Current Events > 32 mln people lose insurance under U.S. Senate Obamacare repeal plan -CBO

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAosSvx?m=en-us

Thirty-two million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2026 under a U.S. Senate plan to repeal Obamacare without providing a replacement, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Wednesday.
The CBO estimated the number of uninsured would rise by 17 million next year alone if the Affordable Care Act were to be scratched without a new healthcare plan.


So instant hurt, followed by a legacy of hurt. Trump fails again.
---

A minimum of 32 people?!
---

Funkydog posted...

A minimum of 32 people?!

---

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.
---

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?

"Straightening out the government" is great to campaign on

"Taking 32 million people's health insurance" is not
---

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

I guess thats always the crux: lower costs for a lot of people OR give coverage to almost everyone.
---

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

That's also not true. Premiums would continue to increase
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?

MSM: " There will be blood on the streets, children dying and it's all the Republicans fault!"
---

Balrog0 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

That's also not true. Premiums would continue to increase

shit, if thast true then there is no point supporting a change.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Activists have been up their ass about the actual human effects of their ideas for the past few months.
---

How many of these people chose not to have insurance before Obamacare but were forced to or else incur the wrath of the IRS?
---

iamintents posted...

Balrog0 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

That's also not true. Premiums would continue to increase

shit, if thast true then there is no point supporting a change.

Premiums would increase much more, because the repeal maintains ACA regs that don't allow insurers to charge people more for prior health status and also retains the essential health benefits.

It would help peoplw affected by the mandate who don't want insurance, though
---

The only thing worse then the ACA as anything the republicans can replace it with. Sad huh?
---

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

i'll take that.... that's only a minor sacrifice.
---

why the fuck have other countries figured this shit out but we can't?

we went to the fucking moon for fuck's sake

we built the nuclear bomb
---

Good. Now let's hope they replace it by giving us a true free market health system and that number will shrink and everyone will be better off. And if some people aren't better off we can concentrate on them without negatively effecting everyone else like Obamacare.
---

iamintents posted...

why the fuck have other countries figured this shit out but we can't?

we went to the fucking moon for fuck's sake

we built the nuclear bomb

For one there would likely be a in raise taxes or cut spending to the military for the initial cost of switching to a pure public healthcare system. Both are big things to not to do in the US if you want to get reelected.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

How many of these people chose not to have insurance before Obamacare but were forced to or else incur the wrath of the IRS?

Iirc, maybe half at most but It's hard to determine

kingdrake2 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

i'll take that.... that's only a minor sacrifice.

Again, not true. Premiums keep going up for people on the market place, and many employers might stop offering insurance to all their full time employees since that mandate goes away too. So youre making the individual marketplace worse and taking away ESI, too

CobraShuttle posted...

Good. Now let's hope they replace it by giving us a true free market health system and that number will shrink and everyone will be better off. And if some people aren't better off we can concentrate on them without negatively effecting everyone else like Obamacare.

A true free market system would almost certainly mean letting needy people die. Old, sick people drive health care costs up for everyone
---

Funkydog posted...

A minimum of 32 people?!

That's mLn
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Funkydog posted...

A minimum of 32 people?!

That's mLn

Brutai
---

iamintents posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Funkydog posted...

A minimum of 32 people?!

That's mLn

Brutai

TC gets it.
---

32 million that never wanted to be forced to buy into healthcare in the first place.
---

How many of those people have deductibles that are so high that their insurance is effectively useless? I ask because it's time we stopped conflating health insurance with health care and started thinking about real solutions to this problem.

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

And? Were they not capable of "fixing" that without taking insurance away from so many people that need it? It's not one or the other. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Transcendentia posted...

How many of those people have deductibles that are so high that their insurance is effectively useless? I ask because it's time we stopped conflating health insurance with health care and started thinking about real solutions to this problem.

this sounds like something a politician would say. point out a problem but offer no solution.
---

iamintents posted...

Transcendentia posted...

How many of those people have deductibles that are so high that their insurance is effectively useless? I ask because it's time we stopped conflating health insurance with health care and started thinking about real solutions to this problem.

this sounds like something a politician would say. point out a problem but offer no solution.

I've pointed out a couple possible solutions multiple times on this board.

As a Canadian, I am so thankful to not have the misfortune of living in the US. I was possibly going to move there 8 years ago, but I dodged a bullet - maybe even literally.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

And? Were they not capable of "fixing" that without taking insurance away from so many people that need it? It's not one or the other. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

The insured pay the extra cost of supporting the millions who can't pay into the system and only get it when they need it. That's why our premiums jumped sharply right after the ACA was implemented, the companies anticipated post-tax credit bailouts to make sure they had enough. So yeah...it is one or the other.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?

Yep. Some 8 years of railing against it, threatening to repeal it, and now that they have a R in the white house and control both chambers of congress, they've failed three times to get rid of it and all of their plans have been fantastically worse.

Ray_Dorset posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?

Yep. Some 8 years of railing against it, threatening to repeal it, and now that they have a R in the white house and control both chambers of congress, they've failed three times to get rid of it and all of their plans have been fantastically worse.

yeah how did they go all those years without a proper plan in place?
---

iamintents posted...

Ray_Dorset posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

Something that bugs me about conservatives. Like, I thought they WANTED this, why are they suddenly so pensive about actually pulling the trigger?

Wasn't dumping Obamacare the main fucking thing all of the republican candidates kept spouting? Isn't this what republicans have been wanting for the past 7 years?

Yep. Some 8 years of railing against it, threatening to repeal it, and now that they have a R in the white house and control both chambers of congress, they've failed three times to get rid of it and all of their plans have been fantastically worse.

yeah how did they go all those years without a proper plan in place?

They're Republicans. Stupidity and incompetence are the backbones of their party.

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

Something is screwy with the math, when 270 million are expected to pay double, at the gain of covering the costs of a mere 32 more. Pay for sixteen, only get nine.

I like how they lump in people choosing not to have insurance with what little will lose it to inflate the numbers. Also not taking into consideration the amount of employers who, as a result of Obamacare's employer mandate, cut workers to part-time. Part-timers don't get employer paid insurance. Thus they need Obamacare. How convenient. Once the work force starts shifting back to employment with BENEFITS, the numbers will look even better for GOPcare.
---

iamintents posted...

why the fuck have other countries figured this shit out but we can't?

we went to the fucking moon for fuck's sake

we built the nuclear bomb

You want affordable health care but don't want to pay more taxes, can't have it both ways.
---

apocalyptic_4 posted...

iamintents posted...

why the fuck have other countries figured this shit out but we can't?

we went to the fucking moon for fuck's sake

we built the nuclear bomb

You want affordable health care but don't want to pay more taxes, can't have it both ways.

The United States spends 50% more per gdp than other countries with superior healthcare such as Germany and France. The issue is the insurance portion of it

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

Wolf_J_Flywheel posted...

I like how they lump in people choosing not to have insurance with what little will lose it to inflate the numbers. Also not taking into consideration the amount of employers who, as a result of Obamacare's employer mandate, cut workers to part-time. Part-timers don't get employer paid insurance. Thus they need Obamacare. How convenient. Once the work force starts shifting back to employment with BENEFITS, the numbers will look even better for GOPcare.

Like I said before, most of the coverage gains are through medicaid expansion and employer mandates, not the individual mandate. It's hard for the CBO to estimate but if you look at coverage expansions between expansion and non expansion states it's obvious.

It is true that more people became part time, but it's also true that many full time people gained coverage from their employers because of it.

Your line. "Part-timers don't get employer paid insurance. Thus they need Obamacare. How convenient" shows how cynical and stupid conservatives have become. Building on my last point, only full timers only get guaranteed coverage... because of obamacare.

You're acting like some how less people have insurance because more of them are part time, thanks to Obama Care, but that only make sense if you assume full timers will get it, which lots didn't before obamacare

Quite circular
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that
---

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that

It cost so much because of insurance companies. Not only are they gouging patients, doctors also have to pay exuberantly for malpractice insurance.
---

Eh, I couldn't afford healthcare before ACA, couldn't afford it during ACA, and sure as fuck won't be able to afford it after ACA.

So for me literally nothing has changed.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that

It cost so much because of insurance companies. Not only are they gouging patients, doctors also have to pay exuberantly for malpractice insurance.

Consider this:
https://www.thehappymd.com/blog/bid/290718/Medical-Bills-Going-Down-If-You-Pay-Cash-Way-Down

Balrog0 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

How many of these people chose not to have insurance before Obamacare but were forced to or else incur the wrath of the IRS?

Iirc, maybe half at most but It's hard to determine

kingdrake2 posted...

scorpion41 posted...

But premiums for 268 million would fall by double or even triple digits.

i'll take that.... that's only a minor sacrifice.

Again, not true. Premiums keep going up for people on the market place, and many employers might stop offering insurance to all their full time employees since that mandate goes away too. So youre making the individual marketplace worse and taking away ESI, too

CobraShuttle posted...

Good. Now let's hope they replace it by giving us a true free market health system and that number will shrink and everyone will be better off. And if some people aren't better off we can concentrate on them without negatively effecting everyone else like Obamacare.

A true free market system would almost certainly mean letting needy people die. Old, sick people drive health care costs up for everyone

Naw. You're being ridiculous.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that

It cost so much because of insurance companies. Not only are they gouging patients, doctors also have to pay exuberantly for malpractice insurance.

so why dont we go after them instead of the doctors or the patients/payer.
---

E32005 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that

It cost so much because of insurance companies. Not only are they gouging patients, doctors also have to pay exuberantly for malpractice insurance.

so why dont we go after them instead of the doctors or the patients/payer.

Because they stuff politicians pockets with large sums of cash?
---

creativerealms posted...

The only thing worse then the ACA as anything the republicans can replace it with. Sad huh?

*nods head*
---

voldothegr8 posted...

E32005 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Instead of worrying about who's going to pay for healthcare, the better idea would be figuring out why the hell it costs so damn much, and dealing with that.

I agree with that

It cost so much because of insurance companies. Not only are they gouging patients, doctors also have to pay exuberantly for malpractice insurance.

so why dont we go after them instead of the doctors or the patients/payer.

Because they stuff politicians pockets with large sums of cash?

so we need them to make special interests and money donations illegal so they lose that influence. of course that wont happen since congress makes its own dirty rules.
---

CobraShuttle posted...

Naw. You're being ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about it?

In a free market, if you can't pay for a service, you don't get it. Unless someone else pays for you to get it.

There are a lot of things that make health care cost. But one of the main drivers is people with multiple chronic conditions. People with more than 5 chronic conditions make up only 12% of the population, but 41% of health care spending. Another 16% have 3-4 chronic conditions, but account for 26% of health care spending. That means 28% of the population -- the sickest people -- account for more than 2/3 of our health care spending.

I think it's pretty obvious just from the rhetoric that a free market in health care would let people die -- you often hear about how it isn't just to maker healthy people pay for the bad health decisions other people make. Maybe that's true, but how do you think that ends?
---

btw I'm not against that whole "letting people die" thing per se, but the only way it works is if you own up to it.

My dad only has one chronic condition, but he costs the public way more than he's worth. It's pretty certain that not helping old people with cancer pay for their treatments would help drive down costs. I'm willing to talk about things in these terms, but until most people are we're not getting any where. And that's especially true if even free market conservatives and libertarians won't accept the outcome of their own ideology.
---