New analysis: ‘Obamacare’ coverage costs rising
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The HealthCare.gov website as seen in a Nov. 2013 screenshot. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the health care law will cost $1.34 trillion over the coming decade, $136 billion more than the CBO predicted a year ago.
WASHINGTON » Expanded health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative legacy, will cost the government more, according to an official study released today. Still, on balance, the measure more than pays for itself.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the health care law will cost $1.34 trillion over the coming decade, $136 billion more than the CBO predicted a year ago. That 11 percent hike is mostly caused by higher-than-expected enrollment in the expanded Medicaid program established under the law.
All told, 22 million more people will have health care coverage this year than if the law had never been enacted, CBO said. The measure’s coverage provisions are expected to cost $110 billion this year.
The number of uninsured people this year is anticipated at 27 million.
About 90 percent of the U.S. population will have coverage, a percentage that is expected to remain stable into the future.
The study also projected a slight decline in employment-based coverage, although it will remain by far the most common kind among working-age people and their families.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Employers now cover some 155 million people, about 57 percent of those under 65. That’s expected to decline to 152 million people in 2019. Ten years from now, employers will be covering about 54 percent of those under 65.
CBO said part of the shrinkage is attributable to the health care law: some workers may qualify for Medicaid, which is virtually free to them, and certain employers may decide not to offer coverage because a government-subsidized alternative is available. (Larger employers would face fines if they take that route.)
But the agency also noted that employer coverage had been declining due to rising medical costs well before the health care law was passed, and that trend continues.
The analysis underscores the view that the health care law is driving the nation’s gains in insurance coverage, which raises political risks for Republicans who would repeal it.
Taking seniors covered by Medicare out of the equation, the government devotes $660 billion to subsidizing health care for people under 65, including the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled and tax benefits for employer-provided health insurance.
The budget office did not provide a new estimate of Obamacare’s overall impact on the federal deficit, other than to say that it is, on net, expected to reduce the deficit. The law included a roster of tax increases and cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers to pay for coverage expansion.
CBO is a congressional agency that does budget forecasts and cost estimates of legislation.
41 responses to “New analysis: ‘Obamacare’ coverage costs rising”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What a government–a Billion here and a Billion there. We’re not talking about sand on the beach. I wish we had a President who doesn’t open an argument with “I will not negotiate.” Ye gads, ever person negotiates many things in the course of the day. Take my wife–please!!!
Thanks to all you Democrats who voted this guy in. It now cost over $2000.00 per month for a family HMSA plan in Hawaii – up from
$1200.00 5 years ago. Gee thanks + we can’t get in to see a doctor (Maybe a PA) without waiting 30 days and it used to be 1-3 days.
Many of the better doctors retired or quit because of paperwork and BS. Just thank a Democrat for destroying the best health care system in the world.
Yup specialists are 45+ days out. In the meantime people are dying. And good luck getting an MRI done here. Close to impossible.
My health care at HMAA is costing more this year than last!!!
Yes, and housing is up too. So is just about everything else. Of course something costs more this year than last.
Clearly, Obama is why everything is so expensive. He’s clearly in Cahoots with all of the business to rip us all off. And, he clearly started a giant conspiracy 30 years ago to start crazy healthcare costs. He’s the genius mastermind of evil and everything can be blamed on him regardless of how insane it sounds.
#Trump2016
Obama is on an extended vacation so please don’t disturb him. He’s taking dancing lessons but is quite good as he’s been dancing the issues for seven years.
Make it simple and to the point…OBAMA is the WORST POTUS in AMERICAN history…..PERIOD!
Wait until those non-violent drug dealers get off their jail time and back on the street dealing meth. Meth is a very dangerous drug, as I have mentioned in yesterday’s article about the drug bust on Kauai, these drug users will be the frequent ER visitors and costing lots of $$$; ice induced cardiomyopathy, iced induced schizophrenia and ice induced edentulous are just three major health ill effects of this drug. In addition to these drug users tipping the scale, their children are coming up through the public school system and they too will be costing tons of $$$$. All of these monies are squeezed out of THE REAL TAX PAYERS.
And to provide health care for 22 million that ordinarily would not be covered, which will cost us much more in the future.
And many of us pointed out the economic fallacies that this act is full of and that indeed costs would go up and quality of services would go down ( as in choices) then we would be shouted at and told we hate people. What a joke, this leviathan is any but a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Another fine mess Obama got us into.
But, since it doesn’t affect him or Congress, “What Difference Does It Make?”
Rising costs due to Obamacare. Now there’s an “unforeseen” issue eh?
healthcare has been rising for decades. You can look up healthcare inflation for the past decades and see it’s well over 7%.
Are you going to blame the crazy healthcare inflation during the 2000s on legislation that didn’t exist?
Why not? Winston blames Obama for people getting old. Other people have blamed the lack of democratic institutions in the Arab world on Obama. I suppose when you are an intellectual midget, it’s just easier to blame Obama for everything right?
I wish the author had done a better job explaining the statement “On balance, the measure more than pays for itself.” Based on the enrollment and cost, its $5000 a head. I am assuming that pays only for insurance coverage. Does this mean before ACA the feds were spending over $5000 per capita on the same population? How does a new expense of $110 billion/year save money?
Here’s an interesting article by: MarketWatch.Com:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24
“The budget office did not provide a new estimate of Obamacare’s overall impact on the federal deficit, other than to say that it is, on net, expected to reduce the deficit.”
That’s expected. Obamacare, on the whole, reduces medical costs.
Not hardly wiliki. Author blames the increased cost on Medicaid. Those people would have filed for Medicaid even if ObozoCare never came about.
In other news, “Rotten Garbage Stinks”
This article is missing a narrative, such as the cost of the old system which incentivized the non insured to steal money from insurance pools driving up the costs but without the data to determine actual policy. Furthermore, medical inflation has been often pushing 7% annually, so blaming the cost of healthcare rising on the ACA is truly dishonest when prior to the ACA, the costs were already spirling out of control.
Most of the comments here are by people with no understanding of insurance, healthcare or healthcare costs and solely out to bash the current administration. What is more amusing is that they don’t get that the alternative is literally advocating for theft. Don’t like the ACA? That’s fine. But you need to understand the old system had rampant theft of your insurance dollars by people who faced zero punishment for such theft. If someone walked up to you and robbed you for $200, you’d be outraged. So why are you suddenly so okay with someone doing the same thing only just talking your insurance money behind your back?
Obama said the cost of premiums would go down. Obviously that is not true and deductibles have also gone up. I bet you can dance the Tango too. Most of the comments here are by people who recognize their costs have gone up and their coverage has gone down. Obama lied.
You do realize some people’s premiums have gone down right? The lady the GOP trotted out as saying her rates went up was later found to actually have had her rates drop. And some people’s rates will go up because their insurance plans changed, or their facts around what insurance they changed to changed. Why should a single person pay the same amount when they switch to a family plan and now have 4 people covered verse 1? Makes no sense, but that’s a nuanced view and I know you people hate those.
How about you try to tell me how why we should go back to the system that encourages people to steal insurance dollars with zero punishment. I’d love to see a reason why it is justifable to bash Obama for pushing personal responsibility and how the GOP plan for outright theft and personal irresponsibility is a better system for society.
Winston and Thos hate me because I point out flaws in their mantras like that. It’s funny how they are so anti-Obama that they ADVOCATE THEFT and HATE personal responsibility.
Just a reminder to those who persist in denial (Achoyd!!! Uh, Pardon me. Must be the vog), this massive steaming pile of healthcare was based on three big lies, keep your doctor, keep your insurance, and save $2500/year. Having pounded these blatant fabrications in public, over and over again, it’s a wonder President EmptySuitPantsOnFire has the gaul to show his face in public much less expect a single word he says to be given any credibility.
That the analysis in this piece is described as “new” is also a laugh. HALF of the Obamacare exchanges have FAILED, already. Major insurers are on the cusp of opting out because it’s a dead loss. More will back out after the election. The projected cost savings are trash and over $5billion has been flushed down the drain with more guaranteed to follow.
Who could have seen this coming? Answer: Anyone unwilling to be Grubered by the astoundingly inept, disorganized, rushed, frantic passage of 2,500 pages of legislation that not one single congressman could be bothered to read. Congrats, democrats. You’ve earned your place on the alternate Mr. Rushmore for massive incompetents to be created somewhere in a landfill near you.
Really? want to tell me why medical costs were well over 7% for a decade well before the ACA?
Or are you going to run away from that as you ran away from showing where in the 501(c) code that overtly political groups are allowed to be tax deductible in donations?
And you’re still blaming Obama for people getting old.
And you still refuse to address the problem of how the old system advocated theft.
I can point out specific failures you simply refuse to address. While all you have is hyperbole.
Why have healthcare costs escalated beyond inflation: because the healthcare industry is isolated from the greater economy and normal competitive economic forces (as is higher education, the cost of which have accelerated at an even greater rate than healthcare). The ACA’s greatest sin is that it will not address the cost escalation problem. Don’t have time to educate you further. Read Catastrophic Care by David Goldhill.
Ran away re. 501(c)3’s? Not quite. You posted an unattributed quote justifying the IRS stonewalling of the Tea Party 501s. Meant nothing. Even the IRS admitted the targeting and delaying tactics. The politically repressive nature of their activities is just too blatant for an intelligent person to debate.
Blaming Obama: For everything but that.
Old system: See answer #1.
You can point out specifics: BFD. You fail to recognize THE issue–See answer #1
The ACA at least attempts to address the issue of rising costs from uninsured. The old system which you are advocating doesn’t do any of that. How can you even remotely criticize the ACA on a trait that the alternative you champion actually makes worse? Or again are you just in your “OBAMA BAD!” mentality and you give the alternatives which are worse a pass? I never said the ACA was good. You seem to hate the ACA for reasons that your alternative is worse on yet never say a bad thing about the old system which you want a return to. Explain that logic.
The IRS is REQUIRED to target them because they are violating the 501(c) code. You DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CODE AT ALL AND IT SHOWS. The IRS FAILED its job by granting status to overtly and ILLEGALLY partisan non-profits. Again, you demonstrate TOTAL failure to understand the non-profit law. And you KEEP FAILING to show why any of these overtly illegal political groups should have been granted their status. You cannot cite any section of the code to defend your argument because it doesn’t exist.
The real crime was that the IRS didn’t deny these groups. The 501(c) code is EXPLICIT in prohibiting the activities they are doing in a material fashion.
You keep blaming Obama for people getting old by citing the reduction in labor force. I’ve already pointed this out to you 5 times and you keep spamming your Obama is responsible for the lowest labor force participation. BECAUSE PEOPLE GOT OLD AND RETIRED. You keep blaming him for that.
Tell me why personal responsibility and theft is better than the ACA.
*irresponsibility.
Are you dense? I haven’t advocated the old system. The very fact that the IRS delayed their rulings by months and years is reason alone to assign guilt. The 501 system is flawed. The IRS used it to deny one specific group political expression, sort of like very strictly enforce the speed limit ON CONSERVATIVES ONLY.
Labor participation rate: Aging is a factor, but not the only factor. An economy growing at 2% or less is a major contributor. In previous posts I’ve cited research which shows a substantial impact on the labor participation rate of economic factors beyond simple retirements. I won’t waste my time digging that info up again. Look it up yourself.
Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand that many people who “lost” their insurance were under plans that were so wildly cut rate that such plans covered virtually nothing. Why are you so anti-fraud? After all, how does an insurance plan that purports to provide insurance but only covers a tiny fraction with a giant deductible actually provide real insurance?
Why should someone be snookered into paying for insurance that covers virtually nothing?
You won’t answer any of those because it requires you to actually step out of your “OBAMA BAD!” comfort zone and actually think about this topic for yourself.
You have two problems: Pinhole perspective and strawmanitis (inability to think beyond simple either/or comparisons of inconsequential details, missing the larger picture.
Example: SOME people may have lost plans which offered poor coverage, others lost plans they were happy with. Your example is an anecdote, not data. Besides, obamacare offers very steep deductibles for those unable to afford the higher premium options. For many in this situation, they might as well be uninsured — or as you say, snookered by the ACA.
And you fail to actually step back and look at the big picture. We have to devise a competitive healthcare system in which normal competitive economic forces, price transparency, open competition, and individual choice are allowed to drive the system. Otherwise, we are just heading down the same road as the UK’s National Health Service and Canada’s system— rationing, declining quality, delays, lack of specialty care, bureaucratic rather than individual control to the point that some administrator will decide who deserves to live or who is valuable enough as a human being to rate a hip replacement.
So, I’ve thought about it. We can do much better than the ACA, but not with dorm room socialist/collectivists like the light-weight Obama. As to your thinking, it amounts to strawman after strawman viewed through a peephole.
I fully expected that covering 22 million more Americans with health care would cost all of us more. I think society as a whole has a responsibility to share in these costs. I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. Also, health costs have been going up for decades, even without the Affordable Care Act. BTW, I also think the ultra-rich have a responsibility to pay more in taxes to help all of us.
Let’s examine your belief: If healthcare is a right, why not shelter, a balanced diet, clothing, and even standard of living. All are essential and important, as is healthcare. The question then becomes “what is a right”? A right is a universal human entitlement which our government, executive/legislative/and judicial, and society at large is obligated to honor. Life freedom of speech or free assembly, these “rights” of yours become responsibilities of all the above to provide to the individual WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL ATTEMPTS TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS FOR HIMSELF.
If healthcare is a “right” then it logically brings with it a list of other social “rights” which a society must provide. The consequence? Individuals no longer have incentive to provide for themselves. The result? A giant expansion of the welfare state and government control.
With an unfunded federal liability of over $86 trillion, there aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill.
Also, excusing Obamacare’s failure to control cost just because there’s a history of healthcare cost increases is a cop out. Massive legislation like this is supposed to FIX problems of affordability, not ADD to them.
Disagree. I am entitled to my opinion as you are yours.
You do realize that Winston is completely incapable of defending his beliefs right?
Winston doesn’t understand that getting the uninsured on to insurance plans will cause the costs to rise as prevention care costs happen now, but will reduce chronic problems down the road. He thinks it’s better to pay less by not preventing people from getting diabetes and then having to shell out millions for their additional care costs because we didn’t do prevention now. Short sighted, but no one has ever considered Winston to be intelligent.
I believe logic is on my side. Tell me. Where did I go wrong? Why does your “opinion” make more sense than mine? The word “right” carries a heavy weight. How does your definition of a right differ from mine and is healthcare is a right, why not the other things I list?
The guy who is blaming Obama for people getting old wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that “pollution is a democrat myth” wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that disarming the mentally deranged is “stupid” wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that spending less money on prevention to save huge amounts preventing chronic illness like diabetes is stupid wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
There you have it. Winston in all his glory.
The guy who is blaming Obama for people getting old wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that “pollution is a democrat myth” wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that disarming the mentally deranged is “foolish” wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
The guy who thinks that spending less money on prevention to save huge amounts preventing chronic illness like diabetes is stupid wants to claim that “logic” is on his side.
There you have it. Winston in all his glory.
I didn’t say my opinion was right; I only said it was my opinion.
ProCon.org has a discussion on the pros and cons of health care as a right. The purpose of ProCon.org is as follows: “Promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, and primarily pro-con format.”
I support the pros on this issue. One of the pros stated is as follows: “The United States already provides free public education, public law enforcement, public road maintenance, and other public services to its citizens to promote a just society that is fair to everyone. Health care should be added to this list. Late US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote that providing a right to health care “goes to the heart of my belief in a just society.” According to Norman Daniels, PhD, Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard University, “healthcare preserves for people the ability to participate in the political, social, and economic life of society. It sustains them as fully participating citizens.”
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but WHY do you disagree with mine?
Why have an opinion if you don’t think it’s right? Don’t get that. Sure, change it if something better comes along. As to pro/con.org. I’ll look at it. However, attributing weight to one side or another based on Ted Kennedy’s thinking (or the simple unreasoned/unsupported (by fact) opinion of some Harvard prof.) doesn’t move me at all. In fact, taking the opposite view of Kennedy would be a safer bet.
Public education, infrastructure, law enforcement? They are things that, logically speaking, an individual citizen can’t do for himself. Further, public education is a pretty good example of a “public service” delivered very poorly. In fact, it’s probably a good example of why public/universal government provide healthcare would either fail or deliver poor service. Progressives were happy to cite the Veterans Administration as a good example of how well universal/government healthcare would be—- until the current systemic problems with the VA came to light.
Funny, Winston doesn’t know the difference between an insurance provider and a healthcare provider.
Not that anyone is surprised.
Wonder if he knows the difference between a car manufacturer and a car insurance provider. Doubt it.
And no one cited the VA as a good example of Socialist Healthcare. But the ACA is not socialist healthcare. Unless you think that the person who paid for the soda at 7/11 also manufactured it.