Now back to the health care topic.
Just heard Spicer's claim that Trump's promise (both pre-election and post-election) of covering all Americans is still Trump’s goal; and the the AHCA (along the other two prongs) will bring that about (CBO estimates are “dead wrong"). He argues that market forces will increase competition and result in 0% uninsured. That is purely a wild conjecture. On what basis do they believe more insurance options (of substantial differences) will come about? Or if it did bring more options, there would not be anyone who would opt out of all of them*. If the RyanCare proponents really want more options (not just some anti-gov ideology), they would support a public option.
* And what about the person (invincible young or the poor 50-64 year old who cannot afford any insurance) who opts out and ends up in the ER room. We will all pay for that in form of increased insurance premiums, and hospitalization costs.
ObamaCare has cut the uninsured quite a bit. The uninsured is down to 11.4% of Americans by Q2FY15 from a peak of 18% just prior Oct 1, 2013 which is when the ObamaCare markets became available (awkwardly so, but it was still effective).
Note that under the AHCA the number of uninsured is estimated at 52M in 2026 (~ 15% of the expected US population of 350M by 2026) - i.e back to the pre-Obamacare days.
With the same estimating techniques, the number of uninsured under the continuation of the ACA is predicted to be 28M (~8% of the expected population). So the CBO estimate says under the ACA that measure (% of uninsured) will continue to improve as it has.
Now even 8% uninsured is unacceptable in my view, especially in light that every other major country in the free world has universal coverage (0% uninsured) at a much lower cost.
That is the direction this national discussion should take.----------------------
There are other measures of the effectiveness of a health care approach, like the quality of care and fairness of care. The AHCA (RyanCare) is dropping requirements of the health care insurance and thus the quality of care will decline. This is especially shone under the Medicaid expansion which is taking a $880B cut over the period of 2018-2026 passing along the costs to the states if care of the poor is not to be compromised. Ryan himself was pleased that RyanCare would save money ($337B) to the federal balance sheet; but the truth is he added more than double that ($880B) to the states if the same level of care is to be maintained.
Obviously the fairness of care over the poor-rich spectrum will be further slanted towards the rich since:
1) the RyanCare tax credits are not income based as the ObamaCare subsidies are
2) Medicaid (care for the poor adults, poor children, and the elderly unable to pay for long term care) is cut drastically especially after 2020.
----------------------
On the political front, the Trump / Ryan political pundits are on the air saying among other things that ObamaCare is unpopular. Truth is ObamaCare’s , despite a PR stampede against it.
I don’t make it a practice to make Sandian
pronouncements about future elections, but this does not bode well for any in congress who would vote for the GOP plan (assuming it gets to a up/down vote). I suspect those that vote against the GOP plan would also be helped somewhat. If the W Va town hall meeting with Chris Hayes/ Bernie Sanders is any indication, anyone who would vote for HR 867 (Medicare-for-All) would be helped greatly.
I hate to say it, but Trump could come along and make a better plan (I don't underestimate his political acumen).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.