shape
carat
color
clarity

House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law

Missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
56,762
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/affordable-care-act-obamacare-health.html

WASHINGTON — House Republicans unveiled on Monday their long-awaited plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, scrapping the mandate for most Americans to have health insurance in favor of a new system of tax credits to induce people to buy insurance on the open market.

By ROBERT PEAR and THOMAS KAPLAN MARCH 6, 2017


The bill sets the stage for a bitter debate over the possible dismantling of the most significant health care law in a half-century. In its place would be a health law that would be far more oriented to the free market and would make far-reaching changes to a vast part of the American economy.

The House Republican bill would roll back the expansion of Medicaid that has provided coverage to more than 10 million people in 31 states, reducing federal payments for many new beneficiaries. It also would effectively scrap the unpopular requirement that people have insurance and eliminate tax penalties for those who go without. The requirement for larger employers to offer coverage to their full-time employees would also be eliminated.

People who let their insurance coverage lapse, however, would face a significant penalty. Insurers could increase their premiums by 30 percent, and in that sense, Republicans would replace a penalty for not having insurance with a new penalty for allowing insurance to lapse.



PUBLIC HEALTH
G.O.P. Repeal Bill Would Cut Funding for Poor and Taxes on Rich MARCH 6, 2017

Repeal of Health Law Faces a New Hurdle: Older Americans MARCH 5, 2017

G.O.P. Accused of Playing ‘Hide-and-Seek’ With Obamacare Replacement Bill MARCH 2, 2017

Republican Unity on Health Care Is Elusive, Despite Trump’s Support MARCH 1, 2017


House Republican leaders said they would keep three popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act: the prohibition on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, the ban on lifetime coverage caps and the rule allowing young people to remain on their parents’ health plans until age 26.

Republicans hope to undo other major parts of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, including income-based tax credits that help millions of Americans buy insurance, taxes on people with high incomes and the penalty for people who do not have health coverage.

Medicaid recipients’ open-ended entitlement to health care would be replaced by a per-person allotment to the states. And people with pre-existing medical conditions would face new uncertainties in a more deregulated insurance market.

The bill would also cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood clinics through Medicaid and other government programs for one year.

“Obamacare is a sinking ship, and the legislation introduced today will rescue people from the mistakes of the past,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader.

Democrats denounced the effort as a cruel attempt to strip Americans of their health care.

“Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage — and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.



Two House committees — Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce — plan to take up the legislation on Wednesday. House Republicans hope the committees will approve the measure this week, clearing the way for the full House to act on it before a spring break scheduled to begin on April 7. The outlook in the Senate is less clear. Democrats want to preserve the Affordable Care Act, and a handful of Republican senators expressed serious concerns about the House plan as it was being developed.

Under the House Republican plan, the income-based tax credits provided under the Affordable Care Act would be replaced with credits that would rise with age as older people generally require more health care. In a late change, the plan reduces the tax credits for individuals with annual incomes over $75,000 and married couples with incomes over $150,000.

Republicans did not offer any estimate of how much their plan would cost, or how many people would gain or lose insurance. The two House committees plan to vote on the legislation without having estimates of its cost from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper on Capitol Hill.

But they did get the support from President Trump that they badly need to win House passage.

“Obamacare has proven to be a disaster with fewer options, inferior care and skyrocketing costs that are crushing small business and families across America,” said the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer. “Today marks an important step toward restoring health care choices and affordability back to the American people.”

The release of the legislation is a step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge — repeal and replace — that has animated Republicans since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. But it is far from certain Republican lawmakers will be able to get on the same page and repeal the health measure.

On Monday, four Republican senators — Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — signed a letter saying a House draft that they had reviewed did not adequately protect people in states like theirs that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Three conservative Republicans in the Senate — Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — had already expressed reservations about the House’s approach.

In the House, Republican leaders will have to contend with conservative members who have already been vocal about their misgivings about the legislation being drawn up. “Obamacare 2.0,” Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, posted on Twitter on Monday.

Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, also offered a warning on Monday, joining with Mr. Paul to urge that Republican leaders pursue a “clean repeal” of the health care law.

“Conservatives don’t want new taxes, new entitlements and an ‘ObamaCare Lite’ bill,” they wrote on the website of Fox News. “If leadership insists on replacing ObamaCare with ObamaCare-lite, no repeal will pass.”

The move to strip Planned Parenthood of funding and the plan’s provisions to reverse tax increases on the high-income taxpayers will also expose Republicans in more moderate districts to Democratic attacks.


The bill would provide each state with a fixed allotment of federal money for each person on Medicaid, the federal-state program for more than 70 million low-income people. The federal government would pay different amounts for different categories of beneficiaries, including children, older Americans and people with disabilities.

The bill would also repeal subsidies that the government provides under the Affordable Care Act to help low-income people pay deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for insurance purchased through the public marketplaces. Eliminating these subsidies would cause turmoil in insurance markets, insurers and consumer advocates say.

However, the House Republicans would provide states with $100 billion over nine years, which states could use to help people pay for health care and insurance.

The tax credits proposed by House Republicans would start at $2,000 a year for a person under 30 and would rise to a maximum of $4,000 for a person 60 or older. A family could receive up to $14,000 in credits.

Even with those credits, Democrats say, many people would find insurance unaffordable. But Republicans would allow insurers to sell a leaner, less expensive package of benefits and would allow people to use the tax credits for insurance policies covering only catastrophic costs.

While Republicans have argued over how to proceed, Mr. Trump has expressed only vague goals for how to repeal the Affordable Care Act and improve the nation’s health care system. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers and their aides are waiting to see whether he uses his platform, Twitter account and all, to press reluctant Republicans to get behind the House plan.

The new version of the House Republican bill makes several changes to earlier drafts of the legislation.

It drops a proposal to require employees with high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance to pay income and payroll taxes on some of the value of that coverage. In addition, it would delay a provision of the Affordable Care Act that imposed an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans provided by employers to workers.

Congress had already delayed this “Cadillac tax” — despised by employers and labor unions alike — by two years, to 2020. The new legislation would suspend the tax from 2020 through 2024.


House Republicans would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance if they did not have coverage available from an employer or a government program. Under earlier versions of the bill, the tax credits increased with a person’s age, but would not have been tied to income. Backbench Republicans said the government should not be providing financial assistance to people with high incomes.

Accordingly, under the new version of the bill, the tax credits would be reduced and eventually phased out.
 
I found this very concerning, according to the LA Times:

"Essential health benefit rules are repealed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, ACA rules that required qualified health plans to provide hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services and other benefits would be sunsetted at the federal level. States would have the authority to set them instead. The impact on private, non-Medicaid plans would therefore vary by state. If a state removes maternity benefits, for example, that’s likely to make maternity coverage, among other services, immensely expensive, if available at all."

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-repeal-20170306-story.html
 
House Cat that is very concerning. I am also concerned about the patient population I work with because further Medicaid/Medicare cuts will prevent them from getting the necessary medical care they need. And the cuts to Planned Parenthood a disaster.
 
I have listened to analysis on television all morning. Howard Dean of Vermont says that the young; the wealthy; and insurance companies will benefit under the current version of the bill. The elderly; the poor; and the sick will do poorly. All in relation to how they are doing now, that is, under ACA.

Trump promised everyone would be covered under his new plan when "Obamacare" was repealed. He promised the bottom "25%" would not be forgotten. This bill does not deliver on that promise. West Virginia and Kentucky would be very hard hit in terms of how many people would lose health insurance. 15 million people in all fewer than have it now would have health insurance if this passes.

AGBF
 
Did he stay up all night reading it?
 
Ruby has been waiting for a better plan from the republicans so I ask her: Is this what you wanted?

But I do think sadly that those who voted Trump in, those who users of the ACA will get what they deserve sadly.
 
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

I'm sure he has staff, and administrative assistants to do that Red.
 
Tekate|1488900028|4137579 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

I'm sure he has staff, and administrative assistants to do that Red.


It was a joke dear.
 
redwood66|1488897126|4137557 said:
Well rather than wade through opinion you can read what Speaker Ryan emailed to me last night. We are tight like that. :lol:

http://www.speaker.gov/general/american-health-care-act-what-you-need-know?utm_source=Speaker.gov+Master+List&utm_campaign=0306430525-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e173f5a25-0306430525-155245337

And here is the link where you can download the pdf of the bill.

https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

Thanks for sharing, Red. As you know, I MUCH prefer reading the actual law/bill vs. the media/pundits' usually-biased interpretation of it. I've saved the PDF to read later as time allows.

I heard Rand Paul mention an idea/plan is his bill that would allow for creation of 'groups' using (for example) Credit Union membership to increase buying power, provide cost savings for consumers, and offer additional 'protections' from denials, etc. I thought hat was a creative idea to help those who pay out the azz on the 'individual market'.
 
My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.
 
redwood66|1488901326|4137591 said:
My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.
I agree. Insurance isn't going to fix the problem of the rising cost of healthcare. Pricing for medical services and medication need to be consistent and open (no hidden cost, easy to figure out, etc). Until that happens, regardless of ACA or AHA or whatever, medical costs will continue to be unfettered and a strain on the lower income group.
 
Chrono|1488901781|4137595 said:
redwood66|1488901326|4137591 said:
My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.
I agree. Insurance isn't going to fix the problem of the rising cost of healthcare. Pricing for medical services and medication need to be consistent and open (no hidden cost, easy to figure out, etc). Until that happens, regardless of ACA or AHA or whatever, medical costs will continue to be unfettered and a strain on the lower income group.

Exactly. If you needed to go grocery shopping and nothing had a price tag how could you keep to your budget?

I had a hysterectomy two years ago and shared a room with another lady who also had the same (she did not have it done the exact same as me). I have good healthcare coverage and from what transpired overnight I can assume she did not. It was very telling to me that there were things provided to me that were not for her. I did not ask for any of these things but I am sure that my insurance was billed for them. My surgery was done by a robot controlled by my OB/GYN of which I was glad because recovery was VERY fast. I should have gone home that day but the drugs made me sick and I could not keep anything down. Boy that was an expensive overnight stay.
 
redwood66|1488901326|4137591 said:
My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.

This is very true! Unless you have to (literally) pay up front for services (before being seen), you have no clue what it's going to cost.

Your grocery shopping analogy is bang-on! How can I make informed decisions about my healthcare if I don't know all of the information needed to arrive at said decision.
 
Tekate|1488899394|4137575 said:
Ruby has been waiting for a better plan from the republicans so I ask her: Is this what you wanted?

But I do think sadly that those who voted Trump in, those who users of the ACA will get what they deserve sadly.


I just got home from work, so I have not seen all the details yet.

I am trying to find a good, reliable site that will interpret it.

Then I will comment.
 
redwood66|1488902358|4137603 said:
Chrono|1488901781|4137595 said:
redwood66|1488901326|4137591 said:
My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.
I agree. Insurance isn't going to fix the problem of the rising cost of healthcare. Pricing for medical services and medication need to be consistent and open (no hidden cost, easy to figure out, etc). Until that happens, regardless of ACA or AHA or whatever, medical costs will continue to be unfettered and a strain on the lower income group.

Exactly. If you needed to go grocery shopping and nothing had a price tag how could you keep to your budget?

I had a hysterectomy two years ago and shared a room with another lady who also had the same (she did not have it done the exact same as me). I have good healthcare coverage and from what transpired overnight I can assume she did not. It was very telling to me that there were things provided to me that were not for her. I did not ask for any of these things but I am sure that my insurance was billed for them. My surgery was done by a robot controlled by my OB/GYN of which I was glad because recovery was VERY fast. I should have gone home that day but the drugs made me sick and I could not keep anything down. Boy that was an expensive overnight stay.


I had what they called a cosmetic hysterectomy due to a stage 4 prolapse - uterus and cervix only - kept my ovaries.

When the surgeon cut into me he nicked my bladder. So I had to be kept under anesthesia even longer. When I came to, one of the first things I did was vomit. I also had to wear a foley bag for two weeks until it healed.

My insurance company tried to kick me out that evening as well, but my doctor fought for me to keep me there for another day. And yes, it was extremely expensive. But thankfully, this was before Obama Care and my insurance policy covered almost all of it.

If the same had happened to me under my new policy, I would have went home and hoped for the best.
 
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.
 
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.

I believe Red was referring to Howard Dean, not you.

I am sure you and she have had enough interaction that Red knows you are a female.
 
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.
:lol:

I hope you have a better day today.
 
ruby59|1488912646|4137700 said:
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.

I believe Red was referring to Howard Dean, not you.

I am sure you and she have had enough interaction that Red knows you are a female.

Ruby I know Deb was joshing with me.
 
I don't even know where to start.

Well, i'll start here. Both parties have tried to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Unless there is 100% buy-in from the insurance companies. Unless there is 100% buy-in from all the states, the status quo will ensue. Doesn't matter who puts forth the bill, it will always suck.

ACA at least allows those who have pre-existing health issues to be covered. This...lawd....

Back when Massachusetts started with Romney Care, I questioned all of this. Having had to be apart of that whole fiasco was ...interesting. I watched my premiums go up stratosphericly every year.

When Obama was looking to mirror Romney Care, I knew poop was gonna hit the fan. ACA worked on paper, but ONLY if there was 100% buy-in from all states and the insurance industry. That buy-in didn't happen so its where we are today. This will be a sh8tfest too frankly.

How can you cost contain a free market industry? You can't in this country unless you throw some hellified regulations at it.
 
redwood66|1488912722|4137702 said:
ruby59|1488912646|4137700 said:
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.

I believe Red was referring to Howard Dean, not you.

I am sure you and she have had enough interaction that Red knows you are a female.

Ruby I know Deb was joshing with me.

Joshing? This is serious!

If you did not want the world to know that I spent last night with Howard Dean, why did you put it on the Internet, red? Didn't you think that people would see it there? The internet is a public place, you know. You might have thought of our reputations, but you didn't. You were callous. And here I was saying you were such a good friend.
 
AGBF|1488914546|4137711 said:
redwood66|1488912722|4137702 said:
ruby59|1488912646|4137700 said:
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.

I believe Red was referring to Howard Dean, not you.

I am sure you and she have had enough interaction that Red knows you are a female.

Ruby I know Deb was joshing with me.

Joshing? This is serious!

If you did not want the world to know that I spent last night with Howard Dean, why did you put it on the Internet, red? Didn't you think that people would see it there? The internet is a public place, you know. You might have thought of our reputations, but you didn't. You were callous. And here I was saying you were such a good friend.


Oh my goodness. I am so sorry for betraying your confidence. Though I do need to question your choice of companion as he is quite unpredictable. Yeeeaawwww! :lol:
 
It's getting a lot of hatred from both sides (on the conservative side, Heritage, AFP, etc.)- for different reasons of course. I think that if this passes and is signed, a lot of people who demand others pull themselves up by the bootstraps will find theirs aren't as sturdy as they once thought. We'll see what the CBO says, but I can't imagine it'll be good (or would matter, if that was the case).
 
AGBF|1488914546|4137711 said:
redwood66|1488912722|4137702 said:
ruby59|1488912646|4137700 said:
AGBF|1488912494|4137699 said:
redwood66|1488897772|4137563 said:
Did he stay up all night reading it?

Did you really expect me to kiss and tell? The amount of time he spent reading last night is strictly personal. And I am a lady. Sheesh.

I believe Red was referring to Howard Dean, not you.

I am sure you and she have had enough interaction that Red knows you are a female.

Ruby I know Deb was joshing with me.

Joshing? This is serious!

If you did not want the world to know that I spent last night with Howard Dean, why did you put it on the Internet, red? Didn't you think that people would see it there? The internet is a public place, you know. You might have thought of our reputations, but you didn't. You were callous. And here I was saying you were such a good friend.

Deb, did you make him give his famous "Yee ha!" :naughty:
 
Sorry, Red, just saw your post. Yes, that's more his excited sound.
 
So I have an honest to god question here... And I'm not being snide or snarky or any of the things I can frequently (and often legitimately!) be accused of with this!

I have read the claim that the cost of coverage will go down, but I'm having a hard time with the economics. The way I understood the ACA was that since everyone was "obligated" to join, and assuming that they did, the healthy people would be in essence bearing some of the burden of paying for the unhealthy. But in making the coverage "optional" (and yes, I have read about the incentives, etc., designed toward compelling people to sign up, but in my mind this really becomes a more elective program) won't the enrollment skew disproportionately toward those who need care? I.e., if I'm a healthy 28 year old I'm much less inclined to join this program than an unhealthy 58 year old.

This is obviously an-overly simplistic scenario that I'm using here for the sake of discussion, but I truly can't figure out how the money piece of this is supposed to work in terms of lowering the cost to individuals.

I do want to acknowledge the point that this thing is not fully baked yet (a point that Ruby has also made) so I am sure there are changes and more info to come, but the $$$ has me confuzeled.

BTW, I am NOT addressing Deb and Howard's romance at this time -- I'm going to hold off and wait for her Show Me The Ring thread!
 
Dee*Jay|1488918016|4137731 said:
So I have an honest to god question here... And I'm not being snide or snarky or any of the things I can frequently (and often legitimately!) be accused of with this!

I have read the claim that the cost of coverage will go down, but I'm having a hard time with the economics. The way I understood the ACA was that since everyone was "obligated" to join, and assuming that they did, the healthy people would be in essence bearing some of the burden of paying for the unhealthy. But in making the coverage "optional" (and yes, I have read about the incentives, etc., designed toward compelling people to sign up, but in my mind this really becomes a more elective program) won't the enrollment skew disproportionately toward those who need care? I.e., if I'm a healthy 28 year old I'm much less inclined to join this program than an unhealthy 58 year old.

This is obviously an-overly simplistic scenario that I'm using here for the sake of discussion, but I truly can't figure out how the money piece of this is supposed to work in terms of lowering the cost to individuals.

I do want to acknowledge the point that this thing is not fully baked yet (a point that Ruby has also made) so I am sure there are changes and more info to come, but the $$$ has me confuzeled.

BTW, I am NOT addressing Deb and Howard's romance at this time -- I'm going to hold off and wait for her Show Me The Ring thread!

I am seconding this pretty please. Deb, we would love for you to share in Show Me the Bling. It might be the only good that comes from this whole affair. ( :lol: get it? Affair. :lol: ).

Dee, it's a good question. And I have a not so good feeling about this. Time will tell. Just hope we can all survive it. ::)
 
Dee*Jay|1488918016|4137731 said:
So I have an honest to god question here... And I'm not being snide or snarky or any of the things I can frequently (and often legitimately!) be accused of with this!

I have read the claim that the cost of coverage will go down, but I'm having a hard time with the economics. The way I understood the ACA was that since everyone was "obligated" to join, and assuming that they did, the healthy people would be in essence bearing some of the burden of paying for the unhealthy. But in making the coverage "optional" (and yes, I have read about the incentives, etc., designed toward compelling people to sign up, but in my mind this really becomes a more elective program) won't the enrollment skew disproportionately toward those who need care? I.e., if I'm a healthy 28 year old I'm much less inclined to join this program than an unhealthy 58 year old.

This is obviously an-overly simplistic scenario that I'm using here for the sake of discussion, but I truly can't figure out how the money piece of this is supposed to work in terms of lowering the cost to individuals.

I do want to acknowledge the point that this thing is not fully baked yet (a point that Ruby has also made) so I am sure there are changes and more info to come, but the $$$ has me confuzeled.

BTW, I am NOT addressing Deb and Howard's romance at this time -- I'm going to hold off and wait for her Show Me The Ring thread!


I have the same questions DeeJay. I'm hoping that they come up with a solution that works better for everyone. I also did not like the fact that if you dropped coverage for a few months that you would be paying premiums 30% higher when you came back to the plan. It would seem to me this would affect those who were having trouble paying their premiums to begin with. I hate solutions that will end up hurting people that are financially disadvantaged to begin with. Let's face facts, if you are financially well off you are not going to not pay your monthly premiums.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top