Better Care Reconciliation Act and Coverage Loss, Elevated Mortality Rates for Wisconsin

Estimated elevated mortality levels for the Senate bill is 26,500 for 2026, given the reduction of coverage by 22 million. CAP estimates by the state level indicate Wisconsin coverage of nonelderly will decrease by 394,100. This implies Wisconsin mortality levels will be up by about 475. (For context, 2015 Wisconsin total deaths was 51,251, so 475 constitutes a nearly 1% increase on 2015 deaths…)

Time to update this post to read: “Troubled Kentucky Man Goes on 50 State Killing Spree”. (Although KY excess mortality is only 279 in 2026, so fewer implied deaths than for Speaker Ryan’s AHCA.)

7 thoughts on “Better Care Reconciliation Act and Coverage Loss, Elevated Mortality Rates for Wisconsin

  1. Rick Stryker


    Talking about the benefits of a policy in terms of reducing the probability of early deaths without also considering the costs is fundamentally non-economic reasoning. Rather than repeat my earlier comment,I refer you to this video, which makes the point in an alternative way.

    1. 2slugbaits

      The highway risk is not just the speed; it’s allowing speed differentials. That’s why we have speed limits. Same with health insurance. Allowing the rich to drive up costs just because they have a lot of money has the same effect as allowing rich folks driving Ferraris to go as fast as they want while ordinary folks can only go 70. There’s a reason why Obamacare has a “Cadillac tax.” It’s because expensive policies drive up costs for everyone. The “Cadillac tax” is an externality tax. There are a number of reasons why we don’t set speed limits at 4 mph. For one thing, there’s no reason to believe that it would lower highway fatalities. After all, there will always be the impatient driver who endangers everyone. And we do make trade-offs between risks and rewards. What we never do is seek out solutions that increase risks for the same reward. And that’s where your analogy fails.

    2. Phil

      Abortion should be legal because people will die anyway, right? I don’t see that in the stupid poem but it fits right in. The difference between potential human life and actual human life is ignored in the right wing way of thought because there is no thinking, only emotion. Old people and disabled should die if they don’t have the resources to save themselves, but pre-infants should be saved at the cost of freedom without thought of an individual to self-determine whether they have the ability to raise a child (of their rapist or relative) in this world. Face it, you are a forced-birther, pro-social Darwinist who doesn’t believe in Darwinism. Logic and consistency isn’t a priority for the modern day “Conservative”.

Comments are closed.