Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Is that the new criticism? That the overall cost is hard to assess?

 

It's hard to keep up as the current critical narrative keeps is repeatedly debunked and the next angle pops up.

[Mavric]

Is that the new criticism? That the overall cost is hard to assess?

 

It's hard to keep up as the current critical narrative keeps is repeatedly debunked and the next angle pops up.

 

Considering that one of the big selling points was reducing the deficit, the fact that it is unknown if that will actually happen seems relevant.

[carlfense]

 

Is that the new criticism? That the overall cost is hard to assess?

 

It's hard to keep up as the current critical narrative keeps is repeatedly debunked and the next angle pops up.

 

Considering that one of the big selling points was reducing the deficit, the fact that it is unknown if that will actually happen seems relevant.

 

Wasn't the idea that the ACA reduces the deficit widely ridiculed by a certain segment of the population? Now it's possible but unknown?

[tschu]

 

I don't like that "22% drop." That seems misleading to me. It's a 3.7% drop (17.1-13.4).

Isn't the way that they phrased it completely accurate? (again . . . math. ugh.)

 

It's accurate. It's a 22% drop. A drop from 17.1 to 13.4 could either be "A 22% drop" or "A drop of 3.7 percentage points"

[Mavric]

 

 

Is that the new criticism? That the overall cost is hard to assess?

 

It's hard to keep up as the current critical narrative keeps is repeatedly debunked and the next angle pops up.

 

Considering that one of the big selling points was reducing the deficit, the fact that it is unknown if that will actually happen seems relevant.

 

Wasn't the idea that the ACA reduces the deficit widely ridiculed by a certain segment of the population? Now it's possible but unknown?

 

 

It would seem that those people are close to being proven right. The "numbers" have always shown deficit savings to this point. The projections have been steadily shrinking to the point where now it is unable to be determined if there will be savings or not. The trend line isn't good for the sales pitch.

[carlfense]

The projections have been steadily shrinking to the point where now it is unable to be determined if there will be savings or not.

That's not really what your article said though, is it?

[Mavric]

 

The projections have been steadily shrinking to the point where now it is unable to be determined if there will be savings or not.

That's not really what your article said though, is it?

 

 

Ummmm..... yes it does:

 

In its original score of the law in March 2010, the CBO said the insurance provisions would cost $788 billion between 2010 and 2019. But that cost would be more than offset by $511 billion in spending cuts, primarily to Medicare, and $420 billion in new revenue, much of it generated by new taxes on hospital insurance and manufacturers of drugs and medical devices. As a result, the CBO estimated at the time, the health care law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years, compared to the agency’s current law baseline. The vast majority of the savings — $124 billion — was supposed to come from the health care portion of the law, but another $19 billion would be derived from changes to student loans and grants.

The last time the CBO produced an estimate based on the entire law was in 2012, when the agency said that a GOP proposal to repeal the law would add $109 billion to the deficit over a 10-year period. That implies the CBO still thought two years ago that the law would save money.

Since then, the administration has made numerous adjustments to the implementation of the law, reducing the revenue it was supposed to raise or savings it was expected to achieve. Last year, for example, the IRS delayed the employer mandate until 2015 from 2014. And earlier this year, the agency extended the delay for another year for certain employers. In its April report, CBO estimated the delay in the employer mandate would cost the government $3 billion in penalty payments in 2016.

The health care law also mandated cuts to Medicare, but the savings related to the Medicare Advantage program have been somewhat reduced by an administration pilot project that boosted bonus payments to Medicare Advantage plans since 2011.

In 2010, the CBO projected the health care law would cut Medicare as well as some Medicaid and related spending by $455 billion between 2010 and 2019.

But in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner in 2012, the CBO provided an updated estimate that suggested those savings may be increasing. According to that letter, repealing the law would increase Medicare and related spending by $741 billion from 2013 to 2022, which implies that keeping the law on the books would save the same amount.

[carlfense]

So are you going to get to the "steadily shrinking" part of your claim or are you going to just continue quoting half of the article and hope that no one notices?

[StPaulHusker]

In Minnesota, the number of uninsured has dropped 40% since the mandates started.

 

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/minnesota/2014/06/11/40-percent-drop-uninsured-minnesota/10321163/

[carlfense]

 

House Republicans have been promising to unify around an alternative health-care plan since the health-care debate started in 2009, yet they somehow keep failing to get around it. At their caucus retreat in January, the vowed that this time, seriously, for real, they’re totally going to vote on an official Republican plan to replace Obamacare. There appeared to be no wiggle room in this solemn promise: “House Republicans will rally around and pass an alternative to Obamacare this year.”

 

Since then, the Party has displayed suspiciously little progress toward fulfilling its goal. A cynic might suggest this was the intent all along. After all, any health-care plan has trade-offs. The advantage of not having an official Republican plan is that it allows Republicans to endorse whatever plan suits their needs at any given moment without taking responsibility for any downsides. They could cite the hypothetical benefits of their as-yet-unwritten plan, or perhaps grab this or that feature from any of the various Republican proposals floating around, without taking any responsibility for the costs or missing features they contained. But the game only works until you actually vote on a Republican health-care plan.

 

Now Jennifer Haberkorn reports, “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s shocking primary loss Tuesday night all but kills any chance of the House voting on an Obamacare replacement bill this year.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/gop-health-plan-has-died-along-with-eric-cantor.html

 

I'd agree with that cynic.

[TGHusker]

 

 

House Republicans have been promising to unify around an alternative health-care plan since the health-care debate started in 2009, yet they somehow keep failing to get around it. At their caucus retreat in January, the vowed that this time, seriously, for real, they’re totally going to vote on an official Republican plan to replace Obamacare. There appeared to be no wiggle room in this solemn promise: “House Republicans will rally around and pass an alternative to Obamacare this year.”

 

Since then, the Party has displayed suspiciously little progress toward fulfilling its goal. A cynic might suggest this was the intent all along. After all, any health-care plan has trade-offs. The advantage of not having an official Republican plan is that it allows Republicans to endorse whatever plan suits their needs at any given moment without taking responsibility for any downsides. They could cite the hypothetical benefits of their as-yet-unwritten plan, or perhaps grab this or that feature from any of the various Republican proposals floating around, without taking any responsibility for the costs or missing features they contained. But the game only works until you actually vote on a Republican health-care plan.

 

Now Jennifer Haberkorn reports, “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s shocking primary loss Tuesday night all but kills any chance of the House voting on an Obamacare replacement bill this year.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/gop-health-plan-has-died-along-with-eric-cantor.html

 

I'd agree with that cynic.

 

Can't argue with it at all. I thought there might be a better market driven alternative to the ACA and there still maybe a better version - either a modification of the existing or a replacement - but as long as the repubs play this shell game - we got a plan, no we don't - the more likely there will never be an alternative as noted in your quote Carl. As you know, I haven't been a fan of the the ACA but it is getting to the point where I think that there may not be a change and we'll have to let the ACA stand on its own 2 legs and hopefully succeed. If the repubs are all hot air and no action, they aren't worthy of being the 'loyal opposition'. If this is their plan, to have just words and promises, then yes Carl - I'll agree with you and Knapp - they are just being obstructionists and need to just get out of the way. (Ok you can pick yourself off of the floor now). Doing something, even if it isn't perfect but still makes some progress, is better than doing nothing like a dog barking at a rabbit but refusing to chase it - very annoying. So in some ways, I'll give the Dems and Obama a for trying. I hope we can still find a less costly alternative but hope is running thin.

[carlfense]

 

In its latest report on the law, the Congressional Budget Office said it is no longer possible to assess the overall fiscal impact of the law. That conclusion came as a surprise to some fiscal experts in Washington and is drawing concern. And without a clear picture of the law’s overall financing, it could make it politically easier to continue delaying pieces of it, including revenue raisers, because any resulting cost increases might be hidden.

Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s free market-oriented Mercatus Center, calls the CBO’s inability to estimate the net effect of the law “a real problem.”

“The ACA’s financing provisions were assumed to be effective so as to get a favorable score out of CBO upon enactment, but no one is keeping track of whether they’re being enforced,” says Blahous, a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare. “We receive occasional updates on the gross costs of the law, but none on whether the previously projected savings provisions are producing what was originally projected.”

As a result, Blahous says, “there’s no barrier to continually rolling back the financing mechanisms without the effect on the ACA’s finances ever being fully disclosed.”

When Congress passed the health care law in 2010, the CBO estimated it would reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over a decade, compared to the agency’s current-law baseline projection of spending, revenue and the deficit. That meant the health care law would, in effect, pay for itself and deliver an additional fiscal bonus.

The CBO based its estimate on the assumption that the law, which included hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Medicare cuts and tax increases to pay for health care subsidies, would be implemented as written. Now, after a chaotic start and a series of delays or adjustments in various provisions of the act, including an employer mandate that was expected to bring in new tax revenue, it’s unclear to what extent those promised savings are being realized.

 

Link

 

Another ACA narrative debunked? Say it ain't so!

 

The Real Reason the CBO won't re-score Obamacare

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/13/5805004/the-real-reason-cbo-wont-re-score-obamacare

[carlfense]

Schrodinger's Party.

[Junior]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/19/5824404/these-7-major-cities-are-losing-out-on-a-big-part-of-obamacare?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_name=staff&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=thursday

 

 

If Georgia expanded Medicaid, Atlanta's uninsured rate would fall by more than 56 percent under Obamacare.

But Georgia isn't expanding Medicaid. That means, according to a new Urban Institute analysis, the city of 5.5 million people will only see its uninsured rate fall by nearly 25 percent instead.

The Urban Institute's new analysis shows that seven major cities in Medicaid expansion states are decreasing the number of uninsured by an average of 57 percent. Seven cities that aren't in Medicaid expansion states, meanwhile, are decreasing the number of uninsured by just 30 percent.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Yes but who is covering the cost of expansion, Feds initially but then the states take over and spend more taxpayer money that many states don't have the budget for.