Gross costs of $1,839 billion for subsidies and related spending for insurance obtained through the exchanges, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; andA partial offset of $456 billion in receipts from penalty payments, additional revenues resulting from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and the effects on income and payroll tax revenues and associated outlays arising from projected changes in employer coverage.
...and now the part you conveniently left out that completes that very page.
Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, which do not generate all of the act’s budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are expected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of the provisions—including the coverage provisions— CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (their most recent comprehensive estimate) that the ACA’s overall effect would be to reduce federal deficits.
At the same time, the claim that ObamaCare "reduces the federal deficit" has been dropped. See footnote #3 on page 5:
See Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act (July 24, 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/ 43471. CBO and JCT can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the ACA that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues. The provisions that expand insurance coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs that can be isolated and reassessed. In contrast, other provisions of the ACA 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 ACA is not possible.
You are (conveniently?) mis reading the paragraph. What Elmendorf is saying here is that he can't accurately estimate the effects of Boner's request to repeal ACA (HR 6079) four years into the program. See the publication actually referenced in the foot note below.
cbo.gov
Here's a snippet from that pub...
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you are posting dishonestly here...leaving out the part about deficit reduction from the very page you pasted that tries to sell the notion that deficit reduction claims have been removed is patently dishonest...I can't imagine that you (mis)read the foot note below that paragraph and did not read the paragraph itself. Claiming, as you did in a prior post, that there is a program deficit in the ACA of $1.2T is all together boneheaded and I suppose more forgivable.
The point is that THERE IS NO SURPLUS. ObamaCare costs are higher than ObamaCare revenues. The "net effects" of ObamaCare on the rest of the federal budget are completely imaginary and cannot be accounted for, except using the fuzzy math that libtards like yourself are fond of.
Quit making a fool of yourself Ten.
Al |
