Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)

Esper

Esper

    • 10,682
    Posts
    15
    Years
    It's not repealed just yet, but Republicans in Congress are getting ready for it. Since they control both houses of Congress and soon Cheetos McSmallhands will be in the White House it means that there is very little chance that the Affordable Care Act won't be repealed. So far there is nothing on offer for what will replace it, something which only a small minority of elected Republicans have admitted and something which has been brought up many times over the years whenever Republicans have attempted to repeal the healthcare law. How they've gone so long without a plan is beyond me. (Actually, it's not beyond me. It's mostly to do with messaging and fear mongering, which is why there are people out there that hate Obamacare but like the Affordable Care Act [!?])

    That means that in addition to the coverage itself the popular provisions like being able to stay on your parent's insurance until you're 26 and the provision that prevents you from being turned away for having a preexisting condition, would disappear with the law.

    A study about my own county, which has about 500,000 people, says we would stand to have 35,000 people lose health insurance coverage when the law is repealed and it would cost our county 200 million dollars because of various factors including people resorting to emergency room visits, loss of taxes from the healthcare sector, and others.
     
    Whats especially amusing about this is the number of Trump supporters who think this won't affect them, saying it's "Obamacare" that's going to get repealed and not the ACA. (Democrats though deserve some of the blame for this - They decided to grab the idiot ball and run with it when Republicans started labeling it as Obamacare.)

    And ofc, now that it's about to happen a lot of his voters are starting to open their eyes to the fact that 'aw hell, we're going to be losing our health insurance now'.

    If a specific subset of US voters were intelligent, the UK vote and aftermath should have opened their eyes but nope.

    Still though, what a lot of people forget is that the ACA/Obamacare wasn't really something of Liberial creation - It was heavily based on the healthcare changes that Romney implemented in Massachusetts.

    Here's a sneak peak at this super-duper mcawesome replacement that Republicans have been talking about for the last 7 years.

    Spoiler:
     
    Preexisting protection coverage is something Trump has stressed will stay after Obamacare is repealed. So there's no need to worry about that.

    Also the opening insurance coverage across state lines will help tremendously. That alone will make insurance more accessible and affordable to everyone. The insurance I was planning on getting for 2017 actually bailed in my state because of Obamacare so now I'm stuck with crappy government insurance that doesn't cover things I need for another year.
     
    yrmrku said:
    Preexisting protection coverage is something Trump has stressed will stay after Obamacare is repealed. So there's no need to worry about that.
    Click to expand...

    He's stressed a lot recently that he never made fun of a disabled reporter too, so does this mean he's telling the truth? He can stress whatever he likes, but it not going to change the fact that he's either lying from the start or can - and as history shows on past things he's stressed - suddenly change his mind about.

    Besides, it doesn't really matter much what he wants - Senate and Congress is R controlled, they could push through a complete repeal, including the preexisting condition coverage. Trump is then between a rock and a hard place - Does he piss off both the Senate and Congress by refusing to sign it in, along with a large portion of his base, or does he sign it through and then put the ball in S/C's court to include this condtion in whatever 'replacement' they (may or may not) come up with? (They might also hold a veto-proof majority, haven't checked to confirm this though.)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Her
    Now now, let me remind us all that we shouldn't get carried away with our arguments. Nobody wins in a pissing contest.

    Spoiler:


    Back on track, Trump can say anything he damn-well pleases. I know this, cuz... it's what he does. Like Obama and Gitmo, Trump's promises are capable of never coming to fruition; but Trump himself has been proven to be a frequent liar. The guy above brought up the disability-shaming (of which a video of exists for all to see in spite of what he says), Muslims celebrating 9/11 and videos of it (which don't exist), lack of taxes, donating to VA charities, etc. So while I believe the repealing part to be true, I don't believe he or any person in the House or Senate pushing for the repeal has the slightest idea of what to replace it with. It's better to simply edit the coverage instead of just getting it to the trash. Many have states that it can cost quite a ton to repeal, let alone replace.

    I hope there aren't enough votes to go through with this. It's no more than a political move on many Republicans' parts, with that Turtle McConnell being the face of it. I wonder when it was that they forgot they were working for us as public servants, not playing for the red team or blue team like nine mercenaries hired from around the globe fighting for useless gravel.
     
    That sounds incredibly reasonable and plausible with regards to the people who push for this... And it scared the living sh*t outta me, reading those words.
     
    Trump may be a frequent liar, but in regards to preexisting conditions, I believe him. Not because he said it but rather the odds are stacked in its favor. Prexisting conditions is one of those things I've never really seen debated, it's something both sides seem to agree on. Democrats want it, and plenty of Republicans side with them. So pretty much that is the only thing that anyone can confidently will probably be preserved.

    I think it's likely they aren't going to replace Obamacare with another act, but rather set up a healthier insurance industry. It's more the Republican style to leave things to their own devices like that. Like I said, cross-state coverage will help a lot.
     
    Pre-existing's not the point of debate, at least not completely. If Obamacare's gonna be replaced, it has to be replaced completely. So for the sake of those who will potentially - and no doubt - suffer an illness or injury considered life-threatening, Trump and the Republicans who are missing a few marbles and are politically-driven had better set up something better to replace it with, and in due time. This is an area of government that Canadians (among many other countries, if not almost-all) are better at than us, so it's almost kinda funny in a sheepish way how we still have to yank each other's hair out over this while claiming to be the greatest country in the world. XD;;;;;;;;;
     
    If they are going to replace the ACA, they should at least do it state by state because population density is so widely varied in the United States. In Canada, this is an issue and is the cause of longer waiting times because their population is less dense.

    So basically to me it doesnt make sense to have a federal program because population density is so varied between states. A forced state's program abiding by federal standards makes more since I think.
     
    Sounds like a ton of work... A ton of work that needs to be done. If this way is most beneficial, then repealing without a replacement is all-the-more discouraged, if I throw in my two cents.
     
    Can attest to longass waiting times in Canada, you could die in the waiting room, especially in the bigger cities.

    But I am afraid for my american friends who stand to lose coverage, it's a rather frightening thought.
     
    yrmrku said:
    Trump may be a frequent liar, but in regards to preexisting conditions, I believe him. Not because he said it but rather the odds are stacked in its favor. Prexisting conditions is one of those things I've never really seen debated, it's something both sides seem to agree on. Democrats want it, and plenty of Republicans side with them. So pretty much that is the only thing that anyone can confidently will probably be preserved.
    Click to expand...

    So what happens if the Republicans repeal the ACA, leaving just the nice bits (preexisting conditions, youths under 26 under parents' coverage, etc.)? According to the Congressional Budget Office:

    - 18 million people would lose their insurance overnight (from Medicaid repeal). By 2026, that number will have hit 32 million people, from people dropping their individual coverages due to point 2. By then, only about 1 million people would remain with a marketplace insurance.
    - Premiums for the people buying their insurance in the open market would see their premiums spike by 25% overnight, and eventually by 50% by 2026 VS the premium rate growth if the ACA is mantained intact.

    Why so? Because without the mandate, young people would drop their insurance plans, meaning that risks will have to be pooled among sick people only (which are more likely to spend the companies' money). And since you can't be denied coverage even if you have preexisting conditions, all you have to do is drop your insurance until you are sick, and then purchase it when you need it, and not a minute earlier, and then drop it again the second you have recovered. Result? Either the companies start charging outrageous rates to everybody, or they will all collapse, as it happened in WA when a similar law was tried by the Democrats in the 90s and then similarly defaced by Republicans later- a few years later, barely any insurance companies were left at all.

    yrmrku said:
    I think it's likely they aren't going to replace Obamacare with another act, but rather set up a healthier insurance industry. It's more the Republican style to leave things to their own devices like that. Like I said, cross-state coverage will help a lot.
    Click to expand...

    Problem is, cross-state doesn't work in any other kind of insurance(!) so it's completely untested. Also every other problem outlined in part 2.
     
    BadSheep said:
    So basically to me it doesnt make sense to have a federal program because population density is so varied between states. A forced state's program abiding by federal standards makes more since I think.
    Click to expand...

    But leaving it up to individual states wouldn't exactly be better. There are plenty of state governments who are against the idea of government having any hand in helping people pay for their medical bills. Without some kind of federal program there'd be no way to force those states to do something.
     
    Esper said:
    But leaving it up to individual states wouldn't exactly be better. There are plenty of state governments who are against the idea of government having any hand in helping people pay for their medical bills. Without some kind of federal program there'd be no way to force those states to do something.
    Click to expand...

    Its not that hard to force states to comply because federal law always trumps state law. A federal law can be in place to force the states to comply with certain standards. Not to mention, bribing is a common and effective method. This is how Common Core was passed in many states.
     
    We should have an alternative by now. This is just petty and hurtful, at this point. XD;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
     
    BadSheep said:
    Ive heard that Rand Paul and Trump are working together on a new healthcare plan.
    Click to expand...
    I mean, props to Paul (I guess) for being one of the few Republicans to stand up and say that you gotta have something to replace the ACA with before you repeal it, but this isn't exactly my dream team for people I'd pick to craft healthcare legislation. Remember, Paul is the guy who, when asked a few years ago what should happen to a hypothetical 30 y/o man without insurance who fell into a coma, said, essentially, he should die because people need to "take responsibility". As if anyone can take responsibility for a sudden accident, or illness, or disease, especially when they're young and can't possibly make enough money to pay for the health costs. I shudder to think about what Paul would craft as an acceptable replacement for the ACA.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top