Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Danny Bateman]

I'm currently of the opinion there will be no new bill. We saw yesterday the madness the House GOP was willing to go through to try to craft their replacement in secrecy. It's honestly absurd.

 

The problem with a whole new bill is that they seem determined to make it anti-ACA. But the ACA is already a fairly conservative approach to healthcare. So essentially they're trying to replace a conservative system with something more conservative, which could only be something that is essentially conservative healthcare on steroids. At that point you're rapidly descending into ideas that are so focused on being conservative that they're detrimental to the efficacy of the system.

 

The House efforts are angering non-conservatives and some conservatives alike, ala Rand Paul and the GOP governors who actually have to answer to the people they represent.

 

I'm preparing for either the situation Knapp described where they tweak it through reconciliation, or a GOP replacement bill that is worse than the ACA.

[zoogs]

Cruz, Paul, and (Lee?) are the three GOP Senators who are slamming Paul Ryan's House bill as too little destruction of the ACA?

 

These must be the examples of upstanding Republicans we would have all been happy to see President if only they could have secured the nomination this year.

[StPaulHusker]

[BigRedBuster]

I'm currently of the opinion there will be no new bill. We saw yesterday the madness the House GOP was willing to go through to try to craft their replacement in secrecy. It's honestly absurd.

 

The problem with a whole new bill is that they seem determined to make it anti-ACA. But the ACA is already a fairly conservative approach to healthcare. So essentially they're trying to replace a conservative system with something more conservative, which could only be something that is essentially conservative healthcare on steroids. At that point you're rapidly descending into ideas that are so focused on being conservative that they're detrimental to the efficacy of the system.

 

The House efforts are angering non-conservatives and some conservatives alike, ala Rand Paul and the GOP governors who actually have to answer to the people they represent.

 

I'm preparing for either the situation Knapp described where they tweak it through reconciliation, or a GOP replacement bill that is worse than the ACA.

Wouldn't it be funny if we had the Dems pass a fairly conservative healthcare bill only to have it trick the Republicans into passing a more liberal healthcare bill?

[Danny Bateman]

So, the House GOP members finally came up with their long-awaited answer on repeal and replace earlier today: the American Health Care Act. It's there, in all it's dry PDF glory, for anyone that wants to look over it.

 

Here's a summary from Vox that I'm partial to:

 

The GOP health bill doesn’t know what problem it’s trying to solve

 

Here's some takeaways from Obama's former Medicare/Medicaid chief:

 

 

Overall, from what I've read and seen, it's an ugly bill. Guts Medicaid to help fund itself, big tax cuts for the rich and healthcare CEOs ( ! ), defunds Planned Parenthood outright (while also prohibiting new tax credits from applying to private plans covering abortion, making those that do unaffordable, which is basically a backdoor attack on it outright), age-based tax credits instead of income-based ones, trimming of "essential benefits" that must be covered by plans in order to save $, allows healthcare companies to jack up premiums on older policy holders, 30% premium increase if you don't maintain continuous coverage (which is an odd amount, because it may not be enough to dissuade healthy folks from dropping coverage to save $, which would increase market volatility)...

 

I could go on and on. But I'm just not sure what problems this bill sets out to really do. It's not going to cover more people or provide better care. It will probably make coverage cheaper... if you're younger and healthier. If you're not, if you're poor or older or not as healthy... all bets are off.

[Danny Bateman]

 

I'm currently of the opinion there will be no new bill. We saw yesterday the madness the House GOP was willing to go through to try to craft their replacement in secrecy. It's honestly absurd.

 

The problem with a whole new bill is that they seem determined to make it anti-ACA. But the ACA is already a fairly conservative approach to healthcare. So essentially they're trying to replace a conservative system with something more conservative, which could only be something that is essentially conservative healthcare on steroids. At that point you're rapidly descending into ideas that are so focused on being conservative that they're detrimental to the efficacy of the system.

 

The House efforts are angering non-conservatives and some conservatives alike, ala Rand Paul and the GOP governors who actually have to answer to the people they represent.

 

I'm preparing for either the situation Knapp described where they tweak it through reconciliation, or a GOP replacement bill that is worse than the ACA.

Wouldn't it be funny if we had the Dems pass a fairly conservative healthcare bill only to have it trick the Republicans into passing a more liberal healthcare bill?

 

 

That would be nothing short of hilarious and breathtaking.

 

But, based on the opening salvo, while they were closer to the ACA than what they had been touting, the ACA this is not, and it appears to be a worse bill.

[BigRedBuster]

[knapplc]

So, like Obamacare, this bill won't do anything to rein in the rampant costs in American healthcare. So it's just as worthless as Obamacare, it's just THEIR bill, so it's "better."

[Moiraine]

So he's implying that the people who can't afford health care can't afford it because they make bad financial choices. He's also saying a $500 iphone costs the same as health care.

[commando]

So, like Obamacare, this bill won't do anything to rein in the rampant costs in American healthcare. So it's just as worthless as Obamacare, it's just THEIR bill, so it's "better."

 

 

a $500 iphone is nothing compared to the cost of health insurance now....and he is implying with this statement that costs are going to go up. i thought trump said trumpcare would cost less and cover more?

[FrankWheeler]

And by attacking all sides, Trump has set it up perfectly to discount the OMB when they come out with their review on the financial impacts.

[NM11046]

So he's implying that the people who can't afford health care can't afford it because they make bad financial choices. He's also saying a $500 iphone costs the same as health care.

But, if you don't have a phone you can't call the ambulance to get you to the ER where you can get treatment for a chronic condition that you let go because you don't have health care and can't afford an office visit or routine prescription meds.

[Fru]

While I must admit that I think Americans are alarmingly obsessed with needless consumerism, that statement is asinine. Does having a new iPhone determine whether you get coverage or not due to a preexisting condition?

[Danny Bateman]

 

So he's implying that the people who can't afford health care can't afford it because they make bad financial choices. He's also saying a $500 iphone costs the same as health care.

But, if you don't have a phone you can't call the ambulance to get you to the ER where you can get treatment for a chronic condition that you let go because you don't have health care and can't afford an office visit or routine prescription meds.

 

 

We're going to start to see plans rolling out that don't even cover meds because that's considered an "essential benefit" under the ACA that the GOP views as an unnecessary expense forced on people.

 

I can't imagine many people will opt for those plans, but that they're going to be offered is somewhat asinine.

[knapplc]

https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/839106991301799937

 

https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/839112734960676867