- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Or 1 trillion in increased spending (since the savings are hypothetical). The goal is to reduce the deficit. ACA did not do that. Its worse than ever. We are spending more than ever on healthcare. Its more expensive than ever. Capping medicaid spending would reduce the deficit, if no other changes are made.
So, once again, the savings from hypothetical per capita Medicaid caps are relative to the CBO's baseline, the same as the ACA's savings (which turned out to be trillions of dollars). The deficit reduction is relative to what the deficit would be, not what it is today. Nominal Medicaid spending is still higher in ten years than it is today with those proposed caps. Just as nominal federal health spending is higher today than it was 15 years ago even though the ACA achieved trillions of dollars in savings over that timespan.
So no, the ACA's savings aren't hypothetical, they've actually happened. And that's reduced the deficit (cumulatively by trillions of dollars over the last decade and a half), the same as your proposed Medicaid caps. The difference is that the savings in the ACA have already happened, they're not a proposal in a white paper. And they're about four times larger than what you're proposing.