Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law

[Claire.]

House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law

House Republicans unveiled their long-awaited plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, scrapping the mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance and replacing it with a system of tax credits aimed at enticing Americans to purchase health care on the open market.

The bill’s unveiling set the stage for a bitter and consequential debate over the possible dismantling of the most significant health care law in a half-century. Republicans hope to undo major parts of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, including income-based tax credits that help millions of Americans afford insurance, taxes on people with high incomes and the penalty for people who do not buy health coverage.

Under the Republican plan, the income-based tax credits would be replaced with credits that would rise with age. In a late change, the plan was also expected to include language limiting who is eligible for the tax credits, so that affluent Americans would not receive them.

Read more: The New York Times

Additional news source: Reuters

[Agent0range]

Out of touch.  The people without healthcare aren't typically people that can pay now, and wait until tax time to reap the benefits...

[Startraveler]

At last! So what's in the long-awaited replacement?

• Keep the exchanges, but raise premiums dramatically on older adults (while cutting the amount of financial support available to buy coverage).
• Allow skimpier plans with higher out-of-pocket costs (but, curiously, retain the required benefits the GOP is always railing against).
• Get rid of the tax penalty for not having insurance, but institute a new, larger penalty, payable directly to insurers, for buying insurance if you didn't previously have insurance.
• Bizarrely, a $100 billion attempt to bail out insurers while simultaneously destabilizing the markets and driving up premiums (up to 30%!)
• Keep the Medicaid expansion, sort of, but cut funding for Medicaid.
• And don't forget to cut taxes on the rich!

Yikes.

[aztek]

it has so much weight coming from liberal media. lol  

at least obamacare let us keep our existing policies, oh wait...

[RavenHawk]

I'm disappointed in this "first" attempt.  This looks like Obamacare Lite.  The people won't stand for that.  This is a clear betrayal of the public trust.  Hopefully, later versions will take that into consideration and incorporate ideas championed by Rand, Cruz, and Rubio.  Going with a member (or concierge) healthcare plan would unleash the raw power of the free market (i.e. AtlasMD - https://blog.atlas.md/tag/hannity/).  Initially, it would be something like $50 a month for unlimited basic care.  What’s wrong with the Insurance and Big-Pharma is that they try to cure the disease witch milks the public of billions.  The paradigm is all wrong.  It needs to transform from "treatment and cure" to "prevent and maintain".  Let the free market drive this, not Washington.  All the wiretap and leak stuff is a distraction.  What happens with Healthcare is the real issue.  Ryan had better get a clue.

[Agent0range]

8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I'm disappointed in this "first" attempt.  This looks like Obamacare Lite.  The people won't stand for that.  

 

Are you sure about that?  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/19/fox-news-poll-views-on-obamacare-shift.html

[Startraveler]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

it has so much weight coming from liberal media. lol  

at least obamacare let us keep our existing policies, oh wait...

The reaction from conservative media has been almost uniformly negative.

[Claire.]

How the House Republicans’ proposed Obamacare replacement compares:
Read more: The Washington Post

A simple, easy to follow chart comparing the two plans.

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, Startraveler said:

The reaction from conservative media has been almost uniformly negative.

well that changes things a little,

 

10 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Are you sure about that?  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/19/fox-news-poll-views-on-obamacare-shift.html

all i got from the article only 13% want to leave Obamacare as it is.  it is really people reaction over time to Obamacare, not  its republican replacement.

[Agent0range]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

well that changes things a little,

 

all i got from the article only 13% want to leave Obamacare as it is.  it is really people reaction over time to Obamacare, not  its republican replacement.

Uhhh..I was responding to Ravenhawks statement saying the people wouldn't stand for the Republican's "Obamacare Lite"...when, in fact, the great majority either want to keep it, expand on it, or repeal some of it.  

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, Claire. said:

How the House Republicans’ proposed Obamacare replacement compares:
Read more: The Washington Post

A simple, easy to follow chart comparing the two plans.

yes, but it is comparing existing policy, to a proposed policy, a rough draft.   will see how it changes when it gets to final form.

at least they publish proposed changes, they do not need to pass a law to see what is in it.,

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Uhhh..I was responding to Ravenhawks statement saying the people wouldn't stand for the Republican's "Obamacare Lite"...when, in fact, the great majority either want to keep it, expand on it, or repeal some of it.  

 the article is about existing Obamacare and how many want it change and how,  your article is not addressing his statement, that people will not stand for changes that reps propose now. it is not talking about those changes,

Edited March 8, 2017 by aztek

[Claire.]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

yes, but it is comparing existing policy, to a proposed policy, a rough draft.   will see how it changes when it gets to final form.

Well um yeah. It's clear it's a proposed plan, but for the purposes of discussion, I see no issue in presenting the details of it to members here.

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Well um yeah. It's clear it's a proposed plan, but for the purposes of discussion, I see no issue in presenting the details of it to members here.

i agree, definitely no issue. 

 

[RavenHawk]

24 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Uhhh..I was responding to Ravenhawks statement saying the people wouldn't stand for the Republican's "Obamacare Lite"...when, in fact, the great majority either want to keep it, expand on it, or repeal some of it.  

I took something different from that article.  It’s clear that most people really don’t understand the ACA and those questions probably confused the issue.  They never scrutinized it like many of us did from the beginning when it was still in the Bill stage.  What will happen is that Obamacare will collapse from its own failure.  It was designed to do that so that Congress would be forced to prop it up as non-discretionary spending in the Budget.  Well, that’s not going to happen with this Congress and when it does collapse, millions are going to get hurt and it’ll all be on Obama and the Progs.  But as aztek pointed out, your article doesn’t address my statement.  Congress and the President were elected to REPEAL AND REPLACE Obamacare, not slim it down.  The task of Congress is to come up with a plan free of entitlements and covers the majority of Americans (nothing is 100%) and I presented an idea that could possibly work.  Others in Congress have the same idea.

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I took something different from that article.  It’s clear that most people really don’t understand the ACA and those questions probably confused the issue.  They never scrutinized it like many of us did from the beginning when it was still in the Bill stage.  What will happen is that Obamacare will collapse from its own failure.  It was designed to do that so that Congress would be forced to prop it up as non-discretionary spending in the Budget.  Well, that’s not going to happen with this Congress and when it does collapse, millions are going to get hurt and it’ll all be on Obama and the Progs.  But as aztek pointed out, your article doesn’t address my statement.  Congress and the President were elected to REPEAL AND REPLACE Obamacare, not slim it down.  The task of Congress is to come up with a plan free of entitlements and covers the majority of Americans (nothing is 100%) and I presented an idea that could possibly work.  Others in Congress have the same idea.

 

Well, it's OK to interpret things differently.  And I agree with you on what he promised.  I was mainly just saying that I think people will accept anything if they are told it will work.  Most don't understand the economics behind it anyway.  And you are absolutely right, the majority should have to be covered.  However, I am wary of doing away with the mandate.  If the young and healthy aren't contributing to the pool, and only taking from it when something catastrophic happens, I don't see how that can lower the rates.

[Vorg]

On 3/6/2017 at 6:37 PM, Agent0range said:

Out of touch.  The people without healthcare aren't typically people that can pay now, and wait until tax time to reap the benefits...

Yep

Edited March 9, 2017 by South Alabam

[RavenHawk]

19 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Well, it's OK to interpret things differently.  And I agree with you on what he promised.  I was mainly just saying that I think people will accept anything if they are told it will work.  Most don't understand the economics behind it anyway.  And you are absolutely right, the majority should have to be covered.  However, I am wary of doing away with the mandate.  If the young and healthy aren't contributing to the pool, and only taking from it when something catastrophic happens, I don't see how that can lower the rates.

People like Ninjadude bought into it hook-line-and-sinker even though there were others showing him where it was failing.  I don’t see much of him around anymore.  As many accept, just as many are skeptical.  With this GOP bill, I am both.  It’s a process that needs to play out.  The mandate must go.  We need to find a different model other than the Ponzi scheme.  The young shouldn’t be paying for the old.  Everyone should have the opportunity to take care of themselves.  I’m not totally against government assistance but that should be an afterthought and not the primary source of funds.  As I mentioned, we need to look at concierge medicine w/ HSAs.  This will free up the government to maintain our defenses and ensure the health of the economy is good.  To fight poverty, you don’t throw a nation’s wealth at it.

[RavenHawk]

Here’s a clip that gives the best explanation for this reconciliation bill.  They have to conform to Senate rules.  It still sounds like Washington double talk but I do understand why they are doing it this way.  They need to first replace the existing law (therefore they need “Lite” legislation), then come back with a new law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfZYrBzDGtI

[aztek]

20 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

  They never scrutinized it like many of us did from the beginning when it was still in the Bill stage.  

 

who could scrutinize it, if it had to be passed before anyone could  find out what is in it.

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by aztek

[CrimsonKing]

8 minutes ago, aztek said:

who could scrutinize it, if it had to be passed before anyone could  find out what is in it.

 

No joke...and that disgusting old skinbag had the nerve yesterday to call out Republicans for not being as transparent as Dems where on a healthcare bill!

Seriously how damn "transparent" can some be when they won't say anything until something is passed!SMH 

[Startraveler]

Turns out nobody, including the right, likes the GOP's bill and it's unworkable. Seven years of work and this is what they produce?

Ryan disappoints his friends with Obamacare replacement bill

Quote

Indeed, virtually every prominent conservative health care expert — precisely the sort of ideological allies who have backed Ryan in the past — panned this legislation.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon called it “a train wreck waiting to happen.” The American Enterprise Institute’s Jim Capretta told POLITICO the GOP’s decision to do away with a cap on tax credits for employer-based health insurance reflected a reluctance to “deal with reality.” Forbes’ Avik Roy, widely considered one of the pre-eminent health care policy experts on the right, predicted the legislation would make insurance unaffordable for millions of the nation’s poor and offered an analysis with subsections titled, “The Good,” “The Bad” and “The Terrible.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board was the lone dissenter, calling the bill "the most consequential GOP social-policy reform since the welfare overhaul of 1996."

Experts: The GOP Health Care Plan Just Won’t Work

Quote

They rarely agree on much, but health care experts on the left, right and center of the political spectrum have found consensus on the House GOP's Obamacare replacement: It won't work.

While their objections vary depending on their ideological goals, the newly introduced American Health Care Act (AHCA) is facing an unrelenting wave of criticism. Some experts warn that the bill is flawed in ways that could unravel the individual insurance market.

 

[AnchorSteam]

Meh ....  if everyone is just as upset as the other guy, this plan is probably the best thing to do.

[Tatetopa]

On 3/9/2017 at 11:26 AM, RavenHawk said:

People like Ninjadude bought into it hook-line-and-sinker even though there were others showing him where it was failing.  I don’t see much of him around anymore.  As many accept, just as many are skeptical.  With this GOP bill, I am both.  It’s a process that needs to play out.  The mandate must go.  We need to find a different model other than the Ponzi scheme.  The young shouldn’t be paying for the old.  Everyone should have the opportunity to take care of themselves.  I’m not totally against government assistance but that should be an afterthought and not the primary source of funds.  As I mentioned, we need to look at concierge medicine w/ HSAs.  This will free up the government to maintain our defenses and ensure the health of the economy is good.  To fight poverty, you don’t throw a nation’s wealth at it.

The Trump promise was to make something better, you had some ideas about that, but what I am seeing out of government is not better.

Isn't all insurance something of a Ponzi scheme, we pay in and hope we don't need to claim it?  You pay your premium and count yourself lucky if it is not your child that needs a $200,000 heart operation.  Then maybe its not so terrible that your premium helps another family and you have a healthy child.

Should the young pay for the old?  Wasn't it previous generations (old people) who built the infrastructure that provides the framework for all capital creation? Should the old pay for the young without recompense?  Should men pay for prenatal care?  Should a man even support his children or have we come to the: look out for #1 screw everybody else society? If it is every man for himself, then there will be no unity. 

Self reliance is a really good thing, but how far should it drive our principles and society?  To me that is a basic issue.  Do we instruct all the children of society and give them a chance, or let them fend for themselves because their parents might be incapable of helping them?  Do we help our neighbors or watch them struggle alone?  Do we let old people sicken or starve when they run out of money, just like in the good old days?  If women can't afford prenatal care do they just have to take the increased risk of bearing a child with birth defects?  Do we avoid the expense of caring for any of them by just letting them die?  Is that really what great America looks like? 

 

 

[Yamato]

I'm unclear about the changes to Medicaid funding.

According to the WP article

"Medicaid would be funded by giving states a per-capita amount based on how much each state was spending for the fiscal year that ended in September. "

So what this means is the more the states are spending on Medicaid the more money they receive the following year!  Not only does this invite more drain on the system, it pushes treatments on poor people particularly.  "Treatments", rather, in most cases.

And what if there's a surplus?  Does the state keep the money for that year?   What if there's a shortage?   Are services denied?