Analysis: Health care repeal will cost $230 billion

[Kadarin]

How's GOP going to pay for it? I am scared to ask.

Easy! By passing new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I'm laughing my ass off at all the questions and explanations in this thread regarding how repealing this law will increase the deficit. You guys crack me up but you must have been asleep for the last year or so while the pros and cons of the bill were debated, or you staked out a partisan ideological position early on and really didn't give a shit about the details. This was all published in the CBO's orginal analysis of the financial effects of the legislation

Basically the deficit reduction comes from fairly drastic reductions in medicare and medicaid and almost amounts to a complete elimination of medicaid all together. The mandate portion of the law moves millions into self funded private insurance coverage that now rely on government funded medicaid which is a large portion of our current deficits. Another huge component of our current deficits is the huge government give away known as Medicare part D, which would be eliminated by the new law.

So in short if we repeal this bill we go back to massively underfunded medicaid and medicare part D spending in excess of tax revenue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I propose a dedicated tax. Yep, a real tax increase that goes to take down the deficit.

Of course the only way that would really happen is if more money isn't spent.

So let's enact a tax increase of some percentage and the government cannot spend more money than it took in the last fiscal year. No deficit spending at all. No increases in spending for any reason. Any increases to a particular program would come from another.

That way we can get that money back for real.

Dems get a tax increase, Reps get a reduction in the deficit. Bipartisanship!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Basically the deficit reduction comes from fairly drastic reductions in medicare and medicaid and almost amounts to a complete elimination of medicaid all together. The mandate portion of the law moves millions into self funded private insurance coverage that now rely on government funded medicaid which is a large portion of our current deficits. Another huge component of our current deficits is the huge government give away known as Medicare part D, which would be eliminated by the new law.

Is this when we have to guess what cup the ball's under?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Is this when we have to guess what cup the ball's under?

No slight of hand what so ever. Pretty simple what do you not understand?

Billions of dollars in medical expenses for people who are currently uninsured that will be paid by their mandated private insurance under the new law, will have to be paid for out of the taxpayers pocket as unfunded medicaid and medicare part D payments if this bill is repealed.

The only slight of hand is by you guys who prefer the status quo and seek to confuse the issue and ignore the straight forward and obvious benifits of this law.


You can argue that the mandate is unconstitutional thats another arqument, but you can't ignore that the mandate to purchase private insurance for millions currently not insured will save the govt/taxpayers billions vs our current situation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No slight of hand what so ever. Pretty simple what do you not understand?

Billions of dollars in medical expenses for people who are currently uninsured that will be paid by their mandated private insurance under the new law, will have to be paid for out of the taxpayers pocket as unfunded medicaid and medicare part D payments if this bill is repealed.

The only slight of hand is by you guys who prefer the status quo and seek to confuse the issue and ignore the straight forward and obvious benifits of this law.


You can argue that the mandate is unconstitutional thats another arqument, but you can't ignore that the mandate to purchase private insurance for millions currently not insured will save the govt/taxpayers billions vs our current situation.

What appears to be savings seems to be a transfer of expenses. There's a proposal to close the donut hole (which was a weird thing to begin with) and that has to cost $$$. There isn't going to be a reduction of services, and there are going to be more people covered.

Of course the mandate raises funds, but how does that make it cost less? Medications aren't any cheaper for example, and overall medicare doesn't pay that much over costs, sometimes less.

My problem is that neither the status quo nor this solution makes much sense. It would have been far better to have a rational and comprehensive reform like taking into account points I've brought up before.

Well political haymaking was always more important than good governance.

 

[bfdd]

I propose a dedicated tax. Yep, a real tax increase that goes to take down the deficit.

Of course the only way that would really happen is if more money isn't spent.

So let's enact a tax increase of some percentage and the government cannot spend more money than it took in the last fiscal year. No deficit spending at all. No increases in spending for any reason. Any increases to a particular program would come from another.

That way we can get that money back for real.

Dems get a tax increase, Reps get a reduction in the deficit. Bipartisanship!

sign me up!

 

[drebo]

Yep, some of you got it. The government raises taxes then when it doesn't get what it expected it increased the deficit, yet there is no curtailment of spending so "reducing the deficit" is specious at best. The assumption is that the government wouldn't spend what it taxed.

Drug addicts won't shoot up with the heroin they get either.

I see...so in order to understand the CBO's reasoning, you have to operate under the belief that all wealth belongs first to the government and is distributed to the people only at the whim of the government.

Wonderful.