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nonpartisan budgetary agency determined that within one year of President Obama's signature healthcare reform law being repealed, roughly 18 million people would lose their health insurance.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: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:30PM
No it wasn't.
Many of the key elements of the ACA were developed by Stuart Butler at the Heritage Foundation in 1989 [amazonaws.com] as a conservative market-based solution to getting all Americans access health care. The same approach was implemented, more-or-less successfully, by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. So it was not only a fairly conservative plan, it had been tested at the state level and seemed like it would work.
The wish of the do-gooder progressives, as you call them, is something along the lines of the British or Canadian NHS. By all available measurements, those systems are cheaper, easier to manage, and leave the population healthier than the US's hodgepodge of a "system" both before and after the ACA, which is why progressives think they might be worth a shot. That said, by those same measurements, the US was probably better off after the ACA than before it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:53AM
Yup. That would be the typically-Reactionary Heritage Foundation.
I'm shocked that I had to get this far down the thread before someone mentioned this.
...and, decades before that, the Nixon Administration was kicking around the notion of public healthcare for all.
Nixoncare & Obamacare compared [umich.edu]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:10AM
Today's democrats are yesteryears republicans, and today's republicans are so far out in left field we should probably just institutionalize the lot of them. Facts don't matter, reality is subjective, only profit matters. Insane and dangerous to us all! Which means the Democrats are probably one trump presidency away from going nuts themselves