For Trump and GOP, 'Obamacare' repeal is complex and risky

[webfact]

For Trump and GOP, 'Obamacare' repeal is complex and risky

By ALAN FRAM

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Here's the idea: Swiftly pass a repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law, perhaps soon enough for Donald Trump to sign it the day he takes the presidential oath. Then approve legislation restructuring the nation's huge and convoluted health care system — despite Republican divisions, Democratic opposition and millions of jittery constituents.

 

What could go wrong?

 

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress in January, they're faced with delivering on their long-time promise to repeal and replace "Obamacare." Here are hurdles they'll face:

___

SPEED VS DELIBERATION

Trump and congressional Republicans will be under intense pressure from their core conservative supporters to repeal Obama's 2010 health care law — and fast. After all, Congress already sent Obama a repeal bill last January, which he vetoed, and many GOP voters will see no reason for delays this time.

 

But there probably won't be anything fast about this process, which is likely to take at least months.

 

While the replacement effort is underway, Republicans will risk aggravating up to 30 million people who are covered by the law or buy policies with prices affected by its insurance marketplace. Democrats will be sure to accuse the GOP of threatening the health care of millions.

___

A SOLUTION

Nothing's been decided, but here's one likely scenario:(backslash).

 

The new Congress, which convenes Jan. 3, tries to quickly approve legislation repealing Obama's health care law, maybe completing it by Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration or soon after. But the repeal would not take effect until the future, perhaps a year later, to give lawmakers time to fashion a replacement. The version Obama vetoed had a two-year delay.

 

Seemingly acknowledging that two-step process, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday on "Fox News Sunday" that Trump "wants to focus out of the gate on repealing Obamacare and beginning the process of replacing Obamacare."

 

Because Republicans will control the Senate by just 52-48, Congress will first have to approve special budget procedures to prevent Democrats from stopping repeal legislation by filibuster. Bill-killing filibusters require 60 votes to end.

 

But those special rules would apply only to items that affect the federal budget. Republicans, for example, would need a simple Senate majority to end IRS penalties against people who don't buy insurance but would still need 60 votes — requiring Democratic support — for other changes such as raising limits on older people's premiums.

 

House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., says that will restrain Republicans' ability to ram a "lock, stock and barrel" repeal through Congress.

___

GOP RISKS

One GOP danger: Congress and Trump might repeal Obama's law, but while they're laboring on a replacement, nervous insurance companies begin pulling out of markets and raising premiums. Insurers have been doing that under Obama, but now it would occur under a Republican government.

 

Another hazard: Congress' work could spill into the 2018 campaign season, when the entire House and a third of the Senate face re-election. Republicans will grow increasingly timid about anything that might anger voters.

 

"We want to be the rescue party instead of the party that pushes millions of Americans who are hanging by the edge of their fingernails over the cliff," says Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who chairs the Senate Health committee.

___

GOP PATHWAYS

Virtually all Republicans want to get rid of the health law's mandates that individuals buy coverage or risk IRS fines, and that large employers insure workers.

 

They also want to erase taxes on higher-earning people and the health care sector. And they'd like to retain parts of the law guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing medical problems and keeping children under age 26 on family plans.

 

Unifying Republicans much beyond that is a work in progress.

 

Trump's health care views have varied and lack detail. His campaign website touts tax deductions for health insurance premiums and permitting policies to be sold across state lines. He'd also revamp Medicaid, which subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, directing fixed amounts of money to states and letting them structure benefits.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., last summer unveiled an outline of the House GOP's solution, though it lacked cost estimates and details. It would provide tax credits, impose taxes on the most generous employer-provided health care plans, revamp Medicaid and let Medicare beneficiaries pick private plans instead of today's fee-for-service coverage.

 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also advanced a framework relying heavily on tax credits.

___

REMAINING QUESTIONS

Thirty-one states — including Pence's Indiana, where he is governor — plus the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid coverage to 9 million additional people under Obama's law. Curtailing that program will divide Republicans.

 

Taxing the value of some employer-provided health plans, aimed at curbing the growth of costs, is "a political land mine," says GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Republicans have long resisted tax increases.

 

Obama's law mandates coverage for individuals because without that requirement many healthy people would forgo policies, driving up costs for everyone else and destabilizing insurance markets. Ryan has proposed shielding people from higher premiums if they've had "continuous coverage," allowing higher rates for people who have not had policies, but Republicans have yet to decide how to keep insurance markets viable.

___

AP reporters Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-22

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

But those special rules would apply only to items that affect the federal budget. Republicans, for example, would need a simple Senate majority to end IRS penalties against people who don't buy insurance but would still need 60 votes — requiring Democratic support — for other changes such as raising limits on older people's premiums.

 

The requirement that all Americans have to pay into private corporations with no choice as consumers or be breaking the law goes against American principles. 

 

This section needs to be repealed immediately. 

 

The burden of supporting the high costs of the Marketplace should have been spread out amongst all the insured and not just the few young and healthy people.

[connda]

Obamacare is about lining the pockets of corporations in the healthcare and insurance businesses and has nothing to do with developing a system of universal healthcare for the benefit of the citizenry.  The citizenry are there to have their wealth harvested.  Incredibly bad system.  Republicans won't want to scrap it because their corporate sponsors want a system in place that benefits corporations and harvests that wealth of a captive audience.  The congressmen and sentors don't care.  They don't have Obamacare.  They have top-notch health care plans that no mere citizen is afforded.  If the legislations is rolled back it will be replaced with legislation that is equally as bad.   As it stands now, unless you are rich or very poor (i.e., if you're middle class) and don't have insurance through an employer, you're one bad illness or accident away from bankruptcy if the premiums don't put you in poverty first. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by connda

[JKfarang]

I am one of the lucky few who are not currently affected by The Affordable Care Act (i.e. "Obamacare") because I have health insurance in the US covered by my former employer.  So I know very little about the details.  However, in my opinion, the primary problem is the out-of-control cost of health care in the US which continues to increase 8 - 12% annually.  The US health care system has adopted a "profit above all else" model which is not sustainable and eventually will only be affordable by the wealthy.  At the same time, the overall quality of care in the US has diminished.

 

Until something significant is done to not only control but actually decrease the cost of health care and prescription drugs in the US, no system of coverage will be effective for American society as a whole.  But, unfortunately, that would require (among other things) getting the special interest lobbyists out of Washington DC.  And that's not going to happen.  The US Congress will make sure of it.

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Obamacare is about lining the pockets of corporations in the healthcare and insurance businesses and has nothing to do with developing a system of universal healthcare for the benefit of the citizenry.  The citizenry are there to have their wealth harvested.  Incredibly bad system.  Republicans won't want to scrap it because their corporate sponsors want a system in place that benefits corporations and harvests that wealth of a captive audience.  The congressmen and sentors don't care.  They don't have Obamacare.  They have top-notch health care plans that no mere citizen is afforded.  If the legislations is rolled back it will be replaced with legislation that is equally as bad.   As it stands now, unless you are rich or very poor (i.e., if you're middle class) and don't have insurance through an employer, you're one bad illness or accident away from bankruptcy if the premiums don't put you in poverty first. 

And how did the system prior to Obama care for those who were middle class with no insurance from employer work?

[Jingthing]

Yes, I agree. It is complex and risky.

There will be some people (and corporations) helped by any changes and other hurt, just as there were by passing the law.

The republicans don't have anything close to a viable replacement plan. They kept screaming about repeal for several years (and absurdly voting to repeal a ridiculous number of times it knowing they couldn't actually do so under Obama) and didn't really expect to ever OWN the replacement details.

Now they do.

Good luck. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[dunroaming]

It's easy to shout about changing the system because it is rubbish when you are pitching for an election.  You can promise wonderful solutions and make it sound fantastic.  Then the unthinkable happens and you actually win (never thought that could happen duh!) and you have to follow it through.

 

Very similar to the Brexit boys who promised so much but so far have delivered nothing at all and they haven't got a clue of how to deliver anything they said they would.

 

At the moment there is a lot of hope that Trump will deliver and I think he will on certain issues. The question is whether he will screw everything up through his naivety and twisted views of what is good for the USA.

[ClutchClark]

20 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

It's easy to shout about changing the system because it is rubbish when you are pitching for an election.  You can promise wonderful solutions and make it sound fantastic.  Then the unthinkable happens and you actually win (never thought that could happen duh!) and you have to follow it through.

 

Very similar to the Brexit boys who promised so much but so far have delivered nothing at all and they haven't got a clue of how to deliver anything they said they would.

 

At the moment there is a lot of hope that Trump will deliver and I think he will on certain issues. The question is whether he will screw everything up through his naivety and twisted views of what is good for the USA.

 

Dun,

 

I hope we are all old enough here to know that campaign promises belong in the same basket as:

 

"The check is in the mail."

and my favorite,

"I am from the government and I am here to help you."   

 

But I will agree that Trumps promises were like everything else from him--Larger than Life. 

 

My vote for Trump was not really about what he was going to do for me. My vote was to stop Hillary from doing what she was going to do to me and what Obama had already done to me. 

 

Your last paragraph is a valid concern most definitely but I am confident that he is now being handled by the GOP and they understand how the game is played and will prevent Trump's impulses just like they will prevent him from keeping some promises. They are, after all, part of the same swamp as Hillary/Obama and have much at stake. 

 

I think gwb/cheney/rumsfeld will prove to have been far more dangerous to the US and the world than Trump will be.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, JKfarang said:

I am one of the lucky few who are not currently affected by The Affordable Care Act (i.e. "Obamacare") because I have health insurance in the US covered by my former employer.  So I know very little about the details.  However, in my opinion, the primary problem is the out-of-control cost of health care in the US which continues to increase 8 - 12% annually.  The US health care system has adopted a "profit above all else" model which is not sustainable and eventually will only be affordable by the wealthy.  At the same time, the overall quality of care in the US has diminished.

 

Until something significant is done to not only control but actually decrease the cost of health care and prescription drugs in the US, no system of coverage will be effective for American society as a whole.  But, unfortunately, that would require (among other things) getting the special interest lobbyists out of Washington DC.  And that's not going to happen.  The US Congress will make sure of it.

Yes, people that get insurance from employers wouldn't have any reason to care very much about the details for others, unless they are concerned about losing that.

 

Here's a very rough overview of the situation according to my understanding, which is fairly informed.

 

-- The majority of Americans get their health insurance from employers

-- Americans over 65 get health insurance via the government program of Medicare and they also need to buy supplemental insurance

-- The poorest Americans are on traditional Medicaid, or at least they're eligible to apply (many don't because they're homeless, distressed, don't know how)

-- A step up from the poorest are eligible for EXPANDED Medicaid which came into effect under Obamacare. 

The big nightmare about this is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare law couldn't require all states to offer EXPANDED Medicaid, and generally most of the states under republican control (most of them) didn't for various reasons, including political reasons to help kill Obamacare by not making it work as designed. 

So state residents of those states, not poor enough for Medicaid, and not enough income for the lowest level of "regular" private Obamacare program insurance don't have any realistic insurance options, as generally they would not be able to afford full retail (no subsidy) "regular" Obamacare (as they're very low income people). 

So what is "regular" Obamacare? In all 50 states people with income's high enough to be eligible (see the GAP mentioned before if lower) can buy into private health insurance, with the cost dependent on the class of insurance they buy and also very importantly their SUBSIDY level. So low income people that have enough income to be able to use the program, would have attractively low rates (but relative to their low income, still a hit). People making income over the subsidy level pay full retail.

 

The program depends on very wide participation, because under Obamacare, which was a radical and wonderful change, people with PREEXISTING conditions were able to buy health insurance. Before Obamacare, people were either entirely blocked out from buying any such insurance or if "lucky" offered absurdly high premium high risk policies (depending on health history).

 

After Obamacare, that went away. Preexisting conditions not considered at all.

Another controversial aspect of Obamacare is that older age people (under 65) are not penalized with higher rates that truly reflect the higher cost older people have as far as using health care services. This basically means healthier younger people are "overcharged" relative to their average usage.

 

The entire FINANCE of the regular Obamacare program totally depended on very wide participation from all kinds of people, including the young and healthy. This was done by having a government MANDATE to have insurance, or face financial penalties for not having it. Unfortunately, that has not worked very well. Many younger and healthier people made the rational economic decision that they willing to take the risk of not having insurance and just pay the penalty. Because the penalties are not very high. Higher penalties would have greatly reduced that problem but of course that would have been politically impossible.

 

The plot thickens when trump says he wants to keep the preexisting condition Obamacare change AND kill mandates and penalties. That simply does not even begin to add up financially. 

 

His ideas of selling insurance across state lines is widely analyzed as not being significant. His idea of healthcare savings accounts would benefit WEALTHIER people. Poorer people don't have tax issues like that. 

 

There is chatter that his plan to cover sick people is to do block state Medicaid grants. Well, generally analysts say that is very inefficient and of course as stated regular Medicaid eligibility is only for the poorest of the poor. It would leave many millions of American out in the cold.  (See the details above.)

 

Also to add trump has previously stated he was open to Americans being able to import lower cost meds from abroad but has backed of that entirely for trade protection reasons. That would have helped a lot of people lower their personal costs, but like I said, he changed his mind.

 

So I hope you get an idea of the problem's the republicans have now. IF they are seriously going to take care of the people currently benefiting from expanded Medicaid and subsidized Obamacare, and also kill the mandates, kill the subsidies (which is implicit to killing Obamacare), kill the non-compliance penalties, then they're really going to have to come up with a plan that nobody knows about yet. Because, basically what they're promising is simply not possible.

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, Grubster said:

And how did the system prior to Obama care for those who were middle class with no insurance from employer work?

 

Actually insurance premiums were about a third what they are today and deductables were about 1/4 or 1/5 what they are today based on what some of my kids and grandkids pay on the marketplace (self-employed small business owners) and the report is CO will see more than a 20% increase for ACA policy holders for 2017 which is better than seversl states that are destined for 50% (IL and a few others). 

 

Ofcourse, there was the downside to pre-existing conditions before ACA and insurers could drop you for making too many claims...obviously these are improvements. 

 

But nowadays the ACA is basically only catastrophic insurance unless you qualify for the subsidies by having a very low income.

 

Consensus amongst the working Americans I know who get their insurance from the State marketplace is they were better off before the ACA. I would add these people are not receiving subsidies.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[dunroaming]

17 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

I hope we are all old enough here to know that campaign promises belong in the same basket as:

 

"The check is in the mail."

and my favorite,

"I am from the government and I am here to help you."

 

I think that we are grown up enough to recognise that, but from all the chanting and frenzy at the Trump rallies it seems many of his supporters swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker.

[Jingthing]

I'm quite pleased this thread has been started. It's very important to many Americans and I expect this isn't going to be any kind of quick fix story. I predict the messiness about these changes will last for years. Which will of course, add to the uncertainty to everyone involved, the Americans out of Medicare, regular Medicaid, and employer based plans, the entire health care industry (HUGE!), and of course the entire health care insurance industry (also HUGE!). So the republicans own this now. It's going to be interesting. 

[ClutchClark]

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The program depends on very wide participation, because under Obamacare, which was a radical and wonderful change, people with PREEXISTING conditions were able to buy health insurance. Before Obamacare, people were either entirely blocked out from buying any such insurance or if "lucky" offered absurdly high premium high risk policies (depending on health history).

 

JT,

 

Without a doubt the best post I have ever read from you. Perhaps the first absent the usual partisanship. You have a very good understanding of the ACA with a few "possible" exceptions. 

 

In the old pre-ACA policies a pre-existing condition did not prevent someone from getting insurance, it only meant an exemption for that condition for a specific period of time after a policy was initiated. I never saw an exemption for more than 24 months at which time the pre-existing condition would then be covered.

 

I will say that each state determined its own insurance guidelines so that may not have been universal.

 

i just lost the rest of your quote.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

I think that we are grown up enough to recognise that, but from all the chanting and frenzy at the Trump rallies it seems many of his supporters swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker.

 

"Many"? 

 

How many people voted for Trump?

How many people attempted his rallies? 

And then lets add in the "political rally mentality' which states that 50% of rally attendees are completely nuts to begin with.  This holds true for all rallies and crosses partisan lines. 

 

Rally goers join the frenzy due to what psychologists call the "Price is Right" Syndrome. (Perhaps you are old enough to remember Bob Barker? 

 

However, the other 98% of us have been hooked enough times by political promises that we know what a baited hook looks like and don't bite. 

[ClutchClark]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So the republicans own this now. It's going to be interesting. 

 

Ownership is not really the correct description. 

 

It was built by Obama. It was marketed by Obama. It was sold by Obama.  It is Obamas legacy.

 

We republicans are stuck with it now.

 

In the same way that the mechanic you tske your car to does not own your car, he/she/X merely has possession of the car. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[pattayalover]

Obamacare is for pussy. all you need is paracetamol, water and lot of sleep.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, pattayalover said:

Obamacare is for pussy. all you need is paracetamol, water and lot of sleep.

Some people have bigger medical problems than a hangover, dude. 

[jcsmith]

6 hours ago, connda said:

Obamacare is about lining the pockets of corporations in the healthcare and insurance businesses and has nothing to do with developing a system of universal healthcare for the benefit of the citizenry.  The citizenry are there to have their wealth harvested.  Incredibly bad system.  Republicans won't want to scrap it because their corporate sponsors want a system in place that benefits corporations and harvests that wealth of a captive audience.  The congressmen and sentors don't care.  They don't have Obamacare.  They have top-notch health care plans that no mere citizen is afforded.  If the legislations is rolled back it will be replaced with legislation that is equally as bad.   As it stands now, unless you are rich or very poor (i.e., if you're middle class) and don't have insurance through an employer, you're one bad illness or accident away from bankruptcy if the premiums don't put you in poverty first. 

We need true national health care, but the problem is the republicans would have fought it endlessly. Obamacare was a compromise and it certainly has flaws. It will never work without some type of a price limiting, but the problem is the medical industry is going to has politicians in their pocket, preventing this from happening. As we all know living here, it's ridiculous to buy the same medicine you can get in the states for much cheaper, and to deal with ludicrous pricing for doctors or procedures. The system needs a huge revamp all around. But so long as the medical industry has politicians in their back pockets, it will never happen. That having been said, with an average of about 40-50,000 Americans dying every year from a lack of health care, it was a step in the right direction. But something has to be done to prevent peoples premiums from skyrocketing.

Edited November 22, 2016 by jcsmith

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

We need true national health care, but the problem is the republicans will never allow that to pass

 

Then why didn't Obama give us National healthcare? 

 

I am a republican/independent and I support NHC.

 

but I do expect people to contribute to it by being productive members of society theoughout their life. 

 

There needs to be methods to promote healthy lifestyle choices so I am not stuck paying for smokers, druggies and obese people's poor choices.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Jingthing]

Yes, that's glaringly obvious. The only real solution is some kind of Canada style nationalized program. But of course the republicans are never going to do that, even though trump was once for that when he used to be a democrat.

 

Hillary Clinton's plan was going to be another small step towards a national program. It had included letting people over 55 or 60 the option to BUY into Medicare and also a "public option" choice for people to buy into in all 50 states. Of course just because she was for that, doesn't mean those would have passed republican  congress. (Not.)

 

So anyway, no chance of the Clinton smaller steps or a real solution, Canada style.

So it's pretty much back to what I detailed in my long post. They've got no plan. We're waiting now. 

[ClutchClark]

Blaming it all on Republicans.

 

Lobbyists own Democrats too. In fact take a look at where all the Democrat architects of the ACA went to work as soon as they passed that legislation.

 

Lucrative employment for the very medical industries that profited by the ACA. 

[ClutchClark]

Anybody who says this was a Republican problem and voted for the ACA has been called "stupid" by this architect of the ACA:

 

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

In a clip unearthed Sunday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.
 

There is a good video but I could not attach it. 

 

We all got duped folks. 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

Blaming it all on Republicans.

 

Lobbyists own Democrats too. In fact take a look at where all the Democrat architects of the ACA went to work as soon as they passed that legislation.

 

Lucrative employment for the very medical industries that profited by the ACA. 

On the one hand Republicans are always calling on goverment to be more like business.  Yet they have repeatedly denied Medicare the right to do what every insurance company does: negotiate the price of drugs.  Estimates of the yearly cost to Medicare range from 50 billion to 100 billion.  Nice piece of corporate welfare.

[ClutchClark]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

On the one hand Republicans are always calling on goverment to be more like business.  Yet they have repeatedly denied Medicare the right to do what every insurance company does: negotiate the price of drugs.  Estimates of the yearly cost to Medicare range from 50 billion to 100 billion.  Nice piece of corporate welfare.

 

You think Republican voters don't want to see exactly what you discuss?

 

Obama just had 8 years to implement that.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Grubster]

5 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Actually insurance premiums were about a third what they are today and deductables were about 1/4 or 1/5 what they are today based on what some of my kids and grandkids pay on the marketplace (self-employed small business owners) and the report is CO will see more than a 20% increase for ACA policy holders for 2017 which is better than seversl states that are destined for 50% (IL and a few others). 

 

Ofcourse, there was the downside to pre-existing conditions before ACA and insurers could drop you for making too many claims...obviously these are improvements. 

 

But nowadays the ACA is basically only catastrophic insurance unless you qualify for the subsidies by having a very low income.

 

Consensus amongst the working Americans I know who get their insurance from the State marketplace is they were better off before the ACA. I would add these people are not receiving subsidies.

Well I worked and paid for my insurance for many years while the deadbeats who did not pay for insurance went to the hospital for every ailment and then didn't pay the frigging bill raising the rate for those of us that pay. Deadbeats are deadbeats and thats all. Now you are against a plan that says you have to pay for your own coverage. What is it you want? 

[Slickrick]

Hold your water, the plan is coming.

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Slickrick said:

Hold your water, the plan is coming.

So the republicans have been trying to repeal ACA for several years and in all that time they never came up with a realistic replacement plan, right? It's so easy to say you want to tear things down and promise you want to keep the popular parts and trash the unpopular parts that PAY for the popular parts ... but now, it's REAL. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

53 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Well I worked and paid for my insurance for many years while the deadbeats who did not pay for insurance went to the hospital for every ailment and then didn't pay the frigging bill raising the rate for those of us that pay. Deadbeats are deadbeats and thats all. Now you are against a plan that says you have to pay for your own coverage. What is it you want? 

 

What are you talking about?

 

What plan am I against? 

 

I always paid for my own coverage. I am now on Medicare. 

 

Could you please explain how you have concluded I am against paying for my own coverage? 

[Grubster]

8 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

What are you talking about?

 

What plan am I against? 

 

I always paid for my own coverage. I am now on Medicare. 

 

Could you please explain how you have concluded I am against paying for my own coverage? 

Ok if you are against Obama care then you are against everybody being forced to be covered by insurance. That is what Obama care is in a nut shell. You [ if indeed you were insured] and I have paid the bills for millions of middle class non union workers who did not have insurance but had many medical bills that were written off by the hospitals at your expense. Now that you are on medicare the same people who never paid want your benefits to be cut.

 Obama care is a bandaid on a severed head, going backwards from here would be a big mistake, but I don't see how we can get the Bar association and the insurance lobby out of US health care now. We had our chance but blew it.

[Jingthing]

Remember trump's campaign promise -- he's gonna replace Obamacare with something terrific.

Anyone that believed that I actually feel sorry for. 

He's a master con man and now he's president in charge of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something or another, but don't get your hopes up on the terrific thing.