Mitt Romney's claim that repealing "Obamacare would save 95 billion in 2016, debunked

[Bass v 2.0]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

 

[thetor]

The REPUBLICANS,WERE,ARE and ALWAYS WILL BE............................................,BANANA REPUBLICANS........THESE MONKEYS HAVE NO RIGHT TO REPRESENT THINKING AMERICANS........least of all Romney,or when I change the R to a K..Komney,then just jumble the letters around........I get Monkey...FUNNY THAT...SAY NO TO MONKEY....oops I MEAN ROMNEY aka MONKEYMAN.



thetor

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

 

[healthmyths]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

A) Politifact is the biggest left wing liberal lying entity OWNED by St. Pete Times which is also known for it's communist leanings as "Pravada WEST !

B) Even dumocrat like you have to agree with this statement..
Based on the following words .. actual quote from Obama :
Obama said in 2003:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

Would you agree if Obama favors ONE payer that means 1,400 private health insurance companies are out of business?

C) These 1,400 private health insurance companies PAY in Federal income taxes, state income/sales taxes , local income/sales taxes a local property taxes over $100 billion A YEAR!!!

D) If $100 billion a year is no longer paid by these insurance companies in:
1) Federal income taxes
2) State income/sales taxes
3) Local income/sales taxes
4) local property taxes...
WHERE WILL the $100 billion a year come from to replace it???

 

[Bass v 2.0]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

A) Politifact is the biggest left wing liberal lying entity OWNED by St. Pete Times which is also known for it's communist leanings as "Pravada WEST !

B) Would as even as an idiot agree with this statement..
Based on the following words .. actual quote from Obama :
Obama said in 2003:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

Would you agree if Obama favors ONE payer that means 1,400 private health insurance companies are out of business?

C) These 1,400 private health insurance companies PAY in Federal income taxes, state income/sales taxes , local income/sales taxes a local property taxes over $100 billion A YEAR!!!

D) If $100 billion a year is no longer paid by these insurance companies in:
1) Federal income taxes
2) State income/sales taxes
3) Local income/sales taxes
4) local property taxes...
WHERE WILL the $100 billion a year come from to replace it???

Sure politifact is left wing, thats why they even factcheck a debunk some of Obama's claims.

 

[JoeB131]

Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.

His lips are moving.

Anyway, a couple thoughts.

First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.

Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.

 

[driveby]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

So now sellouts like you and poleftifact are calling CBO projections "facts" ?

 

[healthmyths]

Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.

His lips are moving.

Anyway, a couple thoughts.

First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.

You wrote"Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.

Well the BIGGEST 800 lb gorilla in the room no one seems to address has been frequently identified by the people that create the most health care claims, i.e. physicians!
The Problem? $600 billion a YEAR in "Defensive Medicine Practice" all because physicians fear LAWSUITS!
I don't understand why idiots who evidently can't take the experts i.e. physicians word i.e. THIS study for example:

Nine out of 10 physicians 90%!!! reported practicing defensive medicine.
Doctors Estimate Defensive Medicine Costs Americans $650-850 Billion Annually!
Doctors Practice Medicine in Fear, New Study Finds

FACTS: Emergency room physicians practice Defensive medicine..
1) More than half (53 percent) of emergency physicians reported that fear of lawsuits is the main reason for ordering the number of tests they do.

Emergency Visits Are Increasing, New Poll Finds; Many Patients Referred by Primary Care Doctors

So where is the OUTRAGE by the OWS crowd?
This affects THEM more directly then anything else!
$600 billion a year spent just because of FEAR of being sued!

OUTRAGEOUS that this was NOT addressed in Obamacare simply because the millionaire lawyers gave Obama/DemCongress $300 million in 2008!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

So now sellouts like you and poleftifact are calling CBO projections "facts" ?

Your party is the party of false claims and distortions you house Negro, you are noticeably silent on the lying in your party.

 

[healthmyths]

Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices.

The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
The cost of defensive medicine

NOTE the above was based on 2005 health care expenditures of $1.987 trillion.
Using 2010 expenditures of $2.555 trillion that would be over $230 billion in "defensive medicine"!
Physicians estimate $1 of every $4 spent on health care is defensive medicine or 25% or over $600 billion...
Either way a large chunk of health care costs is simply out of FEAR of being sued!

 

[California Girl]

Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.

His lips are moving.

Anyway, a couple thoughts.

First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.

Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.

It's also quite straightforward to spot your lies. Each and every post.

Moron.

 

[driveby]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:



The truth:



Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

So now sellouts like you and poleftifact are calling CBO projections "facts" ?

Your party is the party of false claims and distortions you house Negro, you are noticeably silent on the lying in your party.

My "party" is to vote for the most tolerable asshole running. As opposed your pretend to be a conservative christian while supporting a far left marxist, half christian, half muslim party? Or in simpler terms, the sellout party ...

 

[Full-Auto]

The REPUBLICANS,WERE,ARE and ALWAYS WILL BE............................................,BANANA REPUBLICANS........THESE MONKEYS HAVE NO RIGHT TO REPRESENT THINKING AMERICANS........least of all Romney,or when I change the R to a K..Komney,then just jumble the letters around........I get Monkey...FUNNY THAT...SAY NO TO MONKEY....oops I MEAN ROMNEY aka MONKEYMAN.



thetor

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

Be sure to include your birthday in your CP. I am sure many of us would like to congratulate you when your 12th birthday arrives.

 

[Seawytch]

A single payer health care system is NOT going to put private insurers out of business. They could still sell "Cadillac plans" for people that want more than the basic single payer system provides.

Did we worry about Buggy salesmen going out of business when we started building automobiles?

 

[bripat9643]

A single payer health care system is NOT going to put private insurers out of business. They could still sell "Cadillac plans" for people that want more than the basic single payer system provides.

Did we worry about Buggy salesmen going out of business when we started building automobiles?

Obama isn't building the equivalent of the automobile. He's building a Rube-Goldberg machine.

 

[whitehall]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

You call that debunked? The St. Petersburg Times "projects" that taxes and reduction of medicare benefits "might" offset the gigantic spending of the health care plan. Romney's figures are more solid that the St. Petersburg Times which estimates taxes that aren't in place and cuts in benefits that will be no doubt softened.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016


The lie:

Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today

The truth:

In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.

Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesn’t only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.

The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.

But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.

And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.

In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.

Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.

So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.

And then there’s the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.

Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.

If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.

Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them

You call that debunked? The St. Petersburg Times "projects" that taxes and reduction of medicare benefits "might" offset the gigantic spending of the health care plan. Romney's figures are more solid that the St. Petersburg Times which estimates taxes that aren't in place and cuts in benefits that will be no doubt softened.

Romney made a false claim he didn't back up. Thanks for admitting I'm right, I won.

 

[JoeB131]

Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.

His lips are moving.

Anyway, a couple thoughts.

First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.

Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.

It's also quite straightforward to spot your lies. Each and every post.

Moron.

Please point out anything I got wrong. Thanks.

Oh,wait, who's lying now?

 

[Inthemiddle]

A) Politifact is the biggest left wing liberal lying entity OWNED by St. Pete Times which is also known for it's communist leanings as "Pravada WEST !

Alright, so you do the numbers and tell us what they are.

B) Even dumocrat like you have to agree with this statement..
Based on the following words .. actual quote from Obama :
Obama said in 2003:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

Which has nothing to do with Romney's claims.

Would you agree if Obama favors ONE payer that means 1,400 private health insurance companies are out of business?

I would agree that if the space aliens invade planet earth, coming up with any old hypothetical you can pull out of your ass still won't make a valid argument.

 

[JoeB131]

A single payer health care system is NOT going to put private insurers out of business. They could still sell "Cadillac plans" for people that want more than the basic single payer system provides.

Did we worry about Buggy salesmen going out of business when we started building automobiles?

But isn't that the problem? What you are admitting is that single payer won't actually be effective.

You know, because you'll have people waiting in queau for services they've paid good money for like the United Kingdom.

Or guys like the Canadian Provincial minister who flew down here because he couldn't get the operation he wanted in his own country in anything like a timely manner.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices.

The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
The cost of defensive medicine

NOTE the above was based on 2005 health care expenditures of $1.987 trillion.
Using 2010 expenditures of $2.555 trillion that would be over $230 billion in "defensive medicine"!
Physicians estimate $1 of every $4 spent on health care is defensive medicine or 25% or over $600 billion...
Either way a large chunk of health care costs is simply out of FEAR of being sued!

There are so many problems here it's boggling. First of all, the "information" you're posting is based on THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY's claims. I don't know, but it seems to me that they have a vested interest in trying to sway public opinion to pass extremely favorable tort reform and things like that.

Now, let's talk a little about "defensive" medicine. Here's the real truth behind it: Doctor's aren't practicing "defensive" medicine, they're practicing inflated medicine. Patient's are the ones who are in the drivers' seats always. A doctor can't force a patient to take a test. All he can do is advise a patient. And by advising the patient and letting the patient decide which avenues to pursue, the doctor is instantly covering his ass from getting sued, so long as the advice is reasonable.

The real reason doctors push (and that's what they're doing, they are pushing) as many tests and procedures as they possibly can, is because IT MAKES MORE MONEY. Every procedure is something more the doctor of facility can charge. Of course they want you to use as many procedures as they possibly can convince you to use.