Obama Adminstration Meta Discussion
Replies
-
Regarding cutting work requirement for welfare.
"Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked."
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
I see nothing wrong with allowing innovation to solve problems. If something else works better, why not!0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
I think that is why you can argue it either way.
If the state requests a waiver and receives it and then removes the work requirement wouldn't it be the state that removed the work requirement with the Obama administration's blessing?
I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips, but the "rules" don't allow for that. There are certain ratios, etc that must be maintained by any new plan. States cannot use a "waiver" to circumvent the work requirement.0 -
From Lour's "Investors.com" link:Labor Dept. Waives 60-Day Notice To Help Obama Win
Posted 08/02/2012 06:48 PM ET
Politics: An administration that doesn't want layoff notices required by law going out days before the November election is telling defense contractors they don't have to send them for the cuts required by sequestration. . .
Robert Stevens, chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, told lawmakers that his company alone is looking at laying off roughly 10,000 employees from its 120,000 workforce. . . .
No doubt that sounds self-serving. But then, this is the type of threat they were responding to:Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens pressed the issue last month when he threatened to issue layoff notices to all 123,000 of his employees on the Friday before the election due to a provision in U.S. labor law requiring large employers to notify employees 60 days in advance of layoffs caused by a foreseeable event.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/241473-gop-labor-department-hiding-big-job-losses
If the sequestration happens, Lockheed will probably have to lay off 10,000 workers, but Stevens planned to send lay-off notices to ten time that number.
So yes perhaps the Dept of Labor was playing politics . . . but they are hardly alone.
Had to look this one up. Was not familiar with sequestration. For anyone else that might be curious, tis gave me a pretty good explanation. The previous article didn't help me much in understanding what it was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-blady-md/sequestration-department-of-defense_b_1819341.html
The following article gave me the administration's point of view and Obama's words on the matter.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-parties-must-cooperate-to-avoid-sequester/1#.UDRb5Gt5mSM
Seems like another "debt ceiling like" debate and unfortunately will be treated as a purely political issue. I wish everyone in Washington would do what they are there to do and solve issues instead of creating problems and hoopla. One side is not supposed to have their way 100%. Compromise needs to happen. I think Obama is right on this one. But it is really tough when it involves the livelihood of s many.0 -
The ACA employer mandate only applies to companies that employ more than 50 workers, so it's impact on truly small businesses will be minimal in the short run. I believe (or at least hope) that in the long run, the cost control provisions on the ACA will "bend the curve," and reduce the growth rate of healthcare. So in the long run, it will help small business and lead to a less uncertain environment on the issue. It will also reduce the number of people who only stick at a job to maintain continuity of coverage, unleashing the vaunted entrepreneurial spirit of the American people!
Since the exponential growth of healthcare costs is the main reason for fiscal uncertainty, yes, I think Obama was completely justified to follow through on what was arguably the main issue of his 2008 campaign. I'd have been sorely disappointed if he didn't.
A recession is the wrong time to cut spending. The time to cut spending was the boom years that Bush frittered away with tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two unjustified wars.
ACA's true cost is not yet known, however, what we do know is it will cost far more than the legislation claims it will. For a full 10 years of implementation, costs will exceed $2 trillion, per the CBO. The legislation only covers half that cost by taking $500B from medicare and $440B in taxes. This legislation, which will create deeper budget deficits(higher national debt) or higher taxes on top of what ACA already proposes, will only create more fiscal uncertainty, stagnant growth and high unemployment.
The recession ended in June of 2009.0 -
Okay, the aftermath of a recession when unemployment is still high is the wrong time to cut spending. The time to cut spending was the boom years that Bush frittered away with tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two unjustified wars.0
-
ACA's true cost is not yet known, however, what we do know is it will cost far more than the legislation claims it will. For a full 10 years of implementation, costs will exceed $2 trillion, per the CBO. The legislation only covers half that cost by taking $500B from medicare and $440B in taxes. This legislation, which will create deeper budget deficits(higher national debt) or higher taxes on top of what ACA already proposes, will only create more fiscal uncertainty, stagnant growth and high unemployment.
I have no idea where you get your numbers, but they are certainly not the latest numbers from the CBO.
Here's the CBO's analysis of the fiscal impact of the House bill that would repeal the ACA:What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?
Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:
* The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. 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 penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 2013–2022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
* The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
* The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
So ACA adds $1.677 trillion in costs, but that is paid for by three things:
* $506 billion in "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects."
* $711 billion in Medicare savings. (That's the reduced payments to healthcare providers and Medicare Advantage plans that Romney is running his lying ads about.)
* $569 billion from "increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers."
Far from only covering half the costs, the ACA covers $109 billion more than the costs.
I do grant you that "ACA's true cost is not yet known." Predicting costs and revenues 10 years in the future is a dicey game, especially for legislation that is designed to bend the cost curve and arrest the huge increases in healthcare costs year-on-year. As the CBO says:Why Are These Estimates Uncertain?
Projections of the budgetary impact of H.R. 6079 are quite uncertain because they are based, in large part, on projections of the effects of the ACA, which are themselves highly uncertain.
The ACA may fail to bring the rate of healthcare cost growth down. But one way to guarantee it will fail is to repeal it and replace it with the Republican proposal: Nothing.0 -
ACA's true cost is not yet known, however, what we do know is it will cost far more than the legislation claims it will. For a full 10 years of implementation, costs will exceed $2 trillion, per the CBO. The legislation only covers half that cost by taking $500B from medicare and $440B in taxes. This legislation, which will create deeper budget deficits(higher national debt) or higher taxes on top of what ACA already proposes, will only create more fiscal uncertainty, stagnant growth and high unemployment.
I have no idea where you get your numbers, but they are certainly not the latest numbers from the CBO.
Here's the CBO's analysis of the fiscal impact of the House bill that would repeal the ACA:What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?
Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:
* The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. 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 penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 2013–2022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
* The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
* The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
So ACA adds $1.677 trillion in costs, but that is paid for by three things:
* $506 billion in "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects."
* $711 billion in Medicare savings. (That's the reduced payments to healthcare providers and Medicare Advantage plans that Romney is running his lying ads about.)
* $569 billion from "increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers."
Far from only covering half the costs, the ACA covers $109 billion more than the costs.
I do grant you that "ACA's true cost is not yet known." Predicting costs and revenues 10 years in the future is a dicey game, especially for legislation that is designed to bend the cost curve and arrest the huge increases in healthcare costs year-on-year. As the CBO says:Why Are These Estimates Uncertain?
Projections of the budgetary impact of H.R. 6079 are quite uncertain because they are based, in large part, on projections of the effects of the ACA, which are themselves highly uncertain.
The ACA may fail to bring the rate of healthcare cost growth down. But one way to guarantee it will fail is to repeal it and replace it with the Republican proposal: Nothing.
And it works both ways. If 10 years of savings projections are "dicey" (which they indeed are, but I believe such projections are mandated), then so are the "gloom and doom" predictions that are based on the same projections--or, just as often, created out of thin air.0 -
The phrase "created out of thin air" in a post about the CBO reminds me of the CBO's analysis of Paul Ryan's 2011 budget "plan."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf).
The CBO says the following on revenues (emphasis added):The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff. The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028 and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path.
And the following on outlays:[The] combination of other mandatory and discretionary spending was specified to decline from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 6 percent in 2021 and then move in line with the GDP price deflator beginning in 2022, which would generate a further decline relative to GDP. No proposals were specified that would generate that path.
Even with those magical increases in revenue and decreases in spending, assumed by the "plan," but not the result of anything proposed by the "plan":The resulting budget deficits under the proposal would be around 2 percent of GDP in the 2020s and would decline during the 2030s. The budget would be in surplus by 2040 and show growing surpluses in the following decade.
Magical revenue increases, magical spending reductions, and balance by 2040. That's the Ryan "plan."0 -
Okay, the aftermath of a recession when unemployment is still high is the wrong time to cut spending. The time to cut spending was the boom years that Bush frittered away with tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two unjustified wars.
At what unemployment rate should the government be balancing its budget?0 -
If I had to pick a number, I'd say below 6%. That's about where it was when Clinton managed to balance the budget in the late 90s. And about where it was when Bush managed to balloon the deficit in the 00s.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
0 -
The government will balance it's budget when entities stop buying our debt or when we get people in office that have the courage to make substantial cuts to defense.0
-
I have no idea where you get your numbers, but they are certainly not the latest numbers from the CBO.
Here's the CBO's analysis of the fiscal impact of the House bill that would repeal the ACA:What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?
Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:
* The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. 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 penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 2013–2022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
* The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
* The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
So ACA adds $1.677 trillion in costs, but that is paid for by three things:
* $506 billion in "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects."
* $711 billion in Medicare savings. (That's the reduced payments to healthcare providers and Medicare Advantage plans that Romney is running his lying ads about.)
* $569 billion from "increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers."
Far from only covering half the costs, the ACA covers $109 billion more than the costs.
I do grant you that "ACA's true cost is not yet known." Predicting costs and revenues 10 years in the future is a dicey game, especially for legislation that is designed to bend the cost curve and arrest the huge increases in healthcare costs year-on-year. As the CBO says:
Yes $1.677 Trillion for 9 years of outlays. If you were to divide $1.677 by 9 years you get around $186B/year. Add $186B to the 9 year projection of $1.677T and it equals $1.863T. I did read the CBO's projection for a full 10 year implementation to be in excess of $2T but I will go with the $1.86T for now since I do not have the link at my disposal.
I have not been able to find where it says ACA will be generating $506B in HI payroll tax so please provide me your source, since I believe you are wrong. At this point, there is the $711B medicare cut(That is another debate) and $569B in revenues to pay for ACA which equals $1.28T. This leaves a $580B shortfall(2014-2023) or a $58B/year addition to the budget deficit which already stands at a $trillion+. Just for comparison, the budget deficit in 2006 was $260B so adding $58B to that figure would raise it by 22% since trillion dollar budget deficits are unsustainable for any length of time. I'm not advocating deficit spending just trying to illustrate this legislation's real impact on realistic government spending.
All this bill does is raise taxes on Americans, including the middle class, and increase budget deficits(national debt). After all this, there is still no guarrantee that everyone will have insurance since the government can no longer force the states to participate in the medicaid expansion, which was decided by the Supreme Court. The benefit of the "potential" to bend the cost curve is not worth the short and long term costs. Healthcare needs to be addressed but not in this fashion.0 -
I have not been able to find where it says ACA will be generating $506B in HI payroll tax so please provide me your source, since I believe you are wrong.
I gave you my source: The CBO letter to Boehner.H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
The $506 billion is the "offsets just mentioned" that take the estimated gross of $1,677 billion to the net of $1,171.0 -
Yes $1.677 Trillion for 9 years of outlays. If you were to divide $1.677 by 9 years you get around $186B/year. Add $186B to the 9 year projection of $1.677T and it equals $1.863T. I did read the CBO's projection for a full 10 year implementation to be in excess of $2T but I will go with the $1.86T for now since I do not have the link at my disposal.
No. You're counting wrong. The CBO estimate is for 2013 to 2022, which is 10 years, not 9 years.
Just to be explicit:
Year 1: 2013
Year 2: 2014
Year 3: 2015
Year 4: 2016
Year 5: 2017
Year 6: 2018
Year 7: 2019
Year 8: 2020
Year 9: 2021
Year 10: 2022
You don't get to multiply it by 10/9 because it is already a ten year estimate.
But on second thought, I guess you're probably not counting 2013 because some ACA provisions don't kick in until 2014. I'd rather just take the CBO numbers at face value rather than extrapolate them into 2023. Ten years is far enough away without adding an eleventh!0 -
I have not been able to find where it says ACA will be generating $506B in HI payroll tax so please provide me your source, since I believe you are wrong.
I gave you my source: The CBO letter to Boehner.H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
The $506 billion is the "offsets just mentioned" that take the estimated gross of $1,677 billion to the net of $1,171.
So are you saying the new taxes/penalties in ACA will generate over $1 trillion dollars(569B+506B) over the next 10 years?0 -
All this bill does is raise taxes on Americans, including the middle class, and increase budget deficits(national debt).
It does raise some taxes, but that's not all it does. But it doesn't increase the deficit. Just the opposite. That's exactly why the CBO told Boehner that repealing it would increase the deficit.After all this, there is still no guarrantee that everyone will have insurance since the government can no longer force the states to participate in the medicaid expansion, which was decided by the Supreme Court.
There is no question that the Supreme Court made the situation worse by making it easier for the states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. I expect that a year or two in, the pressure on Republican governors from hospitals will be so great that even they will take the extra Medicaid money. It's not like poor people don't get sick and go to the hospital. They do, and when they do, their bills get swallowed by the hospitals or eaten by the states. The Medicaid is too good a deal for states to turn it down, even after the Supreme Court decisions.The benefit of the "potential" to bend the cost curve is not worth the short and long term costs. Healthcare needs to be addressed but not in this fashion.
You're entitled to that opinion, of course. I disagree.0 -
Yes $1.677 Trillion for 9 years of outlays. If you were to divide $1.677 by 9 years you get around $186B/year. Add $186B to the 9 year projection of $1.677T and it equals $1.863T. I did read the CBO's projection for a full 10 year implementation to be in excess of $2T but I will go with the $1.86T for now since I do not have the link at my disposal.
No. You're counting wrong. The CBO estimate is for 2013 to 2022, which is 10 years, not 9 years.
Just to be explicit:
Year 1: 2013
Year 2: 2014
Year 3: 2015
Year 4: 2016
Year 5: 2017
Year 6: 2018
Year 7: 2019
Year 8: 2020
Year 9: 2021
Year 10: 2022
You don't get to multiply it by 10/9 because it is already a ten year estimate.
But on second thought, I guess you're probably not counting 2013 because some ACA provisions don't kick in until 2014. I'd rather just take the CBO numbers at face value rather than extrapolate them into 2023. Ten years is far enough away without adding an eleventh!
The state health exchanges won't be created until 2014 which is where the bulk of the cost stems from.0 -
I have not been able to find where it says ACA will be generating $506B in HI payroll tax so please provide me your source, since I believe you are wrong.
I gave you my source: The CBO letter to Boehner.H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
The $506 billion is the "offsets just mentioned" that take the estimated gross of $1,677 billion to the net of $1,171.
So are you saying the new taxes/penalties in ACA will generate over $1 trillion dollars(569B+506B) over the next 10 years?
I'm only taking the CBO's numbers. It's a little confusing because they are evaluating a bill to repeal ACA, so they call ACA costs "savings" and ACA revenue "direct spending."
I'm taking the total ACA cost from this sentence: "H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion."
I'm calculating "offset by penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects" from this: "and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion."
$1,171 billion = $1,677 billion - $506 billion, so "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects" is $506 Billion.
The $711 billion reduction in Medicare expenditures are clear enough in the CBO letter, as are the $569 billion from "increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers."
Total gross costs = $1,677 billion
Total offsets, cost reductions, and revenue increases: $506 billion + $711 billion + $569 billion = $1,786 billion
Total impact on the deficit = $1,677 billion - $1,786 billion = $109 reduction.
Or as the CBO told Boehner, repealing ACA "would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."0 -
I have not been able to find where it says ACA will be generating $506B in HI payroll tax so please provide me your source, since I believe you are wrong.
I gave you my source: The CBO letter to Boehner.H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
The $506 billion is the "offsets just mentioned" that take the estimated gross of $1,677 billion to the net of $1,171.
So are you saying the new taxes/penalties in ACA will generate over $1 trillion dollars(569B+506B) over the next 10 years?
I'm only taking the CBO's numbers. It's a little confusing because they are evaluating a bill to repeal ACA, so they call ACA costs "savings" and ACA revenue "direct spending."
I'm taking the total ACA cost from this sentence: "H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion."
I'm calculating "offset by penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects" from this: "and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion."
$1,171 billion = $1,677 billion - $506 billion, so "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects" is $506 Billion.
The $711 billion reduction in Medicare expenditures are clear enough in the CBO letter, as are the $569 billion from "increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers."
Total gross costs = $1,677 billion
Total offsets, cost reductions, and revenue increases: $506 billion + $711 billion + $569 billion = $1,786 billion
Total impact on the deficit = $1,677 billion - $1,786 billion = $109 reduction.
Or as the CBO told Boehner, repealing ACA "would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."
Unfortunately, your numbers are incorrect. You can see in the article below tax revenue equals roughly $500B, not $1T.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/fact-checking-romney-does-health-reform-cut-medicare-levy-500-billion-tax/0 -
Unfortunately, your numbers are incorrect.
I don't have any numbers. I'm using the CBO's numbers, which are a month more recent than that ABC mishmash.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
It's really very simple:
Gross cost: $1,677 billion
Offsets: $506 billion
Net cost: $1,171 billion.
Medicare savings: $711 billion
Revenue increases: $569 billion
Net reduction in the deficit: $109 billion over 10 years.0 -
The state health exchanges won't be created until 2014 which is where the bulk of the cost stems from.
Yes, but the CBO has estimated that even after 2022 when ACA will be fully implemented and operating for some 8 years, it will reduce deficits.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf on page 21.
Again, this is a little confusing since it's couched in terms of repealing ACA via HR 6079, so when it says "HR 6079 increases the deficit" that means "ACA reduces the deficit."Relative to current law, enacting H.R. 6079 would, CBO estimates,
increase federal budget deficits in the decade following 2022. . .
. . . CBO estimates that the total increase in deficits during the
2023–2032 period from enacting H.R. 6079 would lie in a broad range
around one-half percent of GDP. CBO has not extrapolated that estimate
further into the future. However, in view of the projected budgetary effects
between 2023 and 2032, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 6079 would
probably continue to increase budget deficits relative to those under current
law in subsequent decades. . . .
According to the CBO, repealing ACA increases the deficit even in 2023 and beyond.0 -
To get back to the question about Reagan vs. Obama, take a look at the graph of GDP here:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=177922800000&tend=1313996400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5
The recession Reagan had to deal with is barely visible on that graph, while the Bush recession is huge.0 -
Unfortunately, your numbers are incorrect.
I don't have any numbers. I'm using the CBO's numbers, which are a month more recent than that ABC mishmash.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
It's really very simple:
Gross cost: $1,677 billion
Offsets: $506 billion
Net cost: $1,171 billion.
Medicare savings: $711 billion
Revenue increases: $569 billion
Net reduction in the deficit: $109 billion over 10 years.
The offsets are the revenue increases.
If they're not, your saying the government will receive $1 trillion dollars in taxes and expect to save $700B in Medicare costs, making this bill a $1.7T healthcare bill. When it was signed into law it was $930B. You are now saying the law was passed with over $1Trillion dollars in new taxes.0 -
The state health exchanges won't be created until 2014 which is where the bulk of the cost stems from.
Yes, but the CBO has estimated that even after 2022 when ACA will be fully implemented and operating for some 8 years, it will reduce deficits.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf on page 21.
Again, this is a little confusing since it's couched in terms of repealing ACA via HR 6079, so when it says "HR 6079 increases the deficit" that means "ACA reduces the deficit."Relative to current law, enacting H.R. 6079 would, CBO estimates,
increase federal budget deficits in the decade following 2022. . .
. . . CBO estimates that the total increase in deficits during the
2023–2032 period from enacting H.R. 6079 would lie in a broad range
around one-half percent of GDP. CBO has not extrapolated that estimate
further into the future. However, in view of the projected budgetary effects
between 2023 and 2032, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 6079 would
probably continue to increase budget deficits relative to those under current
law in subsequent decades. . . .
According to the CBO, repealing ACA increases the deficit even in 2023 and beyond.
Which is why I agree something needs to be done to fix healthcare, medicare, and medicaid.0 -
Have you read the CBO letter I'm getting all my numbers from? If not you're wasting my time. I'm only rephrasing their conclusions.The offsets are the revenue increases.
If they're not, your saying the government will receive $1 trillion dollars in taxes and expect to save $700B in Medicare costs, making this bill a $1.7T healthcare bill. When it was signed into law it was $930B. You are now saying the law was passed with over $1Trillion dollars in new taxes.0 -
Have you read the CBO letter I'm getting all my numbers from? If not you're wasting my time. I'm only rephrasing their conclusions.The offsets are the revenue increases.
If they're not, your saying the government will receive $1 trillion dollars in taxes and expect to save $700B in Medicare costs, making this bill a $1.7T healthcare bill. When it was signed into law it was $930B. You are now saying the law was passed with over $1Trillion dollars in new taxes.
Yes, I have read it. That is why I keep correcting you because your interpretation of the letter is incorrect.0 -
Then why do you say nonsense like "the offsets are the revenue increases"? They clearly are not.
The offsets are "penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects." Although the number never explicitly appears in the letter, they are $506 billion as is clear from the difference between the gross and net cost numbers. (" H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.")
The revenues are "provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers." Those are explicitly pegged at $569 billion.0 -
Here's your trillion in taxes, A2O:Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43473
This seems to be a different way to slice the same numbers and I honestly don't understand the difference. The $890 seems to be the cost increase minus the Medicare cost deruction. And the $1 trillion seems to be the offsets plus the revenue increases. But I can't get them numbers to work out exactly with the other Cbo numbers on HB 6079.0 -
Here's your trillion in taxes, A2O:Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43473
This seems to be a different way to slice the same numbers and I honestly don't understand the difference. The $890 seems to be the cost increase minus the Medicare cost deruction. And the $1 trillion seems to be the offsets plus the revenue increases. But I can't get them numbers to work out exactly with the other Cbo numbers on HB 6079.
Interesting. I will have to look into it further. Thanks for the info.0 -
Nobody commented on it so I suspect nobody looked at the graph of GDP that I linked. Here it is:
Any more questions as to how come the recovery under Reagan in the earlier 80s was so much quicker than the recovery under Obama?
[Hint: We were in a much much deeper hole when Obama took office than when Reagan took office.]0
