Congress Votes To Repeal Obamacare For The 62nd Time

[Conan71]

Since Congress has nothing better to do, they have pissed into the wind for the 62nd time regarding the ACA.  There's little doubt it has not lived up to its promises.  Major players in the business have left the exchanges, many people have lost coverage or are paying a good deal more for coverage while others who were previously "uninsurable" are now on the rolls. 

It appears to be a mixed bag of smile for the most part.  I suspect this Congress has no better ideas though on what a suitable overhaul would look like or a Plan B if they ever were successful.  I almost think it would be hilarious to see what would happen if Obama signed off on this, just to see them scramble.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The GOP-led Congress sent legislation to President Barack Obama Wednesday repealing his signature health law, fulfilling a promise to Republican voters in a presidential election year but inviting a certain veto.

The nearly party-line vote in the House was 240-181. The legislation already passed the Senate last year under special rules protecting it from Democratic obstruction, so it goes straight to the White House.

Republicans boasted of a signal achievement, saying they were forcing Obama to face up to the failures of his law while illustrating the stark political choices voters face.

"We are confronting the president with the hard, honest truth," said Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. "Obamacare doesn't work."

Democrats called it pointless political theater that will have the same ultimate outcome as the 61 previous repeal votes that were blocked in the Senate, since Obama will veto the legislation.

"A bill that is going to the White House, that will get the fastest veto we've ever seen happen in this country, is a monumental vote?" said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "This is just a waste of everyone's time."

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has decried the repeal legislation while leading GOP candidates applauded it. Ryan and other GOP leaders acknowledged it will take a Republican president to get rid of the law. But they said that is the point.

"It is our opportunity as Republicans to lay out the choice for the American people," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California predicted that a Republican president will be in the White House next year and Congress will pass the repeal legislation again, "but we won't have to worry about a veto from the White House."

For maximum visibility Republican leaders made the legislation, which also cuts federal funding for Planned Parenthood, their first major vote of 2016. Although they don't command sufficient votes to override a presidential veto, they hope to schedule the override vote to coincide with the Jan. 22 March for Life in Washington commemorating the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Yet Ryan hedged when asked whether the House will ever vote on a GOP replacement to Obamacare. Ryan has pledged that the House will come up with its own plan this year, something the GOP has repeatedly promised but failed to do in the nearly six years since the law's enactment. But he said details such as whether this plan will actually come to a vote have not been determined.

"Nothing's been decided yet," Ryan said. "Just wait."

Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the repeal bill: Reps. Robert Dold of Illinois, and Richard Hanna and John Katko of New York. One Democrat voted for it: Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

The bill would dismantle the health law's key pillars, including requirements that most people obtain coverage and larger employers offer it to workers.

It would eliminate the expansion of Medicaid coverage to additional lower-income people and the government's subsidies for many who buy policies on newly created insurance marketplaces. And it would end taxes the law imposed to cover its costs.

More than 16 million Americans have gained health coverage since the law was enacted, according to government figures. They could risk losing it under the GOP approach. Republicans argue the health law has driven up costs and hurt consumers, and they promise "patient-centered" solutions in its place.

The bill would also terminate the roughly $450 million yearly in federal dollars that go to Planned Parenthood, about a third of its budget. A perennial target of conservatives, the group came under intensified GOP pressure last year over providing fetal tissue for research.

Planned Parenthood officials and Democratic lawmakers accused Republicans in floor debate of attacking women's health. Republicans, in turn, took to the floor to critique Planned Parenthood in graphic terms, accusing the group of killing babies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-vote-send-health-law-repeal-obama-first-082136818--finance.html

[Townsend]

Ryan has pledged that the House will come up with its own plan this year, something the GOP has repeatedly promised but failed to do in the nearly six years since the law's enactment. But he said details such as whether this plan will actually come to a vote have not been determined.

So there's that.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California predicted that a Republican president will be in the White House next year and Congress will pass the repeal legislation again, "but we won't have to worry about a veto from the White House."

McCarthy should've stuck his neck out and said who he believes will be the Republican President.

[rebound]

I suspect this Congress has no better ideas though on what a suitable overhaul would look like or a Plan B if they ever were successful.

Right there, exactly.  If the GOP (bless their hearts...) does somehow get the presidency, one of the most fun things will be watching them implode trying to deal with this issue. 

[cannon_fodder]

First, let me say that it is beyond stupid for Oklahoma to pass on the medicaid dollars. We are among the poorest and least healthy states. Whether we take the dollars or not, my taxes are still helping Oregon provide health insurance to their citizens. Just like I disagree with the mortgage interest write off, but I'm dang sure still going to utilize that tool. More than $100,000,000 a year down the crapper.


According to the GKFF (which is now an authority on healthcare research, which is cool), the growth in the cost of healthcare has slowed to 4% per year. Which is a marginal decrease in the annual increase of costs (about a 20% slow down in the rise). There is also 17,000,000 people now with health insurance, who previously had no health insurance. Statistically, the United States has made some progress towards matching the rest of the first world in health statistics, but not much. Also, even though some rates are higher, most people experiencing rate growth higher than average are receiving subsidies, so the realized expenses are much, much lower. Finally, the doom and gloom in the labor market never materialized - data suggests the portion of workers stuck at "part" time remains the same before and after Obamacare.

So we can take that as the positives.

BUT... the participation in the exchanges is not rampant. Some are working well, others aren't working well at all. States that are actively fighting Obamacare are having a lot of trouble with their exchanges - particularly in markets where the competition is simply merging themselves into monopolies. Also, premiums are still rising under Obamacare, while it might be overall slower... it is certainly faster for some segments and soared for some companies who misjudged their initial premiums. Notably those served by the exchanges!  Also, many of those plans have higher out of pocket expenses - in that many of those people were paying zero (just going to the ER and walking away from the bill), they are now experiencing medical bills for the first time. Most apparent to many middle class people, many insurance companies dropped their old plans when they shifted their business in response to Obamacare - the short version is that companies dropped insured people and forced them to sign up for new plans. Clearly that pisses people off. Finally, Obamacare is a next expenditure for the Federal Government.

So yay for negatives.

And there are some washes: it raises taxes to pay for the program, which is bad. But it doesn't add to the deficit... so umm, that's good. (Recall Medicare Part D was unfunded, and adds about a trillion to the deficit every 10 years).
- - - -


I'm neutral on the program.

I like the idea: more participation in healthcare markets is good. People simply not paying for healthcare unfairly raises everyone elses costs. Also, no insurance means more emergency care, which adds expense in many ways. It also means more sickly people who are less productive for society in many ways.  I am also a huge fan of the accountability and open data portions of the bill, an attempt to allow consumers to actually compare the quality of service and price of services at hospitals.

I don't like: that it adds more crap to an already overly complicated system. It is another death knell for single payer medical care, which is simpler, more efficient, and can have better outcomes. I don't like that it makes Uncle Sam more involved. I don't like that it appears to be encouraging massive mergers, removing actual competition. I don't like that it isn't having a material impact on our grossly disproportionate medical costs in this country.


I get that it isn't fully implemented. I know that before it is fully implemented it will probably be gutted before it ever is. Piece meal, it has zero chance of working. but what I predict is that the new taxes associated with it will be revoked, but the subsidized healthcare is too popular to revoke so it will stay. Which means we add to the healthcare deficit funded by Uncle Sam.



Our healthcare industry is the most profitable but our people are among the most unhealthy in the first world. The average American family of 4 spends 50% more per year on healthcare than our Canadian neighbors to the north.  Under almost no metric does America have "the best healthcare in the world," but we sure pay for it like we do.  We do have quality healthcare, just not world class and certainly not economical.

I have no solution, so this is just whining. But then again, all I've heard from the "HATE OBAMACARE" crowd is whining. Hence, I'm agnostic. Stop wasting time, if the GOP takes the presidency, then come up with an actual plan. Until then, I'm sure there are some productive issues.

[cynical]

A small correction: you have the wrong Kaiser Foundation. The Kaiser Family Foundation that posts research on health care costs is the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, shorted to KFF.

First, let me say that it is beyond stupid for Oklahoma to pass on the medicaid dollars. We are among the poorest and least healthy states. Whether we take the dollars or not, my taxes are still helping Oregon provide health insurance to their citizens. Just like I disagree with the mortgage interest write off, but I'm dang sure still going to utilize that tool. More than $100,000,000 a year down the crapper.


According to the GKFF (which is now an authority on healthcare research, which is cool), the growth in the cost of healthcare has slowed to 4% per year. Which is a marginal decrease in the annual increase of costs (about a 20% slow down in the rise). There is also 17,000,000 people now with health insurance, who previously had no health insurance. Statistically, the United States has made some progress towards matching the rest of the first world in health statistics, but not much. Also, even though some rates are higher, most people experiencing rate growth higher than average are receiving subsidies, so the realized expenses are much, much lower. Finally, the doom and gloom in the labor market never materialized - data suggests the portion of workers stuck at "part" time remains the same before and after Obamacare.

So we can take that as the positives.

BUT... the participation in the exchanges is not rampant. Some are working well, others aren't working well at all. States that are actively fighting Obamacare are having a lot of trouble with their exchanges - particularly in markets where the competition is simply merging themselves into monopolies. Also, premiums are still rising under Obamacare, while it might be overall slower... it is certainly faster for some segments and soared for some companies who misjudged their initial premiums. Notably those served by the exchanges!  Also, many of those plans have higher out of pocket expenses - in that many of those people were paying zero (just going to the ER and walking away from the bill), they are now experiencing medical bills for the first time. Most apparent to many middle class people, many insurance companies dropped their old plans when they shifted their business in response to Obamacare - the short version is that companies dropped insured people and forced them to sign up for new plans. Clearly that pisses people off. Finally, Obamacare is a next expenditure for the Federal Government.

So yay for negatives.

And there are some washes: it raises taxes to pay for the program, which is bad. But it doesn't add to the deficit... so umm, that's good. (Recall Medicare Part D was unfunded, and adds about a trillion to the deficit every 10 years).
- - - -


I'm neutral on the program.

I like the idea: more participation in healthcare markets is good. People simply not paying for healthcare unfairly raises everyone elses costs. Also, no insurance means more emergency care, which adds expense in many ways. It also means more sickly people who are less productive for society in many ways.  I am also a huge fan of the accountability and open data portions of the bill, an attempt to allow consumers to actually compare the quality of service and price of services at hospitals.

I don't like: that it adds more crap to an already overly complicated system. It is another death knell for single payer medical care, which is simpler, more efficient, and can have better outcomes. I don't like that it makes Uncle Sam more involved. I don't like that it appears to be encouraging massive mergers, removing actual competition. I don't like that it isn't having a material impact on our grossly disproportionate medical costs in this country.


I get that it isn't fully implemented. I know that before it is fully implemented it will probably be gutted before it ever is. Piece meal, it has zero chance of working. but what I predict is that the new taxes associated with it will be revoked, but the subsidized healthcare is too popular to revoke so it will stay. Which means we add to the healthcare deficit funded by Uncle Sam.



Our healthcare industry is the most profitable but our people are among the most unhealthy in the first world. The average American family of 4 spends 50% more per year on healthcare than our Canadian neighbors to the north.  Under almost no metric does America have "the best healthcare in the world," but we sure pay for it like we do.  We do have quality healthcare, just not world class and certainly not economical.

I have no solution, so this is just whining. But then again, all I've heard from the "HATE OBAMACARE" crowd is whining. Hence, I'm agnostic. Stop wasting time, if the GOP takes the presidency, then come up with an actual plan. Until then, I'm sure there are some productive issues.

[cannon_fodder]

A small correction: you have the wrong Kaiser Foundation. The Kaiser Family Foundation that posts research on health care costs is the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, shorted to KFF.

Thank you. I always thought the correlation to George Kaiser was odd, but around here when you here philanthropy and Kaiser, the mind just makes the connection.

[Conan71]

A small correction: you have the wrong Kaiser Foundation. The Kaiser Family Foundation that posts research on health care costs is the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, shorted to KFF.

Research on the ACA by the KFF, could be considered somewhat suspect in some quarters due to Henry Kaiser also being the founder of Kaiser Permanente.

[heironymouspasparagus]

A

[RecycleMichael]

If at first you don't succeed, try again. But if you fail 61 times, quit. Don't be a damn fool.

[heironymouspasparagus]

US Congress is just about as stupid as Oklahoma Congress these days.... well, everyday....