Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap...
The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.
Obamacare | Shortfall | Jeff Sessions | The Daily Caller
I distinctly remember Obama saying the law "wouldn't add a dime" to the debt total.
Are you serious? A Senate Republican staffer came up with this revelation? And they're just now getting around to reading the bill? :lol:
AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.
In fairness to the CBO do you really believe the assumptions that they were asked to score? Why do some continue with the same tired arguments that almost noone believes is true.
If we can't have a honest discussion why waste people's time?
If you want to have a serious discussion, why don't you start by naming the assumptions that you think are unrealistic?
OK I have not read the whole thing but here are some examples.
- The $500 billion of unspecified savings from medicare. Even when/if people come up with savings it will be needed just to keep medicare solvent.
- Most people will get to keep the insurance they have. There have been some detailed studies from capable consulting forms that say the numbers of folks thrown
off their employer based system will be orders of magnitude higher than the bill states.
- No realistic annual increases to doctors and hospitals, the so-called doc fix that gets added each year.
- No provision to increase the supply of doctors although demand will increase. I jokingly asked a doctor the other day how many extra hours a day he will work to
cover a large increase in potential consumers.
- Expecting that the mandate which in the early years is only a fine of about $800 bucks per year will "force people into the system" which costs a lot more than that.
Might have been realistic if they had a catastropic insurance program for the healthy young that are willing to take their chances.
- The taxes built into the program. Obama is calling for higher taxes in many forms already for the wealthy. How many times can you count the same tax increase.
- I don't know what they used for health care inflation
That was a couple of minutes of thinking. Now I don't know or acknowledge the $17 trillion number, probably BS as well.
Just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't give tens of millions of people something for free and expect it to have a cost of below zero.
Are you serious? A Senate Republican staffer came up with this revelation? And they're just now getting around to reading the bill? :lol:
AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.
Obamacare | Shortfall | Jeff Sessions | The Daily Caller
I distinctly remember Obama saying the law "wouldn't add a dime" to the debt total.
Actually if I recall correctly they only measured what was known of the bill at the time. Remember, when they did their estimate the bill wasn't even signed into law yet.
Unless they have done another one since that I am not aware of?
It is so imperative that the SCOTUS throws Obamacare out..............It will bankrupt our country.....
So the job of the Supreme Court is not to rule just on constitutionality? Where did you get that idea my left wing activist judge supporting friend?
When did Obama say that? The agreement was for 1 trillion over the first 10 years, which the program met. In fact this whole thing is a ****ing joke. Random republicans make claims about **** that might happen 75 years from now...somehow that just does not convince me. Really, projecting 10 years from now is painfully inaccurate, and this random republican claims he can predict 75 years from now?
Except Obama misleadingly referred to the first 10 years after the PASSAGE of the bill and not the IMPLEMENTATION of the bill. In doing so, he could exclude 4 years of costs from the "cost" of the program and thus make it seem half as expensive as it really was.
Well, SCOTUS did order the EPA to run more tests beyond what Congress had mandated of them. What did that have to do with the Constitution?
So saying "10 years after passage" is misleading? No one claimed after implementation. The fact that it was not fully implemented for 10 years was something debated and discussed prior to the bills passage. And yet it is misleading....
It's misleading to describe the 6 year cost of a program as a 10 year cost.
But it is not misleading to say that the cost of the program from now until 10 years is X. The cost was done in a completely aboveboard manner, with plenty of documentation.
Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
Obviously the term misleading is highly subjective. My point is that when you make the announcement as follows, you are hardly being explicit:
AFAIK the fiscal impact of the bill is scored by CBO, which determined that it would would REDUCE deficits by something like $150 billion over 10 years.
But it is not misleading to say that the cost of the program from now until 10 years is X.
yes, please, if only the democrats could be consistent enough to apply the same standards to republican bills...interesting. would you say it is not misleading to wave a 10-year score of the Ryan Budget, and say that it does not cut a single dime from Medicare?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?