Of course, it's an exaggeration made by the liberal rag itself. The article has a link to the actual letter from Lew that says that the $30 billion on hand on October 17th "would be far short of net expenditures on certain days, which can be as high as $60 billion".
The arithmetic; the 2013 budget was for $3.8 trillion. Divided by 365 days, I get $10.4 billion/day.
The article suggests federal spending exceeds GDP. I know this is the dream of liberals but, come on!
This is similar to the way the liberals under-report the national debt at 75% of GDP; if that were true there would be no debt ceiling battle over a $16.7 trillion limit, would there?
They stop White House tours, they close beaches, they bar national monuments, they suggest Social Security won't get paid and so on. What a load of crap.
There is no need for a default. We only paid $395 billion in debt service this year. We could pay that by reducing all manner of other spending before defaulting.
Don't buy this nonsense.
The Obamacare Arithmetic Revisited
The reality is that Obamacare will result in an additional $150 billion/year of deficit spending starting in 2017. According to the AMA, uninsured and uncompensated health care cost about $54 billion in 2008 (the year in which Obamacare began).
There are about 50 million uninsured (no idea how they can measure this) so the actual cost is only a bit over $1,080 each. To fix this, the CBO estimates that Obamacare will spend $150 billion/year starting in 2017; $3,000 each.
This is plainly a waste of taxpayer dollars; House Republicans are clearly crazy, right?.
If young, healthy people don't buy in (and why would they wwith a $95/year tax penalty for not doing so), what will that do to costs?
Such a deal!
Even better, it will increase by $30 billion/year in just a few years; see graph below.
Those liberals are economic masterminds! Of course, they're spending your earnings so who cares.
The liberals love to lambaste the (conservative) House of Representatives for trying and failing to repeal it dozens of times (so far). They also whine about the shutdown and looming debt ceiling battle. However, given these facts and the facts that half of the states have rejected it and that the roll-out of the pre-existing condition trial is already out of money lend credence to the House's efforts.
They also love to say it's a republican idea: modeled after Romneycare in Massachusetts. In 2012, the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts funded and released in April research that showed that the 2006 law and its subsequent amendments – simply in terms of measuring the state-budget effect on the uncompensated care pool and funding subsidized insurance had cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2011 versus approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. Some of this doubling in cost was funded by temporary grants and waivers from the United States federal government (us again). The result doesn't include the $295 per employee cost to employers; nor does the CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare include premiums; just subsidies.
The net result is that 4% more of the state population is insured. With a population of 6.6 million, this is 264,000 people. The cost per person is $3,787 + $295 = $4,082. Still way more than the original $1,080. The beneficiaries are the health care providers, not the uninsured people or the taxpayers.
I'll not argue that republicans are incapable of dumb ideas too, but that's no reason to duplicate them on a large scale.
This may be stating the obvious but wouldn't we be better off to repeal and offer the hospitals insurance against uninsured people rather than doing stupid stuff like this?
The real culprit is costs, not who pays.
Again, I urge you all to send this to your senators. It's worth 10 minutes of your time.
The law is a piece of crap, passed in an anti-Bush fervor with zero Republican support. America open for business is a wonderful thing.
*****************************************************
Senator,
I'm writing to ask you to vote for the house CR to fund government and defund the ACA.
The ACA is a $150 billion 'solution' to a $50 billion problem.
Poor people can't afford even cheap premiums but they can't be turned away from emergency care.
As more companies opt for a fine instead of providing employee's insurance, the whole wage basis of the middle class will come unhinged.
The MLR provision isn't working either; insurance companies still post 30% profits.
The only good thing is the pre-existing thing but that would be a good standalone law.
You rightly bucked the party on place something here, please do it again.
-Marty
******************************************************
The Goal
The ultimate liberal goal is a single-payer system.
Obamacare exists because that would never become law.
The liberals hope this train wreck will make that one look good by comparison.
Show me the arithmetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment