There are two things I got from the CBO report. One thing I already knew about but hadn’t realized yet, and the other one I learned from re-reading the report. The first one is that there are subsidies or that premium adjustments are made based on income. In saying that, and as the CBO report points out, in some regions the ACA functions well enough that people can afford payed group health plans (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017). Of course, those regions are only successful because of the state that they are located in. Therefore, it makes sense to remove insurance trade barriers between states. This would allow for a better distribution of cost sharing under the current law. However, there shouldn’t be trade barriers between states or cost sharing. It really doesn’t make sense in the first place to have cost sharing but no market sharing. Which is part of the laws failures, such an oversight or intention socialistic implication is what led to an increase in government spending and regionally increasing premiums (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017). As for the subsidies, not enough people know about them or they were not accessible for enough people to offset healthcare cost (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017), meaning that either there was not enough funding, possible waste and corruption of funds or that the government failed to inform the public of a service that they helped to pay for.
The second thing I learned was that despite significant reductions in government spending on healthcare, that there would be increases in other areas that would be appropriated for reducing premiums and easing the financial burden on healthcare consumers (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017). A lot of what went wrong with the ACA was the burden of noncontributing consumers and the lack of employer supplied health insurance. Because of the lack of jobs in the job market, employers weren’t required to provide insurance per the ACA, or employers could not provide adequate insurance plans under the ACA. Abstractly speaking, at least the government will be in some way attempting to fix the issues that now exist because of the ACA.
Now that I’ve reconsidered the question, the CBO report overall generally is not known of by most consumers. In fact, most consumers do not know what the CBO is, much less what it does, and therefore it is very unlikely that the average consumer has ever even read a Congressional Budget Office report. This is probably should be something that is taught in high schools, along with things like the constitutional law and how the American political system works, and at the very least how voting works.
What I would like to know more about is how the market will change under the new healthcare law if it does pass. For instance, the CBO report says that an estimated 22 million people will be uninsured by 2026 because of the removal of the mandated insurance under the ACA (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017). However, it will be interesting to see what the actual number will be, especially since the government will attempt to encourage the number of low care (healthier consumers) buyers with lower premiums and better insurance coverage (CBO report H.R. 1628, 2017). I would guess that the number will be lower if not for any other reason than because of the ACA mandating that everyone buys insurance and altering societal thinking. With things as they are now, it seems like more people feel the need for health insurance or understand the issues with not having a healthcare plan. As well, one of the success of the ACA was the better regulation of insurance companies, such as eliminating the preexisting condition discrimination and standardizing the level of preventative care for healthcare consumers. All of which has become expectations for consumers and an implicit encouragement for individuals to purchase insurance. I reached this conclusion because consumers will know the general level of care that they will receive and at what cost. Only future CBO reports will tell if this analysis reigns true or not… if the new healthcare law is ever implemented, that is.