• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Repeal without replacement - coming soon

I don't think that is going to happen. Too much pressure, too much fighting, and likely to end up as a big political pissing match.

I think it will be a bi partisan step by step incremental overhaul. People don't take kindly to losing entitlements, but people don't take kindly to bending over and taking high premiums and deductibles, either.
 
rocket88 said:
GOP resistance grows to Obamacare repeal without replacement - POLITICO

There's likely to be a repeal without any replace. Will infighting stop any replacement from coming into being? If not, what will be the primary differences between ObamaCare and TrumpCare?
Click to expand...

It's dramatically exposing the abject stupidity of the GOP. The people resisting it are the smarter ones in the party.

Incessantly crying for repeal of a wide ranging and impactful law that they have no feasible replacement plan for is ludicrous.

It's sad that people cant recognize it for what it is.
 
rocket88 said:
GOP resistance grows to Obamacare repeal without replacement - POLITICO

There's likely to be a repeal without any replace. Will infighting stop any replacement from coming into being? If not, what will be the primary differences between ObamaCare and TrumpCare?
Click to expand...

the replacement will look more like ****ty, high deductible HSAs that won't solve the problem even as well as the safe auto ACA plans did. there will be a lot of fine print in the plans designed to kick people off due to technicalities, too, so if they actually have to collect catastrophic coverage, there will be ways to avoid paying in some cases. inquiry letters that look like junk mail, payment deadlines that terminate coverage if you miss even one payment; that kind of stuff. the preexisting conditions protections and keeping kids on their parents' insurance until age 26 are very popular, but they also cost the insurance companies a lot of money, so i wouldn't be surprised if those provisions are neutered somehow while leaving them in place technically.
 
I'm surprised at how quickly Republicans seem to be going after the ACA. Healthcare is a huge political risk, just ask the Democrats, and repealing without having a plan ready just seems really risky. I see two options here. The first is that Republicans look for a few things to change in the ACA that don't directly impact the system in any real way, and then they just label it as Trumpcare. The second is that they keep hammering the "death spiral" talk while they repeal so that they can blame the ACA for the millions that could lose their care when it is repealed. I'm not positive which one they will choose.
 
IMO the ACA needs to be repealed and some form of government run single payer plan should be instituted.

Insurance is a for-profit venture. Insurance companies are offering varying degrees of financial coverage for whatever forms of possible harm the buyer is worried about. The money for this coverage comes from convincing buyers to agree to pay into a pool of funds they can later draw upon if the specified list of covered harms occur during the period they have paid for. Money not used is company profit.

Private insurance is a gambling game. The insurance company is gambling that more people will pay into the fund than will draw out of the fund during the period of coverage. The profit comes from pocketing the amounts not paid out during the period of coverage. The bigger the pool of people who are paying in without drawing anything out...the bigger the profit.

There is no profit in covering pre-exiting conditions. The buyer is paying a fraction of the costs and drawing more than they pay out of the pool of funds as long as they exist in the program. This drives up the rates charged to everyone else in the pool because the insurance company has to pass on the costs to the other members of the pool in order to maintain profitability.

That has always been the problem with car insurance ever since it became required by law. Those of us with good driving records continue to see annual rate increases due to a combination of inflation and having to provide continued coverage for people who are poor drivers.

Well, if we have to have medical coverage, I say take it out of the hands of private business and turn it over to a government run single payer system where there is not supposed to be any profit requirement, at least on the part of the agency administering the process. The government can impose limits on costs of medications and treatments as it currently does with Medicare and Medicaid.

A single-payer program can either be left as a direct billing system with Doctors and Hospitals billing at agreed upon rates as they currently do with private insurance, or it can be set up as a more controlled system using one of the European models.

I don't like big government, but if we are going to demand healthcare as a socio-political "right," then that is what government is supposed to functionally provide.
 
Last edited:
Some people are more suited to obstruction than construction. And some just don't have the balls, the brains, or the political will for the big move, the game-changing play, the giant step that makes a fundamental improvement to society. I predict the GOP will whittle and chip away at Obamacare, bickering and dithering and complaining all the while about the size of the job they've taken on. Their biggest concern will be pissing off the fewest people possible before mid-term elections.
 
They have two viable options:

Repeal. This would probably be a policy disaster but it would be consistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Rebrand some sort of Obamacare-lite under Trump. This would probably be okay on policy but it would be inconsistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Their constituents should be pissed with either option, but something tells me many would manage to deal with it either way.
 
Grand Mal said:
Some people are more suited to obstruction than construction. And some just don't have the balls, the brains, or the political will for the big move, the game-changing play, the giant step that makes a fundamental improvement to society. I predict the GOP will whittle and chip away at Obamacare, bickering and dithering and complaining all the while about the size of the job they've taken on. Their biggest concern will be pissing off the fewest people possible before mid-term elections.
Click to expand...

It's hard for the GOP to say yes to anything when saying no gave them the triumvirate of power.

They know the key is to hold onto the state legislatures to control federal and state remaps in 4 years.

They know how they won the state legislatures and federal house in 2010, by unanimously opposing everything Obama, including things they had supported .
 
rocket88 said:
GOP resistance grows to Obamacare repeal without replacement - POLITICO

There's likely to be a repeal without any replace. Will infighting stop any replacement from coming into being? If not, what will be the primary differences between ObamaCare and TrumpCare?
Click to expand...

Repeal and do not replace right off the bat and a whole lot of Republicans are going to be looking for a new career in less than two years. Besides that would Prove that the Cons whined for years and years about ACA but in reality had no idea on how the fix it or replace it, enough to lose one job over for most.
 
Absentglare said:
They have two viable options:

Repeal. This would probably be a policy disaster but it would be consistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Rebrand some sort of Obamacare-lite under Trump. This would probably be okay on policy but it would be inconsistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Their constituents should be pissed with either option, but something tells me many would manage to deal with it either way.
Click to expand...

GOPartisans yes--they are dependable voters in the mid-terms.

Independents--will wait and see what comes out and are the key.

DEMs no--but will they vote in pitiful percentages as we've seen in 2010, 2014, and 2016 ?
 
rocket88 said:
GOP resistance grows to Obamacare repeal without replacement - POLITICO

There's likely to be a repeal without any replace. Will infighting stop any replacement from coming into being? If not, what will be the primary differences between ObamaCare and TrumpCare?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me if there is...or isn't...a replacement. All I want is the turd to be flushed...completely.

Delay won't bother me at all.

If there is a replacement, I only hope it is NOT some massive 2000+ page re-working of the entire health care industry. I don't think that'll happen, though. That's more the style of the Democrats...not the Republicans. Given that, the term "TrumpCare" would be a misnomer and there would be no possible comparison to Obamacare.

If the Republicans do, however, construct some massive 2000+ page monster, they'll piss off a WHOLE lot of Republicans who elected Trump. That would be a big mistake...especially right out of the gate.
 
rocket88 said:
GOP resistance grows to Obamacare repeal without replacement - POLITICO

There's likely to be a repeal without any replace. Will infighting stop any replacement from coming into being? If not, what will be the primary differences between ObamaCare and TrumpCare?
Click to expand...

Eh, the replacement plan is starting to come into focus.

anigif_enhanced-1068-1404438272-26.gif
 
Absentglare said:
They have two viable options:

Repeal. This would probably be a policy disaster but it would be consistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Rebrand some sort of Obamacare-lite under Trump. This would probably be okay on policy but it would be inconsistent with the rhetorical narrative.

Their constituents should be pissed with either option, but something tells me many would manage to deal with it either way.
Click to expand...

I've always said Trump would choose the second. He has now promised almost universal coverage so the Congress critters in the GOP will have some 'splaining to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom