CBO: GOP health care alternative cuts deficit by $68 billion; number of uninsured grows

It should be acknowledged that the GOP goal in putting this together at all was cost savings, not increased coverage, which explains why it lowers cost but doesn't expand coverage. Conversely, per the CBO, the Dem bill would increase coverage but do almost nothing to lower costs. If there is a way to combine these bills, we may have a bipartisan winner.

My thoughts on compromise: create exchanges (Dem plan), make exchange plans available to the uninsured as well as those who don't like their employer-sponsored plan (Wyden), allow exchanges to offer both traditional plans (Dems) and the HSA-type of health plan described in the GOP bill (GOP), remove insurers' anti-trust exemption (Dems) and insitute a basic national insurance code to replace state codes (my idea) so that plans may be sold across state lines (GOP), add regulations preventing rescission (everyone), limit noneconomic damages recoverable in med mal lawsuits (GOP), don't require everyone to have health insurance (gotta happen or this may be unconstitutional), don't have community rating or guaranteed issue (because this is only feasible if you are required to have insurance), encourage state high-risk pools for those who can't get insurance at all (GOP), and susbidize those who can't afford the insurance they can find (Dems), particularly those who have to go to the high-risk pools because that insurance will be expensive. But make the subsidies somewhat sensitive to the price of insurance rather than giving everyone a set amount of money for buying insurance (because it encourages people to get the highest-cost insurance available that will still be within the subsidy).

YOU ROCK!!!!

"The CBO also says the Republican plan would leave 52 million people uninsured in 2019, more than the 46 million uninsured today"

It's impressive that the GOPer solution to just about any problem makes it worse.

That must take some real talent.

The plan starts at 17% of Americans uninsured and ends at 17% of Americans uninsured. The entire difference in # of uninsured people is due to more people living in the US in 2019 than today.

There are valid criticisms to be made, so please try to make them, and avoid easily-fisked "gotcha!"s like this.

is always accurate. Well at least as accurate as the star.

You're being extraordinarily dense, even for you.

What number is bigger? 52 million or 46 million?

Never mind that. The point is: This "plan" fixes not a damn thing.

Or didn't you read that?

When the cbo said the democratic bill would do x/y/z ... there was fire from above by the right.
Now the cbo says essentially the same thing - ( if there are no changes to the amount of people covered why even have a republic bill but I suppose that at least lets them say they did "something" even if it meant they put the car in idle ) and even goes so far as to paint the R bill as being somewhat worse ... where are the fire from above Rs crapping on their own bill ?

C`mon folks ... if you didn't like the cbo review of the "D" bill you have to not like the "R" bill - or is that really as simple an explanation ?
"D" .... bad .... "R" .... good ?

MyTake

Why is it that the GOP and their minions just wants to cook the books instead of really helping people? The Republican bill is not reform: it does little to help insure more people, and much of the savings comes from reduced coverage. Plain and simple. But I do agree with those of the persuasion....2010/2012 can't get here fast enough!

Please. After you subtract illegal aliens and those who can afford insurance but elect not to get it (young and single folks, e.g.)from the 47 million people you are left with about 12 million who really need, but cannot get it.

That is about 4% of Americans. Now seriously folks, do we need do spend $1.5 Trillion of our grandkid's money to give them health care? Surely there must be a better way.

Lets do a little thinking here before we run hell bent into national poverty. This in not the time for Pelosi and Reid to ruin the country for the sake of giving them warm and fuzzy feelings.

Jeez.

First , it is NOT just about insuring people - it is also about insuring all people fairly ( pre-existing, equitable plans across state lines, termination of benefits because the ins company wants to ).

but to continue
because .... if you did .... you would also understand that those few people ( and I am not going to debate the numbers or the validity of source for them ) are EXACTLY the ones that are contributing to soaring costs as well.

I have a sore in my mouth. I go to the dentist. It is a cavity and I get it filled. ... $50 ( or so ).

Un-insured person gets a sore. They ignore it. It becomes an infection. They get very ill, have to go to ER and get admitted. They take up bed/time/resources in hospital. The also have diabetes and a kidney stone but because they do not regularly see doctor have no idea. They need extra work to care for those issues.

Total cost .. $14,000. Written off and paid by ... wait for it ... paid by ... wait for it some more ... paid by ... you and me

You are ALREADY paying the insurance bills of the people you think should not have insurance. Do you not get that ?
It just so happens that the insurance companies are then charging more than the difference and making you think you like it.

If you do not think you are not paying for it now .... who in the world do you think is ? The guy down the hall / next street over/ cube on the floor below you ?
No - its you.

"Un-insured person gets a sore. They ignore it. It becomes an infection . . ."

If they have no intention of paying anyway, why do you suppose they put off treatment?

that paying $40 is what I pay w/ins. A uninsured patient at my dentist would pay $170 ( I see that part of the bill too ).

If you do not have insurance - you do not get the discounted rates. $40 maybe they could pay ... $170 ... not.

Why do people not replace tires when they get partially bald ?

So you’re saying that they don’t go when they have no intention of paying $170, but they do go when they have no intention of paying $14,000? So, really, cost makes no difference. Since they’re not paying either way, how can it be that money is the reason they wait until the matter is desperate.

Actually, in my experience you have your argument backwards. Years ago, I worked in an office that handled medical collections, and most of the people went to the doctor even though they had no intention of ever paying for the services. They didn’t put off anything for fear of the cost, because the cost was no object.

On the other hand, I know many people who are fully insured who just plain don’t like going to the doctor or dentist, so they put off taking care of matters when they are simple. Others don’t take medicines as directed. For them, cost isn’t an object either.

But lets go to an ER - well known to be the most expensive place to receive care - and ask the people there especially when they are there for non-life threatening issues.

Bet their responses will frequently be along the lines of their inability to see/afford to see a doctor earlier.

"It should be acknowledged that the GOP goal in putting this together at all was cost savings, not increased coverage, which explains why it lowers cost but doesn't expand coverage. Conversely, per the CBO, the Dem bill would increase coverage but do almost nothing to lower costs."

Have you failed to notice that the Republican plan is MORE expensive despite doing less? It says right there in the third sentence of this article: "CBO says the GOP provisions would cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years, less than the Democratic bill, which cuts the deficit $104 billion over the same time frame." Both bills reduce the deficit, but the Democratic bill reduces it by $36 billion MORE than the Republican bill. There is literally NO advantage to the Republican bill!