[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not and cannot support being forced or forcing anyone to buy anything.

Would you be ok with it if people weren't forced to buy anything but it was ok to kick them out of the emergency room if they hadn't bought insurance and don't have money to pay for treatment?

I'm ok with it if we want to go that way (but am perhaps biased by the fact that I am, by most standards, borderline rich). But it will never happen politically (I seem tor recall that Republicans are now the bodyguards for Medicare, insurance that I have no ability to opt out of short of refusing all employment), so it is a bit of a pipe dream.

Obama's promised executive order banning federal funding of abortions is a complete farce and will not stand, and he knows it, and offered oit only to get a few votes (thought we were changing how Washington functioned....didn't Obama say he wouldn't do these types of things, and that it was the job of Congress to pass laws and his job to sign them? He was quite critical of Bush for doing things like this.).

I'm not sure why the executive order "will not stand." All it does is say "Hyde applies and this bill does nothing to change it." He can repeal it the next day and it will still be true that the bill does not to federally fund abortions (but again I am biased since I think that to the extent that health care coverage is federally funded it should cover abortion as well.)

The bill is deemed as deficit neutral by the CBO, but that includes 10 years of revenue collection and only six or seven years of outlays.

It's not quite that simple (and while the bill just passed is essentially deficit neutral, combined with the reconciliation bill is it strongly deficit positive). Many programs kick in earlier than four years from now and some revenues don't kick in immediately. The estimate is that only 10% of the 10-year revenue will be collected in the first four years while 1% of the cost happens in the first four years. So yes, there is truth to this but is hardly the 40%/60% split the statement implies. More details on this one here.

Also, it doesn't deal with the CBO estimate that in the second 10 years (when both revenues and expenses will be fully in place) $1.2 trillion would be saved.

Of course, CBO numbers are always soft because they're evaluating bills on the assumption that Congress won't muck with things in the future and that's not really ever true. But still, the CBO is the organization both sides agree to use and I think it is safe to say that if the CBO has forecast a deficit increase that then Republicans would have viewed it as sacrosanct.

The CBO also estimates that insurance rates in the individual market would be 10-13 higher in 2016 than they would be wothout passage, so there doesn't seem to be any cost control advantages.

That is the estimate for 3590 only (not accounting for changes in the reconciliation bill) and is the unsubsidized price. The primary reason that the cost is higher is simply because the amount of coverage will be significnatly higher (and not simply because it will be more expensive to buy the exact same thing). For subsidized purchasers the price of insurance will be 56%-59% lower (using the same CBO report) than if no law had been passed. The full CBO report from last November here (the 56%-59% number on page 8).

There is a marriage penalty, as there is more financial assistance for non married couples that married couples. Why the inequity?

To balance the unmarriage penalty that exists for unmarried couples who do not get the legal protections that married couples do? Or we could look at it as the "Stay at Home Mom" Bonus.

But it is there, just as it is almost everywhere. As dual high income earners, Lani and I are generally screwed on any program.


Don't expect any responses to change any minds, just providing information since I'm apparently one of the few who has time and inclination to read things.