ACA: Repeal and Delay?

[WillReadmore]

Chauncey Trump

The AMA, which has been rather comically pro-Trump to date, came out today and told Republicans that they shouldn't repeal Obamacare without a clear replacement. Notably, even two of the most conservative health care economists at AEI, came out yesterday and said that 'repeal and delay' would be a disaster. The truth is that "repeal and delay" is the policy equivalent of taking off from JFK to Heathrow with 2,000 miles worth of gas and saying you're going to figure it out en route. No one who knows anything about health care economics, even people who are staunch free marketeers and hate Obamacare, think that makes any sense.

Read More →
- Josh Marshall

Absolutely.

Sen. Rand Paul pointed that out today.

Killing our system without a concrete plan for replacement is monumentally irresponsible. Every health care plan in America is ACA, including those of employers. Dicking around with the health of every American like that should be a crime.

And, Ryan points out that what they have right now is "ideas"!!

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been a disaster on many levels. The only people who still still think it's worth saving are clueless. They're not seeing what most people are.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday posted a poll on Twitter to get feedback on Republicans' proposed ObamaCare repeal. As it turns out, though, a majority of Twitter users who voted recommended keeping the healthcare law in place.
@MarshaBlackburn

Read more: GOP rep's ObamaCare Twitter poll backfires

Yeah.. Smells of monkey-wrenching by cheap ass politicos. As if "twitter polls" mean more than a gnat's bite.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Kondor3]

ObamaCare...

TrumpCare...

PriceCare...

RyanCare...

RomneyCare...

HillaryCare...

Whatever...

The real question is...

Beyond the realm of MediCare and Veterans care...

Should the US Federal Government subsidize (or provide) medical care for those who cannot obtain such care on their own?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Anybody explain to me what the demented Slothrapper finds funny about BOTH Medicare and SSA declaring my father dead? I think this guy is terribly insecure in his political spamminations. And needs to incite folks.

This isn't a "pity Party" alpha boy....your Dad and Social Security are not the topic stooge boy...stop with "spamminations" against Medicare and Social Security.

by the way If I am going to a pity party it would be for these people who will lose coverage

The implementation of the ACA resulted in a record low number of uninsured Americans -- 8.6 percent in September 2016, down from 16 percent in 2010. According to estimates from the Department of Health and Human Services, more than 20 million Americans have gained health care coverage as a result of the law.

These gains would be reversed and the uninsured rate would surpass 2010 levels if the ACA is repealed.


...not sorry for wing nut alpha males like you....you guys are tough LOL

 

[WillReadmore]

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

The government should not be forcing people to pay for other peoples insurance either. If these people never cared enough to purchase insurance all the time they were healthy, I have no concern for them when the do get sick.

No, we give health care to those who need it.

The issue is who pays. Before the ACA, we were giving significant dollars to ERs, we were sustaining significant lost work hours, we were paying more for insurance to cover providers who got stiffed, we were sustaining higher rates of personal bankruptcy (with health care being the leading cause of bankruptcy), etc. And, many of us couldn't buy insurance even though we wanted to, due to combinations of factors such as age, health care status, gender, etc.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

Health care is more than an optional product.

yes it is. So, lets talk about those subsidies.
If a family is in the income range to receive a subsidy (someone else pays more to offset the subsidy) then I would suggest that once that subsidy amount is set, a government agent looks into the family expenses and adjusts that subsidy accordingly.
Example, when the expenses are looked at they discover that the family is paying 150.00 a month for cable and internet,
130.00 for the unlimited family plan cell phones
400 a month for the car payment
average of 100 a month to eat out
They took a vacation last year that cost them 1200.00
now take the amount of that subsidy, and give them a choice, they can drop all of those expenses mentioned that are not essential.
Cable TV is nice but, everywhere has the local stations that you can still pick up with an antenna.
Internet can be found for free at the local library, or by bringing your laptop to the mall or McDonalds etc...
you can get a pay as you go phone for 25 dollars a month, you wont have texting but you will be able to make a call. Texting is not essential.
They dont need a new car, they just A car, so get rid of the car and buy something used that will have no payment and lower insurance costs.
No more eating out, trade the steak in for ground beef and cook that burger at home.
No family vacations allowed that exceed 500 a year.
either they get rid of the non essential expenses or the subsidy is reduced by the amount of frivolous wast that they insist on keeping.

 

[WillReadmore]

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

Health care is more than an optional product.

yes it is. So, lets talk about those subsidies.
If a family is in the income range to receive a subsidy (someone else pays more to offset the subsidy) then I would suggest that once that subsidy amount is set, a government agent looks into the family expenses and adjusts that subsidy accordingly.
Example, when the expenses are looked at they discover that the family is paying 150.00 a month for cable and internet,
130.00 for the unlimited family plan cell phones
400 a month for the car payment
average of 100 a month to eat out
They took a vacation last year that cost them 1200.00
now take the amount of that subsidy, and give them a choice, they can drop all of those expenses mentioned that are not essential.
Cable TV is nice but, everywhere has the local stations that you can still pick up with an antenna.
Internet can be found for free at the local library, or by bringing your laptop to the mall or McDonalds etc...
you can get a pay as you go phone for 25 dollars a month, you wont have texting but you will be able to make a call. Texting is not essential.
They dont need a new car, they just A car, so get rid of the car and buy something used that will have no payment and lower insurance costs.
No more eating out, trade the steak in for ground beef and cook that burger at home.
No family vacations allowed that exceed 500 a year.
either they get rid of the non essential expenses or the subsidy is reduced by the amount of frivolous wast that they insist on keeping.

Oh please -

This is still America.

Get a freaking grip.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Millions have already lost their insurance, and been forced into inferior plans.

Freedom makes the most available at the lowest possible price. Economic fact.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

Health care is more than an optional product.

yes it is. So, lets talk about those subsidies.
If a family is in the income range to receive a subsidy (someone else pays more to offset the subsidy) then I would suggest that once that subsidy amount is set, a government agent looks into the family expenses and adjusts that subsidy accordingly.
Example, when the expenses are looked at they discover that the family is paying 150.00 a month for cable and internet,
130.00 for the unlimited family plan cell phones
400 a month for the car payment
average of 100 a month to eat out
They took a vacation last year that cost them 1200.00
now take the amount of that subsidy, and give them a choice, they can drop all of those expenses mentioned that are not essential.
Cable TV is nice but, everywhere has the local stations that you can still pick up with an antenna.
Internet can be found for free at the local library, or by bringing your laptop to the mall or McDonalds etc...
you can get a pay as you go phone for 25 dollars a month, you wont have texting but you will be able to make a call. Texting is not essential.
They dont need a new car, they just A car, so get rid of the car and buy something used that will have no payment and lower insurance costs.
No more eating out, trade the steak in for ground beef and cook that burger at home.
No family vacations allowed that exceed 500 a year.
either they get rid of the non essential expenses or the subsidy is reduced by the amount of frivolous wast that they insist on keeping.

Oh please -

This is still America.

Get a freaking grip.

whats wrong with any of that?
its what is being asked of the people that don't pay the subsidy, that have to pay the full price. Why shouldn't the leach also be required to give some non essentials up?

 

[WillReadmore]

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

Health care is more than an optional product.

yes it is. So, lets talk about those subsidies.
If a family is in the income range to receive a subsidy (someone else pays more to offset the subsidy) then I would suggest that once that subsidy amount is set, a government agent looks into the family expenses and adjusts that subsidy accordingly.
Example, when the expenses are looked at they discover that the family is paying 150.00 a month for cable and internet,
130.00 for the unlimited family plan cell phones
400 a month for the car payment
average of 100 a month to eat out
They took a vacation last year that cost them 1200.00
now take the amount of that subsidy, and give them a choice, they can drop all of those expenses mentioned that are not essential.
Cable TV is nice but, everywhere has the local stations that you can still pick up with an antenna.
Internet can be found for free at the local library, or by bringing your laptop to the mall or McDonalds etc...
you can get a pay as you go phone for 25 dollars a month, you wont have texting but you will be able to make a call. Texting is not essential.
They dont need a new car, they just A car, so get rid of the car and buy something used that will have no payment and lower insurance costs.
No more eating out, trade the steak in for ground beef and cook that burger at home.
No family vacations allowed that exceed 500 a year.
either they get rid of the non essential expenses or the subsidy is reduced by the amount of frivolous wast that they insist on keeping.

Oh please -

This is still America.

Get a freaking grip.

whats wrong with any of that?
its what is being asked of the people that don't pay the subsidy, that have to pay the full price. Why shouldn't the leach also be required to give some non essentials up?

People used to say that about food, too.

Like, if we have to give them food, how about we hire government employees to chase them around the block for exercise, or whatever.

I really thought we had gotten over that kind of total freaking un-American BS.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

Health care is more than an optional product.

yes it is. So, lets talk about those subsidies.
If a family is in the income range to receive a subsidy (someone else pays more to offset the subsidy) then I would suggest that once that subsidy amount is set, a government agent looks into the family expenses and adjusts that subsidy accordingly.
Example, when the expenses are looked at they discover that the family is paying 150.00 a month for cable and internet,
130.00 for the unlimited family plan cell phones
400 a month for the car payment
average of 100 a month to eat out
They took a vacation last year that cost them 1200.00
now take the amount of that subsidy, and give them a choice, they can drop all of those expenses mentioned that are not essential.
Cable TV is nice but, everywhere has the local stations that you can still pick up with an antenna.
Internet can be found for free at the local library, or by bringing your laptop to the mall or McDonalds etc...
you can get a pay as you go phone for 25 dollars a month, you wont have texting but you will be able to make a call. Texting is not essential.
They dont need a new car, they just A car, so get rid of the car and buy something used that will have no payment and lower insurance costs.
No more eating out, trade the steak in for ground beef and cook that burger at home.
No family vacations allowed that exceed 500 a year.
either they get rid of the non essential expenses or the subsidy is reduced by the amount of frivolous wast that they insist on keeping.

Oh please -

This is still America.

Get a freaking grip.

whats wrong with any of that?
its what is being asked of the people that don't pay the subsidy, that have to pay the full price. Why shouldn't the leach also be required to give some non essentials up?

People used to say that about food, too.

Like, if we have to give them food, how about we hire government employees to chase them around the block for exercise, or whatever.

I really thought we had gotten over that kind of total freaking un-American BS.

How much are we going to end up having to give these over breeding lazy bastards? a car? everyone needs a car, how about we give them a new one every couple of years, we can just double up on our insurance premiums so they can be insured for free, how about a house in the suburbs? dont kids deserve to live in a huge house and go to the best school? we can just add a few hundred a month to our mortgage and cover that cost for them.
Where does it stop? Here's an idea, how about they go to work, and with the money they get they live within their means, dont have 5 kids if you only make 30k a year.
The more safety nets you give them, the more they are going to expect.
I dont think this is what was meant when the U.S was called the land of the free.
Supporting yourself is not Un-American, forcing you to support everyone else is however un-American.
If you collect any social benefit due to income, you have no right to be on the internet to start with. Its non an essential commodity. Someone that is going to live off of the labor of others should get nothing more than the very bare basics required to sustain them. No steaks, no lobster, no prime cuts of meat. Low end products all the way. If some welfare hag is kicking back collecting from other peoples pay checks, she should not have enough cash in her pocket to get her hair or her nails done every month. they dont NEED the ability to text.
If they can afford a big screen TV, then they can obviously afford a cut in their "entitlements"
People are getting tired of watching their income stolen from them to support worthless skin sacks that refuse to contribute to society at all.

 

[WillReadmore]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Millions have already lost their insurance, and been forced into inferior plans.

Freedom makes the most available at the lowest possible price. Economic fact.

There are at least 2 problems with this:
- Health care is not a commodity and it isn't optional. The competition is far narrower than what makes free market capitalism work well.

- We need to cover all Americans. And, that is an objective that insurance companies could not possibly care less about. It's an entirely NONcapitalist objective.

Before the ACA we watched as insurance companies refused coverage on the basis of age, preexisting conditions, gender, etc. We saw them differentiating prices based on the customer, charging huge rates based on what they learned about their customers - even dumping those who got sick - as they watched their customer's health care records. etc.

We know what happened without the ACA. We were there.

 

[Coyote]

...

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

If you are going to require everyone to have health insurance then you need some sort of penalty for those that don't.

Their bodies, their choices...sure...except....what they DON'T have a choice? What if they have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will cover them? Then what?

 

[yiostheoy]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

I cannot see Schumer allowing any changes at all to ACA.

Ryan, McConnell and Trump may go through several iterations of legislative masturbation on this a few times until Schumer finally spanks them bad for it, over and over.

Boehner was fond of this kind of legislative masturbation and never learned his lesson until he was out of a job. Hopefully the other 3 GOP'er's will learn their lessons faster.

 

[yiostheoy]

...

Forcing everyone to purchase insurance was the only way to have a large enough pool of healthy people paying in to balance the taking in of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illness.

...

It's economics.

Hmmm... so I guess the fine for not having insurance is economics too, is it not?

The government shouldn't be forcing individuals to accept insurance. Their bodies, their choices, right?

If you are going to require everyone to have health insurance then you need some sort of penalty for those that don't.

Their bodies, their choices...sure...except....what they DON'T have a choice? What if they have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will cover them? Then what?

It's just a tax.

Nobody likes taxes but that's just the way it is.

If you are going to pay for universal healthcare then you need a tax, which is what ACA is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are going to require everyone to have health insurance then you need some sort of penalty for those that don't.

Or, you could remove the government from the decision process altogether.

If you don't want the government telling a woman what to do about having an abortion, please, don't sit there and advocate for government forcing people to have healthcare insurance.

 

[Coyote]

If you are going to require everyone to have health insurance then you need some sort of penalty for those that don't.

Or, you could remove the government from the decision process altogether.

If you don't want the government telling a woman what to do about having an abortion, please, don't sit there and advocate for government forcing people to have healthcare insurance.

And people with pre-existing conditions can continue to be unable to get insurance.

 

[WillReadmore]

If you are going to require everyone to have health insurance then you need some sort of penalty for those that don't.

Or, you could remove the government from the decision process altogether.

If you don't want the government telling a woman what to do about having an abortion, please, don't sit there and advocate for government forcing people to have healthcare insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

That issue is entirely separate.

 

[Coyote]

Does not seem like a good idea....so they remove all the subsidies....what's going to happen to the people who depend on those to get insurance?

Not to mention - if they want to reinvent the wheel and replace it with a new plan, they don't have enough votes with out Democrats joining in.

Republicans Take The First Step To Repeal Obamacare

Republicans have to use a special legislative maneuver, called a budget resolution, to undo the ACA because they don't have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Budget bills aren't subject to filibuster, so lawmakers will be able to repeal the parts of the law that have budget and tax implications.


That means they can essentially gut the law, removing all the subsidies that help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance and getting rid of the smorgasbord of taxes — on medical devices, insurance companies and wealthy individuals — that pay for those subsidies


Enzi's resolution calls on the Senate to get a bill to the Senate Budget Committee by Jan. 27.


Republican lawmakers say they don't want the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance because of the ACA to lose their coverage. So they plan to phase out Obamacare over time while they devise a replacement plan that they say will make affordable health insurance available to everyone, without the much-hated mandate to buy insurance if you don't want it.


Many analysts are skeptical that this "repeal and delay" strategy will work.


"The most likely end result of 'repeal and delay' would be less secure insurance for many Americans, procrastination by political leaders who will delay taking any proactive steps as long as possible, and ultimately no discernible movement toward a real marketplace for either insurance or medical services," said Joe Antos and James Capretta of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in a blog published Tuesday in Health Affairs.​

I cannot see Schumer allowing any changes at all to ACA.

Ryan, McConnell and Trump may go through several iterations of legislative masturbation on this a few times until Schumer finally spanks them bad for it, over and over.

Boehner was fond of this kind of legislative masturbation and never learned his lesson until he was out of a job. Hopefully the other 3 GOP'er's will learn their lessons faster.

I think he'd allow changes - everyone recognizes that there need to be fixes.

But the other thing the Republicans need to think about is - even if they cobble together a "replacement" - they need at least (6?) Dems to vote for it in order to pass it. I don't see that happening.