ACA Repeal: Catastrophic.

CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.

CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate of how many people will become uninsured if Republicans move forward with their likely plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and the numbers are brutal. Thirty-two million people would lose their health insurance by 2026, and premiums would double in the same time frame.

Americans would also see a sharp and immediate drop in insurance rates. According to the CBO, “the number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill.”

The CBO examined a bill pushed by Republicans in the previous Congress, the “Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015,” which would phase out provisions of the Affordable Care Act that help make health insurance affordable — including subsidies for plans purchased on Obamacare exchanges and the law’s Medicaid expansion. It would also immediately repeal provisions, such as the law’s individual mandate, which are intended to bring people into the insurance market.

At the same time, this bill would also leave in place certain regulatory reforms, such as the requirement that insurers cover people with preexisting conditions.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I faced doubled premiums, that would be the end of healthcare coverage for me, and as someone who needs to have spinal and neck injections every 3 months, well, that would stop too, because I know damn well I couldn’t cover the procedure out of pocket. That would leave me in massive pain with no respite, because without the injections, I don’t get pain med scrips.

Nevertheless, partial repeal would lead to a massive expansion of the uninsurance rate. Indeed, many people would be unable to obtain insurance at any price. As CBO explains, “roughly 10 percent of the population would be living in an area that had no insurer participating in the nongroup market.”

A Massachusetts study found that “for every 830 adults gaining insurance coverage there was one fewer death per year.” If this figure is applied to the 32 million who will lose insurance if key provisions of Obamacare are repealed, it means that about 38,500 people will die every year who otherwise would have lived in Republicans succeed in their plans to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act.

Yeah. All that shit about death panels? Well, now we know for sure who doesn’t care about people dying, but that’s hardly news. Naturally, rethuglicans are attempting to discredit and dispute the report, but they are still offering nothing but vacant looks towards anyone who expects details about the so-called replacement plan.

Republicans have indeed suggested several possible replacements for the Affordable Care Act, such as dismantling state insurance regulation, giving states more leeway to deny Medicaid coverage to people who are now eligible, and tax cuts that would primarily benefit the wealthy. To date, they have not settled on a specific replacement plan, however, and the ideas they have floated so far would insure only a fraction of the people currently insured under the Affordable Care Act.

So, what we have to look forward to in this brave new world? Taxes, Pain, Death.

Via Think Progress.


  1. Saad says

    Are they even pretending to give a made-up reason why they want the ACA gone? Or since they’re now in full control, do they not even care to keep up the facade and are literally laughing while plotting to kill babies?

  2. Saad says

    Also, the word gaggle sprung to mind when I saw that picture. Like a gaggle of bigots cackling.

  3. Kreator says

    Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.” It’s really sad how that word looses all meaning when used by Rethuglicans and Liberturdians.

  4. says


    Gaggle is not on that list.

    So what? I quite like gaggle, it not only invokes the way rethugs make you feel, it’s nicely onamatopoeic, too.

  5. blf says

    Gaggle is not on that list.

    So what?

    Just some information. As additional information, that list is just a bit of word-play, and also includes instructions on making additional suggestions.

    As for gaggle itself, it already is a collective noun for geese, as well as being a “generic” collective noun (perhaps especially when referring to people). According to the Online Entomology Dictionary, its origins are “gagyll, with reference to both geese and women (on the notion of ‘chattering company’).”

  6. blf says

    It occurred to me over dinner that a possible collective noun for bigots, or perhaps especially for teh trum-prat’s administration, might be a dalekcracy: Teh trum-prat’s dalekcracy plans to exterminate compassion, logic, reality, ethics, equality, …

  7. Kengi says

    Let’s not fall into the trap of pushing too hard to “preserve” the ACA as it is. It is a very flawed program. It’s just way better than what we had before it, and way better than anything alluded to by the Republicans. But the ACA is in serious need of changes to continue, and this is a good time to push hard for those changes.

    And we should push hard again for single-payer which would be way better than the ACA. After all, single payer is pretty much the only way to match what Trump has promised. Let’s see if we can push for that, even though the Republicans won’t go along. Now Americans are just a tiny bit more informed about healthcare issues, and more should be responsive to a single payer concept. Get Trump angry at the insurance industry.

    Again, while better than what we had before, the ACA is now at the bitter edge of usability for me. I stopped taking one of my heart meds a little over a year ago because of prices (even with ACA insurance) more than doubling. I’m not sure I can make it to the end of the year with current monthly premiums, and I’ll probably need thousands more I don’t have for copay this year.

    And while some Dems are digging in their heels to preserve the ACA, other Dems are voting to stop Bernie Sander’s plans to reduce prescription drug prices. Despite enough of the Republicans supporting it to have succeeded, it failed because of the Dems who wanted to protect drug company profits.

    Fuck the people who want to take my health coverage away. But also fuck the people who want to allow my current coverage to slowly become unusable. Remember, we are the progressives. We want change (for the better), not the status quo. So let’s be very careful not to fall into the conservative trap of defending the status quo, allowing them to claim to be the agents of needed change.

Leave a Reply