- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Apparently 23 MILLION will die. CBO score out
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:22 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:22 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
especially for those over 50. I have to say I might be a tad nervous if I was a senator from quite a few states.
Yes. Thanks for the link. So, If I was a 60 year old man making $50K a year from my retirement income living in Houston county, AL. and If I picked the silver plan under the BCRA plan I would pay $1,164/month. Under the ACA I would pay $425/month.
I will be one of the 23 million dead and will die of starvation
1
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:24 pm to AUFanInSoCal
Anchor on CNN was just giving a dem rep a pretty hard time over the fact that, according to the CBO report, of the 23 million that apparently loose coverage, 15 million of that number will do so willingly because there is no longer a requirement to purchase. She flat told him it seems like your distorting the truth by implying that giving something up and having it taken from you is the same thing.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why does the CBO characterize medicaid as insurance?
Because it is.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:36 pm to ljhog
quote:
by their choice I might add
Yep. "Hmmm, a pack of smokes, 12 pack of bud and a fifth of Jim Beam a day or health insurance?. What kind of dumb question is that?....got a light?"
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:50 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Anchor on CNN was just giving a dem rep a pretty hard time over the fact that, according to the CBO report, of the 23 million that apparently loose coverage, 15 million of that number will do so willingly because there is no longer a requirement to purchase. She flat told him it seems like your distorting the truth by implying that giving something up and having it taken from you is the same thing.
I don't know where that anchor got her numbers from or her context?
The CBO does not say at any point that 15 million people will do so willingly. Unless you define "willingly" as also including being priced out of the market and "15 million" as a number less then that. There is a paragraph that mentions that of the first 15 million people that will be uninsured in 2018 compared to current law, they will primarily be from people not purchasing insurance. But primarily is not entirely. But yes, many people will be healthy, have enough money, and just choose not to get insurance. Others will be poor people, older, and sicker people that see a much higher price out of pocket for their premiums due to reduced subsidies, and much higher deductibles and will not find it economically feasible to purchase it. In fact they even mention that for some people the cost of deductibles will be half of their total salary. Making the insurance unusable.
But that healthy pool forgoing has its consequences as well:
quote:
Under the Senate bill, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 20 percent higher in 2018 than under current law, mainly because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up.
Premiums will go back down lower over current law according to the CBO over the long run, but that is because of lower actuarial value requirements and other changes which will lead to sparser plans and much higher deductibles. So the trade off in slightly lower premiums is higher deductibles and sparser coverage.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:53 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
I don't know where that anchor got her numbers from or her context?
Just repeating what she said. The dem rep tried to explain it away instead of denying it, so I just assumed it was true. I have better things to do than read a 40 something page hypothetical report about something that isn't even a law.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 6:59 pm to bamarep
quote:
23 MILLION will die.
Trump trimming the fat.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 7:02 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Just repeating what she said. The dem rep tried to explain it away instead of denying it, so I just assumed it was true. I have better things to do than read a 40 something page hypothetical report about something that isn't even a law.
If I had to guess, that anchor read the first few pages, saw that paragraph I mentioned, filled in the gaps without properly contextualizing, and the Dam spokesperson probably skimmed the report and barely prepared before that interview. As you say, a 40 page report. Released only a few hours ago.
All the more reason this entire process has been a farce....And why no one looking to be informed should watch any cable news.
Conservatives can bitch all they want about the ACA process, but it at least held 100's of hours of public hearings and floor debate and releasing their bills at least a week before voting attached with a CBO score. Allowing ample time to unpack and process everything before making decisions.
The lesson the GOP seemed to have learned from their own behavior is that there best chance to pass a shitty bill to give tax cuts to the rich paid for by healthcare cuts disguised as health "reform" is to do everything they accused the left of doing and worse.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 6/26/17 at 7:03 pm to bamarep
quote:
How will the streets hold that many bodies?
I'm just guessing but we can probably afford to bury them after we sue the swing company
Posted on 6/26/17 at 7:39 pm to bonhoeffer45
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/28/17 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 6/26/17 at 8:31 pm to bigblake
quote:
How is giving tax cuts to the rich passing the bill? If you haven't noticed, most rich Americans are/were Democrat/Clinton supporters.
Couldn't you then say this about ACA: 'there[sic] best chance to pass a shitty bill to[sic] raise taxes on the rich and give subsidies to everyone else disguised as health "reform" '
You could definitely say that the ACA increased some taxes to pay for subsidies, sustain programs, and expand coverage.
The issue here is that the AHCA does little else except the reverse. And the CBO really illustrates this in their report.
You don't have to agree, but for instance the Cadillac tax(which I think does need re-working) was meant to discourage those overly generous CEO type plans that studies have shown increase over-consumption and drive up premiums and costs since they are combined with a regressive and distorting employer tax exemption on wage benefits. Over the long-run we all suffer from this effect with higher premiums and higher medical costs. Since it is impossible to repeal that credit politically, the work around was to impose a tax on the high end to discourage the worst of that distorting behavior and use the money to shore up the Medicare trust fund and pay for aspects of the ACA.
There is no real argument for what these taxes are actually achieving by repeal now, except what water-carriers want to believe they are arguing for. They aren't even really making the trickle-down case that this will lead to a ton of new jobs or something. The CBO shows the total legislation it is doing no more to stabilize the markets then the current law. It is actually making the equal amount of coverage more expensive to people long-term, reducing the number of people that can afford coverage, and it reduces the Medicare trust fund solubility.
If it were designed to end the ACA it doesn't do that either. Or to burn down an entitlement. Deficit reduction is weak as well and actually just bolsters the argument as this being primarily a tax cut for the wealthy.
It is hard to read this legislation as anything but a tax cut for the wealthy paid for by reducing funding for healthcare.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 8:33 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
And the CBO really illustrates this in their report.
No one believes CBO reports anymore
Posted on 6/26/17 at 8:45 pm to bamarep
Whether the BRCA is a good plan or not, the narrative is set, and it's not good for Republicans and Trump. Trump himself called the House plan mean, and the Senate plan isn't much different. What the average person is going to see think is that the BCRA is going put a lot of people off of insurance and it's just a big tax break for the wealthy at the expense of Medicaid. If the Republicans try to push this through, they're going to be blamed. It's not going to be pretty or popular.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 9:28 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
No one believes CBO reports anymore
Only the ignorant believe that the Mukasey-appointed head of CBO is skewing things for Democratic schemes.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 9:48 pm to bamarep
We're all gonna die
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:13 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
No one believes CBO reports anymore
quote:
Pelosi Applauds Appointment of Keith Hall as CBO Director February 27, 2015 WASHINGTON, D.C. –
issued the following statement today after Dr. Keith Hall was appointed to serve as the next Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
“Keith Hall will bring an impressive level of economic expertise and experience to the Congressional Budget Office. Throughout his career, he has served in both the public and private sector, under presidents of both parties, and in roles that make him well-suited to lead the CBO. In particular, during his time at the U.S. International Trade Commission, Dr. Hall has worked on providing Congress with non-partisan economic analyses – a role similar to the responsibilities he will now assume as CBO director. His vast understanding of economic and labor market policy will be invaluable to the work of CBO and the important roll it will continue to play as Congress seeks to enact policies that support a healthy and growing economy.”
Dr. Hall’s term as CBO Director will begin April 1, 2015. Until that time, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf will continue to serve as director. Chairman Price issued the following statement thanking Director Elmendorf for agreeing to extend his time at CBO:
“Director Elmendorf has earned our respect and appreciation for his service as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He has shown a tireless commitment to the work of the CBO and to the important role it plays in Congress’ debates over fiscal and economic policy. I’m particularly grateful for his willingness to continue serving as director after his term has expired and through the end of March as the House and Senate Budget Committees are hard at work building our budget proposals.”
Background on Dr. Keith Hall: Dr. Hall has served in various governmental advisory and analytical roles at the White House, the Department of Treasury and Department of Commerce, as well as the International Trade Commission where he currently serves as Chief Economist. From 2008 to 2012, he was the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics under both President George Bush and President Barack Obama. In addition to his public service, Dr. Hall has been a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s (GMU) Mercatus Center and as a professor at GMU, Georgetown University, George Washington University, American University, University of Arkansas, and University of Missouri. His public and private work and research has focused on labor market policy, trade policy and regulatory policy. Hall received his B.A. in Economics and Psychology from the University of Virginia, a M.S. in Economics from Purdue University, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Purdue University.
LINK /
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 10:17 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News