the other day the charles blahous' analysis of the ACA made a bit of a stir. contrary to other studies, including the CBO, that the affordable care act will reduce the deficit, blahous concluded that the health reform act would increase the deficit by something between $340 billion and $530 billion over a ten year period. that conclusion is what got all the media coverage (especially, although hardly exclusively, with the conservative media).
what's surprising is that all those media blowhards totally missed the major revelation from that study. whether there is an increase or decrease in the deficits depends upon the baseline you choose for the what the "current deficit" is. thanks to blahous' bizzare choice of baselines, if you take his analysis seriously most of the current budget deficit disappears! with one quick assumption, the problem solves itself. shockingly, there was no mention of this in all the breathless coverage of the blahous analysis. how could the conservative media, for all its fixation on the debt crisis, have left that part out? did they totally blow it or what?
what's surprising is that all those media blowhards totally missed the major revelation from that study. whether there is an increase or decrease in the deficits depends upon the baseline you choose for the what the "current deficit" is. thanks to blahous' bizzare choice of baselines, if you take his analysis seriously most of the current budget deficit disappears! with one quick assumption, the problem solves itself. shockingly, there was no mention of this in all the breathless coverage of the blahous analysis. how could the conservative media, for all its fixation on the debt crisis, have left that part out? did they totally blow it or what?
