Not really an expert by any means on the insurance industry, but isn't there some laws/regulations that prohibit where insurance companies can operate? Would the situation be better/worse if companies were able to compete across state lines?

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.

 

What I actually said is that it would only take 51 to pass a resolution to nix the items in the budget.

 

It would take 60 votes to repeal the entire bill.

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

 

Only if the entire bill was eliminated. That's going to take 60 votes which is going to be a challenge.

Sixty votes may be achievable. How many Dem Senators will be coming up for reelection in the mid terms from states that Trump won? The state mandate is there and could cause some Dems to vote for repeal.

Not really an expert by any means on the insurance industry, but isn't there some laws/regulations that prohibit where insurance companies can operate? Would the situation be better/worse if companies were able to compete across state lines?

I don't think that my fingers could handle typing all the response that is in my head right now, so I'll succinctly say to your first question, no (for the most part) States have so overtaxed and over-regulated that companies often move out. For instance, I'll use one of our neighbors as an example. The total lack of reform on malpractice cases in WV has so astronomically skyrocketed malpractice insurance rates that many providers simply moved out of WV to across the river in Ohio, essentially hamstringing cities like Huntington who loses a boatload of cash from B&O taxes. While that's only malpractice insurance, it's a microcosm of what also happens with BC/BS, Anthem and the list goes on. States can and have made it nearly impossible to find coverage for similar and other reasons. And that basically answers your last question, companies choose to operate where they can make the most money. States individually have made it more difficult, and in some cases, nearly impossible.

What I actually said is that it would only take 51 to pass a resolution to nix the items in the budget.

 

It would take 60 votes to repeal the entire bill.

 

You nix the budget item the law is dead. There is no funding.

Not really an expert by any means on the insurance industry, but isn't there some laws/regulations that prohibit where insurance companies can operate? Would the situation be better/worse if companies were able to compete across state lines?

 

Yes, it would certainly help. Sadly that isn't likely to happen.

You nix the budget item the law is dead. There is no funding.

 

I don't follow. The President-elect is now saying he will keep parts of the bill (pre-existing, for example). Are you saying that if they nix the mandate, the subsidies, etc then they cannot keep the rules about pre-existing?

I don't follow. The President-elect is now saying he will keep parts of the bill (pre-existing, for example). Are you saying that if they nix the mandate, the subsidies, etc then they cannot keep the rules about pre-existing?

 

This is the elephant in the room, as I stated. This will stay unless there is a vote to repeal the whole law which needs 60 and they ain't getting that now. We are going to pay and if the government doesn't, somebody will, guess who and it will be more than now.

 

I am to the point where repeal it, let the GOP do their thing, and watch what happens when those that voted for him lose their health insurance again or can't afford to get it.

 

The VP says there will be transition period, I am not hearing that from Ryan and the boys and the newly to be appointed Health Secretary.

 

We will see.

I think it's pretty clear (and I suspect you guys are being purposely obtuse). Based on what he's said, he's going to repeal the ACA. He's not going to repeal it until he has something else ready to be implemented in it's place. Certain aspects of the ACA (such as the pre-existing conditions clause) will be present in whatever it is that he implements.

I think it's pretty clear (and I suspect you guys are being purposely obtuse). Based on what he's said, he's going to repeal the ACA. He's not going to repeal it until he has something else ready to be implemented in it's place. Certain aspects of the ACA (such as the pre-existing conditions clause) will be present in whatever it is that he implements.

 

Republicans are already preparing legislation to nix the budgetary items associated with ACA (which I've listed already). They want to get that signed ASAP post Jan 20. It's exactly why I started the thread. You can't nix some of the requirements, nix subsidies, nix mandates YET keep pre-existing without repercussions.

 

Is that being obtuse?

Republicans are already preparing legislation to nix the budgetary items associated with ACA (which I've listed already). They want to get that signed ASAP post Jan 20. It's exactly why I started the thread. You can't nix some of the requirements, nix subsidies, nix mandates YET keep pre-existing without repercussions.

 

Is that being obtuse?

 

Absolutely correct. Somebody is gonna pay for pre-existing, maybe private companies won't stick it to us , though. They care more about the people than the bottom line.

Republicans are already preparing legislation to nix the budgetary items associated with ACA (which I've listed already). They want to get that signed ASAP post Jan 20. It's exactly why I started the thread. You can't nix some of the requirements, nix subsidies, nix mandates YET keep pre-existing without repercussions.

 

Is that being obtuse?

 

Yes.

 

Do you think they'll ignore the guy they just elected if he's made it known that he won't get rid of it until there's something else in place?

I'll also add that I'm someone with pre-existing conditions that is in complete and total support of getting rid of the ACA as soon as possible.

Want me to tell you how to keep the pre-existing? Put some controls on the cost of prescription meds. That, in turn, will make for an affordable rider (or inclusion) in most policies. Reduce limits on how long a drug can remain on the market without a generic alternative. Oh, there are a hundred more ways, but let some of the drug companies start to feel some regulation and we can have some relief on the insurance side. No give with the drug companies, only take. They've gone without much oversight for decades because of their enormous lobby. I'd start there.