Staggering Costs of Implementing Obamacare

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Aug 18, 2013.

  1. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    No, I think the 1.8 T over 10 years is the net new cost after including new revenues and Medicare cuts. At least that is what I'm getting from what I read. And I don't even buy those figures. As soon as ACA goes live, we are immediately adding 16 M to Medicaid rolls....INSTANTLY.
  2. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,130
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +540
    Your own link says the 1.8 trillion is the gross cost over ten years, not the net cost.
  3. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    "Cost to the treasury" would be what the treasury has to pay over and above what comes in wouldn't it?
  4. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,130
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +540
    So do you think gross income and net income are the same thing too?
  5. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    I run a business. We do fairly well. I know the difference. Please help clarify:

    In the case of ACA, we were told initially that the legislation would be "revenue neutral" correct? And then later we were told the cost to the treasury would be $1 T added to the deficit over 10 years, correct? And now we are told the "cost to the treasury" (which since we are not in a surplus and won't be therefore it is added to the deficit) will be $1.8 T over 10 years.

    Is this not what we are being told? Are we going to make money on ACA? Or is ACA going to cost us? I would think with 16 M people added to medicaid, that it is going to cost somebody? I would think if we are providing subsidies for individuals purchasing insurance on the exchanges and that approximately 85% will qualify for a subsidy, that it is going to come from somebody, right? Obama's stash?
  6. Bushmaster
    Online

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +502
    Dang, I think you are mistaken. This will add another 1.8 TRILLION to the debt.

    I will say I WISH you were right and the 1.8 TRILLION were merely the expenditures, but it will cost WAY more than 180 billion a year.
  7. ThePlayer
    Online

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,230
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,728
    It IS already a disaster, 66.
    Temporary jobs are the new permanent.
    People are leaving this country in disgust.
  8. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Perhaps the answer is a part time president with no benefits, no pension, no air force one and no secret service protection since he has supported and passed legislation that is creating a "part time" economy.

Share This Page