The CBO has evaluated (“scored,” in the lingo) five Republican bills. Two versions of the House’s American Health Care Act, two versions of the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act and an outlier, the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act, which is basically just a straight repeal of the existing law.

In each case, the CBO determined that the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by anywhere from $156 billion to $185 billion annually by 2026. The deepest cuts would come from the ORRA, the repeal-only bill. The shallowest were found in the second version of the AHCA, the one the House passed.

(To conform to the rules of reconciliation legislation — meaning that the Senate could pass it with only 50 votes — the bill had to reduce the deficit.)

In each case, the CBO also determined that millions of Americans would lose coverage. In many cases, that’s a function of cuts to Medicaid coverage.

The estimated reduction in the number of people who would be insured by 2026 ranges from 49 million to 59 million — versus 28 million expected to be uninsured in 10 years’ time under Obamacare.

AD

AD

In other words, the Republican proposals would cut $5,968 to $8,476 from the federal budget in 2026 for every person who would have had coverage if Obamacare weren’t repealed.

Republicans recognize that “millions more people uninsured” is a bad headline, so they’ve generally responded in one of two ways. The first is to argue that people will choose to go uninsured with the repeal of the Obamacare mandate that adults have coverage. (That many will make that choice after premiums initially spike, as the CBO predicts, usually goes unmentioned.) The second is the path the White House has chosen: to hint that the CBO’s estimates are hopelessly flawed. Often, critics will point to the CBO’s overestimation of how many people would gain coverage under Obamacare.

That the CBO predicts a decrease in the deficit, though — that critical mark for passage in the Senate under a flat majority — is never framed as being flawed.

The Republican bills also have different effects on the costs of coverage and how much of a subsidy or tax credit will apply. In the chart below, the section to look at is the dark green. The dark green and blue segments represent the total cost of coverage under each bill; the dark green section is how much people have to pay out of pocket.

(“Waiver states” are those that, under the AHCA, choose to exercise the option to allow insurers to sell plans that cover fewer things, leaving out maternity care, for example. Those figures are excluded from the averages below.)

AD

AD

When it comes to out-of-pocket costs, the Republican bills will cost a 21-year-old making $26,500 a year an average of 5.5 percent of his annual income — compared with 6.4 percent under Obamacare — but for plans that the CBO estimates would cover less of the cost of medical services. For a 64-year-old making that same amount, the Republican bills would eat up 32.7 percent of annual income, inflated by the AHCA’s small tax subsidies. Under Obamacare, the cost is still 6.4 percent.

In the higher-income group, Obamacare subsidies don’t apply. So the Republican bills would cost 3.5 percent of the 21-year-old’s income (vs. 7.5 percent under Obamacare) and 22.8 percent of the 64-year-old’s (vs. 22.4 under Obamacare).

As we noted last month, though, there are other benefits for people making even higher incomes: a reduction in taxes. We used data from the Kaiser Family Foundation to model how the BCRA would affect people at various income ranges depending on county.