I hope there is a good plan to replace ACA....

[WVex-pat in GA]

Safety net hospitals could lose $40 billion if ACA is repealed

A new analysis by America's Essential Hospitals found that hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients could collectively lose $40 billion in funding over the next decade if the Affordable Care Act is repealed without a comparable replacement. That amount represents lost coverage and cuts to Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding from 2018 through 2026.
The ACA called for those cuts because hospitals would have theoretically needed that funding less as more people gained coverage on the marketplaces and through Medicaid expansion. According to Modern Healthcare, “assuming Congress uses a repeal bill first introduced in 2015 that canceled cuts to Medicaid DSH payments, safety net hospitals would still experience a $16.8 billion loss over the same period because of lost individual coverage and the continuation of Medicare DSH cuts. For hospitals that often have very thin margins, the loss in funds could be a major blow.”

 

[WVUBRU]

There isn't a plan. Just a bunch of partisan whining for the past 8 years from brainwashed idiots.

 

[TarHeelEer]

There isn't a plan. Just a bunch of partisan whining for the past 8 years from brainwashed idiots.

But yet what was put in is unaffordable and unsustainable. Let's just pass something to see what's in it again.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

There isn't a plan. Just a bunch of partisan whining for the past 8 years from brainwashed idiots.

This should be a non-partisan issue. There is a law on the books, whether good or bad. If you repeal that law there are consequences, they are outlined in the OP. There needs to be a PLAN. I want to know what it will be to avoid situations described above.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

But yet what was put in is unaffordable and unsustainable. Let's just pass something to see what's in it again.

Well the right had many years to come up with something realistic to replace it with. Looks like they didn't even have a plan ...

 

[op2]

They're going to change the ACA and the official named will be "Changed ACA," or CACA for short.

 

[moe]

"Insurance for everyone" - DJT

 

[bornaneer]

This should be a non-partisan issue. There is a law on the books, whether good or bad. If you repeal that law there are consequences, they are outlined in the OP. There needs to be a PLAN. I want to know what it will be to avoid situations described above.

Da Plan.....Da Plan

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Da Plan.....Da Plan

If only that would work.

 

[mneilmont]

Safety net hospitals could lose $40 billion if ACA is repealed

A new analysis by America's Essential Hospitals found that hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients could collectively lose $40 billion in funding over the next decade if the Affordable Care Act is repealed without a comparable replacement. That amount represents lost coverage and cuts to Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding from 2018 through 2026.
The ACA called for those cuts because hospitals would have theoretically needed that funding less as more people gained coverage on the marketplaces and through Medicaid expansion. According to Modern Healthcare, “assuming Congress uses a repeal bill first introduced in 2015 that canceled cuts to Medicaid DSH payments, safety net hospitals would still experience a $16.8 billion loss over the same period because of lost individual coverage and the continuation of Medicare DSH cuts. For hospitals that often have very thin margins, the loss in funds could be a major blow.”

That is a hell of a predicament to be in. It was earlier reported that hundreds of small rural facilities would be forced to close when govt restricts payment for medicare/Medicaid to a very small number in states. They will only remit to the facilities who who will negotiate price with government. Looks like be damned if you do or don't situation. A lot of rural hospitals are going broke for lack of clients or by govt paying less than cost to those who dare accept their prices for fees.

Obama(care) created a real *****. The reason for the plan was to cover 40 million uncovered at lower cost and refund $2500 per subscriber for annual reduction in premium. We still have 32 million who are without insurance. Trillions added to premium cost to cover 8 million of the 40 million who were without insurance prior to Obama(care).

Would country not have been better off if taxpayer would have paid bill for all of the 8 million when they sought service? For such a relatively small number to receive coverage, someone has put our country through an excessive amount of pain. Also provide service for those with pre-existing. A blind child could have come up with a workable plan that would not have caused the pain and agony we have been through and it will take years to get this settled to where the majority will be content..

 

[PriddyBoy]

This should be a non-partisan issue. There is a law on the books, whether good or bad. If you repeal that law there are consequences, they are outlined in the OP. There needs to be a PLAN. I want to know what it will be to avoid situations described above.

Agree. It should be a non-partisan issue. It's on the books and it's BAD. Dems are defending it, telling the Reps it's their baby now. The Reps came in with at least six different plans. I think they were waiting for President Clinton. Whatever, Congress needs to get their asses together and fix this turd. Capital Hill is where the protest should be and the message should be GET TO WORK.

 

[WVUBRU]

You guys must mean it needs to be a bi-partisan issue. Health care will never be a non-partisan issue. Too much money and lobbying with too many different lines of thought for that.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Would country not have been better off if taxpayer would have paid bill for all of the 8 million when they sought service? For such a relatively small number to receive coverage, someone has put our country through an excessive amount of pain. Also provide service for those with pre-existing. A blind child could have come up with a workable plan that would not have caused the pain and agony we have been through and it will take years to get this settled to where the majority will be content..

You're almost advocating a single-payer system, which everyone (except Bernie) is against. One of the problems is that you have multiple types of hospitals in the U.S.; not-for-profit community based, for-profit community based, specialty hospitals, safety net hospitals, etc. The way we handle hospitals is part of the problem.

Many hospital systems are consolidating because of this very issue, but it is primarily in metropolitan areas. Rural hospitals are really taking the hit because of the uninsured. Rural hospital closure rates are in the multiples compared to urban areas.

 

[PriddyBoy]

You guys must mean it needs to be a bi-partisan issue. Health care will never be a non-partisan issue. Too much money and lobbying with too many different lines of thought for that.

I see the two phrases meaning the same thing. We're not writing legal documents here, just having discussions. Wow, you're picky.

 

[WVUBRU]

I see the two phrases meaning the same thing. We're not writing legal documents here, just having discussions. Wow, you're picky.

I don't think they mean the same thing at all. But whatever.....

 

[dave]

This should be a non-partisan issue. There is a law on the books, whether good or bad. If you repeal that law there are consequences, they are outlined in the OP. There needs to be a PLAN. I want to know what it will be to avoid situations described above.

Funny how much has changed. When the law was passed the rhetoric was "it is better to do something than nothing" and "republicans cant complain if they don't like it because they had a chance to do something and didn't."

Now that the GOP is going to do something this is all of the sudden non-partisan and we can't repeal it without looking out for people who may lose. Who was looking out for the American people when this Obamacare horseshit was proposed, passed and on the road to failure?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Funny how much has changed. When the law was passed the rhetoric was "it is better to do something than nothing" and "republicans cant complain if they don't like it because they had a chance to do something and didn't."

Now that the GOP is going to do something this is all of the sudden non-partisan and we can't repeal it without looking out for people who may lose. Who was looking out for the American people when this Obamacare horseshit was proposed, passed and on the road to failure?

Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”

Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html

This was in 1972 and you can google the actual document, it's out there on the web. Very similar to Obamacare. So the Republicans have had a framework to build on for over 45 years with nothing to come of it.

 

[PriddyBoy]

I don't think they mean the same thing at all. But whatever.....

I guess I'm looking at them both as not being partisan. But whatever.....

 

[mneilmont]

Don't you think it would be better to just tear the damned thing up and start again. Restore us to where we were and start again the way it was supposed to work - bipartisan. Two reasonable groups sit down and work it out - step by step. Place to start would be do we need to have a plan or a menu - go from there. If there is agreement that something is needed, go from there. We have seen what no plan works like, and we have seen what a bad plan looks like. If it is in The Don's realm, allow him to facilitate. We are in a ****** mess right now. If we make a Republican only plan, I am convinced it will be as fuked up and equally received.

Can we choose our own with US underwriting a major medical. Allow everyone to have what they want to pay for in ever day care. Majors should not cause death nor bankruptcy, both of which would cost the public.

 

[PriddyBoy]

Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”

Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html

This was in 1972 and you can google the actual document, it's out there on the web. Very similar to Obamacare. So the Republicans have had a framework to build on for over 45 years with nothing to come of it.

IMO, 1972 would have been too early for such a thing. Hell, George McGovern lost in part because of his crazy commie plan to give everyone $100.00. Nowadays it's F the people, we're politicians and we're going to fight to stay in the Beltway.

 

[dave]

Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”

Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html

This was in 1972 and you can google the actual document, it's out there on the web. Very similar to Obamacare. So the Republicans have had a framework to build on for over 45 years with nothing to come of it.

I have no idea how that is relevant or why.

 

[mule_eer]

I'll wait for the proposed plan before I grouse about replacing ACA. That was theoretically sound, but not realistic. It's based on large pools including lots of healthy people bringing down average cost which brings rates down. Insurers used to be able to drop their most expensive insured people, and that was a former of rate control. Trump has stated that he likes that part of the ACA, so that's not a way to hept costs to consumers. Crossing state lines will help larger and healthier population states. It won't help WV. The cost of setting up a network won't be worth the gain.

I suspect we'll see something with varying risk pools. It will keep average cost down for most people. I'm not sure how you manage moving people from one pool to another though. I also suspect they'll open it up to crossing state lines, but I think that has a negligible effect on costs based on the reasoning in the previous paragraph.

I'm not married to the ACA. I think something else can work. I think you also have to address the costs of health care though, and that's an even more difficult problem to solve.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

You guys must mean it needs to be a bi-partisan issue. Health care will never be a non-partisan issue. Too much money and lobbying with too many different lines of thought for that.

Just let the big boys fix another of Obama's mess. You just STFU once in your life. How's the golf game? [poop]'ty.

 

[mneilmont]

Just let the big boys fix another of Obama's mess. You just STFU once in your life. How's the golf game? [poop]'ty.

Another super liberal thought that medical insurance coverage is a right given by someone. It is actually each individual's obligation to get the coverage they want and can afford. Also free people are not required to have coverage. That was another Obama(care) gift to free people.