Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

And since, by your post, you have apparently endorsed the Congressional Budget Office as a reliable and impartial source, do you know what the CBO estimate was, given to John Boehner, of what the effect would be on the federal budget if the Republican's bill to repeal PPACA is enacted?

H.R. 2 would, on net, increase federal deficits over the next decade because
the net savings from eliminating the coverage provisions would be more
than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue
reductions.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20515

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... 69/hr2.pdf

Nate

NateS wrote:

Sloop wrote:That list doesn't even begin to touch on the tremendous debt to our country that ObamaCare has incurred. Within the first year, the CBO had to DOUBLE its estimate of from 700 Billion Dollars up to 1.4 Trillion. That is just what happened one year after the law went into effect. Do you want guess how out-of-control these costs will be in 10 years?

Do you really want those who read what you wrote to believe that the number you quote is its cost per year? And that the estimate went up, not down?

Nate

Where did I say "cost per year". You see Nate, words have meaning and you need to learn how to read. What I said was that within the first year [meaning within the first year after Obamacare went into effect], the CBO had to ......

Hell, maybe it wasn't "within". Maybe it was 13 months or 15 months. DOES IT REALLY MATTER? The fact is, the estimated cost of the program (over the first 10 years) had DOUBLED. That ain't peanuts fella ....

NateS wrote: See also:

MediaMatters
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled
RESEARCH ››› MARCH 16, 2012 12:38 PM EDT ››› JUSTIN BERRIER

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... h-c/184978

Nate

LOL - MediaMatters -- They only exist because of George Soros. Next you'll be sourcing The Daily KOS, or Huffington Post. Too FUNNY!

You most certainly lost all credibility with me, Sloop. You are pretending not to understand what NateS is saying, and you are ignoring the obvious. The CBO estimates costs for 10 years out. As time passes, the meaning of 10 years out changes. A year in which the program was not yet in effect dropped off the front, and a year when it was fully in effect got added to the end. To try to convince people that this was all a substantive shift in estimates is purely cynical. A year from now, the 10-year window will move again, and estimates will change for the same reason. What you can't ignore, though, is that the CBO says that the PPACA will reduce the deficit compared to what it would be without the act. If you don't find the CBO credible, don't cite its estimates.

Lord, please deliver me from lawyers, entrenched bureaucrats, marxists and leftist elitist snobs.

PST wrote:You most certainly lost all credibility with me, Sloop. You are pretending not to understand what NateS is saying, and you are ignoring the obvious. The CBO estimates costs for 10 years out. As time passes, the meaning of 10 years out changes. A year in which the program was not yet in effect dropped off the front, and a year when it was fully in effect got added to the end. To try to convince people that this was all a substantive shift in estimates is purely cynical. A year from now, the 10-year window will move again, and estimates will change for the same reason. What you can't ignore, though, is that the CBO says that the PPACA will reduce the deficit compared to what it would be without the act. If you don't find the CBO credible, don't cite its estimates.

The most recent CBO estimate I've seen indicates it's going to cost us 1 TRILLION dollars over the next ten years. No savings.

PST wrote:You most certainly lost all credibility with me, Sloop. You are pretending not to understand what NateS is saying, and you are ignoring the obvious. The CBO estimates costs for 10 years out. As time passes, the meaning of 10 years out changes. A year in which the program was not yet in effect dropped off the front, and a year when it was fully in effect got added to the end. To try to convince people that this was all a substantive shift in estimates is purely cynical.

I really don't believe I am the one with the credibility problem PST. How do you explain this?

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off. Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "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."

Oh wait -- I get it. Using your CBO rule, the 11th year of Obamacare will cost us a tidy sum of $820 Billion. Such a deal. That makes it even worse than what you tried to pan off.

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-pri ... 00655.html

Kerr wrote:

PST wrote:You most certainly lost all credibility with me, Sloop. You are pretending not to understand what NateS is saying, and you are ignoring the obvious. The CBO estimates costs for 10 years out. As time passes, the meaning of 10 years out changes. A year in which the program was not yet in effect dropped off the front, and a year when it was fully in effect got added to the end. To try to convince people that this was all a substantive shift in estimates is purely cynical. A year from now, the 10-year window will move again, and estimates will change for the same reason. What you can't ignore, though, is that the CBO says that the PPACA will reduce the deficit compared to what it would be without the act. If you don't find the CBO credible, don't cite its estimates.

The most recent CBO estimate I've seen indicates it's going to cost us 1 TRILLION dollars over the next ten years. No savings.

Yes, the estimate for outlays over the next ten years Is around $1 trillion. The revenue and savings provisions combined are more than that, however. That's why the CBO said in March 2011 that repeal would increase the 10-year deficit by $210 billion. Here is the citation for the whole analysis. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... 69/hr2.pdf. I don't think there is a full analysis of the effect on the deficit yet this year, but the estimate of the expense side of the equation actually went down (slightly) from 2011 to 2012 when just the same years are considered.

I have cited my original source for the most recent CBO estimate of the effect on the deficit. It would be helpful if Scoop or, if he cannot or prefers not do so, someone cite the sources that justify the "cost doubled" claim. Then we can judge for ourselves. It's all fine to sneer at Media Matters. Let's see where the numbers come from.

One last point. The PPACA does include many provisions designed to reduce medical costs. These include Accountable Care Organizations, a change in the reimbursement model in which providers have to eat the cost of fixing their mistakes, instead of getting paid for them, but can be rewarded for good outcomes, like low rates of infection or return to the ER. None of these are included in any cost estimates. If they work, it's gravy, but the CBO correctly is not speculating, and does not give one penny of credit in its estimates.

PST wrote: Yes, the estimate for outlays over the next ten years Is around $1 trillion.

It would be helpful if Scoop or, if he cannot or prefers not do so, someone cite the sources that justify the "cost doubled" claim. Then we can judge for ourselves. It's all fine to sneer at Media Matters. Let's see where the numbers come from.

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

Sloop,

When I cite a secondary source, you ridicule it, fair enough, BUT it has not gone unnoticed that when PST, myself and others cite original sources, you never reply by going to that original source and returning here to cite and quote anything found there which would contradict what has been cited and quoted.

Instead, you either remain silent or change the subject or quote and cite another secondary source which agrees with you.

And you yourself have rarely if ever provided a citation to an original source of data.

When are you going to find, cite and start quoting from original sources which support your claims?

For example, since you apparently finally found an original, impartial source that you trust, to-wit: the Congressional Budget Office, when are you going to take us to a quotation in the official records of the CBO which supports your arguments and your dire predictions?

Or aren't there any?

Surely you know the difference.

Respectfully,

Nate

Sloop wrote:

PST wrote:You most certainly lost all credibility with me, Sloop. You are pretending not to understand what NateS is saying, and you are ignoring the obvious. The CBO estimates costs for 10 years out. As time passes, the meaning of 10 years out changes. A year in which the program was not yet in effect dropped off the front, and a year when it was fully in effect got added to the end. To try to convince people that this was all a substantive shift in estimates is purely cynical.

I really don't believe I am the one with the credibility problem PST. How do you explain this?

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off. Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "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."

Oh wait -- I get it. Using your CBO rule, the 11th year of Obamacare will cost us a tidy sum of $820 Billion. Such a deal. That makes it even worse than what you tried to pan off.

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-pri ... 00655.html

I really don't need to explain the remarks of a "freelance journalist" on the Yahoo! Contributor Network. That is just a place anyone in the world can publish what he wants. I assume that this guy, unlike us, doesn't have sleep apnea, and therefore cannot take advantage of CPAPtalk as his platform for discussing healthcare legislation.

However, my explanation is that the guy you have chosen to rely on rather than look at the original sources yourself is so misleading that I would call it lying. Look at what he does. First, he cites the President's speech from September 2009 estimating the cost for the next 10 years, which would be 2010 to 2019. The speech was given six months before the bill passed, and thus well before Congress put it in final form, so it would not upset me much if the President's estimate wasn't spot on. But what does he compare it to? The CBO estimate for the 11-year period 2012 to 2022. Follow his citation. The report he refers to is at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof ... imates.pdf, Table 2, so you can see for yourself. He's not even comparing the same number of years! I don't know any way one could regard that as honest. He's added three years from after the full plan kicks in -- 2020, 2021, and 2022 -- and then claimed that it means the cost is growing wildly.

That's my explanation. Scoop, how do you explain your assertion that $820 billion is a one-year price tag. Perhaps you would like to use real sources next time instead of putting your trust in a trickster and passing his misinformation on to us without looking to see how he derived it.

NateS wrote:Sloop,

When I cite a secondary source, you ridicule it, fair enough, BUT it has not gone unnoticed that when PST, myself and others cite original sources, you never reply by going to that original source and returning here to cite and quote anything found there which would contradict what has been cited and quoted.

Instead, you either remain silent or change the subject or quote and cite another secondary source which agrees with you.

And you yourself have rarely if ever provided a citation to an original source of data.

When are you going to find, cite and start quoting from original sources which support your claims?

For example, since you apparently finally found an original, impartial source that you trust, to-wit: the Congressional Budget Office, when are you going to take us to a quotation in the official records of the CBO which supports your arguments and your dire predictions?

Or aren't there any?

Surely you know the difference.

Respectfully,

Nate

Nate - are you going on record stating that the details in my source are a lie?

PST wrote: That's my explanation. Scoop, how do you explain your assertion that $820 billion is a one-year price tag. Perhaps you would like to use real sources next time instead of putting your trust in a trickster and passing his misinformation on to us without looking to see how he derived it.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Nate. Are you calling the Washington Examiner article a lie?

Sloop wrote:

NateS wrote:Sloop,

When I cite a secondary source, you ridicule it, fair enough, BUT it has not gone unnoticed that when PST, myself and others cite original sources, you never reply by going to that original source and returning here to cite and quote anything found there which would contradict what has been cited and quoted.

Instead, you either remain silent or change the subject or quote and cite another secondary source which agrees with you.

And you yourself have rarely if ever provided a citation to an original source of data.

When are you going to find, cite and start quoting from original sources which support your claims?

For example, since you apparently finally found an original, impartial source that you trust, to-wit: the Congressional Budget Office, when are you going to take us to a quotation in the official records of the CBO which supports your arguments and your dire predictions?

Or aren't there any?

Surely you know the difference.

Respectfully,

Nate

Nate - are you going on record stating that the details in my source are a lie?

Another good example of you sliding by the challenge, pretending you don't know the difference between original and secondary sources.

You are assuming, incorrectly, that those who may still have the stamina or interest to continue reading this thread won't notice that you are changing the subject again.

(For good measure, I will answer the question you ask while you are unsuccessfully trying to change the subject:
Yes, the secondary sources you quote, characterizing the CBO reports the opposite of what they so precisely say, either can't read English or are telling bald-faced lies.)

If you disagree, give us some direct quotes and cites from the Congressional Budget Office reports which support your position.

Nate

NateS wrote:
(For good measure, I will answer the question you ask while you are unsuccessfully trying to change the subject:
Yes, the secondary sources you quote, characterizing the CBO reports the opposite of what they so precisely say, either can't read English or are telling bald-faced lies.)

Nate

Nate

Must be a right-wing conspiracy, eay?

heh heh heh