CBO says it offers slightly more coverage and reduces deficit relative to whats on the table now.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...--69270747.html

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

...

The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent.

The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans.

I certainly hope you weren't looking out for this with USTA in mind... if you did, you lost when you gave him relevance...

Offered as a tweak but I couldn't care less if he responds or not. It's illustrative though should he continue to somehow deny the existence of said alternative plan(s).

Think of it as a community service... :B):

So basically it would lower costs but do little to expand coverage.

Lower costs = more coverage.

If affordability has little to do with coverage, you are correct.

well according to the article this plan would increase the number of insured by only 3 million where the house bill would increase it 36 million

Which still makes it better than any of the Dem alternatives since it won't put the country on a glide-path to bankruptcy.

Frankly I think the pro-reform folks need to make up their minds...what is the primary objective: expanding coverage or controlling costs?

For me the end game is expending coverage. I would like to control costs as much as possible but coverage is the most important in my mind. Honestly though I would take the republican plan if it was the only option at least we would be doing something.

you cant do the former until you do the latter...unsustainable...

It has to be a balancing act.

We could just give some insurance company US Treasury check writing powers and attain 100% coverage.

The end game has to be long term sustainability which encompasses maximum coverage at minimal cost.

why at minimal cost? what if paying a little more netted better overall care? isn't that what republicans are worried most about, declining care?

why at minimal cost?

You can't be serious.

so let's see, the Dem's plan covers 96% of the population at the same time it reduces cost of insurance to families while reducing the budget deficit. The GOP bill reduces cost while not covering nearly as many folks so it can be cheaper....

hmmm, so why should I support the GOP plan again?

it's a fair question - should lower cost be a higher priority than better care?

LOL...the cheapest of the Dem plans costs out to $800+ Billion dollars over it's first ten years.

Bye-Bye deficit neutral...

Again, though...what's the priority? Coverage or reduced costs cuz the Dem bills that are trying to do both at the same time end up not doing either.

Sadly, he was.

He just doesn't conceptualize very well so that should alwyas be taken into account when evaluating his ridiculous responses.

Only the Dems are saying that. The CBO says otherwise.

Who to believe?

equates to:

their concern is the unsustainability. Prevent yet another ill conceived entitlement program. Sure the democrats and their plan make it easy for Republicans to sound like they give a shit about fore thought, even still the Rep idea still makes more sense.

why is it better care?

Its not. But he conceptualizes so poorly that he thinks care = access (to the extent that he equates coverage to access, which is also incorrect).

Don't make USTA think too hard, everybody. He might get a headache and have a brain tumor diagnosed over the telephone.

WhatWouldKaliDo?

The GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America... and as such, will do only what they've been instructed to do by their insurance industry employers .

That is correct.

The Democrat party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of labor unions... and as such, will do only what they've been instructed to do by their big labor employers .

"Democrat party" even types awkwardly.

There is nothing democratic about that party.

She'd tell you that you were a short prick. :D

The politburo at Goldman Sachs that gives them their marching orders is very democratic.

sure... make fun of something I have no control over... It even has a hint of a hate crime...

:lol:

There ya go, I fixed that for ya.