Back in the past, about 17 percent of Americans went without health insurance. In the future, according to the CBO, about 17 percent of Americans will go without health insurance if AHCA, the Republican health care bill, passes. In between is the short, happy valley of Obamacare, when we got that number down to about 10 percent:

The CDC has precise numbers for the present if you're interested. The Obamacare smile in the chart above is just approximate. Bottom line: if AHCA passes, not only will all the good work of Obamacare be wiped out, but uninsurance rates will actually be higher than they used to be when we had no legislation at all. I'm not quite sure how Republicans managed to pull that off, but it's an impressive feat of callousness and greed.

Are you interested in additional detail about exactly which groups will be less insured under AHCA? The answer is: all of them. Here's the absolutely appalling CBO estimate:

Poor people will have less insurance. Working-class people will have less insurance. Middle-class people will have less insurance. The young will have less insurance. The middle-aged will have less insurance. The old will have less insurance. Everybody will have less insurance. Except for the rich, of course, who will also get an $882 billion tax cut.1

This is what Paul Ryan calls "encouraging." I'm not sure how he looks at himself in the mirror every morning.

1In fairness, they have to share this tax cut with big corporations.

What do people think about the new CBO report on RepubliCare? I don't mean us bleeding heart liberals. Naturally we think it's great since it confirms that the Republican bill will decimate health care in America. But what do conservatives think?

HHS Secretary Tom Price says the CBO report is ridiculous. It "defies logic," he says:

But over on Capitol Hill, Paul Ryan says he finds the CBO's report "encouraging." It exceeded his expectations and "gives us even more room to work on good, fine-tuning finishing touches." Hoo boy. Even Fox News isn't buying this:

This is some serious happy talk. Ryan must be taking lessons from Trump. In a statement, Ryan says the report confirms that the Republican bill will "lower premiums and improve access to quality, affordable care"—which is, um, a pretty creative reading of the report. More to the point, Ryan is thrilled that the CBO confirms that the bill will provide "massive tax relief." This is true—though the tax relief is all for the rich—and it's telling that Ryan doesn't need to provide any spin on this point.

But what about all those people who will lose coverage? Ryan says, "I recognize and appreciate concerns about making sure people have access to coverage." He doesn't say he plans to do anything about this, but at least he appreciates the concerns. You know who else appreciates those concerns? Breitbart News:

The Drudge Report is pretty much ignoring the whole thing for the moment, as if they're waiting for some kind of conservative consensus to form before they wade in. National Review is pretty silent too, though Dan McLaughlin writes that "The projections of who will and won’t be insured don’t actually mean anything." The Weekly Standard's Chris Deaton has a carefully neutral post up that says millions of Americans "would opt out of purchasing coverage once the federal government stops penalizing them for doing so." That's not quite what CBO says, though I admit you have to read the report carefully to recognize this.1

Basically, no one outside of Congress or the White House really wants to defend the Republican bill. There are a few half-hearted gibes at the CBO, but nothing more. I'll be curious to see if tribal defenses kick in more strongly by tomorrow, once everyone has had a chance to suffer through all the liberal jeers and taunts.

1CBO says that subsidies after 2020 would be "significantly smaller" than they are now and that "some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums." However, they are oddly cagey about exactly how big an effect this would have compared to the elimination of the individual and corporate mandates. I'm not sure what the reason for this is.

While I was out to lunch, I was feeling bummed that I wouldn't immediately see the CBO score of the Republican health care bill. As Hyman Roth said, "This is the business we've chosen." Still, that's kind of pathetic, isn't it?

But I've seen it now (click here), and the headline news is CBO's projection of how many more people will become uninsured compared to Obamacare: 14 million in 2018, 21 million in 2020, and 24 million in 2026. But here's the thing. The last time I saw a CBO estimate, it projected that Obamacare would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 27 million people in 2025, and today's report projects 28 million in 2026. So here's what the Republican plan looks like:

You read that right: CBO projects a decline of 24 million from a baseline of 28 million. Of the 28 million people currently insured because of Obamacare, only 4 million will be left by 2026.

With a couple of corrections because I mistakenly used an old CBO report, this matches almost perfectly my estimate from last week of the impact of RepubliCare. Not bad! Unfortunately, the price of my being right is that 24 million people will be uninsured yet again if Republicans manage to pass their monstrosity of a bill. Here are CBO's other three main findings:

  • The Republican bill would reduce the deficit by $337 billion over ten years, mainly by kicking lots of people off Medicaid
  • Premiums would go up until 2020, and then decrease. By 2026 they'd be about 10 percent lower than now.
  • The individual market would remain stable.

I'm a little surprised by the last bullet. According to the report, "key factors bringing about market stability include subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures, and grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund which would reduce the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures."

Unless I'm missing something, CBO is projecting "sufficient demand" at the same time they're saying that demand will crater. As for the stability fund, that comes to $10 billion per year, maybe half of which is actually for high-risk patients. That's practically a rounding error in the health care market. Something doesn't smell right here.

That said, the big news is the projection of 24 million people losing health coverage by 2026. I wondered last week if CBO would have the guts to make a projection like this, and it turns out they did. Republicans may try to keep up the pretense that their bill would continue to insure practically everyone, but the truth is just the opposite: almost no one would be covered. And that's a feature, not a bug.

UPDATE: I've changed the headline and the text from 3 million to 4 million. The CBO report I linked above projected that Obamacare would be responsible for a net increase of 27 million insured people by 2025, so I initially used that number for 2026 as well. That left 3 million still insured after a decline of 24 million. But today's CBO score says the 2026 number is 28 million under Obamacare. So 4 million would be left under the Republican bill.

I just want to say that I'm very excited by the CBO's score of the Republican health care bill. I'll explain when I get home from lunch. In the meantime, the nutshell version is pretty simple: this bill is really, really bad.

Lunchtime Photo

It's lunchtime here in California, anyway. Wile you're waiting for me to return, here's a duck:

The actual news today, such as it is, concerns the federal deficit. A few weeks ago President Trump tweeted this:

The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.

ZOMG! Trump is a fiscal genius! But today the Treasury released its deficit report for February:

Sad news. January's modest surplus has been wiped out. The deficit in February was $192 billion. Just like last year. I don't suppose Trump will be tweeting about that, will he? But he still could: His February deficit is $0.74 billion less than Obama's in his first February. Is that worth a tweet?

But who cares about all this? It's just money. The real motivation for this post is to mock the Bureau of the Fiscal Service for the op-art inspired bit of visual ugliness they use to report the deficit over time. Seriously, guys? What possible piece of software could they be using to produce this? Every time I look at it the world starts spinning.

Here's a snippet from "Bernie Sanders in Trump Country," airing tonight on the Chris Hayes show:

Bernie may not believe that, but an awful lot of people probably do. This is, obviously, one of the big problems with American politics right now: both sides over-respond to extreme caricatures of the other side. So at the risk of insulting you all with a really simplistic diagram, here's the real world:

In every country, probably since the beginning of time, populations have lived on a continuum like this. Some people enjoy cultural change and look forward to it. Some are apprehensive of cultural change and resist it. At one extreme end you have stone racists and xenophobes, and at the other you have the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

But they're actually a pretty small part of the population. Standard issue Republicans and Democrats are closer to the middle, and it's just human nature that there's a limit to how much change they can accept. If you push past that limit you're going to run into political blowback.

I'd add that I suspect some of us are less open to change than we think. For example, I'd probably put myself at about an 8 on this scale intellectually. But emotionally I'm more like a 5 or 6. I'm a creature of habit, and not especially thrilled about exploring new and different places, but I'm not especially afraid of cultural change either.

In any case, my fairly obvious point here is twofold. First, both sides should try to respond to the standard issue folks on the other side, rather than pretending that they're all represented by the loudest, most extreme voices. It's easy to mount arguments against the extremists, but those arguments never actually persuade anyone. Second, we liberals should keep pushing for more tolerance of cultural change, but we should also recognize that lots of perfectly nice, perfectly ordinary people get nervous about it a lot faster than we do. That doesn't make them bad people, it just means they're a few notches away from us on the bell curve.

A few days ago, Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway talked to the Bergen Record about the possibility that Trump Tower had been wiretapped:

What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately. There was an article this week that talked about how you can surveil someone through their phones, through their — certainly through their television sets, any number of different ways, and microwaves that turn into cameras, etc., so we know that that is just a fact of modern life.

Conway repeated this claim yesterday on one of the Sunday chat shows, and she has a point. You can aim a concentrated beam of microwaves at a window and make out conversations on the other side.1 This is hardly science fic—wait. What?

She was talking about microwave ovens? For God's sake. I've said this before and I'll say it again: why does anyone talk to Conway? Seriously, what's the point?

1Yeah, yeah, it's actually a laser that you aim at a window. But maybe it's a microwave laser?

From the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. economic expansion is now the third-longest on record and showed no signs of letting up in February, with robust hiring, falling unemployment and firmer wage growth opening the way for the Federal Reserve to raise short-term interest rates....Average hourly earnings in the private sector rose 2.8% from a year earlier,1 a sign that the tightening job market is pushing employers to raise pay.

"Firmer wage growth." Maybe so. But overall wages can be skewed by big gains at the top, so every month I look at production and nonsupervisory workers as a gauge of how wages are doing for ordinary people. Here it is since the end of the recession:

Production and nonsupervisory workers had a pretty good 2015, notching wage gains a little over 2 percent (adjusted for inflation). But it's been downhill ever since, and they've actually seen wage cuts in the first couple of months of 2017. Maybe the economy is overheating, but it sure looks to me like inflation is still pretty restrained and a lot of people aren't seeing that supposedly tighter labor market.

1This is not adjusted for inflation, so even for the broad labor market, wage gains haven't been all that impressive recently.

President Trump has already claimed that Barack Obama left him an economy in a "mess"; that Obama is probably behind all the protests and leaks; and that Obama had him wiretapped during the campaign. Now along comes OMB Director Mick Mulvaney to add yet another ugly accusation:

We thought for a long time, I did, that the Obama administration was manipulating the numbers in terms of the number of people in the workforce to make the unemployment rate, that percentage rate, look smaller than it actually was.

These folks just don't stop. This isn't quite as bad as the wiretapping thing, but it's still plenty appalling. Then there was this:

The BLS did not change the way they count, I don't think, but you can have a long conversation when you've got a numerator and a denominator, how to arrive at a percentage.

Oh FFS, it's a pretty short conversation even for a sixth grader. Here's the formula:

  • Percentage = 100 * (numerator / denominator)
  • Employment rate = 100 * (number employed / labor force)
  • Using the jobs numbers from February: 100 * (152,528 / 160,056) = 95.30 percent. Subtract from 100 to get the unemployment rate: 4.70 percent.

There are no alternative ways of doing it. Here's a pretty chart for Mulvaney showing the numerator, denominator, and unemployment rate for the past decade: