�鶹Ů��

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that repealing the Affordable Care Act would significantly increase federal budget deficits and the number of people who are uninsured. But, it said, repealing the law would also raise economic output because it would create incentives for some people to work more. The estimates came in the first major study issued by the new director of the budget office, Keith Hall. It was also the first report to use new methods of fiscal analysis, according to instructions from the Republican majority in both houses of Congress. (Pear, 6/19)

Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cost the U.S. government $137 billion over the next decade and more than that in the following 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday. The report—the first federal assessment since the main provisions of the ACA took effect in 2014—found that repealing the law would increase deficits by $353 billion over 10 years. But after taking into account economic factors, including the slightly larger workforce participation that would result from repeal, that amount would fall to $137 billion. (Timiraos and Radnofsky, 6/19)

Repealing President Obama’s signature health care law would add significantly to the deficit, even under a new accounting method advocated by congressional Republicans who want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office on Friday projected that scrapping the law would cost $353 billion over the next decade using its traditional scoring method and $137 billion under the model favored by Republicans, which takes into account the economic impact of tax and spending policies. (Snell, 6/19)

Repealing the federal health law would add an additional 19 million to the ranks of the uninsured in 2016 and increase the federal deficit over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday. (Galewiz, 6/19)

Ahead of a much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling and just as the 2016 presidential race is kicking into gear, the Congressional Budget Office has weighed in on the costs and/or benefits of repealing Obamacare. The CBO released on Friday its report on the budgetary and fiscal impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act of 2010, shorthanded as Obamacare. It determined that on balance, getting rid of Obamacare would raise budget deficits from 2016 to 2025 by $353 billion under traditional measurement, and $137 billion by a measure that presumes economic benefits. (Hall, 6/19)

A nonpartisan government study says repealing President Barack Obama's signature health care law would modestly increase the budget deficit and the number of uninsured Americans would rise by more than 20 million. The report from the Congressional Budget Office comes ahead of a highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling that could have a major impact on the Affordable Care Act, nullifying health insurance subsidies for some 6 million people in more than 30 states. The budget analysts said that would add a host of new uncertainties to their estimates. (Taylor and Alonso-Zaldivar, 6/20)

The Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion today that sacking Obamacare would swell the budget deficit by as much as $353 billion wasn’t at all what Republicans were expecting. Using so-called dynamic scoring, which attempts to account for the economic effects of policy changes, a repeal would still hit the deficit, although by less — about $137 billion, CBO said. ... Republican reaction focused on the positive economic impact and played down the deficit implications. (Faler, 6/19)

Repealing President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform law would increase the U.S. budget deficit by $353 billion over 10 years, congressional forecasters said on Friday, more than triple the red ink compared to an estimate three years ago. But the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said the deficit increase would only be $137 billion if economic feedback effects were considered, a sign of a new Republican mandate for increased use of “dynamic scoring” that includes the economic impact of legislation. (Lawder, 6/21)