Two things you might want to consider unless you're just engaging in some partisan trolling:
1) The CBO analyzes projects based on assumptions that they are handed. The results largely depend on these assumptions which are usually highly partisan. I suspect you're probably allergic to hearing about shady dealings from the left, so for an example of this you can tolerate
look at (Republican) Ryan's deficit eliminating proposal here:
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf
It looks pretty good until you learn that this is with the assumption that the revenue portion of the plan generates 19% GDP in taxes. That is Ryan's assumption, yet the "CBO" result is favorable as a result of that assumption.
The same games have been played with the health care proposal. I'll let you look into the specifics if you're interested instead of highlighting examples you will disbelieve simply because they came from me.
2) The effect on the government's budget deficit is just not an issue when it comes to the larger economic picture (in spite of what everybody in congress and most posters here believe). It's a lot easier to estimate than trying to gauge the overall impact to the economy, but it's really just a drop in the bucket compared to the much more important issue of the overall economy.
I appreciate your attempts at careful analysis (unlike many who post here), and your point 1 is valid as far as it goes. But as Wolfe9999 pointed out in another thread, the CBO has a long history of UNDERestimating the savings of various proposals. In addition, the "assumptions" you referred to account for only a small fraction of the projected savings (at most about $300 billion, as I recall - I'll see if I can find the link), meaning that about $1 trillion of the estimated savings are not partisan at all.
Your point 2 also has some validity, but it's a criticism that can be applied to all major bills. Furthermore, some "macro" effects are rather easy to predict:
More people having health insurance will mean fewer people driven into bankruptcy because of serious health problems in the family.
Removing lifetime maximums, ditto.
More people having health insurance will mean more people will receiving routine preventive care (physicals, screenings, and vaccines) => improved health. And that in turn will undoubtedly have positive economic effects.
No pre-existing-condition exclusions will mean that people are no longer locked into employer-based group plans, so they'll be free to explore starting their own businesses or moving to other jobs without fear of lost coverage. This could have a major positive economic effect on our economy. Furthermore, people will be freer to escape bad marriages or to move to other states (many states currently have no insurance "pools" except for HIPAA continuation coverage, and moving to one of those states can mean the end to your coverage).
Many conservatives are proclaiming huge premium increases, which is a pretty bold prediction considering that the detailed implementation rules for Obamacare have not been figured out yet.
Facebook
Twitter