Democrats who pushed Obamacare through Congress over widespread outrage over what the bill would do both to civil society and the federal budget, used a variety of accounting gimmicks to make the cost seem less than it would be. For instance, the law won't be fully implemented until 2014 so the 10-year projection of costs didn't tell a story based in reality. The press went along with this, of course, and reported that the health care insurance law would cost $940 billion over 10 years.

Phillip Klein at the Washington Examiner reports:

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

Americans continue to express their dislike of this bill. The regulatory machine on steroids that was created by this bill is rolling along anyway, now adding violation of religious liberty to its list of wrongs.

Comments:


Israel P.
Joined
Feb '11
Israel P.

Who will be the first Obama flunkie to say "It's still worth it" or "I would have voted for it anyway."

Erik Larsen
Joined
Jan '11
Erik Larsen

It's only *started*, as you probably already know.  Anybody want to guess the percent of the Alberta Provincial Budget (population 3.7M, Revenue $35.6B) that goes to health care?    a)  ~10%  (b) ~20%  (c)  ~30%  (d) ~40%

Answer here on pages 2/3

That doesn't include federal transfers, and employee drug plans, and probably a zillion other things I'm forgetting about.  Health care is gaping maw that is impossible to sate.  Provincial cabinet ministers always complain to the health minister that he is eating their lunch

If you give the Congressional Budget Office garbage to input, they will put out garbage for projections.  You have no idea how bad it's going to get, honestly.

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

When you're in for a penny, they're in for the pound.

J.Voss
Joined
Jul '11
J.Voss

Does this include Ms Flukes projected nation-wide contraception costs?100+ Billion a year? :-p

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

The check's in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning, it will cost less than a trillion dollars...all just little lies.


Joined
Nov '10
mfgcbot

Who, if any, among the Republican candidates will be the first to pick up on this and add it to their campaign message?

Keith Preston
Joined
May '10
Keith Preston
mfgcbot: Who, if any, among the Republican candidates will be the first to pick up on this and add it to their campaign message? · 1 minute ago

my thoughts exactly.  But do you wait until after the SCOTUS weighs in?  I think you keep some powder dry for the general.  Keep the focus fresh.


Joined
Nov '10
mfgcbot

Keith Preston

mfgcbot: Who, if any, among the Republican candidates will be the first to pick up on this and add it to their campaign message? · 1 minute ago

my thoughts exactly.  But do you wait until after the SCOTUS weighs in?  I think you keep some powder dry for the general.  Keep the focus fresh. · 3 minutes ago

If I'm Rick Santorum, I'm pounding the table over this  ("...and today we learned that..."), and using it to reinforce my message that Mitt Romney isn't the guy to go after Obama in November.  For the rest, though, perhaps keeping it on the back burner until we have a SCOTUS decision would be the wise move.  

Fricosis Guy
Joined
Jun '11
Fricosis Guy

Great Now my wallet refuses to board the plane home...it's asking for political asylum.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Mollie, this is just a rounding error.  In the past they just "rounded" it to the number they wanted it to cost.

Or as a former manager once said, "I'm going to multiply your estimate by zero and add my management adjustment."

Eventually we'll get the real figures and we'll have to use scientific notation.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Mark Wilson:

Or as a former manager once said, "I'm going to multiply your estimate by zero and add my management adjustment."

When I was still a physics major, we called this the Andersonian Operator: it multiplies your result by zero then adds the answer you hoped to get. (Which makes it a kind of affine transformation, I think. Named after a guy who sometimes used it on homework and got away with it.)

Mark Wilson:

Eventually we'll get the real figures and we'll have to use scientific notation.

Yes, but there'll be nothing scientific about it.

James Gawron
Joined
Dec '10
James Gawron

Mollie,

Hmmm....let's see.   1) Bankrupting the country entirely.  2) destroying the greatest medical system in the world.  3)  smashing the most fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

All in a days work for the idiots who forced ObamaCare down every U.S. citizen's throat.

Regards,

Jim

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

I'm assuming this news is on the front page of the NYT and Washington Post, above the fold.

Chris Bogdan
Joined
Oct '10
Chris Bogdan
Erik Larsen: It's only *started*, as you probably already know.  Anybody want to guess the percent of the Alberta Provincial Budget (population 3.7M, Revenue $35.6B) that goes to health care?    a)  ~10%  (b) ~20%  (c)  ~30%  (d) ~40%

You're right about the overall trend in costs but there's an important distinction that should be noted: Beyond "providing" coverage, the Alberta government has effectively taken over the delivery of health services. As fiscally irresponsible as Obamacare is on track to be, it could be much, much, worse.


Joined
Nov '10
Copperfield

Mollie, you forgot the now obligatory:

Obamacare delenda est!

(I think I may have a sweatshirt or ball cap made with that inscription.) 

Erik Larsen
Joined
Jan '11
Erik Larsen

Chris Bogdan - I agree there is that important distinction that you mention.  However, as we probably both suspect, once the government gets interested in an issue or a program, it's pretty hard for them to look away . . . . . . nobody knows where this will end up . . .

Chris Bogdan
Joined
Oct '10
Chris Bogdan
Erik Larsen: Chris Bogdan - I agree there is that important distinction that you mention.  However, as we probably both suspect, once the government gets interested in an issue or a program, it's pretty hard for them to look away . . . . . . nobody knows where this will end up . . . · 44 minutes ago

Exactly right.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In