But we work with what we have, and what we have is an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. We also have analysis from the progressive Center for American Progress which estimated how that 24 million drop would break out by congressional district. Because the reductions are tied to particular changes that link to demographic factors — age and income, particularly — CAP was able to distribute that 24-million-person drop across all 435 districts.

That, then, allows us to figure out what the effects of the legislation would be on the districts of those who voted for and against the legislation.

According to CAP’s estimates, some 11.6 million fewer people will have insurance in 2026 in districts represented by Republicans who voted for the AHCA. The wording here is important: It’s not necessarily that 11.6 million people will lose insurance; it’s that, if Obamacare were kept in place, 11.6 million more people would probably have coverage.

AD

AD

In districts of those Republicans who opposed the bill — 20 of them — only about 980,000 fewer people will have insurance. In Democratic districts, all of whose representatives opposed the bill, some 11.4 million fewer people are estimated to have insurance by 2026.

In districts that are represented by Republicans but that voted for Hillary Clinton, about 700,000 fewer people will have insurance in 10 years’ time.

For the purposes of this experiment, we’re setting aside considerations like population growth and redistricting, obviously. The goal instead is to compare districts with one another now — and to get a sense of how the demographics underpinning the insurance drops differ.

AD

More important than totals are those averages. On average, districts with Republicans who supported the bill will have 53,000 fewer people covered by insurance by 2026. That’s higher than in districts of Republicans that opposed the bill, and about the same as in districts represented by Democrats.

When we overlay the estimated drop in coverage with how conservative the Republican representatives are and how strongly the districts backed President Trump, some interesting patterns emerge. Below, the size of the circle correlates to the drop in the number of insured.

No Republican district is estimated to see a bigger drop than the 9th Congressional District in North Carolina, represented by Rep. Robert Pittenger. But notice what happens in districts where representatives are less conservative and their constituents voted less strongly for Trump. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) has a lot of people in her district who would probably be affected, and voted no (despite announcing recently that she isn’t running for reelection next year). Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), though, voted yes — despite having a district that was nearly as pro-Clinton as Ros-Lehtinen’s district and having a number of people who would be affected. Same with Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.).

AD

AD

An interesting situation in New York, where Reps. Elise Stefanik and Daniel Donovan represent very similar districts politically. But Donovan, who represents Staten Island, opposed the bill. Stefanik backed it.

CAP also estimated how many people in each district have preexisting conditions that might be affected by the AHCA amendment. The national estimates CAP came up with are substantially higher than those from the Kaiser Family Foundation, but, again, comparing districts with one another offers some insight.

Here, we see that the districts represented by Republicans who voted yes but which backed Clinton in 2016 have a slightly higher average number of people with preexisting conditions than in districts represented by Democrats or by all Republicans who voted yes.

AD

Ros-Lehtinen was clear about why she wasn’t going to vote for the AHCA.

AD

“The proposed changes to this bill would leave too many of my constituents with preexisting conditions paying more for health insurance coverage and too many of them will even be left without any coverage at all,” her statement read. According to CAP’s estimates, about 81,000 fewer people in her district would have coverage by 2026 than if the bill didn’t pass — higher than average.