3rd Attempt: GOP/Trump Repeal & Replace ACA and Trump lie about pre-exist coverage

OK, here's the answer. Apparently, it's an even more terrible bill than the previous Senate bill. It's not true repeal at all, but takes out the individual mandate while leaving in place pre-existing conditions ban. Thus, insurers will jack up prices and flee lots of areas. That at least makes it make more sense because it's an impossible situation. You could just wait until you got cancer or whatever and then sign up for insurance.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/economy/senate-repeal-bill-cbo/index.html

Here's what the new bill would do:

-- Get rid of the individual and employer mandates, two of the least favorite provisions of the law, by reducing the penalty to $0. This provision would be retroactive to 2016.

-- Effectively end Obamacare in 2020 by eliminating the federal subsidies that help people afford individual coverage.

-- Eliminate Medicaid expansion starting in 2020.

-- Repeal taxes on the wealthy, health insurers, medical device makers and others.

-- Defund Planned Parenthood for one year.

-- Increase funding for substance abuse and mental health needs by $1.5 billion over two years.

Enacting the legislation would decrease deficits by $473 billion over the next decade, however this doesn't take into account the cost of a replacement plan.

In some important ways, however, this bill repeals less of Obamacare than the legislation that passed the House and the version that was under consideration in the Senate until this week. It doesn't touch Obamacare's insurance provisions, including the immensely popular protections for those with pre-existing conditions. That will make it more likely to comply with Senate rules that will allow it to be passed with a simple majority.

Also, it would not curtail federal support for the overall Medicaid program as the House and Senate health care bills would have.

Still, repealing Obamacare without replacing it would throw the individual market into chaos, prompting insurers to start exiting swiftly. Lawmakers wouldn't have a lot of time to come up with a replacement, said Cynthia Cox, associate director at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 

So what would be different for illegals under a single payer system? I take it since you didn't respond to my other questions earlier you don't really know how such a system works. In my experience hospital care stays the same (people get treated regardless and hospitals hope to recoup) but costs are generally lower due to the lack of for-profit insurance companies. But what you might not know is that to use doctors offices (primary and specialist) you generally have to be registered locally. Which requires documentation. Which illegals don't generally have.

Basically, your one example of a major hurdle for the US would be a hurdle for any system but would be less of a hurdle in whatever system reduces cost overall...essentialy the antithesis of the US system over the last 40 years.

 

The difference would be that they'd be able to use not only the emergency room but also everything else using their stolen identities. We know that in 2015 there was at least 1.4 million illegal immigrants who used stolen or falsified social security documents in order to get hired, they'd likely do the same to get healthcare as they do with other entitlement programs currently.

Like I said before, there's a reason why you don't see successful welfare states like you see in parts of Europe in countries with comparable illegal immigration numbers. Greece is the ONLY example of even 2% illegal immigration and the US is nearly 4%. In fact, most of Europe has 1% or less.

 

So basically this is not an actual repeal and replace which we both suspected. This is the Republicans version of 'Keep your doctor, keep your plan'.

Its really sad Congress would rather watch it burn to the ground than risk losing their seat. I am not so concerned about the pseudo-repeal as much as I am concerned knowing the Republicans will never pass anything that will work better than Obamacare...much less if they could agree to pass anything at all.

 

Which is a good thing. All evidence points to the fact that preventive care is far, far cheaper over time than emergency care after things get really bad. This is universally acknowledged by health policy experts on all sides of the political spectrum. Again, it's how the individual mandate got its origins in conservative think tanks. You seem to have an extremely surface knowledge of health care and try to use that to conclude things that don't fit.

 

100% agree. I'm not entirely opposed to completely repealing Obamacare and trying a new framework under a different underlying theory. But no one seems to be willing to propose any real alternative - it's just all crappier versions of Obamacare. The GOP should have been using the last 6 years to develop a comprehensive and functional alternative instead of just voting on repeal.

 

What the hell was he talking about? This is the person we have put in the white house. Go Trump! MAGA!

 

Just have to hope this is more of him not being able to communicate at an adult level and not what he actually believes.

 

This quote is what I've been pointing to. Defenders of the current state of ACA want to use the tax credits that shield many people from the price increases as a way to mitigate the actual price spikes. This is so disingenuous. You wonder why so many middle class Americans revolted against the Democrats, this is a great example. Those tax credits do NOTHING to shield the family of 4 making $100k from the fact that their healthcare cost is up over 100%. Sure, the people in that 120%-400% of federal poverty level are shielded, but anyone above that without insurance through their employer that is heavily subsidized is getting killed.

 

Yes, it doesn't change that as the solution, just frustrates me that people try to deny or mitigate the price increases under ACA by pointing to the average paid by individuals (skewed by subsidies) or by flat out pointing out that a majority are "shielded" by subsidies. Costs exploding under ACA isn't less of a big deal because most people on healthcare.gov don't have to pay those costs. Those costs are VERY real to people without a subsidy AND those costs are real to the taxpayers.

 

Not everyone want the same thing. Some want affordable healthcare for all, some want to spend less government money on healthcare, etc.

 

I'm with you.

However, the current Democratic position is to refute the idea that the system is in trouble now or to shift all of the blame to Trump. The system is failing and needs serious bi-partisan overhaul and both sides need to admit that. BOTH sides.

 

Wouldn't most individuals in that income bracket have the type of career where their employer does provide health insurance?

 

Most people get their insurance through their employer to begin with.

The ACA's main target is those who get plans on the individual market and through small businesses.

Most on individual plans now have low income and qualify for a tax credit yes, but again, perfect example of why middle class voters are turned off. The ones who are hurt by ACA are going to be middle class people who work for small businesses or are self employed.