CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit

[Claudette]

What you are pretending is that the congress gave them some PHONEY numbers to skew the results.

No...I am not saying phony numbers.
Unrealisatic numbers.
They can not be phony as they are projections.

But they projected things such as less than 5% unemployment.
They projected no fraud.
They projected an increase in the supply of doctors.
They projected a propserous economy.

Such is possible, but not likely.
Many studies show the opposite in many of those factors.

NOthing phony, they just didn't give them the whole picture.

This is what they left out according the Paul Ryan.

Misleading arguments about its true deficit impact exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law and over $500 billion in double-counting Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare reductions. The law was written to measure 10 years of tax increases to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that the creation of a trillion-dollar open-ended entitlement is a fiscal train wreck.

They also left out the 200 Billion doctor fix. They put that on a seperate bill so it wouldn't adversly effect the outcome.

The Dems played sleight of hand all the way around on the numbers they sent to the CBO.

How any thinking person can think adding millions to the rolls isn't going to cost someone somewhere more money is mindboggling to me. Common sense folks.

Paul Ryan the new Head of the Budget Committee will be on Greta tonight at 10P. If you want the real scoop on what Obamacare is REALLY going to cost tune in.

 

[WillowTree]

Michelle Bachman put it best.. "Garbage in, garbage out."

 

[RDD_1210]

Michelle Bachman put it best.. "Garbage in, garbage out."

That was actually George Carlin first, referring to Politicians as a whole.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is what they left out according the Paul Ryan.

Misleading arguments about its true deficit impact exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law...

The vast majority of those appropriations don't disappear if the ACA goes away. The CBO addressed this in its analysis of the repeal bill:

In addition, H.R. 2 would repeal a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which, if left in place, might or might not result in additional appropriations. CBO estimated that such provisions authorizing specific amounts, if fully funded, would result in appropriations of $106 billion over the 2010–2019 period. However, most of those authorizations, for more than $86 billion, were for activities that were already being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized for future years; for example, that amount includes an estimated $39 billion for ongoing activities of the Indian Health Service and $34 billion for continued grants to federally qualified health centers. Consequently, just as the authorizations in PPACA of an estimated $106 billion over the 2010–2019 period will not necessarily lead to an increase of that amount in total discretionary spending, the repeal of those PPACA authorizations would not necessarily result in discretionary savings of that amount.​

I missed it, did Paul Ryan also promise to defund all other previously existing federal health programs unrelated to the ACA, like the Indian Health Service?

and over $500 billion in double-counting Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare reductions.

The "double counting" charge concerns rhetoric implying that savings in Medicare are being pumped back into Medicare. That doesn't change the fact that the legislation itself finds cost offsets to cover its new spending.

The law was written to measure 10 years of tax increases to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that the creation of a trillion-dollar open-ended entitlement is a fiscal train wreck.

The odd part of this suggestion is that it ignores the fact that the law's primary funding mechanism, an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, doesn't take effect until 2018. And it ignores the much more important point that the law's fiscal balance only gets better with time. Your implication is that in the second decade (i.e. past the 10-year budget window in which it was evaluated) the wheels come off but in fact the opposite is true: revenues grow faster than spending. As the CBO points out:

Last March, CBO estimated that enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal deficits in the decade after 2019, with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The imprecision of the calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year estimates. Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 [the repeal bill] would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.​

They make a similar point in discussing the repeal bill effect on the federal budgetary commitment to health care. They point out that the ACA increases the federal budgetary commitment over the first decade. However:

In contrast, CBO estimated that enacting that legislation [the ACA] would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade after 2019. The impact in the second decade was estimated to be different than that in the first decade because the effects of those provisions that would tend to decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care would grow faster than the effects of provisions that would tend to increase it. Correspondingly, by repealing all of those provisions, H.R. 2 [the repeal bill] would roughly reverse those outcomes, thereby diminishing the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare over the next decade and increasing it in subsequent years.​

They also left out the 200 Billion doctor fix. They put that on a seperate bill so it wouldn't adversly effect the outcome.

I'm confused by this one. Are you suggesting that if the ACA is repealed an SGR fix won't be needed? That money won't be spent?

If your answer to those questions is no, then what does that have to do with the balance between ACA's revenues and spending? That's about as honest as implying we'll stop funding the IHS or FQHCs if the ACA goes away simply because the appropriations for them were authorized in the ACA.

These are fiscal issues that exist independently of the ACA. On the one hand, appropriations that would've been authorized anyway for some safety net programs were tacked onto the ACA and you're dissatisfied with that ("They've included 'hidden' spending by authorizing future appropriations! They're gaming the system!"). On the other hand, the SGR fix money that will be spent anyway was removed from the final iteration of the legislation and you're dissatisfied with that ("They haven't included that spending! They're gaming the system!"). Spending independent of health reform is going to happen with or without ACA; some of that spending was authorized in the legislation, some was left out but Ryanites find a way to be upset either way.

How any thinking person can think adding millions to the rolls isn't going to cost someone somewhere more money is mindboggling to me. Common sense folks.

Who suggested it doesn't cost anything? The CBO score of the final legislation was pretty widely circulated: it's estimated to cost $940 billion in the ten-year budget window. The novel concept at work is that it combines spending cuts and revenue increases to pay for those costs and it does it so well that it comes out over $100 billion in the black. Maybe you're referring to someone discussing what it costs on net?

 

[Revere]

This is what they left out according the Paul Ryan.

Misleading arguments about its true deficit impact exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law...

The vast majority of those appropriations don't disappear if the ACA goes away. The CBO addressed this in its analysis of the repeal bill:

In addition, H.R. 2 would repeal a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which, if left in place, might or might not result in additional appropriations. CBO estimated that such provisions authorizing specific amounts, if fully funded, would result in appropriations of $106 billion over the 2010–2019 period. However, most of those authorizations, for more than $86 billion, were for activities that were already being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized for future years; for example, that amount includes an estimated $39 billion for ongoing activities of the Indian Health Service and $34 billion for continued grants to federally qualified health centers. Consequently, just as the authorizations in PPACA of an estimated $106 billion over the 2010–2019 period will not necessarily lead to an increase of that amount in total discretionary spending, the repeal of those PPACA authorizations would not necessarily result in discretionary savings of that amount.​

I missed it, did Paul Ryan also promise to defund all other previously existing federal health programs unrelated to the ACA, like the Indian Health Service?

and over $500 billion in double-counting Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare reductions.

The "double counting" charge concerns rhetoric implying that savings in Medicare are being pumped back into Medicare. That doesn't change the fact that the legislation itself finds cost offsets to cover its new spending.



The odd part of this suggestion is that it ignores the fact that the law's primary funding mechanism, an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, doesn't take effect until 2018. And it ignores the much more important point that the law's fiscal balance only gets better with time. Your implication is that in the second decade (i.e. past the 10-year budget window in which it was evaluated) the wheels come off but in fact the opposite is true: revenues grow faster than spending. As the CBO points out:

Last March, CBO estimated that enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal deficits in the decade after 2019, with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The imprecision of the calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year estimates. Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 [the repeal bill] would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.​

They make a similar point in discussing the repeal bill effect on the federal budgetary commitment to health care. They point out that the ACA increases the federal budgetary commitment over the first decade. However:

In contrast, CBO estimated that enacting that legislation [the ACA] would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade after 2019. The impact in the second decade was estimated to be different than that in the first decade because the effects of those provisions that would tend to decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care would grow faster than the effects of provisions that would tend to increase it. Correspondingly, by repealing all of those provisions, H.R. 2 [the repeal bill] would roughly reverse those outcomes, thereby diminishing the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare over the next decade and increasing it in subsequent years.​

They also left out the 200 Billion doctor fix. They put that on a seperate bill so it wouldn't adversly effect the outcome.

I'm confused by this one. Are you suggesting that if the ACA is repealed an SGR fix won't be needed? That money won't be spent?

If your answer to those questions is no, then what does that have to do with the balance between ACA's revenues and spending? That's about as honest as implying we'll stop funding the IHS or FQHCs if the ACA goes away simply because the appropriations for them were authorized in the ACA.

These are fiscal issues that exist independently of the ACA. On the one hand, appropriations that would've been authorized anyway for some safety net programs were tacked onto the ACA and you're dissatisfied with that ("They've included 'hidden' spending by authorizing future appropriations! They're gaming the system!"). On the other hand, the SGR fix money that will be spent anyway was removed from the final iteration of the legislation and you're dissatisfied with that ("They haven't included that spending! They're gaming the system!"). Spending independent of health reform is going to happen with or without ACA; some of that spending was authorized in the legislation, some was left out but Ryanites find a way to be upset either way.

How any thinking person can think adding millions to the rolls isn't going to cost someone somewhere more money is mindboggling to me. Common sense folks.

Who suggested it doesn't cost anything? The CBO score of the final legislation was pretty widely circulated: it's estimated to cost $940 billion in the ten-year budget window. The novel concept at work is that it combines spending cuts and revenue increases to pay for those costs and it does it so well that it comes out over $100 billion in the black. Maybe you're referring to someone discussing what it costs on net?

It was a lie based on lying Democrats.

And you, a liar, wouldn't know the difference or care.

 

[Yurt]

Erci Cantor says the CBO is wrong, so it MUST be so, right?

Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates. The projections of the bill’s
budgetary impact are quite uncertain

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

care to try again....

 

[Cuyo]

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?"

"Profit" is calculated after payroll and bonuses. Even if they were "Losing" money on paper, the premise would not be consequential to the argument.

 

[Revere]

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?"

"Profit" is calculated after payroll and bonuses. Even if they were "Losing" money on paper, the premise would not be consequential to the argument.

Oh, should government tell private companies how much to pay their employees?

 

[Cuyo]

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?"

"Profit" is calculated after payroll and bonuses. Even if they were "Losing" money on paper, the premise would not be consequential to the argument.

Oh, should government tell private companies how much to pay their employees?

Deflection: Fail.

Their "Profit" is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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?

 

[boedicca]

"Profit" is calculated after payroll and bonuses. Even if they were "Losing" money on paper, the premise would not be consequential to the argument.

Oh, should government tell private companies how much to pay their employees?

Deflection: Fail.

Their "Profit" is irrelevant to the conversation.

What a moron.

When someone says profit is irrelevant for a business to function, he is just betraying is own complete and utter lack of knowledge of the subject.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh, should government tell private companies how much to pay their employees?

Deflection: Fail.

Their "Profit" is irrelevant to the conversation.

What a moron.

When someone says profit is irrelevant for a business to function, he is just betraying is own complete and utter lack of knowledge of the subject.

That's not even close to what I said, you simp. Try to keep up.

 

[rdean]

If someone gets hit by a bus and they have no health care, then taxpayers have to pay for it and the cost skyrockets. Insurance keeps the cost down.

Republicans should follow their instincts and stay away from math and science. They don't mix well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bullshit. Try again.

So, why would the nonpartisan CBO lie?

They are required to say certain things by law.

Here are the actual numbers that the CBO is talking about.

We will end up not spending about $540 billion dollars. We will also not take in about $770 billion in new taxes that would have paid for this new spending. Somehow this is supposed to increase the deficit because the net result would be about $230 billion dollars that the government will not get.

In other words, the deficit will increase because we will take in less money than we would have without the repeal. My accounting skills are not up to the standards of the government, so I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that not spending money, combined with not raising taxes to pay for the spending we will not be doing, somehow makes us have less money.

Don't take my word for what the CBO is saying though, look for yourself.

Director's Blog Blog Archive Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the CBO report says what they like they tout it.

when it reports what they dont like they pan it

I pan the CBO no matter what, but they are the only source that exists for some things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So..not enacting an entitlement now costs us money?

Sorry, there is more to this picture than meets the eye.

"Enacting an entitlement" is not all that the Health Care Bill did, obviously. There were cost-saving measures in the bill. Read the CBO reports. They're the guys paid to figure these things out, albeit not with 100% accuracy of course but it at least speaks to your sentence #1 above being a faulty premise.

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

 

[Trajan]

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?"

"Profit" is calculated after payroll and bonuses. Even if they were "Losing" money on paper, the premise would not be consequential to the argument.

yes that is true but a truer benchmark I think may be their margin per share for the public co's of which I think they all are.

their operating margin appears to be the big question ala the tightening of rules that provides a quota , 80% for use of premium income vs treatment etc.....*shrugs*, I think that whole arguments a loser personally. If they want to turn them all into utilities which appears to be the case, well good luck with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

“CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years; consequently, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase the budget deficit,” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote in his analysis.

The analysis also finds that, under repeal, with the ACA’s subsidies abolished, fewer Americans would have health insurance and those who purchased it in the individual market would pay more for insurance.



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

BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THEM.

You really need to understand how the CBO works before you quote them.

The CBO does not have the responsibility NOR the right to determine the credibilpity of the data given to them. They are to apply the data to expected market conditions and give the outcome.

The issue is not the outcome projected by the CBO. The issue is exactly how did the congress leadership and the administration come up with the data.

Based on the law you fool.

They read the law and estimate its effects , that is their job.

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? Did you also miss the part where Congress actually passed the doc fix and increased the payments to doctors?

Or did you just listen to the bullshit that your favorite talking head spouted?

 

[Trajan]

Who suggested it doesn't cost anything? The CBO score of the final legislation was pretty widely circulated: it's estimated to cost $940 billion in the ten-year budget window.

do you sppt. that number?