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.
Yeah, the exact opposite happened: the ACA continues to reduce the deficit (where were y'all when Dubya put Medicare Part D entirely on the credit card -- is the outrage simply 'cause Obama is black?), and is now projected by the CBO to be 20% cheaper than originally thought. But you're living in the Fox bathysphere, so why do I bother?
The CBO says you dont know what the hell you are talking about.. As most liberals
Note the changes in mandator spending = $2.026 Trillion
Note the income = $677 Billion
Now I know you are smart enough to subtract $2.026 Trillion - $677 Billion to get $1.4 TRILLION DOLLAR deficits..
The 20% cheaper than originally thought is a lie, its 20% cheaper than their LAST projection which showed the cost to be about $1.5 Trillion, and the difference is less people are signing up then they anticipated.
Wrong.. The number of uninsured has fallen from 46 million but we didnt start with 46 million we started with 32 million per Obama. It climbed after ACA caused people to lose policies and then falling as the very same people now get subsidies. It will NEVER fall below 30 million, per the CBO
Because medical costs are tied to the economy.. It lowers in bad economic periods and rises in good ones.
is your plan to keep the economy sucking?
Btw, "slowing" at the fastest pace in 50 years isnt what we were promised, we were told th costs would FALL..
Another example of Democrats changing standards to call something a success in order to justify the LIES that were told to them.
If the costs arent expected to rise, then explain to my drishmael why the subsidies are expected to increase from an average of $4330 to $7700 over the next 10 years. Thats an 80% INCREASE projected in costs. IN ONLY 10 YEARS
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
* explanation I'll jump to anytime a Republican opposes the Obama Administration for convoluted, hypocritical, or irrational reasons. I won't accept that y'all are just dumb or in denial.
It has significantly increased the number of insured, its primary goal.
Precisely. Since the right-wing obstructed healthcare reform for twenty years, all ACA could aspire to is reduce the number of uninsured among those most vulnerable in society. It was successful. My step-sister, who suffers from a degenerative condition, is now covered and can begin to hope to live out the rest of her life not so much in comfort but at least with some measure of normalcy. There are many people for whom ACA made the difference between the veritable "dying in the streets" scenario and something less dire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
No one ever said it would get "everybody". I don't know where this idea of surpluses comes from. .do you just make up stuff as you go along. Why do people post on here without citing a single source. I call it fiction!
More precisely, it's deception, since it is presented as fact and intended to mislead people toward a corrupt determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
1. The number of uninsured has declined significantly (it would've declined more had red state governors expanded Medicaid, but Obama is black, so ...*): Think Tank Won?t Admit ACA Reduces Uninsured -- NYMag
2. The cost is 20% lower than initially projected: Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to 2025 | Congressional Budget Office
3. Medical inflation is at a 50-year low: Medical-Price Inflation Is at Slowest Pace in 50 Years - WSJ
= SUCCESS!!!
In order to rationalize regressing society back to a time when poor people were closer to the edge where the right wing likes them, it is essential that the right wing deny realities that disrupt their callous narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus
Why do Conservatives continually misread what Liberals stand for?
Because there is no way to sell the conservatives' egoistic and avaricious intentions to the weak-minded sycophants they need voting for them in order to prevail in the voting booth without misrepresenting the morally superior intentions that liberals promote.
Note the changes in mandator spending = $2.026 Trillion
Note the income = $677 Billion
Now I know you are smart enough to subtract $2.026 Trillion - $677 Billion to get $1.4 TRILLION DOLLAR deficits..
The 20% cheaper than originally thought is a lie, its 20% cheaper than their LAST projection which showed the cost to be about $1.5 Trillion, and the difference is less people are signing up then they anticipated.
SURPRISE..."
I'll try to explain what has you confused, and you can decide at what point you'd like to i.) put your blinders on and crank Glen Beck up to '11' or ii.) descend into conspiratorial nonsense.
"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the insurance-related provisions of the ACA would cost the federal government $710 billion from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2019 (the last year of the 10-year projection period used in 2010).10 The most recent projections indicate that the cost will be $506 billion for that same period, a reduction of 29 percent." [my underline/bold]
So yeah, it's 29% cheaper than originally projected. However, the insurance-related provisions still have a net cost of $1.2 trillion (FY2016-25). But the insurance-related provisions don't represent the totality of the budgetary effects (cost savings, tax increases) of the law. As the CBO noted in 2012 (p.5-6),
"[The insurance coverage provisions] do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have not updated their estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA; previously, they estimated that the law would, on net, reduce budget deficits.
CBO and JCT have, however, updated their estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing the ACA, incorporating the updated estimates of the effects of the coverage provisions presented here. (For various reasons, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA are not equivalent to an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.) On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions discussed in this report would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion." [my underlines]
I'll try to explain what has you confused, and you can decide at what point you'd like to i.) put your blinders on and crank Glen Beck up to '11' or ii.) descend into conspiratorial nonsense.
"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the insurance-related provisions of the ACA would cost the federal government $710 billion from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2019 (the last year of the 10-year projection period used in 2010).10 The most recent projections indicate that the cost will be $506 billion for that same period, a reduction of 29 percent." [my underline/bold]
So yeah, it's 29% cheaper than originally projected. However, the insurance-related provisions still have a net cost of $1.2 trillion (FY2016-25). But the insurance-related provisions don't represent the totality of the budgetary effects (cost savings, tax increases) of the law. As the CBO noted in 2012 (p.5-6),
"[The insurance coverage provisions] do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have not updated their estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA; previously, they estimated that the law would, on net, reduce budget deficits.
CBO and JCT have, however, updated their estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing the ACA, incorporating the updated estimates of the effects of the coverage provisions presented here. (For various reasons, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA are not equivalent to an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.) On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions discussed in this report would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion." [my underlines]
Please proceed, guvnah.
Original projections were that it would REDUCE the deficits, not add $1.2 TRILLION to it..
All that babble and all you did was backup my argument that liberals change their standards and move the goalpost in order to define success.
LOOK AT YOUR FIGURES Repealing the coverage provisions discussed in this report would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion.
Net total of those figures would be a $100 Billion dollar SURPLUS.. $1.280 in revenues - $1.171 in expenditures. Thtas creating a surplus
NEW totals are $1.4 Trillion in DEFICITS..
Again, move the goal post and then shout, "its a success, look its saving money".. its a joke.
http://kff.org/health-reform/press-r...o-the-economy/ Based on statistical analysis of 50 years of health spending and economic trends, the study finds that the economy, including factors such as Gross Domestic Product growth and inflation, produces a major but delayed effect on the nation’s health spending. This effect stretches over a period of six years, meaning that the recession that ended in 2009 will continue to dampen health care spending for several more years and that spending will increase gradually as the economy strengthens.
if costs are going down, then why are they increasing the subsidies by 80% over the next decade?
We were told it would REDUCE expenses by $2500 per family...
Why do Conservatives continually misread what Liberals stand for?
I'm sorry, did I misread your support for Obama? I'm sure all of us did..
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.
