Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Repealing ‘Obamacare’ Would Explode Debt, Says Government Auditor [View all]stockholmer
(3,751 posts)23. a couple of problems with the article
Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)
1. The title is hyperbolic (and taken directly from a White House staffer's Tweet https://twitter.com/#!/jesseclee44/status/187204058124259328 , so much for balanced journalism from the 4th estate) : It is a 1% of GDP difference in 18 years, and this is if all of the assumptions that the White House is predicting hold true. As you will see below, even the GAO, along with the CBO and the IMF do not think they will.
"If Obamacare is implemented as intended, and other measures, such as automatic payment cuts to Medicare physicians, take effect, spending on Medicare and Medicaid grows from 5 percent of GDP in 2010 to over 7 percent by 2030.
By contrast, if Congress overrides those provisions, [s]pending on health care grows much more rapidly under this more pessimistic set of assumptions, according to the report. Absent changes to these programs, spending on Medicare and Medicaid under the Alternative simulation grows to over 8 percent of GDP by 2030.
By contrast, if Congress overrides those provisions, [s]pending on health care grows much more rapidly under this more pessimistic set of assumptions, according to the report. Absent changes to these programs, spending on Medicare and Medicaid under the Alternative simulation grows to over 8 percent of GDP by 2030.
2. From the article itself:
GAO doesnt isolate PPACAs stand-alone contribution to long-term budget consolidation.
Nor does the article take into account the GAO's, CBO's, and the IMF's http://blog-pfm.imf.org/pfmblog/2010/05/imf-fiscal-monitor-navigating-the-fiscal-challenges-ahead.html pessimism in regards to many of the cost containment mechanisms.
Although the GAO's report says that
several provisions of PPACA were designed to control the growth of health care costs,
it also notes the existence of significant uncertainties surrounding the growth of health care costs and cautions that Medicares Trustees, CBO, and the CMS Actuary have expressed concerns about the sustainability of certain health care cost-control measures over the long term.
Also, from the GAO Report:
[The Trustees, CBO, and Medicares actuary] have also questioned whether a provision in PPACA that would restrain spending growth by reducing the payment rates for certain Medicare services based on productivity gains observed throughout the economy is sustainable over the long term. According to CMS, health care productivity gains have historically been small, and may be difficult to achieve in the future due to several factors, including the labor intensive nature of the industry and the individual customization of treatments in many cases.
-----------------------------------------------
3. Some further details from Ryan Lizzas New Yorker piece http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all on how administration memos reveal the fudging of numbers:
According to a reported internal White House memo dated December 20, 2009, White House advisers had explicitly recommended to President Obama that he give up on honest budgetingin particular, that he fiddle with the health laws costs in order to hide its costs. The president approved the move.
In the December 20th memo, they resorted to gimmickry. In his first budget, Obama had prided himself on honest budgeting, declining to employ the fanciful assumptions that the previous Administration had used to hide the costs of government. On disaster relief, for example, he had estimated that the government would need twenty billion dollars a year, a figure based on the statistical likelihood of major disasters requiring federal aid. Now Obamas aides reminded him that Congress had ignored his honest budgeting approach, and perhaps they should, too. They proposed $5 billion per year for disaster costs. Obama drew another check mark. The White House could also save billions by fiddling with the way it presented savings from Obamas health-care-reform bill. Check. [bold added]
-----------------------------------------
SINGLE-PAYER is the only way out of the US's dystopian health care system.
The PPACA was always a bad idea, and a further corporatist takeover of what should considered a basic human right to universal health care.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
26 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
and a lot of people will be hurt. That will NOT stop the supremes. It is exactly what the repukes
still_one
Apr 2012
#2
I hope your right, but I do not have that much confidence in the American people /nt
still_one
Apr 2012
#8
With the presidential polls at half and half, have faith in the half that believes as you do...
freshwest
Apr 2012
#9
As long as those choices don't interfere with American Idol and Survivor and Simpsons
Bandit
Apr 2012
#12
Prosperous and comfortable Americans don't need anyone to hear them. They got theirs.
freshwest
Apr 2012
#15
I read it the other way. PPACA allows the daughter to be carried ...
JustABozoOnThisBus
Apr 2012
#16
agreed about the Rethugs, but this plan is deeply flawed, and the negative impacts will be hung
stockholmer
Apr 2012
#25