"Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits"

"The Senate bill is cleverly designed to gather revenues (higher taxes, fees, and other offsets) over the full 10 year window but delays paying out the major benefits, like subsidies, until the last 6 years. So, the 2010-2019 estimate is not a full cost estimate of all provisions fully implemented and will certainly add significantly to the true cost of the bill."

ObamaCare's budget trickery | FreedomWorks

Hey, remember that lying narrative? I do. Where's the "deficit" update now that its 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of benefits? oh yea, it was a lie. And they knew it was lie but of course they knew the 'typcial' con either didn't care it was a lie couldn't figure out it was a lie. They kinda figured out after "the president was born in Kenya and his BC is fake" that they could really just say whatever they wanted and they wouldn't be held accountable.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

"The Senate bill is cleverly designed to gather revenues (higher taxes, fees, and other offsets) over the full 10 year window but delays paying out the major benefits, like subsidies, until the last 6 years. So, the 2010-2019 estimate is not a full cost estimate of all provisions fully implemented and will certainly add significantly to the true cost of the bill."

ObamaCare's budget trickery | FreedomWorks

Hey, remember that lying narrative? I do. Where's the "deficit" update now that its 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of benefits? oh yea, it was a lie. And they knew it was lie but of course they knew the 'typcial' con either didn't care it was a lie couldn't figure out it was a lie. They kinda figured out after "the president was born in Kenya and his BC is fake" that they could really just say whatever they wanted and they wouldn't be held accountable.

Click to expand...

This is not a singular event of perceived deception by government. The problem is that the subject matters are very complicated, the information is hard to get for the voter and the consequences for the official are far from certain, if he is found out.

For me this screams for a much better system of control.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

Hey, remember that lying narrative? I do. Where's the "deficit" update now that its 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of benefits? oh yea, it was a lie. And they knew it was lie but of course they knew the 'typcial' con either didn't care it was a lie couldn't figure out it was a lie. They kinda figured out after "the president was born in Kenya and his BC is fake" that they could really just say whatever they wanted and they wouldn't be held accountable.

Click to expand...

On a year-by-year basis, revenues + cost savings in other areas are about equal to new spending on the coverage expansions.



What's changed since those projections were put together in 2010 is that net cost of the coverage provisions has fallen and the savings from programs like Medicare are larger than expected. Both of which improve the deficit picture even further.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Greenbeard said:

On a year-by-year basis, revenues + cost savings in other areas are about equal to new spending on the coverage expansions.

Click to expand...

I find two things interesting about this chart:

1. It seems pretty heavily dependent upon those "cuts to other spending", which is to say, "not passing the doc fix and then accounting the savings on to fund Obamacare subsidies", and isn't going to happen.

2. If you take a look at the early years, it actually confirms the point that the OP claimed was a lie. The use of early-year revenue reductions and increased taxes are indeed used to offset the costs of out-year expenditures in order to keep the whole thing deficit neutral or reducing.

Gosh. Isn't that interesting.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

"The Senate bill is cleverly designed to gather revenues (higher taxes, fees, and other offsets) over the full 10 year window but delays paying out the major benefits, like subsidies, until the last 6 years. So, the 2010-2019 estimate is not a full cost estimate of all provisions fully implemented and will certainly add significantly to the true cost of the bill."

ObamaCare's budget trickery | FreedomWorks

Hey, remember that lying narrative? I do. Where's the "deficit" update now that its 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of benefits? oh yea, it was a lie. And they knew it was lie but of course they knew the 'typcial' con either didn't care it was a lie couldn't figure out it was a lie. They kinda figured out after "the president was born in Kenya and his BC is fake" that they could really just say whatever they wanted and they wouldn't be held accountable.

Click to expand...

Glad we could help, Vern.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

2. If you take a look at the early years, it actually confirms the point that the OP claimed was a lie. The use of early-year revenue reductions and increased taxes are indeed used to offset the costs of out-year expenditures in order to keep the whole thing deficit neutral or reducing.

.

Click to expand...

Oh silly, it does no such thing. read this slowly. Con editorials ‘attacked’ the 10 year prediction of lowering the deficit in 2010 based on the fact that it was only 6 years of benefits. Now its 10 years of benefits. Where’s the update?

See, the conservative entertainment complex knows you wont question their lies so they’re free to post any lie. remember, these are the same people who told you that the President was born in Kenya and his BC was fake. At some point you have to think for yourself.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

Oh silly, it does no such thing.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. See those first couple of years where the dark blue bar on top is smaller in size than the bars on the bottom?

read this slowly. Con editorials ‘attacked’ the 10 year prediction of lowering the deficit in 2010 based on the fact that it was only 6 years of benefits. Now its 10 years of benefits. Where’s the update?

Click to expand...

Hey, did you see that post above where I gave you the update and the cost has grown wildly?



Wait. Did you think it was a lie at the time that the benefits were only running during 6 of the 10 available years for scoring? Is it your belief that the exchanges have been running since 2010, and nobody knew about it?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

What does this noise have to do with Obamacare?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

Hey, did you see that post above where I gave you the update and the cost has grown wildly?

Click to expand...

wow, the same liars who told you "ten years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits" are still lying. If costs are growing "wildly" then certainly you can post the link showing Obamacare no longer reduces the deficit and actually increases the deficit. Oh wait, you think you aleady did. did your editorials revise the deficit reduction aspect of Obamacare? mmmm, the funny thing is this is what the CBO said.

CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

CBO | CBO

I don’t see the word “wildly” in the title. Do you? Now I know your brain is racing to find a string of words to make those facts go away but the simple truth is, if it was a budget gimmick, the CBO would have revised it each year. And Cp, I’m not posting what somebody is saying the CBO said. I’m posting what the CBO said. sometimes what the CBO says and what people say they said are wildly different.

Wait. Did you think it was a lie at the time that the benefits were only running during 6 of the 10 available years for scoring? Is it your belief that the exchanges have been running since 2010, and nobody knew about it?

Click to expand...

Oh cp, my posts were clear that con editorials lied when they claimed the deficit reduction of Obamacare was achieved through some sort of budget gimmick. In case you missed it.

CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time CBO | CBO

and there is nice graph showing costs lower than predicted. not wildly higher as con editorials would have you believe.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

wow, the same liars who told you "ten years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits" are still lying. If costs are growing "wildly" then certainly you can post the link showing Obamacare no longer reduces the deficit and actually increases the deficit. Oh wait, you think you aleady did. did your editorials revise the deficit reduction aspect of Obamacare? mmmm, the funny thing is this is what the CBO said.

CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

CBO | CBO

I don’t see the word “wildly” in the title. Do you? Now I know your brain is racing to find a string of words to make those facts go away but the simple truth is, if it was a budget gimmick, the CBO would have revised it each year. And Cp, I’m not posting what somebody is saying the CBO said. I’m posting what the CBO said. sometimes what the CBO says and what people say they said are wildly different.

Oh cp, my posts were clear that con editorials lied when they claimed the deficit reduction of Obamacare was achieved through some sort of budget gimmick. In case you missed it.

CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time CBO | CBO

and there is nice graph showing costs lower than predicted. not wildly higher as con editorials would have you believe.

Click to expand...

:doh Alright. We will take this slowly.

The Conservative Critique of the way the ACA was scheduled that you are bringing up is that Outlays (mostly in the form of subsidies) were delayed longer than Inlays (mostly in the form of tax increases and some spending cuts, some of which did and some of which did not happen) in order to produce an artificial score over the CBO's traditional 10-year window.

The sources you and Greenbeard have thus far cited confirm that analysis.

You are mistaking a lack of increasing the projected costs for subsidies with a lack of projected increase in deficit spending over a 10-year window.

As you can see from Greenbeards' chart above, Expenditures do start low, while Inlays do start relatively high.



Now, observe the chart that you reference:



Do you see now where the guy whose analysis you ran with mixed up one thing (annual impact on deficit aggregated over 10 years starting at present) for another (estimated cost of subsidies)?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Where did they go, cpwill?


Tim-

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

:doh Alright. We will take this slowly.

The Conservative Critique of the way the ACA was scheduled that you are bringing up is that Outlays (mostly in the form of subsidies) were delayed longer than Inlays (mostly in the form of tax increases and some spending cuts, some of which did and some of which did not happen) in order to produce an artificial score over the CBO's traditional 10-year window.

Click to expand...

CP, I know how this works. You had no idea what you were posting but it didn’t stop you from posting it. as it gets harder and harder for you to admit you were wrong, you posts will get more incoherent in an attempt to obfuscate what you said.

Conservative editorials lied when they claimed Obamacare used budget gimmicks to show it reduced the deficit. You now use the phrase “artificial score”. They claimed it only showed a deficit because it was 10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits. Now it is 10 years of benefits vs 10 years of revenue but the CBO said there is no change to the budgetary impact. If it was an “artificial score” or “budget gimmick” the deficit reduction ie budgetary impact would have changed each year as we approached 2014. It didn’t.

The sources you and Greenbeard have thus far cited confirm that analysis.

You are mistaking a lack of increasing the projected costs for subsidies with a lack of projected increase in deficit spending over a 10-year window.

Click to expand...

Since you are unable to understand Greenbeard’s chart focus on what I posted. I posted the CBO telling you there has been no change to the budgetary impact. Read that as slowly and read it as many times necessary for it to sink in.

Do you see now where the guy whose analysis you ran with mixed up one thing (annual impact on deficit aggregated over 10 years starting at present) for another (estimated cost of subsidies)?

Click to expand...

Like I said, your posts will get more and more incoherent. I posted the CBO link. they didn’t mix up anything. You are now posting incoherent babble rather than admit "budget gimmicks" or "artificial score" was and is a lie.

You also posted another lying editorial that said costs increased “wildly”. the chart you so graciously posted from the CBO link shows that increasing costs were always expected. See the 2010 baseline. See how ‘costs’ were always going up. and now read this very slowly: costs increased less than expected. (again, read it as many times as necessary)

So a very simple question, did costs increase wildly or less than expected?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

1. It seems pretty heavily dependent upon those "cuts to other spending", which is to say, "not passing the doc fix and then accounting the savings on to fund Obamacare subsidies", and isn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't gotten the memo but per capita spending growth in Medicare basically stopped in 2012.

Between January and March of 2010 the CBO's estimates of Medicare spending fell by almost $600 billion thanks to statutory changes in the ACA. Those are the drops that constituted the majority of the spending offsets that partially paid for the ACA.

But if you compare the January 2010 projection of 2010-2020 spending with the latest CBO projections for that same time period from May of 2013 (which take into account actual Medicare spending over the first part of that window and take into account the actual spending growth we've been seeing in future projections), that number is now about $1.1 trillion lower than pre-ACA estimates.

Lower federal health spending offsets most of the new spending in the ACA in the first decade plus of its existence--even before you take into account the law's revenue-raising provisions--simply due to the drop-off in Medicare spending growth. That wasn't expected when the law was passed, as they thought it would have to be half slower spending growth and half new revenues. But the way things have shaken out, much of that new revenue isn't going to be necessary.

2. If you take a look at the early years, it actually confirms the point that the OP claimed was a lie. The use of early-year revenue reductions and increased taxes are indeed used to offset the costs of out-year expenditures in order to keep the whole thing deficit neutral or reducing.

Click to expand...

Not, it doesn't. The only years that aren't deficit neutral or deficit-reducing on a year-by-year basis are 2016 and 2017, and both of them only just. They're more than offset (in any budget window, including one that excludes pre-2014 years) by deficit reduction in every other year of the ACA's existence. The implication that some deception has happened because the ACA isn't deficit neutral after 2014 is obviously false, as can easily be seen by looking at the graphic.

Which is an old graphic, by the way, and thus overstates both new spending under the ACA (now projected to be a few tens of billions less per year than expected in 2010) and understates reductions in spending in other federal health programs that have showed up due to the unanticipated slowdown in health spending growth nationwide.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Hicup said:

Where did they go, cpwill?


Tim-

Click to expand...

He appears to have a single idea, fixed solidly in his mind, and it will admit no new information. Let's give it one more go.

Vern said:

Now it is 10 years of benefits vs 10 years of revenue but the CBO said there is no change to the budgetary impact. If it was an “artificial score” or “budget gimmick” the deficit reduction ie budgetary impact would have changed each year as we approached 2014. It didn’t.

Click to expand...

Vern. They are discussing the changes for the same years. Observe:


So, you will note, the years whose costs have not changed dramatically, and have indeed been reduced somewhat are FY2009-FY2019. The CBO is saying that it's estimate of the same years that it originally estimated remains roughly the same.

Now, what do they say about the cost from here on out. Do they say that it will cost us the $710 Bn you are referencing?

No they do not:

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

CP, remember how I said your posts will get more incoherent in an attempt to obfuscate what you said? I do. Humor me CP, answer one very simple question, did Obamacare costs increase wildly or less than expected?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Greenbeard said:

cpwill said:

1. It seems pretty heavily dependent upon those "cuts to other spending", which is to say, "not passing the doc fix and then accounting the savings on to fund Obamacare subsidies", and isn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't gotten the memo but per capita spending growth in Medicare basically stopped in 2012.

Click to expand...

That's nice to hear - gosh so long as there is no such thing as a Baby Boom generation, that means we are in great shape.

However, I am curious. How in the world does one year of no per-capita growth in Medicare Spending at all obviate the point that we have continued to pass the doc fix and will continue to pass the doc fix?

Between January and March of 2010 the CBO's estimates of Medicare spending fell by almost $600 billion thanks to statutory changes in the ACA.

Click to expand...

If by that you mean the reduction in payment schedules, yes. Unfortunately, those estimates that have to be scored in the ACA don't come true in real life because we pass the Doc Fix every year.

Be that as it may, the very accounting is a lie - Obamacare is not actually failing to run a deficit if costs in other parts of the government are being reduced. I could just as easily take $600 Bn, apply it to defense, and claim that the DOD budget this year was zero.

Not, it doesn't. The only years that aren't deficit neutral or deficit-reducing on a year-by-year basis are 2016 and 2017, and both of them only just.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because then magically we won't pass the doc fix and realize massive savings from Medicare, which they are scoring somehow as inflows for Obamacare. Unfortunately for our bottom line, both you and I know that is not going to happen.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

CP, remember how I said your posts will get more incoherent in an attempt to obfuscate what you said? I do. Humor me CP, answer one very simple question, did Obamacare costs increase wildly or less than expected?

Click to expand...

They increased wildly AS expected. This is what seems to be hard for you to internalize. We always knew that the 10 year costs were going to rise dramatically when we moved from scoring only 6 years of exchange expenditures to scoring 10 years of expenditures. That basic point (which you have labeled a "lie"), has not changed, and has instead been demonstrated as accurate as it's equivalent, that 2+2 does indeed = 4. So now you are running around hollering that the dramatic increases that we knew were coming are actually coming in a small amount less than originally estimated as though it somehow disproves the movement upwards.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

If by that you mean the reduction in payment schedules, yes. Unfortunately, those estimates that have to be scored in the ACA don't come true in real life because we pass the Doc Fix every year.

Click to expand...

CBO | How Have CBO’s Projections of Spending for Medicare and Medicaid Changed Since the August 2012 Baseline?

In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.

In response to that slowdown, over the past several years CBO has made a series of downward adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. For example, from the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, technical revisions—mostly reflecting the slower growth in the programs’ spending in recent years—have lowered CBO’s estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion—by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.

Click to expand...

Actual spending is coming in lower than the projections you're describing as unrealistic. That's real life.

Be that as it may, the very accounting is a lie - Obamacare is not actually failing to run a deficit if costs in other parts of the government are being reduced. I could just as easily take $600 Bn, apply it to defense, and claim that the DOD budget this year was zero.

Click to expand...

"Net changes in other [primarily Medicare] spending" is a key part of how the ACA's coverage expansions are paid for. It turns out Medicare spending growth has slowed even more dramatically than the law's framers (and the CBO scorers) anticipated. That improves the deficit picture still further.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Greenbeard said:

CBO | How Have CBO’s Projections of Spending for Medicare and Medicaid Changed Since the August 2012 Baseline?

Actual spending is coming in lower than the projections you're describing as unrealistic. That's real life.

"Net changes in other [primarily Medicare] spending" is a key part of how the ACA's coverage expansions are paid for. It turns out Medicare spending growth has slowed even more dramatically than the law's framers (and the CBO scorers) anticipated. That improves the deficit picture still further.

Click to expand...

False Intended Implication: the PPACA did not score "for unanticipated reasons the rate of growth in Medicare/Medicaid spending slows from current projections" as a means of paying for itself. It scored not passing the doc fix as a means of paying for itself.

You are attempting to score happy happenstance as part of an unconnected program. Again, I could just as easily declare that it should count against DOD, and claim that the Pentagon is now reducing the deficit.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

They increased wildly AS expected.

Click to expand...

Wow, usually cons contradict themselves elsewhere in the thread or later in the same post even. I’ve never seen a con contradict himself in one sentence. Amazeballs! You are an amazing con CP. Anyhoo, everyone knew costs would go up. The CBO graph you so graciously posted proves that. And amazingly costs went up less than predicted but you foolishly used the term “wildly” so now rather than admit you were wrong you double down on your silliness.

We always knew that the 10 year costs were going to rise dramatically when we moved from scoring only 6 years of exchange expenditures to scoring 10 years of expenditures. That basic point (which you have labeled a "lie"), has not changed, and has instead been demonstrated as accurate as it's equivalent, that 2+2 does indeed = 4.

Click to expand...

And of course its no shock that you still pretend not to understand my clear and straightforward point. My point (and it was clear) was republicans were lying when they said “it only reduces the deficit because of budget gimmicks”. If it only reduced the deficit because gimmicks, where’s the updated estimate with “10 years of benefits vs 10 years of revenue” for the 2014 - 2023 timeframe? yea, it still reduces the deficit hence it was a lie. And CP, that’s why lying conservative editorials got away from the lying “10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits” narrative and started using the deceptive “costs” narrative. they knew cons wouldnt understand their deceptiveness (your “wildly” statement proves it fooled you)

Oh that’s right, you pointed to some front loaded revenues and savings and saying “AHA!”. Good one CP, except nobody (read that slowly) nobody denied some savings and revenues were frontloaded (mostly savings). The lie from republicans was that it only reduced the deficit because of that front loaded savings. Understand yet? Again, the 2014 -2023 estimate still shows it reduces the deficit so again, "only reduces the deficit because of gimmicks" was a lie.

So now you are running around hollering that the dramatic increases that we knew were coming are actually coming in a small amount less than originally estimated as though it somehow disproves the movement upwards.

Click to expand...

And as predicted out comes the incoherent babble. Read this slowly CP, if I said “costs increased less than expected” that means I knew costs were going up. For you to try to spin it (and dishonestly at that) that I think “it disproves the movement upwards” is just as sad and deperate as “They increased wildly AS expected. “ You simply were fooled by the deceptive “editorial” and you think its better to play dumb than admit the facts. Conservative editorials cant play you for the fool unless you let them.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

. Anyhoo, everyone knew costs would go up. The CBO graph you so graciously posted proves that.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. That has been conservatives' point from the beginning - what you have labelled a "lie". I am glad to see you have reconsidered your position.

And amazingly costs went up less than predicted but you foolishly used the term “wildly” so now rather than admit you were wrong you double down on your silliness.

Click to expand...

The 10 year cost has increased wildly - from 898 Bn to over 1.3 Trillion. Exactly of the type that conservatives have been pointing out would happen since the beginning.

And of course its no shock that you still pretend not to understand my clear and straightforward point. My point (and it was clear) was republicans were lying when they said “it only reduces the deficit because of budget gimmicks”.

Click to expand...

Yes. As you yourself admit, the costs of the program increase (you might even say "wildly") once we move from scoring only 6 years to scoring the full 10. Yet we started scoring inflows during the 4 years that benefits weren't being paid out - and that was done specifically to keep the program on a deficit over the 10 year window.

If it only reduced the deficit because gimmicks, where’s the updated estimate with “10 years of benefits vs 10 years of revenue” for the 2014 - 2023 timeframe? yea, it still reduces the deficit hence it was a lie.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect for the reasons I have already detailed for you. The savings that they were scoring as helping to fund Obamacare aren't happening, because every year we pass the Doc Fix.

Furthermore, if you want to go with "benefits v revenue", then you have a real problem, because revenue, as I understand it, wasn't only ever about half the funding.

And CP, that’s why lying conservative editorials got away from the lying “10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits” narrative and started using the deceptive “costs” narrative. they knew cons wouldnt understand their deceptiveness (your “wildly” statement proves it fooled you)

Click to expand...

:doh you agreed with me :lol:

Oh that’s right, you pointed to some front loaded revenues and savings and saying “AHA!”. Good one CP, except nobody (read that slowly) nobody denied some savings and revenues were frontloaded (mostly savings). The lie from republicans was that it only reduced the deficit because of that front loaded savings. Understand yet? Again, the 2014 -2023 estimate still shows it reduces the deficit so again, "only reduces the deficit because of gimmicks" was a lie.

Click to expand...

:doh because the law requires the CBO to score savings that aren't happening. The CBO in that estimate has to assume each year that we are going to not pass the Doc Fix, even though we are. Scoring imaginary savings as helping reduce the deficit is a gimmick. Trying to make up for that by scoring other reductions in mandatory spending that are unrelated as funding Obamacare as Greenbeard is attempting to do is a gimmick.

Now, what happens when you accept that we aren't going to wreck Medicare by dramatically reducing our reimbursement schedule? According to the GAO when you use a realistic set of assumptions, Obamacare Increases The Deficit by $6.2 Trillion Dollars.

Oh, before you decide to go off on that - the "realistic" scenario there is the one outlined by the CBO, the CMS trustees, and the chief Medicare actuary.

woops.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

Yes, thank you. That has been conservatives' point from the beginning - what you have labelled a "lie". I am glad to see you have reconsidered your position.

Click to expand...

yea, we're at the stage I seem to get to with every conservative. You cant admit you were wrong so you resort to "claiming victory". The increasing gross costs were always in the baseline and in no way change the fact that the republican narrative that "deficit reduction was achieved thru gimmicks" is and was a lie. You can only try to spin that fact away and deflect with your even more ridiculous narrative "costs increased wildly".

Of course you're happy to believe the deceptive narrative about "costs doubling". Again notice how 'conservative editorials' no longer address the deficit reduction aspect of Obamacare. Yea, if deficit reduction was achieved thru gimmicks, con editorials would be updating it daily.

The 10 year cost has increased wildly - from 898 Bn to over 1.3 Trillion. Exactly of the type that conservatives have been pointing out would happen since the beginning.

Click to expand...

you only embarrass yourself clinging to that "wildly" narrative. Gross costs were always expected to go up. Conservative editorials knew you would "swallow" that lying narrative with no questions asked. Obamacare lowers the deficit in the first decade and even more so in the second decade. so much for gimmicks.

If gross costs increased "wildly", why hasn't the net cost increased "wildly" too?

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

Vern said:

yea, we're at the stage I seem to get to with every conservative. You cant admit you were wrong so you resort to "claiming victory". The increasing gross costs were always in the baseline and in no way change the fact that the republican narrative that "deficit reduction was achieved thru gimmicks" is and was a lie. You can only try to spin that fact away and deflect with your even more ridiculous narrative "costs increased wildly".

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you have to pretend that anyone is lying when we are in agreement.

1. The costs have increased rapidly (you could even say "wildly" )
2. Everyone always knew this was going to happen
3. The initial effect was to downplay the cost of Obamacare.

Of course you're happy to believe the deceptive narrative about "costs doubling". Again notice how 'conservative editorials' no longer address the deficit reduction aspect of Obamacare. Yea, if deficit reduction was achieved thru gimmicks, con editorials would be updating it daily.

Click to expand...

Earlier for you I posted a link to every single year since that we have passed the Doc Fix. Feel free to go back and try to debunk any of them. I'll wait.

you only embarrass yourself clinging to that "wildly" narrative.

Click to expand...

:doh 898 Bn to over 1.3 Trillion is a pretty serious jump. If you want to get hung up on adjectives, be my guest.

Gross costs were always expected to go up.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And wildly so.

Conservative editorials knew you would "swallow" that lying narrative with no questions asked. Obamacare lowers the deficit in the first decade and even more so in the second decade. so much for gimmicks.

Click to expand...

It only does so when you count the gimmicks as actually occurring - which, as I have already demonstrated to you in this thread (and, which, interestingly, I note you do not try to argue) they are not.

If gross costs increased "wildly", why hasn't the net cost increased "wildly" too?

Click to expand...

It has. To the tune of $6.2 Trillion. I noticed you somehow for some reason missed that part.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

:doh because the law requires the CBO to score savings that aren't happening. The CBO in that estimate has to assume each year that we are going to not pass the Doc Fix, even though we are. Scoring imaginary savings as helping reduce the deficit is a gimmick. Trying to make up for that by scoring other reductions in mandatory spending that are unrelated as funding Obamacare as Greenbeard is attempting to do is a gimmick.

Now, what happens when you accept that we aren't going to wreck Medicare by dramatically reducing our reimbursement schedule? According to the GAO when you use a realistic set of assumptions, Obamacare Increases The Deficit by $6.2 Trillion Dollars.

Click to expand...

You're confusing concepts here. The Medicare savings in the ACA don't involve cuts to the physician fee schedule. They're derived from resetting the Medicare Advantage benchmarks to reduce subsidies to those plans, and adjusting the fee schedules for hospitals, health agencies, and skilled-nursing facilities to reflect slower growth due to productivity gains. The resulting projections of slower growth have proven too pessimistic (because, again, Medicare is turning out to cost less than even the most "unrealistic" projections back in 2010 anticipated).

The doc fixes to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 don't reflect the deficit impact of the ACA. Nor any law, for that matter, since the doc fixes are deficit neutral (indeed, the most recent ones have been paid for in part via offsets from the ACA, cutting spending from that law). Doc fixes would only impact the deficit picture if they weren't being paid for, but they always are.

Re: "Obama only reduces the deficit beause its 10 yrs of revenue vs 6 yrs of benefits

cpwill said:

Now, what happens when you accept that we aren't going to wreck Medicare by dramatically reducing our reimbursement schedule? According to the GAO when you use a realistic set of assumptions, Obamacare Increases The Deficit by $6.2 Trillion Dollars.
Oh, before you decide to go off on that - the "realistic" scenario there is the one outlined by the CBO, the CMS trustees, and the chief Medicare actuary.
woops.

Click to expand...

mmmmm, I like how you use a National Review headline disguised as a link to a GAO report. Deceptive or dishonest? mmmmm, why not just link to the NR editorial instead instead? this what I read at National review.

“Under this scenario, the “primary deficit” increases by 0.7 percent of GDP over the 75-year period. The GAO does not put a dollar value on that figure, but Senate Budget Committee staff has calculated, and GAO has confirmed, that it would amount to a $6.2 trillion increase in the federal deficit”

GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online

Let me sum it up for you. If the worst case scenario happens ( the ‘editorial’ called it the more ‘realistic’ scenario not the GAO) Obamacare will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit OVER A 75 YEAR PERIOD. Let me put it in context for you, take bush’s contribution to the national debt and spread it over 75 years. No wonder you deceptively or dishonestly tried to pretend you were quoting the GAO.

So the worst case scenario is 6.2 trillion over a 75 year period. Thanks for the laughs and thanks for proving you are “deceptive” at best.

cpwill said:

I don't understand why you have to pretend that anyone is lying when we are in agreement.
1. The costs have increased rapidly (you could even say "wildly" )
2. Everyone always knew this was going to happen
3. The initial effect was to downplay the cost of Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Yea, I think you just proved me calling you “deceptive” was being too kind. Much too kind. Again, you have to post blatant falsehoods to make your point. If we agreed, I wouldn't be correcting your false and deceptive points.

1 Costs increasing less than expected is not “wildly”. I used to think you were just foolish making that claim. Now I see its just part of your overall attempts to deceive.

2 Intelligent people knew. Cons like your self didn’t know. That’s why you fell for the replacement narrative that “Obamacare costs DOUBLED”. It replaced the lying “10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits” narrative

3 no silly, I disproved that narrative in the first post of this thread. Obamacare reduces the deficit over the first decade and more so the second decade. And not for nothing, the opinion of someone who resorts to the things you post aint worth much.

On a quick side note,if I posted a 75 year projection as some sort of rebuttal even the moderators would join in mocking me.