ha!
"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."
lawlz! how to do you feel about that boomers?
garsh, covering 3 million people over the course of 10 years...thanks for the herculean efforts, GOP...
Submit News News
Conservatives Celebrate Embarrassing CBO Analysis Of GOP Health Care Bill
- November 06, 2009 19:34:37
- Read all 25 comments
- +7 raves
- In its own quiet way, the Congressional Budget Office gave the Republicans' health care bill a failing grade: A package seemingly meant to address the problem of the uninsured that does almost nothing to expand insurance or lower premiums.
But somehow, someway, conservatives don't seem to have noticed. In fact, they're celebrating!... Read full article »
But somehow, someway, conservatives don't seem to have noticed. In fact, they're celebrating!... Read full article »
Top Comment

Instead, their offering signs, seals, and delivers--to the rapacious health care syndicate. Patients be damned.
Sorry, edit for SP.
That's waste.
Does one proposed plan really have a per capita cost ten times that of the other?"
Answer: It is actually only 3 million additional and not 8. This would then increase the cost per unit to $20,000. It is true the dems would be $27,000 per unit but the dem plan would save more in the long term as the more people covered the less we need to pay for uninsured emergency room treatment.Good enough
If you have a pre-existing condition, you may be refused coverage. That may seem to make sense, but what happens in reality, is that when you become ill (we aren't talking one time things like appendicitis or a broken bone, but a longer term illness), the insurance companies raise rates, and raise rates and lower your cap, etc. You can't change insurance companies, because they won't accept you with preexisting conditions, even at higher rates. This puts you in a position where you cannot afford not to pay whatever rates, fees, and endure whatever caps your insurance company puts on you, because you can't switch, and as an individual, you have no power to stop them. The same kind of thing works for small group plans. In some ways, the companies are justified because with these groups, the risk is not spread over as healthy a group. (SInce individual plans are more expensive, some people who think they are healthy take the risk of having no insurance, so the overall pool is less healthy than in a large group plan where the cost is low enough that even healthy people buy in.) But, in many cases, the companies look for reasons to drop costly customers, and that leaves many sick people uninsured just when they need coverage most. In the meantime, the people who don't have insurance end up having problems too. They are likely to wait until their problems are acute, since they cannot afford to pay for tests and specialists early on. Or, they show up with catastrophic injuries. These people show up in the emergency room and can't pay. That raises the costs for the rest of us.
The way the proposed bill deals with all this is to let people who are happy where they are stay there. It creates an "exchange" that will allow small businesses to be part of large group plans, so that they can offere lower premiums to their employees and are part of a larger risk pool. This gives them more leverage over the insurer and the insurer a better profit on the group than it would have on many small groups. People would also be required to have insurance, which would make for a better risk pool for insurers so that they can keep premiums within reach. This would also stop them from landing in the emergency room and raising costs for everybody. Companies will no longer be allowed to refuse a person based on preexisting conditions, so they will still need to be competitive with their rates, even after people get sick.
That is the best I can figure out how to explain it. I hope it "meets the challenge."