The CBO Gets It Very Wrong on ObamaCare

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 04/15/2014 | IBD Staff

[IBD editorial writer]

Failure: ObamaCare fans are cheering the latest Congressional Budget Office report, which appears to show that it will cost less and cover more people than expected. But that's true only if you ignore reality.

We don't always agree with the CBO, but we have long respected it as a credible source of budget numbers.

Sure, its projections almost never turn out to be true. But simply too many variables are at play for anyone to guess such things perfectly, and it provides a more or less independent source of information on highly charged, partisan issues.

But the CBO's latest report on ObamaCare simply defies reality.

[dontreadthis]

any claims that the CBO is non-partisan are evaporating

[uncitizen]

No part of the government can be trusted anymore. Especially those that provide measurements or statistics of any sort. Obama and Jarrett ET al have all the bases covered.

[InterceptPoint]

It's a process. And processes take time - even for Obama.

CBO: Congressional Budget Office
CBO: Competent Budget Office
CBO: Corrupt Budget Office

[Chewbarkah]

Since you have researched this, please help me out with statistics from the CBO report, if any:
1) Total estimated subsidy over ten years? (Another source says $1.032 Trillion over 10 years).
2) What is the TOTAL cost of ObamaCare including administrative costs, grants for Medicaid expansion and exchanges, etc.?
3) Number of enrollees assumed per year?
4) Presumed rate of dollar inflation per year?

With that data, we could derive an average inflation adjusted annual subsidy per enrollee, and compare that to claim made when this bill was passed. The expense of this program seems to be outrageous for the meager results.

[Chode]

But the CBO's latest report on ObamaCare simply defies reality. = ++UNTRUTH...

[Soul of the South]

There are three variables with respect to ACA policies which in combination may reduce the demand for medical care by insured middle and lower middle class people and therefore result in lowering medical care costs in aggregate:
1) High deductibles and copays
2) High premiums for those who are not subsidized
3) Very limited provider networks

It is very possible those struggling to stay above water from paycheck to paycheck will quickly realize they cannot afford the high out of pocket costs and will forgo medical care, thereby reducing demand for services and lowering claims costs for the insurance companies. The law of unintended consequences may be the bill touted and giving access to good healthcare for everyone may actually result in less care for the working poor and lower middle class.

[tanknetter]

Yes, the laws of supply and demand are pretty well established.

You can’t increase demand in the face of decreasing supply and not expect either increased costs or limitations on the good services being provided.

Obamacare involves defacto rationing to keep costs down. But using passive measures. In the spirit of “set deportation”, call it “self rationing.”

[headstamp 2]

I concur and also, how much of this is really a Medicaid expenditure that is not being considered into the total cost of ObamaCare?

The growth of the Medicaid enrollments have got to be adding billions to the cost of the program.

[GreenAccord]

I pretty much gave up on relying on CBO info once I understood that they can only provide outputs based on the inputs given to them by the requester.

For example, I could ask the CBO how long it would take me to drive from NY to LA. I would give them a specific NY starting address and a specific LA finish address. Then tell them I will get 40 mpg, and gas fill ups will take 8 minutes. Then I finish off the variables by telling them my Dodge Neon will travel at 358 mph.

The CBO would then estimate my trip at 9 hours, 42 minutes, 38 seconds.

Is it right? Mathematically, maybe (I didn’t do the math). But is it reality? Heck no. But it’s the answer for the problem stated.

All you need to know is that they calculated the cost of Obamacare based on numbers given to them by the Obamacare folks. The math is probably right, but the reality is not.

[Cruz_West_Paul2016]

and Being Barry wouldn’t take any questions regarding the Affordable-Health-Care act after his victory speech? Hmm,what? Katherine got his tounge? so typical of Democrats,they talk the talk,yet will not take candid questions!

[MosesKnows]

simply too many variables...

Not for an administration that actually believes it can centrally plan the world's climate.

They can insert data that fits their dogma for any “variable” whose data is not accurately known.

Is there any official measure of the CBO’s accuracy in past projections?
Is there any unofficial measure of the CBO’s accuracy in past projections?

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Output directly related to input. Garbage in, garbage out!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

When even the census is politicized by this administration, you know every other agency in government will be TFU...

[sport]

They did not get it wrong. They and everyone connected with the Obama administration knew what a disaster it would be. They deliberately lied about it.

[House Atreides]

Is there a single part of the federal government remaining that has not now been corrupted and subverted by the progressives?

[Beagle8U]

The CBO is given a set of figures and projections, and crunches numbers to come to the conclusion based on what they were given.

If the CEO and the CFO are cooking the books, it’s not the accountants (CBO) fault the ingredients were wrong.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for this article.

___________________________

” - - - Sure, its projections almost never turn out to be true. But simply too many variables are at play for anyone to guess such things perfectly, and it provides a more or less independent source of information on highly charged, partisan issues. - - - “

Comment to staff of IBD editorial writer:

Make up y’alls minds !

Are y’all going to hold the CBO accountable as a credible source of financial predictions or not?

The Left Stream Media if full of mealy-mouthed gibberish such as the above quote from y’alls article!

We Conservatives need RELIABLE information that we can to base our decisions upon!

What is the correction factor that needs to be applied to CBO cost estimates on any given Government program?

______________________

Suggestion: Score the past accuracy of the CBO by estimate, dollar amount AND percentage, over or under, on each Government program.

* Rational: The US taxpayer, who is paying for this Permanent Welfare Entitlement Debt, deserves an accurate assessment of the reliability of a primary information source, such as the CBO, that will be used by Government Officials to create more Permanent Welfare Entitlement Debt for us to pass on to our Grandchildren’s descendants.

* Red Flags: Notice which Government programs are significantly higher or lower on a percentage basis, than other programs.

For example, y’alls analysis may show that Obamacare estimates are always more than 240 % lower than actual results, whereas 90 % of all other CBO estimates of Government programs estimates are only 110 % lower than actual results. Thus pointing out a potential criminal collusion between the CBO and Obamacare officials.

* Incentive for IBD: Help us trust that IBD will hold the CBO accountable for past performances, and thus increase our subscriptions to IBD.

_____________________

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/041514-697265-the-cbo-report-is-wrong-about-obamacare-webhed-the-cbo-gets-it-very-wrong-on-obamacare.htm#ixzz2z3Txwlv4
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook