Have pro-war 47 finally crossed Rubicon & turned America again them.
Hi, Retief.
The three sentences in your post are utterly meaningless unless you add a number of missing qualifiers like "which costs" and "for what years." I would advise you to stop listening to other people, including me. Instead, go directly to the CBO. Learn first hand what is going on with costs and revenues related to the Affordable Care Act. I know of no better way to reach reliable conclusions on this complex issue.
Concerning the statement posted by My Esoteric, both the projected Gross Costs and the Net Costs for the Insurance Coverage portion of the ACA have been steadily declining! This is a fact that is both clear and easy to verify.
The CBO's March, 2010, report to Congress included an estimate of the future Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage during the second half of their budget window, i.e. 2015 through 2019. Their forecast at that time for this specific 5-year period was $810B. {1}
Now in 2015, five years later, their estimate for the same group of Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage for the same five year period (2015 through 2019) is $735B. {2}
This reduction of $75B in the expected Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage is a documented trend that began small in the early years and has grown larger with each new forecast released by the CBO. {3}
At this point, allow me to point out the significant differences between Gross Costs and Net Costs. The $735B Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage over the next five years that I mentioned two paragraphs back will be offset by $163 B in revenues related to the insurance coverage provisions. The result will actually reduce the Gross Costs to a Net Cost over 5 years in the neighborhood of $572B.
Furthermore, when revenues from other provisions of the law are also considered, Obamacare will ultimately reduce the federal budget deficit by $109B during the 10 years ending in 2022. {4}
Regarding the $1 million cost figure and the $2 million cost figure quoted in your post, both are unrelated Gross Costs for two distinctly different sets of years. Critics of the ACA frequently misuse these numbers to create the false impression that costs have doubled and are raging out of control. This ruse was discussed in detail in this forum in April 2014. {5}
The January 2015 CBO report addresses this distortion as well when it explains, "As time has passed, projected costs over the subsequent 10 years have risen because the period spanned by the estimates has changed: Each time the projection period changes, a less expensive early year is replaced by a more expensive later year." {6}
This statement in the report is followed by another factual reality that most opponents of Obamacare are struggling to accept: "But when compared year by year, CBO and JCT's estimates of the net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the past five years." {7}
Stay well, bro. I hope we talk again soon.
{1} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … hr3590.pdf Table 3
{2} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf Table B-1
{3} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … k2015.pdf. Figure B-2 p.129
{4}
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
{5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2572093
{6} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf p. 128
{7} Ibid.
When our colleague, My Esoteric, stated, “Obamacare, it is costing even less than predicted last year, which was less than the year before, which was less than...” etc., another colleague responded by saying he was “wrong.” In support, Retief2000 provided a link to an article about the latest non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, a report that actually proves My Esoteric is correct.
Every analysis since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has lowered the predicted future net costs of this law. The most recent report, released in January 2015, projects net costs to the Federal government of $76 billion in 2015 and $1,350 billion over the decade ending in 2024. {1}
However, highlighting the declining forecasts, the CBO clearly states, “Compared with the projection from last April, which spanned the 2015–2024 period, the current projection represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $101 billion over those 10 years, or a reduction of about 7 percent.” {2}
This latest CBO report also addresses two frequently distorted notions, i.e. a) that President Obama initially misrepresented the costs to implement the law, and b) that the actual net costs are raging out of control. The CBO makes it clear that this downward trend started when the law was enacted and, after five years, it continues with the expectations for the next five years:
“And compared with the projection made by CBO and JCT in March 2010, just before the ACA was enacted, the current estimate represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $139 billion—or 20 percent—for the five-year period ending in 2019, the last
year of the 10-year budget window used in that original estimate.” {2}
Most opponents of the ACA find it convenient to quote just the Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions while they ignore the Net Cost of Coverage Provisions that completes the whole picture. The cited article on the Washington Examiner web site used the same evasive tactic.
While the headline reads “CBO: Obamacare to cost $2 trillion over the next decade,” it ignores the income provided under the law. The headline omits the more important fact that Obamacare is also to produce revenue of $643B under the insurance coverage provisions alone. When considering revenue from the other ACA provisions, the CBO has estimated federal income would be $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, more than offsetting all outlays and thus reducing the total Federal budget deficit by $109 billion during those years. {3}
{1} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf Table B-1
{2} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf Appendix B. p.115
{3}
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
Wow, really?? LOL Barack Obama's mother's name is Stanley Ann Dunham, a Caucasian female, so yes, even without a DNA test I can prove it. Or is it now your contention that Stanley Ann Dunham was not a Caucasian female?
Deflect much? Typical tactic when you've been called out on your assertions and cannot factually prove them. And yes, you are STILL making assertions you cannot, and apparently will not, prove. If you could you would have done so already instead of yelling "LOOK! Squirrel!!"
Here is a picture of Obama's mother, do you wish to further beclown yourself by asserting she is anything but white? I am still waiting for even a shred of evidence that would support your previous assertions however. I am certain I will be waiting a very long time.
Related Discussions
- 172
Never Have I Seen A President Seek So To Dived And Spread Hate
Here once again Biden stands at a podium swings around his hands, and rants, seeking and appoint blame on American citizens, ultimately Republican citizens. Without cause, without proof of the motive of why or what possessed this nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi. Although in front of only a...
- 5162
The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Today, September 24, 2019, for only the third time in American history, the Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry into the actions of a President of the United States - Donald Trump. (Nixon would have been the fourth, but he resigned before it was over.)- Johnson's...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...
- 27
What is the point of globalization and foreign policy if we do not take care of
What is the point of globalization and foreign policy if we do not take care of our own people?It seems that the differeneces in culture, governments and ambitions are still too far apart for globalization to really make a difference. As a nation, should we continue to stretch our own resources...
- 37
Deal reached to allow pension plans to cut benefits
Deal reached to allow pension plans to cut benefitsA bipartisan group of congressional leaders reached a deal Tuesday evening that would for the first time allow the benefits of current retirees to be severely cut, part of an effort to save some of the nation’s most distressed pension plans.The...
- 125
Are right-wing extremists destroying America?
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...