Let’s hope the far right elements of the Republican Party are prepared to deal with this. Repealing the subsidies would also have a negative impact on enrollment. You may hate Obamacare rationally or otherwise, but replacing it with something that does not involve government is a dream (or nightmare).
What Would Be the Major Effects of Repealing the ACA? A new report from the CBO predicts, 19 million more uninsured plus a best guess increase in federal deficits of $137 billion over ten years.
Report from the Congressional Budget Office
CBO and JCT estimate that repealing the ACA would have several major effects, relative to the projections under current law:
Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period (see Table 1). That estimate takes into account the proposal’s impact on federal revenues and direct (or mandatory) spending, incorporating the net effects of two components:
• Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.
• Repeal of the ACA would raise economic output, mainly by boosting the supply of labor; the resulting increase in GDP is projected to average about 0.7 percent over the 2021–2025 period. Alone, those effects would reduce federal deficits by $216 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate, mostly because of increased federal revenues.
For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated.
However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Don’t forget that the projections assume that IPAB will reduce Medicare spending trends significantly. So, much of the “saving” is likely illusory given past efforts to contain Medicare spending in the past. Tell me, given the CBO’s past projections on PPACA, has the CBO actually identified the specific impact of the law in any of the years since passage? Have they compared their projections with actual results? NO. And, they never will. You should view these projections with just as much skepticism as CBO itself applies to its own projections.
Remember President Obama claiming that PPACA would not add “one thin dime” to the deficit and debt? That was based on CBO projections, including projections in March 2010 – immediately prior to passage of PPACA and HERA. So, what did CBO decide? Well, in 2012, the CBO’s long term budget outlook, they confirmed that there would be substantial increases in deficits unless IPAB and/or Congress took new actions, confirming that: “… Projections in this report are consistent with a statutory requirement that CBO, in its baseline projections, assume that benefit payments will continue to be made after trust funds have been exhausted, even if there is no legal authority to make such payments.”
Remember that PPACA would “save” $145B in the first five years by phasing out “overpayments” to Medicare Advantage. Did that happen? Nope. And, of course, we have yet to see even one penny of the projected $69B in penalties paid by employers and individuals who chose not to purchase coverage – instead, we see all form of delay and waivers – want to avoid the individual mandate penalty task, all you may need to have done is ask.
Where is the $60+B reduction in deficits and debts CBO projected would result from CLASS during the first five years of PPACA implementation?
Amazing the differences when you apply commonsense analysis based on past experience – the expenses grow, the taxes grow, the savings never materialize.
If the Supremes rule against tax credits for federal public exchange coverage, eliminating the tax credits for federal public exchanges will REDUCE spending, and yes, it will provide some relief for the employer shared responsibility penalty tax to employers and individuals in those states who do not offer health care coverage (because, no penalty applies unless the employee or dependent receives taxpayer s subsidized public exchange coverage) and the individual mandate penalty tax does not apply where public exchange coverage is unaffordable for those whose income is < 400% of the federal poverty level.
But, the projections that full repeal of the PPACA would raise the deficit should be viewed with the same suspicions applied to the initial CBO projections for PPACA – that health reform will lower the annual deficit and the national debt. That was never an honest evaluation – either!
This is just the newest set of lies. In Chapters from My Autobiography, over 100 years ago, Mark Twain said: "Figures often beguile me, … particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.’” He is still current today – at least when it comes to CBO projections on health reform.
LikeLike
CBO regular adds caveats and notes the volatility of their projections as well as that they must make assumptions based on the law as written even when they know it will be implemented as with Medicare fee cuts. Same is true for SS and Medicare Trustee reports but you never see the full story in the press.
LikeLike