Let them go to the emergency room, as God intended!
Do you just stop reading words at some point once you’ve heard what you wanted? Let me try again:
It is a combination of two factors. Part of the reason is that beginning nearly immediately, “average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up.”
Thereafter, premiums overall would begin to stabilize and even come down, because of a significant decline in older enrollees who would be priced out of the market. Once you start eliminating 50-64 year olds from the insurance market, of course savings are going to accrue, because those workers will simply not want to pay up to five times more for insurance than what a younger person might pay.
The whole premise of this legislation is, imagine how cheap insurance could become if nobody ever used it!
In the cite provided by running coach, there’s a caveat that the JCT and CBO “have endeavored to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes.” They could very well be off by 50%, but in either direction.
I may have missed your response to an earlier point I made, if you did respond to it - and apologies if you did, I just couldn’t find it. CBO also estimated that there would be 30 million uninsured in 2016, and it turned out there were 27 million. Do you consider this projection to be inaccurate? Which measure of the ACA do you consider to be more important: the number of enrollees in the exchanges, or the number with insurance overall?
As I just responded, not all of the 24 million are just saying that they would prefer no insurance. The substantial rise in premiums overall in the first few years, plus the later significant price increases for older Americans, are also part of the 24 million.
So I agree: let’s examine the word lose. If you have something now, and you do not have it later, do you contend that “lost” is an inaccurate term? For example, have you in the past quibbles with news headlines that read, “2 millions jobs lost in economic downturn” because some portion of those workers may have simply retired?
And just to be clear, if I have insurance now because it is affordable, and it becomes unaffordable later, so I cannot buy it, have I “lost” insurance? After all, I didn’t misplace it, somis “lost” really an accurate word?
Are you denying that Trump’s goal for AHCA is to provide greater health care enrollments? And how many ballots did you fill out in November before you could accurately claim that you didn’t vote for Trump?
Please explain where in the breathless “24 million people will lose insurance!!111!1!!” sloganeering there is the discussion of “two factors” or even the acknowledgement that some people will not purchase the insurance simply because they will not be forced to do it.
6.5 million people, in 2016, did not buy insurance even though they had to pay on the average $470 fine for it. That’s an amazingly high number, IMO. How many more, do you think, would not buy it if there was no penalty.
Just because you don’t have a leg to stand on to make a claim that you have a plan for a better healthcare system, doesn’t mean I must have patience for your nitpicking of how some people may accurately phrase CBO’s estimate.
All this handwringing over the word “lose.” I can’t wait for someone from the Freedom Caucus to start nitpicking other words, like, “How dare those liberals say 24 million people will lose insurance! I bet some of those newly uninsured are Muslims, or even women!”
That’s not a response. You defend “lose” as an accurate phrase for CBO’s estimate, even though the majority of the 24 million are people that would choose not to buy because there is no mandate (as opposed to not buying because the premiums are too high)?
Can you explain why the word “lose,” is accurate?
How many times have newspapers, economists, message board participants, and the general public used phrases like, “The economy lost 100,000 jobs last month?” It is a perfectly cromulent word.
Here, take my challenge. Look up the word “lose” in a couple dictionaries. I bet you that most, if not all of them, will include a definition that is generally to the effect of “to no longer possess” in addition to definitions to the effect of “to have something taken away.”
If you have a problem with the word “lose” meaning “to no longer have,” your beef is with the English language, not liberals.
Let me know what dictionaries you’re looking at, and what they say.
Sure, but those are jobs people had, and now don’t have.
I accept “lose,” means “no longer possess.”
But this is beyond that meaning: the figure includes people supposedly would have bought insurance but now won’t. It is that use I am asking about.
As an example, I just checked m-w.com, and the closest definition is “: to miss from one’s possession or from a customary or supposed place lost his glove.”
Here the insurance was never possessed in the first place.
Can you direct me to a definition of “lose,” that includes “never actually had, and now won’t choose to get?”
Maybe John Yoo needs to redefine ‘lose’ in a memo for Bricker before he can decide what he’s supposed to think.
Some of them are doubtlessly people choosing to leave their jobs, like maybe they were fed up with inane arguments with their manager on the meaning of common words.
Let me clearly state that although I often find myself in disagreement with you, I have a great deal of respect for you. I probably don’t show it that well in some of my debates with you, but he assured, it is there.
But with these two sentences, I am afraid that I have totally lost what you’re talking about. Are you under the impression that the 24 million figure includes people who never had insurance?
Oh, forget it.
This statement is not debate, and not responsive to the point being discussed.
Yes! I am. Totally open to being wrong, but I figure it must, since right this second less than 11 million are covered. So 24 million losing seems certain to include future potential buyers.
Or did I make a glaring error? Help me see it.
Does it take into account the raising premiums, and employers who will be dropping coverage for their employees, as there will no longer be a requirement for them to be covered, and providing health insurance for employees is expensive, and getting more so every year.
Many employers were dropping or reducing coverage long before the ACA came about. This is compounded by people who have had their employer reduce their coverage after ACA passed, and blamed it on the ACA, instead of their employer.
Just because there are only 11 million people getting coverage through the marketplace does not mean that there are only 11 million who stand to lose their coverage.
Suggestion: Say what you mean.
You told us a charming story about how you *did *vote for Trump, but pulled your ballot back. Not why, though.
So how about picking a position instead of this simple Republican-style oppositionism?
Just don’t get married. (bah-dum ching!)
n/m - I’m repeating what others have already posted.
As I read it, those are considered part of the 24 million, but not the majority part.
True. But it does not seem to be true that 24 million people can be described as “losing,” even including that case.
Do you agree? Or am I reading it wrong?
Last week, I had three half-gallons of milk in my fridge. Right now, I only have two. I count that as a net reduction of a half-gallon.
In actuality, all three of the original half-gallons are gone, thanks to a growing Firebug, and two newer half-gallons are in the fridge. But I’m comparing overall counts, not doing a longitudinal tracking of each container of milk.