Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like they hid the costs of the Iraq War, now they vote to prevent the CBO from calculating the costs of repeal, reform, etc.
Why wouldn't they want us to know the financial impact?
And why is all of this potential added debt now acceptable?
"The House passed via a 234-193 vote on Tuesday a package of rules governing the 115th Congress. Among the rules are the prohibiting of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from reviewing whether any bill repealing Obamacare would increase spending over a decade.
...
The rules package said that the director of the budget office should prepare an estimate of whether any bill would cause, relative to the current law, a boost in spending in excess of $5 billion over the next four decades.
However, the requirement doesn't apply to any bill, joint resolution or amendment that would repeal Obamacare."
I blow this up in the other thread about this yesterday.
The last time the CBO gave an estimate on the cost of repealing the ACA, there said they could be completely wrong, and repealing it could reduce costs for the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
I found this particularly interesting about this alleged $353 billion deficit that repealing the ACA would cause.
“While CBO’s report notes that the deficit impact of repealing the law is highly uncertain, and could even reduce the deficit, it does show that repealing this law will boost nationwide employment and grow the economy,” Enzi said in a statement.
I blow this up in the other thread about this yesterday.
The last time the CBO gave an estimate on the cost of repealing the ACA, there said they could be completely wrong, and repealing it could reduce costs for the government.
As long as the headline feeds their narrative, they aren't interested in actual facts, because most will read no further than the headline anyway.
I blow this up in the other thread about this yesterday.
The last time the CBO gave an estimate on the cost of repealing the ACA, there said they could be completely wrong, and repealing it could reduce costs for the government.
They still should be allowed to analyze it and publish their findings.
So they should publish something that says repealing Obamacare could cost $353 billion, or it could save the government money?
That quite a swing in their cost analysis.
Let them do the analysis. Otherwise, if we've proven they can't do it then just get rid of them. We obviously use/trust them on other things. I don't think we should be picking and choosing which things they can publish.
What does anyone expect from the same bunch that tried to eliminate any ethical review (like bribes, cronyism or corruption) as their first act of the new Congress?
Why would they do this? Why would Republicans not want the country to know these costs when it is the taxpayers that will be paying for it?
Why? Lol. Because they are about to present the country with a $25 billion bill for Trump's wall.
The irony is all those rally bozos chanting "make Mexico pay" will be the ones who have to pay for it.
The Mexicans won't pay for it, and Trump won't even have to contribute because he doesn't pay taxes.
The Republicans are back (and sneaky), so you better hide your wallets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
