Ray Jay wrote:I don't think there is a single Republican plan. There are varying viewpoints, some more cogent than others.

But I was responding to someone's post that Obamacare is a Republican plan. If Democrats passed it, they own it, for better or worse. They get the credit for the positives (as Freeman points out) and the blame for the negatives. I just don't like shifting blame as if Democrats passed something that they didn't want. No one forced Obamacare on the Democrats except themselves.

kidegan wrote:,the dems wanted a single payer system. if it works for people over 65,then why not everyone

It really makes little sense to formulate an "official GOP" plan before there is (at a minimum) a nominee

And the people who got cancellation notices last time didn’t necessarily end up in worse shape. On the contrary, a large percentage of the people with canceled policies became eligible either for Medicaid, which is basically free, or subsidized insurance, which cost much less than the old, unsubsidized policies. Exactly how many has been difficult to pin down, because the data on what people were paying before the change -- and what they were getting for that money -- is so spotty. But some of the best information available comes from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which surveyed people buying coverage in the new markets. Forty-six percent of respondents who’d lost non-compliant plans said they had found new policies that cost less, while another 15 percent said they found new policies that cost roughly the same. Just 39 percent -- a significant fraction, but still a minority -- ended up paying more.

By contrast, if the Supreme Court yanks tax credits in the states using healthcare.gov, then 100 percent of the people who were receiving that assistance will see their premiums go up. The increases will not be small. Calculations from the Kaiser Foundation suggest that, for people who now rely on tax credits, premiums would rise on average by $268 each month -- enough, again, to make the cost of maintaining coverage prohibitive.

And that, ultimately, is the biggest difference between the 2013 cancellations and what would happen, this summer, if the court strikes down subsidies in the healthcare.gov states. Two years ago, if you were one of those people who lost your coverage, you were still able to find an alternative. And thanks to the law’s regulations -- yes, the same ones that sometimes made coverage more expensive -- you at least knew that your new policy was comprehensive. It had to include all essential benefits, including mental health and prescription coverage. And it had to limit your out-of-pocket expenses. This summer, if the Supreme Court takes away your coverage, you'll end up with ... nothing. Just like that, you’ll go from the ranks of the safely insured to the ranks of the uninsured -- a far more drastic, and hazardous, transition than people experienced because of plan cancellations in 201

rickyp wrote:fate

It really makes little sense to formulate an "official GOP" plan before there is (at a minimum) a nominee

.

Not an important enough issue to be discussed by the Republican contenders for the position?

The most recent republican alternative was the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act.
Its been put forward as a "vision" and not a bill. The reason is that if it is tabled as a bill it becomes liable for analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. And that wouldn't be pretty.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/ ... native-all

In its April update, however, the CBO included a footnote, highlighted recently by Roll Call, noting that, “CBO and (the Joint Committee on Taxation) can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the (Affordable Care Act) that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues… Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the ACA is not possible.”

If Scotus rules against subsidies in the ACA next month, this will throw some 8 million people off insurance almost immediately. Shouldn't a responsible party, one that brought the law suits against the ACA that might cause the cancellations, have an alternative that will prevent the chaos that will ensue?

When the Supreme Court drops its big ObamaCare ruling this summer, Republican leaders say they will be fully ready to step in — even if it won’t be the party’s official replacement plan.

“We have to be prepared, by the time the ruling comes, to have something. Not months later,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters this week.

Ryan said he plans to have a bill ready — and priced by the Congressional Budget Office — by late June when a ruling for King v. Burwell is expected. The GOP-backed case, which threatens to erase people’s subsidies in about three-quarters of states, has tremendously high stakes.

“There are going to be 37 states immediately impacted, or presumably impacted, and that’s something that deserves an immediate response,” Ryan told reporters.

If you thinlk the ACA created disruption and chaios, what comes from eliminating the subsidies would be much worse..

A majority of physicians report that they have seen an increase in emergency visits since Obamacare went into effect, according to a new poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians.

According to the poll, 28 percent of respondents reported that the number of emergency room patients has “increased greatly,” and 47 percent responded that they have “increased slightly” since Obamacare went into effect on January 1, 2014.

Not what I said, but that's hardly a bulletin, is it? If you actually commented on what I said, well, you might be coherent.

“We have to be prepared, by the time the ruling comes, to have something. Not months later,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters this week

It really makes little sense to formulate an "official GOP" plan before there is (at a minimum) a nominee

rickyp wrote:The ACA will be an election issue, and there will need to be an Alternative that is more specific than whats been on offer. Perhaps the draft bill will be that, but none of the important committees have even held hearings on the bill.... so the legislative process may take longer than Ryan's stated requirement.

I hope this is true. I relish the idea of the election being based upon the ACA. From your typing fingers to God's eyes, RickyP

Ray Jay wrote:I don't think there is a single Republican plan. There are varying viewpoints, some more cogent than others.

But I was responding to someone's post that Obamacare is a Republican plan. If Democrats passed it, they own it, for better or worse. They get the credit for the positives (as Freeman points out) and the blame for the negatives. I just don't like shifting blame as if Democrats passed something that they didn't want. No one forced Obamacare on the Democrats except themselves.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Not what I said, but that's hardly a bulletin, is it? If you actually commented on what I said, well, you might be coherent.

What you said was that it made little sense...

You imply that it isn't politically expedient to address the issue until the republicans have a leader.

Which means you don't think it should be discussed in the campaign for leadership?

Which means that the necessity of governing takes a back seat to expedient posturing to the electorate.

“We have to be prepared, by the time the ruling comes, to have something. Not months later,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters this week

You think he'll be quoted if the subsidies are killed and the bill isn't ready for a vote? Will leadership candidates need to come down supporting the bill or having another option?

At any rate you've already proven to yourself that this original comment is contradicted by Paul Ryan and the existence of a draft bill.....

Fate

It really makes little sense to formulate an "official GOP" plan before there is (at a minimum) a nominee

The ACA will be an election issue, and there will need to be an Alternative that is more specific than whats been on offer. Perhaps the draft bill will be that, but none of the important committees have even held hearings on the bill.... so the legislative process may take longer than Ryan's stated requirement.

Perhaps the Republicans will show how people should do their own research on what a good policy is rather than learning what is in the policy after the policy is selected

Price, an orthopedic surgeon who in January took over the budget panel from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has been one of the leading voices on healthcare policy among Republicans.

His plan, an updated version of his "Empowering Patients First Act" released in the previous Congress, relies on a combination of tax credits and regulatory reforms meant to broaden access to health insurance and bring down costs without Obamacare. Its release is likely to reignite a debate on the right over whether such an approach goes far enough toward ushering in a market-based healthcare system.

The Price plan would start by fully repealing the text of Obamacare.

To assist individuals with the purchase of insurance in the absence of Obamacare's subsidies, it would provide refundable tax credits. In a change from Price's previous proposal, which adjusted the value of the credits based on the income level of the recipient, the new Price plan would adjust the value of the credits based on age. The credits would range from $1,200 for those between 18 to 35 and $3,000 for those over 50 – with an additional $900 credit per child up to age 18.

It would also provide individuals with a one-time $1,000 tax credit to put in a health savings account, from which individuals could pay for routine medical expenses that aren't covered by their insurance. The legislation would increase the contribution limits of HSAs to match limits on Individual Retirement Accounts.