Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2015 11:54:00 AM (view original):
How the **** would I know? There needs to be analysis performed on where all the massive amounts of money is going as it flows through the healthcare system.
The "specific terms" would be dependent upon the results of that analysis.
Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you just playing your usual "stubborn ***" game?
Well, the ACA contains specific provisions that aim to reduce costs. According to a paper put out by the Economist in March of this year, they are working.
You don't know that, though, because A) your understanding of the ACA comes from Fox News and Breitbart and B) you don't even know what could be done to reduce costs.
From the
Economist:
Overall the CBO projects that, if the law is unchanged, net federal spending for the government’s main health-care programmes in 2039 will be 8% of GDP, about 15% less than had been projected in 2010. Projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between 2011-2020 have been revised downwards by $1.1 trillion. The government also claims that since 2011 some 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals as a result of Obamacare.
Far from bankrupting the nation, as its critics predicted, Obamacare may be making medicine thriftier. Even so, health-care spending as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next decade as Americans age. With the economy recovering this year, the total health-care bill is projected to grow by 6%. Hold the champagne, then, and not just because it is bad for you.