Why hasn't the GOP repealed Obamacare and where is their alternative Health plan?

[Sea Ray]

So in the time between repealing and replacing it what do you think would happen to the health care marker?

Well. my guess is that a repeal would actually take effect a yr or so down the road. If they can't agree on anything, I do think it's possible that they'd repeal Obamacare (which can mostly be done without going through a filibuster) and then the pressure will be on to make a deal

 

[fskimospy]

Well. my guess is that a repeal would actually take effect a yr or so down the road. If they can't agree on anything, I do think it's possible that they'd repeal Obamacare (which can mostly be done without going through a filibuster) and then the pressure will be on to make a deal

You can't really repeal the ACA without getting past a filibuster. Doing that would cause the private insurance industry to implode.

 

[emperus]

Well. my guess is that a repeal would actually take effect a yr or so down the road. If they can't agree on anything, I do think it's possible that they'd repeal Obamacare (which can mostly be done without going through a filibuster) and then the pressure will be on to make a deal

Do you think that makes any sense for anyone covered under Obamacare? Honestly how can you so enthusiastically support a party that seems to be have lied and played you for the last 6 years in the health care debate or worse yet has no clue what they are doing?

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree with you that Republicans are against the principles of income redistribution. They're about controlling the cost of healthcare and you're interested in getting free handouts. That is a big philosophical difference

It's obvious to any dispassionate observer that the efficiency of capitalism & technology mean that more redistribution is necessary if we're to have a vibrant & healthy society.

The barriers to that efficiency were what gave us a broad middle class. Unions. Regulated finance & industry. Limited information tech & transportation tech. Trade barriers. Those things are fading in the rearview mirror as income soars to the tippy top & stays there to merely create greater inequality & asset inflation rather than growth that matters to working people.

The Repub leadership & their financial backers worship at the altar of power & greed & have the power to keep us out of the sanctuary at the same time. Emulating their headsets won't change that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

More competition = lower costs.

No, that is not always true. Medical care is definitely an exception to that rule. Medicine and medical care is not a luxury, and is one of the least elastic things in the market. When needed people will pay anything to get medical care. Insurance is not a traditional product that is subject to supply and demand.

Insurance covering fewer things=lower cost

One again this would only be true is insurance worked like a product, it does not. Insurance works a lot more like a slot machine. The cost of playing a slot machines do not go down when a new casino is built, they just pay off less often.

So they get to charge over a hundred bucks just to give you two shots in the arm. Now if there was a co-pay of say 20% people would look at their bills and bitch about it. But as it is, insurance pays it all and the pediatrician's office knows it.

They might bitch about it but they would pay it anyway, because medicine is not an elastic product.

Lets remember also that while we are all bitching about rising premiums insurance companies are not increasing their rates because they are losing money. Across the board all the large insurance companies are posting record breaking profits. They are raising premiums because the market will pay it. Because in real world market a thing is worth whatever people will pay for it, and right now we will pay for higher premium insurance. What is the Republican plans going to do about that?

 

[Sea Ray]

You can't really repeal the ACA without getting past a filibuster. Doing that would cause the private insurance industry to implode.

A filibuster and the private insurance industry are two different items. Since ACA was passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed that way. Its effect on the private ins industry is a crystal ball thing

 

[Sea Ray]

No, that is not always true. Medical care is definitely an exception to that rule. Medicine and medical care is not a luxury, and is one of the least elastic things in the market. When needed people will pay anything to get medical care. Insurance is not a traditional product that is subject to supply and demand.


One again this would only be true is insurance worked like a product, it does not. Insurance works a lot more like a slot machine. The cost of playing a slot machines do not go down when a new casino is built, they just pay off less often.



They might bitch about it but they would pay it anyway, because medicine is not an elastic product.

Lets remember also that while we are all bitching about rising premiums insurance companies are not increasing their rates because they are losing money. Across the board all the large insurance companies are posting record breaking profits. They are raising premiums because the market will pay it. Because in real world market a thing is worth whatever people will pay for it, and right now we will pay for higher premium insurance. What is the Republican plans going to do about that?

Well we're not going to continue to pay for it. That's why this whole game is about to change. According Sean Spicer they'll release their plan in mid March. I disagree with you that competition won't help premium prices. I think if Anthem had 4 other companies competing for my business that their premiums would be lower

 

[Sea Ray]

Do you think that makes any sense for anyone covered under Obamacare? Honestly how can you so enthusiastically support a party that seems to be have lied and played you for the last 6 years in the health care debate or worse yet has no clue what they are doing?

The people "covered under Obamacare" is another way of saying "people who are getting goodies from the gov't". My advice: don 't count on the gov't for anything. You'll always be subject to a budget chopping block

 

[ivwshane]

A filibuster and the private insurance industry are two different items. Since ACA was passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed that way. Its effect on the private ins industry is a crystal ball thing

Your ignorance on this subject is tiring. I suggest getting informed on the topic (no, your personal experience does not qualify) before continuing, else you run the risk of looking like an idiot.


http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obamacare-was-not-passed-reconciliation

 

[fskimospy]

A filibuster and the private insurance industry are two different items. Since ACA was passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed that way. Its effect on the private ins industry is a crystal ball thing

No, absolutely not. Only some parts of the ACA dealing with the individual mandate, subsidy amounts, etc were passed through reconciliation. The part of the ACA that requires guaranteed issue and community rating was passed through regular order and cannot be repealed with reconciliation.

A private insurance industry with community rating but no individual mandate would implode, leaving private insurance premiums at impossibly high levels for almost everyone. No crystal ball is needed for this, New York State's private insurance market had guaranteed issue and community rating with no mandate before the ACA went into effect.

 

[dullard]

A filibuster and the private insurance industry are two different items. Since ACA was passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed that way. Its effect on the private ins industry is a crystal ball thing

Do you know how reconciliation works?

1) The house and senate must both pass similar bills in the CURRENT legislative year.
2) The only allowable difference between the two can be budgetary.
3) The budgetary differences are hammered out without the senate being able to filibuster.

I don't see how you can get past step #1 without the democrats filibustering it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well we're not going to continue to pay for it. That's why this whole game is about to change.

The game is not going to change. It is the same game that insurance companies have been playing since their conception. There is going to be a lot of hand waving, a poof of smoke, and they will claim it has changed. Then insurance premiums will go up some more, what they cover will go down, profits will soar. Because if that doesn't happen the insurance companies will just stop paying.

The one rule of gambling is that the house always wins.

 

[Sea Ray]

Your ignorance on this subject is tiring. I suggest getting informed on the topic (no, your personal experience does not qualify) before continuing, else you run the risk of looking like an idiot.


http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/obamacare-was-not-passed-reconciliation

Thanks for the MotherJones article. I see now where you get your news. Republicans can repeal a great deal of it w/o 60 votes. In fact the part that they'll need 60 votes for they're likely going to keep anyway:

But Republicans would still need 60 votes to get rid of remaining sections of the law -- including popular provisions such as allowing young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 and preventing insurance companies from not covering people with pre-existing conditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-republicans-obamacare/

The part we're talking about here can be repealed w/o 60 votes:

To get around that blockade, Republicans could use a process called "budget reconciliation," which would allow the Senate to dismantle large chunks, but not the entire law with just 51 Senate votes. Those sections are related to taxes and spending -- such as subsidies to buy health insurance, tax credits, penalties for not having insurance, and the expansion of Medicaid.

So before continuing, consult something better than Mother Jones. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idiot...

 

[Sea Ray]

Do you know how reconciliation works?

1) The house and senate must both pass similar bills in the CURRENT legislative year.
2) The only allowable difference between the two can be budgetary.
3) The budgetary differences are hammered out without the senate being able to filibuster.

I don't see how you can get past step #1 without the democrats filibustering it.

In reality 60 votes will be necessary because a replacement will be needed. That's why I said any new health law will have to be bipartisan.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks for the MotherJones article. I see now where you get your news. Republicans can repeal a great deal of it w/o 60 votes. In fact the part that they'll need 60 votes for they're likely going to keep anyway:

But Republicans would still need 60 votes to get rid of remaining sections of the law -- including popular provisions such as allowing young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 and preventing insurance companies from not covering people with pre-existing conditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-republicans-obamacare/

The part we're talking about here can be repealed w/o 60 votes:

To get around that blockade, Republicans could use a process called "budget reconciliation," which would allow the Senate to dismantle large chunks, but not the entire law with just 51 Senate votes. Those sections are related to taxes and spending -- such as subsidies to buy health insurance, tax credits, penalties for not having insurance, and the expansion of Medicaid.

So before continuing, consult something better than Mother Jones. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idiot...

You are the one looking like an idiot right now. The structure of the ACA is known as a 'three legged stool'. It's named this way because it has three legs and all of them are required for it to work.

This is all pretty simple logic: if you continue to have guaranteed issue and community rating (leg #1) then you have to have an individual mandate (leg #2) or people will only buy insurance when they are sick, causing premiums to skyrocket to unaffordable levels. If you require everyone to buy insurance then there will be some poor people who can't afford it and need subsidies (leg #3). If you remove any one of these legs, the private insurance market stops functioning.

So when you say that Republicans are going to keep guaranteed issue and community rating while removing subsidies and the individual mandate, what you are saying is 'Republicans are going to force the private insurance market to implode'. The ACA doesn't look the way it does because Obama felt like it, the ACA works this way because it HAS to.

 

[Sea Ray]

You are the one looking like an idiot right now. The structure of the ACA is known as a 'three legged stool'. It's named this way because it has three legs and all of them are required for it to work.

This is all pretty simple logic: if you continue to have guaranteed issue and community rating (leg #1) then you have to have an individual mandate (leg #2) or people will only buy insurance when they are sick, causing premiums to skyrocket to unaffordable levels. If you require everyone to buy insurance then there will be some poor people who can't afford it and need subsidies (leg #3). If you remove any one of these legs, the private insurance market stops functioning.

So when you say that Republicans are going to keep guaranteed issue and community rating while removing subsidies and the individual mandate, what you are saying is 'Republicans are going to force the private insurance market to implode'. The ACA doesn't look the way it does because Obama felt like it, the ACA works this way because it HAS to.

Obamacare is not working. It's failing. It's already imploding. The Ron Paul plan deals with what you're talking about. It limits when you can get insurance. I agree it's complicated. If you're saying that it'll become a mess if it's repealed and not replaced then I agree with you. That's why doing it that way will bring about pressure for Congress to pass something. Sometimes politicians need such a kick in the butt. I hope they can pass a repeal/replace in the same bill.

 

[hal2kilo]

Obamacare is not working. It's failing. It's already imploding. The Ron Paul plan deals with what you're talking about. It limits when you can get insurance. I agree it's complicated. If you're saying that it'll become a mess if it's repealed and not replaced then I agree with you. That's why doing it that way will bring about pressure for Congress to pass something. Sometimes politicians need such a kick in the butt. I hope they can pass a repeal/replace in the same bill.

I'm getting a real sock puppet smell right now.

 

[senseamp]

Why aren't Republicans voting again on all the crap they passed under Obama? Or did they irresponsibly pass things they didn't mean to become law, knowing that Obama would veto the mess they voted to create?

 

[hal2kilo]

Why aren't Republicans voting again on all the crap they passed under Obama? Or did they irresponsibly pass things they didn't mean to become law, knowing that Obama would veto the mess they voted to create?

It's all part of the Republican smoke and mirrors game. The pretend to want to change things, make votes that they know will go nowhere, have endless hearings that never seem to get to the bottom of things or oh my god actually come up with solutions after they gather there findings. (Bengazi). Nothing but political posturing with essentially no results.

 

[fskimospy]

Obamacare is not working. It's failing. It's already imploding.

This is just political ranting and is irrelevant.

The Ron Paul plan deals with what you're talking about. It limits when you can get insurance. I agree it's complicated. If you're saying that it'll become a mess if it's repealed and not replaced then I agree with you. That's why doing it that way will bring about pressure for Congress to pass something. Sometimes politicians need such a kick in the butt. I hope they can pass a repeal/replace in the same bill.

Nope, it doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a new pool of screwed people in short order.

This really isn't complicated at all at the heart of things: you either keep all three legs of the stool or you keep none of them. Republicans right now are like the dog that caught the car: they aren't stupid, they know that the ACA is made the way it is because that's the only way that works. Now they have to figure out how to 'repeal' and 'replace' it when all they can replace it with is something that looks very much like the law they claimed was the Worst Thing Ever. They've become a victim of their own efforts to whip their base up into a froth.

 

[ivwshane]

So you've gone from, "it can be repealed that way (reconciliation)", to, "part of it can be repealed that way".

Looks like you've already decided to not heed my advice. Good job idiot.

Thanks for the MotherJones article. I see now where you get your news. Republicans can repeal a great deal of it w/o 60 votes. In fact the part that they'll need 60 votes for they're likely going to keep anyway:

But Republicans would still need 60 votes to get rid of remaining sections of the law -- including popular provisions such as allowing young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26 and preventing insurance companies from not covering people with pre-existing conditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-republicans-obamacare/

The part we're talking about here can be repealed w/o 60 votes:

To get around that blockade, Republicans could use a process called "budget reconciliation," which would allow the Senate to dismantle large chunks, but not the entire law with just 51 Senate votes. Those sections are related to taxes and spending -- such as subsidies to buy health insurance, tax credits, penalties for not having insurance, and the expansion of Medicaid.

So before continuing, consult something better than Mother Jones. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idiot...

 

[soundforbjt]

Just saw on MSNBC's crawler that Trump is claiming a replacement plan to be proposed early next month, this ought to be good...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just saw on MSNBC's crawler that Trump is claiming a replacement plan to be proposed early next month, this ought to be good...

Well maybe it will be better all around and on time if it is I'll still come back & apologize

 

[sportage]

There! Fixed!
See... that wasn't so hard now was it?

And face it.
That is all our republican leaders really wanted all along.
It wasn't the healthcare, it was THAT NAME....!



Note from Donald:
"Since I created

 

[JSt0rm]

The people "covered under Obamacare" is another way of saying "people who are getting goodies from the gov't". My advice: don 't count on the gov't for anything. You'll always be subject to a budget chopping block

Why dont you just get a better job so you dont have to pay for healthcare out of pocket?