Republicans FAIL in attempt to add $50 Billion to Deficit

[HenryBHough]

Democrats seeking re-election in 2016 can enhance their potential by helping overturn OKE's vetoes. Open question is whether any will be BOTH:

1. Smart enough to figure that out.
2. Have the backbone to follow their own best interest.

 

[Greenbeard]

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit

Their bill spends money? Show me.

Yes, it spends money. It kicks about a million people off of their employer-based health insurance. The ones who don't just become uninsured as a result are picked up by government-subsidized programs.

CBO:

[The legislation would] Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or health insurance exchanges—by between 500,000 and 1 million people;

That means new government spending. And new spending on people who already had coverage (at no cost to the taxpayer) prior to the GOP's bill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit

Their bill spends money? Show me.

Yes, it spends money. It kicks about a million people off of their employer-based health insurance. The ones who don't just become uninsured as a result are picked up by government-subsidized programs.

CBO:

[The legislation would] Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or health insurance exchanges—by between 500,000 and 1 million people;

That means new government spending. And new spending on people who already had coverage (at no cost to the taxpayer) prior to the GOP's bill.

Yes, it spends money. It kicks about a million people off of their employer-based health insurance.

How does their bill kick people off their employer policy?

The ones who don't just become uninsured as a result are picked up by government-subsidized programs.

Sounds like the government-subsidized programs are spending the $50 billion.

And new spending on people who already had coverage

That's what Obamacare does best.

 

[Moonglow]

Where is the jobs bills?

 

[Manonthestreet]

LLMMAAOOOO libs raging about the deficit and then whine about not spending more on shovel rdy jobs.........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the jobs bills?

Why do we need a jobs bill, 5 years into a recovery?

 

[Darkwind]

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit

Their bill spends money? Show me.

Yes, it spends money. It kicks about a million people off of their employer-based health insurance. The ones who don't just become uninsured as a result are picked up by government-subsidized programs.

CBO:

[The legislation would] Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or health insurance exchanges—by between 500,000 and 1 million people;

That means new government spending. And new spending on people who already had coverage (at no cost to the taxpayer) prior to the GOP's bill.

It [ACA] will be far worse when the employer mandate kicks in.

This article, of course leaves out the millions of people who were forced off of their employer insurance and forced to join the ACA to begin with.

Anyone remember the "You can keep your plan and your doctor" lies?

Now, however, they are against it because it is Republican sponsored. If this article is even telling the truth that is. It is from Slate you know.

 

[Moonglow]

Where is the jobs bills?

Why do we need a jobs bill, 5 years into a recovery?

You always need jobs and business to grow the tax base....

 

[Synthaholic]

Republicans Just Relaunched Their War on Obamacare. It Didn’t Go Well.

Now that Republicans are in control of both chambers of Congress, the push to slay Obamacare by a thousand cuts is officially underway. But if the first stab is any indication, Republicans are going to need some sharper knives.

*snip*

For starters, there is the basic problem that President Obama has made clear that he’ll veto the 40-hour measure. If he does, Republicans could still seek to use the proposal as a cudgel to attack the law politically, but even here there are problems. The Congressional Budget Office has given the measure a decidedly unfavorable review. It estimates that the bill would result in as many as 1 million workers having their hours cut to put them under the new 40-hour limit and thereby losing their employer coverage; about 500,000 workers being left without any health coverage at all; and the deficit increasing by more than $50 billion as a result of fewer employers paying the $3,000 fine, as well as more people turning to Medicaid and federal subsidies to purchase their own insurance after being denied employer coverage.

We're really supposed to believe that you care about the deficit? You voted twice for a president that has overseen a $7 trillion plus increase in the national debt since taking office. He's surpassed Bush.

He's cut the deficit by 2/3.

Why is it that Righties all of a sudden no longer care about the deficit after whining incessantly about it for his first 4 years in office?

He's cut the deficit by 2/3.

How'd he do it?

That's a different thread. Enjoy.

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit after whining about it since President Obama (praise be unto Him!) was first elected.

Where's the 'conservative' outrage, Todd? Why aren't the teabaggers organizing a March on Washington, Todd?

That's a different thread.

You brought it up on this one.

I have not brought up the debt in this thread.

That's your deflection.

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit

Their bill spends money? Show me.

Greenbeard did so nicely.

You know what else is going to raise the deficit? Eliminating the tax on medical devices.

Why do the Republicans want to raise the deficit?

Why aren't the teabaggers organizing a March on Washington

Why would you and your gay friends march on Washington?

Thank you for the confirmation that you have nothing regarding the argument I've made. It's always nice to see you flail and fail.

 

[Synthaholic]

Where is the jobs bills?

Obama's has been sitting on Boehner's desk since 2011.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, it spends money. It kicks about a million people off of their employer-based health insurance.

How does their bill kick people off their employer policy?

Good lord. Let me explain the rationale for this GOP legislation to you. Under the ACA, employers of a certain size have to make an offer of insurance coverage to full-time employees. Insomuch as there's a distinction between "part-time" and "full-time" employees, that means there's a threshold: employees above that threshold need to be offered coverage, employees below it do not. The ACA establishes that threshold at 30 hours of work a week.

The existence of such a threshold will affect employer behavior. There will be a temptation to lower the hours of workers who are hovering around that threshold, to take them out of the equation when it comes to dealing with the employer mandate.

Clear so far?

The GOP wants to look like it's at least trying to do something about this. The obvious thing to do if you believe a threshold introduced by the law is changing employer behavior would be to remove the threshold. But for whatever reason, the GOP is not proposing to do that. Instead, they're proposing to move the threshold. From 30 hours to 40 hours a week.

But insofar as that threshold represents a perverse incentive, it affects workers near the threshold. If the requirement is 30 hours, then someone working say 31-35 hours may find themselves shifted below 30 hours. You're not likely to see people going all the way from 40 hours a week to 29, the 30-hour threshold affects those whose hours are closer to it--as a result, the evidence suggests the threshold has affected the hours of a few hundred thousand people. In other words, right now the number of workers impacted by the threshold isn't really all that high.

Shifting the threshold from 30 hours to 40 hours means you shift the folks it affects (i.e., those near the threshold). And a lot, lot more people work near the 40 hour threshold than the 30 hour threshold. So whatever perverse incentive is built into having a threshold will be amplified if you apply it to a much larger group of workers, as the GOP's bill does.

If you agree with the premise of the bill that there's a problem here of workers near the threshold being shifted below it to deny them access to their employer's insurance coverage, then it should be fairly obvious that subjecting more workers to the effects of that threshold makes the problem worse, not better. Which is the case here. More people will be shifted below the threshold under the GOP bill (and thus out of their employer-based coverage) for the simple reason that more people's hours hover around 40 hours than 30 hours.

The ones who don't just become uninsured as a result are picked up by government-subsidized programs.

Sounds like the government-subsidized programs are spending the $50 billion.

...yeah. Because the GOP's bill would have the effect of shifting more people into those programs.

Their "solution" doesn't match the problem they've diagnosed. That's the crux of the problem here. And it's why the costs of this bill far outweigh whatever benefits they're claiming are attached to it (which, again, I don't think they've even bothered to articulate).

That said, the GOP bill has at least been useful for illustrating why the ACA made the full-time threshold 30 hours instead of 40--it mutes the impact, and lessens the perverse incentive inherent in introducing such a threshold. In other words, 30 hours is better policy than 40 hours and the GOP is showing us why.

 

[Synthaholic]

LLMMAAOOOO libs raging about the deficit and then whine about not spending more on shovel rdy jobs.........

Not raging - RAVING!

RAGING is what wingnuts did from 2009-2013. They've since shut up about it, to not attract attention to Obama's success.

RAVING is what the Left is doing about Obama lowering the deficit by 2/3!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Costs money does it not....for a program even they admit was a failure...........once again lib debt good........repub debt bad................instead of we dont need more debt for useless grandstanding by politicians

 

[Synthaholic]

If this article is even telling the truth that is. It is from Slate you know.

The CBO numbers and commentary aren't from Slate, dumbass.

Neither are the comments of the conservative economic guru.

 

[Manonthestreet]

LLMMAAOOOO libs raging about the deficit and then whine about not spending more on shovel rdy jobs.........

Not raging - RAVING!

RAGING is what wingnuts did from 2009-2013. They've since shut up about it, to not attract attention to Obama's success.

RAVING is what the Left is doing about Obama lowering the deficit by 2/3!

alrdy debunked see my post above showing by govts own figs we are running trillion dollar deficits....try some honesty eh

 

[Darkwind]

If this article is even telling the truth that is. It is from Slate you know.

The CBO numbers and commentary aren't from Slate, dumbass.

Neither are the comments of the conservative economic guru.

The analysis of the legislation based upon the CBO IS by slate you moron. Or did I miss it that the CBO is now writing articles about Republicans?

Use your head. Sheesh....

 

[Greenbeard]

It [ACA] will be far worse when the employer mandate kicks in.

The employer mandate is in effect now for most large employers.

This article, of course leaves out the millions of people who were forced off of their employer insurance and forced to join the ACA to begin with.

Get a grip.


An Early Look At Changes In Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under The Affordable Care Act

Critics frequently characterize the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a threat to the survival of employer-sponsored insurance. The Medicaid expansion and Marketplace subsidies could adversely affect employers’ incentives to offer health insurance and workers’ incentives to take up such offers. This article takes advantage of timely data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey for June 2013 through September 2014 to examine, from the perspective of workers, early changes in offer, take-up, and coverage rates for employer-sponsored insurance under the ACA. We found no evidence that any of these rates have declined under the ACA. They have, in fact, remained constant: around 82 percent, 86 percent, and 71 percent, respectively, for all workers and around 63 percent, 71 percent, and 45 percent, respectively, for low-income workers. To date, the ACA has had no effect on employer coverage. Economic incentives for workers to obtain coverage from employers remain strong.

 

[Synthaholic]

If this article is even telling the truth that is. It is from Slate you know.

The CBO numbers and commentary aren't from Slate, dumbass.

Neither are the comments of the conservative economic guru.

The analysis of the legislation based upon the CBO IS by slate you moron. Or did I miss it that the CBO is now writing articles about Republicans?

Use your head. Sheesh....

They link to the report.

I'm sick of having to hand-hold all you idiots who don't know how to click links to find original source material:


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr30.pdf




.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the jobs bills?

Why do we need a jobs bill, 5 years into a recovery?

You always need jobs and business to grow the tax base....

The time for a jobs bill is at the bottom of the cycle, not 5 years after the bottom.
The cheap way to create jobs would be to eliminate idiotic regulations.
Obama would never agree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're really supposed to believe that you care about the deficit? You voted twice for a president that has overseen a $7 trillion plus increase in the national debt since taking office. He's surpassed Bush.

He's cut the deficit by 2/3.

Why is it that Righties all of a sudden no longer care about the deficit after whining incessantly about it for his first 4 years in office?

He's cut the deficit by 2/3.

How'd he do it?

That's a different thread. Enjoy.

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit after whining about it since President Obama (praise be unto Him!) was first elected.

Where's the 'conservative' outrage, Todd? Why aren't the teabaggers organizing a March on Washington, Todd?

That's a different thread.

You brought it up on this one.

I have not brought up the debt in this thread.

That's your deflection.

This thread is about Republicans trying to add $50 Billion to the deficit

Their bill spends money? Show me.

Greenbeard did so nicely.

You know what else is going to raise the deficit? Eliminating the tax on medical devices.

Why do the Republicans want to raise the deficit?

Why aren't the teabaggers organizing a March on Washington

Why would you and your gay friends march on Washington?

Thank you for the confirmation that you have nothing regarding the argument I've made. It's always nice to see you flail and fail.

I have not brought up the debt in this thread.

You brought up the deficit.

You know what else is going to raise the deficit? Eliminating the tax on medical devices.
Why do the Republicans want to raise the deficit?

Why do Democrats want to hurt sick people just to give more money to the government?

Thank you for the confirmation that you have nothing regarding the argument I've made.

Your argument about gay people was funny.