The CBO can only go so far with the estimates of downstream effects. I do not know all of the details of the bill, but much of it that we have heard about is passing the buck to the states and individuals. Which translates to lower costs at the federal level.
It does not resolve the issues addressed but it looks good on a balance sheet. That is it. Particularly, if they get people off of Medicaid. One would assume costs would be a problem in other areas though. Like the example you gave or older or sicker people would struggle to meet premiums and would likely not bother. Thus increasing insurance.
Something wrong with a healthcare plan that hits against those that are sickest and the elderly.
I imagine that they are pleased with the deficit side, even though it is just cost shifting as opposed to helping anybody getting care, and on top of that the lower premiums eventually.
However, the later may be incorrect to some degree. Not saying the CBO is wrong but it is only part of the story. It is cheaper for young and healthy people, but much more expensive for the older and sicker. Add to that the 5:1 cost of things and it is hard to imagine this working out. It would save money by getting people to lose insurance.
When do full penalties for not being insured kick in? They were phased in, but over how long? Obamacare will not pick up the remaining young healthy people until imho the penalty for no insurance is 2x the actual cost of insurance. Then, lots more are covered. At that point, it would hit medicare expansion people in GOP states, and we would really drop uninsured rates to near zero.
Trump is a tool of Bannon. The flawed AHCA and its even more flawed roll out are part and parcel of his plan for Anarchy. First they severely weakened the Executive branch by appointing unqualified clowns and sycophants to agency heads and deliberately did not staff the key positions. The AHCA was designed to fail and its failure will be used to spit the House Rs as a way to weaken Congress. Bannon, through Breitbart, has already started to attack Ryan. They used Ryanâs poor grasp of policy (stupidity?), ego and greed for power against him by letting him be the point on AHCA and are now throwing him under the bus. They have already attacked the Judiciary to a minor affect but I expect a more aggressive attack to begin as the House weakens. The House Rs need to impeach now while they still have a chance.
This train wreck would be a whole lot more fun to watch if we were not all on the train.
Very good question. I think three main reasons have been given: (1) First, that $337B savings is over ten years, so only $33B a year, which is a tiny amount in the budget; (2) the evisceration of the Medicaid expansion is the big driver of the savings because the federal government pays almost all the costs for it; and (3) the dramatic reduction in federal financial assistance to insurance purchasers on the exchange. However, having said all that, you make an excelkent point that I donât think anyone has directly addressed. Specifically, CBO scored the ACA as reducibg the deficit. Having done that, how can repealing the ACA also reduce the deficit? Maybe TPM could explore that.
I was watching Mick Mulvaney this morning and it looks like they are not focusing on the âsavingsâ but on the coverage vs access âdebateâ that sounds like a bunch of BS to me. It went along the lines of âwhat good does COVERAGE get you if you donât have accessââŚThere was a whole panel sitting there googly eyed and questioning and he kept repeating the same thing over and over. (Morning Joe). The simple answer was coverage gets you in to see the doctor but Mulvaney seemed to be arguing that wasnât any good. Iâve seen this same âanswerâ from several Republicans now so it seems like a talking point. WTHell does it mean?
Republicans got at least a little bit of good news from the CBO: Their legislation would reduce the deficit by $337 billion, a finding that was quickly highlighted by House GOP leadership.
Of course, this billâs savings are spread out over a decade and therefore amount to a pittance. Now, if they want to do better, they could eliminate the billâs tax cuts for the rich. Funny how they put that in the bill when theyâre supposedly deficit hawks.
âWell, actually, I think if you read this entire report, Iâm pretty encouraged by it and it actually exceeded my expectations,â House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Fox News soon after it came out.
He means that he thought theyâd throw fewer people of insurance plans. Turns out it will be more than they though, which is cause for celebration in GOP circles.
