And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans unveiled a revised draft of their new health care bill Thursday, the chamber’s second crack at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The new draft, released at a closed-door, Republican-only meeting Thursday morning by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), contains an amendment aimed at the Senate’s most conservative members. Only two Republicans can oppose the bill for it to still pass, though as of Thursday, a handful have expressed deep reservations about the proposal.

The revised legislation largely resembles the initial Senate plan which was released last month. Medicaid would still face steep cuts, a provision that has led many moderate Republicans from states that recently expanded Medicaid to oppose the bill.

Perhaps the most striking change to the bill is an amendment courtesy of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the Senate’s most conservative members. The so-called Cruz Amendment would permit insurance companies to offer plans that fail to meet certain Obamacare regulations, as long as they concurrently sell plans that do. Critics of the amendment, which was presented in the document in brackets–meaning it is liable to change–say it would hike care costs for sick people.

Under the revised plan, two taxes on the wealthy imposed by Obamacare would remain in place, as would a tax on health executives’ pay. The measure would also infuse a $112 billion “stability fund,” aimed at lowering premiums, with an additional $70 billion. Addressing lawmakers’ concerns about the ongoing opioid crisis, the bill earmarks $45 billion toward combating drug addiction.

Still, McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the majority whip, must corral enough “yea” votes in a caucus with a cacophony of competing voices. There are moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who have objected to the Republican bill at every turn. On Thursday afternoon, Collins tweeted, “Still deep cuts to Medicaid in Senate bill. Will vote no on MTP. Ready to work w/ GOP & Dem colleagues to fix flaws in ACA.”

And then there are heels-dug-in conservatives who viewed the initial bill as not being far enough to the right, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Lee, who previously advocated for the Cruz Amendment, would like to see more details before signing off on the revised bill, according to a spokesman. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget analysis agency, is reviewing two versions of the bill–one with the Cruz Amendment, one without.

Many senators have expressed reservations that the bill, which will likely be debated next week, will even be considered.

“I don’t even know that it’s going to get to a vote,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Politico. Appearing on Fox News on Thursday morning, Cornyn, the man responsible for ensuring the bill garners the requisite number of votes, said: “If you vote ‘no’ on this bill, it essentially is a vote for Obamacare because that’s what we’re going to be left with.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Release Revised Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times calls it “Capitol Hill’s official scorekeeper.” NPR says it’s made up of a group of “supernerds” who give Congress information. If you’ve been following news about the Senate’s struggle to pass a health care bill, you’ve likely heard its acronym: CBO. But what is the Congressional Budget Office? And how credible are its forecasts? Read on to learn the basics about the government’s nonpartisan group of go-to experts.

The Congressional Budget Office Origins

The Congressional Budget Office was established under President Richard Nixon, as one part of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Upset with Nixon’s practice of impounding, or not spending, funds that had been allocated for specific projects, Congress drafted the bill to increase congressional power of the purse and regulate the budget process.

Aside from setting up the CBO as an independent agency, the rest of the bill revamped the government’s budget process and established the House and Senate Budget Committees. Alice Rivlin, appointed by Democrats, was the first director of the office, and is credited with solidifying its culture of nonpartisanship.

“Free From Partisan Tinge”

The body was set up to be nonpartisan, to “provide the Budget Committees and the Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues,” according to the agency’s website. In practice, this emphasis on objectivity means that the CBO’s data is either revered or loathed by either party when politically convenient.

Since its inception, objectivity has remained an integral part of the CBO’s mission. In a 1976 memo to staff, Rivlin wrote that the work of the CBO must be “free from partisan tinge,” adding that any appearance of taking sides in a legislative battle would put the trustworthiness of its information in jeopardy.

“We are not to be advocates,” the memo reads. “We are not to make recommendations or to characterize, even by implication, particular policy positions as good or bad, wise or unwise.”

To ensure objectivity and provide information that politicians will respect, the CBO goes through a multi-step process. Staff analysts begin by reading relevant research and literature on related topics and analyzing data from government agencies and committees. They then consult experts from universities, think tanks, and industry groups, as well as federal, state, and local government representatives to get outside perspectives from different backgrounds. The research and reports are then reviewed internally, by employees and analysts of different levels, and externally by more experts.

As a rule, the CBO makes no policy recommendations. Its findings are facts-only reports on data and relevant research, condensed into reports that representatives and the public can read and understand before drawing their own conclusions. The agency also has a set of strict policies to prevent employees from incurring any potential financial conflicts of interest and to limit their partisan political activities.

“Alice Rivlin” Courtesy of New America: License (CC BY 2.0)

What Exactly Does the CBO Do?

Throughout the year, the CBO puts out a series of products–predictions, reports, analyses–that provide information about the economic impact of proposed or enacted legislation. This is the “between the lines” information that sponsors of a bill might not reveal, or even know themselves. It helps the general public understand the effects of policy, and helps politicians make decisions on whether or not to support certain policies.

The agency makes the news most often for its cost estimates, which it creates for “virtually every bill approved by Congressional committees.” A recent cost estimate of the American Health Care Act found that the act would result in 23 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. All of the cost estimates can be found on the agency’s website.

The office’s budget projections, which cover time periods of 10 and 25 years, show how changing population demographics and economic trends would affect the federal budget and spending, provided laws remain stable. The outlooks also show the economic impact of possible alternative policies.

In addition to these, the CBO publishes analyses of the president’s budget, a monthly budget review, analyses of federal mandates, scorekeeping for legislation, and various other analytic reports and data compilations.

Who’s in Charge?

The head of CBO is appointed by Congress to a four-year term. The current head, Keith Hall, was nominated in 2015 by House Republicans and is the ninth director of the office. All staff are appointed by the director without regard for political affiliation.

Currently, the agency has about 235 employees, including economists, lawyers, analysts, and policy wonks of all sorts. Staff are divided into eight divisions, each of which focuses on a particular aspect of government budget issues.

How Much Power Does the CBO Have?

The nonpartisan aspect of the CBO is what makes its predictions and reports so influential in Washington. The CBO is widely respected by politicians from both parties, as well as the mainstream media and the public. Though the reports avoid making value judgements on legislation, CBO scores can often be key in shaping policy. Sometimes, politicians or other parties to legislation will wait until the CBO analysis is released before committing to a bill.

CBO researchers also make it their mission to avoid too much jargon so that their work is transparent and can be understood by politicians and the general public. The reports and publications do not stand alone–the CBO makes sure to include descriptions of methodology and contextual information.

“Although much of the work that CBO does is extremely technical, the agency devotes substantial time and energy to presenting the work as clearly and non-technically as possible,” according to an agency document.

Cost estimates of proposed legislation are dependent upon the CBO’s baseline budget and economic projections, which show how the economy will fare under existing laws. The office acknowledges that the changing nature of laws and other economic and technical factors can affect the accuracy of this benchmark.

“Actual budget and economic outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO’s projections even if the projections are a perfectly accurate forecast conditional on existing laws,” the same document reads. “The differences between projections and outcomes can be misleading measures of the quality of the projections unless adjustments are made for changes in laws.”

How Trusted are CBO Forecasts?

In general, politicians and experts from varying political backgrounds say the CBO is a trustworthy and important source of information, but the difference between projections and outcomes make some question the validity of CBO research­–especially when doing so is in line with their agenda.

The recent CBO report on “Trumpcare” prompted fiery critiques from members of the administration and congressional supporters of the bill. Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, told reporters that the CBO’s projections were “not believable.” “We strenuously disagree with the report,” said Price, who was previously one of the House Republicans who nominated Keith Hall to be director of CBO.

“Trumpcare NO Healthcare for 42000 LOCAL Residents” Courtesy of John Flores: License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the CBO was inaccurate, citing its incorrect predictions of how many enrollees Obamacare would have. “If you’re looking to get a bull’s-eye accurate prediction to where it’s going, the CBO was off by more than half last time,” Spicer said. “The last time they did this, they were wildly off.”

Newt Gingrich also criticized the CBO in an interview with a Fox News host, calling the agency “corrupt” and “dishonest.” “They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office,” Gingrich said. “It was totally wrong on Obamacare by huge, huge margins. I don’t trust a single word they have published, and I don’t believe them.”

Given these criticisms, it is important to note again that the CBO insists on nonpartisanship. Hall, the current head, was nominated by Republicans. The agency also has a long history of leaders breaking with assumed party lines to publish information. Rivlin, the first director, was a known Democrat, but CBO reports under President Jimmy Carter were just as critical as they had been during the Ford Administration. Health care under President Bill Clinton was slowed due to CBO reports under agency head Robert Reischauer, a Democrat. An early version of Obamacare was also critiqued heavily after CBO scores were released. “Notably, most (but not all) prominent flash points in CBO history occurred during a period of partisan alignment,” writes legislative politics expert Sarah Binder in The Washington Post.

“Doug Elmendorf, former head of CBO” Courtesy of Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy: License (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Conclusion

The CBO’s credibility and influence as a nonpartisan “scorekeeper” is vital to the legislative process. As the fight for healthcare reform continues in Congress, the CBO’s role and influence in Washington will become even more obvious. Learning the background of the agency and how to interpret its work will help anyone interested in politics better understand the complicated inner workings of Congress.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keeping Score in Washington: What You Need to Know About the CBO appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill that would significantly repeal or alter major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and designed to prevent another meltdown, Dodd-Frank has been a Republican target since it was signed into law seven years ago.

Though the bill that would repeal it is expected to narrowly pass the House, entirely on the backs of Republicans, it faces a much higher hurdle in making it through the Senate, where 60 votes would be required to pass. If all 52 Senate Republicans vote for the bill, at least eight Democrats would have to support it to ensure its passage.

Critics of Dodd-Frank contend it stifled economic growth. Supporters say it helps bring financial security to everyday Americans, and is vital in preventing another recession.

The bill that would undo Dodd-Frank, called the Financial Choice Act, was drafted last year by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Among other provisions, it would allow banks to waive some of Dodd-Frank’s restrictions on lending if they can show a substantial reserve of capital to cover potential losses.

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), framed the new bill as a way to “rescue” small-town America from federal overreach. He said: “The Dodd-Frank Act has had a lot of bad consequences for our economy, but most of all in the small communities across our country.”

The bill is likely to pass the House despite unequivocal Democratic opposition; Republicans maintain a large advantage in the chamber. To Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Republicans who support the Choice Act are “ignoring the past” and “endangering the future of millions of Americans.” She added: “Dismantling the law will force consumers to go it alone against Wall Street.”

The Choice Act will also weaken the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that was formed after the 2008 crisis. Under the new law, the president would have the authority to unilaterally remove the head of the agency, and many of its oversight functions would be reduced. The law might also gradually reduce the federal deficit. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the legislation would lower the deficit by $24.1 billion over a decade.

Still, Democrats see the bill as a direct rebuke of President Donald Trump’s promises to reign in Wall Street. “The Wrong Choice Act is a vehicle for Donald Trump’s agenda to get rid of financial regulation and help out Wall Street,” said Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Service Committee. “It’s a deeply misguided measure that would bring harm to consumers, investors and our whole economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Republicans Look to Repeal the Dodd-Frank Act appeared first on Law Street.

Despite protests in the street and pleas from Capital Hill, President Donald Trump has yet to reveal the amount he has–or has not–paid in taxes. But he plans to overhaul the U.S. tax code, and on Wednesday, he announced a one-page tax plan to accomplish that. Here is what you need to know.

What’s New?

In short: a range of tax cuts and some efforts to simplify the filing process. Trump’s tax plan, which will likely receive heavy edits as it makes its way through Congress, would reduce the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three–10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. The proposal does not yet specify the income thresholds for each bracket. Currently, people in the top income bracket are taxed at a rate of almost 40 percent and those in the lowest bracket pay 10 percent, which would remain the same under Trump’s plan. While Americans overall would likely receive some sort of a tax break, the wealthiest Americans would benefit the most.

In addition, Trump’s plan would lower the corporate tax rate–and make it apply to small mom-and-pops and giant multinationals alike–from 35 percent to 15 percent. That would put the U.S., which currently has the highest corporate rate of any industrialized nations, in line with Germany and Canada, and slightly below Britain.

Another major change included in the plan: killing the “death tax,” aka the inheritance or estate tax. As of 2014, the U.S. inheritance tax–up to 40 percent for some estates–was the fourth highest in the world. Trump’s plan would scrap that tax–which supporters say is a key tool for redistributing income, and critics say unfairly steal from the rich–entirely.

What About the Debt?

Under Trump’s proposed tax overhaul, the national debt would skyrocket. At a press conference unveiling the plan, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the plan “will pay for itself with growth.” Since the revenue from taxes would drop, the government would need to find other ways to obtain money to pay for its various obligations. But a variety of nonpartisan budget think tanks and analysts projected that previous versions of Trump’s plan would cause the federal deficit to balloon.  

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget–a think tank that focuses on fiscal responsibility–predicts that the plan would add $3 to $7 trillion to the deficit over a decade. That would contradict Trump’s vociferous critiques of the rising debt under the past few administrations. History does not bode well for self-paying tax cuts–the idea that tax cuts would spur enough economic growth to balance out revenue lost due to lower rates. President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, for instance, contributed to the deficits that would follow.

What Do the Experts Think?

Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group: “The effort to introduce more fiscal stimulus into the economy is genuinely underway […] But the bare bones plan we saw unveiled [on Wednesday] is already conceptually flawed and unlikely to go far in Congress. The final product will bear no resemblance to the principal points highlighted in today’s meager release. Certainly, the first step in this process was unimpressive.”

JPMorgan Chase Analyst Jesse Edgerton: “Although the plan’s lack of detail makes estimating its revenue effects uncertain, we suspect the plan would be scored as dramatically increasing deficits, making likelihood of its passage through Congress slim […] the recent announcement is likely best viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation with many rounds to go.”

Economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, head of the Congressional Budget Office under former President George W. Bush: “Passing genuine tax reform would include structural changes. As long as those are not included, it is not reform. This bill as presented would add to the deficit. Growth alone cannot account for the loss of revenue from tax cuts. This means it cannot pass the reconciliation process and will not be able to become law.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s Tax Plan appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the government’s official nonpartisan prognosticator, the Congressional Budget Office, weighed in on the newly-crafted House Republican health care bill. The projections, while not exact, paint a fairly stark picture: by 2026, the CBO report says, 52 million Americans would be uninsured, 24 million more than if Obamacare were to remain in place. The report does offer some teeth for more hardline conservatives who called the Republican plan “Obamacare Lite,” in that it would shave billions of dollars off the federal deficit.

The Trump Administration rejected the CBO report–and it sought to undermine it even before it was released–and Democrats highlighted its uninsured figures as proof that the GOP plan does nothing for ordinary Americans.

“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” said Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services. Price added that the report does not account for regulatory steps he will take, or supplemental legislation Republicans will put forth in the coming weeks.

The report explains why the Republican plan, which, among other things, would scrap Obamacare’s mandate that Americans buy insurance or face a penalty, could cause the number of uninsured Americans to skyrocket. “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,” the report said, “and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.”

Premiums under the Republican plan would start off higher than Obamacare–rising by 15 to 20 percent in 2018 and 2019–but would plummet by 2026, when premiums would be 10 percent lower than the current rate. And, despite concerns that the Republican plan would destabilize the insurance market, the CBO estimates that the plan would “lower average premiums enough to attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market.”

The immediate effects of the Republican plan could be devastating. Next year, the CBO estimates, the expected number of uninsured people could be 14 million more than under the current law. Medicaid, a target of the Republican plan, also called the American Health Care Act, would take a hit too. The number of Medicaid beneficiaries would drop by 17 percent by 2026, with 14 million less people covered by the program. In a boon to conservatives who lamented the AHCA as “Obamacare 2.0,” the CBO projects the plan would save $337 billion, largely as a result of less entitlement spending.

The CBO, a nonpartisan body whose current director was chosen by Republicans in 2015, is not considered a soothsayer; it is more of a meteorologist: largely accurate but never perfect. For instance, it initially projected Obamacare to insure 26 million Americans in 2017. Last year, the body revised that prediction to 15 million.

Two House committees passed the Republican health bill last week, and by the end of the month, the entire House is expected to vote. Some Republicans, like the members of the House Freedom Caucus, have called for a bill further to right. Others have expressed worry that its cuts to Medicaid are too deep. Some Republicans in the Senate have also hinted they might not support the bill. On Monday, after the report was released, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said the report “should prompt the House to slow down and reconsider certain provisions of the bill.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the CBO Report on the GOP Health Care Bill appeared first on Law Street.

GOP Health Plan Will Leave 14 Million Without Coverage in First Year

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Republican healthcare plan, and the results don’t look very good. According to the CBO, 24 million people will be without coverage by 2026, and 14 million would lose their insurance in just the first year. While the plan would save about $337 billion in the coming decade, it would come largely at the expense of the poorest Americans–as the savings would mostly come from cutting Medicaid.

Democrats say that this should be enough to stop the bill. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, says that the media is trying to make Obamacare look great so that people will look back on it positively, but that “’17 will be the very worst year.” The Trump Administration has tried to downplay the importance of the CBO over the past few days and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, “We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out.”

CBO report on GOP health plan:
-24 MILLION fewer insured
-$880 billion cut from Medicaid
-Premiums 20% higher by 2018

Is this “winning?”

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.