Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752


1. 23 million more uninsured

2. 1/6 non-group population would be in waiver states

3. 1/6 of the market to become unstable by 2020 thanks to AHCA

 

[adg1034]

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law."

 

[kirblar]

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law.

Thanks for the ad material, GOP!

 

[BronsonLee]

It's shit

 

[GurgleBot20]

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law."

Is that a lot?

 

[Zyae]

Its dead, Jim

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under H.R. 1628 than under current law. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 23 million in 2026. In 2026, an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law. Under the legislation, a few million of those people would use tax credits to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks.

Holy fuck

 

[Feep]

Win for the GOP. The number going around prior to this report was 24 million, not 23.

(rolls eyes)

 

[Slayven]

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law."

Only part they care about

 

[RPGCrazied]

23 million would lose healthcare, that is the only line you need.

Democrats get those attack ads ready.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

23 million eh, makin progress, idiots

 

[JimJamJones]

Its dead, Jim

It's the GOP, it's probably not dead.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Is that a lot?

Only for the ones who are uninsured.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Is that a lot?

It's 7% of the country.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

I may have problems with relativity, but 23 million seems like a fucking lot.

It's only under a million less than the last CBO report, too.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Win for the GOP. The number going around prior to this report was 24 million, not 23.

(rolls eyes)

You forgot to say ”Checkmate, liberals!"

 

[kirblar]

It's the GOP, it's probably not dead.

Senate isn't even actually working on a bill.

 

[sangreal]

Is that a lot?

it's better than the original version because it will allow more people to buy worthless insurance

 

[GoldenEye 007]

So it sounds like it'll be good for reconciliation since it makes the budget neutral or less? But the GOP will hold the baggage for kicking 23 million off insurance and making it more expensive for everyone not perfectly healthy?

 

[subrock]

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law."

I was initially confused by "reducing deficits" but then I remembered that they were doing this to remove coverage from a shitload of people. $119b over 10 years is peanuts, and yet 23 million will lose coverage.

 

[Zyae]

It's the GOP, it's probably not dead.

McConnell said they dont have 50 votes

 

[Lord Frieza]

Is that a lot?

If you had 23 million dollars, would it be a lot?

 

[DrForester]

That means they can ram this through reconciliation, doesn't it?

 

[Dyle]

In comparison with the estimates for the previous version of the act, under the House-passed act, the number of people with health insurance would, by CBO and JCT’s estimates, be slightly higher and average premiums for insurance purchased individually—that is, nongroup insurance—would be lower, in part because the insurance, on average, would pay for a smaller proportion of health care costs. In addition, the agencies expect that some people would use the tax credits authorized by the act to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks and that are not counted as insurance in this cost estimate.

Dear god, even the CBO is saying that many of the plans under this law wouldn't be health insurance.

 

[adg1034]

Now the real question is whether this passes muster under the Senate's reconciliation rules. If not, and if McConnell doesn't play games with the parliamentarian, this might need to go back to the House for another vote.

 

[reckless]

So it sounds like it'll be good for reconciliation since it makes the budget neutral or less? But the GOP will hold the baggage for kicking 23 million off insurance and making it more expensive for everyone not perfectly healthy?

Yeah isn't that bad, since they can pass it through reconciliation now with a simple majority?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Dems should laser focus on the 51 million uninsured under age 65 by 2017 number. And the fact that plans purchased with any tax credits won't even cover catastrophic events. What's less than Bronze? Tin?

 

[BoogieWoogie]

In 2026, an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

51 MILLION.

 

[GurgleBot20]

"a few million of those [who remain insured] would use tax credits to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks."

 

[Boke1879]

Get the ads and talking points ready. Anyone who voted for this shit should be a target.

 

[MikeRahl]

So they save $119 Billion

23 Million no longer have insurance

50% of people will see premium deductions of around 4%
33% of people will see premium deductions between 10-30% with vastly reduced benefits
16% of people ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Stinkles]

I read the (additional) uninsured number as 1.23M and thought, "wow, that's surprisingly better than I thought."

But man oh man. What a turd.

 

[iammeiam]

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law."

Which is interesting against this:

That amount is $32 billion less than the estimated net savings for the version of H.R. 1628 that was posted on the website of the House Committee on Rules on March 22, 2017, incorporating manager’s amendments 4, 5, 24, and 25. (CBO issued a cost estimate for that earlier version of the legislation on March 23, 2017.)

So covering one million more Americans (many with shittier, cheaper policies) than the last one, but at a cost of 32 BILLION.

That's.... a thing.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I'm almost certain that it was reported not too long ago that this doesn't meet the reconciliation requirements and has to go back to the House. I'm positive I read that, though it may have been speculation.

 

[Nafai1123]

Murdering millions to save $119 billion over a decade.

Fuck the GOP and fuck the people that vote for them.

 

[SoundofSilence]

In 2026, an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured

 

[adg1034]

Yeah isn't that bad, since they can pass it through reconciliation now with a simple majority?

Not necessarily. See here, but the important piece:

If the CBO projects millions more using the tax credits for skimpy insurance, it could blow through the AHCA’s deficit reduction and make it a long-term deficit increaser, which isn’t allowed under reconciliation rules. Should the CBO make that determination, the Senate wouldn’t be able to act on the bill.

The bill doesn’t just have to be a long-term deficit reducer overall. Each committee of jurisdiction involved in writing the reconciliation bill—the finance and health policy committees in the House and Senate—has to save at least $1 billion in its contribution to the legislation. So even if the finance portion of the AHCA was to save tens of billions of dollars, the health portion would still have to find its own $1 billion in savings.

 

[jmdajr]

Save money AND screw people over.

Boners!

 

[studyguy]

 

[Randolph Freelander]

"a few million of those [who remain insured] would use tax credits to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks."

Also reads "a few million would use tax credits to purchase policies that would be entirely useless."

 

[GurgleBot20]

If I am understanding this correctly, the difference between the old and the current is that 1 million people can now continue to buy shittier insurance?

 

[Spider from Mars]

They will just attack the CBO for being wrong.

 

[cdyhybrid]

This is what you voted for, right Trump voters?

 

[Stinkles]

Only part they care about

Incorrect. That's chump change. What they fundamentally care about is health insurance and medical corporations making more money by spending less. But they can't care about that in public because it's hidden in this waxy ball of pubis.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Jesus, older people wouldn't even be able to buy the "good" catfood.

 

[BronsonLee]

Yeah this thing is dead. That house vote was clearly symbolic. If they actually wanted to push this through the Senate would've tried already.

 

[Black Mamba]

1/6 of the non-group market will become unstable. GOOD JOB GOOD EFFORT.

 

[rokkerkory]

How do even people vote for their reps based on all this crap lol

 

[sangreal]

I'm almost certain that it was reported not too long ago that this doesn't meet the reconciliation requirements and has to go back to the House. I'm positive I read that, though it may have been speculation.

No, what was reported was that they had to wait for this to make sure it saves more than $2B (it does) because it wouldn't fly otherwise. In that case, they would have to revote

Incorrect. That's chump change. What they fundamentally care about is health insurance and medical corporations making more money by spending less. But they can't care about that in public because it's hidden in this waxy ball of pubis.

the health insurance and medical industries hate this bill

 

[Tovarisc]

Would hit hard in 2018 already.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/867479130216030209

 

[Lord Frieza]

I really wish we could get a solid understanding of what this reconciliation thing really amounts to. I can't shake the fact that's been used so often as a term that we are now using it without realizing exactly what it means. I always thought there was supposed to be some type of time limit to when you can use reconciliation rules. Is there not? What exactly qualifies something to be passed under reconciliation?