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.
I think a lot of Republicans governors have been blabbing (politically posturing) about opting out, haven't they? We know that Florida Gov. Rick Scott , South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have all bragged about opting out.
So you're saying that the CBO is estimating based on what ? Heresay and news articles ?
Well, given the history of CBO estimates vs actual after the fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Government has put a big program in place that costs us all a lot, and places onerous restrictions on the country. And government spends it all, except for a relatively small amount (less than $8 billion/year, piddling by govt standards).
And here the leftists are pointing at that piddling difference between the taxing and the spending, and saying it's a GOOD thing... while ignoring the huge amount it costs us, the mounting regulations and restrictions, etc.
And when somebody protests the ever-increasing taxing and spending, these fanatics try to pretend they are protesting that piddling difference between the two.
The blinders-on willful ignorance of these people defies all belief sometimes. They actually feel that the effect of the program on government, is more important than what it does to the country - that is, the American people.
I think a lot of Republicans governors have been blabbing (politically posturing) about opting out, haven't they? We know that Florida Gov. Rick Scott , South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have all bragged about opting out.
At the same time, there are significant disincentives for states to expand Medicaid eligibility. One is that states would ultimately have to bear some costs for an expansion of Medicaid coverage during a period when their budgets are already under pressure, in part from the rising costs of the existing Medicaid program. Health care costs tend to rise faster than those for other services or products in the economy. And although the 10 percent share of the costs of newly eligible people that states would ultimately bear would be a small share of total additional Medicaid spending, it would nevertheless represent a large extra cost for some states. In addition, CBO estimates, and states expect, that expanding the Medicaid-eligible population would lead to an increase in enrollment among those who would have been eligible under prior law and would not qualify for the higher federal matching rates, resulting in additional costs for participating states. States may also fear that the federal government, which faces its own severe budgetary pressures, will ultimately reduce the federal matching rate and that if it did so, rolling back expansions already in place would be difficult.
So what happens when all these new and old taxes kick (back) in that will be going to the federal government? Those states will lose tons of revenue from from their prospective state taxes like sales taxes and such.
These states are correct in assuming that the federal government isn't going to have the money it seems to think it's going to have (see the assumptions in the many fiscal outlook scenarios by CBO and the trustees of the various social welfare programs that are counting on 4%+ GDP growth year over year).
Quote:
CBO has not yet had time to produce a full estimate of the cost of incorporating any specific Medicaid expansion in the HELP committees legislation. However, our preliminary analysis indicates that such an expansion could increase federal spending for Medicaid by an amount that could vary in a broad range around $500 billion over 10 years.
Ten percent of that is $50 billion or on average about $1 billion per state.
You think these states have $100 million a year laying around or something? Do you think they'll have $100 million a year laying around after the federal government sucks large amounts of revenues from them via all the tax increases that will be required to get the federal government's fiscal house in order?
What part of unsustainable is so difficult to understand?
And then you have this gem:
Quote:
Another example of concern about budget conventions involves the Hospital Insurance trust fund, which covers Medicare Part A. The legislation will improve the cash flow in that trust fund by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Higher balances in the fund will give the government legal authority to pay Medicare benefits longer, but most of the money will pay for new programs rather than reduce future budget deficits and therefore will not enhance the government’s economic ability to pay Medicare benefits in future years. We wrote about those issues as the legislation was being considered.
So what happens when all these new and old taxes kick (back) in that will be going to the federal government? Those states will lose tons of revenue from from their prospective state taxes like sales taxes and such.
These states are correct in assuming that the federal government isn't going to have the money it seems to think it's going to have (see the assumptions in the many fiscal outlook scenarios by CBO and the trustees of the various social welfare programs that are counting on 4%+ GDP growth year over year). CBO | Likely Effects of Substantially Expanding Eligibility for Medicaid
Ten percent of that is $50 billion or on average about $1 billion per state.
You think these states have $100 million a year laying around or something? Do you think they'll have $100 million a year laying around after the federal government sucks large amounts of revenues from them via all the tax increases that will be required to get the federal government's fiscal house in order?
What part of unsustainable is so difficult to understand?
That should be the economic inability to pay Medicare benefits in the future.
To add more credibility to that..the high risk funds are already in operation with money from the Fed and states have already gone through their 2 year subsidy and are asking the Fed for more money.
The states spent 2 years of Fed subsidies in one year and are now out of money.
I was going to buy a new Audi but bought a Ford instead. Buying the Ford saved me $20,000. Of course I didn't have the money for the Ford in the first place but that's a different story.
I was going to buy a new Audi but bought a Ford instead. Buying the Ford saved me $20,000. Of course I didn't have the money for the Ford in the first place but that's a different story.
Conservative logic: I need a new car but I don't have the money to buy one right now so I will rent a car instead. "Look, I am only spending $300/week for a car, much less than $20,000!'
The CBO does not work independently, as in a 'what if' senario. They reach their assumptions based on what figures congress gives them. So when the Pelosi gang was in charge, they low balled numbers so that the CBO would not say 'over a Trillion dollars and say [at first] that Obamcare would cost $900 billion. The $84 billion figure being thrown around is another phoney number.
Obamacare is going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Remember when medicare was proposed and the low ball numbers they used.
Conservative logic: I need a new car but I don't have the money to buy one right now so I will rent a car instead. "Look, I am only spending $300/week for a car, much less than $20,000!'
Wrong. "I don't have the money so I'll continue to drive my old one while I save up for the new one."
The demographics of those that lease are more apt to live in the north and on the east and west coasts. Those in the midwest and south tend to buy a vehicle.
Now where do most Dems/Liberals live ?
Just released. The CBO has carefully crunched numbers and found that the Obamacare will reduce the budget deficit by at least 84 billion dollars. This is very good news for Americans and Obama. Bad news for those who are bitter from too many sour grapes.
$84 billion over 10 years for $8.4 billion a year when we have enjoyed trillion dollar deficits every one of the past four years.
Are you really serious presenting this as good news?
This is exactly like having a wife who consistently runs up credit card purchases $1,000 more than you make excitingly telling you she "saved" the family budget $8.40 a month by by doing her own manicure at home. Now you are going into the hole by $991.60 every month instead of $1,000.00. Very good news indeed!
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.
