Report: White House's Own Analysis of Trumpcare Is Even More Devastating Than CBO's

[EC]

In the run-up to today’s release of the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, the Trump administration did everything it could to preemptively discredit what the CBO would find. That might be because their own analysis showed that the plan is dreadful.

According to a report from Politico, the administration ran its own estimations of how many people would lose insurance under the American Health Care Act. Reporters from the outlet say they were able to see an undated copy of that document today and it finds that 26 million people would lose coverage over the next 10 years. That’s two million more than the CBO forecast.

From the report:

    The analysis found that under the American Health Care Act the coverage losses would include 17 million for Medicaid, six million in the individual market and three million in employer-based plans.

    A total of 54 million individuals would be uninsured in 2026 under the GOP plan, according to the White House analysis. That’s nearly double the number projected under current law.

On March 8th, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters, “If you’re looking at the CBO for accuracy, you’re looking in the wrong place.” He doubled-down with a full on declaration that the CBO is fake news, “The idea that that’s any kind of authority based on the track record of what happened last time is a little far-fetched.”

More: http://gizmodo.com/report-white-houses-own-analysis-of-trumpcare-is-even-1793246662

 

[skeeter]

In the run-up to today’s release of the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, the Trump administration did everything it could to preemptively discredit what the CBO would find. That might be because their own analysis showed that the plan is dreadful.

According to a report from Politico, the administration ran its own estimations of how many people would lose insurance under the American Health Care Act. Reporters from the outlet say they were able to see an undated copy of that document today and it finds that 26 million people would lose coverage over the next 10 years. That’s two million more than the CBO forecast.

From the report:

    The analysis found that under the American Health Care Act the coverage losses would include 17 million for Medicaid, six million in the individual market and three million in employer-based plans.

    A total of 54 million individuals would be uninsured in 2026 under the GOP plan, according to the White House analysis. That’s nearly double the number projected under current law.

On March 8th, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters, “If you’re looking at the CBO for accuracy, you’re looking in the wrong place.” He doubled-down with a full on declaration that the CBO is fake news, “The idea that that’s any kind of authority based on the track record of what happened last time is a little far-fetched.”

More: http://gizmodo.com/report-white-houses-own-analysis-of-trumpcare-is-even-1793246662

 

Estimates are 30 million had plans cancelled due to ACA while 14 million became newly insured.

So I assume a good part of those thirty million will become insured if we get rid of the legislative monstrosity. Did the CBO factor that in, or did they continue to ignore those hurt by ACA?

[LateForLunch]

The CBO is a joke and should be ignored, derided and eventually eliminated or replaced when feasible. That can't happen by executive action but something needs to be done - they are out of control. The CBO was off by about 10 million people when they predicted the volume of sign-ups for Obamacare. So exactly what value does some agency with that gross of an error factor?

Heritage Foundation could easily score the bill for conservatives and the 'Crats could pick their own (although they like the current CBO assessment fine).

Most of the people who are predicted to "lose coverage" will do so because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BUY IT, not because it is being "denied to them".

THe CBO currently makes not distinction in their prognostication based on the above fact - another reason the CBO office administrators need to be fired and replaced.

There is a similar argument to be made about the House Parliamentarian. She is a person not an infallible institution. If her assessment of the replacement bill is that it doesn't qualify for consideration under Budget Reconciliation, the House should consider having Pence replace her.

[LonestarDream]

Exactly.  And there is still medicare and medicaid .   Its not a question of who is or not is insured by these word game definitions.  It is a question of the quality medical services we all have access to in a cost effective way.

Estimates are 30 million had plans cancelled due to ACA while 14 million became newly insured.

So I assume a good part of those thirty million will become insured if we get rid of the legislative monstrosity. Did the CBO factor that in, or did they continue to ignore those hurt by ACA?

[LonestarDream]

True True and True.

I dont want the US to become like the UK- debating which jurisdiction gets the next MRI during question time, the ambulance stacking and poor cancer treatment outcomes. 

And you are so right, 'losing' coverage means 'choosing' not be covered.  Folks on our side are being played by this.  The real agenda is to tax the young (and prevent them from starting families ) to subsidize the old and sick -- who have often made poor life choices .     

The CBO is a joke and should be ignored, derided and eventually eliminated or replaced when feasible. That can't happen by executive action but something needs to be done - they are out of control. The CBO was off by about 10 million people when they predicted the volume of sign-ups for Obamacare. So exactly what value does some agency with that gross of an error factor?

Heritage Foundation could easily score the bill for conservatives and the 'Crats could pick their own (although they like the current CBO assessment fine).

Most of the people who are predicted to "lose coverage" will do so because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BUY IT, not because it is being "denied to them".

THe CBO currently makes not distinction in their prognostication based on the above fact - another reason the CBO office administrators need to be fired and replaced.

There is a similar argument to be made about the House Parliamentarian. She is a person not an infallible institution. If her assessment of the replacement bill is that it doesn't qualify for consideration under Budget Reconciliation, the House should consider having Pence replace her.

[txradioguy]

I remember the good old days when Conservatives trusted the numbers coming out of the CBO.

Seems like it was only last year.

Oh wait...it was.

[LateForLunch]

I remember the good old days when Conservatives trusted the numbers coming out of the CBO.

Seems like it was only last year.

Oh wait...it was.

Some people have a very selective memory. Especially when it comes to bashing president Trump. Does the name "Gruber" ring a bell? Remember HIS comments about the CBO?

Anyway, this is not just my opinion, it's that of the former director of the CBO, who laments how, (like everything else that is supposedly "non-partisan") CBO data has been subject to  manipulation and misuse by the 'Crats.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5358652038001/?#sp=show-clips

[Silver Pines]

Steve Deace Retweeted
 Ali Rogin‏Verified account @AliABCNews  1h1 hour ago

 Sen. Cruz on CBO report: "under the House bill, premiums would continue to rise next year and the year thereafter. That is unacceptable."

[XenaLee]

Trying to play catch up here.  I haven't read all the posts, followed the links on this (haven't had time yet), so I don't know if all this doom and gloom is hyperbole or factual.  I have read that the elderly low-income folks will be hardest hit under this plan with their costs going up by up to 750%.  The article said that younger folks would be less impacted financially due to their youth.  HUH???  I thought it was illegal to discriminate and/or target folks due to age.  I suspect it's BS but don't know for sure yet.

If it is true, it looks like Trumpcare went in the opposite asinine direction.  Instead of forcing providers to cover the already dying or ill re: pre-existing condition..... they're just going to penalize anyone that's over a certain age, with the presumption that they are close to dying or already ill.   It's asinine. 

[Frank Cannon]

I remember the good old days when Conservatives trusted the numbers coming out of the CBO.

Seems like it was only last year.

Oh wait...it was.

When the hell was that? I never trusted them. Garbage in garbage out. I can't remember the last time the CBO projected properly a program. Obamacare comes to mind.

[LateForLunch]

Trying to play catch up here.  I haven't read all the posts, followed the links on this (haven't had time yet), so I don't know if all this doom and gloom is hyperbole or factual.  I have read that the elderly low-income folks will be hardest hit under this plan with their costs going up by up to 750%.  The article said that younger folks would be less impacted financially due to their youth.  HUH???  I thought it was illegal to discriminate and/or target folks due to age.  I suspect it's BS but don't know for sure yet.

If it is true, it looks like Trumpcare went in the opposite asinine direction.  Instead of forcing providers to cover the already dying or ill re: pre-existing condition..... they're just going to penalize anyone that's over a certain age, with the presumption that they are close to dying or already ill.   It's asinine.

hah hah well, the bill's not finished yet or passed. The job of the CBO is ostensibly to ensure that any changes to the law as presented will save at leas $2 billion. Later it will be the job of the Parliamentarian to review the technical aspects of the law along the lines of Senate and Congressional rules. She may be overruled if the Senate president (Pence) disagrees with her conclusions.

The CBO estimates do not include projected effects or savings which will result in changes in the private sector, only in government. So it is impossible to project whether there will be changes (of course there will) in the market which will make insurance more affordable and usable.

Since countless millions of people with Obamacare (including most seniors and poor people) cannot afford to use their coverage (because the deductibles are too high or there are no carriers in their geographical area who accept their insurance) and all they really have is a nearly worthless piece of paper (1045-6 form) which says that they officially have healthcare coverage,  it is difficult to imagine a less effective or efficient state of affairs than currently exists.

Also most very low income people who were eligible for Obamacare chose not to use it - instead they maintained their previous habit of using free clinics in addition to relying on their own state's medical programs.

A scoring from  Heritage Foundation will likely be forthcoming which will far more-realistically appraise the actual performance of the law if and when it is applied nationally. Don't hold your breath waiting for the 'Crats to get another scoring before they condemn any proposed repeal of Obamacare wholesale. If there was ever an issue which was more politically-driven for modern Democrats in government than Obamacare, I can't recall it.

What is interesting is that if the 'Crats can't somehow intimidate the Republicans from repealing and replacing the odious, collapsing ACA with something and it actually WORKS to reduce costs and increase quality of national healthcare, if the 'Crats make a hyper-partisan stand against it, they may wish that they didn't come election time - since for those Congresscritters who did, their opponents will be able to use that against them like a bludgeon.

[Chosen Daughter]

True True and True.

I dont want the US to become like the UK- debating which jurisdiction gets the next MRI during question time, the ambulance stacking and poor cancer treatment outcomes. 

And you are so right, 'losing' coverage means 'choosing' not be covered.  Folks on our side are being played by this.  The real agenda is to tax the young (and prevent them from starting families ) to subsidize the old and sick -- who have often made poor life choices .   

Everyone gets old and sick eventually.  I'll call it play and pay later plan.  Winner, winner chicken dinner.  High fives for screwing the old people!  Completely backwards.  It punishes people who have worked their entire life by making them pay five times what a younger person pays.

When you get old and sick see if you can chalk it up to poor life choices?  Next thing will be mandated euthanasia for old people. 
Society

I feel sorry for Americans who voted for Trump.  I feel sorry for Americans period.  We have these politicians that we vote for and pay their salaries just to stick it to us.  Never trust a politician.

[Chosen Daughter]

Trying to play catch up here.  I haven't read all the posts, followed the links on this (haven't had time yet), so I don't know if all this doom and gloom is hyperbole or factual.  I have read that the elderly low-income folks will be hardest hit under this plan with their costs going up by up to 750%.  The article said that younger folks would be less impacted financially due to their youth.  HUH???  I thought it was illegal to discriminate and/or target folks due to age.  I suspect it's BS but don't know for sure yet.

If it is true, it looks like Trumpcare went in the opposite asinine direction.  Instead of forcing providers to cover the already dying or ill re: pre-existing condition..... they're just going to penalize anyone that's over a certain age, with the presumption that they are close to dying or already ill.   It's asinine.

Its disgusting.  And all that Trump talk about costs would be low because you could buy across state lines.............. Not happening.

[Chosen Daughter]

I have a suggestion lets reduce all of our older Representatives pay by 5 times and force them to use the same insurance we get.

[LateForLunch]

Its disgusting.  And all that Trump talk about costs would be low because you could buy across state lines.............. Not happening.

Well, the bill is not complete. What was submitted to the odious CBO is a draft proposal which will be vastly different if and when it is passed. So why all of the agonizing and fatalism over a law that hasn't even come up for a vote yet?

Hugh Hewitt discussed this a few hours ago on his national radio show and there are a few options for getting more done. I don't understand the belief that DJT / the Republican party are somehow being nefarious or dishonest about the whole process - I've seen no strong evidence of that.

The AHCA is working its way through the process the way big bills always do - with the exception being that Budget Reconciliation is being used in a way that is fairly unprecedented to try to accomplish the very things that seem to be front and center with your own (and many others') concerns.

Give them a break - all things considered, I think they're doing about as well as anyone could under the circumstances. There will always be a little less cohesion with more conservative Congressional members because they are less inclined to gravitate to hyper-partisan  mob-rule and more inclined to actually struggle to accomplish the things that are important to their constituents.

I really don't get the abject pessimistic fatalism in some of these posts.

Politics is called, "the art of compromise" for a reason.

Tdzadkiel (a god): I will make a decision, though it cannot be just.*

* No decision which must engage in compromise for the sake of a greater good can ever be 100% fair to all concerned. The nature of compromise dictates that some (often all) parties to the decision will not receive something to which they may be morally entitled. In our imperfect universe, where the needs for order and the promotion of the general welfare supersede the needs of individuals for satisfaction, this always has been (and likely always will be) the case.

In a better world, we would not have had to undo this Gorgon Knot now, because a responsible Democrat party would not have passed it with all of the mendacious, brutally deceptive, strong-arm politics-driven wickedness it did in the first place.

So if someone wants to place blame or cause rightfully upon some persons or faction for our present plight, the Eightball Obama and the 'Crats, who rammed this grotesque monstrosity down the throats of the country in the first place take front and center.