the debt chart

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obamacare does not reduce the deficit. Read the footnotes.

How about I just read the CBO analysis:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-HealthCareLegislation.pdf (see page 11)

"...enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues."

and "...repealing PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would produce a net increase in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012–2021"

So, just in case this is not clear: Obamacare reduces the deficit by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019. Repealing it -- as opponents want to do -- increases the deficit by $210 billion.

Any questions?

[Anonymous]

Now, if you add back the "doc fix," the supposed deficit reduction has disappeared. But there's more. Because of federal budget practices, the law also results in a theoretical $400 billion improvement in the cash flow of the Medicare insurance trust fund even though it does not actually enhance the ability of the government to pay those benefits. So many would argue that that $400 billion is also illusionary.

Adding all that up--already we are adding back more than half a trillion dollars--the predicted deficit reduction of $143 billion begins to look pretty shaky, if not fictitious.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

[jsteele]

PP, copying and pasting an entire article violates US copyright laws (unless you can show that you had the right to reproduce the article). Since you didn't provide a URL, I could evaluate the copyright and had to error on the side of caution.

Regarding the article, the primary claim surrounds the "doc fix". However, the article itself makes clear that the charges associated with that issue will exist whether we have healthcare reform or not. Therefore, if those expenses are included in the healthcare reform analysis, they must be included in the baseline as well. As the author latter makes clear, his point was to suggest shortcomings in the CBO's requirements for doing an analysis. Again, since you didn't provide a URL, we can't evaluate the author's credentials. But, personally, I am not impressed with his analysis.

[Anonymous]

Wash Post fact checker ....

[Anonymous]

Why don't we just invade a country with lots of natural resources, like oil
How about Iraq

Ther are no more Indians that we can get land from so what else is there?