Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

See my response to your other post. You are comparing the world we're in to a fantasy dreamland, where prepubescent girls cavort with unicorns, waiters in tails bring you cupcakes and champagne, and Congress was going to make massive cuts in Medicare just to balance the budget.

The cuts in HCR were designed to pay for HCR. They more than do that. All you are saying is that in other respects the economy has gotten worse and so we have less money. True. True, but completely irrelevant, except in your fantasy world. Have another cupcake.

This (http://is.gd/kjIO2) makes half my argument. And only a fucking clown (or tribal mind) wouldn't buy this simple logic:

Those of us who oppose PPACA believe, among other things, that the subsidies will cost much more than CBO currently assumes because CBO’s baseline currently assumes a sharp reduction in the unemployment rate. Moreover, as James Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin argue, it seems entirely plausible that many employees will encourage workers to take advantage of the new subsidized exchanges:

Over time, both employers and the labor market are certain to adjust to take advantage of the new subsidy structure. Employers with large numbers of low- and moderate-wage workers are likely to move them into the exchanges, even if it means giving their higher-salaried workers extra wages to compensate for the loss of the tax break for employer-paid premiums. As new businesses are formed, they could organize, in part, with a view toward taking maximum advantage of both the subsidies available in the exchanges and the tax break that remains for those with higher incomes.

The end result would be that enrollment in federally subsidized insurance in the exchanges would likely far exceed the 19 million people that the CBO has estimated. Indeed, the safe assumption is that an additional 35 million workers and their families with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line — who would clearly be better off in the exchanges as opposed to on job-based coverage — could end up there over time, one way or another.

And when they do, costs will soar. The CBO projects that the premium-assistance program will cost about $450 billion from 2014 to 2019, but that cost would rise to $1.4 trillion if workers and their family members with incomes between 133 percent and 250 percent of the poverty line were to migrate out of their current job-based plans and into the exchanges on Day One. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the amount advertised by the law’s supporters.

But then, you don't live in the real world. You never have. You academically noodle on this shit, but do I hear anything practical? Nada. Zip. Which is why you buy theoretical projections like fact. God help you if you ever have to run something.