BREAKING — House GOP Releases Long-Awaited ACA Repeal

[Tectonix]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/06/house-go ... acare.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98826894/

Congressional Republicans on Monday night released their formal plan for replacing Obamacare.

The bill calls for issuing a refundable, advanceable tax credit to customers of individual health plans with the value of that credit tied to age and income. Tax credits would begin at $2,000 for people in their 20s, and gradually increase to $4,000 for people over age 60.

Insurers also would be allowed to charge older people premiums at a higher rate than younger people than they currently are allowed now under Obamacare.

The bill also would repeal the authority of states to expand their Medicaid programs to nearly all adults by 2020, and also would cap the amount of federal funding a state will receive per-person for its Medicaid program.

The GOP proposal also would repeal the Affordable Care Act's taxes beginning in 2018, and would bar funding from going to Planned Parenthood. It also would double the current allowable contribution levels for Health Savings Accounts.

The bill does not call for eliminating the Obamacare provision that currently bars insurers from denying coverage to, or charging higher rates for, people with pre-existing health conditions. Nor does the bill call for getting rid of the popular ACA provision that allows adults under the age of 26 to be covered by their parents' health plans.

The bill is certain to face hurdles in the Senate, where four GOP members on Monday expressed opposition to the idea of rolling back the number of people covered by Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, and some Republicans have opposed the elimination of Planned Parenthood funding.

The legislation also will be attacked by supporters of Obamacare, who have warned that GOP proposals to date risk coverage for millions of Americans who have obtained insurance as a result of the ACA.

The bill has yet to be "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office, which will provide lawmakers with an analysis of both the costs of the programs, and any revenues it would generate, as well as an estimate of how many people would have health coverage once it takes effect. Republicans said the costs of the bills' provision will be covered by repealing Obamacare.

Personally I see this as more Republican nonsense, trying to derail Obama at every turn while providing little to replace it. Now with an actual replacement, I find the tax credits rather insufficient and a slap in the face to poor Americans, seeing as it favours the elderly over them (not to say I hate old people; there are just more poor people who are suffering). So, what do you think NSG? Did Paul Ryan do the right thing here, or are we just on a further downwards spiral with the repeal of the ACA on the horizon?

[Montchevre]

Can't wait for my already limited protections to melt away thanks to those pricks (not to mention a nice doubling or tripling of my premiums). Maybe Paul Ryan can try having some preexisting conditions other than a puppy face and an addiction to industry bribes donations for once. Bastard.

[Valgora]

I want ACA to be repealed and replaced with universal healthcare.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If the GOP would focus on other things before this, that would be great.

[The Klishi Islands]

If the GOP would focus on other things before this, that would be great.

They've been promising for six seven years to repeal this. They had to show up with a replacement at some point. It's too bad this appears, at least initially, to be woefully insufficient.

[Jamzmania]

At least it's not Obamacare.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If the GOP would focus on other things before this, that would be great.

They've been promising for six seven years to repeal this. They had to show up with a replacement at some point. It's too bad this appears, at least initially, to be woefully insufficient.

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

[Jamzmania]

They've been promising for six seven years to repeal this. They had to show up with a replacement at some point. It's too bad this appears, at least initially, to be woefully insufficient.

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

They have to at least repeal it.

[The Klishi Islands]

They've been promising for six seven years to repeal this. They had to show up with a replacement at some point. It's too bad this appears, at least initially, to be woefully insufficient.

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

I'd like to see tax simplification, reductions in the corporate tax rate, and some entitlement reform in order to control the deficit. This is not entitlement reform; this is just silly.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

They have to at least repeal it.

They can do that when they actually have a proper replacement for it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

They have to at least repeal it.

I'd rather they repeal the NFA if anything

This just seems entirely inadequate. Not to mention they're throwing in things like defunding Planned Parenthood which is just kinda dumb.

[Jamzmania]

They have to at least repeal it.

They can do that when they actually have a proper replacement for it.

Their "replacement" should consist of allowing the free market to sort it out. They need to at least repeal it, however, because they have been promising for years to repeal it. They can't go back on that one central promise.

[Ashmoria]

They can show up with a replacement a couple years from now. Lets actually get some decent stuff passed, not this nonsense.

They have to at least repeal it.

if they repeal it without replacing it 10s of millions of people lose their insurance.

then after a year or so the rest of us do.

[The Klishi Islands]

They can do that when they actually have a proper replacement for it.

Their "replacement" should consist of allowing the free market to sort it out. They need to at least repeal it, however, because they have been promising for years to repeal it. They can't go back on that one central promise.

How will allowing the free market to "sort it out" help improve health coverage for low-income Americans?

[Tectonix]

They can do that when they actually have a proper replacement for it.

Their "replacement" should consist of allowing the free market to sort it out. They need to at least repeal it, however, because they have been promising for years to repeal it. They can't go back on that one central promise.

Their promise was 'repeal and replace.' If they are going to repeal it, they must have already had a replacement for years, and had it thoroughly reviewed by both independent healthcare experts and the American people in general.

[Jamzmania]

Their "replacement" should consist of allowing the free market to sort it out. They need to at least repeal it, however, because they have been promising for years to repeal it. They can't go back on that one central promise.

How will allowing the free market to "sort it out" help improve health coverage for low-income Americans?

Increased competition lowers prices.

Their "replacement" should consist of allowing the free market to sort it out. They need to at least repeal it, however, because they have been promising for years to repeal it. They can't go back on that one central promise.

Their promise was 'repeal and replace.' If they are going to repeal it, they must have already had a replacement for years, and had it thoroughly reviewed by both independent healthcare experts and the American people in general.

You won't hear me defend Republicans on this point. They fucked up. They should have had a plan already ready to go.

[Tectonix]

How will allowing the free market to "sort it out" help improve health coverage for low-income Americans?

Increased competition lowers prices.

And how do you lower prices again? Oh yeah, cutting corners and providing lackluster care. Assuming you put regulations to stop that, then you kinda just ruin the whole point of leaving it up to the market.

[The Klishi Islands]

How will allowing the free market to "sort it out" help improve health coverage for low-income Americans?

Increased competition lowers prices.

And for areas of market failure, where consumers don't have a choice of where to get their health care?

[Greed and Death]

Can't wait for my already limited protections to melt away thanks to those pricks (not to mention a nice doubling or tripling of my premiums). Maybe Paul Ryan can try having some preexisting conditions other than a puppy face and an addiction to industry bribes donations for once. Bastard.

You will also be taxed to reimburse me for the expenses I incurred under the mandate.

[Jamzmania]

Increased competition lowers prices.

And how do you lower prices again? Oh yeah, cutting corners and providing lackluster care. Assuming you put regulations to stop that, then you kinda just ruin the whole point of leaving it up to the market.

Then you go to another company. That's what competition is.

Increased competition lowers prices.

And for areas of market failure, where consumers don't have a choice of where to get their health care?

This was caused primarily by government interference in the free market, such as not allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines, which severely cut down on competition.

[Tectonix]

Increased competition lowers prices.

And for areas of market failure, where consumers don't have a choice of where to get their health care?

Not to mention the people in rural areas (*cough* Republicans *cough) who won't be covered since it would not be profitable to operate there?

[Greed and Death]

Anyways my first thoughts are this seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise.

If anything they should have made the bill closer to a full repeal to give them a better anchor point in negotiations.

[The Klishi Islands]

And for areas of market failure, where consumers don't have a choice of where to get their health care?

This was caused primarily by government interference in the free market, such as not allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines, which severely cut down on competition.

Are you sure? That's not the cure-all you think it is.

The American Academy of Actuaries is less optimistic: “The ability to lower premiums by allowing cross-state sales of insurance is limited,” the organization says, “because a key driver of health insurance premiums is local costs of health care.” When the idea was floated last year at an industry conference, the “audience literally laughed,” one health care consultant noted.

Why do careful students of health care view cross-state sales of insurance skeptically?

One reason is that it is already allowed –- and yet basically doesn’t happen. States possess the authority to sanction sales across their borders, and to define the conditions for such sales. In addition to this generic state authority, Section 1333 of Obamacare authorizes “health care choice compacts” across states. As of last month, five states had passed legislation allowing insurance plans that cross state lines: Rhode Island, Wyoming, Georgia, Kentucky and Maine. Georgia's law has been in effect since 2011, yet no insurer has yet offered an out-of-state policy there -- or in any of the other four states. If this is the key to bringing costs down, why doesn't anyone want to do it?

[Greed and Death]

This was caused primarily by government interference in the free market, such as not allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines, which severely cut down on competition.

Are you sure? That's not the cure-all you think it is.

The American Academy of Actuaries is less optimistic: “The ability to lower premiums by allowing cross-state sales of insurance is limited,” the organization says, “because a key driver of health insurance premiums is local costs of health care.” When the idea was floated last year at an industry conference, the “audience literally laughed,” one health care consultant noted.

Why do careful students of health care view cross-state sales of insurance skeptically?

One reason is that it is already allowed –- and yet basically doesn’t happen. States possess the authority to sanction sales across their borders, and to define the conditions for such sales. In addition to this generic state authority, Section 1333 of Obamacare authorizes “health care choice compacts” across states. As of last month, five states had passed legislation allowing insurance plans that cross state lines: Rhode Island, Wyoming, Georgia, Kentucky and Maine. Georgia's law has been in effect since 2011, yet no insurer has yet offered an out-of-state policy there -- or in any of the other four states. If this is the key to bringing costs down, why doesn't anyone want to do it?

Things like requiring single men to buy pregnancy coverage can't help the cost of insurance.

[Vassenor]

So how does the ability to buy across prevent denials for pre-existing conditions?