How much will the ACA actually cost our Government?

[weltschmerz]

Jan 29, 2015 20:51:25 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:45:06 GMT -5 dondub said:

Maybe we should starve them to death so it doesn't bother you so much.

People have been dying for a long time ! What's changed ? Outside of now you have to pay a tax

If you starve in America today your just stupid. 

The same can be said of someone who has difficulty grasping third-grade grammar.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 30, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 30, 2015 14:56:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sorry, but that is not actually a requirement of the board.  look it up yourself. 

Never said it was a requirement. I did say "please" though.

For the record, I did a little hunting, and, they did say that... in 2011. 4 years ago.

It's been a few years since then though, and numbers have been adjusted since then to reflect changes in Obamacare since then, and new understanding of the actual impacts of Obamacare.

I believe that post is up to date. I believe the have revised it several times in the last 3 years. if I am mistaken, let me know.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 30, 2015 20:55:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 30, 2015 17:55:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I am not a big fan of Politifact either, but I find them far more reliable than most of our esteemed posters.

for that reason, I would NEVER put a link to Politifact if they disagreed with me.  NEVER. 

but it is what I like about you.  you don't give a crap about how things look to others.

The fact that 'others' don't see things the way they are is not actually of concern to me, and so no- I don't give a crap about how things look to others. I give a crap about the truth, and I'll post it- and if others somehow miss the point- that says more about them than it does my post.

I think you care about what you BELIEVE is true, Paul. I am not sure that you even consider ideas that might challenge that belief.  which tells me that there are things that matter to you more than the truth. and that's ok. we all need our zealots.  you, of all people, should agree with that.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 31, 2015 14:25:12 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:51:25 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

People have been dying for a long time ! What's changed ? Outside of now you have to pay a tax

If you starve in America today your just stupid. 

The same can be said of someone who has difficulty grasping third-grade grammar.

I would love it if he starved our stupid.

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2015 15:30:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 30, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Never said it was a requirement. I did say "please" though.

For the record, I did a little hunting, and, they did say that... in 2011. 4 years ago.

It's been a few years since then though, and numbers have been adjusted since then to reflect changes in Obamacare since then, and new understanding of the actual impacts of Obamacare.

I believe that post is up to date. I believe the have revised it several times in the last 3 years. if I am mistaken, let me know.

I just did let you know. In the post you quoted. It was published by them in 2011.

And they have revised it several times... that's why it's at nearly a 2 Trillion estimate now. Revisions.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 31, 2015 20:00:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 31, 2015 15:30:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I believe that post is up to date. I believe the have revised it several times in the last 3 years. if I am mistaken, let me know.

I just did let you know. In the post you quoted. It was published by them in 2011.

And they have revised it several times... that's why it's at nearly a 2 Trillion estimate now. Revisions.

Richard- the 2011 estimate was $1.76T.  so, yeah, the new estimate is up approximately 10% from 3 years ago.  however, as others have pointed out, the cost savings estimate is up AS WELL.

I have no reason to think that the overall estimate is that different.  but if you want to add $0.17T to the original estimated savings of $0.13T, which yields a cost of $40B over ten years, that works for me.

[Deleted]

There are no "cost savings" with Obamacare. 1.7T, 2T, or "whatever it ends up actually being" SPENT, when ZERO was spent before it was enacted, is not "savings", in any way, shape, or form.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 0:23:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There are no "cost savings" with Obamacare. 1.7T, 2T, or "whatever it ends up actually being" SPENT, when ZERO was spent before it was enacted, is not "savings", in any way, shape, or form.

that is not what the CBO thinks, and they are far better at this sort of thing than you, I would wager.

edit: if you think otherwise, show me that the OP includes tax (fine) revenues and other payments to the system.  I am not saying they (the CBO) are right.  I am saying that I trust them more than I trust you and Paul.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 0:36:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 0:23:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There are no "cost savings" with Obamacare. 1.7T, 2T, or "whatever it ends up actually being" SPENT, when ZERO was spent before it was enacted, is not "savings", in any way, shape, or form.

that is not what the CBO thinks, and they are far better at this sort of thing than you, I would wager.

edit: if you think otherwise, show me that the OP includes tax (fine) revenues and other payments to the system.  I am not saying they (the CBO) are right.  I am saying that I trust them more than I trust you and Paul.

Here's a graphic from the CBO, in April 2014 (so, not quite "up to date", but still gives a good idea):


Pay very close attention to the bottom line labelled "Total Cost".

Question for you: Is "Total Cost" above or below ZERO?

All the illegal (fines) and legal (other things) "income" generated by Obamacare doesn't even quite cover ONLY the Medicaid and CHIP outlays.

ETA: Source for image

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 3:42:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 0:36:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is not what the CBO thinks, and they are far better at this sort of thing than you, I would wager.

edit: if you think otherwise, show me that the OP includes tax (fine) revenues and other payments to the system.  I am not saying they (the CBO) are right.  I am saying that I trust them more than I trust you and Paul.

Here's a graphic from the CBO, in April 2014 (so, not quite "up to date", but still gives a good idea):


Pay very close attention to the bottom line labelled "Total Cost".

Question for you: Is "Total Cost" above or below ZERO?

All the illegal (fines) and legal (other things) "income" generated by Obamacare doesn't even quite cover ONLY the Medicaid and CHIP outlays.

ETA: Source for image

actually, I am having a really hard time following that table, so I can't really say whether it is ZERO or not.  moreover, I am not sure what it is NOT accounting for.  so I can't really answer that question.  I have 3 songs to learn before 2PM today and practice from 2-5, then I might go to a movie with my son, so don't expect another reply today, but I will try to circle back as time allows.

thanks for posting.

[zibazinski]

This thread should be re titled to ask how much it is costing TAXPAYERS not the gobmt.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 11:30:51 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

This thread should be re titled to ask how much it is costing TAXPAYERS not the gobmt.

While I do like the change in verbiage, the answer would still be the same... because that's 100% where "gobmt" money comes from... taxpayers.

So the answer would still be "estimated to be somewhere near, or over, $2,000,000,000,000... over 10 years... so far"

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 10:51:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 3:42:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Here's a graphic from the CBO, in April 2014 (so, not quite "up to date", but still gives a good idea):


Pay very close attention to the bottom line labelled "Total Cost".

Question for you: Is "Total Cost" above or below ZERO?

All the illegal (fines) and legal (other things) "income" generated by Obamacare doesn't even quite cover ONLY the Medicaid and CHIP outlays.

ETA: Source for image

actually, I am having a really hard time following that table, so I can't really say whether it is ZERO or not.  moreover, I am not sure what it is NOT accounting for.  so I can't really answer that question.  I have 3 songs to learn before 2PM today and practice from 2-5, then I might go to a movie with my son, so don't expect another reply today, but I will try to circle back as time allows.

thanks for posting.

Take a piece of paper, and a pen or pencil and do the following:

1. Line up your piece of paper with the "Individual Penalty Payments"
2. Using your pen/pencil, make a mark as long as the indicator for "Individual Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
3. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Employer Penalty Payments".
4. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Employer Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
5. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Excise tax on High Premium Plans".
6. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Excise tax on High Premium Plans" on the graphic.
   
7. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Other Effects".
   
8. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Other Effects" on the graphic.
   
9. Compare this line you have created with the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line. Notice that it is, indeed SHORTER.
10. Draw a VERTICAL line, as a separator, on your existing line (that will be your "ZERO Cost Point").
11. Line up your line so it starts on the left at the same place the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line starts (your "ZERO Cost Point" mark will be somewhere near the right of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line)
12. Using your pen/pencil, add the remainder of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line to your existing line, to the RIGHT of your "ZERO Cost Point".
13. Move the paper up and to the left, so the end of your existing line matches up with the leftmost part of the "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" line.
14. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" on the graphic.
    
15. Compare this line with the "Total Cost" line.

I did all this (the above 15 steps) in my head. I figured you, as the successful businessman that you say you are, could as well.

[Deleted]

Interesting note: That 10 year projection doesn't STOP after the 10 years is over. It's not like after 10 years there's no more expense for it.

So it's not JUST an extra $2T... It's $2T for the first 10 years, and who knows how much every 10 years after that.

This is not scientific, but if the growth rate of the expense continues beyond the first 10 years, at the same rate it is expected to in the first 10 years... we'll likely have a $3T-$5T expense in years 11-20, a $5T-$8T expense in years 21-30, et cetera... where will it stop? When will enough be enough?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 19:47:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 10:51:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, I am having a really hard time following that table, so I can't really say whether it is ZERO or not.  moreover, I am not sure what it is NOT accounting for.  so I can't really answer that question.  I have 3 songs to learn before 2PM today and practice from 2-5, then I might go to a movie with my son, so don't expect another reply today, but I will try to circle back as time allows.

thanks for posting.

Take a piece of paper, and a pen of pencil and do the following:

1. Line up your piece of paper with the "Individual Penalty Payments"
2. Using your pen/pencil, make a mark as long as the indicator for "Individual Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
3. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Employer Penalty Payments".
4. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Employer Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
5. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Excise tax on High Premium Plans".
6. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Excise tax on High Premium Plans" on the graphic.
   
7. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Other Effects".
   
8. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Other Effects" on the graphic.
   
9. Compare this line you have created with the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line. Notice that it is, indeed SHORTER.
10. Draw a VERTICAL line, as a separator, on your existing line (that will be your "ZERO Cost Point").
11. Line up your line so it starts on the left at the same place the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line starts (your "ZERO Cost Point" mark will be somewhere near the right of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line)
12. Using your pen/pencil, add the remainder of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line to your existing line, to the RIGHT of your "ZERO Cost Point".
13. Move the paper up and to the left, so the end of your existing line matches up with the leftmost part of the "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" line.
14. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" on the graphic.
    
15. Compare this line with the "Total Cost" line.

I did all this (the above 15 steps) in my head. I figured you, as the successful businessman that you say you are, could as well.

1) never tell me what to do.

2) what you just did above will either be ignored, OR will make me LESS likely to entertain your post.

3) if i need your advice, i will ask for it.

i already told you i was too busy for this.  you are not listening.

i said thank you.  please be patient with me.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 19:55:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Interesting note: That 10 year projection doesn't STOP after the 10 years is over. It's not like after 10 years there's no more expense for it.

So it's not JUST an extra $2T... It's $2T for the first 10 years, and who knows how much every 10 years after that.

This is not scientific, but if the growth rate of the expense continues beyond the first 10 years, at the same rate it is expected to in the first 10 years... we'll likely have a $3T-$5T expense in years 11-20, a $5T-$8T expense in years 21-30, et cetera... where will it stop? When will enough be enough?

10 year projections are utterly ridiculous. 30 year projections belong in time capsules, so that the next generation can laugh at how ridiculous they are.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 20:34:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 19:47:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Take a piece of paper, and a pen of pencil and do the following:

1. Line up your piece of paper with the "Individual Penalty Payments"
2. Using your pen/pencil, make a mark as long as the indicator for "Individual Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
3. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Employer Penalty Payments".
4. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Employer Penalty Payments" on the graphic.
5. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Excise tax on High Premium Plans".
6. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Excise tax on High Premium Plans" on the graphic.
   
7. Move the paper down and to the left, so the end of your previous line matches the leftmost part of the "Other Effects".
   
8. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Other Effects" on the graphic.
   
9. Compare this line you have created with the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line. Notice that it is, indeed SHORTER.
10. Draw a VERTICAL line, as a separator, on your existing line (that will be your "ZERO Cost Point").
11. Line up your line so it starts on the left at the same place the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line starts (your "ZERO Cost Point" mark will be somewhere near the right of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line)
12. Using your pen/pencil, add the remainder of the "Medicaid and CHIP Outlays" line to your existing line, to the RIGHT of your "ZERO Cost Point".
13. Move the paper up and to the left, so the end of your existing line matches up with the leftmost part of the "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" line.
14. Using your pen/pencil, add to your existing mark the length of the indicator for "Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending" on the graphic.
    
15. Compare this line with the "Total Cost" line.

I did all this (the above 15 steps) in my head. I figured you, as the successful businessman that you say you are, could as well.

1) never tell me what to do.

2) what you just did above will either be ignored, OR will make me LESS likely to entertain your post.

3) if i need your advice, i will ask for it.

i already told you i was too busy for this.  you are not listening.

i said thank you.  please be patient with me.

1) I wasn't "[telling you] what to do". I was giving a suggestion based on your statement of "I am having a really hard time following that table"
2) If it makes you feel better to do so, then do so.
3) Being the helpful person I am, I voluntarily help people that say they are having a "hard time" with something. Helping is in my nature. My apologies for trying to help.

The un-numbered:
> I "listened" (well it's a message board, so, I "read and understood") perfectly well. I did not expect a response until you were ready to respond. NO rush was either inferred or expected. Take your time.

> I am always patient. The fact that I responded means I had time TO respond... it doesn't mean I expect a response in the next three minutes "or else", respond whenever you have free time.

I did forget to say "you're welcome"... so let me do so now: You're welcome!

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 20:35:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 19:55:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Interesting note: That 10 year projection doesn't STOP after the 10 years is over. It's not like after 10 years there's no more expense for it.

So it's not JUST an extra $2T... It's $2T for the first 10 years, and who knows how much every 10 years after that.

This is not scientific, but if the growth rate of the expense continues beyond the first 10 years, at the same rate it is expected to in the first 10 years... we'll likely have a $3T-$5T expense in years 11-20, a $5T-$8T expense in years 21-30, et cetera... where will it stop? When will enough be enough?

10 year projections are utterly ridiculous. 30 year projections belong in time capsules, so that the next generation can laugh at how ridiculous they are.

In general, I agree with this, but... do you agree with me that, whatever the "10 year cost" ends up being... that Obamacare won't just STOP having a cost after 10 years (assuming it survives that long) and be "cost free" from that point forward?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 21:02:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

1) I wasn't "[telling you] what to do". I was giving a suggestion based on your statement of "I am having a really hard time following that table"the hell you weren't.  this is not advice: Take a piece of paper, and a pen of pencil and do the following:

2) If it makes you feel better to do so, then do so.
3) Being the helpful person I am, I voluntarily help people that say they are having a "hard time" with something. Helping is in my nature. My apologies for trying to help.

The un-numbered:
> I "listened" (well it's a message board, so, I "read and understood") perfectly well. I did not expect a response until you were ready to respond. NO rush was either inferred or expected. Take your time.

> I am always patient. The fact that I responded means I had time TO respond... it doesn't mean I expect a response in the next three minutes "or else", respond whenever you have free time.

I did forget to say "you're welcome"... so let me do so now: You're welcome!

did you miss the part where i said i would try to circle back later?

or did you just think that meant "thanks for nothing"?

for the record, i always mean precisely what i say here.  if that is ever unclear, just ask.

tyia

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 21:05:53 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 20:35:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

10 year projections are utterly ridiculous. 30 year projections belong in time capsules, so that the next generation can laugh at how ridiculous they are.

In general, I agree with this, but... do you agree with me that, whatever the "10 year cost" ends up being... that Obamacare won't just STOP having a cost after 10 years (assuming it survives that long) and be "cost free" from that point forward?

it might still have a cost, but that cost might not add a penny to the deficit.

did you consider that possibility?

[djAdvocate]

Richard, i spent 7 minutes longer here than i had today. sorry, but i have to go. i will try to circle back later, if time allows.

thanks again.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 21:07:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:05:53 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

In general, I agree with this, but... do you agree with me that, whatever the "10 year cost" ends up being... that Obamacare won't just STOP having a cost after 10 years (assuming it survives that long) and be "cost free" from that point forward?

it might still have a cost, but that cost might not add a penny to the deficit.

did you consider that possibility?

With the "efficiency" of OUR government? Certainly I did... and rejected it outright.

If a program spends more than it takes in, any money spent, above it's intake, adds to the deficit (if there is a deficit). Basic accounting 101.

Any year that there is an increase in the debt, that year has a deficit (creative math {1+1+1=Tree, when apple /= car}, not withstanding).

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 21:08:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Richard, i spent 7 minutes longer here than i had today. sorry, but i have to go. i will try to circle back later, if time allows.

thanks again.

Take your time... No rush from me.

I reply when I have time, I expect the same from others. 

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 21:06:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:02:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

1) I wasn't "[telling you] what to do". I was giving a suggestion based on your statement of "I am having a really hard time following that table"the hell you weren't.  this is not advice: Take a piece of paper, and a pen of pencil and do the following:

2) If it makes you feel better to do so, then do so.
3) Being the helpful person I am, I voluntarily help people that say they are having a "hard time" with something. Helping is in my nature. My apologies for trying to help.

The un-numbered:
> I "listened" (well it's a message board, so, I "read and understood") perfectly well. I did not expect a response until you were ready to respond. NO rush was either inferred or expected. Take your time.

> I am always patient. The fact that I responded means I had time TO respond... it doesn't mean I expect a response in the next three minutes "or else", respond whenever you have free time.

I did forget to say "you're welcome"... so let me do so now: You're welcome!

did you miss the part where i said i would try to circle back later?

or did you just think that meant "thanks for nothing"?

for the record, i always mean precisely what i say here.  if that is ever unclear, just ask.

tyia

Actually it is advice. It's just laid out in a "step-by-step" format.

If someone said they were having trouble figuring out how to change a tire, my advice would be:

Gather all the materials you need from their various locations around the car, and then do the following:

1. put chocks or something under a wheel that will NOT be lifted
2. using the jack, lift the car
3. et cetera
4. et cetera
5. ...

It's just how I give advice, if a "step-by-step" process seems to apply to the situation at hand. NO offense was intended by my "step-by-step" advice.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 21:21:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:07:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it might still have a cost, but that cost might not add a penny to the deficit.

did you consider that possibility?

With the "efficiency" of OUR government? Certainly I did... and rejected it outright.

If a program spends more than it takes in, any money spent, above it's intake, adds to the deficit (if there is a deficit). Basic accounting 101.

Any year that there is an increase in the debt, that year has a deficit (creative math {1+1+1=Tree, when apple /= car}, not withstanding).

huh.  interesting.  ok.  it appears that my son has given up on going to the movies, so I can look into this.

by the way, I like puzzles.  so, I prefer not to have my information spoon fed to me.  I prefer to research it.  you gave me a place to start, and I said thanked you.  I don't need or want my hand held, just in case you didn't know that.  I consider it patronizing.  some day, when I am old and feeble, I might be more appreciative of smart young people around me.  but for now, I think I can manage it without a 15 point instruction.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 21:29:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:06:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

did you miss the part where i said i would try to circle back later?

or did you just think that meant "thanks for nothing"?

for the record, i always mean precisely what i say here.  if that is ever unclear, just ask.

tyia

Actually it is advice. It's just laid out in a "step-by-step" format.

If someone said they were having trouble figuring out how to change a tire, my advice would be:

Gather all the materials you need from their various locations around the car, and then do the following:

1. put chocks or something under a wheel that will NOT be lifted
2. using the jack, lift the car
3. et cetera
4. et cetera
5. ...

It's just how I give advice, if a "step-by-step" process seems to apply to the situation at hand. NO offense was intended by my "step-by-step" advice.

I didn't read it as advice.  advice would start out thusly:

"if you are interested in how to do it, I can show you."

then, you sit back and wait for me to tell you "no, thanks".

there.  that was some advice for YOU.  

edit: by the way: when I said I was having difficulty, that was my way of saying I think there is information absent.  but I figured that adding that I will look into it would take care of that matter.

man, was I ever wrong.

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 21:58:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:29:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Actually it is advice. It's just laid out in a "step-by-step" format.

If someone said they were having trouble figuring out how to change a tire, my advice would be:

It's just how I give advice, if a "step-by-step" process seems to apply to the situation at hand. NO offense was intended by my "step-by-step" advice.

I didn't read it as advice.  advice would start out thusly:

"if you are interested in how to do it, I can show you."

then, you sit back and wait for me to tell you "no, thanks".

there.  that was some advice for YOU.  

edit: by the way: when I said I was having difficulty, that was my way of saying I think there is information absent.  but I figured that adding that I will look into it would take care of that matter.

man, was I ever wrong.

We "do" advice differently it seems.

I'm o.k. with that if you are. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2015 22:03:08 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 1, 2015 21:58:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I didn't read it as advice.  advice would start out thusly:

"if you are interested in how to do it, I can show you."

then, you sit back and wait for me to tell you "no, thanks".

there.  that was some advice for YOU.  

edit: by the way: when I said I was having difficulty, that was my way of saying I think there is information absent.  but I figured that adding that I will look into it would take care of that matter.

man, was I ever wrong.

We "do" advice differently it seems.

I'm o.k. with that if you are. 

if you are asking me to accept that you were trying to be helpful, not patronizing, sure, I can accept that.  as I have already said, I dont' know the mind of any poster here, so I am inclined to accept what they say about themselves at face value.

ok, I figured it out.  the whole basis of the original projection by the CBO was "bending the medicare expense curve".  here is what it came from:

www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/upshot/medicare-not-such-a-budget-buster-anymore.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

now, if you are going to tell me that this is even more speculative than your 10 year cost, you are absolutely right.  however, that still leaves us with the issue of why, after growing 10% per year for 40 years, the inflation rate for medicare has fallen into the single digits, and it heading for zero.

honestly, I don't have anything to say about this subject.  I don't care much for long term forecasts.  a lot will change, and little of it will please me, I am sure.  but that is immaterial to me, and to this argument.

but HERE is what you need to understand- the point of sale of the ACA is just as strong (or weak, if you prefer, and I am sure you do) as it was originally- so those that made this case are still free to make it.  things have NOT gone differently than those forecasts.  so, when the wild ACA supporters say that the ACA will not contribute to the deficit, there is nothing in the forecasts from the CBO which contradicts them, actually- IF YOU TAKE THE PROJECTED SAVINGS TO MEDICARE INTO ACCOUNT.

if you don't, then sure- the cost is around $1.4T over 10 years, which is about 7% below the last forecast.

[djAdvocate]

(and about 2/3 of what the WT is lyingly claiming)

[Deleted]

WT?