CBO: repealing HCR would cost $210 billion over 10 years

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2011 11:55 PM GMT
    2/18/11
    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/145187-cbo-repealing-healthcare-reform-would-increase-deficit-by-210-billion-over-10-yearsRepealing Democrats' healthcare reform law would increase the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday.

    Separately, however, CBO also said repealing the law could save hundreds of billions of dollars over the long-term if some of its cost-cutting provisions don't go into effect.

    The $210 billion figure is not a surprise, because the law's Medicare cuts and fee increases more than make up for the subsidies for people to buy insurance. A preliminary analysis last month had found that repeal legislation (H.R. 2), which passed the House mostly along party lines on Jan. 19, would add $230 billion to the deficit.

    The new figure is considerably larger than the $124 billion the CBO estimated that the law would save when it was enacted last March. That's mostly because the enactment and repeal scores cover different time periods: 2010-2019 for last year's score when the law passed, and 2012-2021 for repeal.

    In its new analysis, CBO did however compare the two scores for the 2012-2019 period during which they overlap. It found that passing the bill shaved $132 billion off the deficit, while repealing it would only add $119 billion - a $13 billion difference.

    CBO explains that the variation is due to changes in the economic outlook and technical adjustments, as well as legislative changes since the law was passed.

    "Some of the funding provided by the legislation enacted last March has been obligated or spent and thus would not be recovered by enacting H.R. 2," CBO said. That includes millions of dollars in Medicare prescription drug rebates mailed to seniors.

    "In addition," CBO said, "some regulations implementing aspects of that legislation have been promulgated."

    In addition, legislation enacted since March has already changed the law. For example, Congress last year passed Medicare "doc fix" legislation that was paid for by recovering future overpayments to people who will get subsidies to buy insurance.

    "That legislation was estimated to reduce net federal payments for subsidies through the [new] health insurance exchanges," CBO said.

    Separately, CBO responded to a request from House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) asking what repeal would do to the budget if the reform law doesn't end up saving as much as forecast. That response is meaningful because Medicare's chief actuary and the CBO itself have stated that budget analyses consider the law as it's written, without taking into account possible changes as political pressure grows to avoid future cuts.

    If a controversial tax on high-cost health insurance plans doesn't go into effect as scheduled in 2018, and if only half of the law's Medicare savings materialize, then repealing the law could shave up to .25 percent of GDP - about $600 billion - in the decade after 2021.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter whether this is even correct.

    The House today passed legislation to not fund Obamacare. icon_biggrin.gif




    which stands ZERO chance of getting passed by the Senate, let alone getting signed by the President.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 12:49 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter whether this is even correct.

    The House today passed legislation to not fund Obamacare. icon_biggrin.gif

    which stands ZERO chance of getting passed by the Senate, let alone getting signed by the President.

    It doesn't really matter even if this amendment does not pass Senate.

    The Republicans would like to repeal the costly health care bill but cannot so long as the Democrats control the Senate and the White House. So they will try to de-fund portions of the bill they find most offensive. In their sights is the provision that forces everyone to have insurance or pay a fine, the provision most beloved of insurance companies who see profits rolling in from healthy, young newly insureds. The president will fight such moves, but spending bills must originate in the House, giving the Republicans the ability to deny any presidential wish that involves the spending of money.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/good-week-economy-bad-week-obama-and-democrats_515040.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 1:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter whether this is even correct.

    The House today passed legislation to not fund Obamacare. icon_biggrin.gif




    which stands ZERO chance of getting passed by the Senate, let alone getting signed by the President.


    Then the government will "shut down." (Something which I very much would enjoy seeing once again.)


    Me too. It was so disastrous for House Republicans in the 1990s, and God knows Newt Gingrich is hell of a lot brighter than John Boner. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    "Doesn't matter whether this is even correct."
    "Then the government will "shut down." (Something which I very much would enjoy seeing once again.)"

    Hey Christian, don't go over to the dark side...the taste for lies and mayhem suits SB well but not you.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 2:58 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said"Doesn't matter whether this is even correct."
    "Then the government will "shut down." (Something which I very much would enjoy seeing once again.)"

    Hey Christian, don't go over to the dark side...the taste for lies and mayhem suits SB well but not you.icon_biggrin.gif


    Well, I'd prefer we didn't have a government shut down, but given the uselessness of John Boner and the intransigence of the Tea Party, I think it's likely. And I think it will again really hurt the Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 3:11 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    q1w2e3 said"Doesn't matter whether this is even correct."
    "Then the government will "shut down." (Something which I very much would enjoy seeing once again.)"

    Hey Christian, don't go over to the dark side...the taste for lies and mayhem suits SB well but not you.icon_biggrin.gif


    Well, I'd prefer we didn't have a government shut down, but given the uselessness of John Boner and the intransigence of the Tea Party, I think it's likely. And I think it will again really hurt the Republicans.


    There's going to be more than a shut down of government. The entire country is going to be shut down and there will be riots in the street.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 3:24 AM GMT
    jockgymboy said
    Christian73 said
    q1w2e3 said"Doesn't matter whether this is even correct."
    "Then the government will "shut down." (Something which I very much would enjoy seeing once again.)"

    Hey Christian, don't go over to the dark side...the taste for lies and mayhem suits SB well but not you.icon_biggrin.gif


    Well, I'd prefer we didn't have a government shut down, but given the uselessness of John Boner and the intransigence of the Tea Party, I think it's likely. And I think it will again really hurt the Republicans.


    There's going to be more than a shut down of government. The entire country is going to be shut down and there will be riots in the street.


    Cute, smart and an optimist. icon_lol.gif