Three years into Trump presidency, his ‘immediate’ replacement for ‘Obamacare’ hasn’t emerged

The only way to change things is a revolution; i.e., clearing the House of Representatives. And every two years, it can be done. Revolution is built into the Constitution.

 

Working how and for who? What it has done for what 160 million was increase cost for the same care. It hasn't gotten everyone on insurance, not even close. some argue more and more people signed up, well sure the preexisting condition mandate allowed many to get health plans, that's a good thing, the only good thing. We didn't need Obamacare for that and it's hurt far to many by the way of increased cost. How do you want to fix because we sure as hell know if it's Trumps idea you will hate it regardless.

 

Trump is already starting to cancel... er...."privatize" Medicare

https://www.americanprogress.org/is.../10/11/475646/trumps-plan-privatize-medicare/

And how are the Democrats planning to end it?

God almighty, some people will believe ANYTHING just so long as a painted clown who has lied more than ANY politician EVER tells them so

 

I guess that's why he's not putting up anything then, right? So far, the only thing he's done here is to cancel the only part of Obamacare you thought was any good and now he's beginning to cancel Medicare too.

The Pubs want to cancel EVERYTHING. Medicare and Social Security too. It's been their wet dream since the elder Bush tried it and they've never stopped.

 

Welp, House Republicans are retiring at a record setting pace. So, that can only help.

 

FFS, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

WTF are you talking about "bail out"?

 

Costs went up because Boehner and Rubio defunded the Risk Corridors. That act in itself caused most providers to leave the exchanges because they knew they were a loosing proposition at that point. The core of rising costs in the ACA is directly related to that move. They didn't activly want to repeal it, because they knew it was popular. So they sabotaged it quietly, and then claimed the legislation was bad for a political win. Think about that, they literally played with peoples heath, and potentially their lives for their own political gain.

Obamacare was not designed, and never was designed, to lower prices day one. Everyone knew that, but those on the right were disingenuous in claiming it was bad because prices were still rising.

Yeah, Trump promised daily on the campaign trail, "better healthcare at better prices"...and what again has he done about that ? Oh yeah, not only nothing, but he and the right have activly degraded the ACA, and are now actively trying to legislate the removal of pre-existing conditions. Prices are still rising at unsustainable rates, and you're actually defending that ?

 

Rubio was holding the Obama administration to it's own requirements for the risk corridors, that they would be revenue neutral in their bailout of the insurance companies. What is your objection to that?

 

For the love of god PLEASE stop reading and watching Fox News

The ACA did NOT make the risk corridors Revenue Neutral. NEVER. Rubio and Boehner added a rider to their appropriations bill in 2014 making the corridors "revenue neutral", thus killing them. Boehner and Rubio are the ones who made them "revenue neutral" knowing that they would not be, thus the ability to defund them.

Please get your facts straight if you want to debate.....

 

Too bad the courts have found it unconstitutional.

 

The budget deal required they be revenue neutral it did not unfund them get your facts straight. It was up to Obama to find funding for them so they did not become a taxpayer bailout for insurance companies

"The provision in question merely called the administration’s bluff after their insistent assertions that the risk corridors would be budget neutral and so would not require a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurers suffering losses under Obamacare. All it did was require the program to be budget neutral in fact. But as a result, it has proven quite important in forcing insurers to confront the economic realities of the exchanges. "
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-rubio-kill-obamacares-risk-corridors-yuval-levin/

 

Brilliant analysis. Just a heads up there will not be a bipartisan healthcare bill for a long time. After Obamacare was pushed down everyone's throat, you can bet it's going to take a unified house, senate and Presidency to even have a chance of passing. Your Grandma over the cliff and BS SS rant is just ignorant but expected.

 

Thanks Trump for destroying the current health system and not proposing a replacement.

 

Pelosi just sent over a drug pricing bill with bipartisan support to the Senate two weeks ago.

 

Again, do you even understand how insurance works ? "Revenue Neutral" doesn't happen for years, and EVERYONE (but you apparently) understands that.

Making them be Revenue Neutral, and basing the funding of the corridors on that IS defunding them. If you know they aren't revenue neutral and building the rule around that IS defunding them.Stevie Wonder can see that.And Obama never said they would be revenue neutral day one. As a matter of fact he was very adamant that they wouldn't, which was what Rubis key'd off of. Rubio even admitted that in an interview

 

There will be a unified Democratic government after 2020. People are fed up with Trump and his toadies.

 

Do you even understand what was Obamacare and what he claimed about it? HE tauted it would be revenue neutral and it ended up he was having to bail out the insurance companies at the cost of the taxpayer. Rubio was protecting the taxpayer from Obama's screw up and telling him to find the funding instead of adding it to the deficit and debt.

"The provision in question merely called the administration’s bluff after their insistent assertions that the risk corridors would be budget neutral and so would not require a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurers suffering losses under Obamacare. All it did was require the program to be budget neutral in fact. "

Rubio did NOT unfund them as you claimed.

 

Well crap, its in quotes so it must be true

We're done here. Your defense is that if you keep repeating it it will be true..........just keep clicking your heals there Dorothy and all will be well

 

Holding it to revenue neutral as Obama promised is not defunding.

 

FFS your being beyond obtuse

Obama said it would be revenue neutral in time, but NOT in the beginning. Thats just a fact because anyone who know ANYTHING about the design of the law knows that the law was NEVER designed to be revenue neutral for a long time...hence the design of the risk corridors being included in the law.

You keep debating something you obviously don't know anything about, and then keep repeating debunked claims as if that will make them true

We’re done here. You repeating yourself over and over again and repeating thoroughly debunked crap is getting ridiculous.

 

The three years of its existence were to be revenue neutral

Let’s remember that the risk corridor payments were to be budget neutral over the three year lifespan of the program."
https://www.joepaduda.com/2015/12/16/marco-rubio-and-the-risk-corridor/

It was going to be a HUGE government bail out which it wasn't supposed to be, there weren't supposed to be funds to defund. What was apparent was Obama was going to move money from other programs to try and bail it out. It was a bad design from the getgo, which now we have to somehow fix, and Rubio held him to his word.

 

For the love of god.......You are literally making yourself a laughing stock

The ACA NEVER said that the risk corridors would be revenue neutral. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.....in fact, it was THAT flaw in the law that Rubio exploited to kill it. You obviously do not know even what a “risk corridor” is or how it works.

We’re done here

 

Oh just stop it

"Forty-six members of the House have signed a letter warning the administration against such a bailout. "It's an end run on the clear . . . intent of Congress," said Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.).

Griffith and his fellow Republicans may have an unlikely ally -- the Obama administration's own Department of Justice. In October, the DOJ moved to dismiss two risk-corridor lawsuits -- rejecting the very premise that the federal government owes those insurers a cent.

"Congress did not include in the ACA either an appropriation or an authorization of funding for risk corridors," the DOJ said. "Congress removed any ambiguity when it . . . prohibited HHS from paying risk corridor amounts from appropriated funds other than collections."
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...bamacares-risk-corridor-corruption-never-ends

When you can refute the facts let me know. We're done here.

 

Actually, its not. Its just been lowered to 0. But its still on the books. Any incoming president could choose to raise it back up.