1. Yes, the IRS penalty for not having health insurance will probably go.
That itself is the single biggest abomination in the "Affordable Care Act" (ACA). If the GOP eliminates that item -- along with the employer mandate -- then they've solved 95% of the problem right there.
2. But there will still be coverage for children up to the age of 26 ...
... which will be meaningless without the employer mandate.
3. ... there will still be mandatory coverage for preexisting conditions ...
Many pre-existing conditions should be covered, particularly if the patient has had continuous insurance coverage. If a person moves from one insurance plan to another and brings a pre-existing condition with him/her, then one of the insurance carriers should be covering the treatment for that condition. This is an item that can very easily be addressed in any legislation.
4. ... there will still be mandatory coverage for maternity expenses ...
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Has there ever been a health insurance plan that did NOT cover maternity expenses?
5. ... there will still be some form of Medicaid expansion and there will still be subsidies for the poor.
These existed before the ACA, and they'll exist afterwards. The key here is to turn Medicaid into such low-grade insurance coverage that only the truly destitute would want to deal with it. In fact, I can see a scenario where the Trump administration's deportation of illegal aliens will go a long way toward fixing this problem in many states.
Has there ever been a health insurance plan that did NOT cover maternity expenses?
Well, because I'm a dude? And not married? What do I need maternity expenses for?
"It's Jake. From State Farm." Wife asks the person on the other end, "So what are you wearing, 'Jake' from 'State Farm?'"
"Uhhh........khakis.........." Jake replies.
"She sounds hideous," wife says to husband, who replies, "Well yeah.......'cause she's a guy." LOL
Cover infectious diseases plus accidental trauma. Period.
Remove hospital mandates to treat everyone who walks into the ER, and remove any civil liability from chasing out people with truly non-emergency issues over inability to pay.
For employers, remove all federal mandates regarding what they are required to cover. If an employer wants to keep coverage for kids up to 26 as part of the benefits package, then fine.
>I could go through these one at a time:
1. Yes, the IRS penalty for not having health insurance will probably go.
That itself is the single biggest abomination in the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA). If the GOP eliminates that item — along with the employer mandate — then they’ve solved 95% of the problem right there.
2. But there will still be coverage for children up to the age of 26 ...
... which will be meaningless without the employer mandate.
3. ... there will still be mandatory coverage for preexisting conditions ...
Many pre-existing conditions should be covered, particularly if the patient has had continuous insurance coverage. If a person moves from one insurance plan to another and brings a pre-existing condition with him/her, then one of the insurance carriers should be covering the treatment for that condition. This is an item that can very easily be addressed in any legislation.
4. ... there will still be mandatory coverage for maternity expenses ...
I’m not sure I understand the issue here. Has there ever been a health insurance plan that did NOT cover maternity expenses?
5. ... there will still be some form of Medicaid expansion and there will still be subsidies for the poor.
These existed before the ACA, and they’ll exist afterwards. The key here is to turn Medicaid into such low-grade insurance coverage that only the truly destitute would want to deal with it. In fact, I can see a scenario where the Trump administration’s deportation of illegal aliens will go a long way toward fixing this problem in many states.
>
1). Does it remove the IRS as the keeper of digital records? Or will that simply shift to the illegal NSA side of things...what’s ONE more violation of the 4th??
2). 21 to drink, 18 to vote\tattoo, < 18 sex. Can we finally do away w/ these arbitrary limits? Talk about skewing the risk\pool for a 26 YO ‘dependent’.
3). You and I know damn well that’s not what they mean nor intend. Plus, that’s not what *insurance*, by definition, is for.
4). No. That’s the problem. Those that won’t\can’t don’t need to be paying....also, see #3
5). How ‘bout a return to charity care? Like any other welfare\injection of govt, it enslaves the masses. Enough w/ the forced acceptance by the ER\hospitals; let ‘em go after the dead-beats and chase off the splinter-taking-up-room abuse.