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.
Giant Meteor's picture

Wasn't me I'll tell ya ..

Stealth downvoters, the fucking cowards ...

No worries, I'll upvote both ...

idahobandito's picture

She needs a dry cock rammed up her asshole....paging  Bubba Clintoon...pick up the brown uncourtesy phone.

LeftandRightareWrong's picture

To be fair to Pelosi, which is not easy, if you read her entire comment, she was saying we need to pass it to find out what happens.  How it all plays out.

Giant Meteor's picture

No No No ! Emphatically NO! Nancy Pee Lousey has backtracked on this ..

She NOW says we must first know whats in it BEFORE we pass it!

See how this game is played?

Its simple really. So easy a caveman can do it, and Nancy qualifies, God Bless her stone cold heart.

Lynx Dogood's picture

More statist health care!  The painfull joy of our masters must be endured forever!!!  Wheather you like it or not!!!!!!!!

 

 

When do we start shooting them again????

froze25's picture

They already (the cbo) lied about Obama Care.

IridiumRebel's picture

Yet another POS law. Fuck this bill. Fuck Paul Ryan.

Giant Meteor's picture

AND, I might add, their little dogs too!

inflationbull's picture
inflationbull (not verified) Mar 13, 2017 3:27 PM

honestly can only imagine what will happen at www.inflation.co on the health inflation price side

SharkBit's picture

These congress fucks really need to roll their sleeves up and get to work.  Seems like they are always on TV or on holiday.  Ryan is a lying POS tosser.

MuffDiver69's picture

What a joke of a report. Not having insurance isn't losing it...Why don't they issue a report on their Obamacare CBO projection...Ooops

ZakuKommander's picture

Actually, not making people buy insurance is not always a bad deal.  Do we need everyone insured?  And are not the premium increases relatively modest by comparison to historical experience?

bankbob's picture

Today's Choice - buy insurance that you cannot use or don't buy insurance?

Tomorrow's Choice - buy insurance that you can use or don't buy insurance?

buzzsaw99's picture

it is not the CBO's fucking job to worry about unisured this or that. as a matter of fact they suck at their job as there isn't EVEN A FUCKING BUDGET. They should disband due to incompetence.

J J Pettigrew's picture

"LOSE" is the wrong word....

For there will be no mandate...so millions will CHOOSE not to be covered.

No one will "lose" coverage if they dont want to "lose".....

damn this media

Giant Meteor's picture

There are serial downvoters in the house. Its, its its so, un nerving, sniff, snort. Anyone got a safe space I can borrow ? sniff ..

Btw I never downvote, or rarely, and if I do I explain myself. I did downvote myself a few times, for multiple post misfires ..

I'm breaking this tie score Buzz, upvote for you!

edit; cuz you're such a pretty bastard !

Peanut Butter Engineer's picture

I down vote him just cause he used degraded term for women in this comment. Hell its my right to down vote or up vote any shit.

Giant Meteor's picture

I just upvoted you, for saying you downvoted him. Of course its your right. I simply enjoy hearing from folks who exercise that option. To me it adds to the spirited conversation, dialogue. Not sure if you'll see this or not but either way, thats ok.

Well done!

Peanut Butter Engineer's picture

Well, I saw your response. This is just a follow up to confirm that I saw your response.

economessed's picture

I still don't see anyone willing to make the hard decision to deny pharma companies endless patent extensions and end the predatory pricing models by corporate vampire speculators.  And insurance companies still get to skim their fees and mark-ups from the marketplace.  And the lawyers are still allowed to sue every doctor and hospital for everything.  The business model of American healthcare isn't being changed - we're just applying a different shade of lipstick to this pig.

homebody's picture

Gives a good idea of how many illegals sucking welfare.  But it will be made to look like granny being pushed over the cliff and children stacked up in emerg. 

NoWayJose's picture

All the news shows saying the reduction in numbers is from fewer people on Medicaid.

mrdenis's picture

I'm tired of not being abel to afford to go to the doctor because I must pay for others to do so .... .....

CaptainObvious's picture

Didn't you get the memo?  Some animals are more equal than other animals.  Now, back to work, middle class slave!

Giant Meteor's picture

Row well number 51, row well.

Crack!!, Row I said, ROW!

Charles Nelson Reilly's picture

see the whole problem with entitlements is that once you had them out to FSA, they are damn near impossible to get back.  Gov't shitheads of course know this which in the end makes them even more powerful slave owners.

WinstonSmith1984's picture

Can't say I'm a fan of the CBO but doesn't Ryan and Trump owe taxpayers their cost estimates and their coverage numbers. Ryan and Trump are supposed to be building this grand medical care act so why not tell us what it will cost rather than shitting all over the CBO?

NoWayJose's picture

How many people 'lost ' their existing plans when Obamacare was implemented?

CaptainObvious's picture

Shhh!  You're not supposed to mention that!  Bad serf, bad!

Giant Meteor's picture

Ummmmm, you must not have liked your plan well enough, you know, because you didn't keep it ..

Oh shit, I've done it now ...

esum's picture

CBO was way off the mark on "marking up" obamacare....

why would they be correct now...???

eliminating the mandate drops millions who dont feel the need (the immortal young)

and hopefully illegals will be cut off.......

 

Bill of Rights's picture

Fake news make up our minds is if 24 million or 14 million? And how about a break down on who is the Group that is losing... again Fake news .

NoWayJose's picture

CBO came out with the 'numbers' that Paul Ryan asked them to come out with - in order to force this plan down our throats.

Vin's picture

"24 Million Would Lose Coverage"

That's not the point even if it's true.  We want our old, constitutional, private healthcare back.  No more socialist bullshit.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Yeah, I notice a fixation on that number of losers.

Really out of Context.

debunker's picture

MAGA muthafuckas

Giant Meteor's picture

Absolutely

My Ass Getting Ablated

MAGA 

hotrod's picture

IF CBO SAY PRICE INCREASE 20%  You know it will be much worse.  NO one can afford what they have right now.

WHERE IS THE LINE ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN COST,  so people can use their health insurance again.

GRDguy's picture

"Premiums would rise by 15-20% in 2018-2019, however they would then decline by 10% than under current law by 2026."

We need at least a 10% break now, and more in the following years.

 

Otherwise, ONLY the 1% will have insurance by 2026.

Perhaps, that's the plan.

slightlyskeptical's picture

CBO was actually fairly accurate on Obamacare enrollments and costs. They did overestimate enrollment but that can be fully attribable to the fact that the Supreme Court allowed states to decine the medicaid expansion. Other than that the CBO scored Obamacare very accurately.

NYC_Rocks's picture

The core issue is government regulation that restricts supply and increases demand. My Mom was a nurse when they passed the code regs in 1992. It's been a disaster ever since.  You can't centralize something that needs to be distributed down to the doctor-patient relationship.  Healthcare, banking and education are all highly regulated. And they are all cartels. Until the people finally learn that the state can't centralize these things without serious consequences, it will not get better. 

What about those that can't take care of themselves?  Who pays for those born with serious medical conditions?  

Many people pay for their kids, their mom and help their brother/sister and their kids a lot, and have done so for a number of other people's families. Many donate to hospitals and private schools (on top of paying high taxes for public services). These donations subsidize these services for those who can't afford it.

 Nobody was ever left to die or starve in the streets of a free society. That's a myth. And to the extent there are rough spots, they are *much* worse in a controlled economy.  It's all relative.  Government just does a great job with their propaganda.  Remember, politicians lie all the time.  Don't believe a word they say.

Should education and healthcare be entirely free market? 

Absolutely. Constitutionally Congress has zero authority to intervene in these markets, which makes their doing so just as illegal as intervening in religious practice. No government should be involved in a free people's ability to do what they want, save initiation of force and fraud. From a utilitarian standpoint, intervention always makes it worse.

Some well documented and logical articles on this subject.  Our healthcare market is far from a free market.  Until we put the voting dollars back in the pockets of the consumer and stop with the "healthcare is a right" propaganda, nothing will change.

https://mises.org/library/rise-medical-bureaucrat-and-centralized-health-care

https://mises.org/library/rise-medical-bureaucrat-and-centralized-health...

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-exp...

https://mises.org/library/whats-really-wrong-healthcare-industry

Not one President has come up with a solution to healthcare and no President ever will.  Trump will fail as badly as Obama and others.  Only solution is to take down all the regulations and start over.  Watch competition do it's work. Just as people current budget food and shelter as priorities, watch them put healthcare in the top three on their list and watch them drive prices down while suppliers offer better service and broader access (without the regulations constraining them). 

 

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) NYC_Rocks Mar 13, 2017 4:00 PM

You'll never fix anything as long as the printing press and the plates of the dollar are in the hands of private "bankers".  That's the shit underneath it all.

NYC_Rocks's picture

Yes, absolutely true.  It's a core problem that fuels the government's ability to provide subsidies (healthcare, banking, education, etc.)

chrbur's picture

hey........we have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.......

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Mar 13, 2017 3:59 PM

Clean repeal, Trump.  You're stepping in a huge pile of shit this time.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Looks like a day to go buy scotch or something.

- don't call it Trump Care, since he hasn't done a damn thing yet, let along signed it.
- $337 Billion over 10 years is nothing, $33 B a year
- Price stickiness means CBO knows squat and shit about prices, Health Care is run by Fascist
- It is a steaming pale of dung of which none can abide, NO one will get on board without real REFORM

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) TeethVillage88s Mar 13, 2017 4:01 PM

If there is no mandate, that's half the battle.  Sort of like how getting rid of wage withholding would end the tax slavery in a jiffy.

TeethVillage88s's picture

I understand there is a penalty you pay to the Insurance company if you don't pay health care for 90 days or some such.

- We pay Medicare when we work
- We pay for the poor or the illegal through medicaid
- Congress has a harness on you to PAY ACA Now
- New Act won't take effect in 2016
- New Act will force you to pay a penalty
- Health Care is about to go hyper inflation

But I could be off. I heard this 2 weeks ago.

J J Pettigrew's picture

"LOSE" is the wrong word....

For there will be no mandate...so millions will CHOOSE not to be covered.

No one will "lose" coverage if they dont want to "lose".....

damn this media