CBO Is Increasingly Skeptical About ObamaCare

[mikey23545]

The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office : Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.



The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights a number of reasons why the CBO is concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. It boils down to this: Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.

First, more expensive: The CBO significantly hiked the amount of money needed to fund the subsidies available through Obamacare's exchanges, hiking them by $233 billion. IBD explains: “The CBO's new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago. That's an increase of nearly 29%. The CBO upped the 10-year subsidy cost by $32 billion since just last August.” Part of that is expecting more people in the exchanges thanks to employer dumping and more limited Medicaid expansion, but “The rest is largely the result of the CBO's sharp increase in what it expects the average subsidy will be. Last year, the CBO said the average exchange subsidy for those getting federal help when ObamaCare goes into effect next year would be $4,780. Its latest estimate raised that to $5,510 — a 15% increase. All these numbers are up even more from the CBO's original forecast made in 2010, which had the first-year subsidy average at $3,970.”

Second, more disruptive: More employees will be dropped from their existing plans and fewer uninsured people will get coverage. The WSJ explains: “The CBO has long said it expects the new federal health law will prompt some companies to drop millions of employees from health plans because workers have new options to buy insurance on their own. In August, CBO put the number at four million over 10 years. Now it’s seven million. What changed? Nothing about the health law. Rather, the cliff deal that was enacted in January. When CBO crunched the numbers in August, it assumed that no cliff deal would be reached and higher tax rates would kick in. Economists typically assume that higher tax rates mean that more people are offered, and accept, employer-provided health benefits, says Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That’s because health benefits are tax-deductible for companies, and so are any premiums that the employee is required to contribute.”

Third, more difficult to implement: The CBO isn't buying the administration's repeated assurances that everything will be ready to go on time when it comes to the health insurance exchanges. From the report: “CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] have slightly reduced their estimates of the rates at which people will enroll in the insurance exchanges or Medicaid as the expansion of coverage is implemented—a process that had already been anticipated to occur gradually. That change reflects the agencies’ judgment about a combination of factors, including the readiness of exchanges to provide a broad array of new insurance options, the ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries, and people’s responses to the availability of the new coverage.”

National Journal explains: “Publicly, administration officials have promised that the new exchanges will be ready on time… But the CBO report expresses skepticism… In plain language, that means CBO thinks the marketplaces won’t have many insurance choices, the Medicaid enrollment systems will not be ready for new people to enroll, and people will be less enthusiastic about signing up for new insurance options.”

Taken together, this is a report that shows how already, Obamacare is failing to match the hopes of its creators in many respects. Expect this trend to continue in future years. This is going to be a lot of political fractiousness and market disruption over a policy which may ultimately end up nudging the insured percentage up only slightly.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...re_116951.html

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Exactly. All it's doing it robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'll take this as admitance that you're wrong. Thanks.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I'll take this as admitance that you're wrong. Thanks.

you live in such a big bubble I've given up. I'd rather post random meme's.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you live in such a big bubble I've given up. I'd rather post random meme's.

Wow. What a weird way to cope with having your ass handed to you.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Wow. What a weird way to cope with having your ass handed to you.

[Dallas Chief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Wow. What a weird way to cope with having your ass handed to you.

Yeah he clearly has no ****ing clue what he is talking about. He sure can latch on to a headline though!

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Dallas Chief

Yeah he clearly has no ****ing clue what he is talking about. He sure can latch on to a headline though!

My opinion is that 20% of administration overhead is plenty of margin for a health insurance business. How hard is that to understand?

Just because I chose to not get into stupid ass arguments with people who are not going to change their mind doesn't = "getting my ass handed to me".

I am making a choice to who and how often I will respond to in this forum.

So if you want to make the choice to label all who disagree with you as liberal scum, thats your choice.

[FD]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Do you know how I know you have no idea how insurance companies work?

The goal of an insurance company it to break even on on their underwriting losses. Essentially to take in the same amount on premiums that's paid out in claims. How they make their money is investing the money from the premiums they take it and earn money on that before they have to pay it out in claims. They are essentially borrowing money at a 0% clip and if they happen to make a 2-3% profit on the insurance side that's is pretty damn good.

So when insurance companies are forced to pay out more money guess what? They need to take in more money from those already paying the premiums, it doesn't come out of the insurance companies pockets at all because they can't afford to do that without raising addition funds.

So as you see it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

No, raising premiums wouldnt solve their problem in your example, it would only exacerbate it, since it means more premiums not spent on health costs. Only cutting administrative costs (as a share of total costs) can solve the problem. I dont think you understand the 80% rule.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by FD

No, raising premiums wouldnt solve their problem in your example, it would only exacerbate it, since it means more premiums not spent on health costs. Only cutting administrative costs (as a share of total costs) can solve the problem. I dont think you understand the 80% rule.

No. If you are paying out more in claims then you are taking in, in premiums that you raise premiums. There really isn't much room to manuever in OH cost for these companies. Insurance companies employee a shit load of people in hope of breaking even and then invest that money into things like strip malls or whatever that also employee a shit load of people. Anyone that thinks the general principle of insurance is the debil just doesn't get it. In fact some companies actually lose more money in claims then they take it, but that's not so horrible in a good economy so the eat the loss there in hope of recouping the investement income.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

No. If you are paying out more in claims then you are taking in, in premiums that you raise premiums. There really isn't much room to manuever in OH cost for these companies. Insurance companies employee a shit load of people in hope of breaking even and then invest that money into things like strip malls or whatever that also employee a shit load of people. Anyone that thinks the general principle of insurance is the debil just doesn't get it. In fact some companies actually lose more money in claims then they take it, but that's not so horrible in a good economy so the eat the loss there in hope of recouping the investement income.

We are so poor that we have to invest in strip malls to make money?

This is your argument on how you are handing our asses to the unwashed and uninformed?

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We are so poor that we have to invest in strip malls to make money?

This is your argument on how you are handing our asses to the unwashed and uninformed?

You're the idiot that thinks insurance companies make money on selling insurance. 20% profit margin

Here. Ill keep it simple for you.

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4564303...ke-money_.html

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

You're the idiot that thinks insurance companies make money on selling insurance. 20% profit margin

20% profit/overhead/administration expenses whatever expenses a business could incur that is not proving benefits to its customers. How hard is that to understand?

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

20% profit/overhead/administration expenses whatever expenses a business could incur that is not proving benefits to its customers. How hard is that to understand?

Apparently hard for you because you only said profit margin until you're were proven wrong, but I'm glad you know understand the concept. My work here is done.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Apparently hard for you because you only said profit margin until you're were proven wrong, but I'm glad you know understand the concept. My work here is done.

Sarcastic pricks are a dime a dozen on here. Without any humor in the sarcasm your posts seem desperate and lame. It's like you need some reassurance that you "won"? I've seen this behavior before, its most popular known as small dick syndrome.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Sarcastic pricks are a dime a dozen on here. Without any humor in the sarcasm your posts seem desperate and lame. It's like you need some reassurance that you "won"? I've seen this behavior before, its most popular known as small dick syndrome.

looks like he hit a nerve and got the action from you he wanted