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.
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Oh baloney.  How many of those people have kids?  How many of those people have 2 kids and can't afford them, or 4 or 6?  You can have all of the kids you want, if YOU, not ME, can pay for them.  And that means from birth until college graduation.  If you can't afford to make that commitment, then you should have less kids, or NONE.   You can't take care of yourself much less kids.  You make it sound like employers should be forced to pay for all the kids you want.  I don't agree.

And kids are just one set of choices.  I see people who I employ, that can't make ends meet, and they smoke cigarettes, drink in my bar, and gamble at the nearby casino.  Why the hell should I pay for their healthcare?  They can afford it, they just choose NOT to afford it.

slightlyskeptical's picture

You should pay becauser they are getting MORE sick at your establishment. They gamble because you don't pay them enough to have a future. Hope needs to come from somewhere.

The balls of some people. You make your living poisioning these people with your alcohol and now you come on here and bitch that you shouldn't be partially responsible for their healthcare.


crossroaddemon's picture

I'm gonna kinda second this. When I was hiring people I always felt like an exploiter. So I upgraded my equipment and stopped hiring people. 

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I've never poured an ounce of alcohol down anyones throat.  They do it of their own free will.  Fuck you.  I, nor any other business owner has ever held a gun to someone's head to steal their money.   What an assanine comment.  Thats what FREE MARKETS are about.  If you want a beer, you can buy a beer.  If you don't want to buy a beer, you don't have to buy a beer.  Typical fucking SNOWFLAKE thinking.  And why do you think there is a 10% tax on alcohol moron??  Its SUPPOSED to be for the healthcare you talk about---instead its used for who the hell knows what.

espirit's picture

Cool yer jets, Scotty.

Don't feed the trolls.

Oldwood's picture

It is the ULTIMATE progressive theme.....that we are all TOO STUPID to take care of ourselves, to make reasonable and proper choices, and as such should be PROTECTED. They created insurance as an income redistribution scheme that would make things "affordable" by "spreading the wealth around", completely IGNORING the fact that by removing our responsibility for our choices it VIRTUALLY ENSURES that we will MAKE those BAD choices.

Is this our choice? To pretend that our choices have no consequences and at the very least are not our responsibility, that those consequences are the responsibility of those who actually choose wisely? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". We need our heads examined. Is this our evolutionary path. HoLeeFuck.

djrichard's picture

I agree.  If anybody deserves a fucking, it's the poor.

And while I know the wealthy make us pay taxes to keep our skin-in-the-game (because really taxes and bond purchases by the wealthy are more than enough *) well you know what, it worked.  Now that I feel the pain of paying taxes, I could give a s**t about anybody else.  Everyone for themselves MFers!

* Guess where your money would go if you didn't pay taxes.  You think it would stay in your pocket?  You wouldn't be paying a higher mortgage or a higher rent?   Guess again.

Jein's picture

Aren't people like you trying to tell the women that they can't get abortions? I don't get why the fuck you people are crazy pro lifers when affordable abortion mitigates the number of children these deadbeat assholes have

slightlyskeptical's picture

Last I heard everyone was required to purchase car insurance which costs more than any penalties.. I don't see anyone bitching about that.

bamawatson's picture

how fucking DUMB are you; you moronic asshole.

EVERYONE is NOT NOT required to buy car insurance

you are a stone cold MORON !!!

Dode415's picture

If you've got a car you haver to buy car insurance to cover accidents etc. If you're alive maybe you need to have health insurance to cover costs of accidents etc. In the case of car insurance careful drivers effectively subsidise moronic assholes bihind the wheel , for health insurance it's the same principle with lucky people with health issues and no accidents subsidising evrybody else. It's how insurance works

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Absolutely the wrong comparison.  You buy auto insurance to protect the OTHER driver, not you.  You are only forced to buy LIABILITY insurance---thats insurance to protect someone else.  If you are stupid, and drive into a tree, and you only have liability insurance, thats YOUR problem.  Why should I have to pay for your problems?? 

Mikeyy's picture

It's not the wrong comparison.  You and I who have health insurance help cover the cost of those without, either through our taxes or higher health care costs becasue of medical care that is provided that goes unreimbursed. 


i thought everybody knew that.  You pay one way or another.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Sorry, you are wrong.  So if my wife and I have two children, and we both have jobs, and we are able to pay for our healthcare and not make anyone else do it for us----we should have to pay for someone who decides to have 6 kids and cannot make ends meet?  We made the RESPONSIBLE choice to stop at two kids because that is all that we could afford.  So greedy little scum like you look at us and say---YOU SHOULD PAY FOR MY HEALTHCARE TOO!!  I SEE YOU HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER AND I DON'T!!  Two words:  FUCK YOU.

Jein's picture

No he's not you fucking imbecile. If someone without insurance is dying and taken to a hospital they will give this person care. That they can't pay back. Those anticipated expenses are baked into costs that YOU AND I ALREADY PAY FOR. Insurance for everyone is the only fucking solution, like car insurance. 

Oldwood's picture

Think so huh? Total your car and see how much YOUR rates increase. Auto insurance is priced for your risk, your age, sex and driving history (preexisting conditions) and many find that they can no longer afford to drive and ride the bus or train. Auto drivers, while being responsible are FORCED to pay for other driver's risks and when not, are forced to take responsibility for their actions...and of course complain about its unfairness.


No one wants fairness because what fairness is well understood for most of us IS being responsible for our own actions. It is the work of progressives to tell us that we are NOT responsible for anything...good or bad (I didn't build that) unless it is disparaging a snowflake, and that it is ALWAYS those with more money than you who are to blame.

Giant Meteor's picture

Not only that, a lot of folks are driving around without that shit, or licenses for that matter ..

funthea's picture

Accept of course, the part where driving a car is a privilage and not a right. So if you want to drive on the roads we all paid for and share, you are required to have insurance. However, you can choose not to drive and therefore choose not to buy insurance.

booboo's picture

25% of the drivers in my state have no insurance, now thge *LAW* states that if you have no insurance the state has to suspend your license but since the STATE is a worthless entity that fails at every level a full 25% of the drivers in my state without insurance still drive on a suspended license. The government cannot enforce what they cannot enforce.

Mikeyy's picture

+1.  To say nothing of how many hit and runs there are where the guy doesn't even stop.  I'm guessing he/she doesn't have much insurance either.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

And because of all of that, you have to buy UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED protection even though you already bought insurance.  They jack your rates up even higher, to cover against people who drive without the coverage.  Thats pretty much what is happening in healthcare right now.  Those of us that are paying premiums, are paying even higher premiums to pay for the "uninsured/underinsured" people---and the system is GOING BROKE!

slightlyskeptical's picture

Last I heard everyone was required to purchase car insurance which costs more than any penalties.. I don't see anyone bitching about that.

sessinpo's picture

So you are telling me that someone that doesn't even own a car has to buy car insurance (I am assuming you mean driving insurance)?

Your analogy is false and posting it twice won't make a lie a truth.

Offthebeach's picture

We had a war over forcing people to zero sum world for corporations.   Now you don't even have a job, but have to give to corporations.   

I'm sure there's some gobble de gok you have to go to MIT to not understand.   Trust your elites and their rent seeking hearts.  They are not like history's others. 

sessinpo's picture

Are we not already?

Municipal corporation. 

They tax you (force you to pay them). Do not think corporations only pertains to businesses.

This isn't something new under health insurance. Why do you think they had th supreme court affirm that corporations are people?

QuantumEasing's picture

It's not.

Forcing government employees (or those wrongly claiming to be) is.

The OblahblahScare penalty only applies to those that owe Federal excise on their Federal privilege.

gearbaby's picture

Excuse me, idiot ... you are forced to buy car insurance if you want to register your vehicle .... that's forced extortion, bud

idahobandito's picture

Very few would "lose" it...they would be FORCED to PAY for it, like the rest of US do, instead of someone else paying for it. Illegal redistribution of wealth. Don't fill out line 61 (?) on your return, if you have a refund.

Pladizow's picture

And what has the CBO ever been right about?

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Exactly. Would love to see what the CBO had to say about Obamacare.

NugginFuts's picture

I'll grant you that, but at the same time they're not wrong on this count... mostly because insurance premiums were going to go up 15%-20% ANYWAY. Now they just have someone new to blame. 

The whole system is fucked. This is just a rerun with a new cast of characters.

Skateboarder's picture

Yearly household income budget breakdown for the year 2025: 60% for rent, 30% for healthcare, 9% for transportation, and 1% for Top Ramen.

NugginFuts's picture

I dunno, man. Ramen has gone from $.10 per brick to $.16 in the last five years. We might be paying $1/brick for that crap by the time we get to 2025. Think hyperinflation, no noodles spared!

cowdiddly's picture

Top Ramen? Man that's livin large. And here I am holding a hammer and racing squirrels for the hickory nuts.

idahobandito's picture

If they would hurry up and get that fuckin wall built, we could throw the 2 million criminal wetbacks back over the wall and save $$$ from them not using "critical access" hospitals for free. Then maybe the insurance rates would stableize for a while.  There are probably 2-5 million criminal illegals here.......if you voted, and are a illegal, then you are a criminal.

Mikeyy's picture

"And what has the CBO ever been right about?"


Ask President Trump.  He's quoted them many times.

froze25's picture

The Din-Dues never paid anyway, neither did the "me no speak the English crowd" that flooded our emergency rooms. The only people that got F'ed in the A were the working people and the people that didn't want to even have health insurance to begin with.

lil dirtball's picture

>The only people that got F'ed in the A were the working people...

Because they're fuckin' idiots.

Just watch 'em, they wake up and do it again tomorrow, knowing they're getting fucked in the ass. Only an idiot would do that.

crossroaddemon's picture

I've said it before... if you're any kind of revolutionary, or just love freedom... QUIT YOUR FUCKING JOB! If you are making less than 100% of the value your labor generates than what the FUCK is wrong with you???

MFL5591's picture

Yes, the same communist group that lied to us about Mulato care!  Let people pay for medical care there is no free lunch with a 20 Trillion dollar defecit!


Paying for Mexicans in this country illegally having their kids and cloging up emergency rooms needs to end!

djrichard's picture

You know how what happens if you have free health care don't you?   Doctors end up hoovering up the wealth from all the Fed Gov payout for health care.  Soon they'd own the world and be rich as hades.  Unless of course the Fed Gov came up with a diabolical scheme.  One which involves the Fed Gov selling them bonds and taxing them to recycle their cash hoards, which would then provide the financing for the Fed Gov to pay for things like ... health care.

P.S. this is why prostitution was outlawed.  Eventually the whore houses end up with all the money.  And apparently they didn't like to buy Fed Gov bonds.   The prostitutes preferred to stockpile the cash and lord it over their customer base.  [Like Germany is doing to Greece.]  Until they realized their customer base had no more money to spend.  [Like Greece is realizing.]

j0nx's picture

Ryan's plan to make sure Trump is a one termer and that the GOP loses congress in 2018 and he can get back to the business of playing the victim and blowing the dems on the side for favors. He knows his seat is safe because the fucking idiots in Wisconsin continue to vote for his sorry dem in sheep's clothing ass. Really wish Trump would flush some of these traitorous turds.

Takeaction2's picture
Takeaction2 (not verified) NugginFuts Mar 13, 2017 4:12 PM

I AM SO GLAD THIS HAPPENED...Paul Ryan  FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUU   Get Rand to handle this.



Oh god...I have to watch Rachel Maddow tonight...she will be going NUTS.

crossroaddemon's picture

If you're going to fuck dykes it's much more fun when they come in pairs. Just sayin'.

crossroaddemon's picture

Jesus what no-fun loser is downvoting threesomes???