I apologize to all for the length of this post. If you aren’t following my conversation just skip it, please.
AndDon’tCallMeShirley:
There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge? I anticipate very acerbic responses that ignore what I've just said. What would be appreciated is this: if someone can demonstrate mathematically why I'm wrong, go ahead. I'd appreciate the insight. There is no money to pay for it!! Again I ask- why is this so hard to acknowledge?
You have a great Canadian comedian as your avatar, which made me like you off the hop. Therefore, when you said you would appreciate if someone could point out how it was going to be paid for I took you at your word and thought your request was in good faith.
I don’t know if the ACA is good or bad. Whatever it is, it is nothing like what other countries are doing with healthcare. To me it looks like a giant social experiment and I hope it works out well. But, I get objections to it, I really do.
However, when you asked for mathematical answers and not “speculation and daydreams” I thought you may not be aware of the CBO projections (which were referenced earlier by another poster). So I provided them thinking, even if you didn’t agree, you would at least acknowledge the CBO is not full of wild speculators and daydreamers.
In response you stated that there “was no budgetary offset” and that the “ACA will be more expensive than projected”. You then selected some quotes that, even when I read them now, seem to indicate that you understood the federal deficit implications to be what Fox quoted as the “full accounting of the bill ... $2.6 trillion”. I say that because you reiterated that you were asking “how a broke government is in a position to support a program it can’t afford”.
Did I read you wrong? What did you mean to illustrate by those quotes?
You see, when I read the Fox article and noted right there in paragraph 13 that it will reduce the deficit, even by $81 billion more than thought the year before, I figured you must have missed the equivocation in the article on the use of “deficit”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, after all why would you post an article that agrees with me to challenge the CBO report I posted?
Then there was the strange fact that you brought up that the projections had been revised. Odd, because the Fox article was from March 2012 and the CBO projections I linked were from May 2013. Even more odd when the bold subheading in the CBO article said “The Estimated Budgetary Impact of the ACA’s Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little on a Year-by-Year Basis Since March 2010” Strange to respond to the May 2013 CBO projection with a March 2012 Fox article and then state the “CBO numbers have been revised”. I assumed that maybe you had not read it.
Did I read you wrong? What was the point of referencing the March 2012 CBO segment as a response to the May 2013 CBO article I referenced?
Still, I was being charitable, I thought that the Fox article was sly and anyone who wasn’t reading it carefully would think it was saying the federal deficit was going to balloon. I thought you would appreciate having that pointed out. I thought you must not have read the whole article or the CBO projections it is talking about. So, I asked if you had read it. I even quoted the critical paragraphs from the CBO projection.
Let’s be clear, this is not about a difference of opinion. All of us, Fox and Sessions included, were talking about what the CBO projects. One doesn’t have to fall back on opinion here because the CBO is kind enough to put their projections right there on the web. I thought I would explain how you might have mistaken the Fox news article and how it was deceitful, in my opinion. Since you said you would appreciate seeing how the ACA would not bankrupt the country, I thought you would be, well, appreciative.
Still, if that wasn’t fulsome enough I provided charts to show what the debt and budget are projected to look like. I think this is really good news. I think the US has made some amazing changes. In 2009 I was VERY worried about you! If you go down the tube, so do we Canucks!
Then, after all of this, you said the Fox link you posted was pretty self-explanatory and maybe I should read it again... huh? Please, if you are being sincere and not just having sport playing with me, explain what you think the Fox article says?
You then link to an April 2012 Forbes article which, to your credit, does not agree with the ACA costing in the CBO report I linked earlier. I admit, by this point I was getting a bit exasperated because you did not engage in any of points I had brought to your attention.
However, the Blahous critique is substantial and deserves a full treatment and not my glib reply. So I go back on my declaration to bow out. If we use the Blahous method the ACA will cost much more, true, but only because government program spending is dramatically cut. In other words, it works out better for the overall deficit and debt picture! Why? Because the ACA will cost more but all the expenses in Medicare will reduce and disappear! Rejoice! If the CBO scenario turns out true you can see that the baseline is healthy. If Blahous is right the deficit will go down even faster! Again, this is not opinion, this is what is stated if you carefully read what is written in what you posted.
How? Because using his accounting you cannot count on Medicare payouts existing after the trust fund cannot cover 100% of the costs. If there is no Medicare than you can’t very well save any money on it, like the ACA promises. True, but then you are not spending any money on Medicare, so the overall effect is a much smaller deficit! Does anyone actually think Congress will just let Medicare die? No, Congress will keep having the American tax payer foot the bill. Blahous’s response is in the article you linked: “It’s the law. Some may not like the fact that Medicare can only spend money to the extent that it has a positive balance in its trust funds, but that’s the law.” Note how he explains it, “The finding that the ACA reduces the deficit depends on the critical assumption that Medicare will always pay out full benefits whether there is anything in its trust fund or not.”
So he removes the cost savings to Medicare in his mathematics. Law ties Medicare benefits to the trust fund Americans pay into. The CBO assumes Medicare will continue and that Congress will ensure Medicare continues paying out full benefits even if the fund no longer covers 100% (since the taxes into the fund have been less than the money coming out - for some time now). So, we have three scenarios:
- CBO is projecting numbers with the ACA and the good old American Tax payer footing the bill for Medicare. It says, comparing a world where Medicare keeps going and there is no ACA to a world where Medicare keeps going and there is the ACA you can see deficit savings projected.
- Blahous interpretation #1 is that Medicare discontinues and the ACA exists, thus proving the ACA saving projections on Medicare a lie. (But, an overall smaller deficit!) Comparing a world with Medicare and no ACA to a world with the ACA and no Medicare (or less Medicare) the deficit is smaller but the ACA is more expensive.
- Blahous interpretation #2 is that Medicare will be funded, but you need to add that on top of the ACA. He says, comparing a world where there is no Medicare (or less Medicare) and no ACA to a world where there is both and you can see a huge deficit difference. (though the same federal deficit, of course, as #1) - in effect, the savings on Medicare from the ACA go to keeping the Medicare fund solvent. The beans move from one program to another.
Blahous says since you can’t “double dip” - you can’t count the savings dollars of a program that isn’t funded under current law. You can’t both assume the savings of Medicare without assuming the costs, as it is not going to continue under current law unless the fund is topped up.
OK, that does make the ACA more expensive if you look at it that way, if you stack the future Medicare dollars on top of the ACA. I can see that. Strange. But OK.
If you are following the point, though, you will see that #1 and #3 have the SAME budgetary impact. He isn’t arguing with the CBO federal budget projections. He just says that since the ACA assumes Medicare will continue you have to add that program cost to the ACA costing OR you can’t assume those Medicare savings when talking about the ACA.
I’m not expressing an opinion about whether he is right or wrong, I’m pointing out how he arrives at his numbers.
Now, to your point, about how all of this can be paid for…. The overall deficit is either the same (#1 and #3) as the CBO projected or it is much better (#2). You can move beans around in jars but you still have the same number of beans.
You also make another popular mistake, you state that Blahous was appointed by Obama. He was not. He was appointed by Bush and was a hold over for a few months while the new administration was brought in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blahous) Not that it matters to the substance of his argument.
I understand there are different viewpoints, for sure. But all the articles you have put up point to the same conclusion that I was trying to make to you – the overall solvency of the Government is not threatened by the ACA. They look at different ways of adding up the ACA costs, for sure. And I haven’t disagreed with a single calculation. The Fox article is right about the cost (deficit) side of the ledger (but is not clear about the word deficit). Blauhous has an interesting way of adding up the ACA costs. But, with the exception of Blahous’s concern Congress will not fully enact the bill, there are no differences in what I have noted about the effect on the Federal Deficit in anything you have put up.
The Federal Budget looks better with the ACA than without it, unless you pull Medicare out of the budget all together, in which case the Budget looks rosy, indeed!
This is what I mean about engaging an article you link. I have no objection to your posting quotes from articles or links to articles. I object when you do so and then retreat from the discussion about what those articles actually say. What the ideas within them mean.
As to how the entire debt can be paid off… I’m not your monkey. I answered your original request in good faith.
It’s ok, because I was at the hockey game tonight and my team won in overtime… I couldn’t possibly be in a better mood!
