Budget office: Obama's health law reduces deficit

Associated Press ^ | July 24, 2012 | RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ANDREW TAYLOR

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress' budget scorekeepers are taking a new look at President Barack Obama's health care law - and they still say it is expected to reduce federal deficits.

It's the first in-depth look by nonpartisan experts since the Supreme Court upheld most of the law last month.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

There is no stupidity like government stupidity.

[Capt. Tom]

Those little blue pills for the elderly are much cheaper than medical care to prolong their lives.

You got that right.
Surgically remove a prostate gland = $30,000
Radiate a prostate gland (42 radiations) = $160,000
That's a $120,000 savings right there.
And if the patient is elderly, no treatment.
That will save $30,000
Pretty easy decision for a non-medical panel to make. -Tom

[grumpygresh]

Speaking of barf alerts, we need a rating system. This would be a pornographic X-rated barf.

[kcvl]

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)

The projected net savings to the federal government resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision arise because the reductions in spending from lower Medicaid enrollment are expected to more than offset the increase in costs from greater participation in the newly established exchanges.

prior to the Court’s ruling, the Medicaid expansion appeared to be mandatory for states that wanted to continue receiving federal matching funds for any part of their Medicaid program. Hence, CBO and JCT’s previous estimates reflected the expectation that every state would expand eligibility for coverage under its Medicaid program as specified in the ACA. As a result of the Court’s decision, CBO and JCT now anticipate that some states will not expand their programs at all or will not expand coverage to the full extent authorized by the ACA. CBO and JCT also expect that some states will eventually undertake expansions but will not do so by 2014 as specified in the ACA.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472

In 2022, for example, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are expected to cover about 6 million fewer people than previously estimated, about 3 million more people will be enrolled in exchanges, and about 3 million more people will be uninsured. Although the estimates discussed here are dominated by the movements of people losing eligibility for Medicaid, other smaller shifts in coverage are expected to occur as well. (The changes in coverage reflect the net effect of all estimated changes stemming from the Court’s decision, not just the movements of people who lose eligibility for Medicaid. For example, relative to prior estimates, not all of the increases in enrollment in exchanges and in the uninsured are among people who would have been newly eligible for Medicaid.)

Federal spending over the 2012–2022 period for Medicaid and CHIP is now projected to be $289 billion less than previously expected, whereas the estimated costs of tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the exchanges (and related spending) have risen by $210 billion. Small changes in other components of the budget estimates account for the remaining $5 billion of the difference.

The key factors leading to that result are as follows:

Only a portion of the people who will not be eligible for Medicaid as a result of the Court’s decision will be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges. According to CBO and JCT’s estimates, roughly two-thirds of the people previously estimated to become eligible for Medicaid as a result of the ACA will have income too low to qualify for exchange subsidies, and roughly one-third will have income high enough to be eligible for exchange subsidies. In addition, those who become eligible for subsidies will have to pay a portion of the exchange premium themselves, which will affect their decisions about whether to enroll in the exchanges.

For the average person who does not enroll in Medicaid as a result of the Court’s decision and becomes uninsured, federal spending will decline by roughly an estimated $6,000 in 2022.

For the average person who does not enroll in Medicaid as a result of the Court’s decision and enrolls in an exchange instead, estimated federal spending will rise by roughly $3,000 in 2022—the difference between estimated additional exchange subsidies of about $9,000 and estimated Medicaid savings of roughly $6,000.

With about 6 million fewer people being covered by Medicaid but only about 3 million more people receiving subsidies through the exchanges and about 3 million more people being uninsured, and because the average savings for each person who becomes uninsured are greater than the average additional costs for each person who receives exchange subsidies, the projected decrease in total federal spending on Medicaid is larger than the anticipated increase in total exchange subsidies.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472

[TurboZamboni]

“net reduction of $84 billion” over 11 years?

wow. it’s downright thrifty!

[nothingnew]

It's the first in-depth look by nonpartisan experts...

Yeah, OK, there is a "non-partisan" anything in Washington....Bwahahaha!

FMCDH(BITS)

[musicman]

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[elephant]

Yeah, and our CongressCritters and Senator’s know a damn good bargin when they see one! /s

[TurboZamboni]

I think the last bargain they were right about was the Louisiana Purchase.

[SampleMan]

Garbage in = garbage out.

The CBO is required to accept the stated premise.

SO, if a program is passed that has a 95% tax rate and it also states that this tax will result in 100,000% wage increases, then the CBO will dutifully state that people will be better off under the program.

[LibLieSlayer]

Non partisan??? Do you mean like the State Department or Department of Justice or perhaps the FBI... do you mean like those non partisan government entities?

LLS

[ballplayer]

Of course it does,I knew that all the time,If you are over 60 tears old you GET NOTHING BUT A PILL,go home and Die. That WILL CUT COSTS,just Bury Grandma and Grandpa. Death Panels will Reduce Costs No Doubt about it.

[listenhillary]

So, if 60 percent of the doctors quit and the peons who don’t have congressional health care plans die before they get treatment?

I can see it saving money in the long run.

[SoFloFreeper]

Liars.

[BfloGuy]

Yep. A trillion in additional spending to reduce the deficit by about a hundred billion. This is the Democrats’ version of “you gotta spend money to make money.”

[Varsity Flight]

Because it is pyramid EXTORTION .

[mrsmith]

Requiring healthy young people get health insurance and overcharging them for it is the key.
Increases revenue for medicaid.

I’ll go see if that’s in the report...