I kind of wish they would just let it self-destruct. Otherwise, Leftists will just claim that the Right messed up a good thing. Just let it self-destruct, at least to a certain point, so people can see co-ops going under, insurers withdrawing from the market, etc., to add to their list of good & bad things that are already occurring. Then Americans can decide if the good things were worth the bad things. And maybe we will come up with a better bi-partisan effort this time!
Repeal and Replace
- Thread starter Winter_123
- Start date
I kind of wish they would just let it self-destruct. Otherwise, Leftists will just claim that the Right messed up a good thing. Just let it self-destruct, at least to a certain point, so people can see co-ops going under, insurers withdrawing from the market, etc., to add to their list of good & bad things that are already occurring. Then Americans can decide if the good things were worth the bad things. And maybe we will come up with a better bi-partisan effort this time!
My sentiments exactly. The law is unraveling bit by bit anyway. With each group open enrollment employees are getting a taste of what we see in the IFP market.
One challenge is this. Many of them do not see the connection between higher rates, higher OOP, higher deductibles and Ocare. They believe it is the insurance carriers getting rich at their expense.
While I agree that letting it fall apart would be a great thing for proving that it was a terribly implemented program, causing more pain and putting some in financial danger is not a good thing and any rebuild needs to be presented as such. Any work on the unstable ACA will be akin to a modified game of Janga.
- 8,448
Our elected leaders should start immediately developing/implementing rescue plans. The Medicaid portion of the ACA is already crumbling. More self-destruction is imminent.
They should, but you have some like our Gov. Nixon actually considering taking the M.caid expansion now. Moronic as he has been in the past, this has dummer and dummer beat all to hell.
There better be some serious contingency plans on both sides. What if in a market... no one comes to play? In other words, NO carrier wants on-ex business? What?
Think about that. Would that start a domino effect? Would that introduce the dreaded but real reason for this nightmare... single payor?
There better be some serious contingency plans on both sides. What if in a market... no one comes to play? In other words, NO carrier wants on-ex business? What?
Think about that. Would that start a domino effect? Would that introduce the dreaded but real reason for this nightmare... single payor?
- 8,448
2-5-2015
In case the Supreme Court rules that FFM Subsidies are illegal, the New Republican Congress has come out with an ObamaCare replacement.
Excerpt: "Under the senators' plan, individuals would no longer be required to buy healthcare coverage and employers would no longer be required to offer it. People who already have government insurance through Medicaid would be given tax credits to buy private plans, and upper-income families would no longer qualify for financial help."
Source: GOP unveils new ObamaCare alternative | TheHill
Obviously, the GOP is not in touch with reality on this one. How can Medicaid recipients be given Federal tax credits that were just ruled to be illegal by SCOTUS? Also, upper-income families don't qualify for financial help under the current law. duh!
ac
In case the Supreme Court rules that FFM Subsidies are illegal, the New Republican Congress has come out with an ObamaCare replacement.
Excerpt: "Under the senators' plan, individuals would no longer be required to buy healthcare coverage and employers would no longer be required to offer it. People who already have government insurance through Medicaid would be given tax credits to buy private plans, and upper-income families would no longer qualify for financial help."
Source: GOP unveils new ObamaCare alternative | TheHill
Obviously, the GOP is not in touch with reality on this one. How can Medicaid recipients be given Federal tax credits that were just ruled to be illegal by SCOTUS? Also, upper-income families don't qualify for financial help under the current law. duh!
ac
Its crap. But its also a beginning. At least we have a starting point.
I'm interested to see what Paul Ryan's team comes up with. My understanding is that this is not the proposal he has been working on.
Issue #1: individual mandate (not happening) That will result in even less competition than we are predicting for 2017. The insurers will revolt
Issue #2: pre ex with continuous coverage. There will be an uprising in the streets. Even the tea partiers have figured out the pre ex underwriting issues were crap
Issue #3: under no circumstance are 8 million people going to lose their subsidies 16 months prior to a presidential election.
Issue #4: what happens if SCOTUS vacates the entire thing with the reinsurance funds? This doesn't address that issue
There are some good parts. The ratio rule on older Americans. Removing the Employer Mandate. (Where's the 30 hour rule removal?) Revision of the Medicaid Expansion is a fabulous idea, but tax credits? Pass.
But its a starting point to discussion. Which is a good thing.
- 3,863
What is NOT addressed is getting the $!@ costs down significantly. You only do this by avoiding adverse selection, charging more for adverse selection and plan limitations.
Why isn't auto insurance guaranteed acceptance, no regard to car type, no regard to prior tickets, covers previous damage and has unlimited claims?
This is no longer insurance it is simply a government program.
My limited HMO is $1100 a month with a maximum premium and oop per year of $23200. $23200 are you insane?
Similar threads
