If trump wanted to he could kill the ACA with one move: Get rid of the cost share reimbursement (CSR). The CSR basically lets people purchase platinum plans at Bronze prices. If Trump said they wouldnt reimburse it anymore no Insurance company would be left in the market.Originally Posted by LA Ute
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
He would be raked over the coals for depriving millions of people of access to insurance.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I was reading this morning that Trump can sabotage the private insurance market, and make it more difficult or impossible to buy a policy through an exchange. He can't, however, do much to sabotage medicaid or its expansion (and the Kansas Senate voted for expansion yesterday). The net result might be to make medicaid much more important, especially in those states that have expanded it, which ironically might mean effectively moving the US closer to a sinqie payer system.
And it isnt just Democrats raising the spectre of sabotage. Trump has implied as much, and basically said those were his instructions to Tom Price in nominating him.
He wouldn't be depriving they just that you get a bronze plan at a bronze price
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
You need to learn to think like a liberal.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
This piece has a political edge to it, but ignore that, it's right about the law.
The Pre-Existing Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ts-are-telling
The legislation is going to look a lot different after the Senate gets done with it, but I doubt the pre-existing condition part will change much.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I think it is fair to say that the pre-existing condition clause affects a minimal number of people - right now.
The problem is that as people lose their jobs, are unable to find new jobs and are unable to afford private insurance, that number will grow.
The idea of having your insurance tied to employment and having the handling of pre-existing conditions tied to continuous insurance is what makes the situation so unpalatable. Those in Congress either are unable or don't want to understand that not being able to continuously have insurance is a serious problem.
Ironically one of the two good things with Obamacare was the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. The other was allowing someone to stay on their parents insurance until they were 26.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reducing the number of uninsured by 10-14 million wasnt a good thing?
At what cost and could it have been done better? I was never uninsured, but I am on substantially worse insurance at triple the cost now because of Obamacare, but at least my preventive care visits are covered now.
Very good point, of course. But the current Repub experience shows how hard it is to do it better and at less cost.
The real question isn't "at what cost" as much as "who will pay for it".
Someone has to pay for it. Healthcare costs are not coming down, insurance companies don't want to pay for it, and the people who need it can't afford it.
And the bad thing was that people had to pay more. The good and bad are a package deal, aren't they?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote