SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the or-we-could-have-the-coverage-congress-has dept.
Trump Signs Executive Order That Could Effectively Gut Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate
President Trump signed an executive order late Friday giving federal agencies broad powers to unwind regulations created under the Affordable Care Act, which might include enforcement of the penalty for people who fail to carry the health insurance that the law requires of most Americans.
The executive order, signed in the Oval Office as one of the new president's first actions, directs agencies to grant relief to all constituencies affected by the sprawling 2010 health-care law: consumers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, states and others. It does not describe specific federal rules to be softened or lifted, but it appears to give room for agencies to eliminate an array of ACA taxes and requirements.
[...] Though the new administration's specific intentions are not yet clear, the order's breadth and early timing carry symbolic value for a president who made repealing the ACA — his predecessor's signature domestic achievement — a leading campaign promise.
[Continues...]
Congressional Budget Office: Obamacare Repeal Would Be Catastrophic
U.S. Uncut reports
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its official analysis of the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare, and top Republicans hate it.
The CBO based its findings[1] on H.R. 3762 (the Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act), which was the 2015 Affordable Care Act repeal bill that passed the House of Representatives. The nonpartisan budgetary agency determined that within one year of President Obama's signature healthcare reform law being repealed, roughly 18 million people would lose their health insurance. In following years, when the expansion of Medicaid codified into the Affordable Care Act is also eliminated, the number of uninsured Americans would climb to 27 million, then to 32 million.
Additionally, for those remaining Americans who didn't lose their health coverage from the initial repeal process, health insurance premiums would skyrocket by as much as 25 percent immediately after repeal. After Medicaid expansion is taken away, premiums costs would have gone up by roughly 50 percent. The costs continue to climb, with the CBO estimating a 100 percent increase in premium costs by 2026.
CBO analysts particularly focused on H.R. 3762's repeal of the health insurance mandate that requires all Americans to have health insurance, and the bill's elimination of subsidies for low-income families that make health insurance more affordable. The CBO found that pulling out those cornerstones of the Affordable Care Act would "destabilize"[2] the health insurance market, leading to a dramatic increase in premium costs.
[1] PDF Google cache
[2] Duplicate link in TFA.
House majority leader says no set timeline on Obamacare replacement
The republican party still has no plan to put into place as a replacement for the ACA. In fact:
Asked how soon House Republicans could unite behind a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, McCarthy said Friday in a "CBS This Morning" interview, "I'm not going to put a set timeline on it because I want to make sure we get it right."
But McCarthy promised that an ACA substitute will be "one of the first actions we start working on."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:35AM
But it certainly can't be. Health insurance does not work unless the healthy subsidize the sick.
WRONG. Health insurance works, just as other insurance does, when those who pay for it but end up not needing it subsidize those who also pay for it but do end up needing it. Nowhere in here must people be strongarmed into paying for insurance.
Should we require people to pay for car insurance simply because everyone needs a car? Ridiculous. Can't believe this nonsense made it to score 3.
My right not to pay for insurance trumps your desire to be able to afford a contract with a private insurance entity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:53AM
> Should we require people to pay for car insurance simply because everyone needs a car?
We DO require that everybody who has a car buy car insurance.
Exactly like requiring everybody who has health buy health insurance.
If you would prefer not to purchase health insurance you are welcome to completely dispose of your health in any way you see fit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:01AM
We DO require that everybody who has a car buy car insurance.
Wrong again. We require people to have liability insurance. This insures others against damage done by your vehicle. It does not insure your vehicle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @02:09AM
A distinction without a difference.
The point is that the insurance is mandatory for car ownership.
But you do you. Take whatever solace you can in being triumphantly righteous rather than logically consistent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @10:18PM
You're a retarded little nigger, aren't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2017, @05:53PM
The problem with your analogy is that those who do not buy this "liability" health insurance still cost others for their care when they get to go to the emergency room for care. (thus equating to your liability)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:30AM
We DO require that everybody who has a car buy car insurance.
While at the same time failing to strictly regulate the same companies that people are forced to buy from. What a lovely system.