Jey the reason the CBO was able to initially predict a deficit reduction, was because of the ENORMOUS level of taxes and fees imposed by the Obamacare bill, not because anything was being made more efficient.
I will probably not write in depth until Monday, but for now - on top of all the portions that have yet to recieve funding, and the huge taxes - its safe to say that there is no efficeny present. Did you take a look at that flowchart that plotted out the huge beuaracracy? Uhg.
Also, the estimates have been revised now to put the cost about 170B in the red... will post sources later when I address the bill in more depth.
Part of the problem, is that some of the base assumptions on revenue are flawed... not due to sloppy work on the part of the CBO - but rather revenues for yet to be implemented taxes are simply hard to nail down, because they depend heavily on market forces.
One example is that Obamacare introduces a 3.9% tax on all home sales. Obviously the type of revenue this tax will produce is an uncertainty, it depends on home prices and market activity.
Another example is raising the Capital Gains tax... but the more you raise the tax, the less economic activity occurs... and also the general market will fluctuate... making predicting revenues from said activity hard to predict.
Yet another factor, is changing estimates due to the number of companies that are expected to continue providing employer-based insurance as opposed to State managed health-exchanges. This number is being steadily revised downward, as under Obamacare it will be simpler and cheaper for most companies to simply stop offering insurance, and pay the fines instead.
Jet, why dont you stop for a minutes and actually "look" at what Obamacare is and does. Not what it was supposed to be, not what Obama said it would be, but what it actually is.
Good intentions do not necessarily translate into good policy. It just seems that you are so into what Obamacare intended to be, that you have yet to look at what it actually is or does.