CBO: 32m More Uninsured with ACA Repeal

[adrina]

source

Thirty-two million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2026 if Obamacare is repealed without a replacement, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office reported late on Wednesday as President Donald Trump pushed fellow Senate Republicans to reach an agreement on overhauling the country's healthcare law.

But that's not all:

According to the CBO, a nonpartisan office that analyzes pending legislation, 17 million Americans would lose health insurance alone in 2018 with a repeal while premiums on individual insurance plans would rise 25 percent next year and double by 2026.

But why should that little tidbit stop the republicans.

McConnell said he will go ahead with a vote early next week to begin debate on a repeal of the ACA, former President Barack Obama's signature legislation, despite indications it will fail after the defections on Tuesday of at least three Republican senators.

However, as we have seen, it's not easy at the top.

With Democrats united in opposition to repeal, McConnell can only lose two votes from Republicans' 52-48 majority in the 100-seat Senate to pass healthcare legislation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The CBO, as this Libertarian understands, by its own standard can only use a static modeling of a dynamic model and the report it issued on the ACA, as I said at the time was just a guess, and with 20-20 hindsight, we clearly see that it was a wildly inaccurate guess on all counts and what is just as egregious as what you want to charge "the Republicans" with, the fact that Democrats won't omit this is very damning in that it proves that you use CBO numbers because they reenforce your confirmation bias that everything the Democrats do is Skittles and sunshine while everything Republicans do is bound to fail, to starve children, oppress minorities, keep contraception out of the hands of women and to make people simply get sick and die.

So, as a student of Mises and a not-Republican, I reject the economic analysis and conclusions of the CBO. I did then, and I do now, for the very same reasons, not because I want the republican plan, which is a dog with fleas, just like the ACA was.

I want the government to get out of bed with the insurance companies and restore choice to us by no longer granting them monopoly status via a Byzantine series of government regulations that they help write to protect their monopolistic power.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Trump plans to come up with his own "score". True story.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

The CBO, as this Libertarian understands, by its own standard can only use a static modeling of a dynamic model and the report it issued on the ACA, as I said at the time was just a guess, and with 20-20 hindsight, we clearly see that it was a wildly inaccurate guess on all counts and what is just as egregious as what you want to charge "the Republicans" with, the fact that Democrats won't omit this is very damning in that it proves that you use CBO numbers because they reenforce your confirmation bias that everything the Democrats do is Skittles and sunshine while everything Republicans do is bound to fail, to starve children, oppress minorities, keep contraception out of the hands of women and to make people simply get sick and die.

So, as a student of Mises and a not-Republican, I reject the economic analysis and conclusions of the CBO. I did then, and I do now, for the very same reasons, not because I want the republican plan, which is a dog with fleas, just like the ACA was.

I want the government to get out of bed with the insurance companies and restore choice to us by no longer granting them monopoly status via a Byzantine series of government regulations that they help write to protect their monopolistic power.

Static model... Blah blah... Dynamic system... Blah blah... Chaos... Blah blah... Not-Republican...

STFU, 'tard.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Trump has already stated in a book he had written for him that he admired single payer UHC systems like Canada and Scotland's. I guess he is just to progressive and liberal for the GoP.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I heard a super-huge, bigly, totally massive, biggest ever, believe me, healthcare plan was coming and the 32M uninsured would be healthy so much the'y’ll get tired of being healthy.

 

[adrina]

I heard a super-huge, bigly, totally massive, biggest ever, believe me, healthcare plan was coming and the 32M uninsured would be healthy so much the'y’ll get tired of being healthy.

All that winning.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The CBO, as this Libertarian understands, by its own standard can only use a static modeling of a dynamic model and the report it issued on the ACA, as I said at the time was just a guess, and with 20-20 hindsight, we clearly see that it was a wildly inaccurate guess on all counts and what is just as egregious as what you want to charge "the Republicans" with, the fact that Democrats won't omit this is very damning in that it proves that you use CBO numbers because they reenforce your confirmation bias that everything the Democrats do is Skittles and sunshine while everything Republicans do is bound to fail, to starve children, oppress minorities, keep contraception out of the hands of women and to make people simply get sick and die.

So, as a student of Mises and a not-Republican, I reject the economic analysis and conclusions of the CBO. I did then, and I do now, for the very same reasons, not because I want the republican plan, which is a dog with fleas, just like the ACA was.

I want the government to get out of bed with the insurance companies and restore choice to us by no longer granting them monopoly status via a Byzantine series of government regulations that they help write to protect their monopolistic power.

Insurance is largely controlled by the States. Every State has an insurance commissioner that authorizes carriers to do business in that State. By "restore choice" I assume you are advocating that carriers should be allowed to offer their products nationwide. If that assumption is correct, how do you square that with the 10th Amendment? Are you a Federalist?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://mises.org/blog/fix-healthcare-we-need-repeal-lot-more-obamacare



I beg to disagree with your premise.


Conclusion:

The result of all this, of course, has been more expensive healthcare that is less competitive, less accessible, more restricted, and more geared toward the benefit of a few large special interests.

None of this is new to the world of Obamacare, and little of the problem will be undone by repealing Obamacare. In fact, Obamacare was really just a doubling down on a broken healthcare system that had been created decades earlier. Obamacare represents more of same, not a break from an imagined "free-market" past.

If repealing Obamacare is really the goal, the GOP should instead focus on repealing and undermining the edifice on which Obamacare was built: the highly regulated, subsidized, and manipulated healthcare markets that dominate today.

So before we get into some sort of discussion of the Tenth Amendment (which has been neutered by the interstate commerce argument), we must define what we mean by "control."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Here's an example that I just ran across:

What many people do not realize is that most of AARP’s revenues do not come from the “members” it purports to represent. The group’s primary source of income is from royalties it receives from its AARP branded health insurance plans, which enjoy exemptions from some of Obamacare’s more onerous taxes and fees.

What many people also do not realize is that AARP, a tax-exempt, non-profit membership organization, charges its own “age tax” policies of 4.95 percent, which is tacked-on to every Medigap health care plan sold under the group’s banner. As detailed in a 2011 House Ways and Means Committee report, the practice reeks of conflict of interest and raises considerable regulatory questions.

This duplicity was laid bare by Christopher Jacobs. Writing in the Federalist, Jacobs notes that AARP received “nearly $3.2 billion in profit over six years, just from selling insurance plans. AARP received much of that $3.2 billion in part because Medigap coverage received multiple exemptions in Obamacare. The law exempted Medigap plans from the health insurer tax, and medical loss ratio requirements.”

https://spectator.org/the-latest-in-aarps-greed-and-duplicity/

 

[Pookie]

Trump plans to come up with his own "score". True story.

It'll be a much smaller count.


https://i.imgur.com/rwTmWZl_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

 

[RobDownSouth]

Here's an example that I just ran across:
https://spectator.org/the-latest-in-aarps-greed-and-duplicity/

That's is a spectacularly dishonest quote, even for you.

AARP has a line of existing policies that were in place before 2014, that are exempt from the ACA's provision that x percentage of premiums be paid out (google "grandfathered insuranc". Period. Lifetime caps and pre-existing condition clauses are invalidated. They by law cannot sell those policies anymore, they simply keep customers who already had the insurance in force in the same policies.

Medigap insurance is supplemental insurance and is not subject to ACA provisions.

 

[Aglaopheme]

It'll be a much smaller count.


https://i.imgur.com/rwTmWZl_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

Ha! On top of the size issue, I don't think he'd make it past 2 without going off the rails on a manic rant.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Here's another example of Trump not knowing what the hell he's talking about. As if we needed another example.

What was Trump talking about with $12-a-year health insurance?

That’s how health insurance differs from life insurance. Instead of one person paying against his own future needs, it’s a pool of people paying in against their collective future needs. So if you have insurance coverage now while you’re healthy, you’re helping to pay for that young kid with the heart condition — or someone who, in Trump’s formulation, “walks up” and demands insurance.

Trump’s comment about this not being how insurance works actually undercuts the comment he’d made a few sentences before in that Economist interview, and an argument he presented to Republican senators on Wednesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...alking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/

 

[RobDownSouth]

Here's another example of Trump not knowing what the hell he's talking about. As if we needed another example.

What was Trump talking about with $12-a-year health insurance?

That’s how health insurance differs from life insurance. Instead of one person paying against his own future needs, it’s a pool of people paying in against their collective future needs. So if you have insurance coverage now while you’re healthy, you’re helping to pay for that young kid with the heart condition — or someone who, in Trump’s formulation, “walks up” and demands insurance.

Trump’s comment about this not being how insurance works actually undercuts the comment he’d made a few sentences before in that Economist interview, and an argument he presented to Republican senators on Wednesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...alking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/

It took me a while, but Trump was confusing whole life insurance with health insurance, becoz they both have "insurance" in their name. (related: Ishmael once called me an alt of Bob_Bytchin, because we're both named "Bob"...also AJ once called me an alt of RobertEarle, for the same reason).

Way back in the 60s, Gerber offered "baby life insurance", which was $12 a year until age 12. Then you continued it for X amount of years and it was completely paid up by age 70.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

It took me a while, but Trump was confusing whole life insurance with health insurance, becoz they both have "insurance" in their name. (related: Ishmael once called me an alt of Bob_Bytchin, because we're both named "Bob"...also AJ once called me an alt of RobertEarle, for the same reason).

Way back in the 60s, Gerber offered "baby life insurance", which was $12 a year until age 12. Then you continued it for X amount of years and it was completely paid up by age 70.

Another Trump mystery solved. *nods*

 

[Que]

Oh look. Having failed to convince anyone that I used "my" alt, Nipples, to make him suffer the ignominy of nomination and subsequent vote padding, Rob is carrying on a converation with totaly-not-Rob Nipples which "proves" they are totally different posters!

Probably just a coincidence he picked now to actually "interact" for the first time with this latest incarnation of "Nipples."

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Oh look. Having failed to convince anyone that I used "my" alt, Nipples, to make him suffer the ignominy of nomination and subsequent vote padding, Rob is carrying on a converation with totaly-not-Rob Nipples which "proves" they are totally different posters!

Probably just a coincidence he picked now to actually "interact" for the first time with this latest incarnation of "Nipples."

Hush, Sissyboi.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Splutter on, little man.

#HeTriesSoooHard
#SmartestGuyOnTehGeneralBoard

 

[water505]

Oh look. Having failed to convince anyone that I used "my" alt, Nipples, to make him suffer the ignominy of nomination and subsequent vote padding, Rob is carrying on a converation with totaly-not-Rob Nipples which "proves" they are totally different posters!

Probably just a coincidence he picked now to actually "interact" for the first time with this latest incarnation of "Nipples."

Do you think Blob and his alts have each other on iggy?

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Do you think Blob and his alts have each other on iggy?

Hurr durr, miles.