You cant filabuster the repeal of Obamacare?

[Doc Savage Fan]

In what way will they be addressed? Some magical, nebulous, secret way no doubt.

I'm sure they will be addressed in ways that displease you...no doubt

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure they will be addressed in ways that displease you...no doubt

I would love to know how you think they will be addressed because at the moment no one seems to have any idea.

As I mentioned in my edit you may not have realized that any attempt to make a market based insurance system work that doesn't permit denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions ends up looking pretty much identical to the ACA.

If they address them that basically means un-repealing the ACA, lol.

 

[brycejones]

In what way will they be addressed? Some magical, nebulous, secret way no doubt.

EDIT: It seems reasonably likely that the ACA as we know it isn't going anywhere as there's really no other way to do a market based insurance system except pretty much as the ACA did it. I'm not sure why conservatives never seemed to grasp this fact.

Maybe they will require states to setup their own exchanges for insurance......

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And it shouldn't be fillibusted(spelling?). Let's see what 6 years of bitching and planning has brought.

 

[brycejones]

Let's see what 6 years of bitching has brought.

FTFY

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would love to know how you think they will be addressed because at the moment no one seems to have any idea.

As I mentioned in my edit you may not have realized that any attempt to make a market based insurance system work that doesn't permit denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions ends up looking pretty much identical to the ACA.

If they address them that basically means un-repealing the ACA, lol.

I don't have any idea although I did hear an expert cite a few alternatives a couple weeks ago. But whatever solution is formed, I'm pretty sure you won't like it.

 

[Brainonska511]

FTFY

They're like the dog that catches the car. 6 years of bitching about wanting to "repeal and replace", except now the homework is due and they haven't even started on what the "replace" part will look like. But I'm sure we'll see all sorts of grandiose excuses and that whatever they come up with will be magically better than the ACA. It's time for Republicans to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They're like the dog that catches the car. 6 years of bitching about wanting to "repeal and replace", except now the homework is due and they haven't even started on what the "replace" part will look like. But I'm sure we'll see all sorts of grandiose excuses and that whatever they come up with will be magically better than the ACA. It's time for Republicans to put their money where their mouth is.

^ This.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Right now, mathematically, universal healthcare will never work unless the healthy are forced to pay for the sick. And obviously, the healthy would not want to waste their own money on the sick. It's going to be a losing battle, whether it is Obamacare, Republicare, or whatever -care is being propped up temporarily.

The first thing they need to take care of is the fraudulent way that the medical expenses are hiked up. People are being charged ludicrous amounts of money for services and equipment used. Clamp down on that first so you can cut the cost, then healthcare will begin to look more affordable.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't have any idea although I did hear an expert cite a few alternatives a couple weeks ago. But whatever solution is formed, I'm pretty sure you won't like it.

Who cares if I like it or not? I haven't seen any market based alternatives that don't rely on the same basic framework as the ACA.

The most likely reason for this of course is that they don't exist. The ACA was made the way it was because that's how you have to do it. I imagine conservatives have been aware of this for a long time but found it politically convenient to ignore, but now they can't ignore it anymore. Their base wants them to repeal the Hated Obamacare but doesn't want to lose their insurance that Obamacare gave them. Oops!

 

[fskimospy]

They're like the dog that catches the car. 6 years of bitching about wanting to "repeal and replace", except now the homework is due and they haven't even started on what the "replace" part will look like. But I'm sure we'll see all sorts of grandiose excuses and that whatever they come up with will be magically better than the ACA. It's time for Republicans to put their money where their mouth is.

The Republican alternative to the ACA is like fusion power, it's always riiiiiiight around the corner. Some people have been having fun with this mysterious but never quite there replacement for years, haha.

https://storify.com/JeffYoung/just-in-time

 

[First]

Lol! Governing is hard! The dems just need to sit back and watch the show.

Sadly, that is their best option. Repubs ain't governing worth a damn even with complete control of gov't, not unless they get liberal buy-in from Dems, which they continually needed to avoid shutdown after shutdown during the Obama era, and especially needed every last Dem in the legislation spree at the end of the Boehner reign.

 

[First]

I don't have any idea...

Funny, neither do Repubs nor will they propose anything that doesn't:

1. Kick millions off insurance and/or render that insurance meaningless by reducing insurance benefits to pennies on the dollar vs. current ACA requirements.
2. Keeps ACA mostly intact while adding the nonsensical "across state lines" provision that does nothing to improve insurance benefits.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who cares if I like it or not? I haven't seen any market based alternatives that don't rely on the same basic framework as the ACA.

The most likely reason for this of course is that they don't exist. The ACA was made the way it was because that's how you have to do it. I imagine conservatives have been aware of this for a long time but found it politically convenient to ignore, but now they can't ignore it anymore. Their base wants them to repeal the Hated Obamacare but doesn't want to lose their insurance that Obamacare gave them. Oops!

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The article below is dated 11/15/16...a little old considering the intense amount of attention this issue is currently getting within the party.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-pre-existing-conditions/

But the system wouldn't work the way it did under Obamacare, which revolutionized coverage by prohibiting insurers from turning away the sick or charging them higher premiums based on their medical conditions. And that's left some health care experts questioning whether Trump's plan will succeed.

Insurers have long been reluctant to cover sick Americans in the individual market since theirhealth care costs can vastly exceed the premiums they pay. Obamacare aimed to address this problem by attracting healthier people to help offset those expenses. To do so, it introduced the individual mandate, which requires everyone to have coverage or pay a penalty. It provided subsidies to 85% of enrollees to make policies more affordable.

Trump has yet to lay out a detailed plan to replace President Obama's signature health reform law. His transition team did not return a request for comment.

But he, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan have provided some insights into how Republicans would handle the thorny issue of insuring the sick.

They would set up a two-track system: one for those who maintain continuous coverage and one for those who don't. And they would replace the subsidies with a tax credit or deduction to help people pay their premiums.

Those who are currently covered could not be dropped from their plans or fail to renew them because they are sick, according to a proposal to reform health care outlined in Ryan's "A Better Way" paper released in June. This would also apply to those switching from work-based plans to the individual market.

Pence echoed this view in a speech earlier this month.

"We will protect Americans with pre-existing conditions so that they are not charged more or denied coverage, just because they have been sick, so long as they have paid their premiums consistently," he said.

This plan banks on healthier people also signing up because they wouldn't want to let their coverage lapse and face being excluded if they needed care. And if they did try to get back in, it would be reasonable for them to bear the responsibility of paying higher premiums since insurers will be allowed to assess their health at that time and charge accordingly, said James Capretta, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

However, whether enough healthy people would enroll under this system remains to be seen. Requiring the sick to have continuous coverage is only part of the solution, but it depends on having a functioning market overall, said Ezekiel Emanuel, a health care management professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was one of the architects of Obamacare.

The handful of states that previously required insurers to provide coverage to everyone and banned them from charging the sick more prior to Obamacare saw their individual insurance markets collapse as premiums skyrocketed.

Even Obamacare's carrots and sticks approach of using subsidies and penalties to attract the healthy was faltering. Premiums are shooting up an average of 22% for the benchmark plan on the exchanges next year in large part because not enough healthy Americans have signed up.

For those with a pre-existing condition who haven't maintained continuous coverage, the Trump administration would bring back state-based high risk pools, which were largely shut down after the Obamacare exchanges became operational in 2014. The president-elect's transition website says he will work with Congress and states to re-establish these pools.

Ryan's plan calls for providing at least $25 billion in federal funding for these programs, as well as placing caps on their premiums and banning wait lists.

Prior to Obamacare, 35 states maintained high risk pools for their sick residents. The programs varied, but generally the state created a non-profit association to contract with an insurer to administer the pool. The plans were similar to individual insurance policies, but often had waiting lists. They also charged premiums of up to 250% of those for healthy individuals, had annual deductibles of as high as $25,000 and limited annual benefits to as low as $75,000, according to Jean Hall, director of the Institute for Health and Disability Policy Studies at the University of Kansas.

They also lost a lot of money: Roughly 50% of their operating costs had to be subsidized by the state, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.

"It was very expensive and not very comprehensive coverage," Hall said.​

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny, neither do Repubs nor will they propose anything that doesn't:

1. Kick millions off insurance and/or render that insurance meaningless by reducing insurance benefits to pennies on the dollar vs. current ACA requirements.
2. Keeps ACA mostly intact while adding the nonsensical "across state lines" provision that does nothing to improve insurance benefits.

Why do you even bother to post?

 

[fskimospy]

Ah yes, so a plan that no longer prevents insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. If you go without insurance for one month you're screwed literally for the rest of your life. Considering that plenty of people fall into that situation at one or more points in their lives it effectively means we're mostly back to the bad old days before the ACA. It's certainly not coming anywhere even remotely close to doing what the ACA does now.

This plan banks on healthier people also signing up because they wouldn't want to let their coverage lapse and face being excluded if they needed care. And if they did try to get back in, it would be reasonable for them to bear the responsibility of paying higher premiums since insurers will be allowed to assess their health at that time and charge accordingly, said James Capretta, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

So while there may be more than one way to skin a cat, this plan fails at skinning the cat. Again, the ACA was made the way it was because that's how you have to do this sort of thing. Sooner or later conservatives are going to have to accept that fact or go back to arguing that we can discriminate on pre-existing conditions.

 

[First]

Why do you even bother to post?

The things I say mostly come true. You? Not so much.

 

[dullard]

But the main supposed benefit of selling across state lines is to lower costs through increased competition. Your example does either nothing to improve this or in some cases makes it even worse.

Instead of having 50 BCBS websites and 50 BCBS managements and 50 BCBS sets of actuaries, they can have one. Competition is good, but it gets quite wasteful for little gains past a few dozen companies.

 

[First]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The article below is dated 11/15/16...a little old considering the intense amount of attention this issue is currently getting within the party.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-pre-existing-conditions/

But the system wouldn't work the way it did under Obamacare, which revolutionized coverage by prohibiting insurers from turning away the sick or charging them higher premiums based on their medical conditions. And that's left some health care experts questioning whether Trump's plan will succeed.

Insurers have long been reluctant to cover sick Americans in the individual market since theirhealth care costs can vastly exceed the premiums they pay. Obamacare aimed to address this problem by attracting healthier people to help offset those expenses. To do so, it introduced the individual mandate, which requires everyone to have coverage or pay a penalty. It provided subsidies to 85% of enrollees to make policies more affordable.

Trump has yet to lay out a detailed plan to replace President Obama's signature health reform law. His transition team did not return a request for comment.

But he, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan have provided some insights into how Republicans would handle the thorny issue of insuring the sick.

They would set up a two-track system: one for those who maintain continuous coverage and one for those who don't. And they would replace the subsidies with a tax credit or deduction to help people pay their premiums.

Those who are currently covered could not be dropped from their plans or fail to renew them because they are sick, according to a proposal to reform health care outlined in Ryan's "A Better Way" paper released in June. This would also apply to those switching from work-based plans to the individual market.

Pence echoed this view in a speech earlier this month.

"We will protect Americans with pre-existing conditions so that they are not charged more or denied coverage, just because they have been sick, so long as they have paid their premiums consistently," he said.

This plan banks on healthier people also signing up because they wouldn't want to let their coverage lapse and face being excluded if they needed care. And if they did try to get back in, it would be reasonable for them to bear the responsibility of paying higher premiums since insurers will be allowed to assess their health at that time and charge accordingly, said James Capretta, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

However, whether enough healthy people would enroll under this system remains to be seen. Requiring the sick to have continuous coverage is only part of the solution, but it depends on having a functioning market overall, said Ezekiel Emanuel, a health care management professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was one of the architects of Obamacare.

The handful of states that previously required insurers to provide coverage to everyone and banned them from charging the sick more prior to Obamacare saw their individual insurance markets collapse as premiums skyrocketed.

Even Obamacare's carrots and sticks approach of using subsidies and penalties to attract the healthy was faltering. Premiums are shooting up an average of 22% for the benchmark plan on the exchanges next year in large part because not enough healthy Americans have signed up.

For those with a pre-existing condition who haven't maintained continuous coverage, the Trump administration would bring back state-based high risk pools, which were largely shut down after the Obamacare exchanges became operational in 2014. The president-elect's transition website says he will work with Congress and states to re-establish these pools.

Ryan's plan calls for providing at least $25 billion in federal funding for these programs, as well as placing caps on their premiums and banning wait lists.

Prior to Obamacare, 35 states maintained high risk pools for their sick residents. The programs varied, but generally the state created a non-profit association to contract with an insurer to administer the pool. The plans were similar to individual insurance policies, but often had waiting lists. They also charged premiums of up to 250% of those for healthy individuals, had annual deductibles of as high as $25,000 and limited annual benefits to as low as $75,000, according to Jean Hall, director of the Institute for Health and Disability Policy Studies at the University of Kansas.

They also lost a lot of money: Roughly 50% of their operating costs had to be subsidized by the state, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.

"It was very expensive and not very comprehensive coverage," Hall said.​

Oy.

It's as if you Googled "Republican healthcare plan" and just linked the first article you saw. It even tells you at the end of the article how bad (and poorly funded, btw) those high risk pools were. Pools without healthy people die without huge gov't outlays. You expect Repubs to back huge subsidies? Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the ACA.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Trump is the wild card. He's spoken glowingly about single payer just to get healthcare off businesses back. He stated last year whatever policy is adopted nobody will be left to die. Maybe it will take the Republicans to get us to single payer. Similar to how Nixon opened China.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oy.

It's as if you Googled "Republican healthcare plan" and just linked the first article you saw. It even tells you at the end of the article how bad (and poorly funded, btw) those high risk pools were. Pools without healthy people die without huge gov't outlays. You expect Repubs to back huge subsidies? Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the ACA.

The fact of the matter here is that you don't know what's going to be proposed and to frame what you don't know as "an awful lot like the ACA" is speculative horseshit.

How about we wait and see before making sweeping statements?

 

[dullard]

Trump is the wild card. He's spoken glowingly about single payer just to get healthcare off businesses back. He stated last year whatever policy is adopted nobody will be left to die. Maybe it will take the Republicans to get us to single payer. Similar to how Nixon opened China.

We are almost a single-payer as-is. If you add up subsidies for insurance, medicare, medicaid, tax deductions (business and Schedule A, HSAs, and FSAs), non-profit hospitals, grants to countless organizations, services such as clinics for the poor, and the VA, then the government already pays for the majority of health care costs.

It would be quite a coup for the Democrats to put forward the GOP plan (Romneycare) in a way to make them backlash and replace it with the Democrat's plan (universal coverage). I just don't see it happening.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Trump is the wild card. He's spoken glowingly about single payer just to get healthcare off businesses back. He stated last year whatever policy is adopted nobody will be left to die. Maybe it will take the Republicans to get us to single payer. Similar to how Nixon opened China.

I heard the same thing, that Trump is not adverse to single payer. I'm personally hoping we go this way.

 

[agent00f]

Right now, mathematically, universal healthcare will never work unless the healthy are forced to pay for the sick. And obviously, the healthy would not want to waste their own money on the sick. It's going to be a losing battle, whether it is Obamacare, Republicare, or whatever -care is being propped up temporarily.

The first thing they need to take care of is the fraudulent way that the medical expenses are hiked up. People are being charged ludicrous amounts of money for services and equipment used. Clamp down on that first so you can cut the cost, then healthcare will begin to look more affordable.

Too bad the dummies are against gubmint cost controls which are employed in every other first world country with lower costs than us.

 

[agent00f]

I heard the same thing, that Trump is not adverse to single payer. I'm personally hoping we go this way.

Good thing it's not some libtard pushing it, amiright?