The Truth Behind The CBO


Driving the 480 miles from Columbus, Ohio to Raleigh, N.C., should take you about eight hours. But what if your GPS device insisted you could make the trip in four? Blindly following such an unreliable estimate, even when made by your trusted GPS, would cause you a lot of problems.

Congress too often makes the mistake of blindly following projections of the Congressional Budget Office that later prove to be grossly inaccurate. The CBO’s reputation among the public and the media may be strong, but its track record in providing accurate estimates to Congress leaves much to be desired.

This isn’t a new problem. Scholar Alan Reynolds noted clear back in 2001 that CBO’s flawed projection model often leads to inaccuracies, pointing out several inaccurate CBO projections in the 1990s. He noted their budget projections widely missed the mark even though they were made only 12 months in advance.

…continue reading

Leaked CBO Numbers: 73% of GOP ‘Coverage Losses’ Caused By Individual Mandate Repeal

In the national debate over the GOP health reform proposals, one data point has stood out above all others: the estimate, from the Congressional Budget Office, that more than 20 million people would “lose” coverage as a result. And there’s been an odd consistency to the CBO’s projections. Do you want to repeal every word of Obamacare and replace it with nothing? CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance.

Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with a system of flat tax credits, in which you get the same amount of assistance regardless of your financial need? CBO says 23 million fewer people would have health insurance. Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with means-tested tax credits, like the Senate bill does, in which the majority of the assistance is directed to those near or below the poverty line? CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance.

22 million, 23 million, 22 million—these numbers are remarkably similar even though the three policies I describe above are significantly different. Why is that?

…continue reading

 

This Is Why Getting Rid Of Obamacare Is Next To Impossible

Public support of government-run health insurance continues to grow

Congressional Republicans are currently engaged in an embarrassing struggle to revamp Obamacare. When revamping didn’t work, they turned to repeal, only for members of their own caucus to balk.

We’ve explored the procedural issues with repealing Obamacare, but there’s still another reason we’re likely stuck with the bones of government-run health insurance for the foreseeable future — much of the public wants it this way.

Omnibus spending and Obamacare were once repulsive enough to birth the Tea Party movement, but in the years since Obamacare has taken root, voters have warmed to the idea of some form of state-sponsored health insurance.

Historically, the solution to bad, or poorly conceived government programs is not eradicating the problematic program, but more government intervention. And it looks like Obamacare will be no different.

A poll released by Pew last month shows a frightening uptick in the number of Americans who believe it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has health insurance.

…continue reading

CBO Says McConnell Healthcare Bill Would Slash Deficits By $420 Billion, Leave 15 Million Uninsured

Another day, another CBO score for another version of the GOP’s healthcare bill. This time, the agency estimates that McConnell’s “Better Care Reconciliation Act” legislation would lower the federal budget deficit by $420 billion over the next 10 years by reducing spending for Medicaid and subsidies for nongroup health insurance.

As The CBO notes, those effects would be partially offset by the effects of provisions not directly related to health insurance coverage (mainly reductions in taxes), the repeal of penalties on employers that do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance, and spending to reduce premiums and for other purposes.

Compared with the June 26 cost estimate for a previous version of the legislation, this cost estimate shows savings over the next 10 years that are larger – as well as estimated effects on health insurance coverage and on premiums for health insurance that are similar. The current version of the legislation would result in greater deficit reduction mostly because it would retain certain taxes that the previous version of the legislation would have eliminated. The description of the legislation and of CBO and JCT’s methodology and results that appeared in the agencies’ previous estimate largely applies to this one as well.

…continue reading

 

Health Care Is a Mess… But Why?

You probably know a couple who both work full time to support their children, but even with their dual incomes, they’re finding it more and more difficult to afford health insurance.

Everyday incidents like sports injuries, asthma, and blood pressure, combined with their anxiety over rising premiums, are turning their American dream into sleepless nights.

Why can’t people catch a break? It wasn’t always this way!

…continue reading

 

CBO: Repealing Obamacare Would Increase Uninsured By 32 Million, Double Premiums

One month after the CBO scored the now defunct Senate healthcare bill, forecasting it would increase the number of uninsured by 22 million while cutting the budget deficit by $321 billion over the next ten years, moments ago the CBO released its latest score of what a straight repeal of Obamacare would look like. In short, doing away with the Affordable Care Act, would increase the number of uninsured by 32 million by 2026, while reducing the budget deficit by $473 billion in the CBO’s view.

Additionally, the CRO predicts that the bill would also increase insurance premiums (apparently, even more than leaving Obamcare). According to CBO, average premiums would increase by about 25% in 2018 alone. The increase would reach about 50% in 2020, and premiums would about double by 2026, CBO said.

Also of note, the CBO says it “has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.”

…continue reading

 

%d bloggers like this: