Republican “Mortician Beneficiary Bill” (MBB)

 

By Heather Gray
June 24, 2017
Justice Initiative International

The “Mortician Beneficiary Bill”? I am of the opinion that the Republican “so-called” repeal health bill should instead be called the “Mortician Beneficiary Bill” (MBB) because there are estimates of excessive deaths that will be caused by the lack of coverage for Americans with this bill. So not only will the wealthiest Americans (the infamous 1%) get tax breaks, but morticians will also earn considerably more profits thanks to this bill. This is obviously the Republican Senate’s effort to help the mortician businesses in America but most certainly not the masses of the poor, the elderly, the under-payed and the unemployed.
 

In a June 22, 2017 review the Republican repeal health bill, the Center for American Progress reports on the estimates of the likely rise in deaths due to the lack of health coverage thanks to Trump’s initiatives along with 13 Republican Senate conspirators.

(13 Senators from Think Progress)

Here’s the list of the 13 white male Senate “secretive” planners, from the Washington Examiner:  
   
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
  • Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas,
  • Senate Republican Conference Chair John Thune, R-S.D.
  • Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
  • Senate Steering Committee Chair Mike Lee, R-Utah
  • Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
  • Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
  • Senate Budget Committee Chair Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
  • Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio (Finance Health Subcommittee Chair)
  • Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. (Finance)
  • Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Col. (Budget)
  • Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
  • Sen. Tom Cotton, R, Ark
   

Projected Mortality Rates

Trump notes that this Senate bill is an improvement of the House bill. So could that be interpreted that he and/or the Senate likely means a higher mortality rate is a good thing?

Below is an excerpt from a Center for American Progress article published on June 22, 2017 entitled Coverage Losses Under the Senate Health Care Bill Could Result in 18,100 to 27,700 Additional Deaths in 2026″. The article is written by Ann Crawford-Roberts, Ann Crawford-Roberts, Nichole Roxas, Ichiro Kawachi, Sam Berger, and  Emily Gee. 

 
The article reports on detailed estimated mortality rates per state from the lack of health coverage of what, again, I am referring to as the Republican “Mortician Beneficiary Bill” – or as a friend noted when I shared this thought regarding the Senate repeal bill “From my vantage point, “MBB”, it shall be. Thanks Heather!!!”

 

*****

The effects of the repeal bill on mortality

Drawing on the Massachusetts experience, we estimate that there would be one excess death for every 830 people who lose coverage as a result of the AHCA. The CBO projections of coverage reductions under the House version of the AHCA would equate to 217,000 additional deaths over the next decade, including 27,700 additional deaths in 2026. (see Table 1) To put this in perspective, that is approximately the number of people in the United States who died from opioid overdoses in 2014 and about twice the number of deaths by homicide that same year.

The effects of the repeal bill on mortality

We also estimate the additional deaths in 2026 resulting from coverage losses from the Senate bill under three scenarios: one assuming coverage losses equivalent to the House bill and two scenarios that show modest reductions in coverage losses. If the Senate bill results in coverage losses of 19 million that would result in 22,900 additional deaths in 2026. If the Senate bill results in coverage losses of 15 million that would result in 18,100 additional deaths in 2026.

In addition, drawing on the Center for American Progress’ estimate of state-level coverage reductions in 2026 under the House version of the AHCA, we estimate additional deaths by state in 2026 as a result of coverage losses from the Senate bill under the three scenarios. Under the scenario assuming coverage losses of 23 million, annual additional deaths would range from 36 in North Dakota to 3,111 in California in 2026. Under the scenario assuming coverage losses of 19 million, annual additional deaths in 2026 would range from 30 in North Dakota to 2,570 in California. Finally, under the scenario assuming coverage losses of 15 million, annual additional deaths in 2026 would range from 24 in North Dakota to 2,029 in California.

Conclusion

Given the overwhelming weight of evidence, there should be no debate: Health care coverage has an impact on whether Americans live or die. Our data estimates show that under any of the scenarios we analyzed, a significant number of American lives are at stake in this debate. Legislators considering whether to support this bill should keep in mind and soberly consider the catastrophic effect the AHCA would have on so many Americans and their families
 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s