TPMDC

Conservatives Celebrate Embarrassing CBO Analysis Of GOP Health Care Bill

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

I noted yesterday that, 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!

"As a result of the House Republican bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office now confirms that families will see their health care premiums reduced by up to 10 percent and hard-working taxpayers can expect deficits to decrease by $68 billion over the next decade," reads a statement from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

Let's go to the tape:

"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. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share."

And: "[I]n the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates."

Where does Pence get his numbers?

CBO says, "In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law."

So, if you spend $12,000 out of pocket every year for insurance on the individual market, the House bill could bring that burden down to a measly $11,040, and would do nothing to prevent you from going bankrupt if and when your policy gets canceled or you hit your annual or lifetime benefits cap.

Here's how the conservative Washington Examiner described it: "CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit."

Not false, but not exactly edifying, either. A more accurate headline might be: "CBO: Republican health plan proves that, for a very low price, you can insure almost nobody, and keep premiums sky high."

Join the Conversation!

14 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

November 6, 2009 12:30 PM   

It started as an empty page. Well, the Democrats mocked that, so the Republicans put some words on the paper. The words don't actually mean anything other than "this space intentionally left blank," so I guess the Democrats are going to mock that, too. /snark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 12:37 PM   

Well, out of all the "conservative" wacko loonies, nonsense pence scares me the most. He spews complete garbage and lies and he sounds rational and reasonable doing it. This guy is very dangerous.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 1:43 PM    in reply to Michael A

How about the doctor dude. I don't know his name, but he looks like a typical albino republican. Someone help me with his name. He acted like a fool yesterday - and these people are supposed to be making laws? WE ARE DOOMED if these folks get anywhere near the white house again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 12:45 PM   

So, if you spend $12,000 out of pocket every year for insurance on the individual market, the House bill could bring that burden down to a measly $11,040, and would do nothing to prevent you from going bankrupt if and when your policy gets canceled or you hit your annual or lifetime benefits cap.

No, that's incorrect. It's much worse than what you say. Or at least that's not how I read what the CBO is saying. In all cases, CBO is saying that premiums in 2016 would be that x percent less than it would be if nothing is done (CBOSpeak="under current law"), not x percent lower than they are now, in 2009. Average premiums are projected to double from their 2006 rates by 2016 according, at least, to the center for American Progress.

So, under the Republican plan, in 2016, people in the small group market would experience premium increases that are only 85-90% more than their 2006 premiums, rather than 100% larger.

Yay, Republicans! Give yourselves a well-deserved round of hundred dollar martinis!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 5:04 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

That is excellent new for John McCain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

November 6, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Yes, thank you, that is my reading, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 1:50 PM   

i'm not sure why they are celebrating. their plan only covers 5% of the uninsured, and it is more costly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 2:00 PM   

Man if I live in the same planet they do, I wouldn't have to worry paying my mortgage, student loan,...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 2:03 PM   

i'm not sure why they are celebrating. their plan only covers 5% of the uninsured, and it is more costly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 2:27 PM   

This. Is. Good. News. For. House. Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 5:05 PM    in reply to jimbomoron

And John McCain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 2:46 PM   

It's actually much worse than that, Brian. The only reason the average person may have his/her premiums lowered is because (a) they'll be purchasing less coverage than they previously did, and (b) they won't have as many uninsurables to subsidize in their plan since the bill will make it virtually impossible for anyone with a pre-existing condition to purchase individual insurance (marginally better in the small-group market).

It's genius of Republicans! They make premiums more affordable by requiring insurance companies to cover fewer benefits and by making the deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance less affordable.

And high-risk pools don't work. Once you are lucky enough to qualify for your state's high-risk pool (which are very, very limited because of the costs), you have to wait 3-12 months (a.k.a. pre-exclusion period) before you can get your pre-existing condition covered. Meaning if you are a cancer survivor, and you wake up one morning noticing a lump on your breast, you have to wait until the pre-exclusion period expires to get care. And this is what John McCain was trying to greatly expand (and probably would cost $500 to $1T over 10 years to make health insurance even remotely affordable for someone who has diabetes)!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 6, 2009 3:23 PM   

So, the republican plan will reduce federal deficit and debt, not increase taxes, not cut Medicare, and reduce premium costs for the private market - with the biggest improvements in small and individual groups which are hit the hardest with costs...
And, the democrat plan will raise federal deficit and debt, increase taxes, cut Medicare, and raise premium prices for the private market. They will also fine everyone who doesn't PURCHASE their own coverage...(in order to 'cover' everyone)
I don't know. Which one, if any?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

November 6, 2009 6:07 PM    in reply to puckerupAmerica

Umm--no. Try again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular