Jump to content


Repealing the ACA under Trump


Recommended Posts

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy.

 

Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens here...

Link to comment

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy.

 

Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens here...

 

Are you saying that you're hearing they're likely to change little to nothing and try to force the ACA into this vaunted death spiral they complain about so much?

Link to comment

 

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy.

 

Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens here...

 

Are you saying that you're hearing they're likely to change little to nothing and try to force the ACA into this vaunted death spiral they complain about so much?

 

Yeah, what in the actual **** is going on here? My mom is already on Medicare, but my dad isn't quite there yet, will be this July. It can't get here quick enough because this is a mess. Of course there was talk of them privatizing medicare somewhere in the past week.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy.

 

Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens here...

 

Are you saying that you're hearing they're likely to change little to nothing and try to force the ACA into this vaunted death spiral they complain about so much?

 

 

More or less. The White House is trying to force insurance providers to create the ACA death spiral. Insurance is about risk pooling and anything unknown is high risk. Looking at the news since that post, that's what with the insurance providers demands/warnings are trying to address. If insurance providers don't start jumping off the exchanges, I think WH/GOP will move towards changes with the intent of getting insurance providers to withdraw. It's a massive game of chicken and the insurance providers are convinced the WH will only settle for a collision or insurance to balk...

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Don't people generally like medicare? I know my mom does. As soon as she got on it her health care went down a lot.

 

I know the fact that our population is top heavy in age is an issue for the economy but screwing with medicare isn't a good answer.

My mom told me it's a tad bit cheaper, but still fairly pricey. I just think it would help with the "unknown" problems with ACA from their perspective.

Link to comment

What's this "we're gonna come up with" bullcrap?

 

They've had seven years. Why don't they have something ready to roll out already?

Agree 1000% - This stonewalling by the repubs and saying they couldn't get around Obama's veto has ended. In the meantime they should have put in the hard work to have a plan on Trump's desk on day one if they were really serious. Now the new language is that they are going to 'repair' not repeal and replace the ACA. It shows that it was nothing but a lie to gain votes and to keep conservatives 'on the plantation'.

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/they-lied-all-along-republicans-plan-to-repair-not-repeal-obamacare

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy.

 

Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens here...

 

Are you saying that you're hearing they're likely to change little to nothing and try to force the ACA into this vaunted death spiral they complain about so much?

 

 

More or less. The White House is trying to force insurance providers to create the ACA death spiral. Insurance is about risk pooling and anything unknown is high risk. Looking at the news since that post, that's what with the insurance providers demands/warnings are trying to address. If insurance providers don't start jumping off the exchanges, I think WH/GOP will move towards changes with the intent of getting insurance providers to withdraw. It's a massive game of chicken and the insurance providers are convinced the WH will only settle for a collision or insurance to balk...

 

 

Despicable.

 

TGH is right. They've shifted their parameters now that it's actually time to do the damn thing. Staunch conservatives like Paul Ryan are never short for words on how terrible the ACA is, and always take advantage of an opportunity to remind us of the wicked death spiral.

 

But the fact is that the available data contradicts that. Yes, the premiums are going up (again, at a slower pace overall than they were before), and that aspect has become a bit of an albatross since no one has lifted a finger to fix anything. But enrollment is actually up this year. If it is in a so-callled death spiral, it's because they're forcing it onto one. The ACA could be viable if anyone would take any measures to try to improve it.

 

But from what you're saying and what I've read, they've given up on a comprehensive replacement in favor of trying to kneecap the existing law and replace it through a piecemeal approach...

 

If they really DO try to take steps to make more insurance companies withdraw, I really hope people remember who was responsible if premiums spike or people lose coverage this year... It's these clowns.

Link to comment

Nobody will remember who is at fault. The Repub's will say it failed because Obama & the Dem's propped up a broken system. When the Repub's even looked at trying to fix it, the ACA totally collapsed under the weight of its issues. The aftermath of this approach pretty much guarantees nothing like the ACA or widespread meaningful Healthcare reform is attempted again in our lifetimes.

 

If the fallout is as bad as it could be, the insurance companies know they'll be singled out when control of Congress changes... In a weird way, the ONLY option that everyone knows needs to be avoided IS the option GOP/WH is pursuing...

 

One thing many do not account for in this situation is the impact of uninsured/under-insured on the rising cost of healthcare. If a hospital has a high number of these, they have to recoup that money somehow and the preferred accounting approach is to charge more. One part of controlling cost increases is ensuring some level of coverage, right??? lulz

Link to comment

Republicans in Idaho tried to design a better plan than Obamacare - and failed

 

Interesting dive into a red state's attempt to come up with an alternative to the ACA. Idaho voted against Medicaid expansion although nearly 5 percent fell into the gray area of working poor who didn't qualify for Medicaid outright but couldn't afford regular healthcare.

 

TL;DR is that the Republican kicked around some conservative solutions like HSAs but did nothing.

 

A task force the Republican governor put together said the best solution to help folks was to expand Medicaid. That was rejected because, well, Obamacare.

 

I had to laugh at this "solution" for healthcare:

 

Proposals flowed. Some sought to use tax breaks to create health savings accounts. One senator lobbed the idea of offering the working poor tax incentives if they use a life coach to motivate them to get higher-paying jobs. None of the proposals caught on.

 

The governor proposed $30M to fund more primary-care physicians to the working poor in the gray area. That became $5M toward not physicians but a study to try to analyze who needed care.

 

Their Senate voted for that $5M study. The House voted it down because it gave too much power to the governor.

 

Healthcare reform is hard. It sucks that the people of Idaho got screwed just to spite Obama.

 

I thought this anecdote at the end was interesting:

 

Twenty miles west of the Gluchs’ home, the highways and big-box stores give way to snow-covered fields and two-lane highways. Farm country. And then, the no-traffic-light downtown Main Street in the city of Homedale, where a group of eight men sat for coffee at Matteson’s Auto Shop on a recent day. All had private insurance or were on Medicare. The very mention of the Affordable Care Act drew groans.

 

“Obamacare?” said Ron Petsche, 62, a car salesman. “I don’t want anything to do with Obama.”

Across the table, a 53-year-old said he was considering delaying his retirement because the increase in his private insurance was cutting into his savings. An 81-year-old man discussed how the cost of his heart medication doubled and his eye medication went up $40 each month.

“What I hated most about Obamacare was how they want to mandate everyone get insurance,” the 81-year-old said. “Why should anyone tell me what I can and can’t have?”

“Amen, Brother Ben,” a man in a goatee and leather jacket murmured. The 81-year-old was neither his brother nor named Ben.

Jon Hayes, a 79-year-old architect, was worried about the country descending into socialism and not trusting the free market. Idahoans, he said, believed in themselves and not institutions.

“Amen, Brother Ben,” the man in the leather jacket said.

Yet Hayes wondered whether folks in this part of the country could see the big picture, whether they were being selfish. “When you have a city and you have urban poverty, it’s easy to see because it’s right there,” he said. “Here you have rural poverty, and it’s horrible!”

He continued: “Still, people are hurting, even if they work. Maybe we can slowly bring back these community colleges, by giving people more of a leg up so they have the ability to work and not depend on the government.”

“But where do you draw the line?” Petsche interrupted. “They don’t have health care, so you give them health care? They don’t have a house, so you give them a house? They don’t have a car, so you give them a car? When I was growing up, if I couldn’t afford it, I didn’t have it.”

 

“Then how do you fix it if there’s not help?” Hayes asked.

Petsche sat back in his chair and shrugged: “That’s outside my pay scale.”

“Amen,” the man in the leather jacket said.

 

I think perhaps I underestimated just how deeply the resentment of big government runs in the rural areas of our nation.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

The resentment of "Big Government" is no more or less a problem in the discussion of issues like healthcare than people who constantly look for the government for handouts to solve their problems. And...to be clear, I'm talking about people all the way from the welfare dude who refuses to even look for a job all the way to banks who scare the government into forking billions of dollars into their institutions to save them from bad decisions.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...