Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (847355)	4/3/2015 2:18:57 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574005

>> What the CBO said is very clear. I'm just going to say this because it is clear you don't understand it. I seriously doubt any news wire service does. The *coverage provisions only* have been projected by CBO; CBO has said, essentially, "We can no longer project the budgetary effects of the law, and so we're not trying anymore." Little deal? Big deal? Who the hell knows? CBO doesn't. But this much we DO know: Since its implementation, two years ago, CBO has reduced by 25% its estimates of how many people will ultimately be covered as a result of the program. 25% in two years. Almost certainly, it will continue to drop. That is, by any measure, a huge miss. It was going to be 32 Million, now it is 24 Million. You can scramble to blame evil Republicans, but the logic doesn't work: The number of Medicaids covered EXCEEDS the prorated expectations. Meaning, yes, you can give away free shit, although it is harder than we thought. Now, we're 1.3 Trillion for these 25% fewer insureds over the next ten years which amounts to an average cost in the range of $6,000 to $7,000, when you work out the pace of the ramp up, AND if you assume their numbers are correct. For that much money (assuming it doesn't get worse and it will), we could have simply purchased a group policy for each of these persons. Problem solved. Even that, however, would be a fraction of the money since there are still the OTHER (non-coverage) costs we have incurred for this train wreck. There is nothing good happening here. Guaranteed issue is nice. You could have gotten that for nothing. Literally. It is federal legislation at its absolute worst.

To: Alighieri who wrote (847355)	4/3/2015 2:45:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Respond to of 1574005

Al, you're just parroting the old claims made by the CBO, claims that the CBO itself has backed away from. I already pointed out the facts to you. You're just repeating the same falsehoods that the data is already contradicting. When you look at ObamaCare in a vacuum, it spends more money than it takes in. There are other reports claiming that overall, ObamaCare reduces the deficit, but those reports are now obsolete and the CBO cannot commit to that projection anymore. I already pointed out how that graph you kept posting was a graph of ObamaCare net costs, not surpluses. I already pointed out how ObamaCare's costs may be partially offset by reductions in other parts of the federal budget, but not completely. I already pointed out how ObamaCare actually increases government instead of decreasing it. There isn't anything more to be said. If you want to continue believing a fantasy, that ObamaCare actually represents smaller government, be my guest, because no one other than blind partisans believe that anymore. Tenchusatsu