Well, Now That ObamaCare is legal . . .

[whell]

Nice try. Of course, I'm sure you'd attempt to discredit anything that wasn't sourced from Politico, CNN, the Huffington Post, or the DNC.

The black lines represent actual CBO estimates from 2010. Those CBO estimates where quite clear that the numbers where hard to nail down, since the HHS would still be fleshing out the specifics for years to come, economic conditions are always in flux, and the law would also be subject to SCOTUS and legislative activity.

However, even if the numbers remain consistent with the CBO's projections - which even the CBO doubts - we're still taking in a $570B on a plan that was originally projected to cost $1 trillion. And that assumes that programs that haven't been designed and rolled out yet produce every penny of projected savings that were forecast in 2009.

Right.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The black lines represent actual CBO estimates from 2010.

And the red lines?

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And the red lines?

John

You blew them off, remember? So, my point was:

- A - the CBO discounts their own numbers, and said so in the report
- B - The revenue only covers a bit more than 1/2 of the $1 trillion cost of PPACA, so you'd better hope that either the revenue numbers gets larger, or the numbers from the savings assumptions - from programs which have yet to be implemented and are untested - grows.

Also worth mentioning, since the SCOTUS yesterday, with a 7 - 2 opinion, said that the Fed can's beat up the states to make them expand Medicare - there's likely going to be a lot more horse-trading necessary (meaning that PPACA is going to cost more. and maybe a lot more, to bring down the number of "uninsured" to meet the PPACA's stated goals) to bring the states in line.

Bottom line, if you want PPACA to work, you'd better pray that the red numbers are closer to being right than the black numbers!

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

You blew them off, remember?

Ah, so they are Teabagger numbers!

So, my point was:

- A - the CBO discounts their own numbers, and said so in the report

It occurs to me that we only have your word for the source of those 2010 numbers. The only source cited in your chart is Ways and Means. Could you verify for us that the 2010 figures are indeed CBO numbers?

- B - The revenue only covers a bit more than 1/2 of the $1 trillion cost of PPACA,

Trillion? Where does that number come from?

Bottom line, if you want PPACA to work, you'd better pray that the red numbers are closer to being right than the black numbers!

Get rid of the Bush tax cuts and the problem - if there is one - is solved.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It occurs to me that we only have your word for those source of the 2010 numbers. The only source cited in your chart is Ways and Means. Could you verify for us that the 2010 figures are indeed CBO numbers?

They're all over the internet. As I've said before, I'm not doing your homework for you. Go find it. You'll see that estimates generally have a range and have been revised a bit, but right now estimates are around $540 with the last CBO estimate, which is a a couple years old now. Treat it as a learning opportunity!

Originally Posted by Boreas

Trillion? Where does that number come from?

Harry Reid. That was the number that he kept going back to when they were trying to get it passed, suggesting that HE wouldn't be satisfied unless they could keep bring in PPACA under $1 trillion. However, the CBO this spring estimated that the 2013-22 cost of implementing the act would amount to just over $1T. That is, if you accept Reuters as a source.

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/ppac...2722876-1.html

Originally Posted by Boreas

Get rid of the Bush tax cuts and the problem - if there is one - is solved.John

Give me a source for that projection, please.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

They're all over the internet. As I've said before, I'm not doing your homework for you. Go find it.

That would be your homework,not mine. You're the one making the assertion, not me.

Give me a source for that projection, please.

Four trillion over 10 years.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That would be your homework,not mine. You're the one making the assertion, not me.



Four trillion over 10 years.

John

No, I've posted the evidence. if you want to refute, go for it.

As far as your post: DISQUALIFIED. The claim that it makes of the Bush tax cuts "hurting the middle class" has no merit or basis in fact.