CBO Scores House "Healthcare" Bill

[time4fun]

The CBO has updated (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-cbo/index.html) its estimate of the impact the new House "Healthcare" (i.e. Tax) Bill will impact Americans-

Highlights:

23 million fewer people will be insured than under Obamacare by 2026 (compared to 24 million in the last version). In 2026 the CBO estimates 51 million people will be uninsured in the US, vs 28 million under the current ACA. The CBO estimates that 14 million people will lose insurance next year alone.

For the average 21 year old, making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates insurance under the current version of the ACA in 2026 is $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $1750 in states that kept the ACA regulations, and $1250 in states that waive them. (i.e. pay less, get less)

For the average 40 year old making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates that under the current version of the ACA they would pay $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $2900 in states that kept ACA regulations, and $2100 in states that don't. (i.e. pay more, get less)

For the average 64 year old making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates that under the current version of the ACA, they would pay $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $16,100 in states that kept ACA regulations, and $13,600 in states that don't. (i.e. pay A SHIT TON MORE, get SO MUCH LESS)


The CBO estimates that by 2026, Premiums may be up to 20% less overall (obviously not if you're old or sick), but that's because fewer sick people would be covered, and those with coverage would have worse coverage.

It would also reduce the deficit by $119 billion- which is notable given that their Tax- erm Healthcare Bill cuts over $880 billion from medicaid (and hands almost all of that to people making over 200-250k a year)

[ClydeR]

For the average 64 year old making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates that under the current version of the ACA, they would pay $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $16,100 in states that kept ACA regulations, and $13,600 in states that don't. (i.e. pay A SHIT TON MORE, get SO MUCH LESS)


The CBO estimates that by 2026, Premiums may be up to 20% less overall (obviously not if you're old or sick), but that's because fewer sick people would be covered, and those with coverage would have worse coverage.

It would also reduce the deficit by $119 billion- which is notable given that their Tax- erm Healthcare Bill cuts over $880 billion from medicaid (and hands almost all of that to people making over 200-250k a year)


Healthy people should not have to pay more for insurance to subsidize sick people. That was the problem with Obamacare.

[~Rocktar~]

Is this the same CBO that estimated the ACA as revenue neutral?

[time4fun]

Healthy people should not have to pay more for insurance to subsidize sick people. That was the problem with Obamacare.

Erm. That's how insurance works...

[time4fun]

Is this the same CBO that estimated the ACA as revenue neutral?

LOL right wing deflection.

[Tgo01]

LOL right wing deflection.

Well? Did the CBO claim ACA would be revenue neutral?

[Tgo01]

Erm. That's how insurance works...

Actually that's not how insurance works.

When I apply for car insurance the company looks at my driving record and determines how much of a risk I am and determines my monthly premium as such. They don't say "Well we've had a lot of people getting into accidents lately so we need to charge you, a perfect driver, with greatly increased premiums to make up for their shitty driving. LOL!"

Likewise if someone at the age of 20 applies for life insurance they don't say "Well you're young, healthy, and a non-smoker, normally your premium would be cheap, but we've had a lot of morbidly obese fat fucks in the 60's who smoke 5 packs a day apply for life insurance so we're gonna go ahead and charge you 10 times the rate we normally would so we can cover them too. You don't mind, right? LOL!"

But let me guess, you used to sell insurance, right?

[Neveragain]

The CBO has updated (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-cbo/index.html) its estimate of the impact the new House "Healthcare" (i.e. Tax) Bill will impact Americans-

Highlights:

23 million fewer people will be insured than under Obamacare by 2026 (compared to 24 million in the last version). In 2026 the CBO estimates 51 million people will be uninsured in the US, vs 28 million under the current ACA. The CBO estimates that 14 million people will lose insurance next year alone.

For the average 21 year old, making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates insurance under the current version of the ACA in 2026 is $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $1750 in states that kept the ACA regulations, and $1250 in states that waive them. (i.e. pay less, get less)

For the average 40 year old making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates that under the current version of the ACA they would pay $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $2900 in states that kept ACA regulations, and $2100 in states that don't. (i.e. pay more, get less)

For the average 64 year old making $26,500 a year, the CBO estimates that under the current version of the ACA, they would pay $1700 a year. Under the new House bill, it would be $16,100 in states that kept ACA regulations, and $13,600 in states that don't. (i.e. pay A SHIT TON MORE, get SO MUCH LESS)


The CBO estimates that by 2026, Premiums may be up to 20% less overall (obviously not if you're old or sick), but that's because fewer sick people would be covered, and those with coverage would have worse coverage.

It would also reduce the deficit by $119 billion- which is notable given that their Tax- erm Healthcare Bill cuts over $880 billion from medicaid (and hands almost all of that to people making over 200-250k a year)

This is what you get for putting the government in charge of your healthcare.

[Gelston]

Actually that's not how insurance works.

When I apply for car insurance the company looks at my driving record and determines how much of a risk I am and determines my monthly premium as such. They don't say "Well we've had a lot of people getting into accidents lately so we need to charge you, a perfect driver, with greatly increased premiums to make up for their shitty driving. LOL!"

Likewise if someone at the age of 20 applies for life insurance they don't say "Well you're young, healthy, and a non-smoker, normally your premium would be cheap, but we've had a lot of morbidly obese fat fucks in the 60's who smoke 5 packs a day apply for life insurance so we're gonna go ahead and charge you 10 times the rate we normally would so we can cover them too. You don't mind, right? LOL!"

But let me guess, you used to sell insurance, right?

Except they do raise rates based on location, age group, marital status, credit. It isn't about how good your record is, but which groups you fall into... So you are paying more for other people's fuck ups.

[~Rocktar~]

Except they do raise rates based on location, age group, marital status, credit. It isn't about how good your record is, but which groups you fall into... So you are paying more for other people's fuck ups.

Those are all factors in risk of you having an accident. As investment brokers like to say, past performance is not an indicator of future returns. Which is why it's a risk and they try to figure out the percentages based on everything they possibly can use to accurately predict things. Meanwhile I pay more of my mandated coverage of pregnancy and a pap smear of which I have a 100% chance of never needing which is bullshit.

[~Rocktar~]

LOL right wing deflection.

Pointing out that the source you cite has poor credibility and a poor reputation for accuracy is not deflection however your reply is.

[Gelston]

Those are all factors in risk of you having an accident. As investment brokers like to say, past performance is not an indicator of future returns. Which is why it's a risk and they try to figure out the percentages based on everything they possibly can use to accurately predict things. Meanwhile I pay more of my mandated coverage of pregnancy and a pap smear of which I have a 100% chance of never needing which is bullshit.

And the risk is caused by factors in the past that have made those groups more risky(such as you know, other people). My mother lives in Texas and has an almost perfect driving record, but because Texas drivers suck, she has to pay more for insurance than me.

[Tgo01]

Except they do raise rates based on location, age group, marital status, credit. It isn't about how good your record is, but which groups you fall into... So you are paying more for other people's fuck ups.

Indeed, they look at how likely you are to get into an accident based on certain factors, even things that are not within your control (such as age.) They don't say well these 100k people drive like they are in bumper cars but it would be unfair to charge them more than these one million people who are perfect drivers, so we're just gonna roll it all into one and divvy up the costs evenly.

Meanwhile the theory is that people can consume 20k calories a day, knowing they'll be a burden on society and our healthcare system, but it's "unfair" to charge them more in premiums so everyone else has to eat the costs.

One can argue that fairness shouldn't be a factor in healthcare, but it's silly to say insurance is "supposed" to work the way time4fun says it does. Insurance is supposed to look at your risk factors and base your monthly premium on that. Being a fatty greatly increases one's risk of all sorts of health issues.

[~Rocktar~]

And the risk is caused by factors in the past that have made those groups more risky(such as you know, other people). My mother lives in Texas and has an almost perfect driving record, but because Texas drivers suck, she has to pay more for insurance than me.

Getting into an accident isn't 100% the driver's fault, that is why other factors play into it. It is not the same as health insurance requiring me to pay for something I will quite literally NEVER have a chance of needing so I can support someone else who does. That is not an insurance, that is a tax.

[Ardwen]

Both Auto and home insurances take class into consideration, things like location, age group, driving history are all parts of it, and a very large chunk of the cost has nothing to do with you. In any insurance the safe, healthy or secure are subsidizing those who are greater risks. It is essentially like playing the lottery, and it is mandated by law that you have both auto and home insurance. When I moved from Boston to NH my insurance dropped more then 70 percent, Clearly my driving status never changed, something else must have.

[Tgo01]

and a very large chunk of the cost has nothing to do with you.

No, almost the entire cost has to do with you. How is your age, location, driving history, type of car, and etc nothing to do with you? These things might be out of your control (except for things such as driving history and type of car) but they have everything to do with you.

Auto insurance is nothing like time4fun described which was the least at risk people pay higher premiums than they normally would so the high risk people can pay the same premium as the least at risk.


it is mandated by law that you have both auto and home insurance.

Only if you drive a car on a public road and if you own a home.

[Gelston]

The thing with auto and home insurance, you don't aren't required to have those if you don't have those things. Don't want to have to pay insurance? Don't own a car. Use public transportation. Home insurance isn't required by law every where either, although most lenders will require it if you have a mortgage through them. Still, you aren't required insurance in an apartment.

Health insurance though, I mean, you are alive so you have to pay in. That is what I don't like about that. I guess if you don't like it you can get out right?

[Tgo01]

Health insurance though, I mean, you are alive so you have to pay in.

This is my problem with Obamacare as well. I'm not against government health insurance for everyone in the form of taxes, I'm against being forced to buy insurance from a private company.

[Parkbandit]

It is essentially like playing the lottery, and it is mandated by law that you have both auto and home insurance.

You are only mandated to have home insurance if you don't own your home.

[Neveragain]

I guess if you don't like it you can get out right?

At what point do people like Time4makebelieve own this fiasco? Really it's like they were told don't jump because it will suck and now they are complaining that it sucks because they jumped.

This will promise to continue to be a giant cluster fuck. Good luck taking back your healthcare decisions now that "we" decided to give them to the government.

[Latrinsorm]

Indeed, they look at how likely you are to get into an accident based on certain factors, even things that are not within your control (such as age.) They don't say well these 100k people drive like they are in bumper cars but it would be unfair to charge them more than these one million people who are perfect drivers, so we're just gonna roll it all into one and divvy up the costs evenly.

Meanwhile the theory is that people can consume 20k calories a day, knowing they'll be a burden on society and our healthcare system, but it's "unfair" to charge them more in premiums so everyone else has to eat the costs.

One can argue that fairness shouldn't be a factor in healthcare, but it's silly to say insurance is "supposed" to work the way time4fun says it does. Insurance is supposed to look at your risk factors and base your monthly premium on that. Being a fatty greatly increases one's risk of all sorts of health issues.Once again you're defending what you imagine is the case, rather than what actually is. There is no part of the House bill that changes how insurers can take lifestyle choices into account.

[Tgo01]

Once again you're defending what you imagine is the case, rather than what actually is. There is no part of the House bill that changes how insurers can take lifestyle choices into account.

Did I...Did I say anything about the current House bill?