http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ob...ace-232025

Quote:Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for as long as three years.

They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats — who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s popular provisions.

“We’re talking about a three-year transition now that we actually have a president who’s likely to sign the repeal into the law. People are being, understandably cautious, to make sure nobody’s dropped through the cracks,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

No f'n way. Three more years of eye watering painful high double digit increases across the board? Pfffffffft. That's not repeal and replace. That's repeal, cowardice, and collateral damage.

(12-02-2016 02:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ob...ace-232025

Quote:Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for as long as three years.

They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats — who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s popular provisions.

“We’re talking about a three-year transition now that we actually have a president who’s likely to sign the repeal into the law. People are being, understandably cautious, to make sure nobody’s dropped through the cracks,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

No f'n way. Three more years of eye watering painful high double digit increases across the board? Pfffffffft. That's not repeal and replace. That's repeal, cowardice, and collateral damage.

Here, here! Those congress people aren't in this Oblundercare so why should they care. Why don't they get on it and find out for themselves. Because they won't, they'll never do that. We as Conservatives should keep an eye on who votes for this set up and remember next time the run.

If that happens, then I demand that all everyone must be under Obamacare. No exemptions. No grandfathered. EVERYONE.

I want everyone to live under this stupid law so that, in 10-15 years when some snotnosed libturds bring up single payer again, the crowds will tar and feather them for their stupidity.

Yes, By all means... let's immediately repeal something that will cause us to not only lose the next election in 2018, but the one after that as well. there is a reason the ACA didn't go into effect immediately upon its passage, and it has 'claws' that make it very difficult to remove (politically).

If they softened the mandate (which has already been done numerous times) making it effective in 2017, and a few other short-term 'fixes' and pass a law in 2017 that replaces it by 2020 or so, that is PERHAPS the best you can really hope for.


and few people dislike the ACA more than I. You just don't understand how intentionally involved it is. There's a reason it's thousands of pages... and the primary reason was to make it VERY difficult to eliminate.

(12-02-2016 02:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ob...ace-232025

Quote:Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for as long as three years.

They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats — who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s popular provisions.

“We’re talking about a three-year transition now that we actually have a president who’s likely to sign the repeal into the law. People are being, understandably cautious, to make sure nobody’s dropped through the cracks,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

No f'n way. Three more years of eye watering painful high double digit increases across the board? Pfffffffft. That's not repeal and replace. That's repeal, cowardice, and collateral damage.

Yup, I agree. Ater all these years of bitching about Obamacare and wanting to repeal it, they can't come up with an alternative plan once it's appealed? I call bull shyte.

(12-02-2016 02:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ob...ace-232025

Quote:Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for as long as three years.

They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats — who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s popular provisions.

“We’re talking about a three-year transition now that we actually have a president who’s likely to sign the repeal into the law. People are being, understandably cautious, to make sure nobody’s dropped through the cracks,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

No f'n way. Three more years of eye watering painful high double digit increases across the board? Pfffffffft. That's not repeal and replace. That's repeal, cowardice, and collateral damage.

They need to keep the poor bastards covered but eliminate the Obama mandated policies and cut the insurance companies loose so you once again can choose from 50 different policies. There are families out there with policies that cost as much as the mortgage payment.

Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They'll change it. Probably keep a couple things and get rid of some stuff.

(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They'll change it. Probably keep a couple things and get rid of some stuff.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

I don't think anyone actually believed that they had enough of a plan to repeal it and replace it with something totally different.

It's so much easier to just point and criticize.

(12-02-2016 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They'll change it. Probably keep a couple things and get rid of some stuff.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

I don't think anyone actually believed that they had enough of a plan to repeal it and replace it with something totally different.

It's so much easier to just point and criticize.

Well, I hope they get rid of more than they keep. I can see keeping the age thing and also preventing denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions. HOWEVER, i hope they charge correctly for any preexisting conditions/high risk folks. I mean, a smoker SHOULD pay more than a nonsmoker. That is just common sense.

(12-02-2016 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yes, By all means... let's immediately repeal something that will cause us to not only lose the next election in 2018, but the one after that as well. there is a reason the ACA didn't go into effect immediately upon its passage, and it has 'claws' that make it very difficult to remove (politically).

If they softened the mandate (which has already been done numerous times) making it effective in 2017, and a few other short-term 'fixes' and pass a law in 2017 that replaces it by 2020 or so, that is PERHAPS the best you can really hope for.


and few people dislike the ACA more than I. You just don't understand how intentionally involved it is. There's a reason it's thousands of pages... and the primary reason was to make it VERY difficult to eliminate.

I agree. Obamacare has "the long game" in mind. The GOP has to play this one correctly.

Even for their own legislation, they're going to have to work a long time to get it together. Even opening up competition between states is complicated when these big insurance corporations are buying and merging to eliminate competition.

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They're doing exactly what I thought they'd do. They're repealing it. They said they would repeal it, and they're going to make good on that promise.

There's going to be a vote in 2017, to repeal ACA. The vote will pass. ACA will be repealed, just like they said they would do. Promise made good.




Oh ... you thought "repeal" meant something???

No, no, no. It doesn't mean that. It means something else.

(12-02-2016 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yes, By all means... let's immediately repeal something that will cause us to not only lose the next election in 2018, but the one after that as well. there is a reason the ACA didn't go into effect immediately upon its passage, and it has 'claws' that make it very difficult to remove (politically).

If they softened the mandate (which has already been done numerous times) making it effective in 2017, and a few other short-term 'fixes' and pass a law in 2017 that replaces it by 2020 or so, that is PERHAPS the best you can really hope for.


and few people dislike the ACA more than I. You just don't understand how intentionally involved it is. There's a reason it's thousands of pages... and the primary reason was to make it VERY difficult to eliminate.

Spot on.

It's really no different than this:

Guy 1: "Hey Guy 2, good news! I talked to my wife ... and we're going to make good on our promise to you to buy your car off you!"

Guy 2: "That's great! This will really help my family! So much! I really owe you guys, this is so great. Thank you! So when are you going to pick it up? And when will you send the check??"

Guy 1: "Well, like I said, we decided that we will buy it. We're making good on our promise, here. We are going to buy it. So .... yeah, we will get back to you sometime next year or maybe the year after that. But just wanted to let you know that we are making good on our promise! We are buying it. Have a good night!

If the GOP wants to keep "no pre-existing conditions" then all they've done is brush aside ObamaCare and replace it with something else doomed to fail.

Not my words ... the words of Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute, who has been dubbed "ObamaCare Public Enemy #1" for years now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-component

(12-02-2016 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They'll change it. Probably keep a couple things and get rid of some stuff.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

I don't think anyone actually believed that they had enough of a plan to repeal it and replace it with something totally different.

It's so much easier to just point and criticize.

That's a complete mischaracterization of the issues.

The ACA isn't 'totally different' from what we had BEFORE the ACA, so if you simply eliminate the ACA and go back to what we had, you aren't making it 'totally different'. The MAJOR differences between what we had before and what we have now, at least from my perspective are:
1) Individual Mandate. I think that goes away in its current form, and is replaced by something closer to the Heritage plan, which isn't TOTALLY different either.
2) Medicaid was replaced by 'exchange policies' using most of the same funds and same doctors. It just took discretion away from the states and gave it to the insurers under the auspices of the Feds (an aca qualifying policy). Massive power grab. I think this power returns more to the states. Some will return to a state-run HMO called medicaid, and some will allow or even go in lieu of with state qualifying policies. That's a major political difference, with potentially NO difference in coverage in some places
3) the uncapping of policies is a low cost issue and was part of right wing proposals as well... that remains
4) the kids on until 26 is merely re-arranging deck chairs. The cost of coverage for a Husband and wife, with a separate policy for a 26 year old is the same as a combined policy for all three... and anyone can pay your premiums. This only helps (as an example) families with multiple kids who have a 'family' policy that covers you no matter how many kids you have. you pay the same for 5 kids on your policy as for 2. That has nothing to do with Health or Income. Wealthy Catholics and Mormons applaud this. I don't know if it stays or not, and it would only depend on whether people 'get this' or not.
5) PEC's... also part of previous republican plans. This absorbed state run 'high risk' pools, so like medicaid, it was a power grab by the feds. Since they want to keep it, but it is among the more expensive parts, this could go in any of a number of ways. The key determinant is (much like this entire conversation) what the people believe. For Republicans, they will want to keep as much of the funding mechanisms that democrats put in place so that they aren't blamed for them, but change the 'power' from the feds BACK to the states (at least a bit).

Anybody on the right that thinks they can just repeal it and go back to what was here before without any repercussions is fooling themselves. They will be right back out of power and Democrats will double down on this mess next time.

It will be essentially repealed and replaced... with the only difference between repealed and amended being purely semantics.

I'd note that Republicans don't have the votes to repeal and replace it... They NEED some democrats to go along. They MUST allow a few moderate democrats to 'save face' or they won't support it.

(12-02-2016 04:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If the GOP wants to keep "no pre-existing conditions" then all they've done is brush aside ObamaCare and replace it with something else doomed to fail.

Not my words ... the words of Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute, who has been dubbed "ObamaCare Public Enemy #1" for years now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-component

Not if they allow the insurance companies to charge for those "pre existing conditions", at least IMO. Don't deny coverage, but charge for said coverage.

(12-02-2016 04:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If the GOP wants to keep "no pre-existing conditions" then all they've done is brush aside ObamaCare and replace it with something else doomed to fail.

Not my words ... the words of Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute, who has been dubbed "ObamaCare Public Enemy #1" for years now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-component

Of course, because they don't have enough votes to avoid the spectacle of filibustering... and the negative press and 'harming the poor' (even if demonstrably untrue) that would result

(12-02-2016 04:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 03:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Did anyone really believe that they would repeal and replace?

They'll change it. Probably keep a couple things and get rid of some stuff.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

I don't think anyone actually believed that they had enough of a plan to repeal it and replace it with something totally different.

It's so much easier to just point and criticize.

That's a complete mischaracterization of the issues.

The ACA isn't 'totally different' from what we had BEFORE the ACA, so if you simply eliminate the ACA and go back to what we had, you aren't making it 'totally different'. The MAJOR differences between what we had before and what we have now, at least from my perspective are:
1) Individual Mandate. I think that goes away in its current form, and is replaced by something closer to the Heritage plan, which isn't TOTALLY different either.
2) Medicaid was replaced by 'exchange policies' using most of the same funds and same doctors. It just took discretion away from the states and gave it to the insurers under the auspices of the Feds (an aca qualifying policy). Massive power grab. I think this power returns more to the states. Some will return to a state-run HMO called medicaid, and some will allow or even go in lieu of with state qualifying policies. That's a major political difference, with potentially NO difference in coverage in some places
3) the uncapping of policies is a low cost issue and was part of right wing proposals as well... that remains
4) the kids on until 26 is merely re-arranging deck chairs. The cost of coverage for a Husband and wife, with a separate policy for a 26 year old is the same as a combined policy for all three... and anyone can pay your premiums. This only helps (as an example) families with multiple kids who have a 'family' policy that covers you no matter how many kids you have. you pay the same for 5 kids on your policy as for 2. That has nothing to do with Health or Income. Wealthy Catholics and Mormons applaud this. I don't know if it stays or not, and it would only depend on whether people 'get this' or not.
5) PEC's... also part of previous republican plans. This absorbed state run 'high risk' pools, so like medicaid, it was a power grab by the feds. Since they want to keep it, but it is among the more expensive parts, this could go in any of a number of ways. The key determinant is (much like this entire conversation) what the people believe. For Republicans, they will want to keep as much of the funding mechanisms that democrats put in place so that they aren't blamed for them, but change the 'power' from the feds BACK to the states (at least a bit).

Anybody on the right that thinks they can just repeal it and go back to what was here before without any repercussions is fooling themselves. They will be right back out of power and Democrats will double down on this mess next time.

It will be essentially repealed and replaced... with the only difference between repealed and amended being purely semantics.

I'd note that Republicans don't have the votes to repeal and replace it... They NEED some democrats to go along. They MUST allow a few moderate democrats to 'save face' or they won't support it.

Republicans were criticized when they just wanted to repeal ACA because while many people hated Obamacare, they at least acknowledged that the old system was bad enough that they didn't want to go back to that.

Republicans then changed their tactic to repeal and replace which many may have wrongly assumed was going to be totally different.

Now we know that the republicans have no intention of repealing or replacing our system with something new but simply making some incremental changes.

I don't have a problem with that as long as it improves our system.

(12-02-2016 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 04:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If the GOP wants to keep "no pre-existing conditions" then all they've done is brush aside ObamaCare and replace it with something else doomed to fail.

Not my words ... the words of Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute, who has been dubbed "ObamaCare Public Enemy #1" for years now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-component

Of course, because they don't have enough votes to avoid the spectacle of filibustering... and the negative press and 'harming the poor' (even if demonstrably untrue) that would result

The Republicans won't have to worry about attacks from the left if they fail to fix this. They'll have plenty enough from the right.