CBO: TrumpCare, 24 million lose health care

[billvon 2,435]

>there is private scoring out there that looks much different than this highly
>subjective and political doc put out by this CBO

And republicans know it's correct, because they made it up themselves.

[kallend 1,649]

rushmc

***The CBO missed badly on Obamacare. They said in 2017 23 million would be insured through the exchanges. It's just over 9 million today. Close enough for government work.

there is private scoring out there that looks much different than this highly subjective and political doc put out by this CBO

Only in your opinion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 915]

sonnyblu

***According to some Republicans, it all comes down to priorities. If that 64-year-old chooses food and shelter over health insurance, that just means that "morally, spiritually, socially, they just don't want health care".

I don't see where he said anything about prioritizing healthcare over food and shelter, but nevertheless, his comments were incredibly dumb, and his twisting of scripture to somehow validate his baseless argument is just sickening.

He said those on medicaid probably do the least in terms of preventative medicine, but doesn't provide anything to back up his claim. Even if it were true, it doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything. So what, just because they aren't maximizing the benefits to the fullest, we should just take them away altogether?

I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of his comments aside from getting attention.



On another note, Rep. Jason Chaffetz has been getting a lot of negative press for his comments as well:

Quote

"maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”

Obama said something similar:

“ if you looked at that person’s budget and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone … cell phone bill, other things that they’re spending on, it may turn out that they just haven’t prioritized health care because right now everybody is healthy, nobody actually wants to spend money on health insurance until they get sick."

In trump's defense he had allot of republicans echoing the exact same sentiment.

It has to be mandatory...gggggggggggrrrrrrrr...

"In 2012, 12.6 percent of motorists, or about one in eight drivers, was uninsured, according to a 2014 study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC). The percentage has been declining in recent years. Oklahoma had the highest percentage of uninsured motorists, 26 percent, and Massachusetts had the lowest, 4 percent."

Otherwise the sick will go to ER and get a free ride on the insured. Just like an uninsured motorist that hits a pedestrian and causes serious injury.
http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists

[mr2mk1g 10]

This all looks very odd to someone on the other side of the pond. We have 1 group - everyone. Everyone* pays in and everyone is covered, all of the time.

*Everyone in employment and earning over £11,000 at least. Everyone pays 12% of earnings up to £43,000, over which you only pay 2%. Employers pay a further 13.8% of salary and there are a couple of other nuances and provision for the self employed etc. It comes straight out of your pay packet - you don't even have to do the maths.

If you earn less than £11k then you don't pay anything but everyone's still covered. This pays for not just medical care, irrespective of prior conditions but also unemployment and disability benefits and also a state pension.

Who knew healthcare was so complicated?

[billvon 2,435]

So in table 3 of the Trumpcare proposal there's a chart that lists the overall budgetary effects of the proposal. One of the rows is "other effects on revenues." That's a lot of money saved! Where is that coming from?

That row has a footnote that says "CBO also estimates that the outlays for Social Security benefits would decrease by about $3 billion over the 2017-2026 period." OK, so that's part of the savings. But why is that changing? This proposal doesn't address Social Security.

Ah, I see where it's coming from. From a study by the ACP on the implementation of the Obamacare model in Massachusetts:

========
Reform in Massachusetts was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality compared with the control group (P = 0.003, or an absolute decrease of 8.2 deaths per 100 000 adults). Deaths from causes amenable to health care also significantly decreased (P < 0.001). Changes were larger in counties with lower household incomes and higher prereform uninsured rates. Secondary analyses showed significant gains in coverage, access to care, and self-reported health. The number needed to treat was approximately 830 adults gaining health insurance to prevent 1 death per year.
http://annals.org/aim/article/1867050/changes-mortality-after-massachusetts-health-care-reform-quasi-experimental-study
========

So that's an expected increase of 8.2 deaths per 100,000 adults after losing insurance. So by 2026, if the CBO’s estimate is correct, that would equate to about 28,000 deaths a year.

That's where the savings are coming from! Dead people don't need Social Security. What a brilliant business move!

[kallend 1,649]

billvon

So in table 3 of the Trumpcare proposal there's a chart that lists the overall budgetary effects of the proposal. One of the rows is "other effects on revenues." That's a lot of money saved! Where is that coming from?

That row has a footnote that says "CBO also estimates that the outlays for Social Security benefits would decrease by about $3 billion over the 2017-2026 period." OK, so that's part of the savings. But why is that changing? This proposal doesn't address Social Security.

Ah, I see where it's coming from. From a study by the ACP on the implementation of the Obamacare model in Massachusetts:

========
Reform in Massachusetts was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality compared with the control group (P = 0.003, or an absolute decrease of 8.2 deaths per 100 000 adults). Deaths from causes amenable to health care also significantly decreased (P < 0.001). Changes were larger in counties with lower household incomes and higher prereform uninsured rates. Secondary analyses showed significant gains in coverage, access to care, and self-reported health. The number needed to treat was approximately 830 adults gaining health insurance to prevent 1 death per year.
http://annals.org/aim/article/1867050/changes-mortality-after-massachusetts-health-care-reform-quasi-experimental-study
========

So that's an expected increase of 8.2 deaths per 100,000 adults after losing insurance. So by 2026, if the CBO’s estimate is correct, that would equate to about 28,000 deaths a year.

That's where the savings are coming from! Dead people don't need Social Security. What a brilliant business move!

And no death panels needed, which saves even more. The candidates for death self-select by being poor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NewGuy2005 51]

billvon

>....We all pay for each other's insurance....

Would it not be more accurate to say that we all pay each other's medical bills through our insurance?


....So you have a few choices:

2) Have someone else pay, and collect the money via taxes. That's what single payer is.

There you go. Single payer gives us the ultimate group and everybody that pays taxes pays their fair share. However, can you trust the federal government to oversee this when incompetence, selfishness, and dishonesty is all you can count on from them?

Think of the unintended consequences. The possibilities are "YUGE!"

[Phil1111 915]

billvon

So in table 3 of the Trumpcare proposal there's a chart that lists the overall budgetary effects of the proposal. One of the rows is "other effects on revenues." That's a lot of money saved! Where is that coming from?

That row has a footnote that says "CBO also estimates that the outlays for Social Security benefits would decrease by about $3 billion over the 2017-2026 period." OK, so that's part of the savings. But why is that changing? This proposal doesn't address Social Security.

Ah, I see where it's coming from. From a study by the ACP on the implementation of the Obamacare model in Massachusetts:

========
Reform in Massachusetts was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality compared with the control group (P = 0.003, or an absolute decrease of 8.2 deaths per 100 000 adults). Deaths from causes amenable to health care also significantly decreased (P < 0.001). Changes were larger in counties with lower household incomes and higher prereform uninsured rates. Secondary analyses showed significant gains in coverage, access to care, and self-reported health. The number needed to treat was approximately 830 adults gaining health insurance to prevent 1 death per year.
http://annals.org/aim/article/1867050/changes-mortality-after-massachusetts-health-care-reform-quasi-experimental-study
========

So that's an expected increase of 8.2 deaths per 100,000 adults after losing insurance. So by 2026, if the CBO’s estimate is correct, that would equate to about 28,000 deaths a year.

That's where the savings are coming from! Dead people don't need Social Security. What a brilliant business move!

Thats a very good point. I wonder if the AARP has heard of this yet. They will not be happy when they find out that trump and the republicans want to put them out of business.

[lummy 4]

The NY times has an article this morning explaining the cost savings in premiums. In a nutshell, the AHCA will drive up premiums so high for older people, that they will just drop out.

No Magic in How G.O.P. Plan Lowers Premiums: It Pushes Out Older People

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 2,435]

>No Magic in How G.O.P. Plan Lowers Premiums: It Pushes Out Older People

. . . who then die, solving at least three problems at once.

[lummy 4]

billvon

>No Magic in How G.O.P. Plan Lowers Premiums: It Pushes Out Older People

. . . who then die, solving at least three problems at once.

Maybe the GOP will finally get their Death Panels

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[wan2doit 6]

Bottom Line - Nothing is free - somebody always has to pay - no matter what.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

wan2doit

Bottom Line - Nothing is free - somebody always has to pay - no matter what.

It is amazing to me that any adult has to be told that.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>there is private scoring out there that looks much different than this highly
>subjective and political doc put out by this CBO

And republicans know it's correct, because they made it up themselves.

The only thing we know for sure is the CBO was grossly incorrect about Obamacare

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>No Magic in How G.O.P. Plan Lowers Premiums: It Pushes Out Older People

. . . who then die, solving at least three problems at once.

And don't forget, before this year's over they'll be wanting to starve children too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Bottom Line - Nothing is free - somebody always has to pay - no matter what.

It is amazing to me that any adult has to be told that.

All your big government liberal friends need to be told that daily. But they still don't listen

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>It is amazing to me that any adult has to be told that.

It's also amazing to me that there are apparently a lot of republicans who are shocked over how insurance works.

[JerryBaumchen 1,066]

Hi rush,

Quote

And don't forget, before this year's over they'll be wanting to starve children too

And the 'they' is your Republican Congress. How about that, folks?

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

And don't forget, before this year's over they'll be wanting to starve children too

And the 'they' is your Republican Congress. How about that, folks?

Jerry Baumchen

You bet Jerry! And then we're going to want to push Grandma over the cliff to Remember that?

Don't forget I want poisoned air and tainted water for my grandchildren. Fu** them I don't want them being healthy either.

All of this so we can live with liberal Democratic dream. Oh isn't Nirvana a great place...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>It is amazing to me that any adult has to be told that.

It's also amazing to me that there are apparently a lot of republicans who are shocked over how insurance works.

Yes Bill! We should all wait until our house is on fire to buy homeowners insurance. Don't you think that would be great too?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

******Bottom Line - Nothing is free - somebody always has to pay - no matter what.

It is amazing to me that any adult has to be told that.

All your big government liberal friends need to be told that daily. But they still don't listen

And yet you all want free-to-you health care.

[billvon 2,435]

Op-ed from the LA Times:
==============
Every single false Republican criticism of Obamacare applies perfectly to Trumpcare

Neera Tanden
March 15, 2016

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday released its analysis of the House GOP’s plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The result is about as damning as it gets. According to the CBO, 24 million people will lose health insurance over the next decade under the Republican bill, including 14 million in the next year alone.

I served on President Obama's healthcare reform team and worked on the Hill to get the legislation passed. It was apparent to me then that many of the Republicans’ criticisms of the ACA were wrong, and yet they now apply to the House GOP bill that Speaker Paul Ryan introduced last week.

Since the ACA was passed by the Senate in 2009, the GOP has been attacking it for delivering unaffordable healthcare. Costs were too high, they said. But according to analysis by my colleague Topher Spiro and other healthcare experts, the GOP bill would raise annual healthcare costs for the average enrollee by $1,542, and those costs would continue to increase each year. Older individuals would be hit even harder, with those between the ages of 55 and 64 paying $5,269 more per year on average.

Further analysis by the Los Angeles Times paints an especially dark picture for supporters of President Trump. Of the 70 counties that would suffer the biggest losses under the plan, 68 supported Trump. In fact, 14 of the 15 states most affected by this bill voted for Trump, with states such as North Carolina, Alaska, Oklahoma and Nebraska bearing the heaviest burden.

The GOP campaigned on high ACA costs but then created a bill that raises, not decreases, those costs for families. As millions of Trump supporters lose the healthcare coverage they need, wealthy Americans such as Trump can expect a windfall. People making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut by $144 billion over the next decade.

Eight years ago, the GOP decried the creation of a partisan Democratic bill. But today, only Republicans support the Ryan plan. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and most insurers oppose this bill. No Democrats were even consulted on the legislation.

Eight years ago, Republicans accused Democrats of ramming through the ACA, even though we spent more than a year holding hundreds of meetings, roundtable discussions and public hearings with experts, lawmakers and stakeholders throughout the healthcare industry. Obama gave a nearly hourlong speech to Congress, laying out his vision and inviting further discussion from both sides of the aisle. Senate Democrats accepted more than 160 Republican amendments to the healthcare bill. And House Democrats held multiple public hearings before and after introducing their legislation in June 2009, allowing relevant committees time to discuss the bill and make amendments long before holding the final House vote four months later.

Now House Republicans want to bypass that crucial process in order to rush their bill through in the next week or so — no hearings with experts, no bipartisan summits, no testimony from the Health and Human Services secretary.

Trump and Republican leaders have tried to assure their anxious rank-and-file members that they will be able to move on to other issues if they simply deal with healthcare quickly. But as someone who was intimately involved in the crafting, passage and defense of the ACA, I know Republicans are fooling themselves.

For starters, Ryan is asking his members to vote for a bill that is not likely to get enough support to pass the Senate. And even if it does, repealing and replacing the ACA isn't the end of the process — it's the beginning of a long and ugly drama that will engulf their party for years to come.

As the infighting spills into public view, the media will feast on every twist and turn. Republicans will no longer be able to shift the blame. No Barack Obama in the White House, no lack of control in the Senate or House.

And when disaster inevitably strikes and people start losing coverage, do congressional Republicans think Trump will defend them? Or will there be a 3 a.m. tweetstorm with their names on it?

As we approach the seventh anniversary of the ACA’s passage, the GOP’s replacement plan is shaping up to be a policy and political disaster. It breaks Trump’s promises to keep everyone covered and to not cut Medicaid; it pits House and Senate Republicans against each other; and it sends premiums up for voters in both parties, especially Trump’s supporters.

The comedian Michelle Wolf recently joked on Twitter, “In the time it took [Republicans] to come up with a replacement plan for Obamacare, [they] could have become a doctor.” It certainly would’ve been a better investment for them, their voters and the entire country.
================

[SkyDekker 1,147]

The "best" part will be that all those people who are going to lose their coverage are going to blame Obama for it.

[airdvr 200]

I'm sorry...if you have a deductible over $5,000.00 and are in need of government assistance to pay for your insurance you never really had insurance.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DougH 270]

kallend

Spin it how you like. FACT is that the percentage of insured Americans is now the highest it has ever been, thanks to ACA. And it would be even higher if not for GOP obstructionism just for the sake of thwarting Obama.

The majority of the increase of insured was for putting able bodied individual on medicaid.

Yes if you give out free insurance, the amount of insured will rise.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P