E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Barack Obama's healthcare law could sharply exceed its cost-savings targets and add up to $530 billion to the federal budget deficit, a leading authority on U.S. government benefit programs said on Tuesday.
A study by Charles Blahous, a George Mason University research fellow and the Republican trustee for the Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs for the elderly, challenges the administration's contention that the 2010 law would better keep healthcare costs in line.
Known as the "Affordable Care Act," or "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
Recommended: Obama in Florida pressing for 'Buffett rule'
The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether Congress overstepped its authority to regulate commerce in approving the law. The justices heard arguments in the high-stakes case two weeks ago.
Republican presidential candidates have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House in the November election. Conservatives denounce the standard as an unwarranted government intrusion.
A White House official could not immediately be reached for comment.
Obama and the Democrats believe the law will control skyrocketing costs and curtail government "red ink."
But Blahous, a former economic adviser in the George W. Bush White House, said in his research that the law is expected to boost net federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion and add between $340 billion and $530 billion to deficits between 2012-21.
"Relative to previous law, the (healthcare law) both exacerbates projected federal deficits and increases an already unsustainable federal commitment to health care spending," he concluded.
The analysis, first reported by the Washington Post late on Monday, also comes a month after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cut the estimated net cost of the healthcare law by $48 billion to $1.08 trillion through 2021.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Everything Obama will sharply worsen deficits! He'll be voted back in as more people currently receive "other peoples money" from the government, than pay federal income taxes, after filing.
Yeah like you never paid federal income tax when bush was in office with a surplus. bush and the previous president who cut rich people taxes starting with regan, created this recession. Now you want to fix it the second President Obama is in office then you vote people in because they called him every name in the book to get people to hate him just because. Not because he created this mess just because the GOP said it's his fault blame him we did not do anything. You have fooled the American people for 35 years with this low tax BS you claim will create jobs. Were are the F-n jobs the rich are paying the lowest taxes in 50 years and we have revenue at it's lowest point in 50 years.
I say higher F-n taxes for the rich even if it don't solve any thing but that extra 500 billion from the rich can go a long way in helping people.
Even if i was rich I would want to help pay higher taxes. I'm single and make six figure and pay at the highest tax rate I don't mind. It is the Greedy who do mind not helping others.
I for one don't think GOD told the GOP to sh!t on poor sick people who have no means of helping themselves. If I am correct Jesus took the rich peoples money and help the poor with it.
We grow as a nation when everyone is doing well not just the old azz rich people are doing well.
The rich people those who are making a million dollars a year are doing very well especially over the last 30 by seeing there income grow to over 280% while the average worker seen their salary drop by 2,000 to 49,800 per year. I'm sure you right wing nut jobs would say who gives a F-n and it is fair.
You will be the ones who will get judges by the deeds you do not by the wealth you have.
If YOU aren't successful, YOU can only blame YOURSELF. Nobody owes anyone anything. Free will. Self responsibility, try it! I give over 12% to charities and donate over ten hours of my time every week, for over 30 years now. I was born in and grew up in a slum. Didn't let it stop me from achieving.
Yeah SC throw this law out so the insurance companies can kick sick people off their health insurance coverage. I know you old azzes are going to get sick one day and the only thing that matters to you is the money you get from crooks (Corporations & Billionaires). Yes we need to reform as not to spend money but at the same time the worse thing you can do to people is kick them when they are down.
Taking the health care away will not make people not get sick, it will only make them go to the emergency rooms across the country. That costed State and the federal government more money and it did not curve the healthcare rocketing costs. So stupid people pick you poison -refuse healthcare to 125 million people or the HCA which reforms the way we provide healthcare to people and reduce or slows the rocketing healthcare cost. I know you right wing nut jobs say get rid of it, but how cruel is that. This is the sad part - wait until your family member gets so sick it wipes out your life savings do to the fact you fought against a plan that covers a huge portion of the 125 million which would have included your family member.
So yeah get rid of it now because you don't think it will affect you.
I can't wait to say I told you so.
How about having the freeloaders stop going to the emergency room for a cold? How about the freeloaders learn how to take care of themselves like some of the rest of us? How about the freeloaders stop insisting on anti-biotics for minor viral infections? Cutting costs should be everyone's job. ACA will still refuse to treat people who are not economically viable (they are already doing it). ACA will still refuse treatments that are too costly or too experimental or have too low a success rate. So under ACA, the conditions that sick people encounter today will still be here, but at a higher cost.
Either way, I have to pay your bills. Thank you very little.........
Solutions, if SCOTUS lets ACA stand then Congress will have the precedent to regulate your entire personal life as a means to control the costs of the ACA. Your BMI is too high? Get on a diet or pay a yearly penalty. You smoke? Get on a successful cessation program or pay a yearly penalty. You drink? Stop. Get pregnant? Stop everything else you are doing to prevent any complications that might cost too much. Get a cancer that is difficult to treat? Die to contain costs. Have a heart attack? Die to contain costs. If SCOTUS lets the ACA mandate stand, eventually a Dem controlled Senate and a Dem controlled House with a weak or Dem (or is that the same thing?) President will nanny us to death.
@Neal in Denver who the hell told you The President will control your entire life?
This of this if there was no law stopping me from killing people where would we be as a society?
There has not been a law to keep you thinking about your own health. Your healthcare choices affect everyone not just you. Prior to the HCA insurance companies would drop you because you got sick getting sick is not a goal you set in life it's a fact of life at some point you will get sick. You can deny this fact and call everyone freeloads because they do exercise or eat the right foods to stay health like you. But even after all of that you will still get sick. Maybe while running you tear a muscle who will repair it? You the one who was trying to stay health be had an accident? No the doctors, but now you have a precondition without the HCA you would never be insured again because you are an at risk person in the eyes of health insurance companies. And if you do get insurance again it will be at costs you may not afford. So you would be the one without insurance going to the emergency room.
The people who say F-n the old and sick please look at your parents family and friends who may not be as fortunate as you, or as planing for life events as you, or have the genes you have to stay healthy. Women use healthcare more than men are you willing to tell your wife not to go to the doctor? Good luck with that one.
@Neal in Denver,
I will admit there are somethings in the bill that i have a problem with. But that does not mean we should not provide healthcare only to the people that can afford it. We have 312 Million Men women and children in our society. Everyone is not going to make the right choices as everyone else and some of it is do to your family wealth and education, if they can afford it. If you are into poverty in the US does not mean you will never get out. But in order to get out you have to have an opportunity to get out. What if you are poor and you got straight A's in high school. Your family will not be able to afford your college education because they are poor. Who fault is it? Did you know 50 years ago black were not allow to vote let alone own homes. Who's fault it that? Theirs for not trying hard enough back then. How could they it was a law telling you not to vote or own a home. And even before that there was a law prohibiting blacks from reading. Who's fault is that. And before that there was a law for whites owning slaves. Who's fault it that?
So why can't there be a law making people aware of their health?
By the way the restrictive voting laws are making a comeback against poor and the elderly. Who's fault is that
Solutions, my, my, my, my post was about the ACA setting a precedent that would allow Pelosi, Reid and Michelle Obama (through her husband) to pass laws mandating that I stop smoking, drinking, eating meat, or doing anything that would endanger my health and therefore cost the government more money to provide for my healthcare (assuming I used their subsidies). My post had nothing to do with the ACA itself. The unholy three would love to ban chocolate, ice cream, pizza, any and all fast food, anything fried, etc. in their mistaken belief that they would be "helping" the country get better.
Add to that skydiving, base jumping, bungee jumping, skate boarding, skiing (snoe and water), the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, the Olympics, speeds in cars over 30 mph, all carbon-base energy production, etc. Go ahead and ask Pelosi if she thinks this is all a good idea and be prepared for an enthusiastic "YES, of course".
Solutions, you are wrong in part because the vast majority of people are covered under group health plans. These plans, if insured, are guarantee issue. If they are self-insured, the same holds true.
in typical fashion, the government reacts to an issue that affects the minority of the population with sweeping legislation. The government likes to use a full surgical team where only a band-aid was needed.
Can't believe MSNBC published this article.....they must really be trying to woo Republicans.
The NONPARTISAN CBO says it will reduce deficits....why would be believe a study done by a Republican (or liberal, for that matter) think tank that obviously has an agenda? Furthermore, why would said study recieve such play in the MSM?
There is and has never been any such thing as a NONPARTISAN CBO. This one was "counciled" and stop publishing deficit increases due to ACA and "suddenly" found some savings.
No it doesn't. The initial lie was based on outrageous assumptions supplied by democrats the CBO was forced to use. Now that parts have been implemented, the latest CBO show the costs over a trillion.
Why on MSM now? Because if they get it out now, it will be "old news" by the election. You always want to get the bad news out early so it isn't dumped on you the last moment, ala "October surprise".
Gee. Why not tell us how Bush engineered 9/11 as well? There's NO proof the CBO study was gamed. GMU? It's the GOP's in house study center
Exactly. The CBO does their own research and finds their own numbers. They were not "forced" to use anything. But of course everyone on the right is a conspiracy theorist.
That's Right ! GOP engineered that 9/11 by training Osama bin Laden and his Taliban the most advance tactics to defeat an enemy.
,In fact Osama Bin Laden was called by CIA operatives as their "Blue Eyes Boy".He is on CIA payroll for years prior before 9/11.
Whether you like the "Obamacare" law or not, the fact remains that our healthcare system is insane and unsustainable in its current form. We as a country pay far more than the rest of the world for a far worse result. Insurance companies make their money by taking as much as they can get while paying out as little as they can get away with. Every citizen is going to use the healthcare system at some point in their lives and I have yet to meet anyone that says just let me suffer and die. The average citizen can do nothing to fight these gigantic corporations so the only answer that can even begin to get their attention is something bigger(government). Have we as a society become so self centered and calloused that our opinion is to just let our neighbors suffer and die or lose a lifetimes worth of work because they have the misfortune of becoming sick. Rather than all the name calling and political posturing, we as a nation would be much better served by putting all that energy into trying to find a way to fix this problem that with or without "Obamacare" is only going to continue to get worse.
So the solution is to adopt a system that is more unsustainable? Definition of insanity, doing the same thing (adopting an unsustainable health care system) and expecting different results.
How about finally figuring out how much healthcare the country can reasonably afford (without grabbing anyone else's budget) and supplying that. My guess is that would exclude all transplants, cancer treatments and all research into any improvements. My guess is also that the CDC would not receive any funding either.
@Neal in Denver you have to adopt something that tries at least. Then you can re-exam it to make it better. If we don't do anything we will still have an unsustainable healthcare system. And the only one making money from it it the healthcare industry while driving up costs.
What is your plan?
If we adopt Obamacare there will be no way to try anything else as it is self-evident that once a Government program is in place and has a constituency, it never goes away.
I want something for nothing! Don't you dare take away my freebies or I will roll on the floor and throw a hissy fit. Please tell me when any federal program has been efficent and has run economically!
It works in other countries. Why can they do what we can't? The right simply runs away from evidence. Failure is success to the right
If it works in other countries, why do people die on waiting lists in Canada and the wealthy in Canada come to the U.S. instead of waiting. Ditto for just about any other country with "universal healthcare".
Another right wing lie. Polls in countries with UHC show overwhelming satisfaction with the system.
Polls, as has been demonstrated throughout the past centuries, can be engineered to get whatever result you want. Witness polls today that show Obama winning re-election handily and other polls showing him go down in flames. Polls are by their very nature not worth the effort.
@TBinNJ thank you, Denver has been spitting right wing talking point all day.
He wants 315 million men women and child to work as if there are 315 million jobs available.
I thought the RWNJGOP came into power promoting JOBS JOBS JOBS. Instead they want to restrict voting, cancel healthcare, mess with women private parts, spread lies who giving a rich person more of my tax dollars will help the country. Be there before. Why should we go back to it? Look what it got us a great recession NOT CAUSED by President Obama like they want you to believe.
The RWNJGOP has not caught up with technology yet. You can find any information you want with voice commands in seconds. The fight will be on the net. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other sites. So they can spend all the money they want on tv. How many people have Netflix?
Find my post where I mentioned this. If you are resorting to out right lies, your position must be indefensible
Neal in Denver is a pretty robust, right wing guy. He's also robustly ignorant. No one dies on waiting lists in other countries. In America, however, it's different. WE DO HAVE PEOPLE DYING. The 'list' they die on is NO HEALTH INSURANCE! Funny how the right wing forgets that NO health insurance is a form of rationing. WE RATION HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA. And PEOPLE DIE.
Health care is rationed everywhere and people do die on waiting lists to see specialists in Canada. They try like heck to hide this fact, but it gets out. You don't like the truth? Not my problem.
Notice how Neal ignores the fact the US rations care? People die in the US every day because they can't get care. But to Neal that's OK. after all, someone's making money on their deaths. Sweet!
I have read some of ObamaCare and see something different. I really don't think that a President would create such a healthcare system where people are made to pay for abortions.
I see something different. What I see is money being made from the abortion surcharge that will actually go towards medical research that could cure cancers as well as being used for other research.
From my experience Americans generally do not want to help those with cancers because it costs them too much money. Americans have been brainwashed to not believe in campaigns consisting of medical research because it costs far less to let the person die than too find a cure.
Luckily for America not everyone thinks like this and most Americans would give their last five dollars in order to help someone with cancer.
The money needed to treat cancers and continue cancer research however is not where it needs to be in order to promote advanced research and treatments.
In order to create a stir about this problem I think President Obama has created ObamaCare hoping to draw peoples attention to cancer treatments and when enough people know about he he would come out and say that the money being gathered through his healthcare is in fact being put towards cancer research.
Trillions have been poured down the bottomless research pit for what gain? We have expensive tests (e.g. mammograms) that were touted as the end all and be all of detection and prevention that have now been proven to be much less effective than previously thought. We have other tests that the medical community has decided should not be used after a certain age because even if the cancer is detected there is no truly effective treatment. I have information from three independent sources from within the ACS that the ACS is not really interested in finding a cure as that would put the ACS out of business. At a certain point the medical community does need to make an economic decision (as they already do today in some cases) as to the comparison of the cost of treatment against the "usefulness" of the patient even if treated. Universal Health Care means everyone gets the same service until it costs too much. Rationed care and death panels go hand in hand with UHC.
@Neal in Denver,
Now you hate cancer research? Wow do you have daughters? do you have a wife? what about a mother? Do you have aunties? What about female friends?
I just name five females you may interact within any given time. If you add another to each that would be ten. 1 in 10 women are at a higher risk than men to have cancer. Good luck with your twisted thinking Neal in Denver.
This stuff (healthcare) will affects you or someone you know this year and all you can say is kill the HCA at all costs. Anyone with a heart on this site will pray that you are mistaken in your views.
Thank GOD any females I know have no association with you.
Never said I hated cancer research. Typical of your ilk to put words into a disagreeable person's mouth. I think it is a waste of time for the most part. Whoever designed the human body put in just enough longevity to produce and raise the next generation. After that all sorts of problems need to be fought just to stay alive. I am guessing that you are female or have had females close to you die of cancer. This would easily explain your posts. I would like to take all the cancer research money and put it into research to redesign humans to naturally live to 150, with no chance of cancer at all. This would benefit many more people that all the cancer research that has been done, is being done and will be done. Cancer is a symptom of a much larger problem and cancer research is trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease. Of the categories you listed (daughters, wife, mother, aunts, friends), you missed my sister, my cousins, my former wife, etc. They are responsible for their healthcare. I take care of my own health and when I finally can't will just die and leave all you bleeding hearts behind. The ACA is an attempt to save everyone at any cost, a cost that will simply cripple this country OR produce the care rationing and death panels that the promoters swore would never happen. If that is the world you live in you are welcome to it. The ACA also interferes with what I want to do with my life, such that I cannot "pursue happiness".
Gee...having GMU pronounce sentence on Obama is like the U. of Havana tell us about capitalism. Veronique de Rugy, one of GMU's 'Mercatus Center' scholars is on the staff of "National Review". This isn't a study, it's campaign propaganda.
A Republican commenting negatively on the Healtcare Law.Gee thats new
A question posed - Turning the World on It's End.
The question that I have for America is this. Would everyone have been up in arms over ObamaCare if the same the provisions regarding Americans being forced to pay for abortions under certain health insurers that instead of abortion being written in that "A Cancer Research and Treatment Surcharge" was written in the law that certain health insurers charge an additional amount to be paid by the insured been met with the same fire as abortion?
I wonder how America would have reacted if Americans had to pay more money to their health insurers so that medical research into treating cancers could be raised.
Would Americans have foresaken those afflicted with cancers?
Why?
Yes. Whole-heartedly. Cancer is Mother Nature's way of telling you your time is up. And before you even suggest it, my grandfather, both grandmothers and father all died of cancer. If, god forbid, I ever get cancer, I will not treat it.
@Neal in Denver,
My assumptions about you were right. You would let any female you interact with die if they have cancer. WOW I truly feel sorry for you.
I knew that would be your reply. You have your belief system and the Constitution protects your practice of it and I have mine. I find your attitude to be completely selfish and self-centered, trying to hang onto someone who is doomed anyway. Note: I find the belief that life starts at conception foolish and self-centered also. Neither end of the spectrum has any tolerance for anyone that believes differently than they do. But you are right in the end, I would let any person anywhere, anytime die of incurable cancer rather than waste the money trying to extend their lives in agony.
This is just another GOP attempt to poison the public.The whole purpose of the GOP emphasis on the deficit is to provide cover as they will do anything to impede economic progress during this administration.The world is evidence that extreme austerity measures have these nations headed for a deep recession.Their insistance on deep cuts and tax breaks is disingenous.America has been under the Bush tax cuts for over a decade.The trend is clear,increasing deficit and lost of jobs was the pattern before the crash and they have tricked the faithful to ignore the pattern and look at Obama.This time they tell the naive ,the failure was that the cuts were not deep enough, wages are too high, and the job creators need much lower taxes.Their the ruse is "just look at Obama" and believe anything we say ,because it is better than OBAMA.Never mind the fact that the GOP is using the power of Congress to sabotage the economy for political purposes.This strict deficit stance is just a ploy to try to win the presidency by any means necessary.
As oppose to the DNC attempt to fool the public?
This may take away some of his handouts if I was on them id hunt me a job now and fast.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
I want a conservative think tank to do a study on how much it would cost to do NOTHING, and compare it to the ACA.
But I guess I'm asking too much.
Lost all credibility right there. Bush got us into this mess in the first place. Do we really want to be taking economic advice from one his advisers?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
Does anyone even know whats in it yet? Besides the talking points that is? No one read it and they passed it like the snakes they are. Thats not shocking. Shocking thing is since then has anyone read it. Nancy, or any Dem?
Punt and start over.
What are you talking about? More misinformation? At least they don't cry every 5 minutes. The men that is. I hope Hannity, and Oreilly and Limbaugh and Beck et al are happy with the ignorant stuff they get gullible people to believe. The other side sure isn't. It would be hilarious if it wasn't serious business.
Let's see, Obama promised that all legislation would be posted on the internet for 48 or 72 hours before a vote was taken so that the public could inform their legislators of their opinions. Pelosi, and others, essentially said that they would not tell anyone what was in the ACA until it was passed. Obama did nothing to stop or even hinder this underhanded tactic despite his promise. Either Obama promised things he could not do or he would not do, regardless he lied just so he could get elected (I know that makes him no better than any other politician, but he promised that he wasn't just another politician).
Breaking news..a Republican think-tank with a patriotic/academic name, funded behind the scenes by some right-wing neo-con is grandstanding a study against Obama, all for the good of mankind...I mean, really?
Is this a republican study. They have been against this bill ever since they suggested it and then voted against it. I have never seen such a pathetic group of people. I am tired of their constant lying and distortions and getting people to believe and react. Too bad they don't have some of those values they used to say they had. Haven't seenmany if any being practiced lately. At least God knows and will handle the situation honestly and respectfully.
Im gona blame Bush for pushing obamacare down my throat to.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
An "Economic" adviser under the Bush administration? Is that the same one that brought us the worst recession in history. Just what "economics" did he advise? Allow Wall Street and corporations to run full tilt without any controls at all???
And lo and behold: he's a republican. Who would've thunk!
Oh and by the way, since he was in the administration do you think he has free health care for life?????
Obama and congress are 100% exempt from having to use Obamacare. The Kennedy clause. If you try to force people to buy healthcare, shouldn't you be forced to do the same? I guess this is do as I say, not as I do.
Also, the estimated cost was supposed to be $900 billion in ten years, but they moved some numbers around and now its supposed to cost $1.4 trillion in nine years. These idiots make laws that don't have ryme, or reason and we have to bend over and take it.
"A study by Charles Blahous, a George Mason University research fellow and the Republican trustee"
How surprising is that? A right wing retardican as hole at odds with the ACA . Who would have guessed?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.
Is the only think you can post, Solutions539, that "the Koch brothers are behind this..."?
Maybe you should read your own link regarding the CBO projections. If you did, you will see that the savings are projected only looking at part of the bill. The cost projection of the cost when passed was about $940 billion for ACA. CBO released numbers for the cost at about $1.76 trillion this year.
You are being completely disingenuous with your numbers and your position.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html
The Koch brothers is behind this see for yourself.
but the CBO's two year update actually bumped up the savings projections a bit.