• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

22 million fewer Americans insured under Senate GOP bill

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,335
Reaction score
27,002
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
22 million fewer Americans insured under Senate GOP bill - Jun. 26, 2017

The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million fewer Americans with health insurance by 2026 than under Obamacare, the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office said Monday.
The highly anticipated score answers key questions about the impact of the Senate's controversial legislation made public last Thursday. The analysis also offers clarity to wavering Senate Republicans on whether to vote for the bill later this week.


The CBO also found the bill would reduce deficits by $321 billion compared with Obamacare.
The House passed its version of an Obamacare repeal bill in May. That legislation would leave 23 million fewer Americans with health insurance by 2026 than under the Affordable Care Act, CBO said earlier.

The WH spokesperson had this to say in May of this year:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/obamacare-replacement-is-impossible-for-cbo-to-score-wh-claims.html

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters ahead of the vote that it is "impossible" for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to score the proposal after a series of amendments. She echoed press secretary Sean Spicer, who said Wednesday that too many "variables" are "unknown" to predict its effects accurately.

In late March, the CBO estimated that the number of uninsured people would have increased by 24 million over the next decade under an earlier version of the GOP plan, largely due to a rollback of Medicaid expansion. Republicans have continued to defend the plan, highlighting instead the CBO's assessment that premiums would fall over 10 years after initially rising.

How does Sanders even have a job?
 
This has to be added to every thread where the CBO score is used.

So, was the Congressional Budget Office really “way, way off … in every aspect” of how it predicted that Obamacare would work, as the White House claims? No, it wasn’t.

The CBO actually nailed the overall impact of the law on the uninsured pretty closely. It predicted a big drop in the percentage of people under age 65 who would lack insurance, and that turned out to be the case. CBO projected that in 2016 that nonelderly rate would fall to 11 percent, and the latest figure put the actual rate at 10.3 percent.

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.

And whatever the failings of CBO’s predictions, they were closer to the mark than those of the Obama administration and some other prominent forecasters.

Let’s look at the details...

CBO's Obamacare Predictions: How Accurate? - FactCheck.org
 
Oh, and Keith Hall, the director of the CBO, was appointed by Tom Price, the Secretary of Health and Human Services on Trump's cabinet.
 
This should not be a surprise to anyone on the left or the right. Republicans want to give people the choice to not have insurance if they don't want it so obviously there will be millions who chose not to have it. That is their "right". That by itself is not really an indication of whether a particular healthcare plan is bad or not. The left's only measure is in wanting everyone covered, to hell with anything else like the cost or how it gets paid for and they want people to be forced to have it even if they don't want it.
 
This should not be a surprise to anyone on the left or the right. Republicans want to give people the choice to not have insurance if they don't want it so obviously there will be millions who chose not to have it. That is their "right". That by itself is not really an indication of whether a particular healthcare plan is bad or not. The left's only measure is in wanting everyone covered, to hell with anything else like the cost or how it gets paid for and they want people to be forced to have it even if they don't want it.

A combination of increased automation and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries was really great because it gave middle class Americans the freedom to not have to work in jobs.
 

I wonder how many of those 26 million are people the CBO assumes won't buy insurance because they won't have to anymore. If it's not being specifically addressed, that number is probably very misleading.
 
This has to be added to every thread where the CBO score is used.



CBO's Obamacare Predictions: How Accurate? - FactCheck.org

Well sumbitch! So if we make a law that requires everyone to be insured, pay a huge chunk of the bill for a ton of people and punish the others with financial penalties for not being insured the number of insured goes up? Imagine that!

Now, if we mandate that everyone eat 4 servings of vegetables a day, pay for two of those servings and fine the people that don't eat their veggies I bet we could get better compliance in that department too.




Hmm...I wonder if we could get something passed so that everyone has to own a gun, the government will pay for half the gun and people without guns get fined?
 
Kellyanne Conway: "People who lose Medicaid coverage can get a job."

When trolls run the country.
 
I wonder how many of those 26 million are people the CBO assumes won't buy insurance because they won't have to anymore. If it's not being specifically addressed, that number is probably very misleading.

Yes, young and healthy people probably won't get insurance. Which is something of puzzling observation to make if you're arguing in favor of the Senate version, seeing as premiums will go up for sick and older people which is where millions would be booted off. The only people who could see this as a plus are literally only young and healthy people who don't know any sick, older relatives or friends.
 
That’s a decrease of over $770 billion on Medicaid over the next 10 years. (We broke down that decrease earlier on Monday, if you’re curious.) By 2026, the federal government would cut 1 of every 4 dollars it spends on Medicaid.

How significant is this? Overall, the CBO estimates that the Senate bill will result in fewer people being uninsured by 2026 than the House health care bill (titled “The American Health Care Act”). Measured against the baseline number of uninsured that would be expected under the Affordable Care Act, the Senate bill would see 22 million more people uninsured, compared with the House’s 23 million.

But looking just at the expected decreases in Medicaid coverage, the Senate bill is actually worse over the long run. The reduction in the number of people with Medicaid coverage is slower out of the gates, but, by 2026, fewer people will have Medicaid coverage under the Senate plan than under the House plan.

In 10 years, 14 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage if the House bill were enacted. If the Senate bill were enacted, that number would be 15 million. The number of people who lose coverage from their employers would be lower under the Senate bill, which reinforces the core trade-off being made: Shifting the negative effects from wealthier Americans to less wealthy ones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-medicaid/?utm_term=.517d70fa2298&tid=sm_tw

So the Senate version is a giant medicaid cut to give billions of dollars to rich people. That's all there is to it.
 
A combination of increased automation and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries was really great because it gave middle class Americans the freedom to not have to work in jobs.

What? You do realize that Trump won because he was talking about bringing these jobs back to America while all Hillary could do was run negative ads, don't you? And now you are trying to claim that Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't really want jobs after all? Really?
 
What? You do realize that Trump won because he was talking about bringing these jobs back to America while all Hillary could do was run negative ads, don't you? And now you are trying to claim that Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't really want jobs after all? Really?

I'm saying that people who voted for Trump to bring jobs back don't know how good they have it, because now they have actual freedom, whereas before they had to work in jobs. Automation and outsourcing freed them.
 
I wonder how many of those 26 million are people the CBO assumes won't buy insurance because they won't have to anymore. If it's not being specifically addressed, that number is probably very misleading.

But....but....but it makes for great press for the radicals who believe giving people a choice takes power away from the bureaucrats which they don't like. Of course people are going to CHOOSE not to participate but the CBO has no idea how many that is and can only speculate. CBO isn't very good at speculating human behavior which in this case is choice.
 
Isn't Medicare primarily for older Americans?

Yes. You aren't eligible until age 65 or with certain disabilities.

-edit-

Medicare isn't available until age 65. Medicaid is different and serves primarily the low income. The latter program is primarily run by the states but with federal reimbursements.
 
Yes. You aren't eligible until age 65 or with certain disabilities.

Conway was referring to Medicaid. The bill will remove 834 billion dollars from Medicaid over the course of ten years and will go to those making over $200,000/yr.
 
Last edited:
Isn't Medicare primarily for older Americans?

Medicare, YES, but not Medicaid which is for lower income. there is no proof that Medicaid is going away if the federal govt. stops spending money on the program IF the people of the state want the program. Since people of the states bore the expenses of the uninsured they have incentive to fund a healthcare program for the poor. Our state does exactly that.

I always thought and was told that the Democratic Party was the party of choice and believes in choice when it comes to people's personal responsibility issues such has getting pregnant. Seems like a double standard here in that they don't want people to have a choice whether or not to purchase insurance believing what they are told that people will not be able to afford insurance even though there is no way of knowing that
 
Yes. You aren't eligible until age 65 or with certain disabilities.


I mean how do you spin that? It's staggering what we allow our leaders to get away with and it's the most vulnerable that get hit. Similar to the austerity cuts in my own country and this culture of treating the poor like dirt which was highlighted in our tower fire tragedy. How many punches do we take before we start punching back?
 
I mean how do you spin that? It's staggering what we allow our leaders to get away with and it's the most vulnerable that get hit. Similar to the austerity cuts in my own country and this culture of treating the poor like dirt which was highlighted in our tower fire tragedy. How many punches do we take before we start punching back?

You've probably seen my edit and the other replies.
 
My mistake I misread your post . Your healthcare system is hard to follow

That's okay. It's hard to follow for us as well because roughly half the country believes that poor people shouldn't get to have health care, so they vote for people who agree with that resulting in a patchwork healthcare system which is a bloody nightmare.
 
That's okay. It's hard to follow for us as well because roughly half the country believes that poor people shouldn't get to have health care, so they vote for people who agree with that resulting in a patchwork healthcare system which is a bloody nightmare.

Just seems crazy to me that the most powerful country on earth can't offer that to its citizens. It is what it is I guess.
 
This has to be added to every thread where the CBO score is used.



CBO's Obamacare Predictions: How Accurate? - FactCheck.org

Anyway the CBO did predict coverage reasonably as a raw number. what they couldn't get is 'which' people would be covered and the related cost. Unfortunately the healthy people didn't sign up right away or at all. the unhealthy jumped on it pretty much right away.
Even though they adjusted their estimated cost it ended up costing more... but then again just about everything always costs more than you predict.

To be fair scoring and prediction by the CBO, or anyone else, is always challenging with amendments, and various economic changes its like a moving target. The CBO painted a better picture than it turned out. but their prediction wasn't grossly off.
 
Back
Top Bottom