I'm Shocked!!! (Obamacare Costs)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
#1
CBO revises and DOUBLES the estimate on Obamacare costs to $1.76 TRILLION in 10 years!!!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

This is shocking!!! Obama pledged that the total costs wouldn't be more than around "900 billion over 10 years".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

How can this be???? Obama has an Ivy League education and is suppose to be the smartest President ever! And we know he wouldn't lie to us, right?

Why didn't someone warn all of us???



Oh, we did.
 
May 6, 2009
760
42
78
OKC, Detroit,
#5
again the systemic destruction of the USA and wear down the middle class to the level of the poor, leaving a VERY slim upper crust that can be manipulated. It leaves a huge class of people reliant on the GOVERNMENT for aid, healthcare, etc....Marxism boys, look it up..
 

OSU_CC

Territorial Marshal
Dec 4, 2010
6,077
2,349
743
#7
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich shouldn't have invented it, then.
Meet New Gingrich:
Contract with American legislative proposal #1:
Repeal Obamacare
http://newtgingrich360.com/repeal-obamacare

"MITT’S PLAN
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition."

But yeah, it makes sense to blame stupid decisions and laws that Obama created and has adamantly supported on the GOP candidates who are adamantly against it. Sounds logical...
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,140
1,207
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#9
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich shouldn't have invented it, then.
You sound like a Rick Santorum PAC commercial. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states.....I'm sure they loved Romneycare and maybe it was right for them. Let the state decide for themselves. But I think you are being more than a bit disingenuous when you don't elaborate the differences between a country wide mandate and a state's right issue.

To me, this is a non-issue that I could care less about.....much ado about nothing.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,431
3,764
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#10
I am eagerly awaiting the first term of President Romney and the dismantling of the Obama horror show beginning with the firing of every Czar and the elimination of those positions on day one.........then to be followed by the making of the term Obamacare nothing more than a humorous Trivial Pursuit question that asks "what Presidential initiative passed by a partisan Congress on March 21st, 2010 threatened to destroyed America"............with a one-word answer on the back of the card that reads "Obamacare".....
 
Aug 7, 2009
3,640
1,150
743
Oklahoma City
#11
CBO revises and DOUBLES the estimate on Obamacare costs to $1.76 TRILLION in 10 years!!!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

This is shocking!!! Obama pledged that the total costs wouldn't be more than around "900 billion over 10 years".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

How can this be???? Obama has an Ivy League education and is suppose to be the smartest President ever! And we know he wouldn't lie to us, right?

Why didn't someone warn all of us???



Oh, we did.
Lie? You saw his lips moving didn't you? And check out the lying eyes of Nancy baby, AKA as "saving the planet girl," and her sidekick Dirty Harry master rigger of elections. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The most shocking thing of all is that this regime is a slight favorite to be re-elected. Now that is REALLY scary.
 
May 8, 2009
4,544
2,784
743
Germantown, TN
#13
Lie? You saw his lips moving didn't you? And check out the lying eyes of Nancy baby, AKA as "saving the planet girl," and her sidekick Dirty Harry master rigger of elections. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The most shocking thing of all is that this regime is a slight favorite to be re-elected. Now that is REALLY scary.
Maybe we should have looked at the bill before they passed so we couild see what was in it.



I'll get you my pretty!!!..............and your little dog too!
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,116
17,717
1,743
#14
CBO revises and DOUBLES the estimate on Obamacare costs to $1.76 TRILLION in 10 years!!!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

This is shocking!!! Obama pledged that the total costs wouldn't be more than around "900 billion over 10 years".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

How can this be???? Obama has an Ivy League education and is suppose to be the smartest President ever! And we know he wouldn't lie to us, right?

Why didn't someone warn all of us???

Oh, we did.
Didn't Obama tell us it would save us money before he told us it would cost us money?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
26,330
15,249
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#15
There is now some proof that the approach that Obamacare is trying to take will in fact save money......However, I am fully behind the idea that Obamacare is the wrong way to try to make this approach through Healthcare Reform. It would seem they got the idea right, but the planned implementation of it and its extra baggage is just horrible


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...macare-is-on-the-right-track-to-reduce-costs/

While anyone who tries to tell you that the Affordable Care Act has already had some significant impact on either lowering or raising healthcare costs is being considerably less than honest—as the provisions that will do one or the other do not come into play for a few more years—there are some positive signs that the law might be on the right track when it comes to long-term cost savings.
One of the more controversial aspects of Obamacare is the expansion of the Medicaid program that is expected to bring some 16 million more people into the program. Of course, such an increase comes at a price—presently estimated by the CBO to raise the federal portion of Medicaid from the current 1.7 percent of GDP to 2. 5 percent in the year 2022.
If you understand why the ACA has embarked on this approach, you know that the expansion is based on the notion that getting more people access to the healthcare system when ‘small’ illnesses can be treated before they become more complicated and dramatically more expensive, we will save considerably more money than we spend in the long term.
A new study conducted by The University Of California Irvine and the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, has produced some results that indicate that the approach taken by the ACA may be very much on the right track.
The study involved giving health insurance to some 26,000 previously uninsured people in Richmond, Virginia, allowing them to access primary care services in the area. The demographics of those participating in the program were designed to match the demographics of those who will be affected by the expansion of the Medicaid program in 2014.
Similar to Medicaid, participants were responsible to re-enroll in the program proactively for subsequent years.
To date, the study reveals that primary-care visits, for patients who continued to participate it the program for three years, rose from 1.06 in the first year to 1.60 visits annualized over the three years of the study. Not surprisingly, the emergency room visitation rate fell from 1.02 for these folks in the first year to .74 by the end of year three.
The pay-off?
When measuring the change in health care costs for those participants who increased their visits to a primary care physician during the three year period while decreasing the number of visits to the emergency room, the study reveals that, on average, the total annual health care costs per enrollee fell from $8,899 in year one, to a startling $4,569 in year three—an almost 50 percent decline in the cost of health care per individual.
That’s a pretty huge savings.

When all participants, including those who did not stay in the program for the full three years, are added into the numbers, the total health care costs per patient declined form $7604 to $4,726.
So, what does this tell us?
According to study co-author, David Neumark, UC Irvine Chancellor’s Professor of economics and director of UCI’s Center for Economics & Public Policy study –

A lot of the debate about healthcare reform surrounds the issue of whether we’re setting up something that’s going to cost us more by increasing use of medical services or something that will cut costs through more appropriate and timely use of medical services. Our research shows that, over time, costs can be reduced through increased use of primary care and reductions in emergency-department visits and hospital admissions, but it may take several years of coverage for substantive savings to occur.”​
While the benefits of bringing more people into the healthcare system, by opening the Medicaid program up to more participants, are not going to be readily apparent overnight, this study does indicate the—in the long-term—we will end up saving a lot of money.
The study reveals one additional thing that is highly relevant to the intent of the ACA—when people use the services of primary care physicians rather than waiting for a full blown emergency that takes them to the ER because they do not have health care coverage, we save a bunch of money. As there appears be a growing meme on the part of Obamacare opponents that there is no proof that preventative care pays off in cost savings, this study should help in putting that particular line of attack to rest.
One additional caveat worth noting—if the states, who operate the Medicaid programs, continue to make it difficult or inconvenient for potential beneficiaries to sign up, we will not gain the cost savings that we see are possible. There is an inherent conflict between states looking to save money by lowering the number of enrollees to their Medicaid programs and the benefits this type of study reveals are possible when we sign up and retain everyone who qualifies.
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
#17
Lie? You saw his lips moving didn't you? And check out the lying eyes of Nancy baby, AKA as "saving the planet girl," and her sidekick Dirty Harry master rigger of elections. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The most shocking thing of all is that this regime is a slight favorite to be re-elected. Now that is REALLY scary.
You are so right. Scary doesn't even begin to describe.

Are majority of Americans completley blind, ignorant to what this leads to or are they just holding out their hands for their own free handouts (lazy)?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,116
17,717
1,743
#18
There is now some proof that the approach that Obamacare is trying to take will in fact save money......However, I am fully behind the idea that Obamacare is the wrong way to try to make this approach through Healthcare Reform. It would seem they got the idea right, but the planned implementation of it and its extra baggage is just horrible


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...macare-is-on-the-right-track-to-reduce-costs/
The idea of health care reform has been around for a long time and one supported broadly across party lines.

ObamaCare would be more correctly described as a disaster I think though rather than reform. When one of the most powerful in one of the two controlling parties stands up and says "we've got to pass it to see what's in it" you can't have a very comfortable feeling that they have a clue what they're doing or they're hiding something from you!
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
26,330
15,249
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#19
When one of the most powerful in one of the two controlling parties stands up and says "we've got to pass it to see what's in it" you can't have a very comfortable feeling that they have a clue what they're doing or they're hiding something from you!
I'm pretty sure that they were too stupid to know what was in it themselves. We've seen these people in action. I doubt too many people have enough faith in our Government to think they knew exactly what was in it and was using a clever way to hide it
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,116
17,717
1,743
#20
I'm pretty sure that they were too stupid to know what was in it themselves. We've seen these people in action. I doubt too many people have enough faith in our Government to think they knew exactly what was in it and was using a clever way to hide it
Which is my point. If that's the case it shouldn't have been voted on and passed! Under those circumstances passing it was nothing but political. We've spent a lot of time here on these OP boards discussing issues of religion and politics. Like many have posted I'm more concerned about stupid and politics.