Whither Obamacare?

[Jacob]

Before the GOP start actually governing with majorities in both houses and the presidency, what does languish expect to happen with health care?

Here's what I thought was a decent article on the options facing the GOP: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/repeal-and-delay-is-forever.html

[jimmy olsen]

Four or Five would seem the most likely outcomes. Voted five, they will replace it with something, almost certain to be much worse, but I think they will eventually replace it with something. 

[Eddie Teach]

They will repeal it and take away my Medicare to boot. 

That's my fear anyway. Bunch of Scrooges.

[CountDeMoney]

Why is this even a poll?

[jimmy olsen]

Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awareness.

Some Republicans appear to have convinced themselves they can muddle through the dilemma somehow. Congressional staffers tell Philip Klein, a staunch Obamacare critic, that they plan to repeal the law quickly, and then replace it not all at once but with a series of "legislative changes that could be enacted in a series of shorter bills ... for instance, one bill could theoretically be passed to address individuals with preexisting conditions." This plan is so laughably hopeless it's difficult to believe Republicans would attempt it. It's impossible to gauge the impact of one change to the health-care system without knowing what other changes will be enacted. None of the stakeholders in the health-care system is going to support any discrete changes that could dramatically alter their business models without knowing what other changes may or may not follow.

Preexisting conditions are an obvious example of this problem. If insurers will be required to provide below-cost plans to people with expensive medical needs, they need to know what other measures will be put in place to compensate them: Subsidies? Regulations on healthy customers? Hospitals need to know how many uninsured patients they should expect to show up in their emergency rooms. In particular, popular parts of health-care reform (like benefits people get) need to be attached to unpopular parts (like ways to pay for it). You can't address it in pieces. During the debate in Congress over health-care reform, Republicans ginned up a talking point about how reform should be done in small steps, but no serious person of any ideological perspective would construct a reform by passing

Blowing up Obamacare, and then bringing up a series of small bills in the hope that they add up to something decent is not a strategy. It's what Homer Simpson came up with when he faced a test he knew he couldn't pass. ("I've been working on a plan. During the exam, I'll hide under some coats, and hope that somehow everything will work out.")

This is exactly how Henry Clay passed the Compromise of 1850. He broke it down into five different bills and had them passed seperately. Now, Paul Ryan sure as hell isn't half the Speaker Henry Clay was, but that's the argument the author should be making, not this particular strategy is ridiculous.

[CountDeMoney]

Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awarness.

[Eddie Teach]

ridicolous.

Missed a spot. 

[jimmy olsen]

Also, this article is written by a clown with no historical awarness.

I missed a letter, big whoop, it's not the end of the world.

[MadImmortalMan]

They'll tweak it in ways that add significantly to the deficit, and then call it fixed.

[Eddie Teach]

ridicolous.

Missed a spot. 

Hell, I missed one too.

seperately.

[Jacob]

I missed a letter, big whoop, it's not the end of the world.

Neither is not referencing the actions of a politician in 1850 in the political context of 2017.

[celedhring]

They'll tweak it in ways that will screw people that need it, but that don't screw people that not need it, and declare it a victory.

[LaCroix]

whatever it is, they're not stripping away obamacare and leaving nothing left. I'm guessing rebrand with some minor changes and maybe a few major changes.

[Valmy]

This is exactly how Henry Clay passed the Compromise of 1850. He broke it down into five different bills and had them passed seperately. Now, Paul Ryan sure as hell isn't half the Speaker Henry Clay was, but that's the argument the author should be making, not this particular strategy is ridiculous.

That is how he passed it. It was originally designed as an entire package, each working together so it is not exactly like that at all.

And of course the Compromise of 1850 was a complete disaster.

[Valmy]

I predict that they will utterly fail in this area simply because they have no plan. Which is astounding since they have had seven years to come up with one.