CBO score on the HC bill

evince said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ions/99157846/




Coverage
As it normally does, CBO attempted to forecast the law’s effects in each of the following 10 years. And here we compare what actually happened last year with what CBO predicted for 2016.
CBO got the big picture right. It predicted that millions of people would gain coverage, and millions did.
It predicted that the number of nonelderly (under age 65) people lacking insurance would drop to 30 million in 2016. And that turned out to be pretty close. The actual number was 27.9 million during the first nine months of last year, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey. That’s a decline of 20.3 million since 2010, by CDC’s reckoning.

In percentage terms, CBO predicted 89% of the nonelderly would be covered by last year. CDC put the actual percentage at 89.7%.
Exchanges
Where CBO had trouble was predicting the number of newly insured who would get their coverage by purchasing private insurance through the new exchanges set up by the law. CBO predicted that in 2016 there would be 23 million getting policies through the exchanges. The actual number was 10.4 million during the first half of the year, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
That’s less than half the predicted total.
Medicaid
On the other hand, CBO was too low in its estimate of the number who would gain coverage through expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal program for low-income people and children.
CBO estimated 10 million would be added to the Medicaid rolls by 2016, even with many states refusing to expand eligibility. But that was too low. As of the first quarter of last year, 14.4 million adults had enrolled in Medicaid as a result of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
So to a large extent, CBO’s mistake was in estimating where the uninsured would get covered, not how many of them would gain coverage.
Other Estimates
In January 2016, the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund published an analysis by New York University’s Sherry Glied of CBO’s forecast of the ACA’s effects. She called CBO’s predictions “reasonably accurate” compared with actual results in 2014.
The gap between CBO’s prediction and reality has widened now that 2016 figures are available for comparison. But Glied also found that CBO’s predictions were closer to 2014 reality than those of four other forecasters — the Obama administration’s own figures, and those of the RAND Corp., the Urban Institute and the Lewin Group, a health industry consulting firm.
Glied concluded, “Given the likelihood of additional reforms to national health policy in future years, it is reassuring that, despite the many unforeseen factors surrounding the law’s rollout and participation in its reforms, the CBO’s forecast was reasonably accurate.”
And on March 13, CBO issued another, much-anticipated projection of the Obamacare repeal bill being considered by the Republican-controlled House. CBO estimated that under the GOP’s American Health Care Act,*14 million fewer people would have health insurance next year than under current law, and that number would rise to 24 million in 2026.
“In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law,” CBO said.
Earlier on the day the analysis was published, White House press secretary Sean Spicer — who had been denigrating CBO’s work for days — said, “The last time they did this, they were wildly off and the number keeps declining.”
Click to expand...

these are facts asshole



your assdrips are fucking right wing lies concocted by putin
 
anatta said:
CBO is always WAY wrong on healthcare.
Anyways..what they don't score is how much Medicade expansion adds to the national debt.

Obama doubled the national debt to almost $20t. we cannot do that again
Click to expand...

evinces insults and nonsense aside, the GOP must step carefully. If they screw this HC bill up, people will turn on them and the Dems will score big.
They can't ram through and pass a hc bill because they want to overturn the ACA. They have to do it to improve and surpass our HC. Nothing less is acceptable.
It seems that Pence is holding a hearing session already. Good on him. This is too important to mess up. We can't and the can't turn this into a partisan war. Too much is at stake.
 
Lovebug said:
evinces insults and nonsense aside, the GOP must step carefully. If they screw this HC bill up, people will turn on them and the Dems will score big.
They can't ram through and pass a hc bill because they want to overturn the ACA. They have to do it to improve and surpass our HC. Nothing less is acceptable.
It seems that Pence is holding a hearing session already. Good on him. This is too important to mess up. We can't and the can't turn this into a partisan war. Too much is at stake.
Click to expand...

Once again the Dems create more spending,and the Repubs have to clean it up.

Look. Putting everyone under Medicade-or at least a viable Public Option is the only real way to do this.
else you get these helpful, but not universal measures,and you wind up with Medicade expansion with no way to pay for it.

we have a history of just spending on things we wnat, but not paying for them.
It's like giving 16 year old's credit cards, and expecting responsible use -aint gonna happen

But as long as we look at HC as a NEW GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT -the emphasis will be on spending (subsidies)
and not paying for it.

we got away with this for a long time, but now the National Debt exceeds the GDP-and it's
projected to keep climbing.
That is unsustainable
 
Getin the ring said:
no goofy,
pay attention. I know reading and comprehension is not your strong suit so I'll break it down 'for' you.

23 million over 10 years mind you, that's 2.3 mill a year less insured people. And there is a good chance some if not most of those will be young people who elect NOT to buy insurance. That's factored in.
But really, citing the CBO to begin with? The same CBO that said Obamacare would pick up 30 million more people when it only picked up 10 million.

The reality is there is no way of really knowing, projecting 10 years out on such an issue is snake oil stuff.

But what is a fact is that millions will become uninsured on Obamacare if left untouched. there won't be a carrier in their state for crying out loud, insurers are pulling out of the exchange.
That and the fact that Obamacare is not financially solvent.

If the Dems have any ideas we would love to hear them, but keep Obamacare and stop the GOP plan is not an idea, it's obstructing for purely political reasons.

look, Dems can grow up, or not. Trumps moving forward as you may have noticed. obstructing is slowing him down but will not stop him
Wait until he builds the wall, you may have a seizure.
Click to expand...

NO YOU FUCKING LIAR

THE CBO SAID 29 MILLION.

THE ACTUAL NUMBER WAS 29.7 MILLION

WHICH MAKES THE CBO ESTIMATE INCREDIBLY ACCURATE

SO SHUT YOUR LYING PIE HOLE YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
 
anatta said:
Once again the Dems create more spending,and the Repubs have to clean it up.

Look. Putting everyone under Medicade-or at least a viable Public Option is the only real way to do this.
else you get these helpful, but not universal measures,and you wind up with Medicade expansion with no way to pay for it.

we have a history of just spending on things we wnat, but not paying for them.
It's like giving 16 year old's credit cards, and expecting responsible use -aint gonna happen

But as long as we look at HC as a NEW GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT -the emphasis will be on spending (subsidies)
and not paying for it.

we got away with this for a long time, but now the National Debt exceeds the GDP-and it's
projected to keep climbing.
That is unsustainable
Click to expand...

Simple Simon met anatta and explained economics to him.
Then anatta decided that she would teach evince.

Tell us, genius, to whom is the national debt owed?
What is the cost of service?
Is it sustainable or not?
It is but if not why not?

Do you even know what fiat dollars are?
How much larger is the GDP than the debt?
How does the trade deficit affect the debt? Isn't the debt more of a function of trade imbalance than anything else?

Will the economy become better for the average person if we pay down the debt quickly?

Do you have any idea at all about what you are talking about?

Who the fuck are you to label healthcare as an entitlement?

Why don't you quit posting here and go fuck yourself?

LMFAO Aren't you a supporter of Trumps wall? Hypocrite
 
evince said:
yet force everyone else to pay for them when they need care


we have a right to force them to pay for their care huh
Click to expand...

No. Don't force anyone to pay for shit. You are operating under a false premise. If your house burns down and you didn't have homeowners do I get forced to buy you a new one?

If your Cadillac Escalade gets totaled and you didn't have collision do I have to buy you a new one?

Nope

I reject your faulty premise. Just repeal the law that states hospitals have to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Problem solved.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
No. Don't force anyone to pay for shit. You are operating under a false premise. If your house burns down and you didn't have homeowners do I get forced to buy you a new one?

If your Cadillac Escalade gets totaled and you didn't have collision do I have to buy you a new one?

Nope

I reject your faulty premise. Just repeal the law that states hospitals have to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

dead people in the streets

just what nihilist like you dream about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top