- 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
2
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:13 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Who are the Dems here? Because the CBO is neutral
I am going to stop you right there...Neutral.
That's F'ing funny. Like any bureaucrat in the swamp known as WASHINGTON is neutral.
As for a Bush appointee - Well, that is a good argument. I rest my case.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:13 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
egardless of who is in charge, they have gone out of their way to make horrible estimates to make the current system look good.
their estimates weren't that terrible IMHO. They certainly aren't perfect though, and missed enrollments by a fair amount.
LINK
quote:
Also, to make your point valid, we'd have to assume Bush and/or congress appointed competent people to run it. I'm not willing to take that stance.
So wait, they are politicized and incompetent. Way to move the goalposts. I would be fine hearing that CBO is incompetent, I would likely not argue that. But the politicized argument, I do take exception with since the republicans appointed the head.
Bush didn't appoint this person, he appointed him to head of BLS and then congress appointed him to this position.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:14 am to AUbagman
My sister in laws new plan went up about 35% and she got a new $7,000 deductible as icing on the steaming turd.
So when bamatool claims it didn't destroy healthcare, that's technically correct, since so many can't afford to use the POS.
So when bamatool claims it didn't destroy healthcare, that's technically correct, since so many can't afford to use the POS.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:16 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Because the CBO is neutral
You have absolutely no idea how the CBO comes up with their data results do you?
You're funny
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:17 am to Jbird
quote:
So when bamatool claims it didn't destroy healthcare, that's technically correct,
Well yeah, it has ruined Health Insurance.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:18 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
You have absolutely no idea how the CBO comes up with their data results do you?
They tell you right in the document. You did read it, right?
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:18 am to BamaAtl
Isn't it amusing that liberals who had to wait until ACA was passed before they could discover what was in it and it's ramifications suddenly know the outcome before a new bill has been proposed.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:19 am to AUbagman
quote:
My premiums for an individual plan through bcbs were 5x lower prior to ACA than what I paid last year.
Not the same plan and benefits, surely. You're in the 3% of the population in the individual market without subsidies, and got hit hardest. Let's fix the law to help you a bit, instead of destroying it and ruining 20M people's insurance at the same time.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:19 am to BamaAtl
I stand by my assertion you have no idea how they come up with their results.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:19 am to BamaAtl
CBO has a terrible track record of predicting the costs and stability of Obamacare. They can be ignored.
Forbes...
LINK
You won't care, you profit from the ACA.
quote:
These errors were caused by two primary mistakes in CBO’s model and assumptions. First, CBO significantly overestimated the degree to which the individual mandate would induce relatively healthy people with middle class income to buy coverage in the exchanges. Second, CBO failed to anticipate that states would respond to the federal government’s elevated reimbursement rate for the Medicaid expansion by maximizing enrollment and paying insurance companies extremely high payment rates for this population. CBO has not yet explained if or how it has corrected its models for these past mistakes, but it should do so if it wants to improve confidence in its estimates of repeal and replace legislation.
Forbes...
LINK
You won't care, you profit from the ACA.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:19 am to BamaAtl
The CBO also estimated that the cost of the ACA would be below $1 trillion.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:21 am to jacob4bama
I hear the new Trump care will off free spray tanning
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:21 am to Jake88
She's a lab rat. She does not profit from ACA.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:21 am to BamaAtl
Tell us more about premium rates.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:22 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
So wait, they are politicized and incompetent. Way to move the goalposts.
I didn't move the goalposts. The guy said CBO was politicized and you replied the Bush appointed the people as if that countered his point.
The only way that is a valid argument to make is if we believe competent people were appointed. I don't want to take that stance. Regardless of party, they have been woefully wrong and have toed the government mantra almost seemingly.
quote:
their estimates weren't that terrible IMHO. They certainly aren't perfect though, and missed enrollments by a fair amount.
The link you provided also takes huge liberties with how they measure accuracy. They basically argued that the CBO plan was very accurate if we retroactively apply a bunch of data that they did not use or was not known at the time. Well no shite
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:23 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Go on, keep lying to yourselves that Repeal is a great political move.
In case you haven't noticed, America just elected a candidate who made nothing but unorthodox political moves.
You want the government to pay for healthcare via medicaid, subsidies, single payer, etc.?
Either broaden the tax base so that the 47% get some real skin in the game or cut my other taxes. That's the compromise. You get what you want and I get what I want.
What we have now is not sustainable and it is 100% the fault of the democrats, who rammed this trash down the throats of a public who didn't want it. Has anyone heard a democrat in the past year propose any cuts to any existing part of the federal government in order to fund "free" healthcare? If it's so important, why can't we do away with a percentage of food stamps, ag subsidies, military spending, and end the EITC?
It's always "pay more." 33% of your income to taxes, another 15% to outrageous health insurance premiums, 17% for rent or mortgage if you are lucky, 10% for retirement. This is not to mention the cost of children, education, vehicles, etc.
The pie is already sliced too thinly to start asking middle America to also pay for health insurance for 30 million other people too.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:23 am to BamaAtl
Congressional budget scorekeepers said they can no longer measure the fiscal impact of many provisions of ObamaCare because the task is impossible.
"In contrast, other provisions of the Affordable Care Act significantly modified existing federal programs and made changes to the Internal Revenue Code.
"Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the Affordable Care Act is not possible."
The note came in the CBO's analysis of ObamaCare's insurance coverage provisions in April and was first reported Wednesday by Roll Call.
It means that measuring the healthcare law's effect on the budget deficit will be much more difficult, if not impossible.
LINK
"In contrast, other provisions of the Affordable Care Act significantly modified existing federal programs and made changes to the Internal Revenue Code.
"Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the Affordable Care Act is not possible."
The note came in the CBO's analysis of ObamaCare's insurance coverage provisions in April and was first reported Wednesday by Roll Call.
It means that measuring the healthcare law's effect on the budget deficit will be much more difficult, if not impossible.
LINK
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:24 am to BamaAtl
What about the $6,000 deductible? You never mention that. I'm not even sure about the out of pocket maximum once that ridiculous deductible is met.
That is similar to having no insurance for many if the so-called "insured."
That is similar to having no insurance for many if the so-called "insured."
Posted on 1/17/17 at 11:24 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The law is a failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't. If you believe otherwise you're misinterpreting the data or you're being lied to. Probably the latter.
Wanna take a guess as to how many people in Kentucky have enrolled in a QHP so far this open enrollment period vs how many receive Medicaid?
ETA: The only way that you can argue that the ACA has been a success is if you believe that redistributing wealth through the expansion of Medicaid via higher insurance premiums and taxes for the middle class and above is something to strive for.
This post was edited on 1/17/17 at 11:27 am
Page 4 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News