Bass v 2.0
Biblical Warrior For God.
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
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 doesnt 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 theres 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 So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.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