Take A Number - Obamacare

It shows that of the $1.04 trillion, only 8 billion is in the first three years and only 77 billion in the first four years. That means that more than 90 percent of the cost is over the last six years.

So, the average cost of the second five years is about 172 billion annually. Put another way, 85 percent of the costs are in the second five years of the bill (2015-2019)

Even if costs miraculously remained flat from 2019 and beyond (rather than rising as they do from 2014-2019), the second ten years of this bill would cost more than $2 trillion.

Even if costs miraculously remained flat from 2019 and beyond (rather than rising as they do from 2014-2019), the second ten years of this bill would cost more than $2 trillion.

So…they’ve backloaded the costs and the consequences until after the next presidential election. They’ve also lowered their per-year cost by not implementing the bill until four years into their budget window.

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.

In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. … we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services... We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.

A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent last Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they "cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."

....

Both private plans and a public-health insurance plan would be available to individuals seeking health coverage through a health-insurance "exchange" created by the bill. The Department of Health and Human Services would make the final determination on what those plans would be required to cover.

The department would seek proposals on what to cover from a health benefits advisory council created by the bill. The anti-abortion Democrats state in the letter they want to ensure that the council "cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package."

At the same time comes word from Rep. John Carter, R-Tex., that the same franking commission that is causing problems for Brady's chart won't let Carter use the words "government-run heath care plan" in a recording to be used to start a telephone town hall meeting. "What we proposed as language was as follows, 'House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan,'" Carter told a conservative publication. "Our response from Franking was, 'You cannot use that language. You must use, 'The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan,' which is Pelosi-speak or 'just last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers...'"

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.