Quote:

---

US auditors say the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Barack Obama's health law will save the government $84bn (£54bn) over 11 years.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says most of the savings come from the Supreme Court's decision that states do not have to expand Medicaid programmes.

The CBO also found millions fewer poor people than it previously anticipated would be covered because of the ruling.

And it said that repealing the law would raise the deficit by over $100bn.

The law's combined revenue increases and spending cuts are larger than the cost of expanding coverage, according to the CBO's independent analysts.

The Supreme Court decision in June said that states do not have to broaden Medicaid, a government-sponsored health programme for the poor, as set down in the 2010 law.

Although the federal government would pick up the initial cost of that expansion, many states would have to open Medicaid to low-income childless adults for the first time.

Expected opt-outs by conservative-led states such as Texas, Florida and South Carolina are projected to decrease the cost of the expansion over the next 10 years.

However, the CBO also estimates about six million fewer people will be covered by Medicaid by 2022 because of the get-out clause.

Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have warned the law will bloat deficits by trillions of dollars, and they are campaigning for its repeal.

But CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said in a letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner that overturning the law would actually inflate the deficit by $109bn over a decade.

The office also now projects 30 million people will be uninsured by 2022, up from its previous estimate of 27 million people.

The CBO estimates the number of uninsured in the US is now about 53 million and would grow to 60 million in a decade if the law was repealed.

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of it and we add 109 billion to the deficit (over 10 years).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
2008 candidate Obama attacked George Bush for having an annual budget deficit of $300 billion. Obama called that reckless and un-patriotic. Obama's racked up over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year since he took office, so I guess that must, by his own definition, make Obama at least 3 times more reckless and treasonous than Bush was.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
2008 candidate Obama attacked George Bush for having an annual budget deficit of $300 billion. Obama called that reckless and un-patriotic. Obama's racked up over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year since he took office, so I guess that must, by his own definition, make Obama at least 3 times more reckless and treasonous than Bush was.

---

Until you reason ....b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Get rid of it and we add 109 billion to the deficit (over 10 years).

---

Deficit is by definition over 1 year, so times that by 10 to get $1.1 trillion - more like what it would cost over 10 years to repeal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
2008 candidate Obama attacked George Bush for having an annual budget deficit of $300 billion. Obama called that reckless and un-patriotic. Obama's racked up over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year since he took office, so I guess that must, by his own definition, make Obama at least 3 times more reckless and treasonous than Bush was.

---

Until you reason that a lot of the things that have driven the deficit over the past few years - Bush's tax cuts, economic downturn, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - were all legacies of the Bush presidency, that Obama inherited.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

"But CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said in a letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner that overturning the law would actually inflate the deficit by $109bn over a decade."

---

Quote:

---

Bushes Tax cuts were actually one of the best things that could have happened to many of us. Since a majority of us have never or likely never will reach the 25% bracket, it's sure nice that a majority of us under that bracket only had to pay 10% taxes on a majority of our income instead of 15% taxes after the deductions.

Also, unemployment insurance was extended to nearly 2 years well before Obama got into office, and for several years almost immediately after GWB was president it was extended to 52 months.



Personally, between the tax cuts, and the unemployment payments, my personal tax/medicare/SS payments my entire life up until now have been mitigated.

I don't feel screwed by the government at all in that regard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Ok fair point, I missed that line. But deficit is still just the amount that is added to the debt in one year though, so I guess that's saying something like: "by 2022 the a repeal of Obamacare would be costing $109bn every year..." So it's still costing a significant amount every year, but that amount would probably only climb to $109bn by 2022.

---

Quote:

---

Bushes Tax cuts were actually one of the best things that could have happened to many of us. Since a majority of us have never or likely never will reach the 25% bracket, it's sure nice that a majority of us under that bracket only had to pay 10% taxes on a majority of our income instead of 15% taxes after the deductions.

Also, unemployment insurance was extended to nearly 2 years well before Obama got into office, and for several years almost immediately after GWB was president it was extended to 52 months.



Personally, between the tax cuts, and the unemployment payments, my personal tax/medicare/SS payments my entire life up until now have been mitigated.

I don't feel screwed by the government at all in that regard.

---

Quote:

---

To me, this article seemed to say that we'd save 84 billion over 10 years, but we'd only lose 109 billion over 10 years by fighting it today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Jack, I thought you were a big proponent of Six Sigma. You know, identifying the problem areas systematically, methodically, and fixing them one at a time instead of trying to reinvent the wheel entirely.

Saving $84bn/yr or costing 109bn/yr isn't small potatoes, really. That's a $200bn/yr swing, which is money we have to borrow and pay interest on.

I have to question the motives and agenda of anyone who claims that their biggest issue with the government is the out-of-control spending, who then turns around and poo-poos an honest effort to curb that spending, simply because they don't like who's in charge this week.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kinda funny, still - you start a thread about all the little "green" stuff you're doing, but then decry any efforts to do "little stuff" to cut deficits.


I thought cutting was supposed to be a good thing in this regard. Apparently you're an all-or-nothing type when it comes to spending cuts.

I'm not a big believer in Big Solutions™ to problems. In my experience, if you're facing a big problem, a hundred 1-percent solutions are more effective than a single 100-percent solution, because if one of the small ones fails, you still have 99 chances to succeed.

---