A Republican health reform proposal recently unveiled by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) would save less money and cover fewer uninsured Americans than the Democratic House bill up for a vote Saturday.
That's the conclusion I reached after comparing the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of both plans.
Assuming, of course, that the CBO is to be trusted.
If you don't trust the CBO - which Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) once compared to God - you can read the full text of both pieces of legislation. Get H.R. 3962 here and Boehner's amendment here.
Anyway, here's my reasoning, and the tools I used to do it. First, you'll need two things:
1. The CBO analysis of H.R. 3962, the Democratic House bill being voted on tomorrow
2. The CBO analysis of Boehner's 219-page amendment
Next, my line of reasoning:
- H.R. 3962, which combined three previous Democratic House bills, shaves $104 billion off the federal deficit over the next 10 years, according to the CBO.
- Boehner's 219-page amendment would also reduce the deficit, but by $68 billion over the same timeframe.
- H.R. 3962 would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 36 million after 10 years.
- Boehner's amendment would also reduce the number of uninsured, but only by around 3 million after 10 years.
The conclusion: $104 billion saved beats out $68 billion saved, while 36 million more insured beats out 3 million more insured. Keep in mind that the word "uninsured" here refers to legal American citizens of non-elderly age (i.e., younger than 65).
One caveat: The Democrats' H.R. 3962 will cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a staggering figure, to be sure. The Republican amendment will cost a fraction of that amount, at only $61 billion over 10 years.
However: The Republican plan still winds up saving less money than the Democratic plan over 10 years - $36 billion less.