Okay, but I think that as a practical matter, that metric is useless. If nothing is done, ObamaCare is going to go into the toilet in terms of the individual exchanges. It didn't bend the cost-curves at all. In fact, a lot of costs are going up even faster. So, I think the
correct metric is this bill versus the ACA ten years out, and in that case, I think this bill will probably do better.
There are some underlying economic realities here -- health care has been getting more expensive, we have more poor people, and the population is growing. So, it stands to reason that we will have more uninsured ten years from now anyway. There also is the issue I mentioned in my response to
@AZ_ , regarding quality. Sure, you can make sure more people are "covered", but if access/choice/quality are dropping for some people, then that's not necessarily a good thing overall.
And, the issue I mentioned previously regarding the difference between having
coverage, and being able to
afford actually getting quality care. Lots of stories out there about people who are
covered under an ObamaCare policy, but are now saddled with unaffordable out of pocket costs. So again, the "covered" metric is pretty useless.
All that being said, I think a prediction ten years out compared to the numbe ris pretty much laughable, and so I don't believe it can be accurately predicted whether or not more people will lose coverage than will gain it under the Senate bill.
Anyone who tells you they do know is trying to sell you something.