GOP ACA Replacement Imminent....Predictions

[Chromagnus]

So selling across state lines is just a line fed to us by politicians and you're the smartest guy in the room?

Yes. States can already allow insurers to sell into their state, most states haven't allowed it and even for the ones that have, most insurers don't want to do it.

 

[Sea Ray]

Yes. States can already allow insurers to sell into their state, most states haven't allowed it and even for the ones that have, most insurers don't want to do it.

Those regulations need to be eased. It should be easier to sell across state lines

 

[fskimospy]

And here we have the bubble-minded "justification" and blame for what is ultimately to be the likely outcome....nothing that effectively helps to improve the healthcare problems for the American people. We've now become so entrenched and ideologically perverse that bipartisan efforts are no longer considered to be reasonable solution.

Talk about ideological perversion. If the Republicans are unwilling to make logical and empirically supported changes to US health care for ideological reasons the answer is not to instead make illogical changes to accommodate them. It's their problem that they have to figure out on their own.

This all comes down to a simple fact that is inescapable. If you are going to have guaranteed issue and community rating then there MUST be regulation that forces people to pay for insurance whether they are sick or not. Otherwise sane and logical people will only buy insurance when they are sick. The Republican idea to simply charge people more when they have a gap in coverage will INCREASE selection bias, not decrease it. It will achieve literally the opposite of its intended effect, making it a stupid idea.

I would LOVE a bipartisan effort to improve the ACA, I'd be all for it. So far I've seen nothing that would even remotely qualify as a bipartisan attempt on the ACA from Republicans. Have you?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Those regulations need to be eased. It should be easier to sell across state lines

Its a paradox because then we end up with the race to the bottom see above post here:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ent-predictions.2500681/page-14#post-38782665

 

[fskimospy]

Those regulations need to be eased. It should be easier to sell across state lines

Those regulations were already eased. What additional regulations are you referring to that you think are causing the problem?

 

[Chromagnus]

Those regulations were already eased. What additional regulations are you referring to that you think are causing the problem?

The main thing is that it is currently a state's choice whether or not they want to allow insurance across their state lines. You could force states to accept it and not give them a choice. Then again this wouldn't mean insurance companies would choose to participate though.

Also Republican's aren't generally big on taking away state's rights.

 

[theeedude]

I find this situation very difficult.
On one hand, I feel like I should point and laugh.
On the other hand, I am empathetic to people who are screwed by health care in our country.
In the end, empathy always wins for me.
Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do but watch now. And people losing care and dying hopefully wakes up enough voters to make a difference

My new rule is to show empathy to those who show empathy to at least themselves.
Empathy is what lead us liberal "elites" who have great employer health plans, to support Obamacare and pay higher taxes for it. These people benefited from this, but voted for party and candidates who repeatedly said they'd get rid of it. And now they are scared that they will get what they voted for.
The point and laugh time is upon us.

 

[Jhhnn]

So selling across state lines is just a line fed to us by politicians and you're the smartest guy in the room?

Yes to the first part.

If you google "health insurance across state lines" you'll find a lot of articles like this-

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-insurance-state-lines-20161114-story.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Talk about ideological perversion. If the Republicans are unwilling to make logical and empirically supported changes to US health care for ideological reasons the answer is not to instead make illogical changes to accommodate them. It's their problem that they have to figure out on their own.

This all comes down to a simple fact that is inescapable. If you are going to have guaranteed issue and community rating then there MUST be regulation that forces people to pay for insurance whether they are sick or not. Otherwise sane and logical people will only buy insurance when they are sick. The Republican idea to simply charge people more when they have a gap in coverage will INCREASE selection bias, not decrease it. It will achieve literally the opposite of its intended effect, making it a stupid idea.

I would LOVE a bipartisan effort to improve the ACA, I'd be all for it. So far I've seen nothing that would even remotely qualify as a bipartisan attempt on the ACA from Republicans. Have you?

I other words you would love for Republicans to fix major issues with a healthcare plan that Democrats developed and saw fit to pass with zero bipartisan support...and to fix fundamental issues using solutions like increased mandate penalties that are further contrary to their core beliefs. The reality here is that this is not going to happen. Now what?

 

[fskimospy]

I other words you would love for Republicans to fix major issues with a healthcare plan that Democrats developed and saw fit to pass with zero bipartisan support...fix fundamental issues that fly in the face of their core beliefs. The reality here is that's not going to happen. Now what?

Remember, they saw fit to pass it without bipartisan support due to the 'hellbent obstruction' that you claim to dislike. What it sounds like is you want Democrats to pass major changes to a health care bill that fly in the face of their core beliefs. The reality here is that's not going to happen. If Republicans want a bipartisan bill they are going to have to compromise on some of those core beliefs.

In the end, the ACA is working well enough that I imagine Democrats are perfectly fine with leaving it as it is until they regain power and then make appropriate changes. If for some reason it does fail over the next few years I sincerely doubt the voters will blame Democrats and not the Republicans who had the power to fix it and chose not to. If the Republicans aren't willing to make major ideological concessions then that's too bad. They should have thought of this when the ACA was being crafted initially instead of opting for hellbent obstruction. I bet they could have gotten the Democrats to give up quite a lot to get a bipartisan bill then. Hopefully they learn a lesson from that.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry to say that I disagree with the bolded. If the Repubs had cooperated with the Dems when the ACA was in its nascent form, the Act could have been much more viable and more widely accepted than it came to be. That the Repubs chose to wholly obstruct the idea of providing affordable health care for all as they have for the past decades from the time this form of "socialized medicine" was known as Universal Health Care, I can therefore safely assume that the burden of why the ACA was passed in such weak form was wholly due to the Repubs ideologically induced resistance to the principle of providing gov't assisted health care for all its citizens.

edited for syntax

And what have the Dems done to make care affordable? The ACA sure didnt do it. Im talking about COST of healthcare, NOT insurance.

 

[theeedude]

Actually, GOP was involved in crafting the ACA, they just voted against the final product when the teabaggers threatened to primary them for working with Obama.

 

[theeedude]

And what have the Dems done to make care affordable? The ACA sure didnt do it. Im talking about COST of healthcare, NOT insurance.

GOP had 7 years to work on a plan that better addresses COST, and they have nothing to show for it. Republican "think" tanks took billions of dollars of donor money, and could not think of a better plan than Obamacare in 7 years.

 

[fskimospy]

And what have the Dems done to make care affordable? The ACA sure didnt do it. Im talking about COST of healthcare, NOT insurance.

This would be a good start:

http://www.chrt.org/publication/cost-containment-affordable-care-act-overview-policies-savings/

 

[VRAMdemon]

Does the new GOP plan remove the death panels? I haven't seen any reporting on that front.

 

[blackangst1]

This would be a good start:

http://www.chrt.org/publication/cost-containment-affordable-care-act-overview-policies-savings/

Thank you for that. Good info.

Im curious what the proposed plan would do to stop that specifically? It seems the biggest change is the government subsidies given.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Remember, they saw fit to pass it without bipartisan support due to the 'hellbent obstruction' that you claim to dislike. What it sounds like is you want Democrats to pass major changes to a health care bill that fly in the face of their core beliefs. The reality here is that's not going to happen. If Republicans want a bipartisan bill they are going to have to compromise on some of those core beliefs.

In the end, the ACA is working well enough that I imagine Democrats are perfectly fine with leaving it as it is until they regain power and then make appropriate changes. If for some reason it does fail over the next few years I sincerely doubt the voters will blame Democrats and not the Republicans who had the power to fix it and chose not to. If the Republicans aren't willing to make major ideological concessions then that's too bad. They should have thought of this when the ACA was being crafted initially instead of opting for hellbent obstruction. I bet they could have gotten the Democrats to give up quite a lot to get a bipartisan bill then. Hopefully they learn a lesson from that.

Republicans will be forced to compromise if they expect to get any reasonable semblance of their plan passed...as they don't have the luxury of cramming it down our throats like the Democrats did with ACA. But thank's for showing your true colors.

 

[blackangst1]

Does the new GOP plan remove the death panels? I haven't seen any reporting on that front.

WTF? There are no death panels.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans will be forced to compromise if they expect to get any reasonable semblance of their plan passed...as they don't have the luxury of cramming it down our throats like the Democrats did with ACA. But thank's for showing your true colors.

Yep, my true colors being 'if they want something passed they will have to compromise'. This is the same lesson from 2009-10, where they could have likely gotten a much more Republican-friendly bill than the ACA eventually was. They declined. Hopefully they have learned something from that mistake.

So I hope they do compromise, although I sincerely doubt it. The current Republican problem is that they consider the plan they are putting forth NOW to be too generous, when to get Democrats on board it's going to have to be much more generous than it already is. I don't know how they thread that needle.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for that. Good info.

Im curious what the proposed plan would do to stop that specifically? It seems the biggest change is the government subsidies given.

The current plan keeps most of the ACA in place, it just screws with the mandate and subsidies. I'm not aware of any specific changes to the cost control measures, although they might be in there.

 

[hal2kilo]

GOP had 7 years to work on a plan that better addresses COST, and they have nothing to show for it. Republican "think" tanks took billions of dollars of donor money, and could not think of a better plan than Obamacare in 7 years.

What the Koch brothers want is not good enough?

 

[blackangst1]

The current plan keeps most of the ACA in place, it just screws with the mandate and subsidies. I'm not aware of any specific changes to the cost control measures, although they might be in there.

It appears the only ones who will hurt from the GOP plan is ins companies. With no mandate (which Im good with) that means younger healthy people wont get ins (which, of course, will result in higher costs *IF* something catastrophic happens) and lower income people wont get the subsidies they used to get. Either way, its higher cost for ins companies.

 

[blackangst1]

What the Koch brothers want is not good enough?

Hey the right have the Koch bros, the left has Soros. Its a wash 🙂

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yep, my true colors being 'if they want something passed they will have to compromise'. This is the same lesson from 2009-10, where they could have likely gotten a much more Republican-friendly bill than the ACA eventually was. They declined. Hopefully they have learned something from that mistake.

So I hope they do compromise, although I sincerely doubt it. The current Republican problem is that they consider the plan they are putting forth NOW to be too generous, when to get Democrats on board it's going to have to be much more generous than it already is. I don't know how they thread that needle.

You seem to live in an alternate universe. The mandate was fundamental to ACA and the Republicans were adamantly against it. There was no way either Democrats or Republicans would have compromised on that crucial point.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to live in an alternate universe. The mandate was fundamental to ACA and the Republicans were adamantly against it. There was no way either Democrats or Republicans would have compromised on that crucial point.

And so here we are. If the Republicans won't compromise on the mandate then they likely won't have enough votes to pass their own bill. Since the mandate that they hate is already law, it sounds like they can either accept reality as it is and compromise from there or they can perhaps get nothing. I guess it all depends on how accepting of reality Republicans want to be, wouldn't you agree?