The Challenge of Replacing Obamacare

[Clyde]

Many of the next President's supporters are fully behind the campaign pledge to immediately replace the ACA. Mr Trump, realizing that it would be bad optics to cancel coverage for some, has said he will not cancel that part of ACA. Seemed to placate all - those who want Obamacare repealed get what they want but we still cover those with pre-existing. Reports say one idea is to repeal parts of it immediately and delay implementation of a the replacement bill.

 

 

 

It only takes 51 votes to pass a resolution to cancel budgetary parts of the ACA. Items like Medicaid expansion, subsidies for many who purchase individual plans, and tax penalties for the individual mandates plus the requirement for certain businesses to provide coverage. This was vetoed last year by President Obama. The thinking is that President Trump would sign it.

 

But there would be downsides.

 

One study from the Urban Institute found that more would be without coverage than if that ACA had never been passed.

 

Of those losing coverage 82% would be working families, 56% would be whites, and more than half would have a high school education or less.

 

25% would be classified as poor.

 

In the states that chose to expand Medicaid uninsured would double.

 

Uncompensated healthcare would be over $1T in the next 10 years because less money is coming in.

 

More burden on state and local governments to raise taxes.

 

More sick due to less coverage.

 

More bankruptcies.

 

In addition, you would have health care companies dropping out of ACA.

 

So it's not as simple as candidate Trump made it sound. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Bengal Maniac]

It won't be that much of a challenge. The GOP in general doesn't care 20 million (approximate) won't have health insurance. They would much rather build another tank.

 

 

Thus the divide.

[Clyde]

" As the future of Obamacare hangs in the balance, the chief medical officer for Hartford Healthcare says that scaling back the Medicaid part of the law would mean a loss of "tens of millions of dollars" in revenue and would result in staff reductions and scaling back of services."

 

"He's assuming Connecticut could not cover the cost of about 200,000 people who were able to get covered under Medicaid after the law broadened eligibility for the public health insurance."

 

 

 

Hospitals And Clinics Fear Cuts In Medicaid Under Trump - Hartford Courant

[UKMustangFan]

It won't be that much of a challenge. The GOP in general doesn't care 20 million (approximate) won't have health insurance. They would much rather build another tank.

 

 

Thus the divide.

 

Here's the rub. I think everyone should have the ability to get health insurance. I simply cannot support the government being in charge of it. If that means some are without, so be it.

 

The ACA absolutely IMO needs to go. I am okay with holding off on the repeal until something else is ready to be implemented in it's place though.

[Bengal Maniac]

Here's the rub. I think everyone should have the ability to get health insurance. I simply cannot support the government being in charge of it. If that means some are without, so be it.

 

The ACA absolutely IMO needs to go. I am okay with holding off on the repeal until something else is ready to be implemented in it's place though.

 

I am fine with that as long as everyone can get it at an affordable rate. If pre-existing conditions are part of the law, which it has to be to insure all, it will cost just as much. That is the elephant in the room with health care.

 

DJT says that needs to stay. Then it will cost a bunch. I am fine, though as long as that is there.

[Clyde]

The purpose of this thread is not to debate ACA.

 

It's simply to show that a major campaign pledge is , as is often the case, not as simple as it was made to sound.

 

Just like when they signed ACA but took pieces out that were imperative to it having a chance to succeed you just can't remove parts of ACA now and expect it not to have an impact.

[UKMustangFan]

I am fine with that as long as everyone can get it at an affordable rate. If pre-existing conditions are part of the law, which it has to be to insure all, it will cost just as much. That is the elephant in the room with health care.

 

DJT says that needs to stay. Then it will cost a bunch. I am fine, though as long as that is there.

 

I'm fine if it costs just as much or more. My sticking point is it needs to be privately ran. The government should not be involved.

[LIPTON BASH]

The purpose of this thread is not to debate ACA.

 

It's simply to show that a major campaign pledge is , as is often the case, not as simple as it was made to sound.

 

Just like when they signed ACA but took pieces out that were imperative to it having a chance to succeed you just can't remove parts of ACA now and expect it not to have an impact.

 

But your very first line in the first post said it would be simple it only takes 51 votes. What you mean to say is you wouldn't like the results.

[All Tell]

I'm 100% selfish on this. I had an insurance plan that I really liked, low co-pays and no deductible, The mandates of Obamacare changed that. Very simply I want my old plan back. I want that promise that Obama made kept. I have no issue with insurance plans that cover birth control, I have a huge problem with that coverage being mandated in every plan regardless of need by the insured. If you want a plan that covers birth control, pay for a plan that covers birth control. Even though I still have insurance I am much less likely to go to a doctor now then I was before Obamacare because my OOP has risen so drastically.

[Bengal Maniac]

But your very first line in the first post said it would be simple it only takes 51 votes. What you mean to say is you wouldn't like the results.

 

It will not be a challenge, the votes are there. It will have tbs of side effects which will be a challenge for those left out in the cold, but the GOP doesn't care about that. They worry about their sacred cows and health care for all is not one of them. Just the way it is.

[LIPTON BASH]

It will not be a challenge, the votes are there. It will have tbs of side effects which will be a challenge for those left out in the cold, but the GOP doesn't care about that. They worry about their sacred cows and health care for all is not one of them. Just the way it is.

 

I could flip it on you and say the Democrats by passing this law showed they didn't care about the working poor or middle class. The bottom line is if you don't get a subsidy or have a pre-exisiting condition this law was bad for you. It hurt more people than it helped.

[Bengal Maniac]

I could flip it on you and say the Democrats by passing this law showed they didn't care about the working poor or middle class. The bottom line is if you don't get a subsidy or have a pre-exisiting condition this law was bad for you. It hurt more people than it helped.

 

 

We will se who cares about the working poor and middle class. We'll see. But to your point just different mindsets.

[TAC]

Wouldn't it go back to basically the same way it was before Obama implemented his plan?

[All Tell]

To paraphrase a resident Trump critic...

 

Obamacare has hurt me personally, therefore I want it gone.

[Habib]

The problem is there is no silver bullet solution that will magically fix health care.

 

You can't keep the parts of Obamacare that people like without the parts people don't, namely the mandate. And the mandate would really have to be strengthened to push prices down.

 

Probably the best thing that could be done for health care would be to detach it from employers, but that would require substantial work.