens. Then we can back to fighting about really important issues.

follow the money,

"Bush Tax Cuts More Than Twice Dems HealthCare Bill"

How does not taking something away from someone cost something? Lunacy of the Left. It truly is a mental disorder.

wow, $500 billion, that is almost a tenth of the Iraq war, how will we ever pay for that?

I'm not an economist, but common sense told me Obama could not expand what amounts to government paid medical insurance to 30,000,000 - 40,000,000 people and not raise the budget deficit and the national debt enormously.

It's simple: Obama and Pelosi lied about the cost. In Pelosi's words to the House of Representatives, "Just vote for it. You can read it later." Obama just lied to the American people straight out when he said Obamacare would cut costs.

NermL..

@txmom32 -- Our health care system is already 'socialized'. Your private insurance premiums are paying for the uninsured right now. How do you think medical service providers recover their costs for treating the uninsured?

NermL...one who purchases health insurance are paying for a service that will negotiate best price and at a level pay for a portion of care. Health insurance companies are not making up the difference for folks who walk their bill....quite the opposite they are negotiate a good rate for their clients. The practice of cost shifting is not affecting insurance companies or medicare or medicaid to any great extent anymore because of negotiated rates. Hospitals are not shifting their losses or burden, rather they must either seek payment by billing and negotiationg the bill to a lesser cost, sell the debt to collections agencies or just write off the cost. The fact that so many ER costs are not being paid is wrecked many ER facilities. If any group are suffering the affects of rate shifting it would be the uninsured, which actually promotes a vicious cycle. Many uninsured are unaware that hospitals and emergency care facilities will actually work with them and negotiate down their obligation based on their economic situation. If they turn the bill over to a collections agency their return is like 20% if the bill. They would prefer to negotiate to a point that the responsible party can pay. In addition many hospitals will support a patient by directing them to a charitable organization that can help them with needs after the emergency...for instance a person who may have an emergency arising from diabetes...the ER identifies the issue....and then gives the patient contact information to an organization who can help them make lifestyle changes or help them afford the long term management. Unfortunately, many people panic and cut off all lines of communication instead of facing the situation and actually receiving compassion.

As an important note...for those who have overwhelming costs for maintenance drugs....contact the manufacturer of the drug you need to support quality of life. Most manufacturers have programs for people who cannot afford their medicines and those who are not covered by insurance, medicare, medicaid etc...they do not advertise this option in the mainstream because too many people will take advantage and then the access will dry up for those who truly have a need.

I suppose from your perspective NermL this is probably first hand experience....

Ignorance is bliss.

@Svenolafson

"How does not taking something away from someone cost something?"

the answer is simple , but libs won't tell you , they believe that ALL money is the governments money and if you cut what is taken from the actual taxpayers then you are TAKING the governments money.

Forget about the deficit. As long as we're all healthy is all what matters.

In case anyone has noticed. You are already paying into your medicare benefits. What is that little FICA taken out of your check each month? How does that compare to FREE health insurance for all? Medicare is far from free, but you pay into it your entire working years. And after you qualify at age 65, you still pay as per income. If you make over 70K you pay more but everyone pays at least 1200 per year. The recipients of medicare do pay and they will also need supplemental insurance as well if they want any amount of coverage as well as Part D payments for prescription coverage. That kind of a system is run and regulated by the government but you pay dearly for them to do that. Is that what you want for your healthcare from birth to death? Think about what you are asking for in an area of your life that is so personnal.

But the President promised that the new health care law would be budget neutral. The President promised to go over the health care bill "line by line" with my congressman and any other law maker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings would be broadcast on CSPAN. I am sure that they will go into this issue in detail during the broadcasts and that the public will be more informed once the broadcasts have concluded. Does anyone know when these broadcasts are scheduled to begin? I believe that if the law is found to be anything less than what the President promised than it should be repealed. I estimate that, because we are already more than 15 trillion dollars in debt and the White House if predicting huge deficits for at least another decade, for any new money borrowed, the tax payers will end up paying 9 times the amount borrowed to pay it all back over the next 170 years. We definitely do not need anything new added to the debt.

Posted by Anony Mous1

Reality check:

1. Who among us pays less for Health Insurance that you paid 3 years ago?

Between 1999 and 2009 my boss's healthcare insurance increased by an average annual rate of 24% here in Colorado, while my pay only increased by 22% total during the same 10 years. Since July 1st of 2009, our healthcare insurance coverage cost has only increased by a little over 5% for the entire 2 years and 9 months total, while my pay is up 2.5% total in the same time frame. So, under President Obama, I am doing considerably better as far as annual cost increases in health insurance premiums vs wage increases are concerned

2. Who is better off today than you were 3 years ago?

I am somewhat better off today than I was a year after GW left office. In 2010 I sold my old house for a 5-figure profit and rolled that profit into my brand-new house, which I managed to get from the builder at a substantial discount. Because interest rates were so low, I was also able to afford more house than I might have otherwise too. I got a 15-year fixed rate loan at 3.875% with 35% down in 2010, which was a lot better mortgage rate than I have ever seen.

3. Who looks forward to a brighter future?

Today I have just 13 & 1/2 years to go to payoff my mortgage, and probably 10-12 years to go until I am able to retire. When I retire everyone below me on the seniority list will move-up one spot too, so they all have something positive to look forward to also. Now I'll agree that ever since the end of Jimmy Carter's Presidency that the buying power of what I am paid has been slipping, despite all of my additional work experience since then, but if we are going to affix blame, just remember that the Republicans have held the Presidency for 20 of the 31 years since 1981 too.

4. Who thinks that Obama has the political savvy to work with congress to get America on track? That's right folks: it takes political savvy like Bill Clinton had.

I'll agree that Bill Clinton was better at the job than Mr Obama has been so far, and I will also say that Bill Clinton might have been the greatest President that I have ever known when it came to building a strong economy that benefited more Americans, (and I am age 55 too). However, I'll give Mr Obama 2nd place, as Reagan and the Bush family were both atrocious at economic creation that fairly benefited all Americans, instead preferring an economy that robbed from Peter to pay Paul. Under every Republican since Nixon and Ford, part of our economy has done really poorly in order that another part could do a lot better, and I see no reason to believe that Romney's version of American economics would be any different than his Republican predecessors either.

5. Who among us think that as a nation we are more united than we were 3 years ago?

In November of 2008 60% of the electorate voted Democrat. Is that what you mean by united? (My guess is not). For the first 6 of the 8 years of GW's Presidency, the Republicans held a majority in both Houses of Congress. Is that what you mean by united? The fact is that America hasn't been united since 1945 when World War II ended.

6. Who among us think that your job situation is better than it was 3 years ago?

I'll admit that my job situation is probably not as good as it was during Bill Clinton's eight years in office, and probably not as good as during the first 4 or 5 years of GW's Presidency too. However, I experienced a decline in income starting in 2006, well before the fall election that year, and that decline extended right through early 2010, and since has started to improve. I will say that my job situation is much better off than it was during Reagan's 1981-83 recession, which was almost as bad, and indeed, far more ruinous for me, than our current Great Recession, which started as a regional recession in 2004 and just continued to get worse until 2/rds of America was engulfed so that the other third could continue to live better, which is why your Republicans did so poorly in the 2008 election.

This is not to blame or credit Obama. Let's take race off the table because I am not white.

I don't believe that President Obama is the real problem, and I do believe that racism could easily be playing a part in why the Republicans have tried so hard to destroy Obama and the Democrats instead of trying to work with the Democrats to improve America for everyone equally. I am White too.

(It would be more PC to say English, Irish and Scottish mixed with French, Dutch, German, and Swiss, and an American by birth since the late 1700s. Were you born in this country? If so, it doesn't matter what color that your skin is, as everyone born in this country has the same rights).

Where I live, my health insurance premiums have only increased a small amount since July 1st of 2009, after average 24% annual increases since the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency, which I attribute to the Democrats being in office and to the passage of the ACA. One part of the problem with both health insurance cost increases and our deficit is that our real inflation rate has been grossly under-reported for many years, and also that our true unemployment rate is also grossly under-reported too. For the past 5 years our true gross inflation rate has averaged over 10% per year, and our U-6 unemployment rate has recently been in the 15% to 16% range too, while Social Security benefits haven't increased at all for the last 3 years either.

Also remember that GW borrowed $2.1 Trillion from the Social Security, FAA, and Highway trust funds too, in an attempt to mask his administration's true debt and to falsely influence our equities markets in a positive manner too. Falsely under-reporting debt was what got the Greek government in a heap of trouble, and I strongly feel that what GW and Cheney did was perhaps the worst case of insider trading that this nation and possibly the entire world has ever seen. Imagine if you had the power to falsely spike Wall Street by 10% every year for 6 or 7 straight years? Would you misuse that power to benefit yourself and your closest friends while eventually destroying the life savings of a quarter of the populace in the process???

And that is the political party that you would rather have in office, one that conspires to destroy over half of America just so that your half can live artificially better? Thanks, but no thanks, I'll be voting Democrat again this year, because I know full well from long experience that the Democrats do a much better job of trying to float all boats as equally as is possible.

I am also a pre-existing condition through no fault of my own, so without the ACA being fully implemented in 2014, I will have to wait until August of 2022 in order to get my Medicare going, and until then, when I need medical care you will be able to find me down at my local big-city public hospital emergency room, where they will gladly continue to inject the cost of my medical needs into the cost of your health insurance too!!!

Sometimes stupidity is funny, but this time its just tiresome. The man did his own study, probably paid for by the Koch brothers. Stop believing everything that these nut jobs print, or you will find yourself up the proverbial creek without a paddle( no health care, no pension, no SS benefits, no workman's comp, no safety net period). Keep your eyes on the real problem here. As I see it these autobots will say and do anything to win. What a lesson to teach our children, huh/

NBC, your slip is showing. You are getting as bad as Fox News.

Who the @#$@ in their right mind didn't already have this figured out???!!!

CBO scoring is not reliable because they are only allowed to conduct their analysis within the parameters established by Congress when the law is passed. Congress routinely exempts certain provisions of the laws thety pass from being taken into account the the CBO when they conduct their analysis. Which, of course, was done with Obamacare. So CBO scoring does not take into account all of the provisions of the legislation.

It doesn't take an economist to determine that ANY government program the government spends money on will be inefficient, over budget, unsustainable, and detrimental in the long run. Regardless of political viewpoint you cannot deny that. On a side note... what would the 1% have to gain by destroying the country and the system that gave them all the money to be in the 1%? Think before you spew political rhetoric. I think you also meant to say outrageous. Misspellings can hurt credibility you know...

BB: "believe the paper it was written on"....in additional to all of your other inexplicable and illogical comments, this one was priceless.

The truth is we don't know how much the new law is going to cost us, but I'll bet their estimate is low. The law was rammed down the American people's throats and even now the majority of Americans think it's a bad law. Obama needs to wake up and so do you Bush Bankruptcy!

Some insurance companies refuse to pay some doctors the amount those doctors believe they are entitled to be paid. When that happens, the doctor will stop accepting that form of insurance as reimbursement.Then, of course, once the doctor no longer accepts that insurance company's reimbursement schedule, then doctors no longer accepts patients who use that payer's insurance.Insurance companies jack-up the Premium till nobody can afford.

Each year, doctors and healthcare facilities like testing labs, hospitals, pharmacies and others, negotiate pricing with health insurers and payers. In its simplest form, it goes like this:

Doctor:

When a patient with diabetes visits my office, I charge $100 for the visit, and $75 for the blood work.

Payer: That's too much money. We'll pay you $55 for the visit and $35 for the blood work.

Doctor:

I can't pay my staff or keep my lights turned on for that paltry amount! How about $65 for the visit and $45 for the blood work?

Payer:

That's still too much.

Doctor: Sorry I can't help you.

Payer : I'll join Obama care then

Doctor :

Its all Your call.

President Obama : Doctor, how many patients that you got and treated each month ?

Doctor :

Roughly about 30 patients a month,Mr President.

President Obama : So Mathematically 30 patients x $105 =$3150

Doctor :

Yes ,I think so.

President Obama: Ok then ,let me offers You.You must leave everything else the same volume of procedures as what you're attending now no less. Obama care give you 300 patients a month,as they all can't afford your expensive bill and aslo the influx of 40 million americans without healthcare before, But with conditions, your price must be standardize How about $25 for the visit and $15 for the blood work? That will be 300 x 40 $12,000.

Doctor :

That great Mr President,Its a DEAL,but how about the increase of patients,I'm afraid I'll be sue for negligent,since I'll be attending extra patients and how can I manages ?

President : I believes,with that kind of money you got there,its about time you start to think and expand you business ,and you can start hiring few more unemployed Americans to assists you.Don't worry about the patients suing you,they're now well protected by Consummer Protection for free services,they don't need anymore BS attorney,they got the Director of Consumers protection, that complaints and to watch your back,as what they're watching closely with the greedy banking procedures and practices .

Doctor :

Thanks You,Mr President,You are the smartest President we ever have!

President Obama : You most Welcome.

I'm done with you,doctor. After this I'll talks to reduce the Insurance healthcare premium, facilities like testing labs, hospitals, pharmacies and others, negotiate pricing with health insurers to make the price REASONABLE and for the payers,benefits ."We are the People"From the People To the People

Yep / http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html

You are a complete tool, you and the rest of the blame Bush crowd are sadly mistaken if you think the general American public believes anything you spout. This includes your liar in chief also. You and your brethen are directly responsible for the divide we see in America today, anyone remember our last civil war? Wasn't so civil then and it will be much worse next time. Keep feeding your moronic following BS tool.

Jack, what's up with the racist Amos n Andy routine? Just letting you know, that sort of thing doesn't lend much credibility.

Peaches n spam, takes a tool to know a tool You think Dems and GOP are gonna have a civil war over the ACA? No. But if so, you'd be sad to have dumb-as-dirt generals like Romney and Gingrich giving out the orders, or heaven forbid, George Dubbaya Bush.

To be fair, the divide is caused by the GOP who are so @$$ backwards they refuse to move ahead with the times. Get with it, Grumpy Old Phool.

So what are we complaining about? Without it our healthcare will be non-existent or exorbitantly expensive. Leaving to our caring Insurance industry is proof enough for those that want to look. A public option or an effort to reign in on the spiraling costs is good enough for me. Whoever said it would be free. If the long term costs and benefits are better than it's a no brainer.

The law was rammed down the American people's throats and even now the majority of Americans think it's a bad law.

Let's not get too carried away here. Many Americans think it's a bad law because it isn't stringent enough. They don't think it's a bad law because it takes choice out of people's hands.

Many people would like the government to take over healthcare and don't believe this thing goes far enough. Please don't co-op us to your "less regulation" train wreck.

Jack

your insurance company deals with YOU , paying exactly what is agreed upon in your policy . If they don't, you have the right to sue. YOU on the other hand have made a deal with the DOCTOR to perform some treatment, your deal is with him and you use your insurance to cover some of the cost as outlined in your policy. Pretty simple , eh? Insurance companies are NOT "healthcare providers" , which is a quite typical liberal fallacy .

Bush- Even if you don't believe the study, you did hear that the CBO revised their financial analysis and are now doubling the costs of the program- prior to it hitting the ground. That likely means that it'll do far worse than the doubling as people start to use the program. The same thing happened to Bush's prescription plan- doubled immeidately, full of loopholes, waste, and fraud. I think nationalized healthcare is a boondoggle from day one.

livinginthewoods

So you must be the registered 'clown living in the woods' of Republican based, claiming that Steinbrenner was a "cracker" who created a lot of "African-American millionaires" and "fired a lot of white guys."

if you have to ask,

That is the Point,

If you leave everything else the same,the volume of procedures, the days we spend in the hospital, the number of surgeries we need,but plug in the prices as what the Canadians pay, our health-care spending falls by about 50 percent.

You sheep are so foolish to believe the lies this administration tells you. Since this law came into effect, I was immediately taken off the heart transplant list. I am a 45 yr old male, college graduate, married w/ 2 children, worked in the management for 20 years before becoming disabled from multiple severe heart attacks. The MI's have reduced the muscle to 11%. I need a transplant soon. But I need a waiver from the Health Secratary, due to a rare blood disorder i have. The Affordable HealthCare Act has determined a transplant would not be economical viable because the nature of my dis order is extreme blood clotting and if I had a new heart I would continue to have MI's, therefore a waste of medicare money. If this is not rationing care based on financial decisions and not on what is best for the paitent and MY Family I do not know what is. As of today i just returned home from a hospitalization from PE's, no mail from Health Sec. So no heart. Wake up you fools and read the bill, it's a mess and will destroy this economy and my family.

The Affordable HealthCare Act has determined a transplant would not be economical

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you healthcare rationing and death panels. Call it whatever you want, there will not be enough money to give everyone the care they need, hence the ACA will ration care. When medical decisions are made on an economical basis, the decision authority is condemning people to earlier death, hence they constitute a death panel. The framers and promoters of the ACA have been lying to you all along.

There was never enough money to give everyone the care they need. Healthcare was always going to have to be rationed in some way. We cant afford to keep everyone alive. It is a very grim and hard fact to accept but is the reality of the situation.

How are we going to afford to provide adeqaute health care to the huge retiring boomer population? I see it as a pay now or pay later situation.

I do not believe that there is enough people inthe next 3 follow on generation after the boomers to afford to provide them medical. Hard decisions are going to be made. Prepare to embrace the horror.

Madame X,

I've been saying that the whole time...health care is an unlimited cost, but we don't have unlimited resources. So, there is, and always will be rationing. The question is, who do you want to do the rationing - the government or the free market?

For me, I prefer the free-market - but not the one we have today...what we have today is a mix that takes the worst of both systems.

Oh, Obamacare will be worse than health care decisions based on economics... it'll be health care decisions made on POLITICAL connections... FOO's (Friends of Obozo) step to the front of the line.... everybody else, go away and die....

Tarheelone, if you can prove your story it would blow the lid off ACA. What is the name of your disorder? Can you tell us anything else about your relative health leading up to your problems, such as BMI? Are you considered disabled? Do you have any idea of which part of the ACA added this signoff requirement for you?

Regardless, God bless you and I hope for your sake and your family's that you are able to get the treatment you need.

PEOPLE, this is a perfect example of how messed up the system is that provides us information. this story began with the washington post, it was from a paper written by republican policy strategist, Charles Blahous. the reporter mistakenly thought, benefit of the doubt, it was from the
CBO, wrote the story and wow we supposedly had some blockbuster story until the truth came out that the author was bamboozled. before that happened however first rueters picked up the story, then msnbc and on and on. the moral of the story has nothing to do with health care rather how we get our information and how we should be ever wary and critical of every single source of information we have. right now millions of readers think the CBO says the health care act will cost us dearly but instead it is a republican strategists not the CBO and though a few may find out tonight when watching the evening news most will never know the truth and all because the media is too cheap and lazy to check its own facts before publishing work done by others. read more on this scam below at the nymag.com and search for the story bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.

Fed Up, so you'd rather stay a GOP and die? Thanks by doing us "FOOs" a favor!

Neal In Denver,

Since Medicare won't cover heart transplants, why not get a private HMO? I'm sure they'd love to charge a dying, disabled patient $3k a month for a premium. So instead, the patient and family will go bankrupt before there's even a chance of a transplant. No HMO would have even considered putting anyone with a pre-existing condition like a clotting disorder onto their policy.

Think about that for a while, and think about what "Obamacare" will make HMO's do in 1.6 years.

I seriously doubt this story - does anybody here know when the ACA actually goes into effect? Not the part about the pre-existing conditions and the coverage of children, but the supposed twist that is pointed to above? The one requiring a "waiver" from "Health Secratary"?

Interesting. Yeah, sheeple. Either you are telling tales or your provider is pulling your leg. I guess Cheney was put in your place on that list, huh? Him being young and in otherwise excellent health, right?

Oh, and why are you covered by Medicare at the age of 45?

You sheep are so foolish to believe the lies this administration tells you. Since this law came into effect, I was immediately taken off the heart transplant list. I am a 45 yr old male, college graduate, married w/ 2 children, worked in the management for 20 years before becoming disabled from multiple severe heart attacks. The MI's have reduced the muscle to 11%. I need a transplant soon. But I need a waiver from the Health Secratary, due to a rare blood disorder i have. The Affordable HealthCare Act has determined a transplant would not be economical viable because the nature of my dis order is extreme blood clotting and if I had a new heart I would continue to have MI's, therefore a waste of medicare money. If this is not rationing care based on financial decisions and not on what is best for the paitent and MY Family I do not know what is. As of today i just returned home from a hospitalization from PE's, no mail from Health Sec. So no heart. Wake up you fools and read the bill, it's a mess and will destroy this economy and my family.

except this law hasn't gone into effect yet.

Nice try.

Tarheelone, according the republicans thinking, it's your own fault. you should have planned better, worked harder, saved more and had better insurance. we shouldn't pay for your short sightedness, and you are not entitled to a new heart. say good bye to your family. sincerely, republicans.

Maybe NUTS is exactly what this nation needs...because SANITY isn't working

Why would I want to have to do stuff for myself when I can pay the government to do it for me?

Who says he's not the sane one and the rest of us are crazy?

Who says we are not all just figments of his delusions??

I'm not an economist, but common sense told me Obama could not expand what amounts to government paid medical insurance to 30,000,000 - 40,000,000 people and not raise the budget deficit and the national debt enormously.

It's simple: Obama and Pelosi lied about the cost. In Pelosi's words to the House of Representatives, "Just vote for it. You can read it later." Obama just lied to the American people straight out when he said Obamacare would cut costs.

Tell us which goverment program in existence today is at or below budget projections from its inception? Are Medicare or Medicaid operating within projections or is the cost exceeding projections.

The CBO operates on assumptions given to them by the authors of the bills. If those assumptions don't pan out, the costs exceed projections. Too bad the assumptions are always incorrect otherwise the numbers might have actual meaning.

Alina> Why, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, did you believe otherwise? How is it possible to include that many more people in a "system" and decrease costs? When has the government ever brought anything in under budget?

The government has "operated" the postal service for over 200 years and cannot figure out how to do so on a break-even basis. How then can they involve themselves in something that works out to about 17% of our economy and make that work?

I suppose that if this Administration persuades the AMA to agree to eliminate a few more diagnostic test, as they did last week, from the medical protocol for determining illness and ailments then it is very possible that National medical expenses will decrease. Of course our national health will decline tremendously....

We can be like the UK...have back pain...not to worry and no need for an MRI just painkillers and anti-depressants for you oh yes and lessened mobility along with a decreased quality of life..but what the heck...without actually diagnosing illness we can increase our standing in health care ratings along with the rest of the developed world. The bi-product of fewer diagnostic tests for physical ailment...no tests no diagnosis for disability....no diagnosis for disability then no Federal or disability insurance payout....

I suppose it is just a lesson in watch what you ask for your wish just might come true.

Alina........I know, what a surprize that was:):):)

txmom32,

From medical studies I've read, a significant cost problem in the US is unnecessary testing. For example, people have MRI's all the time - even though they are often inconclusive or misleading. In some cases, the procedures (such as colonoscopy) can also cause harm. The bottom line is, regardless of which approach we take to health care, we need to be smarter about how we spend our money.

Ron-1861300....where I agree that we must be smart about how we spend health care dollars the point of medical care is to treat medical issues. We will not be effective in treating issues of the accepted protocols ration or eliminate diagnostic testing.

For example, people have MRI's all the time - even though they are often inconclusive or misleading.

Then I suppose in other cases they can be used to diagnose real structural problems that affect health and quality of life that may actually lead to a cure for the ill. Good example....we moved to Britain a few years ago...we had very costly private insurance through the company...because we paid dearly to use the insurance we only used it for our children who had some really fine and successful medical care. My husband and I used our NHS access...which we also paid for through the tax structure. By the time we arrived in England and had our effects there I was suffering with tremendous back pain. I went to our local NHS, which was just down the hill from our house. There was virtually no wait time because the NHS penalizes surgeries directly for long wait times. When I got the the Physician he was absolutely enthralled with what my American Dr. would do in any given setting. We finally got to my issue which was decreased mobility and tremendous pain. The Dr. determined, without even an attempt to examine the area, that I was suffering from depression, as many women do, from the stress of the international move. I asked for an MRI, not the first time I injured my back, and he just laughed and explained that based on my symptoms and lifestyle changes that I did not meet the requirements for expensive testing. Instead he gave me a script for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, muscle relaxers and pain killers. Upon returning to the US I went to my Dr. who just shook his head in disbelief and proceeded to send me to a pain Dr. who actually ordered an MRI that showed I had a disk that was bulging into a nerve in my lower back and another bulging disk in my neck. He then order a traction type procedure which after about the third treatment I actually felt the release of pressure on the nerve. Go figure the depression went away.

In some cases, the procedures (such as colonoscopy) can also cause harm.

And in some cases preventive/diagnostic procedures like colonoscopy save lives. My mother died a horrible death from metastasized colon cancer nine years ago. Because of family history she knew that she was at risk yet she did not attend to her own need. Had she taken the simple measure of having a colonoscopy at the age of 50 she would not have died at 63. In the last few painful and undignified weeks before her death she made me promise that I would get a colonoscopy, keep up with my well woman's exams, and maintain my own health so I could be around for my beautiful children. Because she wouldn't be able to take roll of granny that she so desperately longed for because she so completely loved the grandchildren she had been blessed with. Four weeks after her death I had my first colonoscopy...They found and removed three precancerous polyps. I was to follow up with another colonoscopy in three years. Well at the three year point we were in Britain and well they didn't do colonoscopy for early detection in the NHS and my US determination carried no weight. I didn't sweat it because we would be returning to the US soon and by then Britain's form of Universal health care had already let us down more times than I can count. So four+ years after my first colonoscopy I had another that revealed two more precancerous polyps which were removed.

There are certainly problems with our Medical in the United States. Some of it is assigned to the insurance industry...some to physicians and some to the lack of integrity of patients to actually pay for the services they use. The problem is not the diagnostic testing rather the lack of expectation that Dr.s will exercise their expertise and order the tests that they need to actually diagnose and treat patients.

The best way to contain cost is to take those who abuse patients out fo the loop and conversly to take patients who walk their own responsibility to pay for services rendered out of the loop. Those two sources of wasted medical dollars will set us on a path to reasonable cost for reasonable care.

you wrote too much. i am not even gunna try

Tell us which goverment program in existence today is at or below budget projections from its inception?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10... 1,000.

Did I miss any?

A report released April 2, 2012, from the INDEPENDENT United States Government Accountability Office or GAO finds that repealing ObamaCare would greatly add to the budget deficits and the national debt.

The report can be found online by a search for the title.

"The Federal Government's Long-Term Fiscal Outlook Spring 2012 Update"

So if it were a democrat it would be gospel, correct? Regardless of whether or not the author is a Democrat, Republican, or independent - look at the study with a cautious eye; review the assumptions and then compare it with a "study with the opposite conclusion. Then the discrepancies will come to light where the assumptions differ and also projections of costs and revenues.

When reviewing - take conservative measure of revenues and liberal measure of costs to arrive at a worst case scenario. do the reverse to arrive at the "best case scenario". Reality will be somewhere along that spectrum. It is not the political affiliation that matters, it is primarily the data and assumptions that count. Look behind the numbers - where are they pulled from? It is a fact everyone admits to that medical costs are careening out of sight. One of the tenets of the law is to use "best practices" in treatments and tests...etc... All well and good - but when looking at this it simply means using statistics to determine whether or not to order tests, and which drugs to prescribe. It is a very narrow part of the populace that will be effectively treated every time, as statistics are drawn from large numbers, and individual medicine treats at the personal level, where statistics do not necessarily hold true, as individuals react differently to different treatments. So if the one you need is not on the best practices, too bad you lose. Sorry - but I prefer individual medicine - Best practices are usefule, but not for determining what will get paid for. It is a starting point, not an ending point.

Where are the independent Democrat studies that support the economics of Obamacare? Apparently there aren't any published by Democrats because the numbers don't add up to a positive outcome. In fact, most politicians haven't even read the law's details. LOL! The most neutral of anyone to study it so far, the CBO report, showed Obamacare as an absolute trillion dollar failure.

It's in your court now. Unless Democrats can prove otherwise with facts rather than spin, Obamacare is doomed financially and soon, doomed constitutionally. Obamacare will live in historical infamy.

I believe the CBO instead of a Republican sponsered study!!

Medicare Advantage and Medicare Prescription Plan was mandatory and is costing way more then the GOP said! Where is the "Govt controlling our Healthcare " Wingnuts at for that?

@pissed...

Here...The CBO has already DOUBLED the original Obama numbers, and it's barely implemented at this point...

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

(as an aside, the CBO was off by a factor of 10 when it came to the original Medicare cost estimates.)

Pissedoffperson:

To believe a Democrat president that created a way for big corporate insurance companies and big pharma to have more money in their coffers, hmmmmmmm?

Canada. France. That "crap" that you referring to, saving peoples life's with out bankrupting them, or letting them die (as Ron Paul suggested) .

Ron Paul, who is in fact a physician. never suggested that we let people die. That's either a lie on your part or you are horribly misinformed. Which is it?

Did you see the debate where he stumbled on the question "What to do with the uninsured, will you just let them die?", and loud applause from your buddy's? Actually some 33 yer old guy from his stuff did die UNINSURED.

If you want to help the uninsured, find a way to do it without destroying the system for those of us who are happy with what we have now.

All we need is a public option into Medicare.......but the GOP/TP won't even go for that. Me thinks they know it would be popular.

Alina> I saw the debate and didn't view it the way you do. Speaking about people "dying uninsured" - when was the last time you had to step over an uninsured person dying in the gutter in America? Yes......people do die uninsured. That's just a fact. But creating the fiction that some 31,000,000 more people can be insured in any sense of the word without increasing costs dramatically is just foolishness.

Alina77

Did you see the debate where he stumbled on the question "What to do with the uninsured, will you just let them die?", and loud applause from your buddy's? Actually some 33 yer old guy from his stuff did die UNINSURED.

oh whoa-fully uninformed- Kent Snyder was a Former campaign manager aged 49 who died from complications from pneumonia, (gee isn't that what Bernie Mac died from? You know that super rich comedian.) Dr. Paul and his supporters created a website that raised over 36,000.00 to help pay his medical bills. (kentsnyder.com) Sorry that dog don't hunt.

1St what we would do with out the Charities, and donations? We are DONATION NATION .

And vote in who? Going back 40 years, you can find some significant way in which EACH president, Democrat or Republican, has messed up and made the country worse than it was before. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran hostage crisis, Stagflation, record high interest rates, deregulation of business, destruction of unions, shipping of jobs overseas, Reaganomics, recession of early 90s, tax hikes, NAFTA, Monica Lewinski, 9/11, irresponsible tax cuts that turned a surplus into a deficit, expensive Middle East Wars that accomplished nothing, the Great Recession, the bank collapses, the mortgage crisis, and the well intentioned but poorly timed Obamacare. Voting in this country is a decision about the lesser of two evils - not that it is any better anywhere else though.

Either from nuclear war, global warming, financial collapse, overpopulation, peak oil, or some other problem we are ignoring, the world as we know it is falling apart.

The pledge of allegience should be editted as follows:

"I pledge allegience to the flag [but exclude the IRS and president if he is from the other party] of the [loosely] United States [and commonwealths plus unrepresented territories] of America, and the Republic [or democracy/socialist hybrid] for which it stands, one [divided] nation, under God [whomever he may be, assuming he exists, but we cannot discuss that in school], indivisible [completely divided along partisan and idealogical lines], with liberty and justice for all [wealthy, mostly white people who can afford lobbyists, good lawyers, and health insurance].

I'm not an economist, but common sense told me Obama could not expand what amounts to government paid medical insurance to 30,000,000 - 40,000,000 people and not raise the budget deficit and the national debt enormously.

It's simple: Obama and Pelosi lied about the cost. In Pelosi's words to the House of Representatives, "Just vote for it. You can read it later." Obama just lied to the American people straight out when he said Obamacare would cut costs.

It's a smoke and mirrors game. Mandate that everyone must purchase Health Insurance...subsidies and high risk pools will be funded by whom? Anyone without health insurance can STILL be seen in emergency rooms.

So, we'll all be paying into the high risk pool and for subsidies...PLUS for anyone seen in emergency rooms without health insurance.

Well odumbo is a socialist muslim. What did you expect?

Snoop, just a dumb statement on your part. I hope your not allowed to vote.

Peter17> Rosy Scenario has been developing our budget here in California for decades. Think that's why California is broke?

Yeah, we all know that things were fine, and then Obama started flying on AF1 and now we're in a $16 trillion hole.

Boy... gas IS expensive, isn't it?

Not posted as good news just news to expose who is behind what.

Boy, Kathryn, I hope you're right. The Kochs have way too much power with the Repubs. Sad this has happened.

Your first paragraph is very telling in that you think trillions have been given by anyone. I'd imagine if the projected increase for a government department was 8% and the actual increase given was for 4%, you would say that department experienced a cut when in reality they still had a budget increase.

"Mercatus Center".................I Stopped, and Froze my reading right there.....they spend Millions on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY

thanks Bernie.

MesaMax the USPS is very efficient and raises it's prices less than FedEx and UPS. The Republican mantra of repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it seems to be at work in every situation. Why not compare facts instead of just repeating the latest lie to be put out.

USPS is hampered by retirement benefits not its efficiency!

I may be mistaken, but the Post Office has been around more than the past 4 years. Totally dumb statement. I suggest you price shipping a package overseas by Fed Ex or UPS. Talk about getting your head ripped off, two or three times the price.

Certain things a nation needs to provide its people. Public transportation, and postal service. Now, considering the obscene costs of health care in the US, compared to the rest of the world, it will also have to include a form of health care.

What I find bothersome, is nowhere do I see any of these so called "experts" factoring in the cost of health care provided by emergency rooms, and clinics, which are paid for by general revenues of the state, county, and local government. Add that up over the same period please!

Too long...didn't read.....copy paste.....

Too bad, Sloppy - you might learn something and that would be a disaster.

A report released April 2, 2012, from the INDEPENDENT United States Government Accountability Office or GAO finds that repealing ObamaCare would greatly add to the budget deficits and the national debt.

The report can be found online by a search for the title.

"The Federal Government's Long-Term Fiscal Outlook Spring 2012 Update"