Were they listening to me? I don’t care. The CBO granted my wish and scored the Republican health care reform “bill”. Let’s hit the high notes.
You remember how Rep. Boehner said that the Democratic plans would “bankrupt America“? Well, then, I’d assume that his plan would do much more to reduce the deficit that is causing him such concern. To the CBO!
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected net cost of $8 billion over 10 years for the provisions directly related to insurance coverage; that net cost reflects a gross cost of $61 billion that is partly offset by about $52 billion in additional revenues associated with the coverage provisions. Over the same period, the other provisions of the amendment would reduce direct spending by $49 billion and increase tax revenues by $27 billion.
Ok, not too shabby. It’s deficit reducing to the tune of $68 billion over a decade. But remember that plan that was going to bankrupt us? It will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the same amount of time.
Well, so it won’t be as good financially. We can all be assured, then, that it must be covering more people. Right?
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. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
You’ve got to be kidding me. The percent of non-elderly people without insurance is going to be “roughly” the same? What’s the bill for?
So this is the proposal? You want us to throw away the bill currently being debated for one that does “roughly” nothing about uninsurance and would save less money? Really?
Do you know how frustrating it is to be forced to defend the Democrat’s bill (which I don’t really like)? I’m mocking you, Rep. Boehner, not because conservatives have no ideas, but because you won’t present them. Tort reform is not health care reform, and it won’t save that much money. Deregulating insurance further will not lead to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. High risk pools are not going to make things better. These are old, tired talking points, and you know it.
Come to me with a bill that covers more people than this one and we’ll talk. Come to me with a bill that improves quality of care significantly and we’ll talk. Come to me with a bill that actually contains costs and we’ll talk.
But come to me with a bill that does none of the three? That’s not a sign of someone who takes this seriously.