While that statement is factual in that the report does state that Obamacare will save lots of taxpayer $$$s, the statement is also misleading. Those "savings" are not due to Obamacare. Instead, they have everything to do with the projections CBO used in its most recent report. To wit:
- by 2025, 25M fewer Americans will be insured due to Obamacare (or, 2M less than CBO's January report); and,
- ~70% of the net cost reduction in the latest revision (dropping from $1.35T between 2016 and 2025 to $1.21T after including provisions for savings) comes from an updated projection that Obamacare will cover fewer people.
In other words, with fewer people being enrolled in Obamacare, the cost to taxpayers will be lower than previously estimated. Those savings have absolutely nothing to do with either savings or cost containment, two of the reasons why Obamacare became law in the first place.
Then, too, wasn't Obamacare envisioned as protecting all people in the United States--citizens and non-citizens alike--so there no longer would be all of those uninsured people? This was a national imperative--an international embarassment and prime exhibit of social injustice and the evils of capitalism and conservatism--wasn't it? How does "fewer" insured square with "more" insured?
That's not "news." It's called the liberal use of "propaganda."
Shame on the Washington Post. It appears the newspaper's editors have decided to follow in the footsteps of other such objective news outlets like the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Los Angeles Times by trafficking in all the "propaganda" that's fit to print.
Let the discussion begin...
To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
To read the CBO report, click on the following link: