Obamacare

The White House Analyzed the House GOP Health Care Bill—and Found an Even Bigger Coverage Reduction Than CBO

The Trump administration has argued that the CBO estimates are not believable, but their own estimates showed a greater coverage decline.

|

PETE MAROVICH/UPI/Newscom

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected yesterday that 24 million fewer people will have coverage a decade from now than would under current law. The Trump administration has objected to the CBO's score as implausible—but an internal analysis found that an even larger coverage decline, according to a report in Politico.

It's hard to square either estimate with Republican rhetoric about the replacement plan. In January of this year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized Obamacare for leaving tens of millions of Americans without health coverage. "What you need to understand is that there are 25 million Americans who aren't covered now," he said. "If the idea behind Obamacare was to get everyone covered, that's one of the many failures."

According to President Trump and his team, the idea behind the GOP's Obamacare replacement plan was to cover everyone affordably. "We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told The Washington Post in January. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us." Around the same time, one of Trump's senior advisers, Kellyanne Conway, also said no one would lose coverage. "We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance," she said.

Yesterday, however, the CBO released an estimate projecting that the House GOP's plan to partially repeal Obamacare and replace it with a new system of tax subsidies would result in 24 million people losing coverage over the next decade. The CBO pinned much of the coverage decline on the repeal of the individual mandate penalties, and an associated rise in health insurance premiums in the initial years of the bill.

The Trump administration, which had spent the weekend criticizing the CBO, objected rather strongly to the report.

"We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out," Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said. "It's just not believable is what we would suggest."

"We believe that the plan that we're putting in place is gonna insure more individuals than currently are insured. So we think that CBO simply has it wrong," he said, adding that it is "virtually impossible" to come up with a coverage decline that high.

Virtually, perhaps, but not totally. An administration projection based on a version of the House bill projected 26 million fewer would have coverage as a result of the law, according to Politico, which viewed a draft of the estimate.

Now when it comes to health policy, coverage is an important factor, but it isn't the only one that matters. Yet in the lead up to the release of the GOP health care bill, the White House and other top Republicans have often focused on coverage, and promised to maintain Obamacare's coverage levels, or even expand further, despite their own analysts finding that the bill would result in a large decline. The disconnect is revealing.

And there are, of course, reasons to critique the CBO's estimates. It is frequently wrong, and in particular, it has been wrong on estimates related to the Affordable Care Act, which the GOP bill is intended to partially repeal and replace. It relies assumptions that are not always universally shared—for example, that the particular penalties associated with the individual mandate have a powerful effect on insurance coverage. (In a 2016 report for The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, a group of health policy professors "assessed the mandate's detailed provisions" including "income-based penalties for lacking coverage and various specific exemptions from those penalties" and found "that overall coverage rates responded to these aspects of the law," though the paper suggested that the mandate might have some effect irrespective of the particular penalties.)

But forecasting the effects of complex legislation is difficult for any institution. That CBO sometimes misses the mark isn't a reason to simply not try at all, and to rely on the rhetoric of self-interested politicians instead. CBO is a worthy institution that provides directionally useful estimates that aren't intended to help one party or another. And the existence of those estimates forces those who have issues with its scores to respond with evidence backing up their claims.

In pushing back against CBO's numbers, the White House has provided no evidence. Indeed, the internal analysis reported by Politico suggests that the administration's own experts expect a similar decline in coverage. The White House's shabby efforts to discredit the CBO have only discredited itself.

NEXT: Female Drake U. Student Initiates Sex with Incapacitated Male, Lies About Key Details. Guess Who Got Expelled?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump told The Washington Post in January. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

    C’mon, Peter. Trump was using air quotes when he said, jokingly, “insurance.” And “not going to happen”? He was kidding! Trump being Trump. The Outsider! Sheesh.

    1. What he should have said is everyone will have access to insurance. If 24 million choose not to buy that isn’t our problem.

  2. The whole point of ObamaCare was to achieve universal coverage by forcing people to pay for overpriced healthcare plans. And since Judge Roberts declared ObamaCare to be a tax, “Coverage Reduction” is just a euphemism for a tax cut.

    1. And *not* forcing people to buy what they don’t want is seen as a problem! WTF?

      1. I definitely do NOT want or need to buy insurance for getting cancer – until I get cancer. Then I definitely will need to buy insurance for cancer. wait…

        1. I had catastrophic coverage for major events like cancer, but that’s illegal now. In order to get that very cheap coverage I used to have and need I now have to buy insurance that covers planned events like a yearly checkup, having splinters pulled and condoms, for around $600/mo and a $6000 deductible. Rather than pay thousands a year for very expensive insurance I don’t need in order to get the very inexpensive insurance I do need I just don’t get insurance at all. I do have insurance on my car, but if the government ever mandates that auto insurance cover paint jobs, brake jobs, oil changes and already wrecked vehicles I won’t be able to afford it either and will be driving uninsured.

          1. I typed a reply that was 1505 so it erased. Long story short, it would be difficult to argue the specifics of your situation without knowing in detail what you make, your location etc… but suffice to say were there people who are now paying more due to the law ABSOLUTELY. In all likelihood those are younger males without a medical history. Is that you?

            To shift to a 600/mo policy you would have to get no assistance or you live in some rural area perhaps? I will never say that the law didn’t make some situations worse, but it also made a large majority better. My father in particular. I am sure I could stack his case up against yours and we could see if the law helped.

            1. Uh yeah, that’s how unjust socialism works dumdum. What’s great for your dad sucks for the guy who has to pay for himself while subsidizing your dad.

              1. at the risk of engaging with someone who uses the word “dumdum”,

                my father worked his whole life as an independent businessman paying insurance premiums that were more than his mortgage payment. You want to talk about things that “suck”. When he went to utilize the healthcare system they tried to cut him off on a technicality. He had to sue and spend 10 grand to not have to pay a hospital 80 grand, something that would have wiped him out. I’m sorry you feel that people should be allowed to gouge because CAPITALISM but I disagree, and apparently so do many other people.

    2. Yeah, I’m not getting how people choosing not to buy insurance is worse than people being forced to buy it.

      1. Because people who choose not to get insured still get sick, forcing others to pay for their care at even higher costs?

        1. Another brilliant piece of satire Tony. You might be the most libertarian guy I know, since such a perfect anti-thesis of libertarianism can only be on purpose. Your typical leftist isn’t able to understand what the reverse of the libertarian positions would be, but you manage to zero in on it every time. Impressive.

          1. So you’re saying that healthcare costs aren’t socialized regardless of whether there’s a government program in place to regulate it? Or… what?

            1. How exactly would healthcare costs be socialized if there weren’t government regulations around to require that they be socialized?

              1. Because uninsured and poor people get treated for their medical conditions too.

                1. So your definition of socialism doesn’t include coercion? I’m fine with that. Let’s use the “no regulations” kind of socialism that Tony advocates, where uninsured people either pay out of pocket or depend on charity!

                  1. Like I said, Tony is a brilliant Satirist. Even if he doesn’t know it. I tend to believe it’s on purpose though since his opinion is always exactly 180 degree’s from Libertarian, and he’s on a Libertarian website. Can’t be coincidence.

              2. Know that $500 bandaid or aspirin you get at the hospital to help pay for the other person’s $10,000 unpaid bill? That.

        2. “Because people who choose not to get insured still get sick, forcing others to pay for their care at even higher costs?”

          The data say otherwise.
          Has to do with increased demand when shit is ‘free’, coupled with fixed supply. I’m not surprised that you didn’t know that.

          1. Here is mine

            It has evidence for a more nuanced explanation

            https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/

            -cost-shifting-in-health-care_145051348603.pdf

            I had to break up the link

          2. Sorry, not seeing the flood of people at the infusion center trying to get chemo because it’s free that is driving the cost of a 3 hour IV up to $31,000 (meds are only $5000 of that). Sounds like typical healthy well to do person ignorance.

            With a universal plan (even a lame attempt at an insurance based one) you can’t price people out. You can only ration.

            1. Pricing is RATIONING because you keep it from people based on their ability to pay. Read the summary where it states explicitly that there is cost shifting based on multiple definitions.

              1. So we “ration” the “orphan drugs” for rare disease so they don’t become popular?
                If pricing is rationing from those who can’t pay that is rationing from the very people who need it to sell it to those who don’t need it. Sick people tend to not be big earners, they’re too busy getting shuffled around the healthcare system to hold a good job. I guarantee you that nobody would take the meds I get if healthy so it would be a poor business model to price high so they sit on a shelf to go bad in a month.
                If more diseases are approved for my drugs they get cheaper not more expensive. Cheaper production per unit, same approval costs and a $9B profit to 1% rather than a $5B profit for .46% of the population. The more options you get the cheaper the options get, competition drives pricing but rare has little interest/competition. It’s why they have the “orphan drug” program. That doesn’t mean you get to pick the option.
                Healthcare is not the usual consumer driven supply and demand market many healthy libertarians or conservatives claim. It is more like a niche market.
                If the supply driven market were the case in healthcare my drugs would be $1 and Advil would be $30,000.

                If you want to see rationing in healthcare go to the hospital during flu season. They don’t raise prices, they tell you there are no beds. They prioritize who gets the beds based on need. The ability to pay isn’t supposed to enter into it at the majority of hospitals.

                1. This is rather convoluted. In a FM system none of the rare diseases would get drugs developed as there would be no market for them, and would be extremely expensive. I have yet to see scaled up production reduce the prices, only generics. The FDA should allow for more competition in these markets, I agree. You seem like you’re trying to slice off a particular part of the healthcare issue and apply it to the whole.

                  1. It all has niche market aspects because of high overhead. If people needing standard emergency care was rare you would have hospitals paying for costly imaging machines with fewer people by charging more. It’s not limited by what the market will bear. You’re probably not going to ignore a broken leg or shop around while having a heart attack.

                    What I’ve seen with new biologics for autoimmune is increased approval does lower cost slightly or fight inflation, but there could be other factors like getting distribution set up and deals worked out with insurance companies, getting new approvals to stay relevant or keep patents. It could also be insurance refusing new meds as a first option because of the price.

                    Generic competition is definitely best for cutting prices and driving innovation. Before biosimilars 2 companies were happy to sit back on 2 meds. Now there are a bunch coming up.
                    Did you know we have a law that if you take public research to make drugs and price too high they can pull your patent early to allow competition? I don’t think it’s ever been used. Best politicians money can buy.

        3. Then lets set a new policy – you either have insurance and get care or you have no insurance and die in the street – works for me

        4. Muost of the uninsured in southern ca are illegal aliens – send them back and don’t let more in and the problems is reduced dramatically

    3. Yes, but tax cuts count as spending because not taking is the same thing as giving. It is known. Therefore, coverage reduction will increase the deficit.

      ???????????

      1. Lots of people, me included, are getting tax credits and refunds that are greater than their tax liability.

        When a “tax cut” translates to a check from the government, it is indeed spending.

        1. Just to be clear, I’m getting a tax credit that is greater than the sum of my income tax plus my self-employment tax. Having made zero quarterly tax payments and taken zero advances on my ObamaCare subsidy, I am going to get a check for about $2000.

          I don’t pay taxes to the feds; I pay taxes to an insurance company.

    4. No, Judge Roberts declared the mandate to be a tax.

      You were not forced to pay for overpriced anything. Since you do not understand this, one more time: you did not and do not have to buy insurance under Obamacare. If you however, do not, you pay a penalty. The cost of the penalty was a lot lower than the insurance you did not buy.

      Yes, you can complain that you should not have to pay taxes for things you do not use. Get in line.

  3. considering that the Obama office lied about the actual number of people covered we really can’t make any true comparisons. for example counting people who were already on medicaid but have to resign every year so they essentially counted them twice or people like me who was put on medical by the state but the state latter said i make to much to have it ? so what does all this tell us, well that the government should just get out of the medical business so they will do the opposite and create single payer

  4. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

    We got more free shit than they do!

  5. Single payer! Single Payer! Single Payer!

    1. Frankly, single payer would be cheaper than the mess we got. Well no, our govenment would still manage to make it twice as expensive as British and French plans combined, with half the quality.

      1. Ya i dont think so. Make it free with a fixed tax amount means demand goes up.

        The gov already spends more capita than all but 3 countries. The us doesnt have full singlepayer either

        1. The sum of Fed, state, and local government spending on health care divided by the entire population of the US is greater than the per capita cost of UK National Health.

          The problem is that the US government is so ruinously incompetent and US politics are so dysfunctional that national health could never achieve the rather dismal quality of UK National Health on a budget.

      2. And considering how well the VA handle healthcare we can expect all our problems to be eliminated

        1. Well, it IS true that once you die in the waiting room all your problems are over.

      3. 180BB on the VA this year alone. Single payer won’t be any cheaper because unlike europe we won’t kill grandma.

        1. Except we’re presently complaining about paying for grandma because she doesn’t earn enough to pay her own way.

  6. Listen rubes, the government is going to have that 18% of the economy so that they can spend half on healthcare and the rest on themselves. To the millionaire with prostate cancer, good luck brother, but you’re naive to think you’d be getting the care you are if the government was footing the bill.

  7. I keep hearing on the news that “24 million are going to lose health insurance.” Lose, or give it up???
    1865: “4 million negroes will be thrown out of work.”

    1. ^ THIS

      If one understands how crappy and expensive an ObamaCare policy really is, one understands why 24 million losing health insurance is no big deal.

    2. Just want to be sure, you are making a direct comparison between people purchasing insurance and slavery.

      I mean, I hear Libertarians exclaim taxation is slavery all the time, I just wanted to check.

      1. Just want to be sure, you are making a direct comparison between people purchasing insurance and slavery.

        Here, let me fix that for you:

        Just want to be sure, you are making a direct comparison between people being forced into purchasing insurance and slavery.

        1. right so BEING FORCED INTO purchasing something – whether or not you receive assistance in that activity – and being a SLAVE are equal. got it

          1. Who said they got assistance in that activity Carnac? So if they are forced to buy insurance for pregancy when they are a man – just was assistance are they getting Carnac the great?

            1. subsidization is assistance. Insurance pays for lots of things you might never use, last I checked it took a man and woman to make a baby. Before the ACA, I tried to get maternity insurance for my wife on the individual market, only one company in the entire Chicago market offered it BCBS. And you could only utilize it after paying premiums for a year. Then I “discovered” because they won’t quote you prices up front, that a perfectly normal delivery still costs almost 25K billed – for WHAT?!

              NOWHERE in the developed world are costs that high. You can disagree about the treatment, but the patient is still sick.

      2. Yup, your eyes do not deceive you.

  8. Here is what is going to happen:

    Gop puts bill that they know isnt going to pass

    Aca continues to implode

    Democrats get blamed again and labeled as obstructionists for not passing reform

    Reform becomes politically easier

    Then ?????

    1. I think you’re smoking some good shit if you think the Republicans won’t be blamed either way. There were those who said it was Republicans fault that the ACA was failing too, and you know how many of them voted for it?

      1. also since no one knows what the rethugs are going to do why would a person buy healthcare when the rethugs are just going to cancel it. See its because of the rethugs that ACA failed

      2. Yes, there were those who even wrote that. Starts with a “P” I think.

      3. You mean like when the Republicans pulled out the funding (as was their right) on the risk corridors causing costs to spike and premiums to shoot through the roof since insurers were no longer getting the money promised to them? And also strangling the companies set up to create competition on the marketplaces since they had no recourse with no federal coverage until they had developed their customer base? You mean those Republicans?

          1. and if you have an argument against that happening, go ahead and present it.

          2. here i’ll even be generous and say that it wouldn’t have precluded the demise of the program, and that I’m not offering an endorsement of the program. But if you want to deny actual facts – well I have to get off that train.

        1. The ACA was doomed regardless considering the fact, not opinion, that the same model has been tried at the state level and, unsurprisingly, it hasn’t done well there either. (Romneycare, anyone?)

          As a matter of fact, any insurance plan that is guaranteed issue is bound to fail sooner or later. What you’re nitpicking over is the speed of the destruction and who you would prefer to point the finger at.

          It sounds to me like you would have preferred and slow and painful death as opposed to an up-front market inevitability.

          That being said, Republicans are about to own that failure themselves 100%. They don’t call them the stupid party for no reason. So ultimately I don’t really give a shit who’s fault it was. I blame Democrats because Democrats created the entire doomed enterprise, and I’ll blame Republicans for doing the same thing.

          Trump is a Democrat, and the Republicans are now Democrats. The Democrats are now socialists. We can infer from this alignment shift that spending is about to make Obama blush.

          1. To a certain extent, you are correct. BUT as with most programs, you take what works and reinforce it, take what doesn’t work and recraft it, or eliminate it. You can call the new bill a recrafting – but to me that discounts the efforts to actively undermine how the bill was SUPPOSED to work. If you built a house but someone puts quicksand underneath it on purpose, you can’t say building the house was a bad idea when it sinks.

          2. To further expand, if you advocate for a program – wrongheaded or correctly, if that program is never fully executed you a) can’t make a true evaluation of the program and b) give the people who enacted the program a way of passing the buck as they can cite, as I did, a direct reason for the destruction of the program that was enacted by political opposition.

            I would almost rather have the program go into full effect and have it fail on its own so it would be CLEAR to never go down that path again.

    2. Wait, what? Republicans got both houses of Congress and a “get shit done, even if it doesn’t make sense” White House, and the plan is to have the Dems bail them out of a repeal that they’ve spent to last half decade campaigning on, have the individual insurance markets get worse for a large chunk of their constituency (who elected them to MAGA like a mofo), just so they can get to the real secret squirrel plan? I mean I know God Emperor Trump is playing 6D chess (“3D chess is for losers. Sad.”) while everyone else is playing checkers, but that seems amazingly convoluted and apt for disruption by these “election” things we do every couple years.

    3. It’s more likely the GOP will pass a bill that repeals a few of the least popular PPACA bits and then replaces them with bits that are slightly different, yet functionally the same. They won’t do anything to address the actual problems that are driving up health care costs, and when premiums continue to rise for the next four years they’ll take all the blame and lose in 2020 much like the Dems lost in 2010, but with the presidency thrown in to boot.

    4. It’s more likely the GOP will pass a bill that repeals a few of the least popular PPACA bits and then replaces them with bits that are slightly different, yet functionally the same. They won’t do anything to address the actual problems that are driving up health care costs, and when premiums continue to rise for the next four years they’ll take all the blame and lose in 2020 much like the Dems lost in 2010, but with the presidency thrown in to boot.

    5. Then the Trumpster is re-elected

  9. My opinion is gop should do across state lines, get rid of regs and mandates and govt established min plans, and perhaps some taxes while keeping everything else. From a political perspective this would be a good sell

    Politicians should stop fucking around with hc but we know that aint happening

    1. Rather than have minimums, there should be a standardized disclosure sheet so that you know what you are getting when you buy a plan. And know what you are not getting.

      Then you can buy a cheap plan without getting suckered.

      The problem is that they are going to tie subsidies to some sort of “approved” coverage and this will be the defacto minimum.

      Nevermind that for most people, paying cash is better than buying insurance.

      1. “Nevermind that for most people, paying cash is better than buying insurance.”

        If you’re middle-class self-employed without much in savings, you can’t afford health care because you spend all your income on ObamaCare insurance.

    2. What’s killing the whole thing are somewhat ironically the parts that are extremely popular and aren’t being done away with such as preexisting condition coverage, among other things.

      What people want these days can’t, in any real way, be discussed as if it is insurance. Roberts, in his own way, wasn’t wrong. This is basically a tax on the healthy to support the sick, plain and simple, but it’s made infinitely complex to hide that fact from your average rube.

      I’ve tasked many liberals to tell me how the ACA isn’t functionally single payer already, but as it turns out very few people know what that actually means thus they are unable to figure out that they already got what they wanted and that it’s a massive failure. In fact, there is no way it can succeed at their stated goals as they are mutually exclusive.

      1. Are you arguing that it is single payer already?

        1. What else would you call it when everyone is mandated to pay into the system? How do you differentiate the ACA from single payer in any meaningful way?

          1. Because there are still private insurers and people are individuals are still paying providers directly for healthcare. That last part is why this most certainly is not single payer…there are millions of payers.

          2. the first thing that comes to mind is that the distribution of benefits is wildly inconsistent as well as the pay in.

          3. The other two people already answered what I was going to say. Everyone being mandated to pay into the system isn’t what makes a system single payer. Not all universal health care schemes even constitute single payer.

      2. Well, the underlying problem to that is the popular parts are “free candy”, and the unpopular parts are “mechanisms/funding to pay for the free candy.” So rather than say, “this thing was all fucked from the start. most of the funding mechanisms were fantasies written down to game the CBO scoring, and we’re going to rip it up and start over again, which is going to put a whupping vs current day on a decent amount of people, at least temporarily” the GOP decided to go with “It’s the same free candy, only we’re slightly rearranging the fake funding and scheduling you for a proactive root canal. MAGA.”

      3. I’ve tasked many liberals to tell me how the ACA isn’t functionally single payer already
        By definition, a single-payer healthcare system would pay to ONE entity which will then dole out the loot. Like Medicare.
        The ACA is not that.
        The ACA does not even have a public option.

        If it is a massive failure, then there is already a bill that can pass in Congress. Get the Republicans to get it to Drumpf’s desk.

        Or did you forget that in December 2015, the Republican Congress did succeed in repealing Obamacare.

        The ACA is flawed, but it can be fixed, and it definitely is better than what preceded it.

        Are there better options available? Definitely. But that’ll take work and tradeoffs; mostly pain. And time. You can start with the ACA and work it towards that, or you can scream like reason.com libertarians (“what do we want?” FREE MARKETS. “when do we want them?” YESTERDAY) and do not ever get there.

        Pulling the rug out from people who were not supposed to have welfare, but do have them has consequences. Yeah, it “their problem” till you decide how you want to treat with the homeless and those overwhelming the hospitals.

        1. Single-Payer Loosely Defined:

          “Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).”

          Ok, so the meaningful difference to you is that the insurance companies are separate from the government in name only. I can appreciate that this is probably a difference to you, but functionally insurance companies are nationalized so there is no meaningful difference at the moment. At least not to me, but like I said there are those who would disagree. Mostly those who are only willing to look at the surface of what is.

          The ACA will lead to the VA’s level of care expanded to everyone, and there are those like yourself who believe this is a good thing when to most people it will be a direct line to a lesser level of care. I guess it could be considered to be more than no care, but for those who actually need the care it will be too little too late as seen in other nationalized health care systems already in existence.

          At least you can tell yourself that you ‘did something’, even when what you did is kill the very people you seek to help. This is the real point of the ACA, so that people can pat themselves on the back for caring. It has little to nothing to do with effective help.

          1. More likely it will lead to something in between the VA and Medicare – assuming there wouldn’t be a more hybrid system adopted. The VA has GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, which I assume you already know. No one that I have heard at any point has suggested having the federal government OWN the healthcare system. The questions that are generally debated is – do the insurance companies do anything of value? Should the federal government step in when the marketplace (and this is where most Libertarians just answer NO) is functioning to the detriment (subjective of course) of large swaths of the populace.

            The answer to question 1 is generally not really (subjective). I like the hospital in OK where you know the prices up front – and you pay for the healthcare – although those situations are very procedure specific. The answer to question number two you can argue until you’re blue in the face and I have yet to see anyone on any side convince the others that they are correct. Very much like gun control debates.

            1. When the government not only mandates that you must purchase a service, but also mandates the parameters of that service, how is that service not functionally nationalized? Oh, they get to decide the color of the plan? That’s nice, but not useful.

              Like I said, I don’t expect you to agree with that and perhaps you have good reasons but to me it’s more or less the same idea behind the government declaring ‘X’ to be a public utility. Sure, the government may not directly own ‘X’ but they might as well.

              The government has been bending and playing with the cost curve of healthcare for over a century and all we keep being told is that we need more government to fix the system. How about we try a market solution for the first time since the turn of the century? We already have plenty of evidence that the road we are currently on leads to the ruination of a healthcare system along with explosive and unsustainable national debt. Period. That’s before we even start to consider second order consequences. Those are merely the first order consequences. That should terrify any rational being.

              1. I wrote a reply for this one as well that was over the 1500 character limit. Summary effect: public utilities do exist because it was impractical to have utility companies who naturally exist in a market that lends itself well to monopolization – which happens to be how healthcare exists in a large portion of the country (esp in areas where premiums skyrocketed). It was a best bad answer but the lights are still on and mostly there is clean water everywhere in our country. And those companies still make a profit. Is it preferable to FM? Hard to say, but it certainly isn’t making a deal with the devil either.

    3. “I never understood the appeal of this idea. It only makes sense if you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

      http://www.latimes.com/busines…..story.html

      “Selling insurance across state lines is a vacuous idea, encrusted with myths. The most important myths are that it’s illegal today, and that it’s an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. The truth is that it actually is legal today and specifically enabled by the Affordable Care Act. The fact that Republicans don’t seem to know this should tell you something about their understanding of healthcare policy. The fact that it hasn’t happened despite its enablement under the ACA should tell you more about about why it’s no solution to anything.”

      1. That’s a dishonest paragraph. Individuals cannot purchase a policy unless it meets their state’s standards. The GOP’s position is that they should be able to.

    4. My opinion is gop should do across state lines

      Why would that help? Even if there is a cheaper plan in another state, it’s not going to work with any doctors in my area.

        1. The federal government shouldn’t be making standards for everyone, that should be left to the states.

          I mean, the states shouldn’t be making their own standards that should be left to the uh…individual, since insurance companies carefully craft each individual policy to you specifically, not the broad brush strokes of where you sit on the actuarial table.

        2. It could, but it has to be profitable for an out of state insurer to set up networks in your state, and make it worth the while for the providers with their plans. If they could do it, why wouldn’t someone in the state do the same?

          Plus, whose regulations and rules apply? The state insurance commissioner would not want anyone encroaching on his turf.

          If it was such a surefire thing, then states would have done it already. There is nothing that prevents it, and Maine, Kentucky, Wyoming, Rhode Island and Georgia already allow this.

    5. There are states that allow across state lines. How many companies have taken them up on that allowance?

      1. Good luck getting an answer to why Maine, Kentucky, Georgia, Wyoming and Rhode Island (?) are not health care paradises.

        Or why so many states have time to pass bathroom bills, but nothing to allow sales of health insurance across state lines into their states?

  10. It might be helpful if this “healthcare” debate focused more on healthcare and less on insurance coverage. 25 million or so uninsured is not a big deal when you consider that the need for healthcare is predominately among the very young, the old, and those with chronic conditions. For many people, once you get past the childhood sicknesses stage, there’s a long stretch before you hit the heart attack, stroke and cancer stage where health insurance is a somewhat dubious proposition. An HSA to cover normal maintenance and a catastrophic insurance policy to cover major accidents would be an affordable amount of risk coverage for most of these people.

    Of course, we all know Obamacare focused on “coverage” for the very reason that a lot of low-risk people were not buying tarted-up, over-priced, all-you-can-eat medical “insurance” they didn’t need, didn’t want, and couldn’t afford and by forcing these people to buy insurance they weren’t likely to use their premium dollars were underwriting the medical costs of those who did need lots of treatment. It’s like demanding that you, me and Bill Gates pool our money to buy lunch and Bill Gates ain’t allowed to back out of the deal just because he’s already eaten and isn’t hungry. Who’s really paying for the lunch and who’s eating that lunch?

    Screw this whining about “coverage”, let’s focus on costs.

    1. How else are you going to tax the poor to subsidize the old?

    2. Yea i agree. Worrying about coverage numbers more like those who want to pat themselves on the back while ignoring details

      It is just metric meeting

  11. Do these numbers indicate a drop in Medicaid coverage, or insurance coverage? Are we even saying that there’s a difference anymore?


    “The CBO pinned much of the coverage decline on the repeal of the individual mandate penalties, and an associated rise in health insurance premiums in the initial years of the bill.”

    Oh…so basically just a stab in the dark guess? Sounds legit.

    1. Repealing the mandate means fewer people buy insurance and this is a problem?

      Wtf.

      1. It’s a straight up statement where they tell us that people’s self-selected behaviors are wrongthink, and will be punished, since their behavior makes their acquisition of a huge portion of the U.S. economy infeasible.

        The numbers are pretty laughable though. They have no idea how many people will stop coverage over the next two decades. People fall in and out of being insured all the time, so this figure is essentially meaningless. The takeaway isn’t wrong, in that coverage will probably decline, but that would be expected when the government stops punishing people who choose not to buy coverage to support someone else’s health spending.

        It’s just proof that using insurance as a metric is a flawed idea to start with. A better, but harder to acquire, metric would be number of unique patients served. I think that’s more or less on purpose at this point.

        1. Excellent point.

  12. If your annual healthcare costs are lower than the insurance premiums, then it isn’t insurance.

    1. For a lot of things it covers i agree. But it isnt exactly accurate to say this in my opinion.

    2. My annual homeowners costs are less than my premium. Same goes for my car insurance (gas excluded of course). That’s not how insurance works.

      1. Yep. I did think of car insurance

        That said bc and maternity coverage for dudes is not really insurance

  13. so the argument against further govt intrusion into health care is totally gone. Nice job, Pubs. Never mind that Hillarycare cost Dems the Congress in ’94 and that O-care did the same more recently; pursue a policy of proven political failure and delude yourselves that the outcome will be magically different.

    Those results are a fair hint that for all the polls that purport to show widespread support for single-payer or even a watered-down version of it, electoral reality says otherwise. Maybe people have seen the VA stories; maybe they know why fewer docs take Medicaid; maybe they know that even Medicare requires a separate out-of-pocket policy for the services a person will most likely need.

    1. Vermont and colorado are revealed preferences

      I think people support of singlepayer in polls is more of an abstract thinking just as folks want to cure poverty or world hunger

      Once you start showing tax needed the popularity erodes

      1. Vermont and Colorado can’t print money and have to balance their budgets.

        That’s why progressives insist that the feds impose their one-size-fits-all scheme nationwide.

        1. Yea i get this clearly they dont understand inflated currency is a tax

  14. So why do libs think insurance companies are the reason for high costs? They arent the ones doing the care. Insurance profits are part but a very small portion that would be negligible

    This notion that singlepayer is way to go because other countries is foolish. The govt run programs per capita by themselves are in top 3 per capita with all the singlepayer countries gov spending per capita…. per the oecd WITHOUT full singlepayer. Vermont and colorado showed it isnt cheap or savings at all otherwise they would have proceeded. A liberal gov shot down vermont one and colorado referendum wasnt even close

    1. Do they? It was my impression from the decades of debates that the high cost was simply a reality, but the insurance companies were merely being greedy in their refusal to pay for it.

      High cost of healthcare is simply an unfortunate side-effect of our free market system. Healthcare isn’t like a regular market. It costs a lot because everyone needs it. You know, like food.

      1. They whine about insurance companies and profits alot

      2. But seem to ignore why actual healthcare costs what it does which goes into setting insurance coverage premiums

        1. The fact of the matter is that the left can not see the connection between more bennies for group A and that the difference in costs will be passed on to group B. That is a connection that your average leftist on the ground can not understand. Period. They are economic illiterates, and honestly can’t even tell you how Keyes envisioned an economy functioning let alone Friedman or Bastiat.

          This is why the left continually devises vast Rube-Goldberg policies like the ACA that can’t be understood. They’re essentially trying to write a road map on how mankind will go from what we are to the enlightened perfect man that they just know is lurking right beneath the surface.

          It’s also probably not a coincidence that Post-Modernism, as a philosophy, exists solely on the left and that it’s an ethos that specifically rejects rationality and reason as the lens through which we evolve as a species.

          Or, to quote Jack Nicholson in ‘As Good As It Gets’, “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability” has become an actual ethos and policy foundation for the left to build upon.

          1. they create Rube- Goldberg policies because they have a word association problem. They bend over backwards to avoid particular labels so they can go home to their constituents with a clear rap sheet.

            1. Their word association problem is a real one, in all fairness, since it’s pretty hard to get rid of the moniker ‘death panel’ which is an inevitable result of government control in healthcare.

              Simple utilitarianism will bring up it’s head eventually, and in that scenario if you’re 65 and retried you simply don’t have the value of a 25 year old worker and thus you are thrown under the bus. After all, we want our healthcare to be efficient with those tax dollars, don’t we? It’s a limited resource, and in a centrally controlled system someone must decide who receives that controlled resource. This is, ultimately, a roadmap to destruction.

              Thus the road to hell is paved in good intentions. And let us not pretend that this isn’t a thing in already-nationalized healthcare systems. I would like the left to finally and truly be honest about the things they suggest and stop pretending. That would be a step in the right direction, but I think their support would dry up quickly if they did so. (And while we’re at it, it would be nice for the Right to do the same.)

              I think the electorate on both sides are pretty tired of being lied to by the people who are supposedly their duly elected representatives.

              1. you could say that the elderly are “thrown under the bus” except we have created a system that more or less allows them to utilize the healthcare system fairly comprehensively regardless of income level. There will always be rationing and in a FM system there would be NO WAY for premiums to keep up with 65+ year olds who are ONLY getting more expensive. I think liberals are less likely to say rationing and more likely to say we will go into debt as a nation to fund these programs, consequences be damned.

      3. then why is food so cheap note food would be even cheaper if the government would quite regulating farmers and what they can grow and sale.

        1. Would you hire a migrant worker with zero education and limited manual labor skills to do a brain operation?

          On labor inputs alone they’re an apples to oranges comparison.

      4. The problem is if insurance companies refused to pay for it argument doesnt really make sense as then that has to be made up in premiums if they were then paying for it

        1. If they were being greedy only to decide instead to convert profits towards the care….the premiums dont go down then

    2. So why do libs think insurance companies are the reason for high costs?
      Because libs need a boogeyman and that can never be govt. They count on people to not now that Medicaid, for instance, pays pennies on the dollar, and that gap is going to be made up somehow.

      As to the “other countries” argument, I keep waiting for some prog to detail the plan that will make the US look like Finland, from demographics to taxes to everything else.

      1. The medicaid thing they are in denial.

      2. Oh, and no, I do not expect that the federal government would do a better job, but you asked about the insurance companies that generally are charging 20% overhead vs. Medicare which I understand has roughly a 3% overhead.

        1. It’s a bad comparison since Medicare doesn’t actually pay out enough to cover the patient you just saw. neither does Medicaid, hence the limit almost every provider in the U.S. has on how many of those patients they will see.

          Frankly, many insurance plans have this same problem depending on what type of practice you run. If you’re an O.D., as an example, you’re better off not taking any insurance at all. The same goes for a lot of niche practices as well. Sure, you have insurance, but plenty of places will refuse to even attempt to bill that insurance. It’s literally not worth their time.

          1. my reply was meant to follow my post below.

            It’s always funny that despite Medicare supposedly not paying enough, I have yet to see anyone doctor turn it down. Most recently my father was able to go to Northwestern for his cancer consultation and was seen within a week or two of scheduling. I have only my personal experience to base that on at the moment. He purchased individual market insurance for 30 years getting raked for his pre existing conditions, and now Medicare has been like the clouds have parted. I have seen first hand the difference and I got to say, I’m having a harder and harder time fighting it. And I’m 37.

    3. Because CORPORASHUNZ!!!

    4. I can tell you why I think they are a PART of it. I called my insurance company after receiving a large bill where the hospital padded it with drugs she didn’t get, and procedures she didn’t receive. She had very good insurance so our out of pocket expenses where only about $150 dollars. I still wanted to report it. I was told I had to do all the leg work to investigate it with the hospital including paying for the reports that were filed in basically a foreign language (to me). At which point I gave up.

      Now repeat a couple million times.

  15. My God – even the White House has an anti-Trump bias.

    1. Y do tehy hat AMIREICISA, Crusty??

  16. When will Congress get around to Repealing and Replacing? government-mandated automobile insurance? Safe drivers are being taxed to pay for unsafe drivers. Safe drivers have no need of automobile insurance. This is socialism.

    1. Right after it becomes a federal issue. Oops.

    2. so you don’t understand how car insurance works. Got it. My my, those goalposts must get heavy.

    3. And this must be why liability only insurance is illegal in all 50 states. Oh…wait. No it isn’t.

    4. Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? Honest question

    5. As soon as automobile insurance becomes an “everybody pays the same price regardless of what you’re driving, how much and where you’re driving it, and how good or bad your driving is” policy that covers routine maintenance including car washes and the little pine tree air freshener as well as collision damage.

  17. If Trump wants to be the iconoclast who goes down as a hero in conservatives’ eyes, he’ll not only oversee the repeal of Obamacare, but the repeal of the 1973 HMO Act which has done tremendous damage to the health care “system.” Don’t forget, even before Obamacare, the government was spending one of every two health care dollars.

  18. OT: Dems want to shut down the government.

    http://www.americanthinker.com….._wall.html

    If Republicans insist on inserting poison pill riders such as defunding Planned Parenthood, building a border wall, or starting a deportation force, they will be shutting down the government and delivering a severe blow to our economy,” Schumer said in a statement.

    The irony, it burns! Also, schumy, the gov’t doesn’t run the economy. So kindly stfu. If this happens, perhaps Trump will “make it hurt”, as they say…

    1. The left invented the government shutdown under Jimmy Carter, so why wouldn’t the Democrats do it again after telling everyone that it’s a horribly irresponsible thing to do?

    2. This is indeed ironic. Let me guess any cut to planned parenthood means a govt shut down

      1. What is ironic is how libertarians who cheered a government shutdown led by Cruz because it would mean less government are suddenly concerned that this might be bad.

        For Drumpf

        1. Where were they concerned this would be bad? I missed that in the posts above

        2. No one said it would be bad or good. And I don’t recall anyone here cheering anyone for the last one, certainly not Ted Cruz because he led no such “shut-down”. Barry was the one who used the circumstance to shut down public, open-air places in a malicious act of retaliation against a congress with which he disagreed. He prevented vets from getting into the WWII memorial, among other things and somehow spent more money during the “shut-down” than otherwise would of been spent. Needless to say, I will be observing if Trump acts in a similar manner is something like this happens during his term(s) and also observing peoples hypocritical reactions.

      2. If cutting funding to Planned Parenthood means a govt shut down, then I couldn’t be more for defunding PP.

        1. cutting funding for PP isn’t actually cutting funding – it’s eliminating choice. We will give you this benefit only if you don’t use it at this particular place for something not related to why we won’t let you use the funding for.

  19. “The CBO pinned much of the coverage decline on the repeal of the individual mandate penalties, and an associated rise in health insurance premiums in the initial years of the bill.”

    Killing off the ACA Medicaid expansion will put downward pressure on insurance premiums after 2019, but if “much of the coverage decline” is a result of repealing the individual mandate, then if that’s the price of destroying that evil POS, I’m all for it. No libertarian should support letting the government force us to buy broccoli.

    It’s interesting watching people at Reason go back and forth on the Ryan plan. It supposedly doesn’t really kill the individual mandate, and that’s supposed to be a reason to oppose the Ryan plan–except for when the Ryan plan killing the individual mandate means more people without insurance . . . then, does that mean we’re supposed to oppose the Ryan plan because it means more people without insurance?

    I don’t know if it’s journalists in the bubble with TDS, post election anti-elitist trauma, or whether somebody paid Reason to go full retard, but whatever the explanation, this shit’s goin’ off the rails. Not sure I’d buy into Reason’s take on the ACA or the Ryan plan, these days, any more than I’d buy into their rhetoric about Trump and immigration.

    Deporting people is like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act!

    The Ryan plan is ObamaCare 2.0, and repealing the individual mandate leaves too many people without insurance!!!

    1. It’s a sad day when Ann Coulter sounds far more libertarian on the subject than actual libertarians.

      1. Sad day? No, it is a success to be celebrated by all libertarians at reason.com.

    2. “It’s interesting watching people at Reason go back and forth on the Ryan plan. It supposedly doesn’t really kill the individual mandate, and that’s supposed to be a reason to oppose the Ryan plan–except for when the Ryan plan killing the individual mandate means more people without insurance . . . then, does that mean we’re supposed to oppose the Ryan plan because it means more people without insurance?

      I don’t know if it’s journalists in the bubble with TDS, post election anti-elitist trauma, or whether somebody paid Reason to go full retard, but whatever the explanation, this shit’s goin’ off the rails. Not sure I’d buy into Reason’s take on the ACA or the Ryan plan, these days, any more than I’d buy into their rhetoric about Trump and immigration.”

      Maybe take a breath and stop reading what you want to see into every story instead of what’s actually there? At no point is the argument made that the mandate is good as long as it increases insurance. What’s addressed is the hypocrisy of promising coverage for all and then proposing a plan that reduces coverage, as well as claiming the CBO is wrong when your own estimates look even worse. Both of those are fair and valid criticisms, and you don’t have to support the individual mandate to make them. It looks like Reason writers might not be the only ones here with derangement syndrome.

      1. Your face has a derangement syndrome.

        1. Damn you got me

      2. “What’s addressed is the hypocrisy of promising coverage for all and then proposing a plan that reduces coverage, as well as claiming the CBO is wrong when your own estimates look even worse.”

        Are you telling me we’re not supposed to conclude that repealing the individual mandate is bad because it leaves fewer people with insurance?

        Are you telling me that you haven’t seen staff around here claim that the Ryan plan is ObamaCare 2.0 and that it doesn’t really get rid of the individual mandate?

        I’m not reading things into what’s not there. I’m reading what’s right in front of my face.

        1. Yes, I am saying that you are not supposed to conclude that. You’re doing so because it feeds into your preferred narrative. Pointing out the hypocrisy of promising expanded, or even universal coverage, and then proposing a plan that reduces coverage does not mean you think the mandate is a good thing. Pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing the CBO of being wrong in their claims when your own numbers look worse also does not entail this.

          In every article I’ve seen written about this, Suderman has included disclaimers that there’s a lot of dispute over how much of an effect the mandate has and that the CBO could be wrong in this regard. It doesn’t exactly seem like he’s accepting their claims and reasoning mindlessly (and even if he did regarding coverage numbers, that doesn’t mean he thinks the mandate is good).

          Regarding the “Obamacare 2.0” and individual mandate line, Peter’s initial article calls it “Obamacare lite” and only refers to it as “Obamacare 2.0” when quoting Justin Amash. He also specifically says “while killing the individual mandate” so I’m not sure where you’re seeing the hypocrisy there.

          https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..-is-here-i

          You are absolutely reading things into these articles to fit your narrative about deranged Reason being hard on Trump and the GOP.

          1. I think you’ve got a narrative of your own.

            That we’re even arguing about the downside of repealing the individual mandate is amazing.

            Before they talk about the upside, I guess they have to admit that the Ryan plan repeals the individual mandate.

            1. If that narrative is people bitching about TDS every time Trump or the GOP is criticized is getting really fucking annoying, then I’m guilty.

              “That we’re even arguing about the downside of repealing the individual mandate is amazing.”

              No one’s arguing not to repeal the mandate, it’s about the lies and hypocrisy of the GOP pushing this bill. There’s a strong argument to be made that the subsidies and Medicaid expansion have a much greater effect than the mandate, which Suderman has mentioned multiple times. The point is that promising that no one will lose coverage when you can’t keep that promise is hypocritical and a lie. And it’s fair to point that out, regardless of what you think of all the provisions of the bill.

              “Before they talk about the upside, I guess they have to admit that the Ryan plan repeals the individual mandate.”

              Holy shit, did you even read the post I just made? Or the article I linked? The one that states it gets rid of the mandate? This is exactly what I mean when I say that you’re pushing your narrative blindly regardless of what people are actually saying.

              1. “No one’s arguing not to repeal the mandate, it’s about the lies and hypocrisy of the GOP pushing this bill.”

                Imagine someone else had written that and read it again.

                The bill we’re talking about repeals the individual mandate. Whatever else it does or doesn’t do, it also repeals the individual mandate.

                The article is all about how bad the repeal of the individual mandate is.

                It is what it is.

          2. If the individual mandate is repealed, coverage will be almost certainly reduced, because many people will cancel their insurance. When the insurers are forced to raise their premiums to address the pool further thinning out, potential customers will be discouraged from buying insurance. CBO is apparently counting these people as those who “lost” their healthcare.

            In other words, any great libertarian replacement plan will get rid of the individual mandate, which will lead to “reduction” in coverage. Of course, they wouldn’t guarantee that coverage would be expanded under their plan. But I doubt that Trump would be against catastrophic and other cancelled plans from returning to the marketplace. If choices increased, coverage won’t be reduced as much.

          3. Pointing out the hypocrisy of promising expanded, or even universal coverage, and then proposing a plan that reduces coverage does not mean you think the mandate is a good thing.

            What Republicans promised was universal availability of coverage; that is everybody can potentially buy a health plan within their means, although it may cover less than what ACA covers.

            Obviously, any plan that drops the mandate may result in less coverage for the simple reason that many people will choose not to get covered. Calling that “hypocrisy” is just plain stupid on your part.

    3. No libertarian should support letting the government force us to buy broccoli.
      Especially ones that realize that no government is forcing anyone to buy broccoli or healthcare. You see, you can go without buying any insurance by paying the mandate tax.

      You are an idiot if you think the cost of buying insurance is the same as that mandate tax.

      It’s interesting watching people at Reason go back and forth on the Ryan plan.
      Hardly. This is what Republicans do, even those pretending to be libertarians. Ryan is a Republican, so the starting position is that this is better than Obamacare. Even if it is not likes, because look, it guts Medicaid, which is welfare.

      1. If it guts medicaid and gets rid of penalty and mandate how do you claim it is essentially obamacare?

      2. “Especially ones that realize that no government is forcing anyone to buy broccoli or healthcare. You see, you can go without buying any insurance by paying the mandate tax.”

        The penalty isn’t a penalty because it’s a penaltax is dumb, but it’s not as dumb as saying that the coercive power of government isn’t being used just because law enforcement (the IRS) will come after you if you don’t buy broccoli.

        This is fucking retarded.

        The government shouldn’t force anyone to buy broccoli. Siccing the IRS on people because they didn’t buy broccoli is fundamentally anti-libertarian.

    4. I may be oversimplifying, but any time you have an entitlement, if you try to reform that entitlement away (or reduce its footprint), people benefiting from said entitlement will be in free-fall for a short time.

      No one can stand to see poor people or truly sick people in free-fall. Even if the system naturally re-arranges itself, catching people before they crash to earth.

      This is essentially why entitlements are nigh impossible to eliminate. The crowd gasp is just too much for people.

      1. I agree.

        But that’s the solution on the table here.

        The Ryan plan eliminates the ACA Medicaid expansion. Rare opportunity. If we don’t get it this time, we may never get another chance.

        Still, I shouldn’t be hearing from a libertarian website about how awful a plan is because the most fundamentally anti-libertarian policy in a generation is set to be repealed.

        First they tell us to oppose the Ryan plan because it doesn’t repeal the individual mandate.

        Then they tell us to oppose the Ryan plan because it repeals the individual mandate and that causes so much woe.

        This piece should be all about how those people who are only buying insurance because they’re being forced to by the government are people who would rather not buy insurance of their own free will.

        But noooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo.

        Something stinks here.

        Something stinks bad.

  20. Meanwhile, uber-libertarian and reason.com darling Judge Napolitano also discovered something.

    That Drumpf’s wiretapping in Drumpf Tower was done by Obama with the help of James Bond.

    http://bit.ly/2mouDPO

    1. What is with using the name drumpf? Do you think it helps your argument? In my opinion it hurts it because it looks childish (this includes calling obama obozo)

      1. It hurts the argument, but that’s probably a good thing because it gives you a clue about the writer’s mindset. If I see somebody using names like Obozo, Shrub, Drumpf, then I know they can’t be rational when discussing something related to that person.

    2. Hairplugs gonna hairplug.

      1. Tony|3.14.17 @ 12:58PM|#
        “Hairplugs gonna hairplug.”

        Stupids gonna stupid.

    3. I for one am not convinced of any crazy, hare-brained theory that doesn’t involve Russian hackers.

  21. What is up with all the trolls lately? Sad thing is they don’t even have coherent arguments which I guess that answers my questions why they are trolls

    1. Seriously. Agile Cyborg’s rambling provides more coherent reasoning than the trolls’ nonsense and incoherent argumentation. The recent crop of trolls is so bad that PB seems like the top of the class.

  22. The press secretary says this analysis was an estimate of what cbo would conclude….not a white house analysis

    My guess is if you know their methods and assumptions and model you can predict ehat they will. That does not mean they support this model or method

    1. This would change things no?

  23. twitter.com/PressSec/status/841620246037442561

    1. So the CBO beat expectations by 2 million uninsured. #winning

      1. Ok? Are you a firm believer in cbo all the sudden?

        Also i have some expenses medical in nature please help me out

        1. sorry it’s your fault you didn’t plan better

  24. So millions of people choosing not to get healthcare after the death of the individual mandate is the same thing as millions of people LOSING healthcare. Okey-dokey.

    When the individual mandate kicks the bucket, people are going to quit their insurance to escape the high premiums or deductibles. The only question was how many, and the CBO apparently answered that question. These poor souls can return to cheaper plans cancelled by ACA or perhaps enroll in localized state state healthcare plans that automatically merged with medicaid expansion. That is, if the GOP is smart enough to revive them.

    INCREDIBLY, not everyone buys expensive, super comprehensive auto insurance. If you give people choices, they’ll make decisions based on their needs.

    1. “based on their needs”

      correction: what they can afford

    2. “So millions of people choosing not to get healthcare after the death of the individual mandate is the same thing as millions of people LOSING healthcare.”

      +1

      These people aren’t losing healthcare.

      They’ve been forced to buy it but wouldn’t of their own free will.

      And you’d think the article might have mentioned that.

  25. It’s funny that someone employed by a libertarian website would pen a lament to government forcing an insufficient number of people to buy a product they don’t want at the market price.

    Trump was lying about supporting universal healthcare, I agree. Lying is bad, I agree. Can we at least get an acknowledgment that destroying healthcare less than promised is a good thing, though?

  26. The Trump administration has argued that the CBO estimates are not believable, but their own estimates showed a greater coverage decline.

    How about the “coverage decline” resulting from another recession? Resulting from massive federal deficits and debt?

    The problem with the US healthcare system isn’t about who pays (taxpayers, private individuals, whatever), it’s that it gives gold plated health plans to large parts of the population who never paid for them, and then on top of that effectively mandates huge handouts and monopolies for doctors, hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.