CBO Estimates if There is a Full Repeal

[kgmom219]

What a mess. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

Repeal of health law would drive up deficit by $137 billion - LA Times

 

[RayNY]

Of course, right after the figure, they include the line: "This methodology has come under criticism from many experts who say that these kinds of estimates are highly uncertain."

Considering CBO's margin of error on other estimates, I'm sticking with the claim that repeal will save money (especially because this estimate is in reference to their other estimate, and not reality).

 

[Yagents]

So, here's a prime example of liberal spin. The LA Times states it will "force" people to work:

But the elimination of insurance assistance would force more Americans to remain in the workforce, generating more taxes, the budget office projects. That makes the overall impact on the deficit lower, coming in at $137 billion, according to the budget office.

This methodology has come under criticism from many experts who say that these kinds of estimates are highly uncertain.

But Mike Enzi (R) states with the conservative spin

Repealing the law would probably boost the economy as more people sought work to get health insurance, reducing the net cost to $137 billion, the CBO said.

The Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi, who requested the report, highlighted the budget office’s finding that employment would grow if the law were repealed.

“This law acts as an anchor on our economy by dragging down employment and reducing labor force participation,” he said in a statement. “As a result, the deficit reduction that the Democrats promised when it was enacted is substantially unclear.”

http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2015/0...utm_campaign=LifeHealthPro_eNLs&_LID=63272263

 

[AllenChicago]

What a mess. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

Repeal of health law would drive up deficit by $137 billion - LA Times

From the LATimes link: "Repealing the law would end the money the federal government spends to subsidize insurance for low- and middle-income consumers, but would also eliminate a variety of measures that offset those costs, including reductions in future Medicare spending and new taxes and fees."

It seems to me that eliminating the subsidy expenditure, combined with eliminating ObamaScrew taxes, and not cutting Medicare benefits, cancel each other out. The real world result will be a savings/spending reduction for Employers, Consumers U-65, and Retirees on Medicare. (IMO)

 

[cadylou]

What a mess. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

Repeal of health law would drive up deficit by $137 billion - LA Times

well, here's an article from Kaiser today:

CBO Finds 19 Million Would Become Uninsured If Health Law Repealed | Kaiser Health News

Where they get these numbers is mystifying! 19 million? Really? These inflammatory numbers are all a last minute attempt to get the public inflamed before the SCOTUS decision.

I doubt they will gut the subsidies - they are being manipulated and pressured by various entities who have an interest in keeping things as they are. . . . .

 

[sman]

well, here's an article from Kaiser today:

CBO Finds 19 Million Would Become Uninsured If Health Law Repealed | Kaiser Health News

Where they get these numbers is mystifying! 19 million? Really? These inflammatory numbers are all a last minute attempt to get the public inflamed before the SCOTUS decision.

I doubt they will gut the subsidies - they are being manipulated and pressured by various entities who have an interest in keeping things as they are. . . . .

I really wonder if the SCOUTUS can be manipulated. They have a job for life regardless of their rulings.

 

[TxOnline]

I really wonder if the SCOUTUS can be manipulated. They have a job for life regardless of their rulings.

But, they get to KEEP their life if they follow orders.
DEAD: 125 SCIENTISTS, 75 HIGH-LEVEL BANKERS, & 3 INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS WITHIN 24 HOURS – Secrets of the Fed

 

[somarco]

 

[junkman]

Dad used to say that any government under estimates the cost of anything they want to do and over estimates the cost of things they don't want to do. He used roads & bridges as examples. Bridges has really appropriate connotations.

I haven't seen a way to control cost. We need everyone covered to drive claims/member and thus rates down. We "could" have benefit design float with income and have pay a payroll tax to cover claims and admin. Many don't pay Federal tax so something similar to Medicare would make even low income people pay something which they don't under the current arrangement.

The creative insurance industry could come up with products that interface with whatever plan design is in effect. I had forced a group with my wife to be able to pass underwriting in the years before HSAs came out. Family premiums were $1,000/month. The HDHP cut premiums drastically but the ever present trend continued its steady march higher.

Obama and his advisors have no solution that controls cost. I don't. Do any of you? Trump and the Repubs are as lost as anyone (but still throw stones). The good news is that since Obama caused all of our problems, it will be clear sailing because his reign is over.

Let the Trump raping and pillaging begin!!!!

 

[somarco]

Many don't pay Federal tax so something similar to Medicare would make even low income people pay something which they don't under the current arrangement.

If you want every one to pay something, abandon the income tax and replace with a consumption tax. Or use a combination.

The current regressive income tax system is beneficial to the low income moocher crowd.