Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

The CBO Keeps Spoiling the GOP's Fun

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The first wave of the Republicans' anti-health-care crusade proved to be a reckless waste of time. Knowing the outcome in advance, the House approved a bill to bring back the old, dysfunctional, budget-busting system and strip millions of families of their benefits, only to see the Senate defeat the same bill. We saw the second wave yesterday, though it's likely to meet an identical fate.

The House voted Friday to block funding for the health care law in several ways -- starting the countdown to the defunding clash with Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama.

As expected, lawmakers approved Rep. Denny Rehberg's amendment to the continuing resolution, which bars all payments to "any employee, officer, contractor, or grantee of any department or agency" to implement the law.

The Montana Republican's amendment is aimed at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Labor Department.

The final vote was 239 to 187. Three Democrats broke ranks and voted with the GOP majority, while two Republicans voted against the measure.

The point of the effort isn't subtle -- if there's no funding to implement the law, American families can't enjoy the new protections and benefits. Republicans couldn't repeal the reforms, so they're trying to gut them from within. The Rehberg measure was accompanied by three other amendments: (1) blocking enforcement of the individual mandate; (2) denying funding for health insurance exchanges, apparently because giving consumers more choices is communism; and (3) freeing insurance companies from having to spend so much on patient care.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if congressional Republicans just don't like Americans very much.

In any case, the measures, the latest in a series of efforts for the GOP to avoid trying to create jobs, will die in the Senate, but will nevertheless be part of the Republican case as to why they're inclined to shut down the government.

And at nearly the exact same time as the Republican votes to destroy the Affordable Care Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a revised estimate on what repealing the Affordable Care Act would do to the federal budget: the federal budget deficit would go up $210 billion in the first decade, and roughly $813 billion in the second decade.

So to review, House Republicans are making brutal spending cuts to domestic and foreign priorities, ostensibly because they're worried about the deficit, while at the same time trying to destroy a health care law that lowers the deficit.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBO and JCT estimate that the repeal of the provisions of PPACA and the

Reconciliation Act affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net

decrease in federal deficits of $1,042 billion over fiscal years 2012 through

2021

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CBO%20on%20HR2.pdf

Which CBO are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And at nearly the exact same time as the Republican votes to destroy the Affordable Care Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a revised estimate on what repealing the Affordable Care Act would do to the federal budget: the federal budget deficit would go up $210 billion in the first decade, and roughly $813 billion in the second decade.

They should stop worrying about adding $200 or $800 billion to the budget

10 or 20 years from now and worry about the $1.5 trillion budget deficit TODAY.

No-one knows for sure what's going to happen in 10 or 20 years. There

could be another recession which will make the current one look like

a minor dip. Or perhaps we'll be fortunate to have a vibrant economy

and robust growth.

The CBO can't predict the future any more than you or I can - they

can only make predictions on the basis of assumptions that estimate

the probable behavioral responses of taxpayers, businesses, and other

citizens to the proposed changes. If the underlying assumptions are

incorrect, so are the estimates.


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, that doesn't sound like some partisan hack job at all.

That is from the CBO.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC 20515

February 18, 2011

Honorable John Boehner

Speaker of the House

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and

revenue effects of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law

Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. That

act would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA,

Public Law 111-148) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education

Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) that are related to health care.

Both of those laws were enacted in March 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is from the CBO.

The CBO director is addressing the cost of repealing the health care act.

From your source:

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue

effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget

deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).1 By

comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and

the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal

deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period.2

So repealing the law would add $210 billion and leaving it in place will reduce it by $124 billion. That's a difference of $334 billion.

Edited by 8TBVBN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBO director is addressing the cost of repealing the health care act.

From your source:

So repealing the law would add $210 billion and leaving it in place will reduce it by $124 billion. That's a difference of $334 billion.

Your math sucks!

Cost of Program:

The enacted legislation contained a set of provisions designed to

expand health insurance coverage that was estimated to increase

federal deficits. The costs of those coverage expansions—which

include the cost of the subsidies to be provided through the

exchanges, increased outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health

Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for certain small

employers—will be partially offset by revenues from the excise tax

on high-premium insurance plans and net savings from other

coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, over the 2012-2021 period

H.R. 2 would yield gross savings of $1,390 billion and net savings

(after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,042 billion

Cuts to Medicare:

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act also included a number of other

provisions related to health care that were estimated to reduce net

federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those

provisions, H.R. 2 would increase other direct spending in the next

decade by $732 billion.

New Taxes and Fees:

The enacted legislation will increase federal revenues (apart from the

effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by

increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on

certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions

would reduce revenues by an estimated $520 billion over the 2012-

2021 period.

So called "deficit" if Obamacare is repealed = $210 billion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you trying to say, Steven?

If HR2 gets through the Senate, and signed by the President (slim chance), we don't spend a trillion dollars on a new entitlement, we don't take money away from old people, and we don't raise taxes.

Edited by Some Old Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did I just have a 40% increase in my premiums when by the Socialists forcing this new law down our throats is supposed to mean a savings? Savings for who?

Is your income part of the federal deficit? I don't get your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...