Changing On Obamacare 'Repeal and Replace'?

[Kathianne]

WSJ is out on the 'change' being considered now, maybe tweaking Obamacare rather than repealing.

Trump is quoted as saying must keep:

1. pre-existing conditions rules
2. letting kids stay on until 26.


I do think that #1 should be part of the system. However, not #2. College coverage can be added if the student passes 22 and still hasn't graduated. The cost of that reflects the likelihood of someone that age regarding serious illnesses. It's not 'platinum coverage,' but affordable in true sense and does cover unexpected major illnesses.

In any case, this was the outcome of a bit of time with Obama, who admitted pushing for 'amending' his signature program, rather than repealing.

[NightTrain]

Those are the only 2 points of ACA that I like.

Toss the rest, IMO.

[Black Diamond]

26 is too long. These millennials need their cords cut.

[Kathianne]

Those are the only 2 points of ACA that I like.

Toss the rest, IMO.

The only reason for carrying kids past 18 is college or disabilities. Thus if not in college, they would qualify for insurance under medicaid. If in college they have coverage to 21, then if needed, can buy the college plan.

They need those premiums from the young and healthy, so that families aren't getting socked with the high premiums and deductibles.

OR there could be real reform of the sort I've been pushing for years.

[Black Diamond]

Complete repeal is difficult with the filibuster.

[Black Diamond]

Complete repeal is difficult with the filibuster.

What about reconciliation?

[Kathianne]

Complete repeal is difficult with the filibuster.

And why praytell should they allow the filibuster to stand?

[Black Diamond]

And why praytell should they allow the filibuster to stand?

Do they have a choice? I am not sure I follow.

[Kathianne]

Do they have a choice? I am not sure I follow.

Like Reid, they can do away with it. His plan for January was to also do away with it regarding SCOTUS nominations, the last firewall still in place. He assumed a Hillary win and Democrat Senate. He was wrong.

Can only do that as the majority with the Presidency, if the Democrats are in that position, they will do it. The Republicans should just go ahead now, while they have the chance.

This was but one of the reasons that the utter nonsense about 'Republican legislators were scumbags,' just didn't pass the reality test. There were reasons that Reid pulled that option and as he figured, most didn't notice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html


Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees By Paul Kane (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/paul-kane) November 21, 2013


Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.


Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.


The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.


In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

...

[NightTrain]

Complete repeal is difficult with the filibuster.

Yeah, there is no filibuster anymore unless we allowed it - and that's silly. Dirty Harry threw that out the window years ago.


Regarding the Age 26 rule... that's just what I'd like to be able to do for my kids.

I know I didn't have insurance until I was about 25 or so, and I can't imagine that things have changed that much. I'd like to have my kids covered under my insurance just for peace of mind in case something happens.

[Black Diamond]

Yeah, there is no filibuster anymore unless we allowed it - and that's silly. Dirty Harry threw that out the window years ago.


Regarding the Age 26 rule... that's just what I'd like to be able to do for my kids.

I know I didn't have insurance until I was about 25 or so, and I can't imagine that things have changed that much. I'd like to have my kids covered under my insurance just for peace of mind in case something happens.

Ok I'll chew on that for a while.

[Kathianne]

I'm only spouting my own opinion, but healthy 'kids' over 18 should be in school or working. Whether in college or trade school full time, they are covered under parents insurance and have been since I was in school when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.

If not in school, they should be working-btw, your insurance has always included a rider for the usual 3-6 months before insurance kicks in for new employees.

If they choose not to work or go to school, well that should be on the newly adult.

[Abbey Marie]

Those are the only 2 points of ACA that I like.

Toss the rest, IMO.

I tend to agree. We can tweak the exact age, but I definitely want to keep the pre-existing conditions proviso.

[Kathianne]

I tend to agree. We can tweak the exact age, but I definitely want to keep the pre-existing conditions proviso.

I think we all agree on the pre-existing conditions.

In any case, I still believe the whole idea of insurance being 'all-encompassing' is ridiculous and the primary cause of the prohibitive costs of healthcare. Much like the cost of college, there's no incentive to control costs. Not on the consumer or the provider-UNTIL, it becomes obvious that it's not sustainable.

Real reform is necessary and NO ONE I know of has put it forward.

[NightTrain]

I tend to agree. We can tweak the exact age, but I definitely want to keep the pre-existing conditions proviso.


Definitely the pre-existing. I've heard many horror stories about insurance companies screwing people left and right over that, legit or not.

Have I ever mentioned that I hate insurance companies? :laugh:


And Kath... yeah, I see your point. I could go either way on the kids thing.

[red states rule]

Complete repeal is difficult with the filibuster.

The nuclear option would fix that