Don’t forget that both Health Care and Health Insurance must not increase in cost when compared to Obamacare.
Oh yeah, it has to be a “Job Creating” reform.
Like I said, it’s not hard to come up with a grandfathering solution for a few hundred thousand people.
But marginally harder for seven million people.
It is hard, and that explains why the Republican did not come with a plan early.
Where? :dubious:
Note that all those three worthies have offered is already in place, except for restoring the possibility of a family’s financial ruin. So, even as far as that goes, how would passing it constitute a, what do you say, “utter defeat” for ACA?
There you go again, buying the administration’s numbers.
You have better numbers?
For those who have not seen the newest Republican proposal (not yet a bill), here is a link to several news reports about the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act and here is the press release.
I want Republicans to run on this in November:
A lot of people will lose their coverage. Instant fail.
Lance, I don’t have better Medicaid numbers, but on the exchanges, insurers are reporting that 30-50% of people who chose a plan did not pay.
If Amazon reported everyone who put something in a cart as a sale, there stock would be worth three times as much as it is now. The administration used an unprecedented and blatantly dishonest measurement to report signups. If the customer doesn’t pay, then he hasn’t signed up for insurance.
I enrolled on November 5th. My insurer didn’t contact me until December 9th. My insurer wouldn’t accept my payment until December 18th. It cleared my insurer on January 16th, and I just got my card last week.
Yes, the system sucks. But there are millions of people in the process like I was, and they will be paid up. It is naive to assume that because their payments haven’t posted yet, they will never pay.
Many will not pay. The administration assumes a 100% payment rate. Their Medicaid numbers are also optimistic, as Glenn Kessler’s fact check showed.
The fact is, if you repeal and replace ACA, you only have to do something for those who got insurance through ACA. Those that had insurance before will (mostly) happily move back to their old plans that they lost due to ACA. Those who were already eligible for Medicaid will remain eligible for Medicaid. So you just have to do something for those people who got new coverage through ACA, and so far that’s not likely to be a big number.
And I notice no one wanted to grapple with the question. I didn’t ask whether anyone thought it was a good plan. Just whether if it passed, it would be considered the utter defeat of ACA, or the entrenchment of ACA’s most important aspects.
The ACA considerably expanded the eligibility coverage of Medicaid. If you repeal ACA, those who got Medicaid through that ACA expanded coverage would no longer be eligible.
Only a small fraction of the eligible population has applied. I’m sure something can be worked out. Grandfathering is not hard if you actually intend to grandfather something in. The Obama administration never had any intention of allowing people to keep their old policies. Republicans won’t break that trust, assuming they make such a promise.
You. Are. ADORABLE.
These are the same Republicans who talk about small government and low spending and then, whenever they get into office, expand the government and the deficit by huge amounts, right? They can’t even stick to the big, obvious promises.
But THIS TIME they mean it! Or they would do, if they theoretically promised to do this hypothetical thing as part of their vague and non-specific plan.
I think adaher was created in a lab by Roger Ailes and Clear Channel Communications trying to make the perfect consumer of right-wing infotainment.
I might be the first person ITT that has gone this far with the following statement, but I’ll say it anyway:
The GOP “replacement” plan is a complete and utter JOKE.
Now, it might have been mildly useful if it had been proposed in 2009 when the ACA was still being drafted, but as it stands now this “alternative” would merely represent a regression to an even worse older status quo. Seriously, conservatives rant on and on about the disruption that Ocare has facilitated in the insurance market, but this GOP plan would be FAR MORE disruptive all in the name of paving the way for LESS health insurance, which, to be frank, is fucking stupid.
Plus - and this is driving me up the wall here - the GOP acts as if there would be no political capital AT ALL that would need to be expended in order to repeal the ACA and insert its “replacement.” Seriously, for all the hell that the Democrats endured in order to pass the ACA in the first place, the GOP would deal with at least twice as much pushback in a halfhearted charge to dismantle Obama’s legacy. When you’ve got hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the R&D of the federal website, just as much money flowing to the states, and tens of millions of individuals benefiting from the law by 2017, the Rethugs can’t just expect to do away with all of that and not face a whirlwind of blowback.
And I’d love to see how on earth they could ever market the reintroduction of preexisting condition exclusions. Good luck with that dickheads.
But I do appreciate that the party is starting to acknowledge that the old status quo was fucking terrible and needed to be fixed, and that none of Ocare’s core tenets can ever really be jettisoned. They’re late to the party, but still, bravo I guess?
One last thing: this replacement, like the repeal of the ACA in general, is never going ANYWHERE. The GOP would need to have a Republican POTUS in the White House to make this possible, but even then, they will NEVER have the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in order to get it through that chamber. Also, the moment this gets drafted into legislation, expect it to get absolutely obliterated by the Democrats in the same way that the GOP have railed against the ACA over the past few years.
It could be part of the long-expected process of the Republicans trying to claim *credit *for Obamacare.
Not sure why it matters since this has absolutely no chance of passing, but yes obviously replacing the ACA with something that horrible would be a defeat.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but as far as I understand it, the viability of Obamacare is based, in part, on 18 -30 year-old participating at a 40% rate. The current rate is just 18%. A few weeks ago on one of the Sunday morning shows, Ezekiel Emanual (SO not the guy to get anyone to like anything) pointed out what he said was a bright spot, California, where the rate of participation of that young demographic was 26%, which, he pointed out, aligned perfectly with the percent of the population they make up.
So, the plan is based on having the youngest demographic participate at a HIGHER rate than how they fall within the population? And keep in mind, that the general consensus is that these young healthy “invincibles” will be participating at a lower rate. Is the plan really THAT badly designed, or did I misunderstand something?
Compounding the problem I see what the plan as they’ve devised it, which depends on large numbers of young, healthy people sign ing up is that the Obamacare allows those under age 27 to stay on their parents plan. And that just reduces the chances that they’ll get the numbers of the young they need to join.
W.T.F.?