ACA: Repeal and Delay?

[Rustic]

It's embarrassing to the country that we have Obama care…

True - they all have coverage for everyone and pay less for health care than does the USA.

And, we have to jack around with insurance companies with deadlines, big bills, near impossibility of getting reimbursed when some provider doesn't have proof of our coverage, etc.

The nanny state is no help to anybody… Fact

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

There are a number of changes to the ACA that would make sense.

In fact, congress HAS made some changes since it became law.

There are fundamental concerns that are not going to go away, but I don't know any Dem congressman who sees the ACA itself as unchangable.

Let's remember that other similar systems - Medicare, Medicaid, SS, VA, welfare in general, etc., have all had significant modifications since they were created.


The primary issue is that killing the ACA without knowing what will replace it is profoundly irresponsible.

And, only ONE Republican senator had the balls and the brains to recognize that: Rand Paul.

What a totally pathetic party!

 

[WillReadmore]

It's embarrassing to the country that we have Obama care…

True - they all have coverage for everyone and pay less for health care than does the USA.

And, we have to jack around with insurance companies with deadlines, big bills, near impossibility of getting reimbursed when some provider doesn't have proof of our coverage, etc.

The nanny state is no help to anybody… Fact

lol -

Yet, every other industrialized nation in the world is succeeding through systems that are MORE socialized than our own - paying less than we do, covering more of their population than we do.

Our system was a joke. Under the ACA it is still a joke, but not quite as big a joke.

 

[Rustic]

It's embarrassing to the country that we have Obama care…

True - they all have coverage for everyone and pay less for health care than does the USA.

And, we have to jack around with insurance companies with deadlines, big bills, near impossibility of getting reimbursed when some provider doesn't have proof of our coverage, etc.

The nanny state is no help to anybody… Fact

lol -

Yet, every other industrialized nation in the world is succeeding through systems that are MORE socialized than our own - paying less than we do, covering more of their population than we do.

Our system was a joke. Under the ACA it is still a joke, but not quite as big a joke.

Depending on other people to pay for your shit is the joke…

 

[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.

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

Yanno, I'm sick and tired of people playing the pity card when it comes to Obamacare when they have no sufficient counterpoints to make.

Instead of the government forcing anyone to have health insurance, just tailor the law to regulate the existing healthcare industry. Make it easier for insurance companies to insure more people without hemorrhaging money. It never needed to become as complicated as it is now.

For example, the pre-existing conditions. Trump said he wanted to keep that part of Obamacare. Yet here you are seemingly making the implication that Republicans don't care about those with "pre-existing" conditions. Weren't you paying any attention?

 

[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.

This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

That issue is entirely separate.

No it's not. Obamacare has an abortion clause in it.

Do as your name says and go read the law some more.

 

[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.

Yanno, I'm sick and tired of people playing the pity card when it comes to Obamacare when they have no sufficient counterpoints to make.

Instead of the government forcing anyone to have health insurance, just tailor the law to regulate the existing healthcare industry. Make it easier for insurance companies to insure more people without hemorrhaging money. It never needed to become as complicated as it is now.

For example, the pre-existing conditions. Trump said he wanted to keep that part of Obamacare. Yet here you are seemingly making the implication that Republicans don't care about those with "pre-existing" conditions. Weren't you paying any attention?

Except it's not so simple. If it was, would they have bothered with a mandate? I doubt it - it's clearly the least popular part of the plan.

How will you force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it? If insurance companies don't have enough healthy people in the pool to make up for the costs of the sick people, then rates will sky rocket if you force them to take people with pre-existing conditions. Trump doesn't have a clue how he's going to do that but it sounds good say we'll get rid of the unpopular stuff and keep the popular stuff. Nevermind that the umpopular stuff in some cases is what keeps it "budget neutral" or is the carrot for the insurance companies to take sicker people.

 

[WillReadmore]

It's embarrassing to the country that we have Obama care…

True - they all have coverage for everyone and pay less for health care than does the USA.

And, we have to jack around with insurance companies with deadlines, big bills, near impossibility of getting reimbursed when some provider doesn't have proof of our coverage, etc.

The nanny state is no help to anybody… Fact

lol -

Yet, every other industrialized nation in the world is succeeding through systems that are MORE socialized than our own - paying less than we do, covering more of their population than we do.

Our system was a joke. Under the ACA it is still a joke, but not quite as big a joke.

Depending on other people to pay for your shit is the joke…

You do that all the time - car insurance, fire insurance, etc.

We even require that in certain cases. We require insurance for cars that are on public roads. Most cities require insurance for contractors and tradesmen.

In some cases insurance on property is a requirement or is a condition of a loan.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How will you force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions?

A lot of compliance can be ensured using monetary measures. Money is a devastating weapon. But that's beside the point. The operative words were "make it easier" not "force" these insurance companies to do anything.

Who will pay for it?

Most certainly not the taxpayers.

If insurance companies don't have enough healthy people in the pool to make up for the costs of the sick people, then rates will sky rocket if you force them to take people with pre-existing conditions.

They took that risk. It's not fair for the consumer to have to pay for that lapse in judgement.

Trump doesn't have a clue how he's going to do that but it sounds good say we'll get rid of the unpopular stuff and keep the popular stuff.

Apparently Trump was smart enough to keep the "pre-existing conditions" part. He's not that stupid.

 

[Coyote]

How will you force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions?

A lot of compliance can be ensured using monetary measures. Money is a devastating weapon. But that's beside the point. The operative words were "make it easier" not "force" these insurance companies to do anything.

Who will pay for it?

Most certainly not the taxpayers.

If insurance companies don't have enough healthy people in the pool to make up for the costs of the sick people, then rates will sky rocket if you force them to take people with pre-existing conditions.

They took that risk. It's not fair for the consumer to have to pay for that lapse in judgement.

Trump doesn't have a clue how he's going to do that but it sounds good say we'll get rid of the unpopular stuff and keep the popular stuff.

Apparently Trump was smart enough to keep the "pre-existing conditions" part. He's not that stupid.

You're really just giving me generalities and evasions.

What sort of monetary measures?

The insurance companies WON'T take the risk. That's the point. They'll go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. So if Trump wants to keep how will he do that?

If taxpayers don't pay...who will?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're really just giving me generalities and evasions.

Or they are answers you'd rather not address.

The insurance companies WON'T take the risk.

Hate to burst your bubble, but they took that risk the moment they chose to participate in the exchanges. The hope was that the law would bring in less risky claimants, mainly younger people who don't partake in healthcare services as frequently as people my grandmother's age do.

That backfired. They lost money big time. Aetna just left the exchanges because not enough young people enrolled to offset the costs of riskier claimants. And it was for that reason other insurers stopped participating.

Read that link I posted earlier.

 

[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.

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

Yanno, I'm sick and tired of people playing the pity card when it comes to Obamacare when they have no sufficient counterpoints to make.

Instead of the government forcing anyone to have health insurance, just tailor the law to regulate the existing healthcare industry. Make it easier for insurance companies to insure more people without hemorrhaging money. It never needed to become as complicated as it is now.

For example, the pre-existing conditions. Trump said he wanted to keep that part of Obamacare. Yet here you are seemingly making the implication that Republicans don't care about those with "pre-existing" conditions. Weren't you paying any attention?

Except it's not so simple. If it was, would they have bothered with a mandate? I doubt it - it's clearly the least popular part of the plan.

How will you force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it? If insurance companies don't have enough healthy people in the pool to make up for the costs of the sick people, then rates will sky rocket if you force them to take people with pre-existing conditions. Trump doesn't have a clue how he's going to do that but it sounds good say we'll get rid of the unpopular stuff and keep the popular stuff. Nevermind that the umpopular stuff in some cases is what keeps it "budget neutral" or is the carrot for the insurance companies to take sicker people.

Exactly. Insurance companies can't afford people j

You're really just giving me generalities and evasions.

Or they are answers you'd rather not address.

The insurance companies WON'T take the risk.

Hate to burst your bubble, but they took that risk the moment they chose to participate in the exchanges. The hope was that the law would bring in less risky claimants, mainly younger people who don't partake in healthcare services as frequently as people my grandmother's age do.

That backfired. They lost money big time. Aetna just left the exchanges because not enough young people enrolled to offset the costs of riskier claimants. And it was for that reason other insurers stopped participating.

Read that link I posted earlier.

Yes - not every company was able to compete. Others are adjusting prices to meet the challenge of that business.

The health of the "exchanges" is only one issue. And, there is at least one solution for that, if congress decides to be interested.


Let's remember that the ACA covers all health care plans in America other than VA. Even coverage through employers is ACA compliant.

Deciding to toss the ACA will affect the health care of every American, leaving the future of health care for every American family open to anybody's guess.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Deciding to toss the ACA will affect the health care of every American, leaving the future of health care for every American family open to anybody's guess.

That's a bit dramatic, don't you think?

 

[Coyote]

You're really just giving me generalities and evasions.

Or they are answers you'd rather not address.

How can I address generalities?

The insurance companies WON'T take the risk.

Hate to burst your bubble, but they took that risk the moment they chose to participate in the exchanges. The hope was that the law would bring in less risky claimants, mainly younger people who don't partake in healthcare services as frequently as people my grandmother's age do.

That backfired. They lost money big time. Aetna just left the exchanges because not enough young people enrolled to offset the costs of riskier claimants. And it was for that reason other insurers stopped participating.

Read that link I posted earlier.

I think we're talking past each other. The law applied whether or not they participated in the exchanges. I'm not exactly sure how what you are saying relates to what I was saying.

If the individual mandate goes. How will you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it?

 

[Coyote]

Deciding to toss the ACA will affect the health care of every American, leaving the future of health care for every American family open to anybody's guess.

That's a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Not really. If you don't have a replacement plan in place, that has been explained to the public it will create havoc for both people with insurance and for the insurance industry itself. ACA covers a lot of ground.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How will you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it?

I didn't say anything about "forcing" them to take people with pre-existing conditions. What I said was the government should make it easier for them to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you don't have a replacement plan in place, that has been explained to the public it will create havoc for both people with insurance and for the insurance industry itself.

Read the proposal put forth by Tom Price.

 

[Coyote]

How will you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it?

I didn't say anything about "forcing" them to take people with pre-existing conditions. What I said was the government should make it easier for them to.

Ok, but the question is how?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How will you force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions? Who will pay for it?

I didn't say anything about "forcing" them to take people with pre-existing conditions. What I said was the government should make it easier for them to.

Ok, but the question is how?

I don't know. If I did, I would be pursuing a career in policy. Pass laws that would ease the monetary blow the companies take by taking on higher risk claimants.

 

[Coyote]

If you don't have a replacement plan in place, that has been explained to the public it will create havoc for both people with insurance and for the insurance industry itself.

Read the proposal put forth by Tom Price.

Ya....it's not that great....Tom Price's Health Plan Doesn't Let Insurers Impose Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions - Sort Of