
Let's Say Obamacare Is Repealed. What Then? - chang2301
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/upshot/lets-say-obamacare-is-repealed-what-then.html?mtrref=nuzzel.com&gwh=1A6873C8411AB5E1B70BC36BB5E20C2F&gwt=pay
======
amerine
Wasn't the intrastate demands a GOP added addendum to the bill? As well as the
removal of the single payer option? I feel like people forget how much stuff
changed from the original ACA to the one that passed through congress.

Also, I fully expect that I'm remembering completely wrong. I'm human, and in
mobile, and about to prep a turkey, sorry.

------
virmundi
Ok, so as much as I didn't vote for Trump, or Hillary, I think the media in
general is fear mongering. Trump wants to replace ACA. He doesn't want to just
say, "Fuck it! We'll do it live". He want to repeal the law, while invoking a
new one.

While I admit that it's not a fleshed out plan, the website does provide
reasonable guidelines for what his administration wants to perform.
Republicans have, half-assedly, been trying to do the same in the House for
years. Perhaps all of the saber rattling will lead to a coherent plan.

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-
reform](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform)

~~~
maxxxxx
The Republicans never brought forward any proposals for improvement but voted
40 times or so for repealing Obamacare. I don't think they have any plans
other than letting the market fix itself and if you can't afford healthcare
you just have to do without.

In reality, American healthcare is just a big scam and ripoff. On my last trip
to Germany my girlfriend had a problem with her eye. We went to an eye doctor
there and paid 25 Euro out of pocket without insurance. Doctors in Germany
don't starve but they have nice cars and houses. In the US she had recently
several surgeries and every hospital bill has had massive errors in the range
of thousands of dollars. It's just a racket. How about enforcing some
standards of billing accuracy instead of allowing this kind of scam?

~~~
Kopion
> The Republicans never brought forward any proposals for improvement but
> voted 40 times or so for repealing Obamacare. I don't think they have any
> plans other than letting the market fix itself and if you can't afford
> healthcare you just have to do without.

[http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2016/11/18/13678690/r...](http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2016/11/18/13678690/republican-obamacare-replacement-plans-explained)

~~~
maxxxxx
Why didn't they vote for any of these in the last 8 years?

~~~
virmundi
Mostly because the House knew the Senate would not actually back the repeal,
but they wanted to look like they were doing something for the folks back
home. That's the saber rattling. Now, maybe, they will actually put forth a
plan or a few plans. I think multiple approaches, with hopefully Democratic
and other party input, should make for a better system.

------
scarface74
Let's see. Both Trump and the Republicans in Congress want to keep the ban on
not allowing exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. How will that
happen?

1\. Insurance companies must cover everyone but can charge more based on pre-
existing conditions. Insurance companies know acturatially how much treatment
will cost based on a person's condition, so they charge that person and
exhorbant amount. People complain and the government either has to subsidize
the cost and pay insurance companies the difference or have the dreaded public
option - just what the Democrats originally wanted.

2\. Alternatively, everyone has to get coverage so you can't game the system
and only get insurance when you think you will need it - an individual
mandate.

Either way, all roads lead back to some form of either ObamaCare, a public
option, subsidies that go directly to insurance companies, or people not being
insured.

------
jgooch
Full on capitalism based health care, or full on communistic health care

------
scott_c
The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions
clause. I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across
state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates.

We also need to be able to have plans where we can specifically choose what
kind of care we need (IE: women, men, children, etc).

I run my own business and my costs went up 100% this year for a higher
deductible and less coverage. If this happens again, I may not be able to
afford it.

~~~
wahern

      The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions clause.
    

You can't separate that clause from the mandate and minimum coverage clauses.
All three were designed to keep costs from inflating on the one hand, and
coverage becoming useless on the other. It's sort of like saying you like your
lunch, but have a problem with having to pay for it.

We can quibble about rates for men vs women, but unless you were matured to
adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that men as a class do not benefit from
improved and cheaper access to reproductive healthcare for women. (Also,
better reproductive health means fewer criminals, if only because they're born
healthier and with fewer mental handicaps.)

Opening up insurance across states would be nice theoretically, but you must
realize that it's a states' rights issue for a large segment of the GOP, and a
cause for concern among Democrats. It would necessarily limit and perhaps
destroy the ability for states to meaningfully regulate insurance within their
own borders. Unchecked, it would also mean a race to the bottom in terms of
regulatory oversight as every provider would only sell insurance from states
with the least restrictive regulations.

What state do you live in? Coverage in states like California and many other
states that haven't fought tooth-and-nail has been fairly stable as far I
know. The Kaiser HMO rate at my company actually decreased slightly for 2017,
with no change in coverage. And California not only has a rigorous regulatory
framework, it even maintains a weird tax on hospital income to pay for
uninsured coverage.

Also, you don't need a federal law to support an inter-state insurance scheme.
States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For
example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory
schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent
for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among
state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks.

~~~
scott_c
"but unless you were matured to adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that
men as a class do not benefit from improved and cheaper access to reproductive
healthcare for women."

There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women's
reproductive healthcare.

"What state do you live in? "

[http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-
price-i...](http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-
increases-2017-states/)

8 states rose by at least 30%.

"States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For
example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory
schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent
for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among
state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks."

Great, but Obamacare in its current form needs to go.

~~~
75j
> _There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women
> 's reproductive healthcare._

I have to say this attitude makes me viscerally angry. Men have a much higher
incidence of heart disease, so maybe women should not be forced to pay for
that? Men engage in lots of unhealthy, risky behaviors, but I've never heard a
woman make a statement analogous to yours. It's like saying "Well I'm not
handicapped, so why the hell should I have to pay for special accommodations
for those people?".

If you accept that socialized healthcare is a good idea, then it seems to
follow fairly obviously that we're all unique and will have individualized
healthcare needs.

~~~
wahern
Let's be honest here: it's about children. The only difference between men and
women that would substantially effect insurance coverage rates are prenatal
care and birth.

But few men are willing to come out and plainly state that they aren't
interested in subsidizing prenatal care. When you say it aloud it just sounds
so obviously wrong, whether or not you're asexual, homosexual, or infertile.
And it's especially hypocritical for the anti-abortion set.

It's like the argument that childless property taxpayers shouldn't have to
subsidize public schools. People just rely on vague handwaving about fairness
and risk allocation. And, FWIW, it's also like arguing that taxes paid by
pacifists shouldn't support the military. Even most liberals understand that
it's a ridiculous assertion as a practical matter.

