You forgot the barf alert.
Notice of course NO documented evidence to back up the “report” merely their claim that that is what the report says.
So let run examine this rationally. Massively expanding the role of government in 1/6th of the US economy is suppose to SAVE us money?
Tell me 1 time the “projections” of the cost of a Government program cost LESS then projected?
Ah that right, there are none.
Som these same people were wrong a week before the Roberts treason????????.
Repealing the law, as Republicans want to do, would increase the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022.
$109 BILLION?! Are you serious? That's 6/10ths of 1% of the total deficit! It's a G** Damned drop in the bucket you twits!
See, this is in their heads, except they forget to compensate for the bloated bureaucrats that will expect high six figure incomes to implement this thievery!
Yeah, sure, riiiiiiight.
They just added a trillion to the financing of this boondoggle and “snap” it will now save money. Just in time for the reelection.
If anyone buys into this they deserve what they get.
Those little blue pills for the elderly are much cheaper than medical care to prolong their lives.
I knew it would and you can thank Pelosi for that.
Palliative End of Life Optimum Serenity Initiative (PELOSI)
"Just give 'em a pill, they're too old to get health care." BHO.
Done with eighty million useless entities.. more for everyone else! Obama! Obama! Mmmm, mmmm, mmm.
“Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.”
What a clumsy piece of propaganda that so called news report is.
There is no stupidity like government stupidity.
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
Yeah, OK, there is a "non-partisan" anything in Washington....Bwahahaha!
FMCDH(BITS)
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.
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
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.
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.
Liars.