Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019. "
The report also doesn't take into account that some employers would then decide to cover their employees, so the numbers are off even more.
What this is saying is that many employers are "underinsuring" their employees. That the added "must haves" for insurance plans could make the costs go up, and make some employers drop that coverage. Of course they would then have to pay a fine.
"The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019. "
The report also doesn't take into account that some employers would then decide to cover their employees, so the numbers are off even more.
What this is saying is that many employers are "underinsuring" their employees. That the added "must haves" for insurance plans could make the costs go up, and make some employers drop that coverage. Of course they would then have to pay a fine.
But this is all hypothetical
Their best estimate is millions losing coverage each year. As Pelosi said, we are still trying to figure out what's in it.
I'm sure they'll be cool with that though, hope and change and all.
"The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019. "
The report also doesn't take into account that some employers would then decide to cover their employees, so the numbers are off even more.
What this is saying is that many employers are "underinsuring" their employees. That the added "must haves" for insurance plans could make the costs go up, and make some employers drop that coverage. Of course they would then have to pay a fine.
But this is all hypothetical
This is not a hypothetical. A hypothetical involves existing as an idea or a concept. This is not an idea or a concept. This is an educated estimation based off of real-world policy particulars as written into the law and put into fruition by the rulemaking process. This analysis shows the range of possibilities....not that the possibilities might not exist at all. Therefore some variation of the possibilities will take place, it's just uncertain which variation.
Are 20 million people losing coverage what you had envisioned for the government takeover of health insurance law? Afterall, it is a possibility.
And to the less than minimally informed... he said that when he wanted that public option be a part of health care reform, while the con-men and con-women were screaming about government take over of health care.
Has anyone noticed that critics never post a direct link to the original source?
Perspective is an enemy to their whims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Pelosi said, we are still trying to figure out what's in it. 
