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.
CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.
And
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.
If, in fact, this is what they were talking about on TV this morning, [1] there's no change in the CBO forecast through 2019, and [2] from 2020 on, the health care legislation would not reduce the federal deficit as much as previously projected ... meaning it would still reduce the federal deficit.
You know in all my days I have never seen children dying in the street. I spend most of my time in NYC you would think with 8 million people living here I would see it at least once. All I hear is children are dying in the streets, never seen it. Anyone else?
Haven't you ever had to get medical attention but didn't because you knew your insurance would only cover part of the costs? You knew they'd find a way to deny you, because they almost always find a way to deny you?
You all rant and rave to protect the status quo, not realizing the damage this current health care system has already done to many of us.
This is what I see happening:
-taxes start next year
-people with insurance get their premiums raised
-medical services/drugs/treatments all get prices raised
-people without insurance are still without insurance for a few years
Now..2012 comes along and bam..Obama is NOT reelected.
-Healthcare subsidy bill gets repealed
Government has collected their taxes
Big pharma and other healthcare corporations get their revenue
People with insurance are now paying higher prices because they NEVER lower prices
People without insurance ARE STILL WITHOUT INSURANCE
CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.
And
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.
If, in fact, this is what they were talking about on TV this morning, [1] there's no change in the CBO forecast through 2019, and [2] from 2020 on, the health care legislation would not reduce the federal deficit as much as previously projected ... meaning it would still reduce the federal deficit.
Can someone confirm if this is true - if this is what the OP was referring to?
This is what I see happening:
-taxes start next year
-people with insurance get their premiums raised
-medical services/drugs/treatments all get prices raised
-people without insurance are still without insurance for a few years
Now..2012 comes along and bam..Obama is NOT reelected.
-Healthcare subsidy bill gets repealed
Government has collected their taxes
Big pharma and other healthcare corporations get their revenue
People with insurance are now paying higher prices because they NEVER lower prices
People without insurance ARE STILL WITHOUT INSURANCE
Its a figure of speech... it doesn't literally mean they are dying in the streets... it means they are dying from lack of insurance which does happen albeit cobolt is exaggerating a bit in that there are that many dying... however, I agree that even one child dying from lack of insurance is too much... especially in America, regardless of the bad parents some of them have... we can't choose our parents...
Show me some stories of these children dying becasue they did not have inusurance
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
This is what I see happening:
-taxes start next year
-people with insurance get their premiums raised
-medical services/drugs/treatments all get prices raised
-people without insurance are still without insurance for a few years
Now..2012 comes along and bam..Obama is NOT reelected.
-Healthcare subsidy bill gets repealed
Government has collected their taxes
Big pharma and other healthcare corporations get their revenue
People with insurance are now paying higher prices because they NEVER lower prices
People without insurance ARE STILL WITHOUT INSURANCE
Does anyone else see this picture as well ?
I don't think this bill can be repealed. Nor do I think it will. Isn't it written in such a way that it can't be undone?
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.
.
