|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Batting average.
May 26, 2017, 8:28 PM
|
|
CBO estimates on Obamacare enrollments by year.
2013 26 million
2014 24 million
2015 24 million
2016 15 million
Actual total enrollment since the bill was signed into law: 11.4 million total up to Dec 31, 2016 and starting Jan 1, 2018 6.4 million more. A grand total of 17.8 million total to this date.
If those numbers are lies I'll apologize for being mistaken and promise not to post links to fake news again.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/21/news/economy/obamacare-enrollment-record/
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2702]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1452
Joined: 1/20/12
|
What is the CBO's record on their other estimates?
May 26, 2017, 8:33 PM
|
|
Yeah they totally missed on ACA but they surely get some stuff right, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I brought one example of their batting average.
May 26, 2017, 8:39 PM
|
|
It's the one all the dems are pitching fits over. Perhaps if you're interested enough you might want to investigate their other numbers like, 'You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. If you like your insurance company you can keep it. Insurance premiums will decrease over the years.'
Wanna go next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2702]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1452
Joined: 1/20/12
|
From Wikipedia. Sorry, I'm lazy.
May 26, 2017, 9:15 PM
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office
Whereas politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized the CBO when its estimates have been politically inconvenient,[11][5] economists and other academics overwhelmingly reject that the CBO is partisan or that it fails to produce credible forecasts.
A March 2017 survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the notion that "adjusting for legal restrictions on what the CBO can assume about future legislation and events, the CBO has historically issued credible forecasts of the effects of both Democratic and Republican legislative proposals."[2] According to MIT economist David Autor, the "CBO has a good track record with a very difficult assignment. It errs, but not systematically or with partisan intent."[2] According to Yale economist Christopher Udry, "There is no credible evidence of partisan bias."[2] Economist Walter E. Williams wrote in 1998 that the CBO was well-regarded for its "honest numbers" on fiscal and economic matters.[4] According to the Los Angeles Times, "the CBO’s analyses and forecasting are regarded as good or better than others doing similar work... economists say that the CBO’s economic projections generally compare favorably against other outfits, and its long-term budget estimates have been fairly accurate."[11]
According to George Washington University political scientist Sarah Binder, the CBO "has emerged over its history as a neutral analyst of congressional budgets and cost estimates for proposed legislation."[5] The agency has "a nonpartisan staff culture".[5]
Historically, the House Budget Committee and Senate Budget Committee have insulated the CBO from external pressures and attempts to politicize or weaken the office.[4] Professor Philip Joyce of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy writes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Thanks and I'm sorry I didn't address any perceived bias.***
May 26, 2017, 10:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
BTW, they only missed it by 75,000,000 enrollees.
May 26, 2017, 8:45 PM
|
|
About a third of the country. Not bad atall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
No, I don't think it's cumulative year after year.
May 26, 2017, 9:27 PM
|
|
I think it's just how many would be enrolled each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Then the average error over the years might be significant.
May 26, 2017, 10:44 PM
|
|
Let me apologize for my ignorance concerning the cumulation over the years. I'll do the math and try to get manage the calculations for the average error or something more useful.
Question about the total enrollment of each year. The number dropped from mid twenties millions to 15 million the last year. Was the CBO then predicting an exit from the program in 2016?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I don't know.***
May 27, 2017, 8:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
That's part of an argument. Sure.
May 26, 2017, 8:52 PM
|
|
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/cbos-obamacare-predictions-how-accurate/
It’s true (as Trump administration officials have repeatedly pointed out) that CBO greatly overestimated the number who would get government-subsidized coverage through the new insurance exchanges. But at the same time, CBO underestimated the number who would get coverage through expanding Medicaid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Batting average.
May 27, 2017, 5:43 PM
|
|
The CBO Estimates included state's requirement to expand Medicaid. The Supreme Court held that single provision as unconstitutional. Only 32 states expanded as opposed to the estimated 50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It wasn't the CBO's fault and it wasn't Obama's fault...
May 27, 2017, 8:28 PM
|
|
those pesky SCOTUS Justices ruined the estimate and the insurance bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
