Report: Obamacare To Cost 'Billions Of Dollars Less Than Originally Projected'

[Botany]

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: TPM

TOM KLUDT – DECEMBER 3, 2013, 6:59 AM EST
Among the GOP's myriad criticisms of the Affordable Care Act, one of the loudest has centered around the law's price tag. But it turns out Obamacare won't be as costly as expected.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that "the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law."

The adjusted estimate is a result of the law's Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans proving less costly than initially anticipated. According to the Times, economists say that the law has also benefitted from a weak economy over the last half-decade, during which time health spending has slowed dramatically.

snip

Roughly 100,000 people signed up for insurance last month using the troubled online federal health exchange HealthCare.gov.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-obamacare-to-cost-billions-of-dollars-less-than-originally-projected

---

So the web site is working and it will cost less then was expected so what
will "they" find to complain about the ACA now?

Warning! Video not safe for work or kids.

[Kolesar]

1. Obamacare’s Secret Success

Prof. Paul Krugman
Follow the bending cost curve and you will find that the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html

[Laelth]

2. I am not terribly fond of this argument.

The ACA is costing less because some states are refusing to implement it. The point was to expand access to health care. I'd prefer that all states implement it. I would rather have the ACA cost us a lot more.

-Laelth

[zipplewrath]

6. Raining on the parade

I understand your reluctance, I'm a bit concerned myself about the ACA supporters declaring victory over what is basically a first inning score. None the less, one can't fault them for sticking it to the republicans considering how it works against the GOP talking points. No need to rain on their parade.

Yes, some of these "savings" are due to the fact that some states basically "won't take the money", but not all of it. The rate of health care inflation is down. And not just down, at historically low levels, althought so is inflation in general. Health care spending is down as well, which has alot to do with the economy, and maybe a small bit to the ACA. This fact is a bit disturbing because really unless you think people aren't as sick, it probably means that predominately people aren't getting treated, because they don't have the money. If this keeps going down well after the exchanges have insured alot of people, that will be good news.

These "savings" though are entirely to the federal government. The copays don't go down. The premiums aren't going down, nor are the out of pocket caps and deductibles. You do have the feature that insurance companies will have to refund some money if their costs go down so much that the 85% kicks in.

No one, not even the White House, is suggesting these rates are sustainable. It is almost entirely due to the recession (market forces do affect health care costs even if they don't always seem to be controlled by them). Once the economy picks up, the costs of health care will begin to rise again. ACA is going to attempt to moderate that a bit through structural changes, but it isn't clear that any really large impacts are possible. Government can do alot to control their costs to themselves. They are limited (intentionally so on the part of the authors of ACA) in their ability to directly control the costs to the individual. They can only accomplish this through some form of single payer/nationalized health CARE system. This approach that tries to control individual costs through regulation of the insurance market is limited. It's why the Heritage foundation dreamed up this approach to begin with, and why the insurance companies ultimately signed on (until they thought they could kill it).

[Laelth]

7. I hear you.

I want the ACA to succeed. Various Republican governors, aided by a questionable SCOTUS decision, are preventing the law from accomplishing some of its primary goals.

I can't celebrate the fact that the law is not working as it should due to Republican obstruction, and it's clear that the "savings" described in the OP are purely the result of Republican obstruction. I'd rather "save" less and have a working law that covers the poor, as it was designed to do.

-Laelth

[Kolesar]

17. And the *complementary set* of *non-ACA supporters* would be whom?

I see it as a huge improvement.

[malthaussen]

10. Ya beat me to it.

Hey, the ACA would cost even more less if we didn't have it at all!

-- Mal

[Laelth]

11. Precisely. n/t

-Laelth

[marshall]

14. The point was never to save money, it should cost more

The problem was many uninsured people. Where does the money come from to pay for folks who can't pay it all themselves, for whatever reasons?

If it costs less that can be used in the short run to generate good will, but in the long run it indicates a failure to protect the unprotected.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

3. How many billions is that?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. So, we were lied to?

[Paladin]

15. That's how the Teabaggers will see it, for sure. (nt)

[Sunlei]

5. Medicaid is non-profit & that's a huge savings in federal money right there.

If somehow every state could be made to expand Medicaid would be even more of a savings. All that Federal money should be out of state control totally.

[karynnj]

8. Part of the "saving" is sad - they don't put the millions on Medicaid in states that do not expand

- leaving these folks uninsured or paying themselves more than people making slightly more.

Not to say that the plan is not really bending the curve - as it was suppose to according to most supporters.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

9. There are just as many Obama haters as supporters in those states who need Medicaid

but opt to vote for those who won't expand. It may well be their wake-up call and the answer to Thomas Frank's great question "What's the Matter with Kansas?". Hopefully the ACA will heal Kansas and others states like it.

[Gore1FL]

12. The purpose of the law is to save money.

Saying it "cost less" isn't accurate; it's saving more.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Guess they figure there'll be millions more DEAD by the time it all rolls out.

[happyfunball]

16. Imagine how much more cost effective it would be...

...if all the money went to health care and administration and none went to corporate share holders.