CBO: 24 Million Would Lose Health Insurance Under GOP Bill By 2026

Tyler Durden's picture

The much anticipated CBO scoring of the American Health Care Act, aka "Trumpcare" is out, and it has concluded that millions of Americans would lose medical insurance under the republican proposal to dismantle Obamacare, dealing a potential setback to President Donald Trump's first major legislative initiative. In total, the CBO found that 52 million people would be uninsured by 2026 if the bill became law, compared to 28 million who would not have coverage that year if Obamacare remained unchanged.

Among the key highlights are the following:

  • 14 million would lose insurance by 2018, with the number risin to 24 million by 2026.
  • The budget deficit would be reduced by $337 billion over 10 years.
  • Premiums would rise by 15-20% in 2018-2019, however they would then decline by 10% than under current law by 2026.

Two House committees have already approved the legislation to dismantle Obamacare, but as reported earlier, the proposal faces opposition from not only Democrats but also medical providers including doctors and hospitals and many conservatives. The CBO report's findings could make the Republican plan a harder sell in Congress.

As Reuters adds, some Republicans worry a misfire on the Republican healthcare legislation could hobble Trump's presidency and set the stage for losses for the party in the 2018 congressional elections. Ahead of the report's release, Trump tried to rally support for the bill on Monday:  "The House bill to repeal and replace Obamacare will provide you and your fellow citizens with more choices - far more choices - at lower cost," the Republican president said at a White House meeting with people opposed to Obamacare.

The key sections from the report:

  • CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.
    • Later, following additional changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026. The reductions in insurance coverage between 2018 and 2026 would stem in large part from changes in Medicaid enrollment—because some states would discontinue their expansion of eligibility, some states that would have expanded eligibility in the future would choose not to do so, and per-enrollee spending in the program would be capped. In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
  • CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. That total consists of $323 billion in on-budget savings and $13 billion in off-budget savings. Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion.
  • The legislation would tend to increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up.

But today's estimates are somewhat worse than expected, as the Brookings Institution predicted the number losing coverage would be at most 15 million over 10 years.

The plan's arhcitect, Paul Ryan, took to twitter to react to the CBO report: "CBO report confirms it → American Health Care Act will lower premiums & improve access to quality, affordable care." He highlighted 2 sentences from his statement: "Our plan is not about forcing people to buy expensive, one-size-fits-all coverage. It is about giving people more choices and better access to a plan they want and can afford. When people have more choices, costs go down."

As the Hill notes, the long-awaited analysis from the agency is sure to shake up the debate over the measure, which is already facing sharp criticism from conservatives and many centrist Republicans.   The GOP bill repeals ObamaCare’s subsidies to buy coverage, replacing them with smaller tax credits, as well as the law’s Medicaid expansion after 2019. Both moves were expected to lead to coverage losses.

Republicans had largely expected that the CBO would show Americans losing coverage, and preemptively went on the offensive against the agency, whose director, Keith Hall, who was appointed by the GOP.  White House press secretary Sean Spicer last week argued CBO was “way off” in its ObamaCare projections.  "If you're looking to the CBO for accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place,” he said. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, meanwhile, argued Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that the CBO shouldn’t even try to analyze the bill. “Sometimes we ask them to do stuff they’re not capable of doing, and estimating the impact of a bill of this size probably isn’t the best use of their time,” he said.

That said, as we have shown on numerous occasions in the past, the CBO's predictive track record is simply abysmal. For an indication of that recall our post from 2013: "CBO Forecasts: Then And Now"

A few hours ago, the CBO published its most recent 10 year revised outlook for US revenue and spending: The Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013-2023. Not surprisingly it was, as anything to ever come out of the CBO, overly optimistic. Promptly, the media latched on to the revised deficit expectations according to which the CBO now sees a budget deficit declining from 845 billion to "only" $642 billion in 2013, and dropping to $560 billion the year after. This looks at the short end: the near-term revenue benefits of recent tax increase policy which take from long-term growth (just ask Europe). The fact that the CBO also forecast the deficit proceeding to once again balloon to $895 billion by 2023 at which point the deficit difference between total spending and revenues goes asymptotic once the demographic crunch truly hits, was ignored by all.

 

We will ignore the underlying drivers to the CBO revision: we let readers peruse these at leisure. Instead, we will simply muse at the ridiculousness of anything called a "forecast" coming out of the CBO, and present how the "independent" economic forecasts from this office change in time.

 

On the chart below, the dotted lines are the CBO forecasts as a % of GDP from January 2008 for the period 2008-2018. The solid lines are the just released revised forecasts for 2013-2023.

Perhaps the most notable difference is that in 2008, the CBO was predicting that the US budget deficit would turn into a surplus in 2011. Instead ended up being an $1+ trillion deficit for that year alone. Also, in the period between 2008 and 2013, the CBO then forecast a cumulative deficit of just a few hundred billion. Instead, we ended up with deficits of over $5 trillion and, sadly, still rising.

 

So take anything coming out of the CBO with a very big grain of salt.

 

But for now, with the market hitting new highs every single day just because, the CBO is surely allowed to come up with any goalseeked numbers: it's not like anyone cares when stocks are soaring in a trance that is now completely disconnected from anything and only reliant on central bank balance sheets. And of course, we can't wait to look back in five years and laugh at this specific revised "forecast."

The CBO's full scaling of Trumpcare is below (link)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NugginFuts's picture

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

But just remember, "We have to pass it so we can REALLY see what's in it."

froze25's picture

Same CBO that told us Obama care was puppies and unicorns?

NugginFuts's picture

It WAS puppies and unicorns, depending who you are. If you were an insurance company or Medicaid recipient, you got FREE MONEY. If you were the average consumer, you were told to grab your ankles while they went in dry. 

Jim Sampson's picture

How is forcing someone to purchase something from a corporation legal?  Oh, yeah!  It isn't.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

The government was never supposed to be a charity.

Government healthcare programs like Medicaid arn't health insurance, they are a wealth transfer scheme.

The price of healthcare in America will continue to rise until market forces are brought back.  

Until then, our best tactic is disintermediation.

Come to Marfa this June and will talk about it in great detail.

  • Healthcare: hedgeless_horseman,  Negotiating directly with physicians and hospitals

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-10/time-has-come-first-zerohedge-s...

847328_3527's picture

market forces don't work so well in many health care situations since many aspects are "inelastic" I read somewhere.

Douche McGoosh's picture
Douche McGoosh (not verified) False_Profit Mar 13, 2017 4:06 PM

My parents got saved by socialized healthcare!

(But they installed socialist brains in their heads and pigs feet on them).

BullyBearish's picture

For those of you still harboring any hope for trump in draining the swamp, it's over...please take a look at this:

 

https://youtu.be/Vcd-yvudYSg

 

Escrava Isaura's picture

Paulo: I am just re-reading JM Greer’s Dark Age America. Written before Trump, I am astounded at just how he has rung the bell. It is very interesting in light of today’s rabid calls for the repeal of the ACA and a reduction of medicaid for poor folks by people who are insider millionaires/billionaires who already sport a nifty little congressional health plan and a defined benefit pension; (as if they need either).

When the desperate wake up to this latest wealth-robbing scam are they ever going to be pissed!! Plus, the relaxation of environmental regs and a speed up of new pharmacy products to go with ‘access’ to health insurance, man oh man it’ll be like going to a fall fair and watching a rube say, “Wait a minute, I thought…..”

http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-march-9-2017/#comment-598333

 

J S Bach's picture

Goddamn I'm sick of this entitlement mentality!  Oh woe is us that not EVERY featherless biped has health insurance.  Yeah, well, not everybody can AFFORD complete coverage.  We are going to reach a point where all of this feel-good-socialist-dream-state collapses under a thing called reality.  Right now, people who work are FORCED to pay their fair share as well as whatever else can be squeezed out of them to pay for those who DON'T pay their fair share.  Once again, we have an insane system and mindset.  When the wakeup call comes, there are going to be a lot of pissed-off-temper-tantrum-throwing dependents.  Get ready for the fireworks... but stand firm on the FACT that socialized medicine can not work in the long term.

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) J S Bach Mar 13, 2017 5:02 PM

But but Trump said is a "wonderful new Health Care bill". Maybe it was, until Paul Ryan gave his magic touch and turned it into this shit.

Trump needs to bring this boy to heel. FAST

Paul Ryan: If We Can’t Pass My Bill the “System is Going to Collapse”

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-03-13/paul-ryan-if-we-cant-pass-my-b...

 


espirit's picture

24 Million Deadbeats getting free healthcare (tomato/tomahto) and about to lose it?

That's moar then even I imagined.

gatorengineer's picture

15 million are on obozo care now, hard to understand how 24 mill would be without it, unless either a great depression or legalized mexicans

Escrava Isaura's picture

J S Bach: Goddamn I'm sick of this entitlement mentality!

Because you get it wrong.

Give you an example: Savings/401

How was these savings generate?

Answer: Trough a Ponzi scheme, violence, and lots of debt acquired of thin air.

Now, the people that own these savings feel entitled not to only to keep it, but, to charge interest “usury” on it.

See the problem? These savings and all these debts are an illusion.

Money is just a token. It doesn't have value. It doesn’t need to be saved. It is constantly moving through the economy, just like blood thorough your body. The pump should be federal government. Not private bankers.

If all these debts are written off tonight by Trump, the population will be free tomorrow to grow this economy. The only people that will miss these debts will be usurers.

Do you care if they do?

 

Giant Meteor's picture

God Damn! I'm upvotin you, you crazy bastard .. Well done!

davinci7_gis's picture

They need a healthcare bond..that should do it!

/sarc

Giant Meteor's picture

CBO: 24 Million Would Lose Health Insurance Under GOP Bill By 2026

Let me translate , and this may be the best place to do that ...

Welcome To National Health Care !

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums."

If you CHOOSE, meaning YOU make the choice, NOT GOVERNMENT, then you aren't losing your healthcare insurance.  You are CHOOSING to NOT CARRY health insurance.   They are NOT the same thing.  Maybe give up the cigarettes, and then you could afford insurance.  Don't want to give up the smokes?  Then thats YOUR problem, not mine.

Responsible people make choices all the time.  I choose to carry health insurance, and I forgo something else to make that happen.  I don't expect a freebie from someone else so I don't have to make that choice.

The Gun Is Good's picture

Absolutely. On the flip side, I choose not to carry.

And many of us cannot afford health insurance... point blank. We don't smoke or otherwise waste money (How do you waste money you don't have?), but we REFUSE to be free shitters and take the "care" on other people's dime. Got it? Not all monetarily-disadvantaged people want or expect free shit.

What's more: I won't pay the extortion money / penalty / fine this time either (if it is, in fact, demanded at some later time, which would be indicative of a Trump failure); I will do what I must to defend myself against aggressors sent to collect if need be... and will more likely preemptively strike those people I determine to be responsible for the continued monstrous assault on our Constitutional right to be free from forced transactions with corporations backed by the threat of government violence.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

And part of the reason you can't "afford" healthcare is because people that do make the choice to take from others, and do get healthcare, drive the cost of it up---and out of reach like people like you who do not take the handouts from others.  We all make choices in life.  What to consume, where and when to work, and how hard.  Some people decide they don't want the responsibility of becoming a manager at a company and moving up the ladder.  That might mean less income.  That might mean they can't afford healthcare.  Why should I pay for that decision?  Especially if I am someone who DID move up the ladder---and bare the greater burden of the job?  Freeloading comes in many shapes and forms, not just freebies from Uncle Sam.

The Gun Is Good's picture

Indeed. Entitlement mentality just plain SUCKS....

Jack McGriff's picture

Health insurance is NOT healthcare!

Giant Meteor's picture

WEALTH CARE ... except, the loss is of your wealth, someone elses gain ..

And by the looks of Global rankings, the health outcomes are questionable too ..

Of course all those last ditch chemo efforts to prolong life for 6 months probably drags "outcome" averages down a tad ..

I have a dream, that one day, in the history books, man will look and say, Jesus, they actually fed massive doses of poison to the patient to try and prolong their lives!? Sort of like we read now about the effectiveness of "bleeding" the patient, by leeches and directly opening the veins ...

Bloody Hell ..

Meh, I get the big C pronouncement I'm experimenting with collodial silver, and lots of "herb."

Oh and fucking snickers bars! You cannot kill that shit ..

 

Delving Eye's picture

I wish you the best, GM. Really. It's a tough fight, but you sound like my husband when he got the C call. Good luck!

Giant Meteor's picture

Thanks.

I have attended to loved one that fought with chemo. Did the hospice care on dad. Truth is, he had inoperable cancer throughout his liver. I watched the chemo dance, in his case it killed him quicker, robbed him of the little time he had left.

I respect his personal decision, even though I did not agree with it. I never once expressed that to him, as I knew dad. He was in his own right, a tough son of a bitch. He also LOVED life a great deal. Was in excellent health and STRONG at 76. I do not speak for anyone but myself. It is after all a deeply personal decision. My sincere and deepest condolences for your loss.

By one study in a British Journal, after a certain age, my father certainly fell within that group, the report found that CHEMO, killed roughly 60% of the people it was suppose to "help."  Sure, I've heard the other side too, chemo has apparently worked for others, and I believe age, definitely comes into play. Also, by all accounts, CHEMO being constantly refined or so it is said.

I would if possible, or IF a good candidate for cyber knife. Ideally cut that shit out of me, possibly other treatments. But barring that, or something inoperable, under NO circumstances, chemo, or radiation ..

Fact is, dad would have likely lived a bit longer, and made that "one last trip" that he was hoping for to visit mother's familiy in the Midwest. With proper diet, basic drugs to stimulate appetite, general medications, and pallative care, the quality of his remaining life would have been degrees more "comfortable" as would have been his "end." Being his age, and in "that" generation, weed was out of the question. It would have helped him, of that I have no doubt .

It's a touchy subject, which in spite of my "humor" I am not making light of ..

Fact is, I think too, one has to be ready to go, by that I mean make peace with dying, DAILY as no one is guaranteed tomorrow.

Having  been under the knife many many times, having cheated death at the age of 19, and still carrying the scars and daily aches and pains of that experience (1977) and having already lived two lives in one lifetime, i have made peace with it all.

The point being .. dying is something that we're all going to have to do. I would like to think in my own case, if I get ANY say at all, to enjoy the ride, cuz to my knowlege I'm only going to get to do it once ...

Blessings to you and yours,

GM

Delving Eye's picture

You've got all the right stuff, GM, including youth. (I've got 5 years on you, dammit! :)

I'm sure you'll make the most of your trip here. I get the feeling we've all been here before, and will be again if we so choose. So, not to get too transcendental (although that Bridge to Terabithia does make for alluring thoughts) ... but someone told me life and death are circular, like a spiral staircase. We go up and down and up again, passing ourselves and each other, sometimes recognizing the passage, sometimes not. In any case, it's an adventure. And then some.

Take care and heaven bless you.

(btw, my son has a "Giant Meteor for 2016" bumpersticker on his car, so you're famous in our house. ;^P )

AtATrESICI's picture

Wish they would roll it back to the state that it was before Obama Care... The .GOV FUCKS UP EVERYTHING THEY FUCK WITH...FUCKING CRIMINALS MAKING CRIME LEGAL FOR CRIMINALS...FUCKING HELL...

Jein's picture

They should definitely let you die at least

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

One of the big problems is the lack of pricing transparency, and the closely associated lack of quality transparency. 

Q:  What do you call the guy that graduated last in his class from the worst medical schol in the world?

A:  Doctor.

 

FireBrander's picture

"Government healthcare programs like Medicaid arn't health insurance, they are a wealth transfer scheme."

YES!!!!!!!

Medicaid "transfers wealth" FROM EVERYONE to CORPORATE AMERICA!

ZERO, NOT ONE FUCKING DIME, of the money spent on Medicaid goes into the pockets of the "poor"; EVERY LAST FUCKING PENNY ends up in corporate coffers...of which a FRACTION is then kicked backed to "Congress" to ensure IT STAYS THAT WAY!

OregonGrown's picture
"24 Million Would Lose Coverage Under GOP Healthcare Plan By 2026"

 

Correction:  24 Million people WONT BE FORCED TO PURCHASE COVERAGE under gop healthcare plan!  Fixed It!

FireBrander's picture

That would save $33 Billion a year; great, let's use that to spread some more "Freedom and Democracy".

PS. 10, 20 30 million...plus no real fix...and even higher rates on those still in the system...HUGE FUCKING FAIL...Demcrats back in charge in two years...Trump impeached on whatever the Dems can 'Trump up" against him.

Republicans AREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE REAL FIX....LOWERING THE COST OF CARE!

ejmoosa's picture

Step 1:  Repeal Obamacare.  Do not replace it

Step 2: Eliminate all medical insurance and care from taxation for everyone.

Step 3: Eliminate restrictions to allow across the border puchase of insurance plans.

Step 4: Cash prices for most if not all  services must be available for a consumer before they agree to any procedure or treatment including drugs.  Unleash the power of the consumers to drive the market.

 

I know people who will drive 10 miles to save 2 cents a gallon on gas.  Do we really believe that if we do not enable consumers that they will not try to get the best bang for their own bucks?

 

http://ejmoosa.com/blog3/2017/03/13/repeal-obamacare-but-do-not-replace-it/

 

Oldwood's picture

No one wants to fix this mess, they want to find some new rube thats not paying attention and stuff the bill into HIS back pocket while he's not looking.

FireBrander's picture

Correction, Correction: 24 million people won't buy insurance, and then, at some point, 24 million  people won't be able to pay for the care they need and they will PISS AND MOAN AND DEMAND SOMEONE PICK UP THIER TAB.

WTFRLY's picture

Excellent, just in time for the Purge

ejmoosa's picture

They cannot afford the "insurance" now.

In fact, it's not actually insurance.  If you understand the term then you know it's not insurance.  Because with insurance you pay based upon your potential to need to file a claim.

 

djrichard's picture

Damn, if only there was a way to get the money to the people instead.

But if we can't do that, might as well turn the spigot off.  I'm sure the poor will be in agreement, that they'd much rather have no health coverage than have the money go to corporate coffers.

GreatUncle's picture

This concept is where government has become the middle man, legislating corporate protection and the end user ends up paying more all the time.

Need to block the sell out of the government middle man and start repealing legislation to restore market forces.

 

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) hedgeless_horseman Mar 13, 2017 4:30 PM

New healthcare is Frankenstein shit.

Employers can demand genetic testing, if you refuse you can be fired or denied employment.

Guess that's why you aren't allowed to read it.

Welcome to hell folks!

espirit's picture

Some of us have been here awhile.

Giant Meteor's picture

Diabolical. Pure Evil, and it goes on from there ...

Not only that, then they want you to PAY massively for the priviledge ..

 

Hal n back's picture

I say do not change it and let it all implode.

It may take a couple  of more years but as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

Seriously, we need a disaster to occur in healthcare that will be the trigger to reengineer the overall healthcare system

Everybody has accessto healthcare-the issue is what quality and who pays the cost. There should be a basic healthcare plan that does not cost too much--although more than Medicaid, pleaod shoudl have  some skin in the game.

72 million are on Medicaid now. Somebody shoudl be explaining how that happens. and by that, just way are so many people qualified  for basically free healthcare. Plus add in the ones who get full or almost full subsidies for one of hte Obamacare plans.

 

 

 

 

Whoa Dammit's picture

@Hedgeless--I was never supposed to be a charity, forced by my government to support others. These days I feel like I should turn myself into a non-profit corporation.

ultraticum's picture

Since when does the State need to concern itself with whether or not individuals have health insurance?

FireBrander's picture

Not health insurance, but access to care is in EVERYONE'S INTEREST.

If you're going to argure"fuck the people that can't pay"...well, you're a fucking nutjob.

Those "people that can't pay" are the ones making your meals when you eat out, they're stocking the vegetables at the store...they are everywhere...and if they get sick...YOU GET SICK (TB FOR ALL)...see Chipotles' lettuce laced with human shit from a "sick" employee for details..one "poor" scik person; dozens of sick Chipotle customers...

The entity that needs a good fucking here is the "health industry"; not the "poor".