• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO's record on ACA projections

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,177
Reaction score
21,525
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
CBO looks back on how they did: CBO’s Record of Projecting Subsidies for Health Insurance Under the Affordable Care Act: 2014 to 2016

No big surprises: the ACA is costing less than predicted (in total and on a per-subsidized person basis) but it's also covering fewer people than projected.

Capture.png


CBO and JCT’s March 2010 and May 2013 estimates of Medicaid expenditures for people made newly eligible for the program by the ACA plus subsidies for health insurance received through the marketplaces and the Basic Health Program were close to the actual amounts in 2014 and 2015 but well above the actual amounts in 2016.

Capture.png

Capture.png


CBO and JCT overestimated costs to the federal government in part because the agencies overestimated the number of people who would enroll through the marketplaces and receive subsidies, particularly in 2016. . .

CBO and JCT also overpredicted total costs for subsidized enrollees because the agencies estimated average costs per subsidized enrollee that were too high—by about one-third, on average, over the 2014–2016 period.

Capture.png


In March 2010, before incorporating the Supreme Court’s decision affecting Medicaid, the agencies estimated the number of un- insured people at 21 million, or 8 percent of the population under age 65. As reported by the National Health Interview Survey (conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the number turned out to be 28 million, or 10 percent of the 271 million people under age 65.
 
I'm not sure why anybody takes the CBO projections seriously . Not that they are incompetent, it's just that their job is next to impossible.
 
The Op should ask what the American people are paying out of pocket, not what the CBO predicts on the government side.

Ya know............the ones that live it first hand. :shrug:
 
The Op should ask what the American people are paying out of pocket, not what the CBO predicts on the government side.

Ya know............the ones that live it first hand. :shrug:

Er uh Rn, mandates were created by republicans specifically to lower the cost to the govt. so if you can think of a plan that has lower costs to the govt, isn’t single payer, improves the quality of care and lowers the costs to the consumer, please contact your local congressman. Republicans are desperately looking for this magic plan. I take that back, since conservatives never hold their own accountable, they really aren't that desperate.
 
I'm not sure why anybody takes the CBO projections seriously . Not that they are incompetent, it's just that their job is next to impossible.

see how your agenda requires you to believe everybody is a liar or an idiot. Be it the CBO, DOJ, FBI or even ketchup, you'll obediently hate who you are told to hate.
 
see how your agenda requires you to believe everybody is a liar or an idiot. Be it the CBO, DOJ, FBI or even ketchup, you'll obediently hate who you are told to hate.

Vern- really, you should take off your partisan glasses for 5 minutes. The CBO projects for both Republicans and Democrats.
 
Vern- really, you should take off your partisan glasses for 5 minutes. The CBO projects for both Republicans and Democrats.

They do?!?!?! Since when?!?! Anyhoo, the point you are overlooking is when you are told to ignore the CBO because its analysis doesn’t support your conservative agenda you ignore the CBO. You were told the CBO was lying about Obamacare so every conservative obediently flailed at it. You were told the FBI is “out to get trump” so now every conservative obediently flails at the FBI. Your conservative masters wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.

And klat, the reason you “assume” I don’t know what the CBO does is because you’re unable to respond to what I posted. Your “brain” tricks you into “misparaphrasing” my post to satisfy your emotional need to respond.
 
They do?!?!?! Since when?!?! Anyhoo, the point you are overlooking is when you are told to ignore the CBO because its analysis doesn’t support your conservative agenda you ignore the CBO. You were told the CBO was lying about Obamacare so every conservative obediently flailed at it. You were told the FBI is “out to get trump” so now every conservative obediently flails at the FBI. Your conservative masters wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.

And klat, the reason you “assume” I don’t know what the CBO does is because you’re unable to respond to what I posted. Your “brain” tricks you into “misparaphrasing” my post to satisfy your emotional need to respond.

Hoy strawman,Vern! Too many to count.
I don't just ignore the CBO projections about the ACA , I ignore them about pretty much everything.

I never said the CBO was lying,I simply stated that their job is impossible.
I never said a word about the FBI and Trump.
the rest of you partisan blathering makes you like a partisn fool, Vern.( I was in favor of the ACA)
 
Hoy strawman,Vern! Too many to count.
I don't just ignore the CBO projections about the ACA , I ignore them about pretty much everything.

I never said the CBO was lying,I simply stated that their job is impossible.
I never said a word about the FBI and Trump.
the rest of you partisan blathering makes you like a partisn fool, Vern.( I was in favor of the ACA)

ahhhh, how nice, they're not liars, they're job is impossible. Your conservative narrative ignoring CBO estimates remains intact. Just because you're nicer about it doesn't make it any more true or any less a conservative narrative.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...s-no-better-than-throwing-darts/#629d11dd67a2

The latest Senate Republican healthcare reform plan, like its House predecessor, appears now to have failed. It did so for many reasons, some good and some not so good. Among the not-so-good reasons the proposal failed were the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. As I show here, CBO projections more than two years into the future in the domain it perhaps studies most -- federal deficits -- are little better than random guesses.

YEP!
 
CBO looks back on how they did: CBO’s Record of Projecting Subsidies for Health Insurance Under the Affordable Care Act: 2014 to 2016

No big surprises: the ACA is costing less than predicted (in total and on a per-subsidized person basis) but it's also covering fewer people than projected.

More alarming are the real numbers. Weve spent nearly a trillion on health insurance for those under 65 since ACA was enacted. $6000 per year per enrollee! Thats damn near my entire tax bill.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...s-no-better-than-throwing-darts/#629d11dd67a2

The latest Senate Republican healthcare reform plan, like its House predecessor, appears now to have failed. It did so for many reasons, some good and some not so good. Among the not-so-good reasons the proposal failed were the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. As I show here, CBO projections more than two years into the future in the domain it perhaps studies most -- federal deficits -- are little better than random guesses.

YEP!

Klat, first off the CBO's deficit estimates are not " little better than random guesses." But klat, the reason your "editorial" is attacking the CBO's deficit estimates is it cant attack its Obamacare estimates. They were pretty good. It wants to discredit the CBO's estimates of the awful republican healthcare alternatives but it cant use relevant estimates so it had to find something it could point to. And klat, your editorial even mentioned the "mean ole trump Russia investigation".

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/cbos-obamacare-predictions-how-accurate/

The CBO, just like the FBI, is the best at what it does but facts hurt the conservative agenda so your conservative masters have to discredit them. You have to stop listening to liars.
 
Klat, first off the CBO's deficit estimates are not " little better than random guesses." But klat, the reason your "editorial" is attacking the CBO's deficit estimates is it cant attack its Obamacare estimates. They were pretty good. It wants to discredit the CBO's estimates of the awful republican healthcare alternatives but it cant use relevant estimates so it had to find something it could point to. And klat, your editorial even mentioned the "mean ole trump Russia investigation".

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/cbos-obamacare-predictions-how-accurate/

The CBO, just like the FBI, is the best at what it does but facts hurt the conservative agenda so your conservative masters have to discredit them. You have to stop listening to liars.

You just don't give up do you,Mr. hyper partisan. I guessit's projectio you assume since you are hyper partisn , everybody else is as weell.
The CBO estimates hurt the conservative agenda just as much as the liberal agenda.

And by the way- I supported the ACA>.So there goes dopey line of 'reasoning'.

And what does the FBI have to with the CBO? Or is it just a another hyper-partisan strawman?
 
You just don't give up do you,Mr. hyper partisan. I guessit's projectio you assume since you are hyper partisn , everybody else is as weell.
The CBO estimates hurt the conservative agenda just as much as the liberal agenda.

And by the way- I supported the ACA>.So there goes dopey line of 'reasoning'.

And what does the FBI have to with the CBO? Or is it just a another hyper-partisan strawman?

klat, whether you understand it or not, the official conservative narrative is to attack the CBO. And its official because very little of what republicans "propose" is based in reality. And klat, the CBO doesn't hurt the "liberal agenda" because they propose things based in reality. You don't see the propaganda attacks on the CBO from the left or the legitimate media. You do from the right and the conservative media. You just cant pretend to not see the obedient posts from the right here attacking it.

And your inability to grasp the significance of me bringing the FBI is bad all by itself but I've explained it. See how your brain tries to protect you from reality.
 
klat, whether you understand it or not, the official conservative narrative is to attack the CBO.

And your inability to grasp the significance of me bringing the FBI is bad all by itself but I've explained it. See how your brain tries to protect you from reality.

.......and the official liberal narrative is to defend it no matter what.

you do EXACLTY what you accuse other of doing, but in typical liberal fashion, you don't see it is a problem becaase you ( delusionally ) view your side as the "good guys."


"Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye?…"
Matthew 7:3
 
.......and the official liberal narrative is to defend it no matter what.

you do EXACLTY what you accuse other of doing, but in typical liberal fashion, you don't see it is a problem becaase you ( delusionally ) view your side as the "good guys."


"Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye?…"
Matthew 7:3

you seem to be avoiding the fact that facts don't hurt the "librul agenda" or not understanding why I mentioned the FBI. Its almost as if you know they were false. But that couldn't be the case, that would make you dishonest. Anyhoo klat, I don't pretend the CBO is perfect but they are the authority on the matters they review. and "libruls" don't have to lie about them. Flailing at and lying about the CBO doesn't change the reality of the awful republican healthcare alternatives but it does in the mind of obedient conservatives. Now you may not be lying about them but you are definitely ignoring that the right is.

There is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Jemima 8:15
 
The Op should ask what the American people are paying out of pocket, not what the CBO predicts on the government side.

Ya know............the ones that live it first hand. :shrug:

Yep - The key metric should be "Total spending, including insurance costs, for both healthcare recipients and healthcare providers". If it went up, then it was a bad plan, if it went down then it was a good plan.
 
I'm not sure why anybody takes the CBO projections seriously . Not that they are incompetent, it's just that their job is next to impossible.

Something they readily admitted to in their ACA analysis.
 
Back
Top Bottom