If you want the truth about the cost of ObamaCare, you’re not going to get it from the Democrats, the Heavy Breathers, the Warmers, or the Truthers. The Cato Institute, the non-partisan think tank which has done groundbreaking work on experimental economics and sensible alternatives to the Drug War, has examined the health care bills coming out of Congress.
The conclusion? Budget gimmicks, changing the date window to cover years when nothing is implemented, and outright distortion by refusing to cover a federal mandate on the private sector as “a cost”, have hidden ObamaCare’s $6.25 Trillion Pricetag.
The CBO, which doesn’t account for the price of any of the above, still admits that everyone’s helath care premiums will RISE because of this boondoggle. It also admits that tax rates will have to double by the time new workers are ready to retire, to 66% in 2050, to pay for Government spending on health care, if we continue down this path.
So, how did the Democrats get there? First of all, they score the first decade of spending from 2010 to 2019, a full four years before the government money starts to flow. They will only be collecting the first four years. Adjusting the markers from 2014-2023, the cost is $2.5 trillion.
Second, mandating individuals and businesses purchase health insurance. Since when is this not “a cost?” Every other government mandate is given with a price tag? Why are the Democrats so scared to put up the numbers? The government can force you to cough up $10,000 for health insurance, and then hand that to private insurers, and its spending. But write the law differently so the government makes you just hand the money to the private insurer directly, and suddenly it drops off the spending charts. And directly in contradiction to how the CBO scored mandates in the past, including the Clinton plan. Very duplicitous. Very sad.
When you correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.
Cato Institute non-partisan? LOL. That’s rich.
The Cato Institute openly advocates for free market policies at virtually any cost (read, opposes regulations of almost any kind), promotes small government, and they’re climate change denyers. It’s conservative history is well-documented. About the only thing you can say for them is they’re generally non-interventionist. The neocons could have listened to them more intently round about 2003.
(also, anon, they’re great on civil liberties – eg, against illegal eavesdropping, the war on drugs, etc., Greenwald works with them a lot. But you’re right, on economic issues they’re squarely with the Rethugs. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer, every time.)
Well, I wouldn’t expect the Warmers to do anything but avoid talking about the reality of the numbers… The CATO Institute is only political to warmers, truthers and heavy breathers is because they refuse to live in reality and base their politics as such. Reality is politically hostile.
Reality of the numbers? From a think tank that would say anything to preserve the status quo for insurance companies and Big Pharma? Uh, right.
Take from the middle class and give to the Unions, the Trial Lawyers, left wing insurance pools like the AARP.
Cato is funded by radical right wing billionaires, who are waging class warfare against the rest of us.
There are 10,000 extraordinarily rich families in America, and some of them fund class warfare.
It’s pathetic that people like Crowley are duped by them.
I suppost if you count the premiuns collected with the mandate, you can get close to that number, but it leaves out the fact that somebody will be paying for this with or without reform.
Perhaps they are correct, let those who have no insurance receive care at the ER at a higher cost and those who have insurance and the taxpayers can pick up the rest like we do now. So we do not save medicare the 200 billion or so, that does not count either.
Lets do exactly nothing, then in about 10-20 years when over half of the population does not have insurance we can pass a single payer system, like should be done now.
Does the accounting take in to account what the increase in cost will be without any reform? That would be an intresting number to have also, including of course all of costs to people and businesses not having insurance, like death. lost time at work, emergency room expences, increased disablity benifits that the taxpayers pay, it would come up to a big number also. Perhaps more that 6.75 Billion if one is careful with there addition.
Anybody can add up numbers, but is that really the question we should be focused on?
LOL! Ok… then please don’t tell me you’re going to add up the numbers and explain how much the war in Afghanistan is going to cost. That is not the question that you will focus on!
I am sure somebody will, but since I support increasing our troop level there we are probally closer on that subject. Cost is not the top issue there, the prevention of another 9/11 attack to me is the top priorty, followed closely by bringing those who attacked us to justice or an overdue quick end.
Bush should have brought Osama to justice or shot him when he had the chance. I said privtely at the time if they had the opportunity to kill or capture him they would likely let him go. Why? to capture him at that time would have destroyed public support they were building to attack Iraq.
Which I felt correctly at the time they were going to do inspite of any facts, Bush was determined to get Saddam regardless of the cost.