It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Donald Trump states at his website, “On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.” If by Obamacare Trump means the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, this will not happen.
First, any repeal proposal would be subject to a filibuster in the Senate and the Democrats retain more than enough votes to stop a repeal bill.
Second, the Affordable Care Act contains hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare, program integrity, the health care workforce, biosimilars, prevention, and other issues unrelated to what most Americans think of as “Obamacare.”
Both houses of Congress passed reconciliation legislation that would have repealed the premium tax credits; the small business tax credit; the individual mandate, the employer mandate; the expansion of Medicaid coverage for adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, presumptive eligibility, maintenance of effort, and benchmark plans for Medicaid; and the ACA’s taxes—the medical device tax, insurer fee, “Cadillac” high cost plan tax, and tax increases imposed on the wealthy—most of the provisions that the public identifies as “Obamacare.”
Importantly, reconciliation legislation could probably not change the insurance reform provisions of the ACA—the ban on preexisting condition exclusions and health status underwriting, caps on annual and lifetime dollar limits, actuarial value requirements, age underwriting restrictions, as they do not affect revenues and outlays.
The goal is to replace the failed Obamacare law with something that benefits all Americans and not just you.
The New Republic: "The Obamacare Debate Was One Of The Most Transparent In Recent Memory." In his article on Gruber's comments, Beutler also explained that Gruber was wrong in his claims that the cost sharing tradeoffs in the ACA weren't publicly discussed. In fact, Beutler asserted that the ACA "actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was" (emphasis added):
[H]is suggestion that the key cost-sharing tradeoffs weren't widely discussed just isn't true. The idea that healthy people as well as sick people needed to participate in the system was central to the moral argument for the mandate, and figured heavily in the substantive debate over how much more insurers should be able to charge the elderly than the young. The risk-rating tussle is illustrative, because it was the rule, rather than the exception to the long legislative tug-of-war over the broader ACA. Conservatives have always said the health care law wasn't debated, that it was rammed through, nobody read it, etc, etc. But it actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was. Which in turn explains how difficult it was to pass. [The New Republic, 11/12/14]
Senate Held Years Of Bipartisan Hearings On Health Care Reform Before ACA Passed. Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) posted a timeline of his committee's work on health care reform since 2008, which included more than a dozen hearings through 2008-09 and "31 bipartisan meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill" between June and September of 2009. [Senate.gov, accessed 11/12/14]
Sen. Angus King (I-ME): "There Was Long Debate About It On Both Sides." Responding to Gruber's comments, Sen. Angus King emphasized that there was much debate before the health care reform law passed:
"I certainly don't endorse those kind of comments. But I can recall that debate. I wasn't in office. [I]t was a very vigorous debate," King said when asked about Gruber's comments. "Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the support for premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don't see it as any deep, dark conspiracy. There were all kinds of -- there was long debate about it on both sides." [The Washington Post, Post Politics, 11/11/14]
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: AboveBoard
I can't speak for anyone else, but I seriously doubt that "they" will just pull the plug and revert back. That won't work. A new plan and strategy will need to be enacted. It will take some time. (something most people fail to realize)
The old way was great for everyone EXCEPT those with pre-existing conditions. If they can find a way to include that part, then have some competitive companies able to offer services, we might see rates get back to where the super small part of the population that makes between $50 and $80K be able to afford it as well.
But I doubt seriously anything will happen quickly.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I don't believe Trump intends to eliminate the more popular insurance reforms. He's almost certainly going to defund the Act and certainly IRS enforcement very close to day 1. He will also be pushing Congress to eliminate all roadblock to competition in the insurance world. It is offensive that someone in western PA is paying $175 a month premium for the same benefits as someone in Alaska has to $800 a month for. The only reason it is that way is because PA has competition, AK doesn't.
As an aside, sorry about your family's insurance woes... but many of us cannot afford the massive premium increases we were hit with following the ACA going into motion. The costs have tripled and the benefits have been gutted for those of us who had plans before that law was passed. There is no fairness in expecting the "haves" to take it in the shorts to cover the "have nots."
But even in that context, one should not expect interstate sales to significantly reduce the cost of health insurance.
A health plan offered in New York City will charge a higher premium than the identical plan offered in rural Colorado because of differences in those markets other than regulations. New York City has higher costs for housing, food, and other consumer purchases, and those costs are built into the prices of medical services. New York has an older, less healthy population that uses more medical services. In addition, New York has more local physicians and greater access to expensive medical technologies, which also drives up the cost of coverage. Just because good coverage is affordable in one state does not mean that the same plan will be available at a comparable price somewhere else.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: AboveBoard
I don't know much about healthcare, but it sounds like they are going to repeal the Obamacare act and leave it up to private insurance companies? What kind of oversight and regulations are there in place currently?
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: AboveBoard
The goal is to replace the failed Obamacare law with something that benefits all Americans and not just you. Also, requiring a tax to just be alive is regressive as hell. This law is an epic fail that requires revisiting and more than just 'pass it to see what is in it' mentality.