Winners and Losers from the Republican vote to replace Obamacare

man you are full of shit piezoe.

show me where I created alternative facts... you lying sack of shite.
You know damn well not a single republican voted for Obamacare.
And ther were about 100 members of congress who like dennis kucinich were holding out for single payer in the beginning... .but they almost all collapsed.

2. Tell us exactly how McCarran Ferguson limits Congress' ability to see claims data. The constitution might prevent Congress from learning claims data by M-F places no such limits on Congress' ability to legislate.
 
just about everything you write in support of big govt and leftism is easily fact checked and proved wrong by google checks.

Do you see a massive difference between before and after obamacare. If anything those first there years of obamacare were brutal.

and as far as the individual market..
Obamacare jacked my premiums by close to 100%.
prior to that my premiums were going up far less quickly.



PremiumsvsWages.jpg


So it probably should not be a surprise to learn that last month a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 20.9% of manufacturing firms in the state said they were employing fewer workers because of Obamacare, while 16.8% of respondents in the service sector said the same.


Obamacare's fiercest defenders dismiss these criticisms as overblown, pointing out that the risk of being uninsured is the lowest it's been in decades and that Medicaid expansion has been very successful in achieving this. But this Pollyannish view ignores the brutal reality that the per enrollee cost of the Medicaid expansion is already 49% higher than originally projected by the Department of Health and Human Services just one year ago. Medicaid already had perverse incentives for states to waste money and crowd out other priorities such as education and criminal justice. The Obamacare Medicaid expansion effectively put those perverse incentives on steroids, as a recent Mercatus Center analysis demonstrates in great detail.

In short, Obamacare is failing miserably across a variety of dimensions. Yet Hillary Clinton's answer is to double-down on Obamacare and expand it to more people--including illegal immigrants! [1] Donald Trump's answer is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better--although he has not been very good about explaining what such a replacement plan might look like. In light of these sharp policy differences, Obamacare is a highly relevant campaign issue to workers and taxpayers alike. It merits a spirited presidential debate. Let's get to it.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...an-worker-wages-under-obamacare/#dfff2ccafe7e
 

37 top economists all say Trump's tax plan won't pay for itself


More than 35 American economists surveyed last week disagree with a basic element of President Trump’s proposed tax plan: whether it will pay for itself. In an unusual display of unity, 100 percent of participating economists rejected the idea this week that Trump’s plans to drastically lower taxes on corporations, business, and individuals will create enough economic growth to offset the lost federal revenue and avoid adding to the national debt.

Two economists initially wrote they agreed the plan would pay for itself, but when emailed by Vox, they both said they’d made mistakes on the survey.

On Tuesday, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business released results from a poll of 42 renowned economists. When asked to evaluate the claim that Trump’s tax cuts will pay for themselves through economic growth, 84 percent disagreed (five of the economists didn’t weigh in). When I contacted the two economists whose opinions differed, they said that their answers were an error, and that they actually disagreed with the claim.

I “screwed up,” Stanford economist Kenneth Judd wrote to me in an email. He misread the question and meant to answer that he “strongly disagreed.”

So it turns out that 100 percent of the economists who participated in the survey doubt Trump can create enough economic growth with his tax cuts. They described the idea as “implausible” and “a deficit stimulus.” Several comments were, by economist standards, acerbic.

Influential MIT economist David Autor “strongly disagreed” with the logic behind the pay-for-itself feature, and explained it this way: “I'm not sure it should be called a plan because it's so devoid of content,” he wrote. “But absent offsetting tax increases, it would be a fiscal disaster.”

Screen_Shot_2017_05_04_at_6.17.07_AM.png

The Trump administration is relying heavily on the notion that his proposed cuts would spur so much economic growth that money will flood the US Treasury as a result. It’s a convenient idea, because it releases his administration from the hard task of deciding where to raise taxes to offset deficit-swelling cuts. Trump’s plan does call for eliminating most tax deductions, though that would hardly make up for the estimated loss of up to $5 trillion or more in the next 10 years.

Calculating the cost of tax cuts will be crucial to the success of tax reform. The easiest route for Republicans is to get a bill passed through budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority in the Senate. But the legislation would have to be revenue-neutral and not add to the deficit after 10 years.

Last week, Trump released a one-page plan of tax cuts he would like Congress to pass. It lacked key details, but it centered on lowering the tax rate on corporations and businesses to 15 percent, reducing individual rates, and doubling the standard deduction for individual taxpayers.

The Chicago panel is highly skeptical that such a plan would not add to the deficit.

As Harvard economist Oliver Hart wrote: “We do not have the details of the plan but it is very implausible that it would pay for itself.”

Or University of Chicago economist Michael Greenstone: “It wasn't a fleshed out plan, but based on what was announced the probability that it will increase the deficit is very high.”

The panel of economists also overwhelmingly agreed with the claim that in the past 30 years, tax revenues have generally fallen when lawmakers rely on optimistic assumptions about the economic impact of tax cuts.

Screen_Shot_2017_05_04_at_6.08.57_AM.png

Here’s what University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee said about the resulting loss in revenue: “You can quibble with phrasing, but that's the consensus of the research literature (that none of the advocates ever seem to check).”

-----------
-----------

Another version of tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
 
Covertibility said:
37 top economists all say Trump's tax plan won't pay for itself


More than 35 American economists surveyed last week disagree with a basic element of President Trump’s proposed tax plan: whether it will pay for itself. In an unusual display of unity, 100 percent of participating economists rejected the idea this week that Trump’s plans to drastically lower taxes on corporations, business, and individuals will create enough economic growth to offset the lost federal revenue and avoid adding to the national debt.

Two economists initially wrote they agreed the plan would pay for itself, but when emailed by Vox, they both said they’d made mistakes on the survey.

On Tuesday, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business released results from a poll of 42 renowned economists. When asked to evaluate the claim that Trump’s tax cuts will pay for themselves through economic growth, 84 percent disagreed (five of the economists didn’t weigh in). When I contacted the two economists whose opinions differed, they said that their answers were an error, and that they actually disagreed with the claim.

I “screwed up,” Stanford economist Kenneth Judd wrote to me in an email. He misread the question and meant to answer that he “strongly disagreed.”

So it turns out that 100 percent of the economists who participated in the survey doubt Trump can create enough economic growth with his tax cuts. They described the idea as “implausible” and “a deficit stimulus.” Several comments were, by economist standards, acerbic.

Influential MIT economist David Autor “strongly disagreed” with the logic behind the pay-for-itself feature, and explained it this way: “I'm not sure it should be called a plan because it's so devoid of content,” he wrote. “But absent offsetting tax increases, it would be a fiscal disaster.”

Screen_Shot_2017_05_04_at_6.17.07_AM.png

The Trump administration is relying heavily on the notion that his proposed cuts would spur so much economic growth that money will flood the US Treasury as a result. It’s a convenient idea, because it releases his administration from the hard task of deciding where to raise taxes to offset deficit-swelling cuts. Trump’s plan does call for eliminating most tax deductions, though that would hardly make up for the estimated loss of up to $5 trillion or more in the next 10 years.

Calculating the cost of tax cuts will be crucial to the success of tax reform. The easiest route for Republicans is to get a bill passed through budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority in the Senate. But the legislation would have to be revenue-neutral and not add to the deficit after 10 years.

Last week, Trump released a one-page plan of tax cuts he would like Congress to pass. It lacked key details, but it centered on lowering the tax rate on corporations and businesses to 15 percent, reducing individual rates, and doubling the standard deduction for individual taxpayers.

The Chicago panel is highly skeptical that such a plan would not add to the deficit.

As Harvard economist Oliver Hart wrote: “We do not have the details of the plan but it is very implausible that it would pay for itself.”

Or University of Chicago economist Michael Greenstone: “It wasn't a fleshed out plan, but based on what was announced the probability that it will increase the deficit is very high.”

The panel of economists also overwhelmingly agreed with the claim that in the past 30 years, tax revenues have generally fallen when lawmakers rely on optimistic assumptions about the economic impact of tax cuts.

Screen_Shot_2017_05_04_at_6.08.57_AM.png

Here’s what University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee said about the resulting loss in revenue: “You can quibble with phrasing, but that's the consensus of the research literature (that none of the advocates ever seem to check).”

-----------
-----------

Another version of tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
More...


Opinions, opinions. That's all you've got is dubious opinions.

On the other hand, obongo's fiscal stimulus was put to a direct test.

And it failed. Slowest recovery ever.

The libtard 'fiscal multiplier' is a scam.

Iow, gov't spending doesn't pay for itself. Whowouldathunk?

When you hear them bellow on about 'tax cuts not paying for themselves' and then segue right into their plan to increase gov't spending and use the fiscal multiplier concept, hold on to your pocketbooks, you know you're about to be scammed out of your hard earned money.

There's a reason they use the phrase 'pay for themselves' with tax cuts. To ridicule.
And there's a reason they use 'fiscal multiplier' when talking about spending.
To make it sound like a high falutin rock solid economic principal.

Leftard economists are like global warming scientists. Born to scam.
 
fhl said:
Slowest recovery ever.
More...

Actually it isn't (unless there is another recession in the next three years). The recovery from the great depression was the slowest. Time to recover from recessions should be related to the depth of the recession and to the extent of stimulus measures taken, wouldn't you think?
 
piezoe said:
The recovery from the great depression was the slowest.
More...


And they both went into great big gov't stimulus mode.

What
a
coincidence.


Whereas in the depression of '20-21, gov't did nothing and the economy bounced right back.

Can we learn from history?
 
I saw an article about all the medical related taxes that are done away with in the house version of the obamacare repeal. On top of that is repeal of the individual mandate.

But they want to continue to insure everyone.

And they don't do anything to bring down the cost of health care treatment.

So it kind of looks to me like this bill is just an attempt to shift a good deal of the costs of paying for it over to general tax revenues and let that cover it. How else can it be paid for?

What other conclusion?
 
Covertibility said:
The panel of economists also overwhelmingly agreed with the claim that in the past 30 years, tax revenues have generally fallen when lawmakers rely on optimistic assumptions about the economic impact of tax cuts.
More...

"Jem" thinks income taxes can be eliminated entirely. That's how delusional he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top