Do you think St Ronnnie would have been elected in 1980 if his team had not treasonously subverted the Embassy hostage negotiations, denying Carter any chance to obtain a release and credit for it in the campaign?
Repugs are ing evil ing sons of ing es.
Hillary did manage to bring down the entire Dem party this go around all without her ever being charged with anything so you are probably right. I don't think Trump is the type of guy to just resign. He is too arrogant for that. If he resigns that tells me that he has done something that would land him in jail, or the death penalty.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Trump just get sick of it and quit, and then blame Washington for his failure.
That would surprise me - I don't see Trump as a quitter.
Trash is a LOSER, never won fair and square in his entire life.
He quit on his ACA repeal bill.
That is simply a pause - he'll come back to it when aca falls apart and everyone is more ready to deal - got 3 years and 10 months left.
The CBO says it ain't gonna fall apart son.
Nope. For the same reason Trump wont. Both were/are ineffective, weak leaders.
Do yourself a favor and quit buying into the lie. It's not falling apart.
It could survive but Republicans will do everything they can to sabotage it
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/o...rump.html?_r=0
The aca’s risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs ended in 2016 so unless Congress or the states prop up the aca, it'll fall apart. If they take action (as Alaska did), taxpayers will bailout aca. States that expanded aca Medicaid expansion will soon run into trouble with their portion - either raise taxes or divert funds from education, transportation, prisons, etc especially because of underestimation of enrollment and cost (see below).
Maybe you shouldn't place so much trust in what CBO says:
Enrollment is much higher than CBO expected when the ACA passed in 2010, and it is also significantly higher, particularly in 2017 and beyond, than estimated in both CBO’s 2014 and 2015 reports. Essentially, this means that far more people—roughly 50% more—have enrolled and are projected to enroll in Medicaid in the states that expanded than was expected by CBO previously.
In addition to higher-than-expected enrollment, spending per newly eligible Medicaid enrollee is much greater than expected. As I wrote in July when the Obama administration released the 2015 Medicaid actuarial report, government spending on newly eligible enrollees equaled about $6,366 in 2015—an amount 49% higher than its projection of $4,281 from just one year earlier.
Both higher-than-expected enrollment and spending per enrollee has resulted in the Medicaid expansion being much more costly than projected. For example, in April 2014, CBO projected that the Medicaid expansion would cost $42 billion in 2015. The actual cost was $68 billion, about 62% higher.
The second figure shows CBO’s projections of federal spending on the Medicaid expansion and how CBO’s most recent projection of the cost are substantially above previous expectations.
Using CBO’s current projections of state adoption of the expansion for its previous estimates shows that federal Medicaid spending between 2016 and 2024 is $232 billion in excess of its April 2014 estimates.
Both figures adjust CBO’s previous year estimates for its current assumptions about state adoption of the expansion. CBO now expects states to adopt the expansion at a slower rate than it has previously projected. In 2010, before the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional for states, CBO expected all states would adopt the expansion. This adjustment allows for a better comparison of enrollment and spending because it holds constant CBO’s assumptions about the percentage of the newly eligible Medicaid population residing in expansionary states.
Too Little Value from Medicaid Expansion
Prior to the ACA, when states shouldered their traditional share of Medicaid spending (an average of 43%), only Vermont and the District of Columbia concluded that the tradeoffs—higher state taxes and reduced spending elsewhere—justified expanding Medicaid to the ACA expansion population. It turns out that states that did not expand Medicaid prior to the ACA almost certainly made a wise cost-benefit calculation.
A 2015 study from economists at Harvard, MIT, and Dartmouth, assessing an earlier Medicaid expansion in Oregon to a similar population to the ACA expansion, found that “[a]cross a variety of alternative specifications … Medicaid’s value to recipients is lower than the government’s costs of the program, and usually substantially below.” They estimated that the “welfare benefit to recipients from Medicaid per dollar of government spending range from about $0.2 to $0.4.” Oregon Medicaid expansion enrollees did not have significant improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, or blood sugar relative to people who did not enroll in Medicaid.
Reform Medicaid, Stop Viewing Program as Economic Stimulus
In order to increase the value that enrollees receive from Medicaid and lessen the amount lost to waste, fraud, and abuse, it is necessary to change the central incentives underlying the federal-state partnership. In particular, the incentives of the ACA’s elevated reimbursement rate lead policymakers to view Medicaid as an engine for economic stimulus instead of as a welfare program. For example, according to the White House:
“By expanding Medicaid, States can pull billions in additional Federal funding into their economies every year, with no State contribution over the next three years and only a modest one thereafter for coverage of newly eligible people.”
A study by Deloitte Consulting and the University of Louisville projects that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion will add 40,000 jobs and $30 billion to Kentucky’s economy through 2021. The problem with this and similar studies is that they assess the decision of a state in isolation without factoring in other states’ decisions regarding expansion. For example, Kentucky is worse off when other states expand, because her citizens pay federal taxes to finance health benefits that accrue only to individuals in those other states.
Economist Robert Book points out that the American economy is worse from the ACA expansion “because taxation itself has a negative effect on economic activity, over and above the amount of tax collected.” Book estimates a reduction of $174 billion in economic activity over a 10-year period if all states expand Medicaid. He also estimated a total job loss of more than 200,000 positions from 2014 to 2017 if all states expanded Medicaid.
Sensible Medicaid reform has two central goals: reduce the unsustainable trajectory of spending and produce better outcomes for people most in need. The ACA Medicaid expansion significantly adds to the unsustainable spending trajectory of the program, likely fails to produce health outcomes or value to recipients worth the corresponding cost, and creates a large federal government bias toward nondisabled, working-age adults at the expense of traditional Medicaid enrollees. Moving Medicaid back in the right direction requires ending the ACA’s elevated federal reimbursement rate that has given rise to these problems.
https://www.mercatus.org/commentary/...g-little-value (originally published in Forbes)
So I should trust Dear Leader and a far right think tank?
Don't we not have to pay the mandate now? That will help tank it
No, the mandate is still law. Price can zero it out any time he wants if he wants to kill all the insurance companies.
Is Forbes considered a far right think tank? The article was originally published at
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcom...URL=&referrer=
More trickle down right wing horsehit from Heritage in your bolded crap son.
Except for the last bolded, the other bolded are all facts.
The third to last bolded also - else the rest are all facts. Far more enrollment and cost - gonna affect states' budgets - they can't just print like the Feds.
LOL placing your trust in the heritage foundation. The think tank that gave us hits like the iraq war and the creation of isis.
havent seen clippernation around in a while. id hide too if i was reponsible for a 300 post thread praising the worst elected politician in american history.
You sure would not know
So Boots knows how to plays fair and win?
Gonna disagree with this Ducks.
Angry, simplistic, spamming partisan.
Ryan wrote AHCA, Trash was a follower, incapable of writing it, or even reading it, himself
ACA isn't falling apart or exploding, but Price has enormous power to it up, and he will.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
