U.S. House votes to begin repealing Obamacare

[rooster59]

U.S. House votes to begin repealing Obamacare

By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare", outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, U.S. on October 4, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman/File Photo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Republicans on Friday won passage of a measure starting the process of dismantling Obamacare, despite concerns about not having a ready replacement and the potential financial cost of repealing Democratic President Barack Obama's landmark health insurance law.

The House of Representatives voted 227-198 to instruct committees to draft legislation by a target date of Jan. 27 that would repeal the 2010 Affordable Health Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. The Senate approved the same measure early Thursday.

No Democrats supported the initiative. Nine Republicans voted against the measure.

With this vote, Republicans began delivering on their promise to end Obamacare, which also was a campaign promise of Republican President-elect Donald Trump.

The programme, which expanded health coverage to some 20 million people, has been plagued by increases in insurance premiums and deductibles and by some large insurers leaving the system.

The resolution passed by the House and Senate does not need presidential approval, since it is part of an internal congressional budget process. But once the Obamacare repeal legislation is drafted, both chambers will need to approve it, and a presidential signature will be required.

By that time, Trump will have been sworn in as president. He has urged Congress to act quickly to repeal and replace the Democratic programme.

Obamacare was enacted nearly seven years ago - over Republican objections - in an effort to expand coverage and give new protections for people with pre-existing health conditions and other barriers that left them without insurance.

In the past few years, the House has voted more than 60 times to repeal or alter Obamacare, but Republicans had no hope a repeal would become law as long as Obama was president and could veto their bills.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, said Obamacare was collapsing and action was urgent. For people who have health insurance through the Obamacare system, he said, "The deductibles are so high it doesn’t feel like you’ve got insurance in the first place.

"We have to step in before things get worse. This is nothing short of a rescue mission," Ryan said.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi rebutted Republicans' claims that the law was a failure.

“The rate of growth in healthcare costs in our country has been greatly diminished by the Affordable Care Act," she said. "In the more than 50 years that they have been measuring the rate of growth, it has never been slower than now."

The choice before lawmakers, she said, is "affordable care versus chaos."

Harvard University economist David Cutler warned that there could be trouble in U.S. insurance markets if lawmakers do repeal the law but a replacement is slow in coming.

"You could create a lot of havoc," he said, adding that some insurers "may get out of the market entirely."

Trump applauded Congress's efforts with a Friday morning tweet saying, "The 'Unaffordable' Care Act will soon be history!"

The president-elect, who takes office on Jan. 20, pressed lawmakers this week to repeal and replace it "essentially simultaneously."

Republican leaders would like to finish the repeal process within weeks, but some lawmakers think it could take far longer.

Some Republicans have expressed concern about starting a repeal before agreeing on how to replace provisions of the complicated and far-reaching law.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated repealing Obama's signature health insurance law entirely would cost roughly $350 billion over 10 years.

Republicans say a good replacement would give states more control of a healthcare programme and provide more stability on health insurance premiums.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-14

[connda]

"Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi rebutted Republicans' claims that the law was a failure."

Of course Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress have a special health care plan that is not afforded to the general public.  One that doesn't place them at the risk of bankruptcy if they actually have to use it.  Had Congress implemented a single payer plan that covered all Americans with the exact same benefits, I would have been all for it.  But the 'Affordable' Care Act?  Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by connda

[mtls2005]

Finally, getting rid of those "Death Panels".

 

Phew, I feel so much better.

[optad]

Retrograde to claim job and wage sanctity for machinists in philly but dismantle their health insurance. Every other major economy has this safety net in some form. Just cannot afford it in the states.

 

Over militarised and under prioritised.

[Srikcir]

ObamaCare soon to become TrumpDon'tCare.

[Grubster]

This will not go well for the Republicans in the future unless they have a plan of their own which I doubt. Trump may have a plan that cuts the total control of health care by Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance lobby and the Bar association, but good luck getting Congress to support any loss of control by their friends.

[partington]

Surely the very best way to run health care in any country is to have it doled out by wealthy companies whose primary fiscal duty is to make money for shareholders, and whose primary avenue for increasing profits is to minimise coverage and payment of claims.

 

What could go wrong?

[KarenBravo]

Watched Rand Paul at a town-hall meeting.

He was very convincing on why Obamacare is failing. Young people can't afford it and young people's contributions are necessary to fund older people. Due to this, many insurers are leaving a state, sometimes creating a monopoly for health care with only one provider, who then proceeds to jack up the cost.

At the moment, this state of affairs is unsustainable. Rand Paul also said that they would not repeal Obamacare until there is a replacement.

 

Pretty much all Western countries just don't understand what the US public have got against universal healthcare.

Can't remember who said it, but, it was explained this way. Most Western countries citizens consider healthcare as a right, whereas in the US, they consider healthcare as a privilege.

Edited January 14, 2017 by KarenBravo

[Kiwiken]

Maybe the Republicans believe all of the 20 million Americans which cannot afford Health Insurance are all illegal immigrants

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Some Republicans have expressed concern about starting a repeal before agreeing on how to replace provisions of the complicated and far-reaching law.

At least some of them had brains. Repeal the law with no replacement leave millions in limbo and the billions spent putting this plan into operation going down the drain and the money coming out of the politicians pockets?? Hardly. 

[elgordo38]

Yes another week and Obama will be gone but the Republicans hatred for him will continue long after regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer. 

[JKfarang]

47 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Watched Rand Paul at a town-hall meeting.

He was very convincing on why Obamacare is failing. Young people can't afford it and young people's contributions are necessary to fund older people. Due to this, many insurers are leaving a state, sometimes creating a monopoly for health care with only one provider, who then proceeds to jack up the cost.

At the moment, this state of affairs is unsustainable. Rand Paul also said that they would not repeal Obamacare until there is a replacement.

 

Pretty much all Western countries just don't understand what the US public have got against universal healthcare.

Can't remember who said it, but, it was explained this way. Most Western countries citizens consider healthcare as a right, whereas in the US, they consider healthcare as a privilege.

 

Though I am only 1 person (and an American), I don't think the American people as a whole consider healthcare a "privilege".  More likely, it is influential members of the US Congress (who receive excellent healthcare benefits given to them by them) who think it should be for the privileged few who fund their election campaigns.  Also, and as an example, from what I understand there are at least 8 to 10 times more corporate lobbyists than Congress men/women in Washington DC working full time for the benefit of US pharmaceutical companies.  People need to understand that, with few exceptions, it is the wealthy and big corporations, NOT the American people, who control the US Congress.

 

I agree that the US healthcare system in its current, for profit form is not sustainable.  And it was not sustainable even before "Obamacare".  This is due to the ever increasing and now outrageous costs.  Unfortunately, this will not change because Congress is not about to "bite the hands that feed it".  And the hands that feed it are NOT the American people.

 

[Johpa]

Watched Rand Paul at a town-hall meeting.
He was very convincing on why Obamacare is failing. Young people can't afford it and young people's contributions are necessary to fund older people. Due to this, many insurers are leaving a state, sometimes creating a monopoly for health care with only one provider, who then proceeds to jack up the cost.
At the moment, this state of affairs is unsustainable.

Rand Paul is a Libertarian and a fan of Ayn Rand so his mental failings are easily accounted for. The ACA allows people of modest income to have most of the cost of healthcare insurance subsidized. So young people of modest income can easily afford health insurance. The problem is that they, like Rand Paul, don't understand insurance and hesitate to pay for something they are unlikely to need. (funnily nobody complains about the totally useless title insurance scam)

That premiums are jumping this year within the ACA accounts is nothing unusual in the private insurance sector where double digit jumps in premiums are not all that unusual.

There is no doubt that the ACA needs to be tweaked. But it is better than the nothing that the Republicans have planned and is all many Americans have until the country comes to its senses and creates a single payer system, that is one large universal pool of payers to spread the risk as widely as possible.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, JKfarang said:

Though I am only 1 person (and an American), I don't think the American people as a whole consider healthcare a "privilege".  More likely, it is influential members of the US Congress (who receive excellent healthcare benefits given to them by them) who think it should be for the privileged few who fund their election campaigns. 

I had to pause here as I realized a kindred spirit had indeed emerged. Bravo. Back to the article. 

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

There is no doubt that the ACA needs to be tweaked. But it is better than the nothing that the Republicans have planned and is all many Americans have until the country comes to its senses and creates a single payer system, that is one large universal pool of payers to spread the risk as widely as possible.

Great idea. Does that mean that all the overpriced insurers and their ilk would pack up their tent and depart the market. I agree on the tweaked part but I think the vengeful Republicans want to trash it altogether. Yes there are so many one payer systems in the world to emulate but the present cabal of insurance providers would not quietly "go off quietly into the good night" I am afraid. A lot of Republicans would wake up to find that their glory hole of funds had disappeared and politics is all about the money honey. 

[sirineou]

The following phrase describes the economics of any system

There is no such thing as a free lunch!!!!  

ACA is actually a republican plan first proposed by Mit Romney,  not the most desirable solution but one Obama thought would have bipartisan support and provide  a path toward universal care with the minimum disruption to the existing health care industry in the US.

what Obama did not count on  was the hatred of republicans toward anything Obama, 

Simply covert racism.

If it is failing it's because of republican opposition to  full implementation of key components.

If healthy people were not buying insurance to mitigate the cost of sick people to health insurance companies, it was only because of republican opposition to requiring everyone to buy insurance and provide penalties for those who don't.

Simply put, spread the risk to mitigate the cost, a concept that everyone who understand how insurance works understand. I am sure that Republican lawmakers understand this concept and knew well enough what they were doing.

Repeal is easy, Replace, not so much. If one is to maintain keeping kids on their parents plan until they are 26 and cover preexisting conditions , some one has to pay for it.

Remember, "there is no such thing as a free lunch"

They will change the names of key provisions, call it Trump care , but the concept will remain the same. There is no going back, because going back is not economically sustainable by the US.

 

PS: I don't understand  the opposition to single payer health care system.Would it have problems? Sure it will, will it cost more? we now pay more than any other country and are 43rd in the world's life expectancy.

It will provide a basic health care safety net for most, For those who can afford it, require more,and want to pay more, there will still be private supplemental insurance.