开云体育

I guess you're not following CBO estimates very closely. Here's some excerpts from a March 23, 2013 article you might find interesting.

Obamacare at Three Years: Increasing Cost Estimates


Today marks three years since Obamacare was signed into law, and taxpayers probably aren't celebrating.

Over the last three years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revised its cost estimates for Obamacare's new entitlements?the Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies?many times, and they have more than doubled since 2010.

The first estimate in 2010 pegged the gross cost at $898 billion from 2010 to 2019. But this projection was deceptive, because it included only six years of spending on these provisions, since they don't begin until 2014.

However, CBO's latest estimate in February 2013 provides a more accurate cost projection, finally encompassing 10 years of full spending. The 11-year estimate places spending on these provisions at $1.85 trillion from 2013 to 2023.

It is likely that these costs will continue to increase in the future, as will the tax provisions that help pay for this new spending.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote:
>
>
> What ARE you talking about - the projections from the nonpartisan CBO are the progressive party line? Documented lower insurance rates in several states' exchanges already are the progressive party line?
>
> Ah.......no. As I've had to repeatedly explain to you, FACTS ARE FACTS. They aren't owned by one side of the political spectrum, but only one side of the political spectrum consistently thumbs their noses at facts - that'd be your side. Only one side thinks that making bogus arguments is a valid way to discuss things - that'd be your side.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Cay
> To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
> Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:59 pm
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
>
>
>
>
> Oh sorry that would be the progressive party line but I'm sure you understood that. Lets see what the cost curve looks like in January.
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon > >
> >
> > Oh, so you were simply behaving as a troll, and you weren't actually interested in having an honest debate?
> >
> > Thanks for admitting it in public for everyone on this forum to see. I just LOVE it when people like you out themselves! I swear.....
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
> > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
> > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:37 pm
> > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It appears you've swallowed the bait. Good luck and enjoy the weekend.
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I did no such thing. I've ONLY been directly responding to other's dishonest and/or disingenuous postings on this topic. As such, accusing ME of turning it into a political discussion isn't fair or accurate. If one looks at the first postings on this subject, one sees claims that Obama wants us to eat dog food, for example. Claiming that *I* have turned it into a political discussion? Ha!
> > >
> > > We have already seen the positive bending of the cost curve. We've already seen families be able to get and keep healthcare coverage as a result.We already know that people who couldn't afford coverage in the past who can now get it.
> > >
> > > We COULD have a cost to those who already have insurance, it's true. But when one compares that to the benefits to millions of families, and when one sees that only those most able to bear the financial burdens of some additional costs will see more money coming out of their pockets, it's truly hard to argue against it using factual info.
> > >
> > > And that's why my side of the argument has been using facts, and your side has only been using opinions that one can't support with the known facts.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sam Cay
> > > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
> > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:52 pm
> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You've watered down the conversation now to a political discussion. I have no interest in playing the political game. The benefits or failings of the ACA will be demonstrated in the cost and quality of the plan to those who presently have insurance. To those who do not have insurance they now will have a 100% increase in cost .
> > >
> > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but see, unlike you, who wasn't aware of the Republican-genesis of healthcare reform, we already knew that no Republicans voted for it.
> > > >
> > > > But what we ALSO know is that politicians not voting for something can mean several things - that they never supported something, or it can mean that they refrained from voting for it due to purely partisan reasons. And the evidence we have available tells us that it wasn't due to anything other than partisan reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Read the article by a reliable conservative voice, Norman Ornstein, who works for a conservative think tank, AEI. That will give you some insight, if you'll ONLY be open to another opinion other than your own, as to how unfair the Republican leadership has been on this topic.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that you want to believe what you want to believe - but that doesn't change the facts in this issue. "Obamacare" is what Republicans, for years, said that they wanted from healthcare reform - but when a Democrat pushed for it, and when a Democratic majority in Congress created it with a ton of Republican input during the process, they failed to vote for it in the end.
> > > >
> > > > I previously provided 4 links to info about Obamacare that gave you info about how it's full of Republican ideals. Here's some more info.
> > > > (Oh, and here's a clue - attacking the source, rather than the info which the source provides, is a logical fallacy, and an illegitimate way to argue. You should stop doing it.)
> > > >
> > > > The idea that all Americans should purchase health insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay up when the uninsured get sick has its origins in a 1989 brief ("Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,") by the conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. In fact, several Republican leaders, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney himself, once embraced the idea. Romney famously spearheaded such a mandate in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Now, of course, the concept is being compared to Stalinist dictate.
> > > >
> > > > Or here are some more pieces of info. Again, you can refuse to acknowledge the undeniable, but that's your shortcoming, not ours.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs
> > > > (Sources: H.R. 3468, ????????????????????????Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act???????????????????????? (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, ????????????????????????Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act???????????????????????? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, ????????????????????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????????????? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, ????????????????????????Medical Rights & Reform Act???????????????????????? (Kirk bill), "Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act")
> > > >
> > > > Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.
> > > > (Sources: S. 1783, ????????????????????????Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act???????????????????????? (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, ????????????????????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????????????? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, ????????????????????????Roadmap for America????????????????????????s Future Act???????????????????????? (Ryan bill); S. 1099, ????????????????????????Patients???????????????????????? Choice Act???????????????????????? (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill))
> > > >
> > > > Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.
> > > > (Sources: H.R. 4038, ????????????????????????Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act???????????????????????? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, ????????????????????????Medical Rights & Reform Act???????????????????????? (Kirk bill))
> > > >
> > > > Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.
> > > > (Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, ????????????????????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????????????? (Republican Study Committee bill); ????????????????????????Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act???????????????????????? )
> > > >
> > > > Mechanisms to improve quality.
> > > > (Sources: H.R. 4529, ????????????????????????Roadmap for America????????????????????????s Future Act;???????????????????????? S. 1099, ????????????????????????Patients???????????????????????? Choice Act;???????????????????????? H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, ????????????????????????Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act???????????????????????? (Enzi bill))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Community Mental Health Centers. The President????????????????????????s Proposal e (Message over 64 KB, truncated) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 365 Return-Path: X-Sender: slouise217@... X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 65773 invoked by uid 102); 28 Jul 2013 21:46:55 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq5.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.36) by m2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2013 21:46:55 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 23500 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2013 21:46:55 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO omr-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.109.200) by mtaq5.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2013 21:46:55 -0000 X-Received: from mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.75]) by omr-d03.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 348C87000009D for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:46:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Received: from core-dkb004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dkb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.181.219]) by mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id E78F4E000085 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:46:54 -0400 (EDT) References: To: ibmpensionissues@... In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D059F31C5E57E0_1B4C_95965_webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37893-STANDARD X-Received: from 67.79.10.133 by webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.4) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:46:54 -0400 Message-Id: <8D059F31C4DAE39-1B4C-286D2@...> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:46:54 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:442031200:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 8 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294b51f5914e740c X-Originating-IP: 10.193.84.36 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 From: Sue Runyon Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u`066738; y=nG3NlcSaciRwNqn5MD5iTNEyQcNkA4yWSj0OMbDk93HO9FT6 X-Yahoo-Profile: louise217 ----------MB_8D059F31C5E57E0_1B4C_95965_webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" If someone says that it's a fact that a fetus in the womb has no rights, that'd be their opinion, not a fact. The same can be said for the rest of the opinions you say are facts. They're opinions, not facts. But facts are facts. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin W To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:21 pm Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare Well Sue then help us all since it seems the entire country cannot agree on a fact and neither can the law of the land. Many people seem to say it is a fact the thing in the womb after conception is a fetus with no rights. Others say the child in the womb after conception is a human with all the rights of any human. Fortunately for the country neither side claiming the facts has won total control of the argument. I am sure we can all list other "facts" that are facts for only a single group of people and supported vehemently by selective association of information. You cannot even define a color factually unless you get very strict in the definition, or ensure everyone associated with the definition has the same visual capabilities. --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > No, Kevin, facts are facts. No one owns "facts". They're available for everyone. > > And while someone's feelings might be hurt when another exposes their dishonesty, it's not an insult to call a liar a liar when the discussion revolves around whether or not that person is being honest.. That's not what an insult is. > > Opinions are related to a personal belief set. Facts are not. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin W > To: ibmpensionissues > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:25 am > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > Untruths can be refuted without denigration and insult. Facts can be presented without being insulting. As many of the posts have shown, facts don't equate to truth. What is fact for you because it suits your personal belief set, living situation, context may not apply to someone else in different situation. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote: > > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------MB_8D059F31C5E57E0_1B4C_95965_webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

If someone says that it's a fact that a fetus in the womb has no rights, that'd be their opinion, not a fact. The same can be said for the rest of the opinions you say are facts. They're opinions, not facts.

?

But facts are facts.