Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Danny Bateman]

 

This is from the plan that leaked this weekend from conservative wunderkind and Ayn Rand enthusiast Paul Ryan and his House cohorts.

 

I'll be in the 26-34 bracket by the time this kicked in. I'd get off relatively easily. God help you if you're in that 55-64 bracket.

[Moiraine]

https://twitter.com/VP/status/834493747836682241

 

This is another way of saying "if you're too poor to afford health care you aren't a responsible person"

[BigRedBuster]

I find this interesting. I wonder if he knows those insurers love many parts of the ACA and actually were a part in putting it together.

 

[Danny Bateman]

President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.

 

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

[knapplc]

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

 

 

Good thing they've had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a solution.

[BigRedBuster]

You know....once you step away from being a part of party politics, moments like this just leave you banging your head against the wall. It literally amazes me how the American public puts up with this.

[BigRedBuster]

Oh goodie....now we get to see the other side of party politics.

 

 

 

 

Question.....if the Republicans haven't announced their fix or replacement of the ACA, how do they know these claims?

[TGHusker]

 

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

 

 

Good thing they've had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a solution.

 

True but also they have had 7 years to use it as a campaign red meat item in all of their franking letters back to constituents, and fund raising letters to fleece the republican flock. This really reveals who they are - followers and not leaders. If they were leaders

1. They would have worked wt the Dems back in 2009-10 to make it a better bill. However, it appeared at the time the Dems and Repubs were dead set against working together. So, the repubs could have started an educational campaign to educate everyone on why their version would have been better. But it appears that would have taken some real work, so just uses it as a campaign wedge subject.

 

2. They would have had a bill sitting on Trump's desk within the 1st week - 2 weeks at the most. They should have had their own bill ready, and tweak it for any Trump changes that they wanted to incorporate. But now it is so powerfully clear that they had not worked on anything, had given no thought of it and were totally prepared to continue using it as a fund raising effort during the Hillary presidency. I think they were caught with their pants down, flat footed and said 'Oops we actually have to govern now??' As a pro-life voter this is no different than their lip service / inaction on that issue.

 

I'm soooooo close to signing up as an independent.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

 

 

Good thing they've had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a solution.

 

True but also they have had 7 years to use it as a campaign red meat item in all of their franking letters back to constituents, and fund raising letters to fleece the republican flock. This really reveals who they are - followers and not leaders. If they were leaders

1. They would have worked wt the Dems back in 2009-10 to make it a better bill. However, it appeared at the time the Dems and Repubs were dead set against working together. So, the repubs could have started an educational campaign to educate everyone on why their version would have been better. But it appears that would have taken some real work, so just uses it as a campaign wedge subject.

 

2. They would have had a bill sitting on Trump's desk within the 1st week - 2 weeks at the most. They should have had their own bill ready, and tweak it for any Trump changes that they wanted to incorporate. But now it is so powerfully clear that they had not worked on anything, had given no thought of it and were totally prepared to continue using it as a fund raising effort during the Hillary presidency. I think they were caught with their pants down, flat footed and said 'Oops we actually have to govern now??' As a pro-life voter this is no different than their lip service / inaction on that issue.

 

I'm soooooo close to signing up as an independent.

 

You'll get there eventually.

[Fru]

 

 

 

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

 

 

Good thing they've had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a solution.

 

True but also they have had 7 years to use it as a campaign red meat item in all of their franking letters back to constituents, and fund raising letters to fleece the republican flock. This really reveals who they are - followers and not leaders. If they were leaders

1. They would have worked wt the Dems back in 2009-10 to make it a better bill. However, it appeared at the time the Dems and Repubs were dead set against working together. So, the repubs could have started an educational campaign to educate everyone on why their version would have been better. But it appears that would have taken some real work, so just uses it as a campaign wedge subject.

 

2. They would have had a bill sitting on Trump's desk within the 1st week - 2 weeks at the most. They should have had their own bill ready, and tweak it for any Trump changes that they wanted to incorporate. But now it is so powerfully clear that they had not worked on anything, had given no thought of it and were totally prepared to continue using it as a fund raising effort during the Hillary presidency. I think they were caught with their pants down, flat footed and said 'Oops we actually have to govern now??' As a pro-life voter this is no different than their lip service / inaction on that issue.

 

I'm soooooo close to signing up as an independent.

 

You'll get there eventually.

 

 

It's a pretty liberating feeling.

[Danny Bateman]

Here's some slightly dense but informative reading from Vox on the quagmire in which Republicans find themselves on this whole thing. I generally agree with what they have to say on healthcare reform, and think they cover it well.

 

The first is about an analysis done for the National Governors Association this last weekend about the effects of scaling back tax credits, using age-based instead of income-based credits.

 

Leaked report suggests millions could lose coverage under GOP health proposal

 

Like I said, a bit dense but if you take a second to orient yourself the figures included are quite useful.

 

TL;DR: A decrease in federal funding of 65% (for an Medicaid expansion state) to 80% (for a non-expansion state), and a drop in enrollment of somewhere from 30% (for a hypothetical expansion state with 300K enrolled in Medicaid, meaning 90K would lose Medicaid, with another 115K potentially also losing coverage who would've been on Medicaid - they'd be shifted to the private market and may not be able to find an affordable plan there) to 50% (non-expansion state).

 

They also examined the effects of changing Medicaid to a block grant funding system, which would further reduce federal funding from 6% (non-expansion state) to 24% (expansion state) over a five year time period.

 

So, it would do what they want to do, which is save the federal government money, but at the peril of many low-income folks who are currently ensured.

 

Here's the second:

 

John Boehner told Republicans some inconvenient truths on Obamacare

 

Boehner, one of the original people leading the charge on repeal and replace, seems to have a firm grasp on reality now that he's out of politics.

 

TL;DR: The repeal/replace credo doesn't work in 2017 like it would've in 2012 had Romney won because the ACA was still in it's phase-in period then. Now it's established, enrollment is way up, and millions have gained coverage. Romney drew up a plan to repeal and replace in the event he won in 2012. However, they never got to use it, and now, in lieu of a plan of their own, Republicans decided to just forge ahead with that blueprint anyway, even though it doesn't fit the actual healthcare reality today.

 

Dems did a lot of research and work to prepare to try to overhaul healthcare in 2009. Republicans have done none of that work and their plan hasn't evolved much beyond Romney's original blueprint and cheap slogans. There's intraparty squabbling because the factions all want something different: The Freedom House Caucus wants to go full nuclear, repealing and replacing everything including the Medicaid expansion, because they hate the law. Republican governors don't support that and defend the expansion because it actually provides real benefits to the people of their states. Paul Ryan and his wing want a more moderate repeal and replace based on most standard GOP healthcare orthodoxy. Senate GOP are the poster boys for repeal/replace due to McConnell, but they may be the most pragmatic group in Congress about getting something done. And Trump just wants badly to one-up Obama and be adored.

It's hard if not impossible for all of that to be compatible.

 

Watch the video at the end of the second article. It's a decent explanation of the big picture as well.

 

I really like this quote in the video from a conservative healthcare expert. He says this is so hard for Republicans because they can't just openly say the following:

 

"We don't believe it's the job of the government to guarantee care to the people it governs."

[Moiraine]

They kinda do say it though. Anyone who is an Ayn Rand follower is saying it.

[knapplc]

They're saying it implicitly but not explicitly. And that's the trick that makes the base happy.

[QMany]

[BigRedBuster]