Posted on 06/27/2017 7:45:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The CBO says the Senate health reform bill would leave 22 million more people uninsured in 2026 compared to current law. That’s a slight improvement over the House bill which the CBO said would leave 23 million uninsured the same year. The CBO does note that the majority of this change next year would be the result of eliminating the penalty on not having insurance. From the CBO report:
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance.
The CBO estimate has the usual section offering caveats about the difficulty of making such estimates. That section also notes that even the 2016 estimate of current law, against which the Senate bill is being compared, may not be accurate:
CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop budgetary estimates that are in the middle ofthe distribution of potential outcomes. Such estimates are inherently inexact because theways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors,hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by thislegislation are all difficult to predict. In particular, predicting the overall effects of themyriad ways that states could implement waivers is especially difficult.
CBO and JCT’s projections under current law itself are also uncertain. For example,enrollment in the marketplaces under current law will probably be lower than was projected under the March 2016 baseline used in this analysis, which would tend todecrease the budgetary savings from this legislation.
In fact, we know the CBO’s previous estimates of Obamacare enrollment have been badly wrong. From the Wall Street Journal:
In February 2013, CBO predicted that ObamaCare enrollment in the individual market would be 13 million in 2015, 24 million in 2016 and 26 million in 2017. The actual enrollment for those years were, respectively, 11 million, 12 million and 10 million. As recently as March 2016, CBO was projecting an enrollment boom of 15 million for this year.
Here’s CBO’s March 2016 estimate showing Obamacare marketplace enrollment this year would be 15 million. In fact, actual enrollment was down this year and is currently somewhere around 10.5 million. So the CBO estimate of current law leaves a lot to be desired. In any case, the Senate bill itself is still a moving target as the NY Times points out today:
Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year.
The waiting-period proposal is meant to address a conspicuous omission in the Senate’s bill: The measure would end the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance, but it also would require insurers to accept anyone who applies. The waiting period is supposed to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to purchase a health plan. Insurers need large numbers of healthy people to help pay for those who are sick.
Even using reconciliation, the GOP can only afford to lose two votes in the Senate and still get the bill passed. CNN has been keeping a Senate whip count which currently shows 5 Senators against the current bill (and several more with standing concerns or demands). The bottom line is that this CBO estimate is going to make it very tough to have a successful vote on this bill this week.
It isn’t even a delegated power given the federal government to be concerned with this issue.
“The CBO does note that the majority of this change next year would be the result of eliminating the penalty on not having insurance.”
Why do we care if those people choose not to have insurance?
Repeal and just walk away. Constitutionally, it’s not your business.
And most of them would be electively uninsured because they would not be coerced by the IRS into sigining up or paying tax penalties
So if 22 millions supposedly lose their “insurance” and the “insurance” is crap “insurance”
That’s considered a loss?
The USA should not be in the INSURANCE BUSINESS!
Many young might go with a catastrophic type policy and save money. This is the same CBO that never EVER gets anything right.
It is a move in the right direction. The base assumption is these people can’t get any healthcare coverage otherwise......which is false.
They cut the growth of the program.....so it really isn’t a cut. Get the government out of it. Americans can buy car insurance, home owners insurance....they should be able to buy their health insurance. If they had to pay for what it costs, we would be far healthier as a nation. As long as someone else is paying the bill, folks have no incentive to make smart choices. It is unfortunate, but it is also human nature.
22 million is a fake number.
15 million of those did not “lose” insurance. They did not *want* insurance, and when they were no longer forced to buy it, they didn’t.
It is nonsense to call it “losing insurance”.
It is as though a rapist stops raping someone, and the media says the victim “lost access to sex”.
It’s lies anyway. The 22 million aren’t being left, they’d be leaving on their own.
The estimate is that without a mandate, 22 million would choose to go uninsured.
“It isn’t even a delegated power given the federal government to be concerned with this issue.”
The Fraud and his worshippers politicized EVERYTHING.
Which is really unfortunate for those “conservatives” who are willing to believe Big Media headlines verbatim as long as they’re not DIRECTLY related to politics.
More CBO bull crap. If you could see the assumptions they were told to evaluate on you would see that CBO is anything but nonpartisan.
Hmmm...
Left unsaid is what happens when the current law collapses somewhere around 2018 or 19.
So, what they are saying is that most of those "uninsured" would be people who chose not to purchase insurance. Not that they would suddenly find themselves without insurance due to no fault of their own.
Where does it say in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or even the Articles of Confederation, or any government document that you have a right to free or cheap insurance paid in part or all by your neighbors?
The only place I find it is in Takaful, a piece of Sharia law, (what a surprise). But even it is funded by donations and not taxes. So, sorry left, shouldn’t qualify (yet).
rwood
Here are my questions:
1. Are these numbers based on before of after the Senate added back in the penalty for not having coverage?
2. What happened to an option of having catastrophic coverage in lieu of regular medical coverage?
3. How many people who presently have coverage are in effect without it because between their deductibles and premiums are unable to benefit from the “coverage” they supposedly have.
These asshats need get over the notion that “insurance” equals health care. It does not.
When DeathCare was being pushed, it was 14 million who didn’t have insurance. Oddly enough, that was approximately the number of illegals.
Now it’s 22 million. Number of illegals?
The federal government has no business in this anyway
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.