Trumpcare Saves Social Security By Killing People!
by Barkley Rosser (originally from Econospeak)
Trumpcare Saves Social Security By Killing People!
Yes, there it is in black and white in Table 3 footnote f on p. 33 of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) official report on the proposed American Health Care Act, aka Trumpcare. Between now and 2026 spending by the Social Security Administration is projected to decline by $3 billion if Trumpcare passes. This is due to a projected 1 out of 830 people dying who would not under the status quo, this based on a study of what happened to death rates in Massachusetts after Romneycare came in. The projected deaths are about 17,000 in 2018 and up to about 29,000 in 2026.
Another great thing? There will be a reduction in accumulated deficits of about $300 billion, with a reduction of revenues of about $0.9 trillion and a reduction of outlays of about $1.2 trillion. The former will be due to cuts in taxes on high income people while the latter will be due to eliminating subsidies to help poorer people pay for health insurance on the exchanges as well as cutbacks in Medicaid spending for even poorer people. How fortunate can we get?
Barkley Rosser
I see one small omission.
Has the CBO also figured out the increased costs to Social Security that will result from the lack of preventive care that leads to increased levels of disability claims?
You know, things like people losing their legs to untreated diabetes, etc.?
From the Paul Rand …..um, Paul Ryan point of view the benefits reached by killing people unfortunately are somewhat offset by creating disabled people.
Oh well, all in a days work in Galt’s Gulch.
Frankly, I do not know, EMichale, but the point is valid. The CBO report does take a lot of things into account though, pretty thorough, pretty well done and credible.
“valid”
Too true.
Can you imagine living under a government where killing and disabling citizens is a policy goal?
Beyond frightening.
I will give Trump a semi pass because he is mentally ill(not a big pass). But Ryan and the conservatives are, to be kind, indecent human beings.
In the ten-year period Barkley looks at SS will spend $12.1 Trillion. Barkley is concerned by a drop in that by $3B.
This difference is equal to 0.02%. That is so small that it is not even a rounding error. It will not make the slightest difference to SS.
But Barkley claims that this minute difference, “Saves Social
Security”.
Ho hum, just more fake news…
Krasting with another clear example as to why there are no conservative comedians.
Bkrasting, How do you come up with $3 billion?
Jerry – from this:
“Between now and 2026 spending by the Social Security Administration is projected to decline by $3 billion if Trumpcare passes.”
OK, but how does that $3 billion reconcile with the $1.2 trillion reduction in outlays described in the second paragraph? What are the differences between social security administration spending, outlays, and SS spending?
In other words, are you talking about the same thing when you say, “In the ten-year period Barkley looks at SS will spend $12.1 Trillion”, and Barkley says, “Between now and 2026 spending by the Social Security Administration is projected to decline by $3 billion…”?
J – Well, ask Barkley. These are his words I’m questioning.
In 2026 SS will spend $1.9T. That comes to about $6B every day-24/7.
So Barkley has made a big deal of something that is equal to a half day’s worth of payments 10 years from now.
I say that even if this is the outcome it is insignificant and has nothing to do with the relative strength of SS. Barkley’s claim that this minute difference will “save” SS is false. His lede is just click-bait.
I say that the “mighty” CBO can’t predict such a narrow margin ten-years from today.
Um, BKrasting. Guess you did not figure it out. I was being sarcastic, very sarcastic. Sorry if you were unable to figure that out.
I guess I was unable to figure it out too. In other words, as far as SS goes, Trumpcare is the same as Obamacare.
I don’t suppose they looked at “repeal and don’t replace”?
Your use of sarcasm to cover mendacity means your analysis can not be trusted.
Gregory:
Doubtful on your thoughts. BK advocates looking out much further to assert the stability of SS and plays on both sides of the road. You are new and would not know this.
Jerry,
It is true that there is no direct link between Obamacare and SS, but this report poiints out an indirect one, that Obamacare, or to be more precise, its predecessor Romneycare, has been estimated to have saved lives, even if the number is not all that huge, 1 out of 830. But over the whole nation that adds up. Now when O-care was passed nobody went around noting that this was going to add a burden, if small, to Social Security by having more people living longer and collecting more in Social Security. It was advertised that expanding health insurance coverage would improve peoples’ health and therefore their life expectancy, although nobody at the time provided any estimates of the latter. But indeed, the latter implied some extra spending over time by the SSA, although nobody ever noted that.
Essentially the estimate is based on a a repeal and no replace, as it is based on what happened in Massachusetts to life expectancy after Romneycare was put in. I note that supposedly ACA is actually slightly better than R-care,although mostly for cost reduction. Howver, I also note that the estimates of the number of people that will lose insurance with Trumpcare pretty much put the number of uninsured back to about where they would have been if there had been no O-care, if not worse.. So, frankly, the “replace” is barely better, if not actually worse, than just “repeal without replace.” The numbers are about the same.
Gregory,
Wos, are you and idiot. The sarcasm was in such statements about how fortunate we were going to be to have this $e billion savings in Social Security savings, not in the factual statements. The factual statements are factual: it really is there in black and white in footnote f on p. 33 of the official report by CBO that there will be this “saving” of $3 billion due to lowered life expectancy, even if this is not all that large an amount of money in the grand scheme of things. What it does point out, which is not actually noted anywhere else in the report, is that Trumpcare is likely to damage overall health and life expectancy, which is a very serious bottom line.
So, Greegory, I suggest that you take your charge of “mendacity” and shove it up your nearest available bodily orifice. Eitther that or see if you can find your brain where you let if tall out of your head somewhere and reinsert it to where it belongs.
Gregory – Spot on! Mendacity=untruthfulness. That describes Barkley’s words. Don’t trust him….
Then there is Runny. He says: “BK advocates looking out much further to assert the stability”. No truth to that that either.
I’m surprised Dan C lets AB be abused by click-bait lies.
bk:
Oh, you have not suggested a NPV (which is baloney way to measure SS anyway) going out for 75 years when most of us have argued a 10 year window is adequate as things change. You are feeling pretty bold today bk, cut back on the caffeine.
Gregory:
I am one of the editors here. Do not be taken in by bk as he is dispensing his usual rhetoric. I am happy to see Barkley here.
BK,
As I said, this is why there are no conservative comedians. They just don’t get it.
An obviously sarcastic post is being treated as an economic statement. That you persist even after the author told you that(and there is no way anyone should have needed to be let in on the joke), is beyond belief.
bk;
You are going to learn the hard way, I take it. Come back when the name calling stops. If you do it again, you are spam.
To BKrasting and Gregory:
Just what is it that I said that either of you think is untrue? I note that this was a post on Econospeak. It did not carry over from there to here, but if you go there, I provided a link to the official report. I am not lying. The official CBO report says exactly what I say it does where it does, although you have to go to the appendices to get the full explanation. The footnote f on p. 33 gives the basic number of the savings of $3 billion due to fewer survivors.
The sarcastic joke lines are the opening sentence and the closing sentence. The rest of is real news, not fake news, and the bottom line is that we can expect Trumpcare in fact to kill people if it is passed.
Get it?
Barkley:
Fixed on Angry Bear’s end and in your post here. Econospeak link is not working though. CBO Report Table 3 Footnote f
Ad homs are not useful.