The Cost of ObamaCare’s Coverage Provisions

The coverage provisions of ObamaCare will cost $1.165 trillion over ten years, according to a new CBO report. The healthcare law covers 27 million people who would previously be uninsured. (UPDATED)

  • Share
  • Read Later
Correction appended 5:33 p.m.
ObamaCare CBO Chart

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Tuesday that the “ObamaCare” provisions to expand health insurance coverage will cost about $1.165 trillion over the next ten years, after taking into consideration $455 billion worth of penalty payments, taxes, and other effects on tax revenue and outlays.  This chart doesn’t take into account Medicare savings (potentially hundreds of billions of dollars) and the like, only how much the coverage provisions will cost.  While the net cost of the coverage provisions remains the same as the prior CBO report, there have been revisions in regards to how many people will be covered over the next ten years.

After the new revisions, CBO estimates about 12 million more people will be covered by Medicaid and 26 million more by those who buy insurance in the new exchanges.  Seven million people will lose their employer-based insurance as businesses prefer to pay a fine than their employees’ health insurance, but overall, 27 million more people will be insured over the next ten years.

You can find the full CBO report here and find the above table on page 60.

Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly suggested that the chart showed the net cost of the Affordable Care Act. It has been clarified to reflect that the chart only shows the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions. TIME regrets the error.

 

42 comments
shepherdwong
shepherdwong

"While the net cost of the coverage provisions remains the same as the prior CBO report, there have been revisions in regards to how many people will be covered over the next ten years."

But you only told us the new numbers not how they were revised. 27 million new covered individuals doesn't sound that different from the old CBO numbers either, if I recall correctly. What was the point of the post, again?

jswarren
jswarren

What's the GOPs plan to allow individuals with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance:  GOVERNMENT RUN RISK POOLS: SOCIALISM.  Socialize all losses;Privatize all profits.  That's Capitalism: GOP style.


bobcn
bobcn

The correction at the bottom of the article turns it into the equivalent of an Emily Litella "Never Mind". 

The thrust of the article switches from 'OMG! Look at how expensive ObamaCare is!!!"  to "Health care costs money (we already knew that) -- but using these figures Alex Rogers isn't telling you how much "

La_Randy
La_Randy

What is the republican plan to reduce healthcare costs and insure the poor?

Death! 

IdonwannaTellya
IdonwannaTellya

27M more people insured at a cost of $1.17T = $43,333 per person. Over 10 years, that's $4,333 per year, per person.

Compare that to what you're paying now. I know I'm paying one hell of a lot less than that.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

"Seven million people will lose their employer-based insurance as businesses prefer to pay the penalty than their employees’ health insurance."

Note that this is nearly twice as many as what was initial estimate was.

 

JackBrumbelow
JackBrumbelow

Where is Midicare??? It's not Medicaid, ya know!

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

And if you believe all of that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

bobcn
bobcn

@IdonwannaTellyaI just got an individual plan quote from Blue Shield   Their cheapest/worst plan for someone my age is $4,464 per year with a $6,000 deductible (!)

Is the plan you're referring to part of your employer provided benefits?  If so then your employer is paying into it and you're also getting a group rate.

Also, your calculation is wrong.  You ignored this:  "This chart doesn’t take into account Medicare savings (potentially hundreds of billions of dollars) and the like, only how much the coverage provisions will cost."


IdonwannaTellya
IdonwannaTellya

As a matter of fact, I could cover a family of four for about the same as it will cost our gov to cover each person. So, tell me how that is saving money?

S_Deemer
S_Deemer

@KevinGroenhagen Let's try the complete sentence:  "Seven million people will lose their employer-based insurance as businesses prefer to pay the penalty than their employees’ health insurance, but overall, 27 million less people will be uninsured over the next ten years.

Don 't bother with one of your trollish replies; Gmail automatically sends them to my trash folder. I was somewhat surprised by this, since I didn't set up a filter.

retiredvet
retiredvet

@bobcn @IdonwannaTellya My last employer's group rate (for me with no family) was $6,500 per year. That's the total of employer and my costs. That's over $2,000 less.

worleyeoe
worleyeoe

@S_Deemer @KevinGroenhagen So, it's okay to force millions of people to do more with less just because healthcare is a universal right? Well, I sure would like to drive a Porsche Boxter, so why don't you call the police for me and explain to them how it's okay for me to steal someone else's property for the good of mankind.

In the real world, a better way to do healthcare reform would be to find a way to save hundreds of billions first and then start expanding coverage. But that's not going to happen now is it?

And your point completely sets aside the loss of income that's going to accompany many of these 7 million people. Why you ask? Because many of them are going to be put on reduced hours, so their companies can get around the 50 employee rule to not provide healthcare. So not only do these people lose their healthcare, they also are taking maybe a 10-20% pay cut, forcing them to go get a 2nd job to make the same amount of money. And now, they have to drive more to get to / from a second job with gasoline headed towards $5 a gallon this summer. Now that's a Perfect Storm of unintended consequences. But I'll sleep better at night knowing that more people are covered by healthcare.

So let's all remember that adding those words to the statement you so cherish adds a whole lot more context than you're willing to admit, Deemer.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@S_Deemer

"Don 't bother with one of your trollish replies; Gmail automatically sends them to my trash folder. I was somewhat surprised by this, since I didn't set up a filter."

That is hilarious

worleyeoe
worleyeoe

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen Now isn't that putting the cart before the horse? PPACA isn't even supposed to go into affect for another year and the Cadillac insurance provision, a biggy mind you, doesn't drop until something like 2018. As such, how can there be a viable prediction for something that hasn't even happened yet?

Be that as it may, Kevin's point is absolutely valid. Here's #1 of what would be literally hundreds of examples for you to explore, had you chosen to spend 1.73 seconds searching the Internet:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2009/10/08/why-the-cbo-s-estimates-shouldn-t-count-for-much.html

PPACA is in excess of 2,700 pages of healthcare Legislation. There is absolutely no way these cats are going to come close to the mark. For all we know, PPACA is going to save us SO MUCH MONEY that it will close the annual budget deficit all by itself.

If you had a shred of decency, you'd apologize right now. Now that's funny.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@DonQuixotic@KevinGroenhagen"If you have data that proves (sic) the CBO's estimates are wrong feel free to share it."

Given that the federal government's estimates have almost always been wrong, I wouldn't put much stock in this, esp. since it's based on so many assumptions. By the early 1980s, Medicare was costing 10 times as much as estimated when it was enacted.

worleyeoe
worleyeoe

@DonQuixotic @worleyeoe @S_Deemer @KevinGroenhagen PPACA is at fault, not the companies. Again, the correct way to have done this would have been to cut costs first and then spread coverage. It's that simple. Now, we're left with a massive expansion of government dependence that cannot be "projected" by the CBO or anyone else. Therefore, the whole point is to say that this article itself is a complete sham.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@worleyeoe @S_Deemer @KevinGroenhagen 

Maybe you should be directing your fury towards business that feel it's more appropriate to force their employees to lose their health insurance (or give them less hours so they don't have to bother paying for them) rather than picking up the slack elsewhere.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

How totally wrong of you to try and expose somebody because you disagree with that person's opinions.  Why don't you just crawl under a rock?

worleyeoe
worleyeoe

@DonQuixotic @worleyeoe @KevinGroenhagen Right, as if the little guy has the ability to produce such data. As such, you're completely dodging the whole point. The CBO has a terrible record in terms of projections relating to significant healthcare legislation. And, my gawd, this is the mother of all projections in terms of healthcare. So let's call it like we see it. That chart that we're all yapping over is a "fluff piece" if there ever was one.

There is a simple maxim in business: In a labor intensive business, which healthcare definitely is, you cut costs by reducing head-count and, or lowering what people are paid. Therefore, the only way we're really going to save money is through one or a combination of these two means. Anything else is just window dressing and isn't going to get the costs trajectory to fall instead of keep rising uncontrollably. But of course, no one wants to talk about these types of solutions, because that would be political suicide.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@worleyeoe @DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen 

I asked for data to disprove the above projection, not hearsay on why the CBO doesn't have (in some people's minds) accurate projections.  I want data, not speculation.

Maybe someone as decent as you could provide it to me instead of a daily beast fluff piece.

tom.litton
tom.litton

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic Yes it's likely to be wrong.  What else are you going to do?  Make snap decisions based on gut feelings?  Because that's always 100% accurate....

MrObvious
MrObvious

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen 

I see that petty Kevin is doing the whole spelling and grammar Nazi shit still. In another post he managed to stumble over it himself while pointing his finger in the air about someone elses spelling. So stupid.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic

Given that the federal government's estimates have almost always been wrong

...such as?  Really I'm not even yanking your chain, if you have an alternative projection I'd be happy to read it.