CBO Eviscerates GOP's Health Care "Plan"

REPUBLICAN HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL INSURES ALMOST NOBODY

Earlier this week, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner made a prediction. The Republican health care plan, he said, "will cover millions more Americans" than the Democrats' plan. Bold. But here's what the experts say:

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.

Oops. You can read the entire analysis here (cbo.gov).

To Boehner's dismay, the GOP bill was leaked to the media earlier this week, and quickly became a focus of derision for experts and activists who noted that, among other failings, the bill didn't include some of the most popular insurance regulations in the Democrats' bill, including a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination.

What else does CBO find?

Though some consumers would find their premiums reduced modestly, "in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example."

The GOP bill does require less new government spending, but that's what you get when you don't insure anybody. And though it does reduce the deficit, it does so by billions less than the Democrats' bill does.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

Of course it doesn't Doc Sarvis. The GOP have NO interest in insuring the people without insurance. They have made that fact known by their actions. If You have a pile of money You are peachy keen as far as the GOP is concerned. If You just have a penny or not they don't care about what happens to You. It's as plain as day to see.

Larry

By their own numbers in the article it costs over twice as much per person for the Democrat plan as the Republican plan. The Republican plan expanded to insure 36 million would be $738 billion vs the Democrats $1,800 billion. That means a lot less taxpayer funded spending under the Republican plan.

I'll take the cheaper one please.

-----------------

You get what you pay for.

Unlike the Democratic proposals, the bill would actually reduce premiums:

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

Compare this to what Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth told Fox News earlier this week:

hotair.com

Update II: Ezra Klein argues that this shows the superiority of the Democratic plan, which covers more people (about 30 million) and "saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan." However, that Democratic plan doesn't include the costs of the "doctor fix", which apply to the Democratic bill because they use Medicare and Medicaid to expand coverage which is why the Democratic plan will not save any money at all. But let's say for a moment that we accept that number. Why would we spend an additional $1 trillion to "save" another $36 billion? That would be a waste of 97% of the expenditure.
The Democratic plan "saves" money by playing around with pricing (and ignoring their parallel compensation boost), not through actual savings, and even those savings expire in the second decade.

hotair.com

Bottom line dr righties is that in ten years the democratic plan wins.

Why is it so tough for yall to accept the truth?

Can't admit that your party is a husk of the shell of what it used to be?

Your "conservative ways" aren't fully thought through. How bout stop voting for religious nut jobs instead of intellectuals.

uh no sir

here is another bottom line

dems call this a comprehensive plan

ANY HEALTH Care plan that doesnt include tort reform is anything but comprehensive.

Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-06 04:04 PM | Reply

bwhahahahaha You republicans are all the same. You scream for tort reform until it happens to one of Your own then You toss it out the window. bwhahahahaha too fucking funny. Same ole spew just different person and on a different day. Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Larry

ANY HEALTH Care plan that doesnt include tort reform is anything but comprehensive.

#9 | Posted by afkabl2

Legal expenses in health care account for only .5%. That's 1/2 of 1%.

The CBO says malpractice awards account for 2%. It doesn't say how much defensive medicine is costing us.

Try a little reading next time.

So, how many millions, if not billions, does that measely 2% represent?