• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CBO score released on ACHA - 14 million - 2018 - 24 million more uninsured 2026

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

guek

Banned
JaggedSac said:
What was their reasoning for why premiums would drop below the projected Obamacare average premiums over time?
Click to expand...

Starting in 2020, the increase in average premiums from repealing the individual mandate penalties would be more than offset by the combination of several factors that would decrease those premiums: grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund (which CBO and JCT expect to largely be used by states to limit the costs to insurers of enrollees with very high claims); the elimination of the requirement for insurers to offer plans covering certain percentages of the cost of covered benefits; and a younger mix of enrollees. By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate.

Although average premiums would increase prior to 2020 and decrease starting in 2020, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people.
Click to expand...

Basically because it lets insurers offer more shit plans, at least that's my interpretation. Also less old people.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
RDreamer said:
dwjlgQG.jpg

I hate this man...
Click to expand...

well, i guess when you try to kill off 24 million people, there isn't many to make lines in the emergency room anymore
 
H

Hooligan69

Member
Maxim726X said:
There are almost a dozen people who have gone on the record saying they won't vote for this *before* this got released...

How is a senator, from a poor state with a large Medicaid enrollment, going to justify voting for an insurance plan that takes away their medical coverage? They'll vote to save their ass every time... Which is different than approving cabinet picks.
Click to expand...

I remember a bunch of Republicans coming out against Trump before the election, saying they'd vote for Clinton instead. We all saw how that went...

This will most likely pass because they're all spineless, soulless sheep.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
My expectations were low, but more people losing insurance than have gained it since the ACA was passed is an impressive feat! That's not just a repeal of any sort, that's regression!

So... 24M less insured, including 14M already for 2018... $330B saved over 10 years, which is roughly 5% of what we'll spend on the military in that time, and about 3% of what our total projected deficits are... individual premiums up anywhere from 15-20%... the old and poor disproportionately affected. Yup, that's a GOP bill.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
guek said:
Basically because it lets insurers offer more shit plans, at least that's my interpretation. Also less old people.
Click to expand...

This is largely correct.

Basically, as time goes on, older people will drop out which will allow them to offer cheaper plans. That, and most people who do keep insurance will gravitate to the bronze type plans and away from the more common silver plans (which will be too expensive).

The market is going to start off being full of sick people and eventually become only young people that make decent enough money.

Everyone else will be priced out.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
Hooligan69 said:
I remember a bunch of Republicans coming out against Trump before the election, saying they'd vote for Clinton instead. We all saw how that went...

This will most likely pass because they're all spineless, soulless sheep.
Click to expand...

Not if their re-election hangs in the balance... Again, it's tough to tell your electorate that you support a plan which will take away their health insurance.

Not an impossible sell, as we can see... But a really tough one. And it's time the the DNC to step it the fuck up and start a non-stop campaign blitz against this fucking garbage.
 
M

Macam

Banned
Black Mamba said:
This is largely correct.

Basically, as time goes on, older people will drop out which will allow them to offer cheaper plans. That, and most people who do keep insurance will gravitate to the bronze type plans and away from the more common silver plans (which will be too expensive).

The market is going to start off being full of sick people and eventually become only young people that make decent enough money.

Everyone else will be priced out.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, although young people may never bother to begin with. Premiums will spike at the onset, and young people would be penalized at 30% for a year for not having continuous coverage. But if premiums keep going up because of a lack of healthy people, that 30% would go up in absolute terms, making health care even more unaffordable.
 
G

guek

Banned
Macam said:
Pretty much this, although young people may never bother to begin with. Premiums will spike at the onset, and young people would be penalized at 30% for a year for not having continuous coverage. But if premiums keep going up because of a lack of healthy people, that 30% would go up in absolute terms, making health care even more unaffordable.
Click to expand...

Yeah as a doctor, I don't see young healthy people signing up for this in large numbers without a mandate, regardless of how low premiums are. Young people are notoriously careless about their health.
 
H

Hooligan69

Member
Maxim726X said:
Not if their re-election hangs in the balance... Again, it's tough to tell your electorate that you support a plan which will take away their health insurance.

Not an impossible sell, as we can see... But a really tough one. And it's time the the DNC to step it the fuck up and start a non-stop campaign blitz against this fucking garbage.
Click to expand...

Agreed! They need to copy the right-wing and go mad dog on this issue. Get the talking points out, what to call it in every interview (Trumpcare/Republicare, etc) and go at it non-stop.
 
E

Exile20

Member
guek said:
I expect the GOP shills to parrot the deficit savings every time anyone brings up loss of coverage. "No, I wont answer your question, but look over here! More money for the military!"
Click to expand...
If saving money is more important that coverage then just end the whole thing. You will save a shit ton more money to put towards the military for you defense contractor friends.
 
T

Trey

Member
studyguy said:
2020 gonna be fucking rough as hell times. Optics for that election on the R down ballot gonna be something else if state reps have entire constituencies up and getting booted off their plans.
Click to expand...

Can't vote you out if they're dead or dying.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Macam said:
Pretty much this, although young people may never bother to begin with. Premiums will spike at the onset, and young people would be penalized at 30% for a year for not having continuous coverage. But if premiums keep going up because of a lack of healthy people, that 30% would go up in absolute terms, making health care even more unaffordable.
Click to expand...

The thing is (and I got this confirmed), the young people are going to enter the market from the employer sponsored insurance area, so their coverage will be continuous.

That's why you see 7 million people drop from employer insurance in the CBO estimates. They are shifting over to nongroup insurance for tax reasons (or employer won't offer any).

The people for whom this will make sense are young, healthy, well off workers ($60k earners).

They will be in the new nongroup market replacing the poor and likely sicker people.
 
S

Socivol

Member
aspiegamer said:
My expectations were low, but more people losing insurance than have gained it since the ACA was passed is an impressive feat! That's not just a repeal of any sort, that's regression!

So... 24M less insured, including 14M already for 2018... $330B saved over 10 years, which is roughly 5% of what we'll spend on the military in that time, and about 3% of what our total projected deficits are... individual premiums up anywhere from 15-20%... the old and poor disproportionately affected. Yup, that's a GOP bill.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised about the old people though. That is the Republican party bread and butter. But I guess if they are poor and religious it won't matter because abortions and brown people will always make them vote Republican.
 
T

Tahnit

Banned
isnt taking health insurance away from 24 million people the kind of thing that leads to a possible armed revolt? You cant do that to people. Idiots.
 
S

Socivol

Member
Tahnit said:
isnt taking health insurance away from 24 million people the kind of thing that leads to a possible armed revolt? You cant do that to people. Idiots.
Click to expand...

Nope they will spin ACA as helping poor people, minorities, and immigrants and AHCA as helping "true" (aka white) Americans.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Tahnit said:
isnt taking health insurance away from 24 million people the kind of thing that leads to a possible armed revolt? You cant do that to people. Idiots.
Click to expand...

The only people who will care are the people who lose coverage and realize why they've lost it. That leaves a lot of voters left over. The medicaid cuts specifically are very abstract and people won't realize it hit them for years

Any kind of blow-back will require strong messaging and won't have the support of all the corporations rushing to publicly cut peoples hours to show people the ACA sucks
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
Red said:
Their people wanted this.
Click to expand...

What's crazy is a large portion of their voters don't even think this goes far enough. They literally want a clean repeal of Obamacare and have no idea why or how. The years of lying and manipulation have really done a number on them.
 
C

ccbfan

Member
Tahnit said:
isnt taking health insurance away from 24 million people the kind of thing that leads to a possible armed revolt? You cant do that to people. Idiots.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory. So a majority of this 14 million is happy to stop coverage.

It's amazing how two partisan parties can spin the same study.

1 side it's "omg 24 million will lose coverage".

Other side it "omg over half of Obamacare sign ups are forced and this new healthcare gives people feeedom"
 
T

Tahnit

Banned
ccbfan said:
Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory. So a majority of this 24 million is happy to stop coverage.

It's amazing how two partisan parties can spin the same study.

1 side it's "omg 24 million will lose coverage".

Other side it "omg over half of Obamacare sign ups are forced and this new healthcare gives people feeedom"
Click to expand...

right now i pay $141 a month in order to have health insurance for the first time. If that goes up I will not be able to afford it.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
ccbfan said:
Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory. So a majority of this 24 million is happy to stop coverage.

It's amazing how two partisan parties can spin the same study.

1 side it's "omg 24 million will lose coverage".

Other side it "omg over half of Obamacare sign ups are forced and this new healthcare gives people feeedom"
Click to expand...

Posts in this thread have already showed this to be wrong.
 
M

Macam

Banned
Black Mamba said:
The thing is (and I got this confirmed), the young people are going to enter the market from the employer sponsored insurance area, so their coverage will be continuous.

That's why you see 7 million people drop from employer insurance in the CBO estimates. They are shifting over to nongroup insurance for tax reasons (or employer won't offer any).

The people for whom this will make sense are young, healthy, well off workers ($60k earners).

They will be in the new nongroup market replacing the poor and likely sicker people.
Click to expand...

That might work for some but I'm a bit skeptical of that at face value (ask me how many times I took 'tax reasons' into account when I was younger, let alone in my health insurance decisions).

I mean, what happens if they have a spell of unemployment between jobs, especially given the shorter tenure of jobs among younger people? They could jump on their parents' insurance if they're 26 or under (IIRC that provision remains) if applicable, but the ACA helped provide a relatively standardized mechanism for people lacking employment provided insurance or they were too poor to afford it.

Frankly, I just see this whole thing undoing the necessary parts, keeping some minimally good parts (which w/o the necessary bits, will drive up costs), and just doing a whoooole lot of bad.

It definitely makes freelancing and starting a small business non-starter to me, so good job Republicans re:social mobility/entrepreneurship.
 
C

Chumly

Member
ccbfan said:
Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory. So a majority of this 14 million is happy to stop coverage.

It's amazing how two partisan parties can spin the same study.

1 side it's "omg 24 million will lose coverage".

Other side it "omg over half of Obamacare sign ups are forced and this new healthcare gives people feeedom"
Click to expand...
This has already been discussed and 100% false. Majority of the people will lose coverage. A small percentage will drop it.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
David H Wong said:
Enough members of congress have come out against it already to ensure it doesn't pass. These guys don't want to get slaughtered in the midterms.
Click to expand...

We are 21 seats down in the house and 4 down in the senateV.

Do we have exactly that number of house and senate members coming out against this?

We need to make a list here. I'm not convinced of anything until we know we have the numbers to shoot it down
 
rokkerkory

rokkerkory

Member
ccbfan said:
Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory. So a majority of this 14 million is happy to stop coverage.

It's amazing how two partisan parties can spin the same study.

1 side it's "omg 24 million will lose coverage".

Other side it "omg over half of Obamacare sign ups are forced and this new healthcare gives people feeedom"
Click to expand...

Who will pay for those peeps that 'decline' insurance when an emergency happens?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ccbfan said:
Contrary to what this topic have evolved into. The majority of the reduction in coverage is not taking away coverage but more the fact that now it's not mandatory.
Click to expand...

The reason the topic doesn't say that is because it's a lie.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact_0.pdf

cbo said:
In 2018, by CBO and JCT's estimates, about 14 million more people would be uninsured, relative to the number under current law. That increase would consist of about 6 million fewer people with coverage obtained in the nongroup market, roughly 5 million fewer people with coverage under Medicaid, and about 2 million fewer people with employment-based coverage. In 2019, the number of uninsured would grow to 16 million people because of further reductions in Medicaid and nongroup coverage. Most of the reductions in coverage in 2018 and 2019 would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they choose 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. CBO and JCT estimate that, in total, 41 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2018 and 43 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2019.

In 2020, according to CBO and JCT's estimates, as a result of the insurance coverage provisions of the legislation, 21 million more nonelderly people in the United States would be without health insurance than under current law. By 2026, that number would total 24 million, CBO and JCT estimate. Specifically:
• Roughly 9 million fewer people would enroll in Medicaid in 2020; that figure would rise to 14 million in 2026, as states that expanded eligibility for Medicaid discontinued doing so, as states projected to expand Medicaid in the future chose not to do so, and as the cap on per-enrollee spending took effect.
• Roughly 9 million fewer people, on net, would obtain coverage through the nongroup market in 2020; that number would fall to 2 million in 2026. The reduction in enrollment in the nongroup market would shrink over the 2020-2026 period because people would gain experience with the new structure of the tax credits and some employers would respond to those tax credits by declining to offer insurance to their employees.
• Roughly 2 million fewer people, on net, would enroll in employment-based coverage in 2020, and that number would grow to roughly 7 million in 2026. Part of that net reduction in employment-based coverage would occur because fewer employees would take up the offer of such coverage in the absence of the individual mandate penalties. In addition, CBO and JCT expect that, over time, fewer employers would offer health insurance to their workers.

CBO and JCT estimate that 48 million people under age 65, or roughly 17 percent of the nonelderly population, would be uninsured in 2020 if the legislation was enacted. That figure would grow to 52 million, or roughly 19 percent of the nonelderly population, in 2026. (That figure is currently about 10 percent and is projected to remain at that level in each year through 2026 under current law.) Although the agencies expect that the legislation would increase the number of uninsured broadly, the increase would be
disproportionately larger among older people with lower income; in particular, people between 50 and 64 years old with income of less than 200 percent of the FPL would make up a larger share of the uninsured (see Figure 2).
Click to expand...

Even in the first year, at least 50% of the lost coverage would be people losing Medicaid coverage or losing their employer plans, plus some percentage of people who lose their nongroup coverage due to higher premiums rather than because of the mandate. The CBO does not explicitly state what percentage of people who lose their nongroup coverage will do so voluntarily -- but, given that the mandate is toothless and 90% of people subject to it have a waiver, I doubt the number is particularly high. If you believe the majority of people who will lose coverage will discard it voluntarily I encourage you to present your evidence, but even if 100% of nongroup coverage losses are voluntary it's still false to claim that "most" of the losses caused by the bill are voluntary.

By 2026 the vast majority of lost coverage is in Medicaid, which is brutally cut to the bone, and employer coverage.

Your above claim is simply a flat lie.
 
C

ccbfan

Member
pigeon said:
The reason the topic doesn't say that is because it's a lie.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact_0.pdf



Even in the first year, at least 50% of the lost coverage would be people losing Medicaid coverage or losing their employer plans, plus some percentage of people who lose their nongroup coverage due to higher premiums rather than because of the mandate. The CBO does not explicitly state what percentage of people who lose their nongroup coverage will do so voluntarily -- but, given that the mandate is toothless and 90% of people subject to it have a waiver, I doubt the number is particularly high.

By 2026 the vast majority of lost coverage is in Medicaid, which is brutally cut to the bone, and employer coverage. None of those losses will be voluntary.

Your above claim is simply a flat lie.
Click to expand...




I got my "lie" from this quote

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.

It's in the openning.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ccbfan said:
I got my "lie" from this quote

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.

It's in the openning.
Click to expand...

"Stem from repealing the penalties" does not mean that all of that increase results from people dropping insurance to avoid paying penalties. As the quote you provide yourself states, repealing the penalties will cause premiums to rise, forcing some people off of their insurance.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Macam said:
That might work for some but I'm a bit skeptical of that at face value (ask me how many times I took 'tax reasons' into account when I was younger, let alone in my health insurance decisions).

I mean, what happens if they have a spell of unemployment between jobs, especially given the shorter tenure of jobs among younger people? They could jump on their parents' insurance if they're 26 or under (IIRC that provision remains) if applicable, but the ACA helped provide a relatively standardized mechanism for people lacking employment provided insurance or they were too poor to afford it.

Frankly, I just see this whole thing undoing the necessary parts, keeping some minimally good parts (which w/o the necessary bits, will drive up costs), and just doing a whoooole lot of bad.

It definitely makes freelancing and starting a small business non-starter to me, so good job Republicans re:social mobility/entrepreneurship.
Click to expand...

I'm only giving the reasons behind what the CBO is saying.

my understanding is this. Some of these specific employees will be given a choice of employer insurance or getting a likely crappier plan on the nongroup market for cheaper. Others will simply not be offered insurance with no employer mandate and be forced into the non-group market. About 7 million total will make this choice or be forced into it. Others might forego insurance altogether, of course.

But remember. These are only for people who make decent money, even if they're young. I agree with you that young people tend to just wave it off. However, I don't think lots of young people making $60-75k a year are waiving their employer health insurance even pre-ACA. If you make that kind of money, you get your health insurance. The young people passing on paying for health insurance are generally people earning $25k or $30k a year. That's where the cost is worth it (in their head) because they want the money for other things.

The CBO could very well be underestimating this which means the loss of insurance number could be much higher.

Your post almost made it seem like I was defending the AHCA which might be the worst constructed legislation (that was economic in nature and not bigoted/sexist) ever crafted in the US.

I agree with you. it's a gigantic pile of shit that makes everything worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satya Nadella: Annual letter to stockholders. Content on new platforms will continue
3 4 5 6 7
349
16K
solidus12 replied
Apple secretly demoed it's VR headset to the top 100 Executives. $3000 reconfirmed, expecting 1 million sold first year. Little to no profit initially
2 3 4 5
229
22K
Shadowstar39 replied
WWE and Endeavor (UFC) announce 21 billion dollar deal.
40
3K
thefool replied
Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2 3 4
156
15K
GAF machine replied
CBO score on Senate GOP health bill released, 22M more uninsured relative to ACA
9 10 11 12 13
614
68K
Jackpot replied
Top Bottom