Republicans Ready to Repeal and Repla... Well, Repeal Obamacare

"Any idea what the GOP plan might look like?

'They didn’t give us any details,' said Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., as he departed the Pence conclave...

...But one thing is clear: Republicans already prepped a provision to ignore internal congressional budgetary rules if the repeal is successful and explodes the federal deficit.

Man, even Fox is shaking their heads.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/republicans-agree-on-obamacare-repeal-replacement-is-tricky-part.html

To be fair, a few lawmakers have some ideas floating around, but GOP leadership hasn't commented on any of it as of yet:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/conservatives-repeal-and-replace-obamacare-bill/

The bill includes several ideas that Republican lawmakers have advocated for years, such as tax credits to help offset the cost of health coverage and allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines.The legislation also includes provisions to reform medical liability laws.

To pay for the plan, the conservatives proposed an across-the-board cut in non-defense domestic programs over the next several years.

The RSC's proposal is likely to be one of multiple GOP proposals that emerge from the House and the Senate in the coming months as the Obamacare repeal and replace debate heats up. Earlier in the day, Walker acknowledged to CNN that the process would be complex and drawn out.

"They have to repeal it before you can find out what’s in the replacement."

zing!

wait what??

"But one thing is clear: Republicans already prepped a provision to ignore internal congressional budgetary rules if the repeal is successful and explodes the federal deficit.

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades."

Being that Obamacare is a government run program, the ends results are substantially different than what was promised. Having insurance is smart but how it has been implemented is just another example of a woeful government program molested by the politicians.

That's always been the issue. The GOP whine and bitch about how terrible the ACA is, but they never forward anything better. Instead they seem just absolutely determined to push forward with a repeal without any plan for what to do afterwards.

They've had 5 years to find a replacement but instead wasted millions of dollars and hours repealing something that was never going to be repealed under Pres. Obama. Absolutely disgusting how they've spent the last 8 years with no real desire to do anything other than obstruct government and stop it from working. And that's how history will see the current Republican party: obstructionists seeking to destroy the very same institutions they swore to uphold.

Medicare is a government run program, and most people like it. Obamacare was a government marketplace that attempted to provide access to private insurance for individuals who's employers did not provide health coverage.

It would have been much simpler to make Medicare available to everyone, but Obama is a realist and knew that was not politically viable at the time. So he used the conservative plan, Romneycare (or Nixonicare if you really know your history) as a base, figuring it was better than nothing.

They are in a hard place, because really, the ACA was their plan. As I said above, Nixon was the first to seriously consider the idea, Romney the first to implement it. Now they have to pretend they always hated the individual mandate and co-ops, and come up with something else.

You've spoken to 50% + 1 when it comes to those on medicare? I won't make such a bold assertion like you but the people I speak to who have to use a government program (regardless of what it is) generally have quite a few unfavorable things to say. The ACA was promoted as one thing but numerous people have found it to be a nightmare whether speaking of increasing premiums, not being able to keep a doctor, the government deciding your policy isn't what you need, etc..,

Their only plan is to let the government give out block grants to the states to pay for stuff which won't control costs, it merely shifts the burden of expense on the people since cuts would be made and the grants wouldn't keep up with rising health care costs. The other options were.....sell across state lines? (which you can do) and tort reform? (lol at curbing costs).

Alright, here's some studies and polls:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2009/may/elderly-medicare-beneficiaries-give-their-coverage-higher-ratings

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity-high-ahead-of-birthday.html

But I know a lot of people prefer anecdotes and personal experiences these days since the MSM is lying to us or something, so here you go:

I have private insurance through my employer, not Obamacare. It's a family plan for myself, wife, and daughter. Our rate is going up $150 per month this year. It goes up every year, and has since long before ACA came around, but this jump is a big one.

My wife has a pre-existing condition. Before the ACA, my insurance tried to use that as an excuse to deny coverage for EVERYTHING she submitted. We were on a group plan so that should not have mattered anyway, but they were hoping we wouldn't know any better. My wife has an emphasis in Health and Medical policy, so she had the know-how to fight all of it. All of that nonsense stopped after the passage of the ACA.

However, when my wife got pregnant, the started the shenanigans up again and over those 9 months tried to deny coverage for what came to around $25,000 in pregnancy related medical bills. My wife once again spent hours on the phone explaining to insurance reps how to do their own jobs, and we paid about $5,000 out of pocket in the end.

My point is, everything you have heard of happening with Medicare, happens with private insurance as well. In fact, private insurance has the added benefit of adding to the administrative costs to hospitals because, with so many insurance companies, each having a multitude of plans, they have to spend a ton of time and money just navigating the whole mess.

Republican party is a disgrace to America. They dont believe in revealing the plan to the enemy.

lol Really? Just ignore the math and say shit's all good?

Enjoy.

My alternative would be to privatize everything and provide everyone with health savings accounts (Dr. Carson's plan). Would give people more flexibility, freedom over their healthcare and could provide a nice transition to those who have paid into the broken system.

"Under the plan Carson outlined most specifically last year, the government would contribute $2,000 to each individual’s tax-free account every year, with a third of the funding earmarked for insurance to cover severe medical incidents. Individuals and employers could contribute additional funds to the accounts, and the unspent funds could be shared among family members, which Carson says "makes every family their own insurance company."

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/ben-carson-medicare-medicaid-215055

CYA

Just the opposite in my experience. Most people seem to have favorable views on Medicare, along w/ their various additional forms of coverage.

The government has no business in the health care business. The ACA did more damage than good. If it was so good there would be no reason to repeal it. It helped a few people but screwed the rest big time.

$2000 is nothing if you need medical care. Seriously how out of touch with costs is Carson....and uh apparently the person who thinks it's good.

LOL.

Party A: "We're going to repeal X!"

Party B: "Why does it need to be repealed?"

Party A: "If it was good, it wouldn't need to be repealed!"

If/When ACA is repealed, it is very important that the clause that allows all to receive health coverage remains intact.

Cancer Facts and Figures: Death Rate Down 25% Since 1991

The rates of new cancer cases and cancer deaths vary quite a bit among racial and ethnic groups, with rates generally highest among African Americans and lowest Asian Americans. However, racial disparities continue to decline. The excess risk of cancer death in black men as compared to white men has dropped from 47% in 1990 to 21% in 2014. The racial disparity has also declined in black women, from a peak of 20% in 1998 to 13% in 2014.

Although the cancer death rate remained 15% higher in blacks than in whites in 2014, increasing access to care as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may contribute to a further narrowing of the racial gap across all population groups. In 2015, 11% of blacks and 7% of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured, compared with 21% of blacks and 12% of non-Hispanic whites in 2010. Progress for Hispanics is similar, with the uninsured rate dropping from 31% in 2010 to 16% in 2015.

I'm interested to hear how you think that would be accomplished/would like it to be accomplished. Thinking it out from that point, I'm struggling to think of a way it would be accomplished that isn't antithetical to the GOP's complaints about the ACA.

The fact that they need to 'replace' anything is an admission that it's done good. Their only answers are to further privatize and cut back spending and push costs to individuals.

Let me just preface by saying, I am just like (probably) 99% of the people on this site, I have no qualification to answer any of this and am merely speaking towards my own beliefs/interests.

^^^That being said, the GOP knows how important it is to not turn away those with pre-existing conditions. From the articles I have read is what I'm basing my statement on. Even this thread is telling that same story, that covering those with pre-existing conditions is an absolute must -- but it is only a question of how you pay for that (the main reason why the GOP dislikes ACA)

lmao, right? Clueless individuals who have never worked or have experience in the healthcare industry talking about savings accounts and block grants lol just repeating garbage talking points they have no idea about.

I'm loving the Republicans' turn right now. They've spent the past 5 years trying to repeal this thing because it's a scourge on humanity and "worse than slavery" according to whacky Ben Carson, yet now they want a "grace period" until they replace it? If it's as big a disaster as they say why does it need a grace period until it's replaced? I thought no policy was better than bad policy?

You really have no idea what you're talking about lol " government has no business in the health care business" is just entirely disconnected to reality and how the world works, inside and outside the US.

Right, and that's the rub. How you go about paying for/propping up the pre-existing conditions rule and the increased insured rate is the question. I was just asking how you think that will occur in the replacement/want that to occur in the replacement.

Your opinion isn't "how the world works."

Probably the most condescending thing I've read on here all day LOL.

Where was I stating an opinion? The government is involved in health care in every single country on earth.

Good for them. Its not how "reality" works though. Mind numbingly arrogant statement.

Nothing arrogant about it, that is how reality works lol wtf.

You really do have trouble with reading comprehension.

I love how you can be so arrogant and condescending towards others, then bring up other countries and say its just reality.

Its usually why Democrats get steamrolled in elections on the regular.

Only to JimB because he's clueless and wrong about literally everything.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of the US health care system to say, exactly, how it will be paid for. And from the looks of things, with no replacement to ACA being adopted until later 2017, it doesn't look like Republicans know either.

The best approach, or at least one that sounds good to me, is creating a system that doesn't rely on hospitals to provide primary care -- where individuals (and the community around them) maintain regular doctors check-ups thus becoming aware of any problems or abnormalities. If we visit hospitals less we spend much less on the health care of our citizens.

^^^ That is more of a local (mayoral, town council) issue than President/Congress, but any incentives will only help push communities toward such action. And that is something that the current administration must incorporate into Trumpcare.

So long as our rates go down so the wife will stop grumbling.

HSAs are good if you use it for small out of pocket costs but it's a freaking joke if people think that it can be expanded and employed to cover actual medical costs (how do you save for potential medical costs to cover a family in times of need with it?). It's borderline laughable to be honest and still ignores that health care costs need to be addressed, not just paid for. Same problem exists for the block grant nonsense being pushed by Paul Ryan.

Suddenly people started noticing that premium and health care costs were rising annually. It's almost like they didn't realize the SAME THING was happening decades prior at an even higher rate.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2017/Jan/Repealing-Federal-Health-Reform

It appears that repealing the 'job killing' ACA will ironically lead to a loss of 2.6 million jobs (in lieu of no replacement).

The only solution is to control costs. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to get that. Obamacare is a Frankenstein's monster and Republicans simply aren't smart enough to fix anything.

It just needs to be repealed, and while it might not happen all at once, the worst parts of it are going to be stripped away over time.

We should go single payer. That will solve everything.

Good. Obamacare was a failure from the start. You should be lucky that Hillary hasn't won. Otherwise she would have renamed it as Hillarycare.

Exactly. Democrats should feel lucky Hilary didn't win. She would've kept the entire party out of power for at-least a decade and a half after her presidency.

Unless she would have declared war on Russia. Some people here have no idea how close we came to avoid WW3 with Russia. Hillary was far more of a war monger then Trump. Libya stats as a failed state lay on Hillary's record.

even with a full repeal do you think your rates will actually decrease? insurers will need to make up for "lost profits"

They'll go down. Only to establish a facade and to appease all the rubes for a job well done.

Then they'll go right back up because people have some seriously short attention spans. They already forgot how bad it was, pre-ACA, after all.

They're not going down.

What profits? With the HUGE jump in insurance claims, the insurers have been bleeding money. That is why the rates went up...

Yah that's terrible. Some of these companies are only profiting 11 billion a year that is on a constant rise (not decrease).

Is that why all of the biggest Insurance companies are pulling out of the ACA exchanges? Aetna, United Health Care and Humana were set to lose hundreds of millions a year so they bounced. I don't know where your 11 billion number came from.

there is a difference between LESS profits and NO profits.

anyway, reading fail as i specifically said "lost" which implies both reduced profits and/or zero profits. :P

also, you specifically mentioned big guys like aetna, unh, and humana all of which seemed to have done stunningly well over the past 5 years...

@comp_atkins: The poor dears.