Should the GOP plan to repeal Obamacare (and replace it with something...maybe...eventually) be generalized?

No, you say it 9 more times.

"Four legs good, two legs bad!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

You don't seem to comprehend having 9 plans or 18 plans or 572 plans  to eventually maybe someday replace Obamacare does NOTHING to change the fundamental logic of the situation (and the premise of my question).

If you prefer mindless slogan chanting to Type 2 cognition/formal operations, I recommend you stick to the classics...;-D....

Your question implies that they will repeal OC and replace it someday. President Trump has made it clear he wants no delay in coverage, he wants a seamless transition. 

How? 

He has stated it. How? By writing the new healthcare plan so it going in effect immediately. Just like my car insurance, my policy ends every year at July 31 at 12:01 am. My new policy begins at July 31 at 12:01am.....See a seamless transition from the old policy to the new one.

@m2c  -- Among your numerous cognitive failures appears to be a willingness to believe anything Der Pumpkinfurher says will be translated into action, when the empirical evidence suggests such congruence is rare, not common.

Bleating, "four legs good, two legs bad"...er, "repeal and replace" doesn't make it so. ACTUAL LEGISLATION makes it so. So far, the ACTUAL LEGISLATION has been heavy on the repeal and VERY light on the replace.

@Excon -- You are preaching to the choir.

I have personally been there. Prior to health care reform when I last tried to purchase health insurance on the private individual market, I could not find ANY insurer who would cover me for ANY price. Thankfully, I had some savings then which I was able to tap into to cover my relatively modest medical care expenses during that period.

Over the past couple of years, I've been covered by Medicaid which, thankfully again, covered my greater medical care needs (esp. complications due to kidney stones).

Naturally, the first pillar of the GOP plan to "replace Obamacare" is to cut Medicaid spending by 1/4 to 1/3 and covert the money to block grants to the states. So, instead of saying "Get people medical care. We'll help you pay for it", the feds are telling the states "Here's how much money you get. You figure it out."

Gotta love those RWAMs. They're all heart...;-D...

http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-block-grant-would-slash-federal-funding-shift-costs-to-states-and-leave

Hello again, OS:

Yes..  Let's hope we're not just conversing among ourselves..  I hear Trump reads AM, though. 

So, under the Republican plan, if you live in, say Louisiana, and you get cancer, you're gonna DIE in the street..  But, if you live in, say San Francisco, you'll get treatment.

That sounds like a WONDERFUL system..

excon This post was edited by excon at January 24, 2017 10:00 AM MST

It IS a wonderful system...for retaining GOP hold on political power.

I recently saw an article (which I wish I had bookmarked) featuring interal GOP communications during the period leading up to the ACA's passage. It was clear from their communications that whether health care reform would be effective or not was beside the point.

For them, the point was no (Democrat-led) health care reform plan could be ALLOWED to succeed, because if it did succeed, then people would be grateful to the Democratic Party for making the health care system work better, which would cost the GOP votes.

There's a reason I'm hard on right wing authoritarian Fs.

Bravo! I hadn't thought about that angle.

Yet another useful application of this brilliant RWAM principle...;-D...

Just in time for Trump's reelection campaign...;-D...

I finally have a purpose.  

Dear Lord,
I ask nothing more than to honor you and Trump by being part of a sandwich eaten by Der Orangepig to fortify his worthy bloated body to rule for as long as he shall live. 

Sieg Heil and let's eat!



https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&p=cabaret+my+heart+belongs+to+you+youtube#id=4&vid=920580b6f8061117234d472ad5cc0ade&action=click This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at January 24, 2017 9:08 AM MST

@S and RP -- Nope, Medicaid is going to suck, too...;-D...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-health-plan-medicaid.html

Remember when all the RWAMs were whining how health care reform would result in "rationing?" Funny, I don't hear nearly as much complaining this time around even though rationing will be an inevitable consequence of block grants.

I can see your concern from that article as it would affect you directly (you did say in a previous post that you're insured under Medicaid coverage where you live but please correct me if that's wrong.) 

But right now many people I know would be tickled to death to have that Medicaid coverage. That's because the insurance plans under the PPACA coddle those that won't, or can't work but severely punish those that do endeavor at a gainful employment pursuit. 

For example, the best plans have, at face value, a $2,500 deductible for "in network" providers and another $2,500 deductible for out-of-network providers. (If you think every provider you see in an office or hospital participates in your plan then I have a bridge in New York I think you might be interested in buying.) And that's per person, not for a family. And that comes with a monthly premium of somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000 or more per month. When you consider that the vast majority of people don't use $5,000 worth of healthcare annually, the coverage ends up being only for a catastrophic event (less painful at the beginning of the year but terrible if something happens that requires treatment bridging two years, or more. So that comes to $24,000/year for insurance that's pretty much useless unless something major happens. As a contrast before the PPACA I was paying quite a bit less than that for a "Cadillac" plan that had a $250-person/$750-family deductible that really did cover everything, including drugs.) 
 
And did I mention that if that major event happens to the family breadwinner and that person can no longer work then the premium payments will likely have to stop and the coverage will be canceled at the end of the first or second month of illness. Then that family is looking at bankruptcy at that point anyhow. All that money that they paid for insurance is just a gigantic financial burden that they didn't need on top of their other financial burdens.

Of course that's of no consequence to the Medicaid portion of the PPACA. Those people get a big stipend from the government to "pay" for their coverage. And that's on the backs of the people that are trying to work and do the right thing. Funny how that works, isn't it. 

@S and RP -- I agree. Some people got screwed by the ACA. Which is why I advocate for a public utility model for health care coverage. Everyone participates in the "insurance pool" via taxation. Everyone benefits regardless of ability to pay. Everyone saves because the public utility model eliminates the profit-seeker/care-denier class from the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire#UnitedHealth

But, of course, that's TEH EBIL SOCIALISM, so RWAMs would rather people die in the street and pay health company executives multimillion dollar salaries then actually provide people health care.

@Peapod -- No, that couldn't possibly work. After all, we don't run our police, our courts, our fire departments, our roads, our parks, our canals and ports, our energy/water/sewage utilities, or anything else like that.

Oh, wait!...;-D...

Why, our very own Veterans Administration is a shining example to the success of such a system. And if you don't think that's a good example look at where the healthcare system is right now in, say,Venezuela. A real crackerjack of an idea, or maybe not . . . 

@S and RP -- No, the VA is shining example of what happens when we try to provide health care to selected high-risk segment of the population instead of averaging their costs with the young/healthy/lucky.

If someone tried to run an auto insurance company whose clientele consisted entirely of drunks, demented elderly, and people with mulitple at-fault accidents in their driving records, would you be surprised if the company struggled to keep costs in check while servicing its clients? Of course not.

Meanwhile, you bringing up Venezuela, that's just you yelling, "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!" in dog-whistle code.

Per the World Health Organization, the best health care systems in the world:


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan

37 USA

54 Venezuela

If you're complaint is the US health care system is much closer to Venezuela's than France's, despite spending about double the world average per capita on health care, then we're in agreement. But, as noted above, I suspect your motive lays elsewhere.