The health care bill passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and is set to move on to the House of Representatives, where it will likely face a critical vote.
But as the Senate Health Committee prepares to take up the legislation, it is trying to understand what could have gone wrong and what can be improved.
The committee has spent a lot of time talking to the private health insurance industry and health care professionals, but the findings are largely unverified.
Here’s what the committee is trying.
A lot of the problems with the bill came from the private insurers.
Republicans have been working to make the bill more expensive for people who buy health insurance through their employers, including by making it more difficult for them to get coverage on their own.
The bill would have made it even harder for some people to enroll in the individual market, which is where most of the insurance companies are.
Republicans argued that many people who enroll in health plans through their employer would not qualify for the federal subsidies that are meant to help them afford coverage.
But there is a lot more to the bill than that.
According to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health care research organization, the bill would increase premiums by nearly 10 percent for some consumers, and reduce the subsidies by more than $500 for people making less than $50,000 a year.
And while the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Republican proposal would raise premiums by 20 to 25 percent for low-income people, the Congressional Research Service says the actual cost of the legislation is likely closer to 3 percent.
It also estimates that the legislation will make some people ineligible for Medicaid expansion, but that’s not what the CBO said in its analysis.
The CBO’s estimates for the bill’s effect on premiums and out-of-pocket expenses vary widely, from an estimated reduction of up to 20 percent to an estimated $1,200 to $2,500 in lost revenue.
And the CBO says that the bill could leave people with no health insurance at all worse off than under current law.
But the CBO’s analysis suggests that it could leave some people with coverage better off than they would have been otherwise.
For example, the analysis projects that the individual mandate could be repealed, and that the expansion of Medicaid could be expanded by 10 million people over the next decade.
But those expansions would have to be accompanied by significant tax increases.
Those tax increases would be borne by the rich, not the poor, according the CBO.
For instance, it says the bill will raise taxes on wealthier people by $4,400 to $7,400 annually.
That means some people will have to pay $1 for every $1 in income they earn, or $3,500 to $5,000 in taxes.
And that is a tax increase that many middle-income Americans don’t see coming.
They would pay about $1 less a year if they earned $50 million and $1.25 million.
“There’s no doubt that this is a big hit for the poor,” said Peter Orszag, the former commissioner of the Office of Management and Budget.
“I mean, it’s going to affect millions of people.”
The CBO found that the proposed legislation would not lower premiums.
The legislation would increase the premium for some customers, but not for others.
For people making between $25,000 and $75,000, the average premium would increase by $1 per year, while those making between 75,000 to $100,000 would see their average premium rise by $0.50 to $1 a year, the CBO found.
For a family of four, the premium would go up by $7 per year.
But it’s unclear how much the bill affects insurance costs for people in the middle of the income scale.
The Congressional Budget Board said in a report released earlier this month that people in lower-income households will be “more likely to pay more” for health insurance, and they will pay more for out- of-pocket costs.
In its analysis, the committee noted that many states have raised premiums because of a shortfall in federal funding for Medicaid, which pays for the expansion.
But that funding was not enough to cover the cost of coverage for some lower- and middle-class people, particularly people with lower incomes.
So Republicans have argued that the funding for the Medicaid expansion was inadequate, and the Senate plan would have done little to fix that.
But an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Service said that the Senate bill would not have made insurance coverage more affordable for the middle class.
“The Senate plan does not propose significant reductions in premium subsidies for the uninsured or increase funding for state Medicaid programs,” the report said.
Instead, it would have lowered the subsidies for low and moderate income people and the cost-sharing requirements for those with preexisting conditions.
But for people earning more than about $250,000 per year or those making more than a half-million dollars a year — the