| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/24/17 6:46 pm ::: 23 million fewer Americans insured under House GOP bill |
Reply  |
|
<embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/REVwFXenGxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVwFXenGxw
| Quote: |
The House Republican health care bill would leave 23 million fewer Americans with health insurance by 2026 than under Obamacare, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
The highly anticipated CBO score is likely to trigger another round of negative headlines and more hurdles for Republicans as they look to advance a controversial piece of legislation that was passed in the House earlier this month.
The CBO also found the bill would reduce deficits by $119 billion compared with Obamacare.
Eager to notch a political win in the GOP's years-long mission to repeal Obamacare, Republican lawmakers took a gamble by voting before the CBO could analyze last-minute changes to the bill.
The new CBO report will serve as an important report card for Senate Republicans as they deliberate over their own version of the health care bill.
The report also shed some light into how the House GOP bill, titled the American Health Care Act, would change the nation's individual health insurance market. |
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-cbo/index.html
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/24/17 6:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Considering how badly the CBO estimates missed the mark on the ACA, I wouldn't put that much stock in what they think about the new plan.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/24/17 7:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Considering how badly the CBO estimates missed the mark on the ACA, I wouldn't put that much stock in what they think about the new plan. |
It is still the best estimate that we have. As with all predictions, things can go not as expected, and can lead to different results, but this can be read as a "most likely" result.
It can also be very useful if we use it for generalities as to who it will help and who it will hurt and to what general amount (not at all, a little, a lot, or completely).
To just ignore these numbers is to ignore data for no good reason.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/24/17 7:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Considering how badly the CBO estimates missed the mark on the ACA, I wouldn't put that much stock in what they think about the new plan. |
It is still the best estimate that we have. As with all predictions, things can go not as expected, and can lead to different results, but this can be read as a "most likely" result.
It can also be very useful if we use it for generalities as to who it will help and who it will hurt and to what general amount (not at all, a little, a lot, or completely).
To just ignore these numbers is to ignore data for no good reason. |
It's not data, it's speculation. Given that their last major health care estimates rested on faulty assumptions which resulted in wildly inaccurate guesses, I'm hesitant to use their numbers for anything.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/24/17 7:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Considering how badly the CBO estimates missed the mark on the ACA, I wouldn't put that much stock in what they think about the new plan. |
It is still the best estimate that we have. As with all predictions, things can go not as expected, and can lead to different results, but this can be read as a "most likely" result.
It can also be very useful if we use it for generalities as to who it will help and who it will hurt and to what general amount (not at all, a little, a lot, or completely).
To just ignore these numbers is to ignore data for no good reason. |
It's not data, it's speculation. Given that their last major health care estimates rested on faulty assumptions which resulted in wildly inaccurate guesses, I'm hesitant to use their numbers for anything. |
Yes, they were off. Their numbers didn't play out as they thought. Yet there are a ton of times where their numbers have been accurate. To just focus on when they were wrong is cherry picking.
To throw out their numbers we need to be able to look at their methodology and say "this is where they are making a bad assumption" and then explain why.
Yet if we look at their ACA numbers, the generalities were in fact correct. And their accuracy is hard to judge since the program was undermined from the beginning by defunding risk corridors and lack of congressional support.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
|
|
