Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down

[Greenbeard]

I have two issues with that mindset. The first is the fact that slower in growth is still growth. If you can’t afford the cost of something as priced now then it makes no practical difference to anyone if it becomes $1 dollar or $1 trillion even more expensive. So I think celebrating that as a victory is a stretch. The second thing is that the slowdown in growth is a trend that started in 2002 so I’m not sure what if anything the ACA has to do with it.

Slower growth is still growth. But actually lowering health spending means closing more facilities and laying people off (from the nation's largest employment sector) and/or slashing wages. Whether that's a good idea is certainly up for debate. As is the statement that we as a nation can't afford our current health system, assuming a continuation of the slow cost growth of the last decade.

As for what the ACA has to do with what's going on, well I could spend hours talking about the restructuring of the health care delivery system that's been happening over the past decade.

 

[RealityNow]

After Obamacare went into effect, we lost our primary care doctors and my husband's cancer doctor and there were far more restrictions on which hospitals doctors and other specialists could work. Yes, that was a direct result of Obamacare. We volunteer at an urgent care center that saw the activity literally triple because few doctors would see a patient the same day the patient needed a doctor but everybody was instructed to go to an urgent care center or emergency room. Our healthcare premiums have almost tripled since Obamacare went into effect.

A lot of our friends had their insurance that suited them very well cancelled because it didn't comply with some Obamacare regulation and they were forced into buying much more costly policies. I can't tell you how many people are refusing recommended procedures and tests because the deductibles and copays are so expensive. My husband and I have been among them.

Healthcare professionals have to plow through 2300 pages of the actual Obamacare legislation AND the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added on since it was voted into law.

You won't convince me that it made no difference in the quality of healthcare.

we lost our primary care doctors and my husband's cancer doctor and there were far more restrictions on which hospitals doctors and other specialists could work.

That WAS NOT Obama's fault... the fault is in the "Hospital Networks" and the "System of Hospital and Doctors being in a NETWORK" and fightint to not let those doctors work outside of that network.

ACA was designed to include those system, but with the mandate that doctors could work out of network, and people could see doctors that were not tied in a particular network. That was the structure for the participation in the "exchanges".... Again, REPUBLICAN... stood on the side of the "Medical Networks" and "Doctor Network"... BECAUSE they wanted to defeat the measure which said, people could keep their doctors!...

People should be smarter to have known the damage game that Republican were playing, these are the same Republican that Spent 6 yrs attacking ACA by any and every means, still people did not awaken to see the malice that was being done by Republican Agenda.

Americans need to become learned in "how to be "independent thinkers" and to be "critical thinkers"... and they will get less of a contiguous shellacking by Republican Agenda.

Its about as sad as people when polled, said... Oh' I don't like Obama Care", but I think ACA is Ok... unaware they are one in the same... but because Obama's name was used as a "SLANG TERM" for ACA... people got hung up on the slang, and their Anti Obama attitudes untile they blind themselves to facts.
ACA was not some flash in the pan idea... it was built on the framework of the nickname of RomneyCare, the official name was (An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. )

The official Name of ACA is (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) the nickname is "Obamacare".

Big Medical Industry did not like the idea that ACA would be a challenge to their profitable system of "Network Doctors" and "Network Medical Facilities" which they controlled, they control the pricing, and they control every aspect and profit tremendously from doing so, and they control the level of services that is provided by Network Doctors and Network Medical Facilities - Many of these same networks... use their network to fleece cities of tax revenue, by buying up property under the Big Name Medical Network, and renting it out to doctors in their network.. while they get the benefit to fleece cities by paying a lower tax for that land they buy, own and lease.

Your premium's triple because these "Network Doctors and Network Medical Facilities" Control the Cost and Control the Services, and they WILL NOT Allow those Doctors to work outside of the Network.

People... truly have to invest to learn for themselves the truth.... Republican System does not have a history of telling people the truth, they have a history of pandering to the wealthy in any way, by any means, including "duping the people as if the people are imbeciles".... Sadly, they continue to find many to dupe.

 

[Greenbeard]

we lost our primary care doctors and my husband's cancer doctor and there were far more restrictions on which hospitals doctors and other specialists could work.

That WAS NOT Obama's fault... the fault is in the "Hospital Networks" and the "System of Hospital and Doctors being in a NETWORK" and fightint to not let those doctors work outside of that network.

Just to be clear, insurers developing networks of different health care providers at different price points and bringing those networks to the market at different premiums is what private sector health insurer competition is. To a first approximation, anyway. Insurers have offered an array of broad network (generally higher premium) and narrower network (generally lower-premium) products in the marketplace and as it turns out most people are more motivated by price differentials than network breadth. In the long-run that's good! If the exchanges really grew to become a central part of the health care marketplace, that means providers who use their clout to negotiate higher prices for themselves will increasingly find themselves frozen out of the most popular insurance offerings and thus would be compelled to bring down those prices.

Decades ago many states, particularly in the northeast, were much more heavy-handed in setting provider prices, particularly for hospitals. Those rate-setting schemes largely disappeared by the '90s in favor of private sector competition. Namely, competition between insurers looking to negotiate down provider prices so they could offer more competitive premiums and providers who could choose to sit out of a particular insurance product if they couldn't garner a high enough price for themselves (or be actively excluded by insurers looking to keep premiums down by filtering out the highest priced providers).

The greatest threat to the principles of hospital rate setting has emerged in the concept and form of managed care. Indeed, if mandatory rate setting was the principle operating paradigm for controlling hospital costs in the 1970s, it has been replaced by managed care as the paradigm for controlling health care costs in the 1990s. Whether managed care will live up to this promise is beyond the objectives of this report. But its role in topping some forms of state based rate setting is instructive.

Whereas rate setting focuses only on inpatient care, managed care brings in the larger health environment, including outpatient, physician, home health, and more. Whereas rate setting seeks equity among payers, managed care in most settings celebrates bargaining, contracting, and hard competition. Whereas rate setting involves single rates of payment--whether per admission, per diem, or per discharge--managed care is more adaptable to capitation. On all of these counts, and others managed care has a distinct advantage over rate setting as the operating paradigm for the 1990s.

This is the theory underpinning most market-based approaches to health insurance and it's certainly central to the ACA. (It's worth noting that it's largely worked, which is impressive given the relatively small part of the health care landscape that exchange enrollment represents).

 

[JANFU]

Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down - CNNPolitics

The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.

In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
It's a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement -- protections for people with pre-existing conditions -- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

Trump’s Justice Department notified a federal appeals court in New Orleans late Monday it would asking judges to toss out the entire ACA which is going to put healthcare for millions of Americans in jeopardy. Previous Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare triggered a backlash that propelled Democrats back into the majority of the House in the last election. Months ago, when people were polled about what their main concerns are, health care was their number one concern. Undoing everything Barack Obama did was Trump's first objective. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, he can now focus on repealing Obamacare. What's next, rollbacks in Medicare?

According to the link - I assume these stats may include US mandatory spending - Not sure all are??

Social Security - 2017- 24 % - $945 billion

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies - 26 %- 1 trillion

Defense and international security assistance -15 % -

Safety net programs - 9 % - 357 Billion

Interest on debt - 7 % - 263 Billion

Add in the massive tax cuts and revenue loss, where else would the Republicans look at? Health care is now also up.

And 1 kicker is interest on debt, well it will only increase as debt must be sold
And yes I remember the interest rates late 70's to early 90's.

And the Dems as i mentioned in the 16 primary, was then and now having public battles/ almost a civil war between far left- center.

I also stated the Dems best have a platform that works.

A lot of people in the 40-60 political range are not happy

A plus number, over 50 % of Americans valued their health care as a major issue.

Now will the Dems screw the pooch?

 

[JasperL]

Anything that provides worse healthcare at a much higher cost than what preceded it cannot be said to be better than what preceded it.

I'm sure you'll be happy to know that didn't happen.

The government could have spent a small fraction of the money it spent on this boondoggle and provided a way for people who didn't have insurance to get it including those with pre existing conditions.

My goodness, for how many years to we have to listen to this tired, right wing talking point? If the government "could have" done all that, why in the hell didn't the GOP come up with this brilliant plan in the now 10 years between ACA passage and today? Where is this plan that does everything the ACA does but for less money?

And it wasn't necessary to dismantle a major and necessary industry and give government control over a major part of the U.S. economy to do that.

That also didn't happen.

 

[AlbqOwl]

To those defending Obama on Obamacare, I will just repost this:

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm sure you'll be happy to know that didn't happen.

No, it can't be true! Everyone knows the ACA has degraded quality!

March 2019 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy | Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

The quality of hospital care has improved in recent years, in part due to Medicare’s four hospital quality incentive programs: the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program, Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP), and hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program. [GB note: All created by the ACA.]

 

[Greenbeard]

To those defending Obama on Obamacare, I will just repost this:

Obama's gone, engage with the substance, not the man.

 

[JasperL]

I question if all of the information taken together means what you think it does. For example, insurance spending per enrollee may have declined but that is accompanied by an increase in out of pocket spending. NHE has continued to rise so that only represents a shift in who is paying the costs not a reduction in cost itself. And anyway I’m not sure what if any role the ACA plays in trends that started years before it was implemented.

The link has a graph addressing just that point.

How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker

Click on the actual data and you'll see that out of pocket spending hasn't in fact increased. We're at roughly 2007 levels 10 years later (adjusted for inflation).

And of course NHE increases, in part because population increases every year and we're getting older as a society. Moving people from uninsured to insured also no doubt increased costs a bit, since more people got healthcare, which is a good thing.

As to what role ACA had on those trends, OK, I don't have an empirical study identifying all the causes and relative roles of various factors. Conceding that, you said, "The cost of healthcare has not improved." Now you're just moving the goal posts to "Well, it has improved, but it's not due to ACA!"

 

[Irwin Corey]

One of the problems is Democrats are loyally protecting OBamas signature piece of legislation. They are not willing to repeal and replace but if the court determines it unconstitutional without the penalty clause they may have too.
Democrats refused to discuss any chances for a long time, now are saying it does have parts that need fixed but don't really partake in discussions to fix it. The Republicans have their own group who will not support another health care bill of such massive fiscal obligation. The answer lies in compromise and a better system for purchasing health care. Allowing insurance to be sold across state lines would open up competition almost immediately. The government needs to do a better job of negotiating payment for government health care and legislators need to stop being bought by the health care industry. The states control a lot of the cost of health care and they can do a better job of regulation of cost and expenditures. Any bill for health care needs to address these problems as well as things such as pre-existing conditions which most seem to support.

Yeah, OK. But pulling the rug out from under 20 million Americans isn't the solution either. There needs to be a National Policy on heath care, repelling Obama Care without providing an alternative will just cause chaos. tRump want's to destroy everything with Obama's name on it … but he doesn't have any alternatives.

 

[JasperL]

...which is exactly what you'd expect to see with a shift to high-deductible health plans that many people can't afford to use.

We also have millions more insured through Medicaid, which isn't high deductible, and we've seen a whole bunch of baby boomers age into Medicare, which also isn't high deductible. Most of those on the exchanges have their OOP subsidized/capped along with premiums.

So you're talking about a small part of the overall market, and ignoring the vast majority of the market and the changes from ACA.

 

[Exactice]

The link has a graph addressing just that point.

How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker

Click on the actual data and you'll see that out of pocket spending hasn't in fact increased. We're at roughly 2007 levels 10 years later (adjusted for inflation).

And of course NHE increases, in part because population increases every year and we're getting older as a society. Moving people from uninsured to insured also no doubt increased costs a bit, since more people got healthcare, which is a good thing.

As to what role ACA had on those trends, OK, I don't have an empirical study identifying all the causes and relative roles of various factors. Conceding that, you said, "The cost of healthcare has not improved." Now you're just moving the goal posts to "Well, it has improved, but it's not due to ACA!"

Can I make an Assumption?

1) The Removal of the Pre Existing Condition for the REASON of it existing in the "Insurance Market" is due to the FACTUAL cost ratio. Based on the Exposure it is ALMOST impossible to take in ENOUGH premium to cover the "loss" Bankrupting ANY insurance model THIS is why they have to create "Catastrophic Loss Exclusions"

2) Do the Math. A normal Procedure Cost X amount of Dollars here is one. child Birth $24,000 for 3 days in and out Birth NO complications. That was an originally excluded class of coverage that you needed to "Buy" back to subsidies the cost now the restriction is removed SO ALL child births if in and out cost of $24,000 MUST be paid somehow? Guess who? The WHOLE market place by increase premiums.

2a) Major medical exclusions that have MAJOR an exorbitant cost HOW does one pay for this when it was a previously excluded risk? Dialysis, Cancer, Tumors, etc etc.... The normally excluded exposures carry the HIGHEST COST. The markets are cash poor, So while deductibles are meant to retain the cash in the coffers. You then put BOTH strains of Increase deductibles and co-pay as WELL as INCREASED Premiums PERIOD.

 

[Born Free]

Yeah, OK. But pulling the rug out from under 20 million Americans isn't the solution either. There needs to be a National Policy on heath care, repelling Obama Care without providing an alternative will just cause chaos.

I understand that is the plan.

tRump want's to destroy everything with Obama's name on it … but he doesn't have any alternatives.

He already has, I don't believe Obama has one EO that Trump has not deleted. And by deleting Obama's EO's is the alternative. The mandate to buy insurance vs pay a tax is gone. I really don't know what Obama is going to hang in his billion dollar shrine to himself, he has no accomplishments.

 

[JasperL]

Can I make an Assumption?

1) The Removal of the Pre Existing Condition for the REASON of it existing in the "Insurance Market" is due to the FACTUAL cost ratio. Based on the Exposure it is ALMOST impossible to take in ENOUGH premium to cover the "loss" Bankrupting ANY insurance model THIS is why they have to create "Catastrophic Loss Exclusions"

2) Do the Math. A normal Procedure Cost X amount of Dollars here is one. child Birth $24,000 for 3 days in and out Birth NO complications. That was an originally excluded class of coverage that you needed to "Buy" back to subsidies the cost now the restriction is removed SO ALL child births if in and out cost of $24,000 MUST be paid somehow? Guess who? The WHOLE market place by increase premiums.

2a) Major medical exclusions that have MAJOR an exorbitant cost HOW does one pay for this when it was a previously excluded risk? Dialysis, Cancer, Tumors, etc etc.... The normally excluded exposures carry the HIGHEST COST. The markets are cash poor, So while deductibles are meant to retain the cash in the coffers. You then put BOTH strains of Increase deductibles and co-pay as WELL as INCREASED Premiums PERIOD.

I'm not very patient with complaints about pre-existing conditions. The employer health insurance market, which everyone who hates ACA seems to love, requires employer based plans to cover pre-existing conditions. Medicare does it. The VA does it. Medicaid does it. Combined that's the VAST majority of people in this country with insurance. So every facet of our healthcare/health insurance market requires coverage for pre-existing conditions except the private, non-employer market.

So to complain that this one segment (private, non-employer) cannot work with protections for pre-existing conditions just doesn't make sense, and is contradicted by all the other health insurance markets, including where the VAST majority of Americans are insured.

You mention the cost of dialysis, cancer, etc. OK, if we don't insure those people, what's the alternative? They just need to die? I'm not sure and ACA critics don't have an answer either. So until some non-ACA solution emerges that's different than employer provided healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA and does NOT guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions, the complaints fall on deaf ears for me.

 

[Greenbeard]

2) Do the Math. A normal Procedure Cost X amount of Dollars here is one. child Birth $24,000 for 3 days in and out Birth NO complications. That was an originally excluded class of coverage that you needed to "Buy" back to subsidies the cost now the restriction is removed SO ALL child births if in and out cost of $24,000 MUST be paid somehow? Guess who? The WHOLE market place by increase premiums.

The math has been done. Urban laid out the incremental cost if EHBs are spread across the risk pool vs put on the individual or family.

 

[Exactice]

I'm not very patient with complaints about pre-existing conditions. The employer health insurance market, which everyone who hates ACA seems to love, requires employer based plans to cover pre-existing conditions. Medicare does it. The VA does it. Medicaid does it. Combined that's the VAST majority of people in this country with insurance. So every facet of our healthcare/health insurance market requires coverage for pre-existing conditions except the private, non-employer market.

So to complain that this one segment (private, non-employer) cannot work with protections for pre-existing conditions just doesn't make sense, and is contradicted by all the other health insurance markets, including where the VAST majority of Americans are insured.

You mention the cost of dialysis, cancer, etc. OK, if we don't insure those people, what's the alternative? They just need to die? I'm not sure and ACA critics don't have an answer either. So until some non-ACA solution emerges that's different than employer provided healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA and does NOT guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions, the complaints fall on deaf ears for me.

Correct employment based insurance had pre-existing provisions. BUT NOT ALL. There are still catastrophic exclusions that still existed MUCH where buy back available provision but at of course the higher specified rate

Medicare/Medicade does it as that was its DESIGN With that they have pre requisites its not an OPEN health care market.. VA I need to confirm this

NEXT is the FACT. MANY people that have MAJOR health care issues, did NOT have employer Coverage because they were UNABLE to work in the FIRST PLACE due to their Pre Existing condition. So yes NO employed Health Care is the Burden.

The next issue is that ITS THE SAME markets to both employee vs non employee health care, so the same providers STILL have to EAT the cost for the influx of pre existing conditions. THERE was NO insurer changes or NEW insurers that came in intentionally to PICK UP the New Exposure or "Pre Existing Conditions". PERIOD. The cost burden FALLS on the same market and guess who pays? The Employers premiums increase , that affected the business. And the NON employeed or Self employed had to pick up the increased cost. Can you justify the cost did NOT burden the current insurer markets?

If we dont insure? HOW did we do it for Many years prior, ACA has been around since 2012 what did we do PRIOR. there were subsidize government coverage. ER does NOT turn people away, Medicade and Medicare was still there when a case manager was able to approve the case.

Finally there were subsidize markets, charities, 501C3's that help subsides cost. It was NOT perfect, But it did NOT bankrupt the WHOLE health insurance market period.


FACT or NOT, pre-existing conditions MAKES up a majority of the total expense cost to the insurer market? depleting premium intake the most?

 

[Exactice]

The math has been done. Urban laid out the incremental cost if EHBs are spread across the risk pool vs put on the individual or family.

If I am reading that right. That means "essential based" NOT pre existing.

The Premium intake vs the cost out is 100% ( for Traditional Insurance, NOT included Pre existing conditions, ) just "essential based"

SO now add in Pre Existing conditions the Loss Ration could be, 200%, 300% 1000% as there is NOT enough premium to cover the loss exposure? Who is paying the difference for the 200%, 300% loss ratio>

 

[Napoleon]

The link has a graph addressing just that point.

How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker

Click on the actual data and you'll see that out of pocket spending hasn't in fact increased. We're at roughly 2007 levels 10 years later (adjusted for inflation).

And of course NHE increases, in part because population increases every year and we're getting older as a society. Moving people from uninsured to insured also no doubt increased costs a bit, since more people got healthcare, which is a good thing.

As to what role ACA had on those trends, OK, I don't have an empirical study identifying all the causes and relative roles of various factors. Conceding that, you said, "The cost of healthcare has not improved." Now you're just moving the goal posts to "Well, it has improved, but it's not due to ACA!"

This is the graph and it looks to me as though it’s certainly higher than it was in 2007 per the constant 2017 dollars line.



I’ll concede that this is all they say about it: “On a per capita basis, health spending has increased over 30-fold in the last four decades, from $355 per person in 1970 to $10,739 in 2017. In constant 2017 Dollars, the increase was almost 6-fold from $1,797 In 1970 to $10,739 in 2017.” But it stands to reason that as NHE continues to rise even as expenditures by public and private insurers decline someone is making up the delta and it hast to be out of pocket costs because there is no one else.

The reason I pointed that out is that celebrating lower costs paid by insurers as a victory is mistake because as NHE continues to grow it’s the patients who are incurring the additional cost. That’s my interpretation of it anyway. As for shifting goal posts - that wasn’t my intent. I’m only questioning why the ACA is credited for perceived improvements that are actually part of a trend which predates the law by over a decade.

 

[Greenbeard]

If I am reading that right. That means "essential based" NOT pre existing.

The Premium intake vs the cost out is 100% ( for Traditional Insurance, NOT included Pre existing conditions, ) just "essential based"

SO now add in Pre Existing conditions the Loss Ration could be, 200%, 300% 1000% as there is NOT enough premium to cover the loss exposure? Who is paying the difference for the 200%, 300% loss ratio>

I'm sorry, I have literally no idea what you're saying.

 

[danarhea]

Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down - CNNPolitics

The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.

In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
It's a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement -- protections for people with pre-existing conditions -- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

Trump’s Justice Department notified a federal appeals court in New Orleans late Monday it would asking judges to toss out the entire ACA which is going to put healthcare for millions of Americans in jeopardy. Previous Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare triggered a backlash that propelled Democrats back into the majority of the House in the last election. Months ago, when people were polled about what their main concerns are, health care was their number one concern. Undoing everything Barack Obama did was Trump's first objective. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, he can now focus on repealing Obamacare. What's next, rollbacks in Medicare?

Trump's argument will be struck down by SCOTUS.

1) Roberts had ruled previously that the penalty for not enrolling amounted to a tax.

2) Trump's tax bill eliminated that tax.

3) A court in Texas ruled that, since the tax no longer exists, then the ACA is now unconstitutional. This is the argument that Trump has signed onto.

4) However, since people no longer have to pay a penalty for not enrolling, ACA has become "voluntary". It is this fact which destroys Trump's argument for eliminating ACA.

5) Not only will Roberts rule against Trump, but I suspect that Alito will side with Roberts too, making this at least a 6-3 decision against Trump, and possibly even a bigger majority decision than that.

6) This will haunt Republicans in 2020.

 

[Greenbeard]

The reason I pointed that out is that celebrating lower costs paid by insurers as a victory is mistake because as NHE continues to grow it’s the patients who are incurring the additional cost. That’s my interpretation of it anyway. As for shifting goal posts - that wasn’t my intent. I’m only questioning why the ACA is credited for perceived improvements that are actually part of a trend which predates the law by over a decade.

Except, as already pointed out, NHE growth has slowed substantially over the past decade.

 

[MTAtech]

How is this a betrayal of the people who elected him? He is not talking about taking away their health care he is talking about finding a system that will make it better and actually affordable.

Follow the dots. There is no Trump or other GOP plan to replace the ACA in existence or being developed. However, the Trump Admin just started a lawsuit to make the ACA declared unconstitutional. If that suit is successful, the ACA won't exist, which means everyone who got health insurance from the ACA; everyone who got expanded Medicaid from the ACA; everyone who got subsidies from the ACA, etc., would lose those benefits. Thus, in no rational interpretation is that a result that will make health insurance "better and more affordable."

How is this a betrayal of the people who elected him? As an example, consider a place like West Virginia, where a lot of people gained health insurance thanks to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The state voted 70% for Trump. Trump promised not to cut health care. If Trump's lawsuit is successful, 140,000 West Virginians will lose health insurance that he said he wouldn't cut. That's the dictionary definition of "betrayal."

 

[Thelion]

tRump has a pathological fear of Obama, by far the better man.

 

[Exactice]

I'm sorry, I have literally no idea what you're saying.

Sorry... let me try it this way,

I highlighted new born.

The USER end cost was $13,888 the allocated Premium share is $278, Someone is subsidizing $13,610 who is that? ALL of us.

New let me try this? The Far right column is $83,664 That is the "Additional Premium Cost, Covered by Insurance" So the REAL Hospital cost added up in total.


The Far left column is the annual Patient Premium of $4,700 - $83,664 net loss of $78,964 WHO is paying for the net loss??? We the tax payers through the SPREAD of Risk right? More Insureds/patience spreads the cost.

THIS ONLY based on "Essential Care" NOW add in Pre-Existing Conditions, Asthma, Diabetes or Cancer. A cancer patient that goes through an 8 week Chemotherapy is as high as $30,000 per treatment, Thats NOT even in this COST analysis. Do you see the LOSS ratio of PREMIUM is NOT viable to actual cost out?

We do NOT have a sustainable amount of premium in (cash in) to sustain the bills (cash out) due to the increased exposure and removal of the pre-existing condition exclusion.

 

[MTAtech]

After Obamacare went into effect, we lost our primary care doctors and my husband's cancer doctor and there were far more restrictions on which hospitals doctors and other specialists could work. Yes, that was a direct result of Obamacare. We volunteer at an urgent care center that saw the activity literally triple because few doctors would see a patient the same day the patient needed a doctor but everybody was instructed to go to an urgent care center or emergency room. Our healthcare premiums have almost tripled since Obamacare went into effect.

A lot of our friends had their insurance that suited them very well cancelled because it didn't comply with some Obamacare regulation and they were forced into buying much more costly policies. I can't tell you how many people are refusing recommended procedures and tests because the deductibles and copays are so expensive. My husband and I have been among them.

Healthcare professionals have to plow through 2300 pages of the actual Obamacare legislation AND the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added on since it was voted into law.

You won't convince me that it made no difference in the quality of healthcare.

The Affordable Care Act isn’t magic -- it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people -- the healthy and wealthy -- to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses (like cancer patients) or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.

When I read an anecdote about a cancer patient who isn't getting the care they used to, or face a huge increase in expenses, under Obamacare, I have to be skeptical. People like that are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of health reform, thanks to community rating, which means that they can’t be discriminated against because of their condition or have rates that are higher.

When you said that you now are being confronted with unaffordable premiums. I must ask, what about the subsidies? Because the Affordable Care Act has subsidies that are there specifically to keep premiums affordable for people within 400% of the poverty level.

Seeing an increase in demand at urgent care centers is not a bug but a feature. Because more people have coverage, more people are using their coverage to set treatments.