Just put the finishing touches on the CBO analysis of the final version of the AHCA House bill.
Big time premium increases, big time numbers of people losing insurance, and the healthy will either not get coverage or pay slightly smaller premiums, all on the backs of the sick. Kind of an ugly vision that Republicans were happy enough to celebrate with Trump in the rose garden.
I thought MSNBC's Ali Velshi did the best analysis:
Here are few graphics that Ryan had no problem celebrating in the Rose Garden. The lower premium INCREASES would only be a fraction different from the ACA:
Republicans can -- and already are -- pushing back against the CBO. "The CBO has a long track record of being way, way off in its modeling, with predictions often differing drastically from what actually happens."That's not really true; remember, the Supreme Courts decision that blocked the Medicaid 50 state requirement the CBO used to predict enrollment, that's the fault of the GOP's lawsuit against the ACA.
Family Values Party makes Families out of reach for Poor: True:
Vox Email-Sarah Kliff: The bill could also expose pregnant women and people receiving treatment for substance abuse to exorbitant medical bills … Nixing the requirement that health plans cover certain essential health benefits could have devastating effects for women who are pregnant and for people struggling with addiction. Some states — where one in six Americans live — would probably seek substantial waivers from the essential health benefits requirement, according to CBO. "Out-of-pocket spending on maternity care and mental health and substance abuse services could increase by thousands of dollars in a given year.And this is an outrageous way to make health care premiums affordable, right?
House Republicans touted the CBO's findings that some people in states with AHCA waivers would see lower premiums. But the report makes clear that would be achieved by driving sick people out of the market and leaving these populations with higher medical bills. Create individual-market instability in states seeking fuller waivers where one-sixth of the U.S. population lives; premiums for people seeking to buy comprehensive plans would become unaffordable. (more below)There's still more:
Premiums would fall about 10% to 30% in the second group but those savings would come from dropping benefits considered essential by the ACA and people with pre-existing conditions would no longer be protected—something Republicans promised would not happen.Still more:
Premiums would fall about 10% to 30% in the second group but those savings would come from dropping benefits considered essential by the ACA and people with pre-existing conditions would no longer be protected—something Republicans promised would not happen.
Rick Pollack, president of the American Hospital Association, issued a statement that said: "We cannot support legislation that the CBO clearly indicates would jeopardize coverage for millions of Americans." MetroHealth's uncompensated care fell from 11% of revenue to somewhere between 4.5% and 5.5% of revenue, varying over time. Hospitals in all states that expanded Medicaid benefited similarly.
Paul Ryan has a website up, right now, where he declares "VERIFIED: MacArthur and Upton Amendments Strengthen AHCA, Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions."
CBO says this isn't true — and is unequivocal on the point. There is this one paragraph in particular that is especially devastating for the Republican plan:People who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all — despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs.
Post a Comment