Paul Ryan's flimsy health plan

Published:

 


House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) discussed the release of the House Republican plank on health-care reform at the American Enterprise Institute on June 22.
 

IT HAS been more than six years since the Affordable Care Act passed and nearly three years since its major provisions began phasing in. During that time, the rate of uninsured Americans has plummeted to a historic low. Also during that time, Republicans have blamed the law for practically every problem with the health-care system, the economy and more. But they have infamously not united behind a credible alternative.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) seemed to promise better when he announced that he would roll out an ambitious policy agenda this summer. Instead, last week he released an Obamacare alternative that is less detailed in a variety of crucial ways than previous conservative health reform proposals. The outlines that the speaker did provide suggest that it would be hard on the poor, old and sick.

Mr. Ryan’s plan would replace Obamacare with a tax credit available to people buying insurance plans in markets regulated by the states, not the federal government. The proposal does not say how valuable the credit would be, nor the rate at which it would increase. The document also does not predict how many people it would cover, nor how much the plan would cost. The latter is a major question in part because the plan would waste money offering tax credits to everyone, regardless of income. Republican staffers argue that the proposal is just a starting point for discussion. Yet other Obamacare-replacement proposals have included such numbers. The fact that Mr. Ryan’s does not renders the plan difficult to evaluate or take seriously. This many years on, the GOP has no excuse for blank spaces

The proposal hints that the credit would be sufficient to cover the cost of plans that existed before the ACA. This is not reassuring: Pre-ACA, individual-market insurance plans were often thin, with limited benefits, extensive cost-sharing and other elements designed to deter anyone who might actually need care. Without strong coverage requirements, insurers would have limited incentive to offer plans that appealed to people who may be — or may become — sick. States would be hampered in responding to these issues: The proposal would allow insurers to sell plans across state lines, so the state with the skimpiest regulations would likely set the national standard.

People with money to put into health savings accounts (which the proposal would expand), could cover gaps in thin insurance coverage with tax-advantaged out-of-pocket spending — but this would not be a realistic option for low-income people. As for the old, the plan would scale up the tax credits with age, but it would also permit insurers to raise premiums with age much more than the ACA currently allows. The proposal gives no sense that the two will come close to matching up; as in other conservative plans, those in late middle age could face much higher costs. For the sick, meanwhile, Mr. Ryan’s plan would offer an ultimate backstop by funding high-risk insurance pools. But health-care experts caution that this approach would cost a massive amount of federal money — a fact that has caused Republican lawmakers to balk at policies like it when fleshed out.

GOP leadership in the House of Representatives are introducing a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Here's what the proposal wants to change. GOP leadership in the House of Representatives are introducing a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Here's what the proposal wants to change. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington PosAt least, Republicans might argue, Mr. Ryan’s proposal would eliminate the hated individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance. Yet it would replace it with an even more coercive system. Protections for those with preexisting conditions would only apply for those who kept continuous health-care coverage. Under the current system, if you fail to obtain health insurance in a year, you might have to pay a penalty of few hundred dollars. Under Mr. Ryan’s plan, the Urban Institute’s Linda Blumberg explains, “If you slip through the cracks, your penalty is you may never be able to get health-insurance coverage again.”

 

What's inside the House Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare

Embed Copy Share
Play Video2:
GOP leadership in the House of Representatives are introducing a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Here's what the proposal wants to change. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Entry #735

Comments

Avatar LiLSpeedy -
#1
Paul Ryan in an attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare with Trumpcare has hastily put together another version of Obamacare. It has some of the same features but will cost exceedingly more. We don't know how much it will cost and how many it will cover. This plan will ultimately fail because it will not deliver as promised.
Avatar Lucky Loser -
#2
The very changes they made to the ACA simply allows the markets to charge what they want as they did before the ACA, to dictate what plan/coverage a person 'qualifies' for, and to 100% and completely add to their bottom line profits which the ACA minimized meaning that most of the money put in through the mandate actually went towards CARING FOR PEOPLE. Those are facts. Insurance companies are loving this deal because they simply control what they want to cover, and, that pre-existing conditions part they left in has an of asterisk next to it NOW along with qualifying conditions with bullets underneath. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out seeing as to how even most Republicans do not favor it....which means that, essentially, what was in place before was better.

Now, let's talk about the CIA leaks a bit. I'm going to reiterate my original position in that if this was Hillary at the center of the leaks, the whole Trump posse would simply be elated because Trump loves Wikileaks. As we know, though, when it comes to him and the those same type leaks, he cannot handle it. Furthermore, Trump has long since voiced his real opinion about Julian Assange back in 2010 BEFORE he considered running for office.

-*Donald Trump called WikiLeaks "disgraceful" and suggested there be a "death penalty" for their actions during a 2010 interview. -

So, yes Sean Splicer, there's a double standard at work here just like you say, buddy. Oh, and Trump took no issue with giving interviews to ALL THE SAME MEDIA back then which he recently went on binge calling them all 'fake news.' Well, Mr'President, this would mean that everything you told them back then in those interviews would also be fake and made up news RIGHT NOW, right? Of course, that's right. The only difference now is that Trump is front and center in their SAME EQUATION OF JOB SCOPE in terms of excavating information and Trump doesn't like it 'cause he's dirty. Very, very simple. Guess what, Speedy? We're all still patiently waiting on two major things, man. One, the proof of +3 million illegal voters and, two, the serious proof of wiretapping. He!!, it's been nearly TWO MONTHS since that claim and threat of investigation along with an entire week of zero proof of wiretapping.

I'm certainly glad that we understand the operatives at work here...to take THEIR EYES off of one BRIGHT SHINY OBJECT over HERE and tell them to look over THERE at the NEW BRIGHT SHINY OBJECT. All this happens at just the right time. In Sean Splicer's words, "It's kinda cute."

Avatar Lucky Loser -
#3
By the way, Speedy, let's go ahead and get a good jump on all the lates jobs added and unemployment percent numbers. February added 235,000 jobs and the UI rate is now 4.7%!!!! You and I and all the Democrats know full well that these numbers come on Obama's heels following his policies because Trump hasn't implemented not one thing, policy-wise, to affect what's already in motion. This is why Trump went on many, many, many tirades about how THESE SAME-TYPE NUMBERS WERE HOAXES BACK THEN AND NOT TO BELIEVE THEM, THE NUMBERS ARE RIGGED,

Fast forward to now, and Sean Splicer is touting how 235,000 jobs added and a 4.7% UI rate isn't bad for day fifty in office. "It's better than we expected." I've seen NPR cited around here by my friend so let's have a looksie at NPR's report back in January and what Trump said:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/29/511493685/ahead-of-trumps-first-jobs-report-a-look-at-his-remarks-on-the-numbers

Major Outlandish Excerpt:

*"Don't believe these phony numbers," Trump told supporters early last year. "The number is probably 28, 29, as high as 35 [percent]. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."

If we crunch even the least of the (4) numbers he cited here, 28, with where the current UI percent is, we INTELLIGENT FOLKS know d@mned full well that Trump hasn't dropped it by 24% to 4.7%. You won't hear Rush, Levin, Hannity, or any others remember and recall how Trump slammed Obama's fake, pathetic numbers but, they'll go on to praise these numbers 'NOW.'

GREAT JOB, OBAMA. You had to ride on the heels of Bush when the economy was rock bottom when you stepped in. As such, Trump is surely riding on yours now...in fact, he's standing on your shoulders. Gotta keep things in context, and, people in check, Speedy.
Avatar BC4Colts -
#4
Under Obamacare people had insurance but no healthcare. A proven fact they couldn't afford the deductible. Which than any individual with COMMON Sense would ask WHATS THE POINT!

Post a Comment

Please Log In

To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.

Not a member yet?

If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.

Register