What is this 1.2 trillion going to pay for?

Fort Knox, they will simply ramp up the presses and print more.

Ted Cruz?

Who knows. The point is, why do people simply lay down and give up their money to a vague promise.
The problem is a public with a ring through their nose. Why don’t they resist?:

The question is not what your [two different] numbers are going for; the question is how much more might we be paying for healthcare in those ten years if not for Obamacare? And will the quality of care be better for more people than it would have been before?

Sorry. It’s 1.2 trillion. But that money has to be paying for something! What is it?

This came about because I’m having a disagreement with a crazy conservative about this. He says that 1.2 trillion only applies to the 10 million people who are getting insurance through the exchange, insurance they didn’t have before, and we, the working people, have to pay for that. I disagree. It applies to every American who has insurance, period. That’s about 272,480,000 million people.

We spent over 3 trillion on health-care last year. Since 2006 it goes up about 100 billion a year.

I would like to see the source of the 1.2 trillion claim. I bet it does some wacky shit like shifting Medicare into Obamacare.

The trillion+ cost is a dishonest claim, because it ignores the trillion+ reduction in other spending.

Whoever is reporting that is at best irresponsible and more likely deliberately lying.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has the job of informing Congress about projected cost of legislation. The CBO has consistently said that federal deficits will be lower with the ACA in place.

The details are IMPOSSIBLE to explain in a paragraph. It’s complicated. Here are a few long reads.

Tampa Bay Times Politifact

Obamacare’s projected cost falls due to lower premiums under health care law

CBO – Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act

According to this, the Americans spent somewhere between 2.6 trillion and 2.8 trillion on healthcare in 2012, if that’s helpful.

Do you have a source for the 1.3 – 1.5 trillion figure?

My next question would be: does what individual Americans pay yearly for healthcare + what the ACA pays yearly for healthcare = less than the amount spent on healthcare in years prior to the initiation of the ACA? That is what everyone has predicted, and what should eventually happen. I imagine costs will be higher in the first few years because fewer people are in the pool than should be, and because there will be startup costs that will not be incurred again.

For those asking for sources, here is one.

Here is another

That’s where the argument started @dappled_leaves, what was the per-person cost of this. Obviously, if the the costs are spread out over just 10 million people, as the wacky conservative claims, the costs are going to be much higher than if it’s spread out all of the insured 272,480,000 million.

@Dutchess_III Yes, you’d think the cons would want it to be spread over as small a number of people as possible, to avoid the terrifying threat of socialism. ;)

LOL! Down with socialism! Down with education! Down with firefighters…..o. wait.

Actually, I’ve been thinking about this. It isn’t spread over the number of insured, it’s spread out over the number of employed people, right?

Why do you hate capitalism? It has worked so well with my choice of internet providers. Oh, my only option is Comcast.

Obama Executive Order

That’s great @rojo!

First you need to recognize the statement is a bit of a smokescreen. By saying ”$1.2 T over 10 years” and then comparing it with annual health care costs of $ 2.3 T they are intentionally trying confusing the listener. That always sets off a red flag for me – like the microscopic print shown on TV car ads.
I convert all numbers to annual so I get a better picture.
Annual spending on healthcare according to the 2015 Economist Pocket Guide – $2.9 T
This $1.2T over 10 years is $0.12T or $120B per year, the typical annual increase.

Where will the funds go? 31% will go to administration and health insurance companies like: Blue Cross, UnitedHealthCare, Premera, etc.
Leaving presumably 69% to go to Doctors, Hospitals, and big Pharma.

90% of all the expenses will end up in the pockets of the top 5%, just as it does today.

Why would we give money to health insurance companies, or to hospitals or to Pharma? That’s what premiums and medical bills are for.

@Dutchess_III I figured that money would be just like all the other. Medical bills and premiums ultimately end up the hands of Insurance companies, Doctors, Hospitals, and big Pharma, with 31% going to insurance companies and administration and 69% to actual medical. Single pay countries reduce that 31% number to much lower. Canada is only 16% to insurance and admin. with 84% to patient care.

You know, unless we do something big like denying services we will be paying for people one way or the other. If a homeless, drug or alcohol abuser stumbles into an emergency room he will be treated – every time he ODs. The hospital will eat the (average) $1500 cost. But we know they will raise prices and charge other patients a little more too cover it.
With health insurance the same homeless, drug or abuser can stumble into his local GP’s office and be treated at a cost of $150. Maybe.

Until we say:
Nope we won’t treat stuff you did to yourself. or,
Sorry there will be a cap on your cancer treatment. or,
We won’t treat your bad knees until you lose weight. or,
We won’t treat you until you stop drugs. or,
You can’t have that third or fourth opinion unless you pay full price. or,
(Fill in the many conditions I have missed.)
....
We will be paying for people one way or the other by taxes or insurance. Who do you trust more: the Feds or the insurance companies?