CDZ What would you do....

[320 Years of History]

Let's say you are a legislator or influencer of public policy. You have come across a bill that has been passed and signed into law (I'll call the signed bill "The Amendment"). Now you have reservations about it and you want to repeal it. Let's also assume you and some of your fellow legislators asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JTO) to evaluate the impacts of repealing the law in question, asking several specific questions and the CBO and JTO provided the following feedback:

Summary of the major impacts of repealing The Amendment

CBO and JCT estimate that repealing The Amendment would have several major effects, relative to the projections under current law:​

• For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing The Amendment could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing The Amendment could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.
  
• Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing The Amendment would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period. That estimate takes into account the proposal’s impact on federal revenues and direct (or mandatory) spending, incorporating the net effects of two components:
  
  • Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to The Amendment (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if The Amendment was repealed.
    
  • Repeal of The Amendment would raise economic output, mainly by boosting the supply of labor; the resulting increase in GDP is projected to average about 0.7 percent over the 2021–2025 period. Alone, those effects would reduce federal deficits by $216 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate, mostly because of increased federal revenues.
• Repealing the Amendment would cause federal budget deficits to increase by growing amounts after 2025, whether or not the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback are included. That would occur because the net savings attributable to a repeal of the law’s provisions would grow more slowly than would the estimated costs of repealing The Amendment's other provisions—in particular, those provisions that reduce updates to payments to suppliers. The estimated effects on deficits of repealing The Amendment are so large in the decade after 2025 as to make it unlikely that a repeal would reduce deficits during that period, even after considering the great uncertainties involved.

How would a repeal affect the budget and the economy over the next 10 years?

CBO and JCT’s estimate that repealing The Amendment would increase deficits by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period, excluding the budgetary impact of macroeconomic feedback, has four major components:

• All told, CBO and JCT estimate that repealing The Amendment would raise federal deficits by $137 billion over the 2016– 2025 period through its impact on direct spending and on revenues. A repeal would reduce deficits during the first half of the decade but would increase them by steadily rising amounts from 2021 through 2025. Including the effects of macroeconomic feedback, a repeal of The Amendment would increase the federal budget deficit by $9 billion in 2021, rising to $98 billion in 2025.

Ignoring the macroeconomic feedback factor, what would be the effect, over the next ten years, of repealing The Amendment?

• Taking into account the effects on federal revenues and direct spending but excluding the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that a repeal of The Amendment would increase federal deficits by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period. That figure reflects an estimated reduction in outlays of $821 billion that is more than offset by an estimated reduction in revenues of $1,174 billion. The resulting estimate of the effects on deficits is substantially larger than the one CBO and JCT issued in in the past for a similar proposal to repeal The Amendment -- a difference that mostly reflects a shift in the budget window to encompass later years in which repealing The Amendment would increase budget deficits sharply.

This thread's questions are:
If the preceding were the feedback you received, given the choice of repealing The Amendment or not repealing it, which option would you choose?

• Repeal it.
• Don't repeal it.

Why have you chosen the option you did?

 

[depotoo]

Yes, repeal it. Pennies, in the scheme of things-
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.

 

[sonic]

Since we're dealing with people's healthcare, the analysis is insufficient to make an informed decision.
Is this a complete or partial repeal?
How many Americans healthcare will be impacted and specifically to what extent?
What are the projected annual healthcare cost increases if the bill is repealed?
Do the people backing the repeal have an alternate solution or are they just hell-bent on changing the result of a game they lost several years ago?

 

[william the wie]

No repeal is needed, between rate hikes and the low penalty rate the ACA is headed for oblivion rapidly.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

 

[depotoo]

It is pretty obvious, as well as,you forgot to take out ACA one time in your cut and paste-

"However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budgetdeficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is pretty obvious, as well as,you forgot to take out ACA one time in your cut and paste-

"However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budgetdeficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

Well, then that was an oversight. The fact remains that I don't have any desire in this thread to discuss the ACA. That's why I did attempt to remove all the ACA references. I just want to know what folks would do were the information provided what they received.

 

[depotoo]

But you only presented half the facts. You did not tell us what it would cost to continue your 'example' vs repeal. It is difficult to discuss a hypothetical without all the actual knowledge needed to make such a choice.

It's like presenting someone the tools to paint a picture and not including the paint. It can't be done.

It is pretty obvious, as well as,you forgot to take out ACA one time in your cut and paste-

"However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budgetdeficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

Well, then that was an oversight. The fact remains that I don't have any desire in this thread to discuss the ACA. That's why I did attempt to remove all the ACA references. I just want to know what folks would do were the information provided what they received.

 

[320 Years of History]

But you only presented half the facts. You did not tell us what it would cost to continue your 'example' vs repeal. It is difficult to discuss a hypothetical without all the actual knowledge needed to make such a choice.

It's like presenting someone the tools to paint a picture and not including the paint. It can't be done.

It is pretty obvious, as well as,you forgot to take out ACA one time in your cut and paste-

"However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budgetdeficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

Well, then that was an oversight. The fact remains that I don't have any desire in this thread to discuss the ACA. That's why I did attempt to remove all the ACA references. I just want to know what folks would do were the information provided what they received.

For the hypothetical, the facts I presented are the ones that exist. As I said, it's not about the ACA.

 

[depotoo]

Well, then you won't get much discussion, as you can see, because only half of the equation is presented.

But you only presented half the facts. You did not tell us what it would cost to continue your 'example' vs repeal. It is difficult to discuss a hypothetical without all the actual knowledge needed to make such a choice.

It's like presenting someone the tools to paint a picture and not including the paint. It can't be done.

It is pretty obvious, as well as,you forgot to take out ACA one time in your cut and paste-

"However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budgetdeficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."

It's interesting that people have decided that for a scenario I presented as a hypothetical that folks here have inferred that I am expressly speaking of the ACA. I didn't indicate that the scenario is the ACA. All I did was provide a small set of facts and asked what you'd do given the two choices.

Those of you who've assumed the thread is about the ACA:

• Did you read the OP that I posted?
• Did you read the second poster's remarks and follow his/her lead with regard to the ACA being the matter at hand?

sonic, the choices are repeal it or don't. I didn't offer a "partial repeal" option.

Well, then that was an oversight. The fact remains that I don't have any desire in this thread to discuss the ACA. That's why I did attempt to remove all the ACA references. I just want to know what folks would do were the information provided what they received.

For the hypothetical, the facts I presented are the ones that exist. As I said, it's not about the ACA.

 

[depotoo]

What it comes down to is you want people to react on emotion rather than on facts. That is much of the problem today in politics. People react to emotion rather than facts and common sense.

 

[william the wie]

The votes for repeal or reform do not exist nor will it prior to it becoming a dead letter therefore it is a false dichotomy. For example, IL and Chicago will probably be bankrupt, in all but name, before the election. The latest Chicago bond offering was officially BBB, investment grade, but priced to yield at B or junk grade. Most of the blue, many of the Purple but relatively few red districts outside of the energy fields are in the same shape. Those bailouts will come with political costs, most likely voter ID, that will make it more difficult for the Ds to do their usual voter fraud.

 

[320 Years of History]

What it comes down to is you want people to react on emotion rather than on facts. That is much of the problem today in politics. People react to emotion rather than facts and common sense.

Since when has having imperfect information stopped folks from making policy decisions?