Definitely a START, usmcc…but therein lies one of my issues.
No one…and I mean NO one has presented a replacement plan…or even a basic outline of one.
Agree.
“…He who wears the crown must bear its weight…”
They need to grow a set and repeal the whole thing. But Republicans have shown in the past when it comes time to deliver on campaign promises their nads shrivel up and hide in their body cavities.
2 Likes
I thought Price had proposed an alternative during his legislative tenure? Also, is the below a sufficient update? I ask because I genuinely don’t know. The ACA is unpopular, but US healthcare is something I am fairly weak on in general.
LS:
What happens is these “plans” have most often amounted to no more than Political “talking points”. (As this one is). Ryan specifically said yesterday that over the next few months, ideas would be bantered around.
This is not a bad thing. This all needs careful thought.
I agree, my point is more that I think the accusation that they are completely asleep at the wheel is uncharitable. Hell, they could completely flub it.
The ACA’s approval ratings have never once been above water, so it would be fair to say that a change is mandated, especially given the PEOTUS’s running platform.
Agree.
It is a major part of the GOP/Conservative Mandate, no doubt.
With that said; what I think is happening…(and will happen)…is a lot of “smoke-and-mirrors”.
In other words; enough legislative “slight-of-hand” so that the GOP leadership can get on camera and say “We listened to the American people and have gotten rid of Obamacare!”…while keeping its most fundamental components.
We’ll see.
1 Like
He has stated much the intent to do what I posted and apparently prepared the order. So I think it will happen.
The weakness of Obamacare was its most popular provision – you can get insurance for pre-existing conditions, no questions asked. That creates a huge “free rider” problem of people not signing up until they need insurance. Bit like only betting on roulette until after the ball comes to rest.
This provision will have to be weakened to something more reasonable.
Interstate purchases of insurance will be permitted.
“One size fits all” types of mandatory policies will be removed.
Subsidies making working people pay for deadbeats will be removed.
The result will be OK.
Crappy lazy people who don’t plan and want people to pay for their mistakes will get screwed. Given they make up the overwhelming majority of the Democrat freeloader base, there will be much uproar.
Trump, for all his flaws, has the balls to call them freeloaders, and proceed ahead.
Let’s digress to life today in the trenches.
I know of an early 60s couple who this month begin paying a $39,000 yearly health insurance premium with a $6,000 deductible. $45,000/yr to reach the deductible. I don’t know their subsidy status and also whether they have 100% coverage for medical service after meeting the deductible.
Today a republican MD congressman said with the minimum $6000 deductible (which I suppose is universal ?), a young person with an ACA plan using emergency room care for a 2 am kidney stone attack will pay the first $4000 of the $6000 emergency room bill.
Minimally, I understand the ACA government subsidy is only for the premium. This is insurance?
Congressman Nancy Pelosi’s pre ACA passage comments about “…have to pass the bill in order to find out what’s in it…” will surely outlive her in many persons’ minds. She’s over 76.
Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer should create more responsible sound bites than that recent one about America being sick. I want to be able to remember him for helping make a new, bipartisan ACA.
I wish the republicans much good luck with reinventing the ACA. I would have wished the democrats the same had Hillary won. Obama spending time yesterday with democrats trying to preserve ACA, or some of its parts, concurrent with Pence meeting with republicans about its repeal. Those partisan attitudes birthed the present ACA.
Foregoing is buildup to share personal frustration over my wife’s $500 monthly health premium January increase despite her great health. She laments Hillary’s defeat-- reminds me almost daily–and I’m paying her !@#$% premiums.
Seems strange that health insurance cannot presently be sold interstate, when (a) my wife’s premiums are mailed monthly out of state, and (b) out of state personnel had to advise me about why they credited someoneelse’s policy with my wife’s November $l000 premium payment and canceled her policy December 2 without notice. They said my December 15 payment was being returned because it did not also cover the January 2017 premium the computers determined was then due. (Three days to clear that up after I emailed the front and back of my November’s processed check, and no apology.)
Life in the trenches is exciting.
This is the main reasons participation in Obamacare is mandatory–to prevent free riders. Everyone needs healthcare at some point, so everyone pays in.
States that receive more in Fed monies than they pay in–what one might call the ‘crappy lazy states’–voted for Trump, not HRC. So the freeloaders reside largely in the GOP tent.
It’s mandatory in name only. The “penalty” for non-compliance is less than the cost of the premium AND there is no mechanism or right for the government to collect the penalty, except for withholding one’s IRS refund, and only idiots get an IRS refund – because they lent the cesspool that is the federal government their money interest free.
[quote]States that receive more in Fed monies than they pay in–what one might call the ‘crappy lazy states’–voted for Trump, not HRC. So the freeloaders reside largely in the GOP tent.
[/quote]
Probably the dumbest statistic, ever.
“Statewide numbers” include freeloaders in those states, which are overwhelmingly Democrats. Look at people on the government teat and registered Democrats, and there is a giant overlap, regardless of state.
Moreover, the statewide number includes things like military bases and retirees.
Yes, there are more military bases in red states, because liberals are generally physical cowards and rarely join the military, and look upon with disdain at those in the military. And yes, retirees disproportionately go to red states because their is generally no state income tax and the standard of living is cheaper.
1 Like
If you’re point is that the penalty is not stiff enough, and its enforcement is too lax, I agree with you.
“Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey.”
[…]
“The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.”
“[A]ccording to a TIME analysis of county-by-county food-stamp-enrollment data compiled by the nonprofit Feeding America, it appears that House Republicans represent more districts with high levels of participation in the program than House Democrats. Of the 350 congressional districts in which TIME was able to estimate the percentage of people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 76 had levels of 20% or higher. Of those, 43 are held by Republicans while 33 are controlled by Democrats.”
Here is some info…
You actually do not have to “replace” obamacare with anything the system already existed before obamacare and it was much more affordable. Obamacare is going away either by vote or by the collapse under its own weight.
The predictable outcome was that prices skyrocketed under obamacare. The disease in Washington and the republicans are guilty of it too, though to a lesser degree, is they are focusing on coverage and not cost. It doesn’t much matter if you have insurance if that insurance sucks and actual healthcare costs are still unaffordable.
If you are on a plan that has a $5000 deductible and most doctors don’t take, then your still better off going to the “free clinic” or emergency room under a fake name.
It needs to be repealed before it bankrupts the country, at least the individuals in the country.
The only thing I would leave is the pre-existing condition statute. Other than that scrap it.
Controlling drug costs, allowing greater market competition for drugs and greater competition among insurance plans amount state lines would go a huge, long way to reducing costs. And that should be the focus. If you can afford your health care you don’t need insurance. So that should be the goal.
But a straight out gutting is not a bad thing. As I said we already had a health system that actually worked better and was more affordable when obamacare didn’t exist.
“WASHINGTON — House Republicans, responding to criticism that repealing the Affordable Care Act would leave millions without health insurance, said on Thursday that their goal in replacing President Obama’s health law was to guarantee “universal access” to health care and coverage, not necessarily to ensure that everyone actually has insurance.”
Well, yes. We have always had ‘universal access to health care and coverage’–at the right price, that is. The kicker is, absent premium supports and/or price controls, the cost of insurance was simply out of reach for those who needed it most (ie, the sickly among us). So if we go back to that system, premiums for young, healthy individuals (read: individuals who do not often need healthcare services) will go down, but they will skyrocket for those with chronic illnesses, and actually need the coverage.
It doesn’t matter how much we de-regulate the market, foster interstate competition, etc–the fact is that without the cash infusion provided by the ‘young invincibles,’ premiums will once again be unaffordable for those who most need insurance. We will be right back where we started.
Here is some more information about selling insurance across state lines and how its not really a solution to the problem.
This survey by Marsha Blackburn doesn’t look to good either.
Another problem people who are advocating repealing the ACA aren’t talking about.
Is more fake news.
Here:
FTA cited by fake news Time:
“[C]ongressional districts with the absolute highest levels of enrollment are more likely to be represented by Democrats[.]”
Other sources:
Democrats are the very poor and the very rich, not the working man:
Democrats are the highly educated:
Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%).
Edited