...Some (click here) of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That’s not our perspective....
To validate the fact the ACA is not a burden to the country's national debt is the line that states "employer sponsored insurance" (ESI). In this particular instance the ESI 2012. It had a dip initially as some companies opted to let their employees find coverage in the exchanges, but, that leveled out nearly returning to pre-implementation of the ACA. So, the 'idea' the country is burdened with health care for the majority of the country is nonsense.
Noteworthy to the purpose of the ACA is the significant drop in the uninsured. It is expected to grow throughout the time period on the graph, but, it basically strikes a maximum drop in the uninsured by 2016 and then leveling off. So, the uninsured in the USA will find it's maximum participation in 2016, for the most part. The upper lines of the graph over 0 (zero) is where the uninsured went to find coverage. That also levels off after the initial years.
These were points made during the legislative process of 2009-2010. The law when proposed and voted on already had projections made in it. This is nothing new. These findings by the CBO and others only validate what was already known. I know this was in the law as projections for the reason of the necessity because I read it. So much for lack of transparency. There was absolute transparency and this blog proves it. One of the reasons I engaged the reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was because the right wing media were promulgating lies. If I simply disputed the lies it was simply "He said, She said." By reading the actual document and recording it here I proved what the document already said. The right wing was unable to continue their lies about the health care document. Their fear mongering still hasn't stopped with "Pulling the plug on Grandma." Nonsense.
This graph simply shows the implementation of the law in 2013. Right? It shows how much of the federal budget is being spent by the ACA enactment. HOWEVER, that does not reflect a deficit for the bill that adds to the national debt. I know it sounds confusing, but, there were taxes collected IN ADVANCE of the implementation that would fund it. So, while the budget looks sort of terrible, it is simply an indication it began to be implemented and these were the funds being spent.
The ACA effects the national debt when it moves above the 0 (zero) line.
By 2011 the taxes to support the implementation of the ACA were beginning to be realized. The solid black line dips below 0 (zero) indicating the accumulation of funds in the nation's treasury (USA Treasury). There are two lines on the graph each indicating a different time period of assessment. The black line indicates the estimate of the March 2010 estimate. There was no other model to draw on for estimates into the future so the calculations were made based on perceived need and estimated costs for coverage. Pretty straight forward stuff.
The gray line of the graph is from February 2012. There was more accurate data coming in to find a closer match to the actual impact of the ACA. That data was now coming from insurance companies preparing for the implementation. AGAIN, while these companies were more accurate they also did not have a model the size of the USA to rely on.
What is fascinating about this addition of the February 2012 data is the long term projections were actually seeing less and less impact of the ACA over time. The downward trajectory in February 2012 is far greater than the estimate of the CBO in March of 2010 after the law was first passed.
What does that mean? It means the income in taxes to support the ACA is going to outrun it's expenses therefore contributing to the payment of the national debt. The longer the taxes are collected on the basis of the current ACA law the more the national debt is reduced.
Some of this occurs because not all the states have participated although their citizens have on the national website. The other part of this is SUPPLY and DEMAND. The ACA increases demand for healthcare services. When there is a larger demand the supply side of healthcare has to meet the demand. I fully expect the first two years of the ACA to have exceptionally high demand to the healthcare infrastructure with very good profits for the industry in general. But, as the uninsured are getting health care, they are also becoming well. In a very short time; I would say after 2016, the beginning of 2017, there will probably be a leveling off of demand so the supply side can then compensate and become predictable in the need for infrastructure. By infrastructure I mean the GOODS such as medications, devices, but, also services requiring trained personnel such as doctors, surgeons, nurses and the technical help of nursing assistants, medical technicians and lab personnel. That is the health care infrastructure.
So, come the first quarter, maybe the second there should be a KNOWN to the estimate of the size of the population being served by the health care industry. It will provide a much clearer picture of the expected cost of the law going forward and THEN any over taxation by the law can be reduced. I don't see anyone rushing to reduce the taxation based on ESTIMATES conducted today. The estimates have proven to be fluctuating and if there is an under estimation it could be adverse to the law.
The other possibility is to actually leave the taxation in place to assist in paying down the national debt. There is nothing written in stone that the taxes collected at any level of the ACA has to only go toward healthcare. The country needs to look at the entire picture as it unfolds in late 2016 and decide where the money has helped the USA Treasury and whether it needs to continue.
But, anyone making wild statements such Bobby Jindal from Louisiana about the loans from the Chinese paying for the ACA is a blatant lie. So, here we are with Jindal playing Liar's Poker with the health of the country.
