CBO says 32 million more uninsured by 2026 if ACA repealed without

>The ways in which individuals, employers, states, insurers, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by this legislation are all difficult to predict, so the estimates reported here are uncertain. But CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop budgetary estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes.

>Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting this legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

>CBO and JCT have reviewed the legislation and determined that it would impose no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO and JCT have determined that the legislation would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. On the basis of information from JCT, CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation).

>>158984
Well that was quick.

>>158984
>>The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 17 million in 2018, compared with the number under current law. That number would increase to 27 million in 2020, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and the elimination of subsidies for insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by the ACA, and then to 32 million in 2026.

Good. It's called survival of the fittest. How can a society compete if we must carry so much dead weight?

>>158996
Now that's what I call edgy.

>>158996
>survival of the fittest
suppose someone T-bones you and you're left disabled
or, alternatively, you get skin cancer and are saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills
or, alternatively, a nignog breaks into your house, snaps your back, takes your tv, and runs off, leaving you in a wheelchair
survival of the fittest xD?

>>158996
>Good. It's called survival of the fittest. How can a society compete if we must carry so much dead weight?

>everyone deserves everything that happens to them
>ignoring the poor makes them disappear

>>158984
Who cares?

>>159025
>ignoring the poor makes them disappear
In a way this is correct. Cut all aid and leave them to their own devices and there will sure as hell be a lot less poor people.

>>159012
Natural selection runs at a societal level, not an individual one. Individuals contribute to the result, but unless you create an extreme bottle neck losing a single person won't have too much of an effect on the final outcome for society. In the long run those best adapted to survive will pass on their genes while those with debilitating conditions will not which should lead to a more fit society in the long run. If you look at the selection within a single generation there are going to be those who should be considered fit but don't pass on their genes for one reason or another. Still over the course of generations these blips will be smoothed out.

>>159113
You seem to be implying those affected accidents, disease, and crime are societal dead weights, and that society as a whole would be better off without these individuals. Am I reading you correctly?

By the way, it's not "societal" level, but "population" level. May seem pedantic, but this is how these things are defined.

>>159115
Fair enough on the terminology correction.

Actually I never implied what you inferred. My main point was that accidents have always happened throughout the course of time and the loss of a single individual, no matter how fit, should have minimal effect on the fitness of the population as a whole. Natural selection should never be viewed at an individual level for this very reason since it can only be seen at the population level.

This only holds true for large populations though. Taking an absurdly small subset, say the Amish communities, and removing 20 of the men will have a much more profound effect then removing 20 men from New York.

>>158996
>Survival of the fittest! Fuck the stupid poormies! AHAHAHAHA!
>W-what? You say the number of white people is decreasing? White genocide! Its anuddah shoah!

>>159119
Alright, let's consider the subset of the population that is affected by accidents, disease, or crime. Is this a negligible subset of the population? Would society benefit from not insuring these individuals?

>>159125
A better question is, does society benefit from insuring these people? When you are discussing allocating funds towards a project, you have to prove that the net benefit will outweigh the costs.

>>159126
That question can be answered on a purely statistical basis once we determine the size of the subset. If half the population is up shit creek, I doubt you would say insuring them is not beneficial to society.

Google says the US has about 327 million people. The CBO report suggests one-tenth of these people will be uninsured, in addition to the 11% or so already uninsured. Is it beneficial to leave one-fifth of the population uninsured? If you believe the horror stories of medical bills, any individual in this one-fifth who sustains some debilitating injury or illness will be saddled with untenable medical bills and be rendered unable to contribute to society.

>>159130
Unless I misread, the article stated that only 10% or so of the population would be left uninsured by 2026. I am not sure where you are getting 1/5 from. Of course that is still a large number. Once again though, we would need to see what these people would provide to society to compensate the cover their care.

Instead of arguing about whether people should or should not be insured, we should instead focus on reducing the costs of care in the US to remove the necessity for insurance.

>>159133
The number of uninsured would increase by 32 million, and we already have about 11% uninsured. Of course, I'm ignoring population growth over time here. Maybe more like 3/20ths will be uninsured.

While it would be nice if healthcare was cheap to begin with, I don't think it's wise to devote our focus to that goal. It's questionable if such a thing is feasible while maintaining quality of care.

In any case, it seems like we're bowing out of the insurance discussion.

>>158996
It hurts my brain when I see people reference science they don't understand.

Survival of the fittest means the funny guy with 70 iq who immediately escalates any argument to murder and fucks as many women as possible while not caring for the resulting children would be the norm instead of the weird, anti-social guy who can invent the computer keyboard your typing on.

If you really want survival of the forest society then log off and go kill your neighbors husbands to show your dominance.

>>159135
I see I was mistaken on the increase. The OPs article was a bit poorly worded when it came to whether it was in addition to current numbers or the new total uninsured.

Still, I don't think it is an unattainable goal to have Healthcare be affordable without making someone pay ludicrous fees for services. There is no reason we should be funneling money into slush funds, be they insurance company or government run, when we could instead work to subsidize care at the hospital level. Even better, provide tax benefits for people who regularly engage in healthy practices to ideally reduce the money being spent on preventable maladies.

>>158996
>survival of the fittest
That had to do with reproduction you twat

>>158984

And? If you think the government should be in charge of healthcare, you deserve death you communist subhuman nigger.

Survival of the fittest is a description which applies to natural changes in a population over time. There are equations for determining genetic changes in a population over time, but they rely on extremely specific situations which aren't often seen in nature. More to the point, however - human population growths, particularly in modern societies, are about as far removed from those biological concepts as anything we've ever known about. Like it or not, human pop. growth is not "survival of the fittest". It's much more like if an extremely adaptive bacteria inoculated a petri dish populated mostly by a few weak, defenseless species of fungi. What you see is the stronger bacteria grows exponentially, chokes out the weaker growths, and eventually maxes out the confines of the petri dish, uses up all the agar and chokes itself out. Humanity as a whole is the bacterium in this model, as we're all one species. Maybe you should try looking at us as a collective, rather than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on class or economic standing

>>158996

>implying you are fit in any capacity

>>159135
Another good thing to keep in mind is that many states already provide medicare to poor people, so most of those uninsured are employed. That 1/5th of the population are probably contributing to society and are at the same time most vulnerable to losing their health insurance.

>>159139
I bet you're a fan of Idiocracy, aren't you?

>>158984
>CBO

How about a weigh-in from an entity that hasn't been completely wrong about everything having to do with Obamacare?

health insurance isn't a right, it's literally a medical financing service which should be optional
fuck this anti-trump slanted article

>>158984
Please tell us how many people are or became uninsured because of Obamacare?

>>159267
The republicans were overjoyed with referencing CBO estimates when Obamacare was passed and the director is a republican appointed by the house and senate.

>>159429
>The republicans were overjoyed with referencing CBO estimates when Obamacare was passed
[citation needed]

>and the director is a republican appointed by the house and senate.
And that doesn't mean the CBO still wasn't and isn't 100% wrong about nearly everything involving Obamacare.

Glad you're at least not denying that though. One step on the road to recovery.

>>159326
>health insurance isn't a right, it's literally a medical financing service which should be optional
The problem is private health insurance doesn't offer a product that improves with market competition like grocery stores or automobile makers.
The private market is better incentivised on its own to serve as a racket for the healthcare industry to get more people to pay into the system, but most Americans are forced to use insurance because hospitals charge exorbitant prices that most consumers can't afford out of pocket.
I would have preferred we not go the private market rout but that's the only solution that Congress was willing to legislate at the time.
This is why ACA's regulation regarding yearly and lifetime benefit caps, essential items for coverage, and limits on premiums and deductibles were essential. And to keep insurers in the market, everyone had to pay into the system.
If anything, the ACA didn't have sufficiently robust cost control mechanisms which Republicans are now well placed to add.

>>159430
>[citation needed]
HOW OLD ARE YOU?

>And that doesn't mean the CBO still wasn't and isn't 100% wrong about nearly everything involving Obamacare.
It did a pretty good job, in fact:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/14/fact-check-how-accurate-were-cbos-obamacare-predictions/99157846/

>he CBO actually nailed the overall impact of the law on the uninsured pretty closely. It predicted a big drop in the percentage of people under age 65 who would lack insurance, and that turned out to be the case. CBO projected that in 2016 that nonelderly rate would fall to 11%, and the latest figure put the actual rate at 10.3%.

It took me a simple google search to get that.

>>159432
>HOW OLD ARE YOU?
Older than you, kiddo.

>It took me a simple google search to get that.
Funny, a simple Google search also turns up...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/hhs-secretary-the-congressional-budget-office-is-not-accurate/531552/
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/03/12/the-accuracy-of-the-cbos-obamacare-forecasts/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/on-the-healthcare-bill-nothing-to-cbo-here/article/2624120
https://www.cato.org/blog/cbo-forecast-accuracy
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-cbos-lousy-track-record-on-coverage-projections/article/2007129
http://www.opportunitylives.com/the-congressional-budget-office-what-is-it-why-has-it-been-wrong-and-how-to-improve-it/
This last article also outlines several of the CBO's "pretty good jobs" that were actually... not pretty good. At all.

>In 2013, the CBO predicted 201 million Americans would have health insurance as a result of Obamacare. By 2016, only 177 million did. This is a shortfall of 24 million people, nearly the size of Texas.
>In 2016, analysts slashed the number of projected enrollees in the health exchanges from 21 million to 13 million, an 8 million person decrease from the initial estimate. The department was forced to decrease their projection by 38 percent.
>Proclaimed during the health care reform debate of 2009 and 2010 that the legislation would cost only $848 billion for this massive entitlement program. But by 2014, the CBO revised its predictions. Obamacare would actually cost more than $2 trillion once the law went into effect. This 12-digit update meant that the law would cost two and a half times what the experts initially declared.
>In order to cover the incorrectly-predicted 31 million new enrollees Obamacare promised to cover, American taxpayers would have to spend around $80,000 for every newly insured person. Initially, CBO estimated this number would be about $27,000.

Try looking for more than 3 seconds, champ. :^)

>>159433

>In 2013, the CBO predicted 201 million Americans would have health insurance as a result of Obamacare. By 2016, only 177 million did. This is a shortfall of 24 million people, nearly the size of Texas.

I'm not seeing the 100% margin of error you're talking about even going by the snippet you took from the cato institute. This looks like 13% for a 3 year prediction

>This last article also outlines several of the CBO's "pretty good jobs" that were actually... not pretty good. At all.

I don't wanna read a bunch of articles to rebut a point that took about a sentence and a single source. Your argument has to be pretty weak if your only line of defense is "read all this and you'll understand".

>Proclaimed during the health care reform debate of 2009 and 2010 that the legislation would cost only $848 billion for this massive entitlement program. But by 2014, the CBO revised its predictions. Obamacare would actually cost more than $2 trillion once the law went into effect. This 12-digit update meant that the law would cost two and a half times what the experts initially declared.

I followed your sources for the 10-year cost of the ACA to a dead link on this one.

32 million uninsured and a hundred million with healthcare useless in an emergency.

I've had the ugly experience of paying into the health insurance system most of my working life only for insurers to look for ways to deny coverage. It's a really ugly thing.

Gut the fucking market, single payer like every other civilized country. I don't wanna lose insurance coverage after paying into the system for decades because I had a month's lapse in employment. At lest with obamacare insurance companies had policies most of us could understand.

>president admits to sabotaging the country's healthcare system
Fuck Trump? Am I a leftist cuck for thinking this is wrong?

>>159470
Nah, Trump is fucking shit. Not a huge fan of Pence or Ryan, but either of them would be better than that incompetent.

>>159520
Pence and Ryan support the ahca too though?

>>159566
Regardless of who's president, AHCA isn't passing. Can't rescind an entitlement once granted.

>>159570
you call it an entitlement, but when we were in a condition where I could have paid into the insurance system all my life and then if there's a brief lapse in employment, I could lose everything, that's a totally broken system.

>>159570
Clinton ended AFDC.

>>159433
>kiddo
17? Decide on a major yet?

>>159437
>I'm not seeing the 100% margin of error

4 points of data
4 incorrect estimates
4 "revisions"

0/4= 0% = 100%. Common Core hasn't completely fucked you yet I hope.

>I don't wanna read a bunch of articles
Yes we know, because then you'd have to admit you're wrong and would come to face to face with reality and it doesn't actually have the same liberal bias you do.

>I followed your sources for the 10-year cost of the ACA to a dead link on this one.
I thought you just sad you didn't want to read a bunch of articles?

>>159622
You're 17? I'm way older than that.
You can't even vote or drink and you think your political opinion matters! LOL.
Do your homework.

>>159625
>People predicting the future were 13% off
>Since they were not dead accurate my views on what will happen in the future are what I will trust
>Nevermind the millions of people who gained insurance under Obamacare
>Nevermind the fact that the CBO is bipartisan
>Let's argue about who's really 17 with someone on the internet. Nothing says I'm successful like that

I doubt any argument will change your viewpoint or mine, so just remember my lefty vote counts as much as yours. As is, considering Obama's healthcare legacy is still alive after an onslaught from the GOP, my vote is doing me a lot more good. I turned on Rush Limbaugh after the appeal failed, and I'd like to think that as salty as he was, you're even saltier.

>>159625
Damn, my mistake. If you think that's what margin of error means you can't have had an introductory statistics course yet. How about 15?

>>159634
lolbertarian tears are always the most delicious.

>>159141
Well, you've got the option of spreading risk over a pool of 327 million people. Or you do so within self contained, smaller subsets of this number.

You can have one organization beholden directly to the lawmakers who authorize it and regulate it, who are beholden to you. Or you can let aforementioned subsets compete with you for favorable lawmaking.

Your copay can come from the securities of 327 million people, collected in taxes from a single, centralized system which does not need profits to offer you healthcare coverage. Or it can come from a pool of some tens of millions instead. That is, after profit margins. And after advertisement costs. And after the costs of maintaining the same, redundant bureaucracy that their competitors also need to function. You can pay them the costs that they incur from the bureaucracy that this necessitates from the firms they cover. And you can pay the same, redundant sales departments. You can pay -their- taxes. And you can pay them to make anonymous campaign contributions to politicians without consulting you.

In what world do the additional costs of running a competitive business necessitate the "choices" that are offered, when they're functionally the same? And also, when the one you've been paying for may not even -cover- the firm you'd like. That's a choice taken away from you.

Everyone wants to tell you how fuckin expensive universal healthcare would be. But they don't wanna talk about economies of scale. They don't wanna talk about pooling risk and securities. And they don't wanna talk about how much of your money actually circulates into copay, and how much of it is spent on the necessities of smaller, competitive firms.

>>159702
I was arguing against the principle of insurance in all forms as opposed to trying to make a case for any one flavor. I understand that in general a large single payer system is likely the best option we currently have. I would like to see more incentives for people to make healthy choices, be they tax credits or some other form since that should reduce the need for care on preventable conditions. People just need to realize we can't go back to what we had and we can't keep what we have now. The only thing we can do now that the gears are in motion is a slow shift into single payer and there is really nothing that can be done to stop it.

>>159625
Try harder. No one is unironically this stupid.
1/10.