CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit

[Quantum Windbag]

So, all the government solutions to healthcare are broke, that's why we need one more, bigger than ever government solution to healthcare?

Is a 3%-4% profit margin "rape?"

Zero profit is the correct number for healthcare providers. Non-profit can work, there's no need for anyone to profiteer from caring for the sick.

Does that apply to doctors and nurses too, or only insurers? Do you also have a problem with the government making a profit, which is what the ACA supposedly does?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Zero profit is the correct number for healthcare providers. Non-profit can work, there's no need for anyone to profiteer from caring for the sick.

Really, so you want doctors to spend Millions and years to go to school, to work in a non profit industry. Interesting.

I suppose you want drug companies to spend BILLIONS on Developing drugs, 90% of which never work out, and not make a profit as well.

Typical Liberal mind set.

You people always fail to grasp that the Biggest driver of innovation in every field has and always will be the chance to make MONEY!!

A doctor makes a salary, not a profit.

Kaiser Permanente is the largest managed care operation in the U.S., and is non-profit.

Doctors own businesses, and make profits, and even share those profits with nurses.

Kaiser Permanente makes a profit. Non profit does not mean they do not make a profit, it means that those profits are folded back into the business. I already argued rdean into a coma over this, don't make me do the same thing to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you pretend that is what was said?

Why do I pretend what was what was said?

NYCarbineer said that no one should make a profit on medical care.
Well, logic says that if there is 0 profit then the only one willing to run a business so vast without a profit would be the government.
One entity makes it a monopoly...a non profit monopoly.

So what am I pretending?

I think you are misunderstanding. He didnt say doctors shouldn't make money, he was referring to health insurance companies. They are the ones who are adding no value in to the healthcare equation and thus dont deserve a profit.

No, he said no one should make a profit off of caring for the sick. No one would include doctors and nurses, you really should not defend idiots. it makes you look stupider.

 

[Greenbeard]

Did you read the report? Can you tell me how the government is going to loose money by not spending it?

Scores are relative to baseline (existing law). Deficits following passage of H.R. 2 are projected to be $230 billion larger than they would be if it were not passed.

Did you miss the part where they also said that their estimate was based on making the assumptions that Congress would not implement the doc fix, and would cut Medicare payments to doctors by 23%, and that those savings were the only reason that Obamacare savings worked? Or the part where they said that those same alleged savings were being counted toward the Medicare budget?

None of those are assumptions made in ACA's score because none of those are related to ACA. If battlefield injuries rise dramatically next year and the VA's budget is raised in response, that's unrelated spending that didn't (and shouldn't have) appeared in the score. A score is not a statement about global federal spending.

The score tells you what the legislation in question changes, which is a relative statement. It doesn't tell you what the deficit will be in ten years, it tells you whether the provisions of the legislation will raise or lower it. There's no assumption that the SGR won't be altered or that the VA's budget won't be changed or anything of the like. It doesn't anticipate or include any and all future federal health expenditures, or all changes in federal expenditures, or all future federal expenditures (period) for that matter. It only accounts for what the legislation in changes with regard to spending and revenues. Existing Medicare spending is not in the score, only the changes in that spending made by the legislation are included.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

There's quite a bit more in there than just the headline grabber that repeal tacks on $230 billion to the deficit. Don't forget that under the repeal bill the federal budgetary commitment to health care will grow faster in the second decade than under the ACA, 54 million people will be uninsured at the end of this decade, most people in the individual market will be paying more for their premiums than they would be under the ACA, and premiums for employer-based coverage will be slightly higher than would otherwise be the case under the ACA.

It doesn't really matter if your interest is affordability, access, or quality, there's no good news for repeal in this analysis. Of course, to the ideologue who doesn't give a shit about health care in the United States, that's not particularly important.

State lines? Compettion always lowers prices.

A pithy truism misapplied is not the best way to come up with policy prescriptions.

How many people were the exchanges supposed to cover? How many ended up joining them? The CBO estimates are all estimates, including the assumption about how many people will, and will not, be covered. CBO estimates have a historical accuracy that approaches perfection, if you consider always underestimating the cost and over estimating the benefit perfection.

 

[Intense]

Just a reminder of the kind of numbers that will make a difference.


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/energy.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

I guess the CBO is only relevant when it is agreeing with you. Like when Michael Steele said earlier last year that the CBO lied when it comes to the healthcare bill after citing it favorably eight times previously.

Can someone explain to me, in very simple words, how the combined effect of not increasing spending and not collecting new taxes that would have paid for that spending results in an increase in the deficit?

Because the tax revenues and the cost savings in the bill are more than the outlays.

That is not an explanation, but thanks for trying.

If I decide that I do not need a new car, and as a result opt not to take a job that would help me pay for that car, I only loose money if I assume that the money I would have made at that new job belongs to me no matter what. In the real world I don't loose anything.

 

[Greenbeard]

How many people were the exchanges supposed to cover? How many ended up joining them?

Since there are no exchanges are present, I assume you're talking about the PCIPs. CBO doesn't have a prediction as to how many people would join them during the first 5-6 months of operation. They offered an estimate of average enrollment over the 2011-2013 period based on the assumption that enrollment is limited to stretch out the $5 billion appropriated to the pools over that period. We'll have to check in during 2013 to see how things worked out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scores are relative to baseline (existing law). Deficits following passage of H.R. 2 are projected to be $230 billion larger than they would be if it were not passed.

Exactly. The CBO makes assumptions based on what Congress is telling them will happen, not what will happen. None that that has anything to do with my question to TM, but thanks for agreeing with me.

None of those are assumptions made in ACA's score because none of those are related to ACA. If battlefield injuries rise dramatically next year and the VA's budget is raised in response, that's unrelated spending that didn't (and shouldn't have) appeared in the score. A score is not a statement about global federal spending.[

You just said that the CBO makes estimates based on existing law. At the time the ACA was scored existing law was that doctors would be getting a pay cut. How could it not have been considered when the CBO was required to assume it?

The score tells you what the legislation in question changes, which is a relative statement. It doesn't tell you what the deficit will be in ten years, it tells you whether the provisions of the legislation will raise or lower it. There's no assumption that the SGR won't be altered or that the VA's budget won't be changed or anything of the like. It doesn't anticipate or include any and all future federal health expenditures, or all changes in federal expenditures, or all future federal expenditures (period) for that matter. It only accounts for what the legislation in changes with regard to spending and revenues. Existing Medicare spending is not in the score, only the changes in that spending made by the legislation are included.

Based, as you yourself pointed out, existing law, and what the legislation says. How did you just prove anything here other than that I am actually right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many people were the exchanges supposed to cover? How many ended up joining them?

Since there are no exchanges are present, I assume you're talking about the PCIPs. CBO doesn't have a prediction as to how many people would join them during the first 5-6 months of operation. They offered an estimate of average enrollment over the 2011-2013 period based on the assumption that enrollment is limited to stretch out the $5 billion appropriated to the pools over that period. We'll have to check in during 2013 to see how things worked out.

Excuse me?

Health plans for high-risk patients attracting fewer, costing more than expected | Eriksen Insurance Group

Want to try that again? You are usually better about making your point, maybe you should go back to your boss for new talking points.

 

[Greenbeard]

You're linking to a story about the Medicare actuary's predictions.

 

[Cuyo]

Can someone explain to me, in very simple words, how the combined effect of not increasing spending and not collecting new taxes that would have paid for that spending results in an increase in the deficit?

Because the tax revenues and the cost savings in the bill are more than the outlays.

That is not an explanation, but thanks for trying.

If I decide that I do not need a new car, and as a result opt not to take a job that would help me pay for that car, I only loose money if I assume that the money I would have made at that new job belongs to me no matter what. In the real world I don't loose anything.

Ummm... I'm not sure I can be any more clear.

If you took the job and the car, you'd have more money than if you didn't take either. Such is the case with HCR.

 

[Greenbeard]

Exactly. The CBO makes assumptions based on what Congress is telling them will happen, not what will happen. None that that has anything to do with my question to TM, but thanks for agreeing with me.

This has nothing to do with Congress (who in Congress?) giving them assumptions to use, they discussed multiple scenarios in their analysis. They suggested one is more likely to occur than the rest. Repeating your unsubstantiated talking points about shadowy figures forcing assumptions on the CBO doesn't make them true.

You just said that the CBO makes estimates based on existing law. At the time the ACA was scored existing law was that doctors would be getting a pay cut. How could it not have been considered when the CBO was required to assume it?

Perhaps I should clarify: existing law that's being changed by the proposed legislation. Not the entire U.S. Code. As I said, the purpose of a score is to provide analysis of what's being changed by a piece of legislation. The SGR isn't tinkered with in ACA, thus there are no assumptions about it in the final score. It may change, it may stay the same--neither outcome is relevant to the impact of ACA on the federal budget.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're linking to a story about the Medicare actuary's predictions.

You said the exchanges do not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the tax revenues and the cost savings in the bill are more than the outlays.

That is not an explanation, but thanks for trying.

If I decide that I do not need a new car, and as a result opt not to take a job that would help me pay for that car, I only loose money if I assume that the money I would have made at that new job belongs to me no matter what. In the real world I don't loose anything.

Ummm... I'm not sure I can be any more clear.

If you took the job and the car, you'd have more money than if you didn't take either. Such is the case with HCR.

How does it cost me not to take a job? Does the amount of money I owe go up because I choose to earn less money, or does it go up because I choose not to buy the car? Which of those made me owe more money than I would have if I dad bought the car and took the job? I could see how I would owe more money if I bought the car, but there is no way I owe more because I do not.

 

[Greenbeard]

You said the exchanges do not exist.

Those aren't exchanges. Your article is about PCIPs--temporary high-risk pools that will terminate when the exchanges open.

Read this thread to get a sense of what exchanges are. Or this one to get a sense of where states are in the planning process for their exchanges.

 

[manu1959]

only in america.....not having a program costs more than having it.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

Republicans kicked off the first day of congressional proceedings to overturn health reform with unwelcome news: a Congressional Budget Office estimate that repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2021.

The nonpartisan CBO’s preliminary analysis of the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, released Thursday morning, bolstered Democrats’ claims that overturning the health law would wreak havoc on the deficit. The CBO score on the Affordable Care Act has it decreasing the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years. But that figure is disputed by Republicans.

Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, brushed off the estimate as faulty accounting.

I guess the CBO is only relevant when it is agreeing with you. Like when Michael Steele said earlier last year that the CBO lied when it comes to the healthcare bill after citing it favorably eight times previously.

CBO changed their mind and now report a net saving of a hell of a lot more. Does this mean now you will attack the CBO?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This has nothing to do with Congress (who in Congress?) giving them assumptions to use, they discussed multiple scenarios in their analysis. They suggested one is more likely to occur than the rest. Repeating your unsubstantiated talking points about shadowy figures forcing assumptions on the CBO doesn't make them true.

Congress wrote the law that created the CBO, and made it independent from the executive branch. the CBO works for Congress, which is why it is called the Congressional Budget Office. How does Congress not tell it how to work, and knowing the rules it works under, cannot write the bill in such a way that the CBO is forced to make certain assumptions?

As for my points being unsubstantiated.

To assist the Budget Committees and the Congress with enforcement of the budget resolution, CBO analyzes the spending or revenue effects of specific legislative proposals. (For proposals that would amend the Internal Revenue Code, CBO is required by law to use estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.) It prepares cost estimates of pending legislation and tracks the progress of such legislation in a scorekeeping system. CBO's cost estimates and scorekeeping system show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law and help to determine whether those budget effects are consistent with the targets in the Congress's most recent budget resolution. As required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, CBO includes in cost estimates an assessment of whether legislation contains federal mandates and provides an estimate of the costs imposed by those mandates on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Congressional Budget Office - CBO's Role in the Budget Process

See the bolded part? The CBO is required, by law, to use estimates that come from Congress with anything that amends the tax code, which the ACA did. How exactly am I wrong again?

Perhaps I should clarify: existing law that's being changed by the proposed legislation. Not the entire U.S. Code. As I said, the purpose of a score is to provide analysis of what's being changed by a piece of legislation. The SGR isn't tinkered with in ACA, thus there are no assumptions about it in the final score. It may change, it may stay the same--neither outcome is relevant to the impact of ACA on the federal budget.

I did not say the ACA tinkered with it, I said that it assumed it would not pass, and included that assumption as part of its savings. Nice try though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really, so you want doctors to spend Millions and years to go to school, to work in a non profit industry. Interesting.

I suppose you want drug companies to spend BILLIONS on Developing drugs, 90% of which never work out, and not make a profit as well.

Typical Liberal mind set.

You people always fail to grasp that the Biggest driver of innovation in every field has and always will be the chance to make MONEY!!

A doctor makes a salary, not a profit.

Kaiser Permanente is the largest managed care operation in the U.S., and is non-profit.

Doctors own businesses, and make profits, and even share those profits with nurses.

Kaiser Permanente makes a profit. Non profit does not mean they do not make a profit, it means that those profits are folded back into the business. I already argued rdean into a coma over this, don't make me do the same thing to you.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen all week. By your logic, churches are for-profit enterprises. By your logic there's no such thing as a non-profit.

I doubt that many intelligent people would agree with you on that.