Replacement would be the same thing that was available before. Employer provided healthcare, and if you don't have that, you can buy private insurance.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Not an issue for me but the Donald has promised the "best affordable healthcare available". Let's wait and see. It seems a bit strange that the Republicans have spent the last eight years promising to repeal Obamacare but have no option to replace it with and are now scrambling.

Uh, no.

Repeal and do nothing is better than what we have now.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Nevertheless, spot raises a good point -- that too many people are relying on it to pull the rug out from underneath them, which is exactly what would happen if "replacement" meant simply going back to the same thing that was available before.

If you think that's a problem that justifies keeping Obamacare in place until a "replacement" for it is found, then why oppose Obamacare in the first place?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I mean, people are talking here like there haven't been half a dozen serious 'repeal and replace' bills offered up by Republicans in the past few years. It's not like there haven't been 'replace' ideas, it's that they haven't been taken seriously because the 'repeal' would never happen while Obama was in office.

Let's see how things go in the next 12 months...these things take time, but I think in the next few months you'll start hearing about a few options being kicking around and by the summer a serious 'repeal and replace' bill will be put up by the House.

But I do totally agree with the premise that repeal without replace is a non-starter. Obamacare is bad, but the optics of scrapping it without a serious effort to improve on health care costs and insurance affordability in this country is a losing proposition.

As long as that is the goal, health care costs will continue to spiral out of control and the system is doomed.

We need to stop, stop, stop focusing on health insurance and focus on why health care costs are out of control.

Health insurance is the primary reason a single aspirin is billed at $20 during a hospital stay.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The truth is you can't repeal ACA and it be completely gone the next day. It will take several years to unwind all of the details.

If they repealed without a replacement, it is like setting deadlines with no real answer in place yet. Basically putting themselves in the hot seat for no good reason.

Price has a plan to replace it. So its not like they have nothing. IMO it is terrible, but to say they have nothing is false.

Did you ever try to buy private insurance? Before ACA? I think if you had you would not be proposing this as a viable alternative.

I'm not an ACA fan, but what we had before was a train wreck as well. There's no sense going back to it.

You do not provide a link to a source that adequately explains your position. Please provide a source as I would like to learn more.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

If you take the view that health insurance is simply a reflection of the cost of health care (Ie you live in reality) then you have to recognize that your point is an absurd one.

Millions of people and business have made significant decisions and adjustments in reliance on the ACA that they never would have made otherwise. And they now find themselves in a place that they never would have been in/ You're naïve if you think that a simple repeal of the ACA is would only just unwind the clock.

Health insurance, as we have it now, does not reflect the true cost of healthcare.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not at all...I have a $108-a-month HSA policy with my wife that has a $2.5K deductible and $8K OOP max. I find that to be very affordable, but it's not what's available in many markets.

Notice in my post I said 'health care costs' first...I think you and I agree on this, but you should be able to find cheap insurance that works more like the catastrophe coverage of the past, I consider that to be 'insurance affordability'. The main goal should be cost of care, though, which the ACA did nothing to improve and in some cases increased those costs.

There's not a lot that I agree with you on, but this is absolute truth. The articles I've linked below are pretty telling of how overburdened the system is with administrative work, which isn't helped by passing it all through insurance companies whose goal is to extract every cent of profit they can from the system, which probably drives up the cost as providers have to cover their administrative end, billing, and upcharge the cost of services to cover all of that, resulting in an endless, out of control loop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/09/07/doctors-wasting-over-two-thirds-of-their-time-doing-paperwork/#6cd50fb86e5d


http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/10-minute-office-visit-8-people-45-minutes-work.html

Yes and I paid 106 bucks a month for a high deductible GSA plan.

Did you ever try to buy private insurance? Before ACA? I think if you had you would not be proposing this as a viable alternative.


What is it that lawyers say? Never ask a question you don't know the answer to?

I sure did buy private insurance before the ACA. And as frustrating as that system could be, it was far, far preferable to buying insurance under Obamacare on every level. It was more affordable, I had more options, the plans were better, they had lower deductibles, and I had the freedom to determine for myself whether or not I needed to buy it, or what amount of coverage I found acceptable for my situation. My personal situation today would be improved in a real and meaningful way if I could go back to that.

Just because the situation with health insurance was flawed before does not mean that any solution is better, and it doesn't mean the ACA didn't make it worse. It did. It should be repealed. Period.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Because I think that there were many in the middle ground that thought the US health care system needed reform, but that Obamacare wasn't it. I think one can say without being hypocritical that Obamacare did some good things, but is overall an abomination that needs to go. So, keep the good things and get rid of the all the crap that didn't need to be in there. I don't think that repeal without a mechanism to help folks get the health care they need is a good idea, and my guess is that repeal without replacement will be used by the mass media to club the Republicans fairly effectively as they repeatedly show folks suddenly without any health care options.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Is that individual or group?

I couldn't agree more. Let people choose the healthcare plan that meets their need rather than the Obamacare one size fits all. My friend owns a small business and his plan has gone up 200% and currently costs more than his mortgage.

In the first place, I don't really care that the media will use repeal as a club against the Republicans. They will, no matter what replacement is offered. Doesn't matter. I don't care a damn about the "optics" for the Republicans when it comes to the ACA. It's time to put up or shut up.

As for the good the ACA has done . . . What are those good things, in your view? How can they be separated from the rest of the ACA? Why don't all the original objections to the ACA still apply, especially now that most of the dire predictions are coming true? Is it the federal government's job to provide health insurance for citizens?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Replacement would be the same thing that was available before. Employer provided healthcare, and if you don't have that, you can buy private insurance
---

The problem is that there would be no incentive to return premiums for pre-ACA prices. Lots of people would lose their insurance. Others would maintain their coverage at inflated prices. Repealing without a replacement is lose-lose for all.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Well, my experience with private insurance (pre-ACA) was a bit different than yours. My wife and I were repeatedly turned down for "pre-existing conditions". When we addressed these and showed they weren't applicable, a new "pre-existing condition" would be dredged out of our medical history and used to deny coverage.

And all the major insurance companies share a common database - once one of them has turned you down you are flagged and all of them will turn you down. It's a rigged system.

All this despite the fact that my wife and I have been continuously covered by health insurance since birth. No gaps in coverage whatsoever.

The insurance companies repeatedly told us to apply to our state's high-risk pool. Ludicrous! My wife and I are perfectly healthy individuals who rarely visit the doctor and have no chronic conditions.

Fortunately I was in a position to extend coverage through COBRA, although it cost a pretty penny. Many people are not so fortunate.

The very idea that anyone would propose repealing ACA without implementing a replacement is absurd.