Whither Obamacare?

[Jacob]

The poll needs more options.

They will repeal and replace with something that decreases coverage and increases costs.

That's this one: They'll repeal it with a replacement that screws over some people, but still covers some people significantly and call that an improvement.

[Jacob]

Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

[viper37]

Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

No, but I was thinking the same, that these cuts in healthcare are a very good way to cull the poor from society.
Since there is a surplus of workers due to automation of plants, all of them dying earlier due to lack of proper healthcare will help get better unemployement numbers.

They're hoping for this, I'm pretty sure.

[CountDeMoney]

Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

Awesome!
But how much is that going to be offset by the increased birth rates in certain demographics by doing things like defunding Planned Parenthood and other pro-choicdz family programs?

[viper37]

Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

Awesome!
But how much is that going to be offset by the increased birth rates in certain demographics by doing things like defunding Planned Parenthood and other pro-choicdz family programs?

don't worry, they'll shoot each other long before they reach social security.

[Jacob]

Awesome!
But how much is that going to be offset by the increased birth rates in certain demographics by doing things like defunding Planned Parenthood and other pro-choicdz family programs?

More free labour for the slave plantations prison corporations.

[The Minsky Moment]

Did you all see how the CBO projected $3 Billion in Social Security savings from people dying earlier than previously projected due to lack of health care?

WAD

[Zanza]

Fewer Americans Would Be Insured With G.O.P. Plan Than With Simple Repeal

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place.

That loss was bigger than most experts anticipated, and led to a round of predictable laments from congressional Democrats — and less predictable ones from Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota, who told reporters that the bill needed to be "more helpful" to low-income people who wanted insurance.

But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Obamacare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Obamacare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance, according to another recent C.B.O. report. In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to C.B.O. estimates.

The best healthcare law in the world. 

[MadImmortalMan]

So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

[The Minsky Moment]

So they aren't able to get the cross-state thing in it.

Question: What is bad about being able to buy insurance across state lines?

There's nothing bad about it.  But it won't do much of anything anyways.  An insurer still has to set up a whole local network to get business.

[CountDeMoney]

Different states have different laws regarding the regulation of insurance;  it's an industry that is heavily regulated on the state level, not just health but all lines. Medicare is one thing, but for-profit carriers is another.

[derspiess]

Fewer Americans Would Be Insured With G.O.P. Plan Than With Simple Repeal

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place.

That loss was bigger than most experts anticipated, and led to a round of predictable laments from congressional Democrats — and less predictable ones from Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota, who told reporters that the bill needed to be "more helpful" to low-income people who wanted insurance.

But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Obamacare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Obamacare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance, according to another recent C.B.O. report. In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to C.B.O. estimates.

The best healthcare law in the world. 

Simple repeal it is, then!

[MadImmortalMan]

That's a lot like banking then. We're preventing health insurance companies from becoming monoliths, but at the cost of some of them being effectively local monopolies.

I've been wondering why there is so little support for that in congress.

[CountDeMoney]

That's a lot like banking then. We're preventing health insurance companies from becoming monoliths, but at the cost of some of them being effectively local monopolies.

I've been wondering why there is so little support for that in congress.

Don't let these healthcare insurers fool you; they are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying out claims.  United Health pulled out of the exchanges because they saw their profit margin shrink with the additional coverage, despite absolutely obscene profits in their other lines of business; Aetna pulls out of state exchanges like a petulant child because the Obama DOJ shit on their mega-merger with Humana.
All the bullshit the GOP is shoveling about states losing providers, well, that's an active business decision. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Different states have different laws regarding the regulation of insurance;  it's an industry that is heavily regulated on the state level, not just health but all lines. Medicare is one thing, but for-profit carriers is another.

That's part of it - the Feds could pre-empt a lot of that in theory if they will willing to go after the sacred cow of McCarran-Ferguson.

But that would still mean that anyone wanting to offer insurance in say NY, would still have to sign up New York hospitals and New York providers in their network and deal with prevailing rates and costs in New York, and deal with whatever demographics that exist in NY.  So e.g. a cheap Utah insurer is still going to find itself charging more to NY buyers.