Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Post a reply

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Re: Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Post by Dardedar » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:55 pm

Further unpack of the false "Obamacare costs have doubled* meme:

Conservatives distort CBO Data

And here:

No, Obamacare’s Cost Didn’t Just Double. Sigh.


"[Regarding this claims of big "costs"]... Remember, this is just the raw cost of expanding insurance coverage we’re talking about here—in other words, the money the federal government is sending out the door. The new law also calls for new revenue, in the form of taxes and penalties. It also reduces spending, mostly through Medicare, to help offset the cost of the coverage expansion. When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought...."

"...the bottom line about Obamacare really hasn’t changed. Notwithstanding these latest adjustments, CBO still thinks it will mean about 30 million additional people get insurance, that insurance will become more secure for those who have it, that the law will more than pay for itself in the first ten years, and that, over the long run, the law will reduce the deficit.

But why admit those things when you can dissemble about them and when outlets like Fox and the Washington Times will let you get away with it?"

The New Republic

Re: Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Post by Dardedar » Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:16 am


Re: Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Post by L.Wood » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:09 pm


Small Business Owners’ Views on Implementing the Affordable Care Act
June 14, 2012

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision any day in the case against the Affordable Care Act, filed by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and state attorneys general. The polling of 800 small business owners in eight states (Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Texas and Virginia) found 50% of small business owners want the healthcare reform law upheld—either as is or with minor changes—while only one-third want the Supreme Court to overturn it. Once small business owners learn more about the law, their support for keeping it intact—either as is or with minor changes—rises to 56 percent, while opposition falls to just 28 percent.

Key findings:

Only a third of small business owners want the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act; a plurality of 50% would like it upheld, with minor or no changes. This support grows after learning more details about the law’s key provisions:
Only 34% of small businesses want to see the healthcare law overturned, while 50% want it to remain intact with, at most, minor changes. After learning more about its specifics, only 28% want to see it repealed and a 56% majority want it to be kept, as is or with minor changes. A 55% majority say they want it upheld because we need to make sure everyone has health coverage.

from Small Business Majority


Please Note: Obamacare Net Savings

Post by Dardedar » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:37 pm

It is continuously claimed that we can't afford "Obamacare" because it costs too much money. But it's been quite difficult to find a nice article unpacking that claim. Here it is (underline mine):

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought
Posted by Ezra Klein 03/15/2012

I’m getting a lot of e-mails quoting articles like this one, by John Ransom, that say something like, “In a wholly predictable development, it turns out the cost for Obamacare will end up being twice the original price that the Democrats said.” Ransom also writes that I was “w-w-w-wrong” to say, back in January 2011, that the law “cuts enough spending and raises enough taxes to more than pay for itself.”

Actually, no, I wasn’t. That statement, in fact, is even truer today than it was then.


The problem for Ransom and others is that they didn’t read this analysis closely, or, if they did, they didn’t understand it.

Ransom quotes CBO saying “those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion,” but he either didn’t notice or didn’t choose to include the CBO’s warning that this analysis does “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.”

As it says right in the title, this is just a look at “the insurance coverage provisions” of the Affordable Care Act. That is to say, it’s a look at the spending side of the bill. So it doesn’t include the Medicare cuts, or many of the tax increases, that pay for the legislation. It’s like reading only the “outlays” side of the budget and ignoring the “revenues” part. Of course that would make the deficit look huge.

But those other parts of the bill aren’t a secret. They’re mentioned right there in the analysis. Quoting again: “CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.”

It’s easy to do at least some of the update ourselves. This analysis shows the net cost of the coverage provisions will be about $50 billion less than previously estimated. That implies the law will cut more, not less, from the deficit than previous estimates suggested. In other words, this estimate says the bill is more, not less, fiscally responsible than was previously reported.

One other thing that’s confused some people is that this estimate is looking at a different timeframe than the original estimates. The CBO’s first pass at the bill looked at 2010-2019. But years have passed, and so now they’re looking at 2012-2021. That means they have two fewer years of implementation, when the bill costs almost nothing, and two more years of operation, when it costs substantially more.

But it also means that the included cuts and taxes, which grow with time, are larger. That’s why, when House Republicans wanted to repeal health reform in 2011, the estimated increase in the deficit was $230 billion, rather than the $130 billion that would have been expected from the 2010-2019 analysis. As you extend the analysis, the bill both costs more and saves more, and the savings grow more quickly than the costs."

Washington Post