Skip to main content

View Diary: CBO: Obamacare will have lower premiums, insure more, and cost government less than projected (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The ACA was always predicted to lower the deficit (10+ / 0-)

        The CBO has always considered the PPACA to be a deficit reducing law. It would not have garnered the votes it needed to pass if that were not a fact. Initially the figures were lowering the deficit by around 300 Billion over the first ten years and more in the out years. I'm happy to see that they still consider the ACA as a deficit reducer after tens of millions of Americans finally have health insurance and all of us will have better health insurance. Why aren't you happy?

    •  not really.. (0+ / 0-)

      When they did their comparison, they used "current law" as the baseline.

      That baseline was unsustainable and needed to be modified anyway.

      The biggest "savings" are to Medicare and due to cuts built in that will likely never happen.  Congress has overridden those cuts each and every year.

      The White House just announced that Medicare Advantage cuts that were scheduled to kick in this year will will not happen.

      What a bunch of mumbo jumbo.. savings, my ass.

      Why am I not happy?  Because
      a: no real savings (see above)
      b: Americans will be paying more out of their pockets.  Even if it did cost the gov't less, it will end up costing Americans more in the long run.

      ACA is a terrible way to implement universal health care.  It always was.  It is too expensive and inefficient, and doesn't even guarantee much actual health care.

      •  The ACA as written was all that was possible (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawn87, OhioNatureMom, HeyMikey

        In the face of the most intense obstructionism for the sake of pig headed obstructionism from a united Republican caucus and conservadems like Baucus the version of the PPACA that became law is all that was possible. It is the first step or as Sister Palin would say a door newly opened. Hells bells the public option was not even possible let alone single payer/universal coverage so just take away the frown and try to be happy that anything was passed at all. The ACA is a small miracle when you look at the timeline and the money thrown at its demise.

        •  I realize that.. and I agree.. (0+ / 0-)

          That doesn't mean I have to pretend it is great.. it is a really crappy law that positively affects a small number of Americans, and negatively affects a very large number - i.e. those in individual plans not getting subsidies plus almost everyone getting insurance through their employers.

          I'm sorry.  I can't put enough lipstick on this pig to make it look good.

          And the worst part is, most of the money goes to big insurers.

          •  Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case (4+ / 0-)

            Everybody who has insurance is positively affected by the new rules requiring everybody to be eligible for coverage; no annual or lifetime limitations on coverage; a limit on out-of-pocket expenses; and more. In spite of fearmongering, premiums will go up less next year than for many years past. Insurance company profits are now capped. The limits should be lower, but until the ACA there were none.

            Why do you use Republican talking points?

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 02:22:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  JJ is right about one thing... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JJ In Illinois

              It is, at the very least, confusing that the CBO is making both of the following claims at the same time:

              * The net cost of the ACA is less than originally projected.

              * The ACA reduces the deficit.

              Anything that reduces the deficit is a net revenue generator, not any net cost.

              I presume there are some meaningful accounting principles behind the simultaneous announcement of both claims. And yes, I well know that the ACA has been billed as reducing the deficit even since before it was signed into law. But the average American doesn't know diddly about accounting principles, and barely knows diddly about the history of the ACA. When the CBO is making announcements for consumption by the general public, it ought to be clearer.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 06:32:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  All this BS about (0+ / 0-)

              Republican talking points is misdirection..

              there are facts..  and there are facts..

              Republican talking points attack ACA on principle..it's "socialized medicine"... stupid talk.

              There are some very good parts of ACA.. no yearly or lifetime limits..  no pre-existing conditions on ratings.

              As far as "out-of-pocket expenses" goes, there always has been a defined limit.. it varied with each plan, of course.  But most plans were well under the new ACA limits.

              ACA's out-of-pocket expenses are much much higher on many plans than pre-ACA.

              ACA has taken choice out of the picture..especially for young and healthy adults, who welcomed high out of pocket per year plans, since their risk was minimal.

              A catastrophic coverage plan for all Americans would have been a much more equitable policy.

              •  This too turns out not to be the case (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radiowalla, Shawn87, rabrock

                Those plans had caps on coverage. The policyholder was on the hook for everything over the cap. I don't even know what these words could mean in that situation.

                As far as "out-of-pocket expenses" goes, there always has been a defined limit.. it varied with each plan, of course.  But most plans were well under the new ACA limits.

                Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                by Mokurai on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:51:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  So there's no savings compared to your imaginary (0+ / 0-)

        reforms that you don't share with us?

        So there's no "real" savings?  

        I think "real" isn't a word you should be using.

        b: Americans will be paying more out of their pockets
        Nope.  The free market in health insurance is going to work to keep costs down, just like our republican friends said it would.  

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site