Repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period

[NLT]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

 

[bripat9643]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

The people responsible for the ACA didn't read the whole thing yet found time to exempt themselves. Clearly, something is wrong with it. Maybe the answer is not repeal but modify.......and see who exempts themselves from the modified version.

 

[AntonToo]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

I work in healthcare - they most definitely occur.

Obamacare reworks reimbursement structure and meaningful use incentives.

 

[AntonToo]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

The people responsible for the ACA didn't read the whole thing yet found time to exempt themselves. Clearly, something is wrong with it. Maybe the answer is not repeal but modify.......and see who exempts themselves from the modified version.

This is complete bullshit.

1. Congress already had good healthcare insurance that more than met Obamacare requirements.
2. They actually made SPECIAL RULES requiring themselves and their offices to get Obamacare insurance.

 

[AntonToo]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

From the Report: For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.

Point being? You say that $137billion deficit could be less but it just as well could be a lot more.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The replacement should be the federal government handing the sick person a gun and one bullet. Suicide is the only way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

It assumes that people will not have access to insurance. It also assumes that things will go back to the way they were. It will not go back to the way it was if Obamacare gets repealed!

Only far left religious dogma claims otherwise!

I wrote in the OP that you should read the report so you don't make a fool of yourself.

It will not go back to the way it was if Obamacare gets repealed!

That is not at all what they universally assume. You'd know that if you just read the section that explains how they developed their estimates. For example, the CBO expressly states, and I quote:

The ACA established deadlines that accelerated implementation of Medicare’s bidding program for durable medical equipment, and CBO expects that if the ACA was repealed, that program would not revert to the slower schedule anticipated under prior law.​

They assume too that aspects of other provisions will remain in place for a brief period.

Some of the people projected to enroll in Medicaid as a result of the ACA were eligible for the program under prior law and thus would remain eligible in the event of a repeal; CBO and JCT estimate that rates of enrollment among those previously eligible people would remain elevated for a few years.
​

If the ACA is not repealed no one will have insurance unless they purchase it privately......................so it is better to pay the 137billion and have people insured isn't it?

What? You do realize that O-care exists to make health insurance available for people who do not otherwise have access to health insurance and that ~80% of the population privately purchases health insurance, right?

• Obamacare pushes nation's health uninsured rate to record low 8.6 percent. In 2015, the nonelderly uninsured rate was 10.5%, the lowest rate in decades.
  
  
  
  (Source)

 

[bripat9643]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

I work in healthcare - they most definitely occur.

Obamacare reworks reimbursement structure and meaningful use incentives.

Where are the spending cuts? It certainly didn't cut my spending.

 

[bripat9643]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

The people responsible for the ACA didn't read the whole thing yet found time to exempt themselves. Clearly, something is wrong with it. Maybe the answer is not repeal but modify.......and see who exempts themselves from the modified version.

This is complete bullshit.

1. Congress already had good healthcare insurance that more than met Obamacare requirements.
2. They actually made SPECIAL RULES requiring themselves and their offices to get Obamacare insurance.

Yeah, right, Congress has healthcare paid for by the taxpayers that none of the taxpayers could afford to purchase for themselves.

How does that benefit the taxpayer?

They also exempted themselves for getting Obamacare.

 

[bripat9643]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

It assumes that people will not have access to insurance. It also assumes that things will go back to the way they were. It will not go back to the way it was if Obamacare gets repealed!

Only far left religious dogma claims otherwise!

I wrote in the OP that you should read the report so you don't make a fool of yourself.

It will not go back to the way it was if Obamacare gets repealed!

That is not at all what they universally assume. You'd know that if you just read the section that explains how they developed their estimates. For example, the CBO expressly states, and I quote:

The ACA established deadlines that accelerated implementation of Medicare’s bidding program for durable medical equipment, and CBO expects that if the ACA was repealed, that program would not revert to the slower schedule anticipated under prior law.​

They assume too that aspects of other provisions will remain in place for a brief period.

Some of the people projected to enroll in Medicaid as a result of the ACA were eligible for the program under prior law and thus would remain eligible in the event of a repeal; CBO and JCT estimate that rates of enrollment among those previously eligible people would remain elevated for a few years.
​

If the ACA is not repealed no one will have insurance unless they purchase it privately......................so it is better to pay the 137billion and have people insured isn't it?

What? You do realize that O-care exists to make health insurance available for people who do not otherwise have access to health insurance and that ~80% of the population privately purchases health insurance, right?

• Obamacare pushes nation's health uninsured rate to record low 8.6 percent. In 2015, the nonelderly uninsured rate was 10.5%, the lowest rate in decades.
  
  
  
  (Source)

Forcing people to buy insurance can obviously lower the rate of the uninsured. That's all your chart proves.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Boy people here are something else...The title of this thread presents the most liberal take on the impact of repealing the ACA. Did none of you actually read the document and notice that? The figures resulting from the CBO's more conservative scenario - the one that considers the macroeconomic feedback/knock-on impacts - are considerably more gloomy.

Taking into account the effects on federal revenues and direct spending but excluding the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that a repeal of the ACA would increase federal deficits by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period. That figure reflects an estimated reduction in outlays of $821 billion that is more than offset by an estimated reduction in revenues of $1,174 billion. The resulting estimate of the effects on deficits is substantially larger than the one CBO and JCT issued in July 2012 for a similar proposal to repeal the ACA—a difference that mostly reflects a shift in the budget window to encompass later years in which repealing the ACA would increase budget deficits sharply.
​

In the crush to repeal O-care, I have not yet seen from so much as one Representative or Senator or Trump that with similar rigor and transparency identifies:

1. How they will offset the deficit increases noted in the CBO's analysis,
2. How they will maintain the current <9% rate of uninsuredness among the non-elderly,
3. Explains the temporal progression of the net budgetary and economic costs/savings of whatever they intend to leave in O-care's wake should they repeal it.
4. Which portions of O-care they will keep and what is (a) the qualitative relationship between the ACA provisions they keep and those they repeal and (b) the economic impacts of those respective ACA components.

Whatever Trump and Congress do with the ACA, the fact remains that some 80% of the nation doesn't obtain health insurance via the ACA because they get it privately via their employers.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

I work in healthcare - they most definitely occur.

Obamacare reworks reimbursement structure and meaningful use incentives.

Where are the spending cuts? It certainly didn't cut my spending.

WTF? Why do you ask questions here when the answers are already available on the Internet and available from non-partisan sources? Are you thinking that nobody knows? Is your question purely rhetorical?




See this also. There are also these spending cuts.

 

[WillReadmore]

1.Take Obama name off it just use ACA
2. STOP using it for a political foot ball
3. fix the wrong, no congress person who took money from ins co work on the fix
4 bipartisan group make it work for all

Obamacare is not a football.....it's just dead....like roadkill....

Health care is NOT a football, all right.

So, before destroying what we have, there is a DUTY to show what will be the replacement.

Nope! Democrats did not show Obamacare before they passed it. Remember Pelosi? Hello?

There were R's and D's on the committees in the House and Senate which wrote the legislation.

No bill in congress got more coverage.

I remember exactly what Pelosi said, and it was grossly and purposefully misrepresented in the press.

 

[WillReadmore]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

The people responsible for the ACA didn't read the whole thing yet found time to exempt themselves. Clearly, something is wrong with it. Maybe the answer is not repeal but modify.......and see who exempts themselves from the modified version.

Good idea. The idea of a special health care funding system for congress is absurd.

 

[Zander]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

And 30 million less people will be covered. How does this make sense to anyone?

Single payer is the only real solution.

Single payer is a pipe dream.

Health insurance is not a right.

Get over it.

Take responsibility for your own life. Government is not your "daddy".

 

[AntonToo]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

I work in healthcare - they most definitely occur.

Obamacare reworks reimbursement structure and meaningful use incentives.

Where are the spending cuts? It certainly didn't cut my spending.

Obamacare moved Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement towards paying for outcomes, not procedures.

So if you had a surgery and they left an extra metal piece in you, guess what, government is no longer paying provider to fix it. If person had to stay longer in the hospital because the discharge was delayed by whatever reason, guess what, government isn't paying for that, it now pays for expected length of stay.

Government pays less, hospitals have more pressure to perform only truly needed procedures and do them in more efficient, timely manner and lower overall costs.

Lowered per-person-cost forecasts are no accident.

It is tough to have a conversation on this with people who know little-to-nothing about healthcare except that they don't like Obama or paying for insurance.

There is much in the law to fix, much more reform ideas to address costs, but this Repeal! shtick conservatives have made into a rally chant will do little more than seriously disrupt healthcare yet again and set us back and sideways ten squares.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The people responsible for the ACA didn't read the whole thing yet found time to exempt themselves. Clearly, something is wrong with it. Maybe the answer is not repeal but modify.......and see who exempts themselves from the modified version.

I don't know why you think Congress exempted itself from the ACA. It is not true that Congress exempted itself from the provisions of the ACA.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Before you make a fool of yourself, click the damn link and read the report.

And 30 million less people will be covered. How does this make sense to anyone?

Single payer is the only real solution.

30 million people are not on ObamaCare

 

[imawhosure]

The claim in the title is from the Congressional Budget Office.

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously!

Did you click the link?

Obamacare contains:

1. New Spending.
2. New Spending Cuts.
3. New Revenues.

The [3.revenues] and [2.spending cuts] are larger over 10 year period compared to [1.spending].

What is it that you don't believe?

You forgot the part where the new revenues and new spending are in place for the full ten years and the spending cuts never occur.

Tell them----->there is a difference between healthcare insurance, and healthcare coverage. It is all lefty semantics designed to muddy the waters. Do people who have a 6 to 10,000 deductible insured? Technically yes, realistically, hell no! So for leftists to pretend that Ocare is magical is a false premise, because there is a difference between health INSURANCE, and HEALTHCARE.

And then, does anyone notice the two fastest rising costs in this country are the two things that the government has had their hands in for sooo long..........healthcare, and higher education. As anyone seen how much money these colleges have? How about how much money medical drug companies make? If the government were not involved and WE had to pay the freight, none of these costs would be this high, or all of them would go out of business because of lack of customers. There is no competition to LOWER costs, because the government and insurance company's, along with student loans, just pay the freight. To get people affordable healthcare, and NOT affordable INSURANCE which are two completely different things, we as a nation must get control of costs and charges. The government is NOT the way to do that, and everyone with a lick of sense knows this to be true.