Here to Stay: Why the New Republican Congress Can't Gut Obamacare

NBCNews ^ | November 08, 2014 | MAGGIE FOX

[Steelfish]

Here to Stay: Why the New Republican Congress Can't Gut Obamacare BY MAGGIE FOX

Republicans may have promised to repeal or at least do a big makeover of Obamacare now that they control both the House and the Senate, but most experts believe it’s lip service only.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act is in full force across the country, with internet-based health insurance exchanges up and running, expanded Medicaid in 28 states and strict new requirements for health insurers. Here are five reasons the GOP-led Congress won’t be able to change much.

The veto.

This is the big one: President Barack Obama still has veto power. Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, but they don’t have the 60 seats needed to override a Democratic-led filibuster or a presidential veto. And Obama’s not going to allow his signature piece of legislation to be gutted.

They like it.

Republicans actually like a lot about Obamacare. It’s great business for health insurance companies, which in turn give plenty of money to Republicans. Republicans have also always agreed that more Americans need to be covered by health insurance. They just haven’t always agreed on how to get there.

“The five major national health insurers have all seen their stock price at least double — one has almost tripled — since the ACA was enacted, and they’ve all been raising their earnings estimates,” says Jay Angoff, who helped construct health reform at the Health and Human Services department before returning to private law firm Mehri & Skalet. "Republicans are not going to try to repeal a law that has been such a boon to insurers: They are still a Republican constituency group."

[LMAO]

I also heard on Fox business report during Rush a while back that a percentage of those who signed up for Obamacare last year won't be signing up this year.

Can anyone confirm?

[Pajamajan]

bookmark

[Owen]

I may have this wrong, but my read is those states that didn’t set up exchanges will lose subsidies.

It is mostly red states that did not set up exchanges?

The optimal strategy for Democrats then is to do nothing. Only voters in red states would lose their subsidies, should the court rule that only states with exchanges can have subsidies. Odds are those voters would demand their states set up exchanges so they can get the subsidy.

[Beowulf9]

Right now I’m still basking in the glow of the gutting of Obama.

[Kickass Conservative]

Uh, Obama is the guy that called out the Supreme Court at a State Of The Union Address over Citizens United.

As I recall, his fellow Democrats applauded when he did it.

Me thinks you should rethink your Post. I put nothing past Obama or the Sycophants who support him to this day. He can do no wrong through the eyes of half the People in this Country despite what many here read from the Election Results.

Many of the Midterm Election results were razor close and things could have easily gone the other way if Liberals had gotten themselves to the Polls like they did to get Obama Elected and Reelected.

Though the number of Races won by Republicans were substantial, many were way too close considering the in your face Traitorous Bastard currently residing in the White Hut.

Just my $.02, your Mileage may vary.

[aquila48]

Maggie is bird brain - well suited for NBC. What inane arguments.

[Bob434]

[[I can tell you, Kagan, Bryer, Ginsberg, and the Wise Latina are going to have a devil of a time writing their dissent because there is just no conceivable way what is written could mean what the IRS is interpreting it as.]]

I disagree that they will have a devil of a time because the left is now blatantly LYING about EVERYTHING and they simply know no shame- I think the leftie justices will have quite an easy time lying about it and will probably sleep just fine at night because they have no real morals to begin with

[Pollster1]

I have to predict the court is about to eliminate it. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will all vote the same way they did before. Roberts will find it much harder to deny the Republican case this time. Its in the law, black and white. The states shall grant subsidies, not the feds.

I think you are correct and that Kennedy will join in. This will be settled 6-3 against the subsidies, and that will kill most of Obamacare. We'll beep the "parent's plan to age 26" and probably some wording on preexisting conditions, but the bulk of Obamacare will die with the subsidies.

[AU72]

In January send HIM a straight forward repeal and watch the democrats squirm in upholding his veto. Then watch them squirm again as the 2015 rates and regulations wallops policy holders.

In 2016 the only ad you need to run is "My democrat opponent voted (again) for Obamacare.

[MD Expat in PA]

“The five major national health insurers have all seen their stock price at least double — one has almost tripled — since the ACA was enacted, and they’ve all been raising their earnings estimates,”

I do not buy into the premise that the ACA has resulted in a profit boon for insurance companies as this NBC article seems to suggest. Have their stock prices increased? Yes for the most part but that doesn’t take into consideration that they tanked around 2007 and through 2009. And one has to look at profits as the % of return on revenue to get a clearer picture, and also that insurance companies as a whole have been slashing staff and the commissions paid to brokers ever since ACA came in. And I know this because I used to work for 2 different 3rd party insurance administrators/brokers.

Few people understand that most profits from health insurers stem from their return on investing their pool of premium dollars while awaiting those dollars being paid out in claims months or even years after being collected. Wharton School insurance expert Scott Harrington calculates that in 2013, insurers in the individual (nongroup) insurance market overall earned negative pre-tax profits of 3.1% on the premiums they collected. That is, they actually lost 3.1 cents for every premium dollar collected, but they presumably made these losses up from their underwriting gains for group coverage as well as returns on investments.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/27/profits-in-health-insurance-under-obamacare/

Insurance company earnings are up however that is not only because they are raising premiums on individual and group coverage markets, but also that many companies with group health plans, including the one I currently work for are moving to HDHP’s (high deductible plans) and the insurance companies are slashing costs, forcing “managed care” on plan participants which pushes policy holders to look for the cheapest care and Rx’s, along with holding the line or even reducing payment schedules to providers even as the provider’s costs are increasing.

And why are insurance companies doing this?

Yes. They want to, need to increase their earnings today. Why? Because they are forecasting future losses because of all the “free” mandated coverage for services under ACA and mandated coverage for all those precious snowflakes who can now stay on their parent’s plan up to age 26, coverage that also extended to their spouses and children.

[ronnie raygun]

They just love things that are disfunctional like them

[USCG SimTech]

Uh, uh, UH!

The power of the purse can be executed one department, agency, division at a time. Just the parts funding the IRS, EPA, and other PPACA tentacles never make it to the presidents desk.

Reid FORCED the federal budget to be in one big package to forced the Republicans to reject it after it came out of the Senate and headed back to the House for reconciliation. Reid forced the omnibus budget STRUCTURE so Republicans ONLY POWER was to shut down the entire government or fund the PPACA.

All you FedGov direct and indirect employees and contractors, ALERT! There will be no federal budget passed until well AFTER the new congress gets sworn in in January. Plan accordingly.

[USCG SimTech]

Congress could also nullify it by putting a simple opt-out provision in an unrelated bill. They could continue to fund the present ACE, but allow people to have their own insurance as they once had the inalienable right to do. The key to socialism is that everyone must be forced to participate because it collapses otherwise. Let the ACA collapse.

The most powerful and true vote is how the public votes with where they choose to spend their money. If there is no financially founded mandate to participate they will participate if through true and pure capitalism that is untouched by regulation or law. The fascists know it will not work which is why the PPACA FORCED everyone to participate through the power of the financial hammer.

[USCG SimTech]

Congress could also nullify it by putting a simple opt-out provision in an unrelated bill. They could continue to fund the present ACE, but allow people to have their own insurance as they once had the inalienable right to do. The key to socialism is that everyone must be forced to participate because it collapses otherwise. Let the ACA collapse.

The most powerful and true vote is how the public votes with where they choose to spend their money. If there is no financially founded mandate to participate they will participate if through true and pure capitalism that is untouched by regulation or law. The fascists know it will not work which is why the PPACA FORCED everyone to participate through the power of the financial hammer.

[BobL]

The nice thing is that the Republicans will not have to “gut” Obamacare. The Supreme Court is about to do it for them.

[SoFloFreeper]

Agitation Propaganda
or
Agitprop.

NBC, still writhing in butt hurt pain after last Tuesday, is grasping at straws.

The veto will keep it from total repeal, but that doesn’t mean the Death Panel Bureaucracy is “here to stay”. And NBC knows it.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The Supreme Court is about to do it for them.

I think they will because the Leftists on the Court see what Obamacare is doing to the Democrap party. The SCOTUS giving Obamacare two in the hat saves face for the Democraps in Congress.

And while the Leftist judges previously wanted to do something "historic," they can now see that they will be blamed for doing something historically bad.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

We need something that addresses the uninsured problem while not inconveniencing every one else. Its an ethical as well as a financial issue.

Charity is the preferable alternative. But we could also mandate catastrophic insurance coverage on a sliding subsidization scale.

To address the problem of the uninsurable, Rand Paul has proposed health insurance that is financed in a way similar to whole life insurance policies. Someone could buy a 40-year policy at age 22, which would provide coverage until Medicare kicks in. Obviously, the calculation would be extremely complex, but that's what actuaries are for. And regulations and coverage could be revised periodically.

[Pearls Before Swine]

This is the big one: President Barack Obama still has veto power. Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, but they don’t have the 60 seats needed to override a Democratic-led filibuster or a presidential veto.

Here, NBC simultaneously brags on Obamacare and shows its ignorance of the constitution. Veto over-rides require 2/3 majorities in both houses. 2/3 of 100 is 67 (in the Senate).

[sphinx]

Tone deaf Republicans who can't think strategically are in danger, once again, of turning a winning issue into a liability. Regarding health care, the pre-Obamacare status quo had myriad problems. Obamacare is worse, but repeal, defined as a return to the status quo ante, is not a viable option. For one thing, Obamacare has already gutted the infrastructure of the old system, and we can't simply snap our fingers and recreate it out of thin air. Nor, given its problems, should we want to. We are where we are. We are neck deep in the Ocare swamp and wishing it were not so doesn't change the reality.

Ocare is now the default system in the individual market, and it is hammering group plans into compliance with its mandates as well. The opening for attack, however, is not a demand for outright repeal; it must be replaced. So: if I were calling the shots, I would attack Ocare's collectivist and totalitarian underpinnings. The slogan: "A Choice, Not a Prison."

Obama promised that you could keep your plan if you liked it. He was lying. We will make the same promise, with the difference that we mean it. By all means, if you like Obamacare, stay there. All we will do is open the prison gates, and let anyone who wishes to leave do so. Obamacare could remain, populated and financed by those who wish to participate in it.

This, of course, means that community rating would no longer be imposed on independent, non-Ocare plans. Insurance companies would again be able to give appropriate premium discounts to people who take sensible care of themselves.

A choice, not a prison, also implies that people would no longer be forced into Ocare's straightjacket of mandatory benefits. The baseline coverage should include catastrophic care insurance, but beyond that, people should be allowed to choose more or less comprehensive plans as they prefer.

The individual mandate is worth keeping because it is the vehicle for eliminating third party payment (aside from welfare medicine, which will necessarily be publicly financed), and making individual ownership the norm. That solves the issue of portability and, since people's plans would move with them, guaranteed issue would no longer be a problem. (Again, apart from that small minority who are uninsurable from an early age due to some condition outside their control, and who will need assistance.)

A choice, not a prison. Let "Obamacare" remain as an expanded Medicaid for anyone who cannot or does not elect a better option. Let everyone else out.