House Healthcare bill - CBO reports

[FreeinChrist]

CBO analysis shows GOP health care plan would leave 23 million uninsured

The report estimates that people who live those states opting out of the protections would see major rate hikes and may be prevented from purchasing insurance at all. In addition, those who live in states opting out of essential health benefit coverage may additionally pay thousands more for services like maternity care, mental health and drug treatment.

The analysis also found that by 2026, "an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law."

​

Not good.

 

[Hammster]

CBO analysis shows GOP health care plan would leave 23 million uninsured

The report estimates that people who live those states opting out of the protections would see major rate hikes and may be prevented from purchasing insurance at all. In addition, those who live in states opting out of essential health benefit coverage may additionally pay thousands more for services like maternity care, mental health and drug treatment.

The analysis also found that by 2026, "an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law."

​

Not good.

So it's twice as bad as Obamacare?

 

[SnowyMacie]

We just need to join the rest of the developed world and get single-payer coverage.

 

[MoonlessNight]

We can't move ahead with reforming health care until people drop the false idea that insurance is equivalent to health care (or indeed that health "insurance" is insurance at all).

The goal has become more and more to move the percent insured statistic, with no concern at all about whether people are receiving better or worse treatment, or more expensive or less expensive treatment.

It's much the same as how economic analysis has largely become a game of moving an unemployment statistic around, without concern for what the economy could possibly mean beyond that.

 

[FreeinChrist]

We can't move ahead with reforming health care until people drop the false idea that insurance is equivalent to health care (or indeed that health "insurance" is insurance at all).

The goal has become more and more to move the percent insured statistic, with no concern at all about whether people are receiving better or worse treatment, or more expensive or less expensive treatment.

It's much the same as how economic analysis has largely become a game of moving an unemployment statistic around, without concern for what the economy could possibly mean beyond that.

That honestly makes no sense to me.

Healthcare is so expensive, especially if you have cancer, or diabetes or mutiple sclerosis or lung disease, that healthcare is impossible unless you have insurance.

And yes, health insurance is insurance.

 

[Veritas]

So it's twice as bad as Obamacare?

No, just as bad. Obamacare is imploding anyway. I say let it fall apart. It's essentially another government benefit since the majority on exchange policies are getting premium subsidies to make it cheaper. The rest of us who don't have employer sponsored coverage and don't get subsidies, lost our previous policies and were forced to buy Obamacare.

The best solution would be to leave Obamacare alone to expose what's really going on and introduce a new insurance plan for those that don't qualify for subsidies and give us coverage options instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that is expensive.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Obamacare is having issues only because the Repubicans are actively undermining it.

But let it go and vote in Trumpcare. That will work for 2018.

 

[Hammster]

That honestly makes no sense to me.

Healthcare is so expensive, especially if you have cancer, or diabetes or mutiple sclerosis or lung disease, that healthcare is impossible unless you have insurance.

And yes, health insurance is insurance.

Throwing more money at the problem will only make the problem more expensive.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yikes, the CBO estimates that states requesting ACHA waivers, premiums for low income elderly enrollees would go up 800%. If you have anyone in your family that is on a fixed income and they get sick.....adios.

 

[MoonlessNight]

That honestly makes no sense to me.

Healthcare is so expensive, especially if you have cancer, or diabetes or mutiple sclerosis or lung disease, that healthcare is impossible unless you have insurance.

You are stating the exact problem: we want to make health care affordable. Insurance is a means to that end, but not always an effective one (in particular if the insurance has high deductibles it is next to useless in reducing costs, and if it has high premiums it may be unaffordable in and of itself). If we focus only how many people are insured we lose track of what we really care about: whether people have affordable access to quality health care. It is possible (generally speaking, not specifically about current conditions in the US) for them to have that access without insurance, and it is possible for them not to have that access even if they do have insurance. Why don't we focus our questions on what we actually care about, rather than on some proxy which doesn't correlate well with what we care about?

And yes, health insurance is insurance.

Insurance, properly speaking, is a policy taken out to insure against some unknown future event. That is to say, it is a cost paid at the moment so that if one encounters a catastrophic event in the future he will not be bankrupted. Insurance can function because many people who take out insurance will never encounter such catastrophic events, and so their unused funds can be used to pay for those who do encounter such events (together with paying for overhead and profits).

The key to insurance is that it is unknown whether such future events will occur or not. When the events are known, it is no longer insurance. Medical insurance has become something which is universally used for assured treatments, especially with the requirement that people with existing conditions must be covered. I don't know what the proper term for this sort of coverage is, but it certainly isn't insurance. It'd be like if you could get home insurance for your house when it is already on fire.

Now I'm sure that some people will take this to mean that I think that people with preexisting conditions shouldn't get treatment, but that sort of reaction is exactly the problem once again: since I have said that insurance can't cover such situations, it is assumed that I mean that people in those conditions shouldn't have access to health care. Somewhere along the line health care and insurance became synonymous, to the detriment of everyone.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

You didn't actually expect the Baby Democrats to construct something useful did you???

 

[Saucy]

The CBO also says that premiums will go down for most people while cutting the deficit some.

A congressional audit released Wednesday found the House’s recently passed ObamaCare overhaul bill will lower the average cost of premiums but that 23 million fewer Americans would be uninsured under the plan by 2026.

The much-anticipated nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report also found the bill will reduce the deficit by $119 billion over a decade, primarily because of its cuts to Medicaid and private insurance subsidies.

House health bill will lower premiums, but increase number of uninsured by 23 million: report

I think that's what most people want, cheaper insurance for them and their family. That's the most important thing. With cheaper premiums, more people will be able to afford insurance, including the other parts of the bill to be added in later, such as dropping prescription drug prices and insurance competition.

This actually helps the working poor who can't afford insurance, but make too much money to get free insurance. If states decide to opt out, that's on them.

So, if the plan was to create more affordable insurance, they've done just that. The number they claim will be uninsured could be vastly inaccurate, as it was when it predicted the number of people Obamacare would cover.

 

[bekkilyn]

Time to give the boot to the insurance companies and get on board with single payer.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think that's what most people want, cheaper insurance for them and their family. That's the most important thing. With cheaper premiums, more people will be able to afford insurance, including the other parts of the bill to be added in later, such as dropping prescription drug prices and insurance competition.

This actually helps the working poor who can't afford insurance, but make too much money to get free insurance. If states decide to opt out, that's on them.

So, if the plan was to create more affordable insurance, they've done just that. The number they claim will be uninsured could be vastly inaccurate, as it was when it predicted the number of people Obamacare would cover.

While it may sound nice in theory, the cheaper premiums would be for junk plans that cover nothing, so you would be paying more for less. If we stick to the insurance model, I agree that premiums need to be less (a LOT less) but not also at the cost of reducing health care even below the inadequate level it's already at.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So, if the plan was to create more affordable insurance, they've done just that.

Get yourself a nice cheap catastrophic health insurance plan that covers almost nothing. There is a nice little surprise for you if you ever get sick....it's called bankruptcy.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Get yourself a nice cheap catastrophic health insurance plan that covers almost nothing. There is a nice little surprise for you if you ever get sick....it's called bankruptcy.

That's why we should make sure that health insurance plans must be comprehensive enough that people will get bankrupted before they get sick.

 

[Saucy]

While it may sound nice in theory, the cheaper premiums would be for junk plans that cover nothing, so you would be paying more for less. If we stick to the insurance model, I agree that premiums need to be less (a LOT less) but not also at the cost of reducing health care even below the inadequate level it's already at.

This is all speculation though. You're just assuming it will be bottom-feeder plans. The article states lower premiums, so people will be paying less for the insurance they already have.

I currently do not have health insurance. I was on Obamacare for several years before starting my own business. What I saw was horrible. Doctors do not care about anything besides making a profit. Doctor's offices these days are more like profit mills where they squeeze as many people through the doors as possible.

In every case, there was a 4 month wait if I wanted to call and make an appointment. When my appointment date came, I would sit for 3 hours just to be taken into a room where I would wait for another hour, just for the doctor to come in, sit down, ask three questions, type it into his computer, hand me a script and leave.

That's not healthcare. That's a joke.

We can't have both worlds. We simply can't cover everyone. And at some point, you have to think about the people who are paying for their healthcare and struggling with the increased prices than those who pay nothing into the system. It's almost like the left says, "let's pay for everything for the poor so they'll be reliant on us and keep voting for us! Yay!! Those dirty republicans don't care for us at all!"

And the more freebies and handouts we give them, the deeper we get into debt and the more people stay poor because it's giving them a hand out, not hand up.

People like me fall through the cracks because I make too much money to afford free healthcare, but not enough to keep up with rising premiums. What about me? I severely injured my knee several months ago and was incapacitated. I couldn't go get the testing I needed.

You can act like Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it failed me. It failed most people I know who are in the same boat I'm in. It's failing not because of the republicans, but because the poor are weighing it down and making it WAY too expensive for people like me.

My business is doing much better now and I could afford a plan, but if I buy a plan, I don't buy one for poor people, just like you don't buy car insurance for poor people, yet the rates are sky-high because people drive without insurance. I buy a plan to cover me.

The only way to have an affordable price is not to give away so many handouts. Set up a program where the poor can work to earn their food stamps, housing, transportation, health care.

 

[JackRT]

If the bill will result in 23 million who will lose their health insurance, why call it a "Healthcare" bill?

 

[MoonlessNight]

If the bill will result in 23 million who will lose their health insurance, why call it a "Healthcare" bill?

And yet another person who views health insurance and health care as synonymous.

Really what we should do is just print out pieces of paper for every citizen that say that they have insurance. The "insurance" won't actually entitle them to any care, but we'll have 100% enrollment in insurance, so it would be the optimal state of health care in the country.

 

[miamited]

Hi moonlessnight,

I agree that your comments make no sense. I lived in South Florida and they still call it windstorm insurance even though they know that there will be hurricanes and they have struck there before so they are preexisting conditions of living in South Florida. My father worked in the insurance industry all of his life and often explained how insurance works. A policy that one buys to cover their future medical needs is as much insurance as any other kind of insurance.

It is buying into a pool of at risk people and the premiums of all the at risk are used to pay the claims of the at risk who actually have a claim in any given year. The greatest added cost of the current ACA is that everyone now has to pitch in to cover those who could previously be excluded by nature of some pre-existing condition. This is what is causing the greatest increase in insurance premiums and is right and fair and should have been expected.

The best thing we can do to lower health insurance costs is to take the profit motive out of it. This can be accomplished merely by expanding medicare to everyone.

Oh, and no health insurance and health care are not the same thing and I haven't seen anyone on this thread so far showing that they don't understand that, but you. Health insurance is how healthcare is paid for.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted