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

[martybegan]

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.

So that translates to 13.7 billion per year, which is the equivalent of about a day and a half of federal operating costs.

Read the document. That is the least conservative outlook. It is not the full story.

Be that as it may, I should hope I don't see you complaining about government spending anything less than $13.7 billion on anything.

I am complaining about the deceptive nature of the OP. He makes a small % of the federal budget seem like a lot of $$ relatively.

Plus I note you glaze over the rest of my statements.....

Why am I not saving $$ on my healthcare?

By what standard is 13.7B not a lot of money?

• 2010 Budget of the Department of Commerce: $13.9B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Interior: $12B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of Labor: $13.5B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Treasury: $13.4B
• 2010 Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $5.5B
• 2010 Budget of the EPA: $10B
• Cost to repair America's bridges: $140B (the fix would be done in 10.2 years at $13.7B/year spending)
• $13.7B/year will pay for 548,000 people's $25K/year college tuition. That's 5.48 million people graduating with degrees that position them for higher career earnings than if they were to not have degrees.

Right now it would fund the feds for less than 2 days. I am arguing that the OP title makes it seem like much more of an impact on the yearly budget.

 

[Tom Horn]

Because of the cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, Obamacare actually reduced budget deficits. You can be sure that part of O-care will stay in place.

No, he stole $500M from Medicare to fund the first few years of Barry-Care. No program's funds are safe from these thieves.

 

[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.

So that translates to 13.7 billion per year, which is the equivalent of about a day and a half of federal operating costs.

Read the document. That is the least conservative outlook. It is not the full story.

Be that as it may, I should hope I don't see you complaining about government spending anything less than $13.7 billion on anything.

I am complaining about the deceptive nature of the OP. He makes a small % of the federal budget seem like a lot of $$ relatively.

Plus I note you glaze over the rest of my statements.....

Why am I not saving $$ on my healthcare?

By what standard is 13.7B not a lot of money?

• 2010 Budget of the Department of Commerce: $13.9B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Interior: $12B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of Labor: $13.5B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Treasury: $13.4B
• 2010 Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $5.5B
• 2010 Budget of the EPA: $10B
• Cost to repair America's bridges: $140B (the fix would be done in 10.2 years at $13.7B/year spending)
• $13.7B/year will pay for 548,000 people's $25K/year college tuition. That's 5.48 million people graduating with degrees that position them for higher career earnings than if they were to not have degrees.

Right now it would fund the feds for less than 2 days. I am arguing that the OP title makes it seem like much more of an impact on the yearly budget.

The thread title doesn't make it seem like anything. It's merely a statement of what the CBO projected is the cost of repealing the ACA and it's their most liberal projection.

• I didn't omit the time period to which the $137B applies.
• I didn't elect to use the far more conservative and comprehensive CBO projected costs.
• I didn't misrepresent anything.
• I didn't write something like "whopping" to describe the the $137B.
• I didn't provide any characterization one way or another in the opening post. I did provide the link to the CBO's report and I encouraged people to read it. I did that so that people can understand what are the costs associated with repealing the ACA and what gives rise to those costs.

What it seems like to you is on you, not what I wrote as a thread title.

 

[martybegan]

So that translates to 13.7 billion per year, which is the equivalent of about a day and a half of federal operating costs.

Read the document. That is the least conservative outlook. It is not the full story.

Be that as it may, I should hope I don't see you complaining about government spending anything less than $13.7 billion on anything.

I am complaining about the deceptive nature of the OP. He makes a small % of the federal budget seem like a lot of $$ relatively.

Plus I note you glaze over the rest of my statements.....

Why am I not saving $$ on my healthcare?

By what standard is 13.7B not a lot of money?

• 2010 Budget of the Department of Commerce: $13.9B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Interior: $12B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of Labor: $13.5B
• 2010 Budget of the Department of the Treasury: $13.4B
• 2010 Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $5.5B
• 2010 Budget of the EPA: $10B
• Cost to repair America's bridges: $140B (the fix would be done in 10.2 years at $13.7B/year spending)
• $13.7B/year will pay for 548,000 people's $25K/year college tuition. That's 5.48 million people graduating with degrees that position them for higher career earnings than if they were to not have degrees.

Right now it would fund the feds for less than 2 days. I am arguing that the OP title makes it seem like much more of an impact on the yearly budget.

The thread title doesn't make it seem like anything. It's merely a statement of what the CBO projected is the cost of repealing the ACA and it's their most liberal projection.

• I didn't omit the time period to which the $137B applies.
• I didn't elect to use the far more conservative and comprehensive CBO projected costs.
• I didn't misrepresent anything.
• I didn't write something like "whopping" to describe the the $137B.
• I didn't provide any characterization one way or another in the opening post. I did provide the link to the CBO's report and I encouraged people to read it. I did that so that people can understand what are the costs associated with repealing the ACA and what gives rise to those costs.

What it seems like to you is on you, not what I wrote as a thread title.

It stretches out the time period to 10 years, to make the posted value hundreds of billions instead of billions. Its a standard ploy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I also read that ending welfare will bankrupt the nation...

 

[AntonToo]

I have been with the same company for 20 years. until Obamacare my premiums went up in a nice slow manner, and my coverage remained the same.

Then Obamacare came along. I got forced into a wellness plan, the PPO option became so expensive the high deductible plan was the only one that made sense, AND my premiums have gone up much quicker, even under the high deductible plan.

AND, the "Cadillac Tax" has not even come into play yet. You can take your graphs, and cram them up your who-hole. I know what has happened to my insurance, and I don't like it.

Where are the savings I was supposed to see?

You can take your personal experience and shove them up your ass much further than you instruct me to shove my national statistics.

You are one guy, in one locale, who already had insurance, you did not have to deal with trying to get a policy in individual market, imagining yourself to represent all of America. You do not.

I have personal experience too - my insurance costs didn't increase. So what? Should I imagine that's a rule make too?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Because of the cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, Obamacare actually reduced budget deficits. You can be sure that part of O-care will stay in place.

No, he stole $500M from Medicare to fund the first few years of Barry-Care. No program's funds are safe from these thieves.

The ACA and other legislation have played an important role in slowing Medicare payment growth. (Click the fucking link to get more detail on that statement.)

The reconciliation process normally can’t be used to pass legislation that increases the deficit 10 or more years into the future; that’s why the Bush tax cuts in 2001 expired after 10 years. Since Obamacare reduced the deficit, it would stand to reason that repealing it increases the deficit in the long run, and runs afoul of this rule. To get around this, the reconciliation bill preserves Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare doctor payments, and so is scored as reducing the deficit, because those cuts plus the cost of the insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion swamp the revenue loss from repealing all of Obamacare’s taxes. (Click the fucking links for the details. You need to understand them.)

Dude. Whether Obamacare resulted in lower deficits than would have resulted were it not enacted is not a matter of whether one thinks it did/did not or whether one wants to believe it did/did not. It did. Every U.S. Senator, and especially the Republican ones, know it did. They knew it would do so when it was enacted. The CBO has made available to every member of Congress the details that show the ACA resulted in lower deficits and that repealing it will increase the growth of federal budget deficits. That is why the Senate effort to trash the ACA and Sen. Enzi's bill will have to be processed as reconciliation bill.


I recently joined this site, but I'm astounded by how often people will, and how many people, will say things that they seem to believe quite confidently and yet to people who do know the topic, it is patently clear those "true believers" don't know what they are talking about. And then, when someone shows them they are mistaken, instead of simply saying, "Oh, I didn't know that. I had it wrong," so the conversation can move forward in a mature way, they take to attacking the source.

What kind of mature, thinking adults who actually give a damn about a given topic will actually do that? WTF? Is there some unwritten Internet forum rule that says forum members must belong to the "cult of Intransigent Ignorance" and ascribe to the motto "My Ignorance is Just as Good as Your Knowledge?" I mean really. WTF? Who does that?

 

[martybegan]

I have been with the same company for 20 years. until Obamacare my premiums went up in a nice slow manner, and my coverage remained the same.

Then Obamacare came along. I got forced into a wellness plan, the PPO option became so expensive the high deductible plan was the only one that made sense, AND my premiums have gone up much quicker, even under the high deductible plan.

AND, the "Cadillac Tax" has not even come into play yet. You can take your graphs, and cram them up your who-hole. I know what has happened to my insurance, and I don't like it.

Where are the savings I was supposed to see?

You can take your personal experience and shove them up your ass much further than you instruct me to shove my national statistics.

You are one guy who already had insurance, you did not have to deal with trying to get a policy in individual market, in one locale, imagining yourself to represent all of America. You do not.

I have personal experience too - my insurance costs didn't increase. So what? Should I imagine that's a rule make too?

Obama said I could keep my plan If I liked it. I didn't get to keep the plan I liked. It doesn't matter the reason, he sold me a load of bullshit.

So basically it's OK i got screwed over because you did not?

Well fuck you, you twat-waddle. Fuck yourself with an aids infested tire iron.

Or at least suck up to me and thank me for subsidizing your heath insurance, you lazy little leech.

 

[easyt65]

So the ACA will even cost tax dollars even after it's gone?! Obama gets to screw the American people coming and going. Way to go, Barry!

 

[usmbguest5318]

I also read that ending welfare will bankrupt the nation...

You needed to have read more than one sentence. I can understand why reading just a sentence that says "welfare will bankrupt the nation" seems unbelievable.

Read the damn report linked in the OP. It contains factual information, rigorous reasoning, clear explanations, and it's non-partisan.

 

[Tom Horn]

Because of the cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, Obamacare actually reduced budget deficits. You can be sure that part of O-care will stay in place.

No, he stole $500M from Medicare to fund the first few years of Barry-Care. No program's funds are safe from these thieves.

The ACA and other legislation have played an important role in slowing Medicare payment growth. (Click the fucking link to get more detail on that statement.)

The reconciliation process normally can’t be used to pass legislation that increases the deficit 10 or more years into the future; that’s why the Bush tax cuts in 2001 expired after 10 years. Since Obamacare reduced the deficit, it would stand to reason that repealing it increases the deficit in the long run, and runs afoul of this rule. To get around this, the reconciliation bill preserves Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare doctor payments, and so is scored as reducing the deficit, because those cuts plus the cost of the insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion swamp the revenue loss from repealing all of Obamacare’s taxes. (Click the fucking links for the details. You need to understand them.)

Dude. Whether Obamacare resulted in lower deficits than would have resulted were it not enacted is not a matter of whether one thinks it did/did not or whether one wants to believe it did/did not. It did. Every U.S. Senator, and especially the Republican ones, know it did. They knew it would do so when it was enacted. The CBO has made available to every member of Congress the details that show the ACA resulted in lower deficits and that repealing it will increase the growth of federal budget deficits. That is why the Senate effort to trash the ACA and Sen. Enzi's bill will have to be processed as reconciliation bill.


I recently joined this site, but I'm astounded by how often people will, and how many people, will say things that they seem to believe quite confidently and yet to people who do know the topic, it is patently clear those "true believers" don't know what they are talking about. And then, when someone shows them they are mistaken, instead of simply saying, "Oh, I didn't know that. I had it wrong," so the conversation can move forward in a mature way, they take to attacking the source.

What kind of mature, thinking adults who actually give a damn about a given topic will actually do that? WTF? Is there some unwritten Internet forum rule that says forum members must belong to the "cult of Intransigent Ignorance" and ascribe to the motto "My Ignorance is Just as Good as Your Knowledge?" I mean really. WTF? Who does that?

Is there a question in there?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

Does anyone believe this? I mean seriously! If we are going to debate something, it will take at least 2 USMB to deflect this crapola. Come on lefties, the least you could do is be real!

Naw, I believe it. Of course they would cut the taxes once the law is repealed. However, folks that have gotten used to the medicaid expansion would immediately file civil liberties and civil rights suits, and thus, those benefits would not be cut immediately.

Tax cuts with no corresponding benefit cuts? Hence, a budget deficit.

Because of the cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, Obamacare actually reduced budget deficits. You can be sure that part of O-care will stay in place.

What is funny about the post above, Tom Horn?

I don't see anything funny in it, but I do think it's sad and embarrassing that you actually wrote what you did in post #102. Do you really not have enough self respect to double check your information/beliefs before making comments that are very clearly wrong?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Because of the cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, Obamacare actually reduced budget deficits. You can be sure that part of O-care will stay in place.

No, he stole $500M from Medicare to fund the first few years of Barry-Care. No program's funds are safe from these thieves.

The ACA and other legislation have played an important role in slowing Medicare payment growth. (Click the fucking link to get more detail on that statement.)

The reconciliation process normally can’t be used to pass legislation that increases the deficit 10 or more years into the future; that’s why the Bush tax cuts in 2001 expired after 10 years. Since Obamacare reduced the deficit, it would stand to reason that repealing it increases the deficit in the long run, and runs afoul of this rule. To get around this, the reconciliation bill preserves Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare doctor payments, and so is scored as reducing the deficit, because those cuts plus the cost of the insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion swamp the revenue loss from repealing all of Obamacare’s taxes. (Click the fucking links for the details. You need to understand them.)

Dude. Whether Obamacare resulted in lower deficits than would have resulted were it not enacted is not a matter of whether one thinks it did/did not or whether one wants to believe it did/did not. It did. Every U.S. Senator, and especially the Republican ones, know it did. They knew it would do so when it was enacted. The CBO has made available to every member of Congress the details that show the ACA resulted in lower deficits and that repealing it will increase the growth of federal budget deficits. That is why the Senate effort to trash the ACA and Sen. Enzi's bill will have to be processed as reconciliation bill.


I recently joined this site, but I'm astounded by how often people will, and how many people, will say things that they seem to believe quite confidently and yet to people who do know the topic, it is patently clear those "true believers" don't know what they are talking about. And then, when someone shows them they are mistaken, instead of simply saying, "Oh, I didn't know that. I had it wrong," so the conversation can move forward in a mature way, they take to attacking the source.

What kind of mature, thinking adults who actually give a damn about a given topic will actually do that? WTF? Is there some unwritten Internet forum rule that says forum members must belong to the "cult of Intransigent Ignorance" and ascribe to the motto "My Ignorance is Just as Good as Your Knowledge?" I mean really. WTF? Who does that?

Is there a question in there?

Do you see question marks?

 

[AntonToo]

I have been with the same company for 20 years. until Obamacare my premiums went up in a nice slow manner, and my coverage remained the same.

Then Obamacare came along. I got forced into a wellness plan, the PPO option became so expensive the high deductible plan was the only one that made sense, AND my premiums have gone up much quicker, even under the high deductible plan.

AND, the "Cadillac Tax" has not even come into play yet. You can take your graphs, and cram them up your who-hole. I know what has happened to my insurance, and I don't like it.

Where are the savings I was supposed to see?

You can take your personal experience and shove them up your ass much further than you instruct me to shove my national statistics.

You are one guy who already had insurance, you did not have to deal with trying to get a policy in individual market, in one locale, imagining yourself to represent all of America. You do not.

I have personal experience too - my insurance costs didn't increase. So what? Should I imagine that's a rule make too?

Obama said I could keep my plan If I liked it. I didn't get to keep the plan I liked. It doesn't matter the reason, he sold me a load of bullshit.

So basically it's OK i got screwed over because you did not?

Well fuck you, you twat-waddle. Fuck yourself with an aids infested tire iron.

Or at least suck up to me and thank me for subsidizing your heath insurance, you lazy little leech.

Obama lied or just brain farted or was speaking in overly broad terms - Either way no one can guarantee that your employer or private insurance companies will not change their plans. As I already explained plan turn over was high well before Obamacare, to expect that to not happen as entire healthcare market is getting reworked is no realistic.

Obamacare does have Grandfather clause which does force insurance companies (no your employer) to keep your plan if you had it for 4 years or longer. Maybe that's what Obama had in mind when he was saying this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I had to change to a high deductible plan, and I didn't want to. What happened to if I liked my insurance, I could keep it, period.

Who held the gun to your head when you chose your plan? There are high deductible plans, but there are also plans that have no deductible. You should have chosen something other than a high deductible plan.

the numbers I quoted show the falsehood of the OP. The amount he is bitching about is less than a day and a half of federal spending per year. Our federal budget has gotten that bloated, and people like you want to bloat it even more.[/QUOTE]

Since when does $13.7 billion dollars added to the deficit not constitute "bloating it even more?"

What can $13.7B buy?

• Provide $90K in gross wages to 152,222 people
• Buy 44,771 $306K homes
• Feed 1.463M+ people for a year. ($180/week spent on food)

And as I said, the $137B figure is the most liberal projection. Read the report to see what is the more conservative one.

30 million people are not on ObamaCare

Can you clarify what meant by that? There are some 320+ million citizens/people in the U.S. and something like 20 million of them use Obamacare. The rest get their insurance elsewhere or they don't have insurance.

The cost for the PPO premium went up dramatically, and the high deductible made more sense economically. Again, I could not keep the plan I liked.

You could. You chose not to.

 

[Tom Horn]

Do you see question marks?

You're the question mark.....demanding we read your link or else....or else what? This board moves fast and if you don't know how to keep your horseshit short and entertaining, you're just pissing on your own feet, son.

 

[martybegan]

I have been with the same company for 20 years. until Obamacare my premiums went up in a nice slow manner, and my coverage remained the same.

Then Obamacare came along. I got forced into a wellness plan, the PPO option became so expensive the high deductible plan was the only one that made sense, AND my premiums have gone up much quicker, even under the high deductible plan.

AND, the "Cadillac Tax" has not even come into play yet. You can take your graphs, and cram them up your who-hole. I know what has happened to my insurance, and I don't like it.

Where are the savings I was supposed to see?

You can take your personal experience and shove them up your ass much further than you instruct me to shove my national statistics.

You are one guy who already had insurance, you did not have to deal with trying to get a policy in individual market, in one locale, imagining yourself to represent all of America. You do not.

I have personal experience too - my insurance costs didn't increase. So what? Should I imagine that's a rule make too?

Obama said I could keep my plan If I liked it. I didn't get to keep the plan I liked. It doesn't matter the reason, he sold me a load of bullshit.

So basically it's OK i got screwed over because you did not?

Well fuck you, you twat-waddle. Fuck yourself with an aids infested tire iron.

Or at least suck up to me and thank me for subsidizing your heath insurance, you lazy little leech.

Obama lied or just brain farted or was speaking in overly broad terms - Either way no one can guarantee that your employer or private insurance companies will not change their plans. As I already explained plan turn over was high well before Obamacare, to expect that to not happen as entire healthcare market is getting reworked is no realistic.

Obamacare does have Grandfather clause which does force insurance companies (no your employer) to keep your plan if you had it for 4 years or longer. Maybe that's what Obama had in mind when he was saying this.

My plan was constant for over a decade, then all of sudden Obamacare came into effect and I had to change things, all at a higher cost to me than previously, for less benefits.

And keep sucking Obama's dick, but remember to clean your mouth off afterwards, asshole.

 

[martybegan]

I had to change to a high deductible plan, and I didn't want to. What happened to if I liked my insurance, I could keep it, period.

Who held the gun to your head when you chose your plan? There are high deductible plans, but there are also plans that have no deductible. You should have chosen something other than a high deductible plan.

the numbers I quoted show the falsehood of the OP. The amount he is bitching about is less than a day and a half of federal spending per year. Our federal budget has gotten that bloated, and people like you want to bloat it even more.[/QUOTE]

Since when does $13.7 billion dollars added to the deficit not constitute "bloating it even more?"

What can $13.7B buy?

• Provide $90K in gross wages to 152,222 people
• Buy 44,771 $306K homes
• Feed 1.463M+ people for a year. ($180/week spent on food)

And as I said, the $137B figure is the most liberal projection. Read the report to see what is the more conservative one.

30 million people are not on ObamaCare

Can you clarify what meant by that? There are some 320+ million citizens/people in the U.S. and something like 20 million of them use Obamacare. The rest get their insurance elsewhere or they don't have insurance.

The cost for the PPO premium went up dramatically, and the high deductible made more sense economically. Again, I could not keep the plan I liked.

You could. You chose not to.

That wasn't part of the deal. Costs were supposed to go down, not up. I was supposed to be able to keep the plan I liked. He didn't say I would have to pay more for it.

he lied, and you continue that lie because it suits you, you cheap, dime store hack.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you see question marks?

You're the question mark.....demanding we read your link or else....or else what? This board moves fast and if you don't know how to keep your horseshit short and entertaining, you're just pissing on your own feet, son.

Or else show yourself to be an uninformed idiot who comments on things they don't well understand. That's what.

 

[Tom Horn]

Or else show yourself to be an uninformed idiot who comments on things they don't well understand. That's what.

Another butt-hurt little commie all full of himself.....you won't last long here.