CBO gives DonTcare a bad rating

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

They never got the CBO 24 million (they got 11 million) and now more people will be without next year even if Trump and the GOP do nothing.

Which the Liberals will blame on Trump and the GOP for not fixing their royal fuckup. That's because they don't want to admit Gruber is still laughing at them for being so stupid!

A duffus-KnowNothing gets on here and announces he could "see through" Trump, but he couldn't "see through" HillariousNoMore and recognize her criminality, or was he going to vote for BECAUSE she is a CROOK!

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

So you are a current or former Federal employee? Not surprising.

The link you provided looks like a Dim site based on the picture of President Trump despite admonitions to the contrary.

Let me ask you about the CBO. Didn't Obama say based on the CBO scoring that it wouldn't add a dime to the Federal Debt over 10 years? Didn't Obama himself say that healthcare would be as affordable as a cell phone bill?

It isn't working out.

If it the new AHCA doesn't work out, Trump won't be re-elected. If my premium doesn't go down, I likely won't vote for him, although my stock market portfolio is shooting up.

So I am perplexed by your arrangement of questions . They seem to make several implications with out a commitment on any of them. Seems like they are more accusatory based comments than someone wanting too have a legitimate conversation.

I like how me being a Federal employee in your mind would be an insult. But then again some like to play physiological games all the time.

So tell me, is it a legit site or not?

Also why would the CBO numbers from Obama come into play unless you want to compare them to Trump for a bottom line.
That would not really be possible since Trumps numbers are speculations at this point.
Also since the GOP lied to Senator Baucus about voting for it. So they are just as much to blame if there is any down side to it. Also they have done everything in their power to make it fail.

I would also love to hear why you think Trump has caused your Portfolio to go up.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Which the Liberals will blame on Trump and the GOP for not fixing their royal fuckup. That's because they don't want to admit Gruber is still laughing at them for being so stupid!

A duffus-KnowNothing gets on here and announces he could "see through" Trump, but he couldn't "see through" HillariousNoMore and recognize her criminality, or was he going to vote for BECAUSE she is a CROOK!

She may be a crook, which has never been proven (and why hasn't Trump kept his promise to name a special prosecutor to look into the alleged crimes?? Another lie.) but it is better than being an old, ignorant, redneck hillbilly, which you are.

I find it interesting that you will anonymously refer to my statements like you just did but don't have the balls to quote my posts directly. Are you autistic by any chance?

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes, my opinion was Hillary was a better choice than Trump. I easily saw through Trump's rhetoric during the campaign and knew he was simply telling voters what they wanted to hear with no clear path to fulfilling his promises. For the last six years of Obama's term, Republicans controlled Congress and would do everything possible to block him. Now, with a Republican Congress under Trump, he still can't get anything done. There is a reason why so many Republican congressmen are against him. Maybe you'll figure it out someday. Yes, maybe he will turn it around.

Not true! The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for Obama's first 2 years. The middle 4 years, Congress was split. Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Only during the last 2 years of Obama's presidency did Republicans control both houses of Congress.

If you are going to throw "facts" out there, try getting them right first,Speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

"Yes, my opinion was Hillary was a better choice than Trump. I easily saw (I am so smart, I am so smart) through Trump's rhetoric during the campaign and knew he was simply telling voters what they wanted to hear with no clear path to fulfilling his promises. He has repealed parts of Obamacare put in place by executive orders. He has been bringing jobs back. He is getting the NATO nations to start ponying up their share of the cost. He seems to be doing what he said so there is nothing to see through. For the last 6 years of Obama's terms, Republicans controlled Congress and would do everything possible to block him. But did hardly anything to stop him. Remember sequester? Now, with a Republican Congress under Trump, he still can't get anything done. There is a reason why so many Republican congressmen are against him. Pray tell what is that reason and you've just killed your own argument. It wasn't Trump who is failing, it is GOP congressman. Maybe you'll figure it out someday. Ditto. Yes, maybe he will turn it around."

The major parts of Obamacare are still in place and the law of the land. In the news today, one Republican senator said it may be until 2020 until Obamacare is replaced. I never said Obamacare is the greatest piece of legislation ever. But the AHCA passed by the House is a disaster and whatever eventually becomes law will look nothing like it.

Bringing jobs back? Care to back up that statement. Ford just announced huge layoffs. Several companies (Rexnord Corp., Ford, GM, Caterpillar, Nucor, Manitowac FoodService, Illinois Tool Works, Triumph Group, TE Connectivity Ltd.) are moving jobs from the U.S. to Mexico). I'm sure there are some Trump success stories but he has not stopped the flow of jobs to Mexico. And what about NAFTA, of which Trump said " "NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,"

Regarding this comment:

Pray tell what is that reason and you've just killed your own argument. It wasn't Trump who is failing, it is GOP congressman.

Congressmen, including Republicans, are against him because his proposals border on the insane. 9% of Republican House of Representative members voted against the AHCA because it was a piece of crap. They voted in the best interest of those that put them into office, not because they were expected to support the President because they were of the same party. The same thing will happen on the proposed budget. It already happened on the budget that will get the country through September. Most of the line items Trump wanted were left out, including money for the wall. And others, more money for health care, were left in despite Trump wanting them removed. So don't blame the Congressmen.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Not true! The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for Obama's first 2 years. The middle 4 years, Congress was split. Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Only during the last 2 years of Obama's presidency did Republicans control both houses of Congress.

If you are going to throw "facts" out there, try getting them right first,Speedy.

My apologies. You are most certainly correct and I was wrong.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

While all you ass clowns were ganging up on me - the CBO stated that 23 million people would lose their health care if Trumps plan is passed. However, since you guys were too busy calling me a fat ass just thought I would remind you folks

Hey fat ass, do you know how to read and critically analyze anything beyond a headline? Here is the WSJ's take on the CBO numbers. Let's hear your detailed critique. You started this thread, so you must know something about the CBO and how to treat its forecasts. So go ahead and Gruber us, Lubey!


How to Read an ObamaCare Prediction

Congress’s fiscal scorekeepers are often wrong but never more modest.

May 24, 2017 7:21 p.m. ET

The political world waited with rapt attention Wednesday for the oracles at the Congressional Budget Office to release their cost-and-coverage predictions for the revised House health reform bill, which arrived late in the afternoon. But while Washington stood by, two reports emerged from the real world that are far more consequential.

First, the Health and Human Services Department released new research showing that average premiums in the individual market have increased 105% since 2013 in the 39 states where the ObamaCare exchanges are federally run. That translates into about $3,000 more a year for the average family. There are limitations to the data, such as separating ObamaCare artifacts from underlying medical cost movements, but the trend doesn’t reflect well on whoever called it the Affordable Care Act.

Also on Wednesday, Blue CrossBlue Shield of Kansas City withdrew its ObamaCare plans for 2018 in Kansas and Missouri. The insurer cited ObamaCare losses of $100 million, which it called “unsustainable for our company.” The decision will leave 77 of Missouri’s 114 counties, including St. Louis, with a single insurer, and some 31,000 Missourians in another 25 counties with no coverage options. By the way, HHS says premiums have increased by 145% on average in Missouri over four years.

This is real news in real markets that affects people’s lives. So, naturally, the speculative CBO report became the day’s major story.

That news wasn’t all bad for Republicans, not that you could tell from the media accounts. CBO confirmed that the American Health Care Act is a major fiscal dividend, cutting taxes by $992 billion, spending by $1.1 trillion and the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years. Compared to a CBO estimate of an earlier House bill, the number of people with insurance will be “slightly higher” and premiums will be “slightly lower.”

Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as “losing coverage.” But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17% drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

The balance of beneficiaries “losing coverage” would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, “because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that “a few million” people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.

Unlike CBO, most economic forecasters publish their assumptions and a range of possible outcomes for different variables. This transparency reveals the uncertainty built into any predictive model, rather than homing in on one number like 23 million, as if it is omniscient. The complication for CBO is that the more it defines its uncertainty, the less authority the political class will invest in its estimates.

This particular credibility gap is exposed in CBO’s treatment of the House compromise on waivers, which would allow states to apply to opt out of certain ObamaCare regulations like benefit mandates. How many Governors would choose to do so, over what time period, in what political context, and how aggressively would they deregulate markets? “Who knows?” is the only honest answer.

CBO allows that there can be no “single definitive interpretation” of how states would respond to new incentives—before claiming that precisely “one-third of the population would be in states that would choose to make moderate changes to market regulations” and precisely “one-sixth of the population” lives where Governors would “substantially alter” those regulations. This isn’t a quantitative economic judgment but a raw political assumption.

Headlines aside, the CBO report matters because it is the fiscal template for Senate negotiations and what policies can be included under the budget “reconciliation” procedure that requires 51 votes. But Senators shouldn’t allow the budget scorekeeper’s opinions about the future to dictate policy or political decisions. Incentives and private competition can produce better outcomes than CBO’s model foresees.

In any case, the real world is throwing off plenty of evidence of the urgent need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, like the Missouri crisis and national rate shock. CBO never saw any of that coming.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

It is not true that they will "lose" their coverage. They will "choose" to not have coverage.

There are 10 million people getting the Expanded Medicaid. These are the people who fall into the category of "family of 4 and make less than $24,000. They don't qualify to get a subsidy for a private health insurance plan at (Healthcare.Gov). Expanded Medicaid goes away in two years with the Trumpcare bill. Ten million people would lose their insurance and not by choice.

Some people may choose not to purchase health insurance in the individual market. However, with Trumpcare , 10 million people will definitely loose their coverage provided by the Expanded Medicaid in the 31 states that accepted it.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey fat ass, do you know how to read and critically analyze anything beyond a headline? Here is the WSJ's take on the CBO numbers. Let's hear your detailed critique. You started this thread, so you must know something about the CBO and how to treat its forecasts. So go ahead and Gruber us, Lubey!


How to Read an ObamaCare Prediction

Congress’s fiscal scorekeepers are often wrong but never more modest.

May 24, 2017 7:21 p.m. ET

The political world waited with rapt attention Wednesday for the oracles at the Congressional Budget Office to release their cost-and-coverage predictions for the revised House health reform bill, which arrived late in the afternoon. But while Washington stood by, two reports emerged from the real world that are far more consequential.

First, the Health and Human Services Department released new research showing that average premiums in the individual market have increased 105% since 2013 in the 39 states where the ObamaCare exchanges are federally run. That translates into about $3,000 more a year for the average family. There are limitations to the data, such as separating ObamaCare artifacts from underlying medical cost movements, but the trend doesn’t reflect well on whoever called it the Affordable Care Act.

Also on Wednesday, Blue CrossBlue Shield of Kansas City withdrew its ObamaCare plans for 2018 in Kansas and Missouri. The insurer cited ObamaCare losses of $100 million, which it called “unsustainable for our company.” The decision will leave 77 of Missouri’s 114 counties, including St. Louis, with a single insurer, and some 31,000 Missourians in another 25 counties with no coverage options. By the way, HHS says premiums have increased by 145% on average in Missouri over four years.

This is real news in real markets that affects people’s lives. So, naturally, the speculative CBO report became the day’s major story.

That news wasn’t all bad for Republicans, not that you could tell from the media accounts. CBO confirmed that the American Health Care Act is a major fiscal dividend, cutting taxes by $992 billion, spending by $1.1 trillion and the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years. Compared to a CBO estimate of an earlier House bill, the number of people with insurance will be “slightly higher” and premiums will be “slightly lower.”

Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as “losing coverage.” But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17% drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

The balance of beneficiaries “losing coverage” would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, “because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that “a few million” people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.

Unlike CBO, most economic forecasters publish their assumptions and a range of possible outcomes for different variables. This transparency reveals the uncertainty built into any predictive model, rather than homing in on one number like 23 million, as if it is omniscient. The complication for CBO is that the more it defines its uncertainty, the less authority the political class will invest in its estimates.

This particular credibility gap is exposed in CBO’s treatment of the House compromise on waivers, which would allow states to apply to opt out of certain ObamaCare regulations like benefit mandates. How many Governors would choose to do so, over what time period, in what political context, and how aggressively would they deregulate markets? “Who knows?” is the only honest answer.

CBO allows that there can be no “single definitive interpretation” of how states would respond to new incentives—before claiming that precisely “one-third of the population would be in states that would choose to make moderate changes to market regulations” and precisely “one-sixth of the population” lives where Governors would “substantially alter” those regulations. This isn’t a quantitative economic judgment but a raw political assumption.

Headlines aside, the CBO report matters because it is the fiscal template for Senate negotiations and what policies can be included under the budget “reconciliation” procedure that requires 51 votes. But Senators shouldn’t allow the budget scorekeeper’s opinions about the future to dictate policy or political decisions. Incentives and private competition can produce better outcomes than CBO’s model foresees.

In any case, the real world is throwing off plenty of evidence of the urgent need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, like the Missouri crisis and national rate shock. CBO never saw any of that coming.

It's true that the CBO projection for how many people would purchase a private health insurance plan on the government exchanges (HealthCare.Gov) is lower than expected. The CBO projected 24 million would get a plan from the government exchanges. Ten million people did get the Expanded Medicaid instead of a private plan because the income requirement of "family of 4 and make greater than $24,000" was not met.

The CBO did not miss on it's projection on the total percentage of people who would have some type of health insurance. Before the ACA law was passed the percentage of citizens uninsured was around 20% . Now the percentage uninsured is 9%. So 91% of all citizens under age 65 are insured. This is an improvement from when Bush43 and Dick Cheney were in office.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...2:%22asc%22%7D

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

You want to meet me somewhere in Cibolo? Or are you going to chicken out like Rey? Rey would stand out like a sore thumb if he were in my neighborhood- people would think he was the lawnmower man.


Do you read what you fucking type? Here's your quote : I do just fine financially, but never judge my or anyone's success based on money. but for some reason you know that most people who can't afford healthcare blow their money and at the same time you can't get free pussy so you have to pay for it- a true conservative wouldn't be caught dead buying pussy- because you know what it's an immoral act and illegal- did you forget that Tony?
You fucking so called conservatives tickle me pink when you come to a WHORE board and want to point fingers. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black- maybe if you stopped spending me on hookers you would have a better life Tony.

You HATE whores so much, why the eff are you here?????????? Go to the church board!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.pinterest.com/cindyunder...oards/?lp=true

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

She may be a crook, which has never been proven (and why hasn't Trump kept his promise to name a special prosecutor to look into the alleged crimes?? Another lie.) but it is better than being an old, ignorant, redneck hillbilly, which you are.

I find it interesting that you will anonymously refer to my statements like you just did but don't have the balls to quote my posts directly. Are you autistic by any chance?

None of these "so called allegations" have been proven either. ZERO ZIP NADA NONE, just a bunch of hot air HEADLINES, if you Liberals would read a little further down in any given article, you'll see words like, "not sure, "we don't know" etc etc. Unfortunately Liberals only listen to late night comedians (if that"s what you want to call them) and the "Shame Stream Media", all of which shroud you in a veil of circumlocution, long winded loquacity.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

None of these "so called allegations" have been proven either. ZERO ZIP NADA NONE, just a bunch of hot air HEADLINES, if you Liberals would read a little further down in any given article, you'll see words like, "not sure, "we don't know" etc etc. Unfortunately Liberals only listen to late night comedians (if that"s what you want to call them) and the "Shame Stream Media", all of which shroud you in a veil of circumlocution, long winded loquacity.

What "so called allegations" are you talking about? If you are talking about the many allegations made against Trump, I most certainly agree with you. People are innocent until proven guilty.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

So I am perplexed by your arrangement of questions . They seem to make several implications with out a commitment on any of them. Seems like they are more accusatory based comments than someone wanting too have a legitimate conversation.

I like how me being a Federal employee in your mind would be an insult. But then again some like to play physiological games all the time.

So tell me, is it a legit site or not?

Also why would the CBO numbers from Obama come into play unless you want to compare them to Trump for a bottom line.
That would not really be possible since Trumps numbers are speculations at this point.
Also since the GOP lied to Senator Baucus about voting for it. So they are just as much to blame if there is any down side to it. Also they have done everything in their power to make it fail.

I would also love to hear why you think Trump has caused your Portfolio to go up.

You sound like a dense federal employee.

Many business websites, even non-Foxnews, attribute rise in stock markets to Trump's politically friendly business atmosphere.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

There are 10 million people getting the Expanded Medicaid. These are the people who fall into the category of "family of 4 and make less than $24,000. They don't qualify to get a subsidy for a private health insurance plan at (Healthcare.Gov). Expanded Medicaid goes away in two years with the Trumpcare bill. Ten million people would lose their insurance and not by choice.

Some people may choose not to purchase health insurance in the individual market. However, with Trumpcare , 10 million people will definitely loose their coverage provided by the Expanded Medicaid in the 31 states that accepted it.

Good. Don't care as long as my premiums go down. They'll still have NON-expanded Medicaid and the emergency room.

Oh, and maybe they could get a job with benefits.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

They'll still have NON-expanded Medicaid and the emergency room.

Wrong, Non-expanded Medicaid which was signed into law by LBJ is only for very poor people. To qualify for Non-Expanded or original Medicaid a family of 4 must make less than $16,000 a year. This is considered the poverty level. Husband and wife make less than $8,000 each.

When uninsured people go to the hospital and get an operation or treated for some other illness, the hospital does not eat the charge. They pass it on to those of us who pay taxes.

Your premium will only go down if more low risk people are absorbed into the risk pool that you are attached to. Taking peoples Medicaid away is not going to make your premium go down. People with pre-existing conditions will still be allowed to purchase health insurance, and those people that have money will continue to buy (even if they don't get a subsidy).