Posted on 12/04/2016 6:57:03 AM PST by ColdOne
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress plan to move almost immediately next month to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as President-elect Donald J. Trump promised. But they also are likely to delay the effective date so that they have several years to phase out President Obama’s signature achievement.
This emerging “repeal and delay” strategy, which Speaker Paul D. Ryan discussed this week with Vice President-elect Mike Pence, underscores a growing recognition that replacing the health care law will be technically complicated and could be politically explosive.
Since the law was signed by Mr. Obama in March 2010, 20 million uninsured people have gained coverage, and the law has become deeply embedded in the nation’s health care system, accepted with varying degrees of enthusiasm by consumers, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and state and local governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Obamacare is in death spiral. Premiums have been going up and insurers dropping out. The impatient hothead may yet get to say “I told you so.”
Is that stuff there within 24 hours of this thing being repealed?
Are all of these people that were forced on this thing going to be able to sign up for insurance the second it’s gone, and have the money standing by to pay for it right then and there seamlessly and without any interruption?
If you can’t answer yes, then you see my point.
Unfortunately you cant be driving at 100mph and then just slam on the breaks and expect the car to stop on a dime without you going through the windshield.
It will be repealed. But just like there was a ramp up for this, there will have to be a drawdown.
It is widely assumed by the cognoscenti that the free market is now unthinkable.
Signature achievement, male bovine scat.
And on the delay. Why. Fire the freeloaders that Obama put in place and recover their wages and give us our money back that is being robbed from us, NOW.
If yo delay it why don't we just delay the Senate and House compensation until they fix it? How about that for starters?
Only the free market can provide coverage that is affordable with reasonable deductibles and adequate care.
The free market is hindered in this until Obamascare mandates and regulations are COMPLETELY removed.
Funny how the libs want to now defend the big corporations and their potential losses if this is done.
Definitely. I've already read leftists say that Obamacare is already ensconced in too many people's lives and that by removing it, or changing it, Republicans are trying to "kill" people.
“What the hell with all this replacement speak??”
That’s my concern as well. Now, we have so-called “conservatives” saying that we should keep some parts of Obamacare, such as the pre-existing condition mandate and letting people be “children” until they’re 26.
I always wondered, what happens when a “child” of 26 which is being treated for a critical, chronic illness suddenly finds himself off his parent’s preferable plan when he turns 27? Does the left get all bent out of shape and call that “hateful?”
>
Repeal Obamacare.
Pass targeted narrow fixes for systemic problems (pre-existing conditions, inexpensive catastrophic coverage, individual purchase, allow interstate commerce for insurance).
Done. Market will fix the rest.
>
Add in HSA and you got yourself a party.
The pre-existing is my rub...it no longer qualifies as ‘insurance’ (the unexpected); nor do I believe anyone should pay $0% in taxes either (say, charge off medical vs. taxes).
Course, the opposite it true: one pays $0% when one is DEAD...
High Risk Pools.
They worked before, they'll work again. Not all are created equal. Those HRP "associations" created by the state legislatures, but funded by the carriers work best.
People can get out of HRPs if they later qualify for regular health insurance with a cured status, or good track record of taking meds relevant to the condition...etc.
Only about 1% of the insured individual market are placed in a HRP, and then, only when first applying for coverage.
HRPs are sometimes "welfare" but they are actually insurance when the patient has no actual recurring mega-claims, just the potential for them.
"Free market" interstate competition and portability can't happen without reform at the federal level. Health insurance would otherwise be regulated state-by-state, as before.
The issue with pre-existing conditions is that at some point they weren’t, but the insurance company gets off the hook when you change insurers. A brief lapse in coverage (say, short term unemployment) shouldn’t end the payout for decades.
As for taxes (not sure where that came up, but one of my buttons): I do think $0% (nice term) should be feasible for the self sufficient. Land ownership should not be subject to taxation. Exercise RKBA, be ready for draft, grow own food, produce own power, pay full up bills for other services if used, enjoy a tax free life.
To me;
Step one: Revoke every executive order that exempted someone from the law. Make sure everyone sees how bad it is.
Step two: Recognize that SCOTUS declared the individual mandate unconstituional and that they cannot change the law themselves. The “re-interpretation” in the majority opinion was just that, “Reinterpreting” the law to say something else that it doesn’t say. They can say how congress can change the law to make it legal. Until congress changes the law to make it a tax, it is unenforceable.
What you’re going to end up with if they’re allowed to sell across state lines that they’ll concentrate their legal base of operations in whatever state they can most easily find a pliant state legislature to do their bidding. For the example, see North Dakota and the credit card industry.
NO.
What you’ll wind up with is buying the best deal you can find, like North Dakota or Mississippi, who have good rates due to their market friendly public policy.
Only idiots would buy health insurance from New Jersey, New York or other Northeastern States. The red states will have the best deals.
Because it costs less and the benefits are better.
and where is their incentive for them to sell to me?
Because they want your money.
It’s actually correct application of the Commerce clause. Should also be applied to California auto and fuel standards.
States don’t have the right to play favorites among vendors from the various States.
considered a leprechaun
Ryan and his fellow GloBulls are going to do a # on it, just like they are trying to do in the UK with Brexit. Delay, Delay, Delay.
I’ll bet they do this with Common Core, too, and all the other reversals.
Meanwhile, the People percolate and the GloBulls regroup.
Or, perhaps, to be more exact....
Unlike Hilliary, who is considered a leper con artist
If every claim I make I have to pay the out-of-network copays and the out-of-network percentages and meet the out-of-network deductible then how will it cost less and how are the benefits better?
Because they want your money.
I'm assuming that they will want to make money even more. Hard to see how they will do it with me if their costs are higher than the average policy holder and they charge me the same premiums they charge their other policy holders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.