CBO Releases Analysis of Secretary Tom Price and Speaker Ryan Healthcare Proposal – Price Responds…

Any analysis of the current CBO projections for the Price/Ryan Healthcare proposal should keep in mind the original number of “uninsured” during the 2009/2010 debate over ObamaCare was 30 million.

The entire premise for ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010, as espoused by the people selling the need, was to cover those 30 million uninsured.

With that in mind, the fact that CBO projects uninsured coverage of 28 million in 2026 if no changes are made to ObamaCare – means that seven years of healthcare chaos have resulted in coverage for only 2 million people.

Let that sink in.

Seven years of explosive costs, loss in coverage, collapsing plans, lost doctors, and all of the accompanying crisis have yielded a net insurance coverage for only 2 million people.

Here’s a Link to the Actual CBO Report

Here’s the CBO report as delivered by Reuters – Fourteen million Americans would lose medical insurance by next year under a Republican plan to dismantle Obamacare, the nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office said on Monday in a report that dealt a potential setback to President Donald Trump’s first major legislative initiative.

The eagerly awaited CBO report also forecast that 24 million more people would be uninsured in 2026 if the plan being considered in the House of Representatives were adopted. Obamacare enabled about 20 million previously uninsured Americans to obtain medical insurance.

The CBO projected that 52 million people would be uninsured by 2026 if the bill became law, compared to 28 million who would not have coverage that year if former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law remained unchanged.

Two House of Representatives committees have approved the legislation to dismantle Obamacare that was unveiled by Republican leaders a week ago, but it faces opposition from not only Democrats but also medical providers including doctors and hospitals and many conservatives. The CBO report’s findings could make the Republican plan a harder sell in Congress.

The agency, however, said federal deficits would fall by a net $337 billion in the 2017-2026 period under the Republican bill.

Some Republicans worry a misfire on the Republican healthcare legislation could hobble Trump’s presidency and set the stage for losses for the party in the 2018 congressional elections.  (read more)

Here’s the actual CBO Report:

HHS Secretary Tom Price disputes as “virtually impossible,” the CBO projection that 14 million would lose health coverage next year under GOP plan.


This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

237 Responses to CBO Releases Analysis of Secretary Tom Price and Speaker Ryan Healthcare Proposal – Price Responds…

  1. SeekerOfTruth says:

    Trump’s main strengths are also his main detractors in DC in getting things done.
    1) He is too honest and fair and expects to be treated that way. He is not being treated that way and never will be for a long time.
    2) To get things done the DC way you have to be a huge bully and not afraid to push the moral boundaries.

    I personally respect Trump and his family for who they are but they may have to become more like a tough bully and make more threats to get more done. I think he can get tougher and beat on people without having to get too dirty but it goes against his power of positive thinking upbringing.

    Obama was all dirty and a bully and morally corrupt from his early years. So easy for him to push things and live in the swamp in DC.

    Bottom line:
    It will take Trump too long to raise up the moral and work standards of DC people. So in the near term he will have to get tougher and be more of a bully and make threats to get votes in line. He is just realizing this and just starting down this process.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Stephan says:

    Alright, this may have been asked. I have not read the bill. Does this new health care law bring all congressional representatives and all high ranking government officials back into reality? What I ask is, will their government provided (by virtue of employment or election) health care policies be just like yours and mine? Granted, they can decline the benefits provided and seek other options. The trust of the citizens requires this IMHO.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. So, is Trump going to run as Romney in 2020?


    • Martin says:

      Are you?

      Liked by 3 people

        • andrewalinxs says:

          So you concede President Trump is actually going to be President for his full term now its just a debate over what Platform he has for reelection? Progress.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I sure hope he is president for…. 2 full terms. But there are a lot of people in power who would love to have him gone as soon as possible. How else do you explain the intruder in the white house, getting by two fences and a number of security. That is because he was most likely and insider who didn’t scale two fences. It is a good thing Trump has known for a while that he is being wiretapped and is smart enough to have his own security. He cannot trust anybody in the establishment. They, being the establishment and deep state , will try whatever they have to do to keep him from undoing their control and that includes undoing Obamacare. They will try stick him on him to impeach him with something or kill him. It has nothing to do with healthcare for Americans. They are fighting for their survival and if that means taking out a president, they will do it. It is not as though it hasn’t been done before.


    • Chuck says:

      No he is not. If you are asking because you lack info on the bill or the process of getting it through congress you may want to read some of Sundance’s articles about it.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. sickconservative says:

    We spent 77 million alone on advertising to insure 13 million, that alone should show what a waste of money anything the Federal Gov’t does.
    Now add in the stupid website and added bureaucracy of Gov’t workers and all the crony deals that help only the swamp and there donors and you start to see the problem.
    Repeal really is the only answer!
    Oh I forgot to add in all those working that has to pay for this crap forever.


    • bulwarker says:

      They also spent 374 million to build a website that didn’t work, then shelled out hundreds of millions more to build another.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Somebody says:

      Exactly if we had left things alone and spent that money straight buying policies for the uninsured we’d have come out better. Of course if we did that half the population would have suddenly become uninsured and needed Uncle Sugar to pony up for their insurance policy.


      • Paco Loco says:

        ObamaCare was an eight year time bomb designed to blow up the health insurance industry, wreck Medicare and Medicaide and in the end, the government would be the only insurer left…voila single payer, the socialist dream come true. The crafty devils in Congress wanted to make sure that they would control the entire medical insurance industry and dictate who gets treatment, what kind of treatment, and from whom eliminating consumer choice. Medicare plan B looks more and more like it will be the governments model for all Americans not just those over 62.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. toriangirl says:

    So what now?

    Liked by 1 person

    • redlegleader68 says:

      My humble advice? Let Trump be Trump!

      Re-read Sundance’s take on this whole mess; the CBO is a highly partisan, corrupt panel that needs to be done away with. Their assumptions are completely wrong. I can’t see but one way out, and that’s the outline as presented by Sundance.

      Liked by 5 people

  6. Reality Wins says:

    Did anyone read this American Thinker article?
    How Trump Can Gut Obamacare Without Congress
    (this is just a snip)
    Within the bill there are 2,500 references to “the Secretary”. 700 times the Secretary “shall” do something, 200 times the Secretary “may” do something, and 139 occasions when the “Secretary determines” what should be done.

    These “shall” and “may” determinations cover things like what type of insurance coverage Americans are required to have, how insurance networks and exchanges are organized, how grant money is doled out, what the “essential health benefits” that every insurance policy must cover are.

    Suppose the new Secretary determines that Americans “shall” only be required to have catastrophic insurance? Or no insurance at all? What if the “essential health benefits” are left to the discretion of the purchaser of the insurance policy? What if the Secretary “determines” that there will be no insurance mandates or penalties? Or that insurance “may” be sold across state lines?


    Liked by 4 people

  7. Trump's Aussie Mates says:

    I am reluctant to comment given the system down under is so different, but I will leave you with a few details on the Australian health system, and my personal experience, to contemplate that IMO seem to indicate that more is broken with the health system in USA than just insurance. One wonders where the extra cost (8.2% of GDP) is going given standard of care is at least as good in Australia.

    1. Australia has universal health care yet the Govt only spends 6.4% of GDP on health (vs 8.3% in USA)
    2. Total spending on health (public & private) in Australia is 9.5% of GDP (vs 17.7% in USA)
    3. I have private health insurance for a family of 2 adults & 3 school age children that costs me $4,500 p.a. and covers 50-100% of health costs depending upon procedure and doctor’s terms. Deductible for inpatient stay in a top private hospital is $100. For example, my out-of-pocket costs were under $1,000 on a knee arthroscopy by a surgeon whose practice counts top professional football players as clients.
    4. But, if I didn’t have private cover I would still be treated in the public system at a relatively high standard of care.
    5. Insurance is arranged by individuals directly in the marketplace so is portable across state boundaries and irrespective of employment.
    6. A levy is applied to income tax rates for top earners to help fund health costs of public system.
    7. If I earn good income then I suffer an income tax penalty if I do not take out private health insurance.
    8. Despite having private insurance I do not have to use private services and often do not because the doctors are the same anyway. What private cover in Australia gives you is no waiting for elective procedures, choice of doctor and more comfortable clinical/recovery environment (e.g. own room in hospital).

    It seems to me that in the health sector in USA there must be a lot of inefficiency/redundancy and that someone is clipping the ticket bigly.

    Liked by 3 people

    • pcockroft says:

      Many refugees, welfare recipients,and no competition among drug companies or insurance providers and too much government involvement with lack of the capitalistic freedoms. There was better health coverage twenty years ago..

      Liked by 2 people

    • dekester says:

      I do not know all the details of our system here in Canada.
      However it is much maligned by many in the U.S. My guess this is lobbyist driven.
      Our system here seems to work very well. Our family has had members die in hospice, children born in hospital, and numerous visits to emergency rooms.
      We can see our own doctor within a week or so, and drop in clinics abound. We can have emergency procedures done at a reasonable cost at private clinics. Failing that and if one wants, we can trundle across the border and pay your medical folks with cash.
      At our local hospital ( which is a ten minute drive from the WA. border.) an American can be admitted to the emergency ward for approx. $600.00 (U.S.) and that gets them a great deal of care, including basic medicines.
      I wish you fine Americans well, but it does seem like big Pharma, and the insurance companies, are what has corrupted the most basic of civilized societies needs.
      Best wishes.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. bulwarker says:

    In 2010, the CBO scored the bill as reducing the deficit by an estimated $124 billion in its first 10 years.
    In 2012, the CBO estimated that over the period from 2013 to 2022, the law would reduce the deficit by $109 billion.
    In 2014, the CBO declared that, for a variety of reasons, it could not then determine the budgetary impact of the law.
    In 2015, the CBO again assumed that the ACA would reduce the federal deficit and estimated that repealing major provisions of the law would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the period from 2016–2025.

    Given the ACA’s complexity, the CBO’s task is inherently difficult. CBO analysts must try to account for a variety of unpredictable market shifts in insurance coverage that could go in any direction. The CBO also says, for example, that per capita spending for Medicare and Medicaid is “very difficult” to predict, noting that if per capita costs rise 1 percent faster or slower annually than the CBOs 10-year projection, total federal outlays for both programs would be $1 trillion higher or lower for the projected period.

    TLDR: The CBO is a joke

    Liked by 3 people

  9. uptothere says:

    It pains me to say, but once again the Republicans are getting clobbered, by the CBO this time. Anyone even see this coming? Why didn’t Price know this was going to be an issue and get out front of it? And why aren’t the cabinet posts filled yet? It appears that Republicans just can’t get out of their own way!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Bruce says:

    It is too early to look at this stuff until they are actually bringing it to a vote. fireworks will be on display shortly imho.


  11. Frankly Ben says:

    Please pay zero attention to this laughable “report”.

    The Don’s got it under control.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Wookiebush says:

    Repeal it all and replace nothing. The government should not be in the health care business..

    Liked by 2 people

    • Chuck Finley says:

      Sounds great….but how many Senators are on board with that plan? 5? 3?


    • benifranlkin says:

      well let’s see …there is already Medicare with 55 million peeps and and Medicaid with 70 million peeps and a few more million on Obamacare…I’d say the gov is already is and ain’t no way these folks r going to get dumped
      wanna try again only this time leave your butt out of it


  13. citizen817 says:

    Liked by 1 person

  14. ecmarsh says:

    Someday when I feel more like crying in my beer, I will tell the story about some of us (me) Vietnam veterans who decided to apply for VA medical and it took 5 years to get approved. Cause I made over $32,000 a year and /or my assets were over $80,000.
    Finally get approved when I am old and shot and on Medicare (which I paid for) and come to find out it is of no value unless I drive to Des Moines (175 miles) or Minneapolis (150 miles). Oh yeah, my congressman nor senator would even reply to many letters I sent them. And I never used a single VA benefit in my life.
    As I indicated the story is much more than I highlighted in this short rant.

    Hate to sound like a baby but, government medical insurance is not what we want.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jenny R. says:

      My one statement that got used with people thinking Ocare (or better yet, full Hillarycare) was just dandy was “So, you want everybody to get the same treatment the VA gives veterans?” “Would you like the same care Tricare provides?”. Then I would tell them all the many fun stories of VA/Tricare and the wonderful treatment it gives enlisted/NCOs/veterans of modest means and their families (officers and that lot seemed to fare better).
      Sometimes I would have preferred to go to my animal’s veterinarian.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jenny R. says:

        Of course, most people, never having had the wonderful experience of such things, cannot understand it — thus we got government healthcare. And the way it stands, it’s probably going to be around for quite a while. At this point, I’ll take having it torn apart piece by piece; maybe my grandkids (if I ever get any) can see a day when they have something better.


    • Hollywood Bungalow says:

      I’m sorry for your situation. This is why there are proponents of vouchers so veterans can get care, whether it’s at a traditional VA or a private clinic that might be much closer for the individual to access (or better care or a shorter wait time). Choice and competition at no additional cost.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ecmarsh says:

        VA clinic max is 35 miles. Got one in Albert Leah, MN which is 37 miles. They say that’s too far. Another in Mason City, IA which is 34 miles away. They say they are full and can’t take anybody else. VA medical is a joke.
        My Iowa congress dude or my Iowa senator chick can’t be bothered to reply to any of my letters.
        Anyway, I am now on medicare and pay $2,200 a year for supplement.


  15. citizen817 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Pam says:

    Let’s try this again.

    Tune in to the Facebook live session now on this topic.


  17. From sundance’s explanation of the repeal process:
    “Here’s the way I would summarize the Trump/Price/Ryan message.
    In 2010 Nancy Pelosi said to her House majority “trust us in creation, and what you want will follow”, and the Democrats -many unwillingly- did.  ObamaCare was created.
    In 2017 Trump/Price/Ryan are saying “trust us in repeal, and what you want will follow”, and understandably battered conservatives in the House and Senate cannot trust.”

    That worked out well for the democrats…trusting their leadership. I hope it works out better for the republicans who trust Ryan’s leadership.


  18. ALEX says:

    Think about it. The Ryan plan keeps the Medicaid expansion for three years, so those people still have same coverage. I’m assuming the fourteen million losing insurance applies to people who would fit into category of the eight million currently paying penalty…

    In other words they are assuming millions more don’t want insurance or the garbage they are forced to buy now. CBO scored this wrong.


  19. georgiafl says:

    The CBO logo is unprofessional and ugly.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Travis McGee says:

    The House of Representatives should offer up a bill to dismantle the CBO along with Ocare. They are a useless agency that has become political.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Blade says:

      So true. And its not like they have any actual work to do since they haven’t had an actual federal budget to look at in 8 years. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. CJ says:

    The CBO report states 14 million would be uninsured in 2018. What everyone is leaving out is the explanation.

    Effects on Health Insurance Coverage
    “Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.” CBO

    People who don’t want insurance would not buy it! Is that a hard concept to understand?

    Liked by 2 people

    • But as Dr. Price pointed out, the scoring assumes that people getting something (insurance) at no cost will stop getting it once they aren’t required to get it!
      Does that even make sense?


  22. betseyross says:

    Has anybody noticed that all are worried about their seats rather than us? They are completely wrong about worrying about their seats. They don’t seem to have a clue to what we the people want. They are only worried about what they want.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. CJ says:

    If the plan is to follow a three step process why are we discussing a replacement plan? Pass a clean budget reconciliation bill reducing the budgetary impact of the ACA. Also the House and Senate are not talking to the Governors about Medicaid or any other proposals. The Democrats will gain the upper hand when they start talking about drug pricing.


  24. Pam says:


    • K says:

      Population increase of tens of millions of people between 2009 and 2026 makes that conclusion based on the uninsured targets between the reports wrong. Look at the uninsured rate as a percentage of population, not as a raw number. Stupid reasoning by the writer as well!


  25. Did they factor in a two billion dollar website like Obamacare?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. John Galt says:

    Liked by 1 person

  27. wasntme says:

    Having insurance lets them check the box, but we need insurance we can actually use. Yes I have insurance, but I will pay over $8k per year (in premiums and deductibles) before the insurance company even gets to deny me a claim. So I have a catastrophic plan because insurance won’t pay a dime unless it’s a big bill. I figure if I ever get a major health problem I will have to get laid off so I can go see the doctor.


  28. pinkie says:

    Sundance, only 2 million net insured gains under the ACA? With all due respect comparing gross numbers of uninsured in populations 16 years apart has little validity. Comparing the percentage uninsured would make a lot more sense.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s