You see, there was this Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report and, wow, it really had some bad news for Americans so, therefore, it was good news for righty 20%'ers like Babalu's George Moneo who cited the report and sneered...
Well, well, well. A little off on the numbers, are we? Again?Unfortunately, George, and the rest of the folks who regularly put their party before their country, were right this time. The Obama Administration had miscalculated the cost of their healthcare reform. They were a little off their original numbers.
[...]
Oops.
Except that, in fact, it is going to cost LESS. About $50 billion LESS.
From the CBO blog, via Media Matters...
The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011There's more, much more, at the link.
CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.
[...]
Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher
The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions -- $1,496 billion through 2021 -- is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO's and JCT's estimates -- to $413 billion -- leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.
So essentially what you do when you're a Republican during these days of good news and horrid conservative candidates is give your readers or viewers half the story, distort the truth, and then move on, thus leaving in your wake a mass of misled and dumbed down Americans.
But, no matter. Because when and if you're ever held to account for your deliberate smears and misrepresentations all you have to say is...you got it...
"Oops!"
.
7 comments:
Thanks for trying to cheer us up, Rick, but although it MAY cost less, it's still forecast to increase our deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a fact not even Media Matters can distort, as hard as they may try.
Did they also mention that the monstrosity could wipe out health insurance for as many as 20 million people?
I wasn't trying to cheer anyone up but illustrate how misleading listening to 20%'ers can be.
For instance, your statement that it increases the deficit. In the short term, it does, however, the CBO projects reductions in the long term. That's the other half of the story that you didn't provide in your comment.
And you also know that additional people will receive medical coverage under the ACA, and that the ACA requires and provides for coverage for everyone.
Bottom line is that it's not as nearly clear cut and definitive as you pretend it is.
.
BTW, Robert, maybe you could explain to me why deficits only matter to Republicans when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Thanks.
.
Adultery, deficits, religious hypocrisy, paying for prostitutes, racial slurs, slut shaming, misogyny, Hitler comparisons; hey, it's all good if you remember IOKIYAR, Rick: It's Okay If You're A Republican.
Here's a much more balanced story than the one from Media Matters (sheesh...):
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-budget-deficitbre82c19q-20120313,0,2116677.story
I would love to give you a detailed explanation, but only after you explain to me why deficits only matter to leftists when there's a Republican in the White House but excused when a fellow traveler is in the White House. Might have something to do with Bush still being responsible for our economy in 2012.
Cat and mouse, Rick. Cat and mouse.
So the Reuters story that you cite and apparently accept, gives much the same information as Media Matters [which makes sense since they're drawing from the same CBO reports] but it's more palatable to you. Fine.
And you answer questions with questions? And expect me to spend time answering yours? Really?
"Fellow Traveler?" Do you honestly believe that President Obama is a communist? Oh boy.
.
.
"Fellow Traveler?" Do you honestly believe that President Obama is a communist? Oh boy.
Not really, but figured that would get your attention. I know you appreciate a little overblown language every once in a while. Guess I should have put "Mr. Winky" after the remark. ;)
So the Reuters story that you cite and apparently accept, gives much the same information as Media Matters [which makes sense since they're drawing from the same CBO reports] but it's more palatable to you. Fine.
The Reuters article sticks with the numbers. The Media Matters article was just a chest-thumping exercise proving how "wrong" right-wingers were in the interpretation of the CBO analysis. That's the difference, plain and simple. For example, the Reuters article mentions things such as the CBO's report that 4 million more people than estimated last year would not be able to insurance through employers or exchanges, with Medicare having to absorb many of these, raising costs. If you recall, this was one of many concerns expressed by those against ObamaCare way back in 2010.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.