President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

Per Trump -
The as-yet-unreleased Obamacare repeal and replacement plan would have “insurance for everybody."
Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway made a promise that almost certainly can’t be met with the House bill: “We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance.” (Ok, this was Conway, not Trump so disregard is you want)
“I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we’re going through.” (Also not Trump, this was HHS Secretary Tom Price talking about the Republican plan)
"We have to get rid of the artificial lines around the states,” Trump said during the second presidential debate. (talking about removing cross state barriers to insurance coverage which would, in his theory, reduce insurance costs)
“I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” (Trump in a 60 minutes interview)
Coverage for everyone was "just human decency". Trump told CBS's Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes that "everybody's got to be covered." (More from the 60 minutes interview)
"We're going to have insurance for everybody," he said in an interview with The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us." (WaPo interview as president elect)

I quit looking after these, I am sure I could probably find more quotes. I agree with you in that I don't expect the Trump administration to ever make health care more affordable but all the above certainly point to some people expecting him to try to do something about it. I am just too jaded with DC to expect anyone to do anything unless they benefit.

I know I said I was taking time off, but I am still lurking about. Sorry to disappoint everyone! And, I'll probably regret chiming in!

Just because I am honestly confused, Are you, Horns or Mith saying that its Trump fault that OBAMAcare doesn't work, or that Trump is responsible for Mith's 200% increase? Without any intention of being snarky, what is it that Trump or the GOP have done, expect tried and failed repeatedly to overturn ACA, in whole or in part, for the last four years, that would cause one to blame Trump for this?

[Mithrandir]

I know I said I was taking time off, but I am still lurking about. Sorry to disappoint everyone! And, I'll probably regret chiming in!

Just because I am honestly confused, Are you, Horns or Mith saying that its Trump fault that OBAMAcare doesn't work, or that Trump is responsible for Mith's 200% increase? Without any intention of being snarky, what is it that Trump or the GOP have done, expect tried and failed repeatedly to overturn ACA, in whole or in part, for the last four years, that would cause one to blame Trump for this?

I am not blaming Trump for ANYTHING in the past. What I am asking is, what is Trumps plan going forward to help alleviate the cost of health insurance for many Americans?



And if Trump overturns the ACA, what is his health care plan?

[OaklandA's]

Just because I am honestly confused, Are you, Horns or Mith saying that its Trump fault that OBAMAcare doesn't work, or that Trump is responsible for Mith's 200% increase? Without any intention of being snarky, what is it that Trump or the GOP have done, expect tried and failed repeatedly to overturn ACA, in whole or in part, for the last four years, that would cause one to blame Trump for this?

There have been several bipartisan plans in Congress, such as the legislation introduced by Senators Alexander (R) and Murray (D) for example, that everyone agrees would help with costs to individuals, overall cost, and the total number of people insured. But Trump is not allowing this to come to a vote, and is intentionally doing things to hurt the Affordable Care Act (cutting Cost-Sharing Reductions and Federal subsidies, removing individual mandate, cutting outreach, etc.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-cbo/bipartisan-obamacare-fix-would-cut-u-s-deficit-nonpartisan-analysis-idUSKBN1CU2B9

[Gregg]

I know I said I was taking time off, but I am still lurking about. Sorry to disappoint everyone! And, I'll probably regret chiming in!

Just because I am honestly confused, Are you, Horns or Mith saying that its Trump fault that OBAMAcare doesn't work, or that Trump is responsible for Mith's 200% increase? Without any intention of being snarky, what is it that Trump or the GOP have done, expect tried and failed repeatedly to overturn ACA, in whole or in part, for the last four years, that would cause one to blame Trump for this?

Glad you are back.

[Bernie Brewer]

I am not blaming Trump for ANYTHING in the past. What I am asking is, what is Trumps plan going forward to help alleviate the cost of health insurance for many Americans?

And if Trump overturns the ACA, what is his health care plan?

While I wish it weren't so, unfortunately, and particularly for the side that loses, elections have consequences. As for any expectation that he will fix ACA, I am just guessing here, that Trump and the GOP won't/can't do anything to overturn or amend ACA at this point. The damage has already been done. And, until congress decides they want to try to work together, ya know bargaining/horse trading/negotiating, like in the good old days, it will be up to the incoming Dem congress and a Dem President to fix, if those occur. Until then, it will remain a bargaining chip and while that sucks, that's the way DC works.

[Bernie Brewer]

There have been several bipartisan plans in Congress, such as the legislation introduced by Senators Alexander (R) and Murray (D) for example, that everyone agrees would help with costs to individuals, overall cost, and the total number of people insured. But Trump is not allowing this to come to a vote, and is intentionally doing things to hurt the Affordable Care Act (cutting Cost-Sharing Reductions and Federal subsidies, removing individual mandate, cutting outreach, etc.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1CU2B9

And, while I wish one of those was passed into law, none did. Is that a GOP, a DEM, or a both party issue?

Edited to add: After rereading your post, I see that you are pinning this on Trump as the obstructionist to these bi-partisan proposals. Isn't this a typical negotiation tactic. He wants something, and as stupid as it may be, wouldn't it make some sense to give him is goddamned wall or something on DACA or _____ and the Dems get fix to healthcare they now admit is needed, although if I recall, they didn't think it was necessary when they rammed it through congress in 2009-2010 (or whenever).

[Bernie Brewer]

Glad you are back.

I wasn't planning on staying away, it was moreso that I was just tired of trying provide a sense of what a conservative might believe and becoming one of, or the, token Conservative(s), when I'm not really sure I'm even a Conservative any more. I am a social liberal and I'll always be a fiscal conservative. Maybe that makes me an independent!

Little Steven wrote a song entitled, "I am a Patriot" which kind feels like home to me. In the Jackson Browne cover of it, Jackson sings "And, I ain't no Democratc, and I sure ain't no Republican." While I love JB, I am not inline with his politics. Were I to sing it, I would flip those versus around!

And thanks, that's one!

[Hornsby]

That was a fairly predictable response, given that the original bill was rammed downed the throats of the country on a partisan vote when polls at the time indicated that half of us didn't want it. While it sucks that the GOP tore it down in ham-fisted fashion with no viable replacement, I think there's some wisdom to be gained about pushing through divisive partisan initiatives at the federal level in the first place.

The ACA was vetted for 18 months before it was enacted. Was it perfect, of course not...and I can't think of a single piece of meaningful legislation that hasn't been passed in a totally partisan vote for the past 30 years. The thing about the ACA was desire it's many flaws, it's still popular...a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed that 54% had a favorable view of Obamacare, and that we just a few months ago.

I'd LOVE for a bipartisan solution to the health care crisis, people from both sides of the aisle sitting down together to pass the very best bill imaginable. But it's not going to happen in the political climate that we have today.

[OaklandA's]

Edited to add: After rereading your post, I see that you are pinning this on Trump as the obstructionist to these bi-partisan proposals. Isn't this a typical negotiation tactic. He wants something, and as stupid as it may be, wouldn't it make some sense to give him is goddamned wall or something on DACA or _____ and the Dems get fix to healthcare they now admit is needed, although if I recall, they didn't think it was necessary when they rammed it through congress in 2009-2010 (or whenever).

Of course Trump is being obstructionist. His stated goal is to kill the ACA, not improve it. He said that in literally every speech during the campaign. Even if the bi-partisan fix reduces costs to both consumers and the government, he will not support it because he wants the entire program to collapse. Since he couldn't get a vote to pass in Congress, he has been using Executive Orders to undermine the program.

And can we please stop with the "rammed through Congress" talking point? That bill had dozens of town halls, public hearings, congressional hearings, and even Obama doing a lengthy Q&A with a Republican Congress. Contrast this with the GOP bills for ACA Repeal and Tax Cuts, which were still being modified minutes before the actual vote, with critical points being scribbled in the margins and actual tax rates being changed on the fly. There was little analysis of either GOP bill, and those analyses that were done (by the CBO, JCT, etc.) were ignored because every serious analyst knew both were bad bills for the country.

[Hornsby]

I know I said I was taking time off, but I am still lurking about. Sorry to disappoint everyone! And, I'll probably regret chiming in!

Just because I am honestly confused, Are you, Horns or Mith saying that its Trump fault that OBAMAcare doesn't work, or that Trump is responsible for Mith's 200% increase? Without any intention of being snarky, what is it that Trump or the GOP have done, expect tried and failed repeatedly to overturn ACA, in whole or in part, for the last four years, that would cause one to blame Trump for this?

Here's the difference Bernie, there are millions of people who'll tell you that the Obamacare DID work, they/a parent, a child, a neighbor, are alive today because they finally had some insurance coverage. Of course it wasn't perfect, nothing is fresh out of the box. But it was being tweaked, and it could have gotten better and better if it had been allowed to mature. The state exchanges were in large part responsible for the difference in insurance rates, but again, that's something that could have been fixed, and still can, if the politicians care. This is a pretty fair CNN (I know, I know) article on how Trump has tried to hurt the ACA, and in some ways, how it's backfired on him:

Within hours of being sworn in last year, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at minimizing Obamacare's financial burden on the nation. It was his first attempt to dismantle his predecessor's landmark health reform law.
But it was certainly not his last. While Republicans in Congress failed repeatedly to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in 2017, Trump did take some major steps to weaken it.

Related: Trump issues executive order to start rolling back Obamacare

Powered by SmartAsset.com

SMARTASSET.COM
Here are some of the ways:

Limited support for open enrollment: The administration swiftly halted up to $5 million in Obamacare advertising in the final days ahead of the open enrollment deadline for 2017 coverage. A spokesman said at the time "We aren't going to continue spending millions of taxpayers' dollars promoting a failed government program."

Sign ups fell by half a million for last year.

The administration made even bigger changes to Obamacare's 2018 open enrollment season. It cut in half the time consumers had to sign up on the federal exchange, giving them only six weeks instead of three months. Officials also slashed the advertising budget by 90% and reduced federal support for counselors who help people navigate the enrollment process by more than 40%.

Related: Trump slashing Obamacare advertising by 90%

Still, 8.7 million people signed up for coverage in the 39 states on the federal exchange, only half a million fewer than the prior year. Many experts had expected a much larger contraction.

Killed the cost-sharing subsidies: In October, the administration stopped paying the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers for reducing the deductibles and out-of-pocket costs of roughly 6 million lower-income Obamacare enrollees. The funding had been the subject of a court battle between House Republicans and the Obama administration, with GOP lawmakers arguing the payments were illegal because Congress never appropriated the money.

Though insurers had warned earlier in the year that ending the cost-sharing subsidy funding could bring down Obamacare, the reaction was largely muted. That's because most carriers had already hiked premiums substantially for 2018 in anticipation of the move.

Related: Trump kills key Obamacare subsidy payments: What it means

In an unusual twist, Trump's move actually made Obamacare more affordable for many consumers. They benefited from higher premium subsidies that allowed them to buy some 2018 plans on the exchange for less than they were currently paying. However, middle class Americans who don't qualify for premium subsidies had to cope with the full rate hikes.

Eliminated the individual mandate: Congress did manage to effectively repeal the individual mandate, starting in 2019, as part of its tax overhaul legislation. Trump signed it into law last month.

Related: Will Obamacare survive the tax bill?

One of Obamacare's least popular provisions, the mandate requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. While the mandate's effectiveness is a matter of debate, many experts worry its elimination may prompt insurers to drop out and premiums to spike if fewer young and healthy consumers enroll on the exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 13 million more people will be uninsured by 2027, though it is reviewing its methodology.

Earlier in the year, the administration took its own step to blunt the impact of the individual mandate. The Internal Revenue Service had been set to start rejecting tax returns last year that failed to indicate whether filers had health insurance, obtained an exemption or paid a penalty. But soon after Trump issued his January executive order, the agency quietly reversed that decision.

Gave states more control over Medicaid programs: States can now impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients for the first time. The administration released a guidance this month outlining what states need to do to mandate that certain enrollees work, volunteer or participate in other "community engagement activities" to qualify for benefits.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also encouraging states to submit waivers making additional changes to their Medicaid programs. States are requesting permission to charge recipients premiums, limit the time they can receive benefits, test them for drugs and lock them out if they fail to keep up with payments or paperwork.

Related: Here's how states are trying to overhaul Medicaid -- without Congress

"Medicaid needs to be more flexible so that states can best address the needs of this population," said Seema Verma, the agency's administrator.

Trump administration and state officials say these measures will help people gain independence and prepare them to purchase health insurance on their own. Critics, however, argue states are putting additional hurdles in place to winnow down their rolls.

Proposed allowing small businesses to buy health insurance together: The administration unveiled a proposed rule earlier this month that would make it easier for small businesses -- and some self-employed folks -- to band together and buy health insurance.

The proposed regulation stems from an executive order Trump issued in October. It would allow small firms to form association health plans based on their location or industry. Sole proprietors would also be eligible to join the plans, which would ideally be able to use their scale to secure less expensive coverage much like large employer plans do.

Related: Trump officials unveil rule that could chip away at Obamacare

Plans would be able to offer coverage across state lines, a longtime Republican goal and one of Trump's campaign pledges.

The associations could provide an attractive alternative to Obamacare for some people, especially younger and healthier consumers. But it could also damage the Obamacare exchanges, leaving them with mostly older and sicker enrollees and driving up premiums.

Encouraged the sale of short-term health plans: Trump's October executive order also directed agencies to consider expanding the availability of short-term health insurance policies.

The Obama administration limited the duration of short-term health plans to no more than 90 days in order to make them less attractive. While the administration hasn't yet issued proposed rules, it is expected to lift the cap, enabling consumers to buy policies that would last just under a year.

Short-term plans don't have to adhere to Obamacare's regulations so consumers would have a wider array of options with lower monthly rates. But they can exclude those with pre-existing conditions or base rates on consumers' medical history. They can also offer skimpier benefits so policyholders may have to pay more out of pocket if they actually need care.

Also on tap, the executive order would expand employers' ability to give workers cash to buy coverage elsewhere under a system known as health reimbursement arrangements.

Weakened the contraceptive mandate: Employers may now have more leeway to withhold birth control coverage on religious grounds, undermining the controversial Obamacare mandate that requires contraceptives be covered with no co-pay.

A broad range of employers -- including nonprofits, private firms and privately traded companies -- would no longer be required to provide contraceptives if they have sincerely held religious beliefs. The same provision applies to organizations and small businesses that have objections "on the basis of moral conviction which is not based in any particular religious belief," according to the administration.

Related: Trump administration deals major blow to Obamacare birth control mandate

Until now, a fairly limited number of employers -- mainly churches and some other religious entities -- could get an exemption to the mandate. Some others, such as religious-based universities or hospitals, could seek accommodations so that they didn't have to provide coverage, but their workers could still get covered contraceptives that would be paid for by the insurer or the employer plan's administrator.

Tightened the rules for consumers seeking coverage, while loosening them for insurers: The administration also made it harder to sign up for insurance at other times. Those seeking coverage during special enrollment periods because of a job loss, divorce or other major life changes have to provide documentation proving their eligibility.

Also, consumers now must pay any back premiums they owe before signing up again.

Insurers had long sought to tighten the rules, arguing that people are gaming the system and enrolling only when they get sick. Consumer advocates were concerned that it will make it harder for those truly eligible to qualify.

Related: Trump starts making changes to Obamacare that could cost consumers

Insurers, meanwhile, gained greater flexibility in the amount their policies would pay in each tier of coverage on the exchanges. A new "expanded bronze" plan option -- with higher deductibles and co-pays, but lower premiums -- debuted for 2018.

And the federal government pulled back on its reviews of whether insurers have enough doctors and hospitals in their networks. The Obama administration added this oversight after enrollees complained there were too few providers who accepted their plans.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/20/news/economy/obamacare-trump-year-one/index.html

[Bernie Brewer]

Of course Trump is being obstructionist. His stated goal is to kill the ACA, not improve it. He said that in literally every speech during the campaign. Even if the bi-partisan fix reduces costs to both consumers and the government, he will not support it because he wants the entire program to collapse. Since he couldn't get a vote to pass in Congress, he has been using Executive Orders to undermine the program.

And can we please stop with the "rammed through Congress" talking point? That bill had dozens of town halls, public hearings, congressional hearings, and even Obama doing a lengthy Q&A with a Republican Congress. Contrast this with the GOP bills for ACA Repeal and Tax Cuts, which were still being modified minutes before the actual vote, with critical points being scribbled in the margins and actual tax rates being changed on the fly. There was little analysis of either GOP bill, and those analyses that were done (by the CBO, JCT, etc.) were ignored because every serious analyst knew both were bad bills for the country.

And, ymmv, I believe he has also said repeatedly that he’s replace it with something “better” whatever that means. So it’s OK for Republicans to say every piece of legislation isnt perfect give us time before judging the Tax bill. I just don’t accept that.

[Bernie Brewer]

The ACA was vetted for 18 months before it was enacted. Was it perfect, of course not...and I can't think of a single piece of meaningful legislation that hasn't been passed in a totally partisan vote for the past 30 years. The thing about the ACA was desire it's many flaws, it's still popular...a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed that 54% had a favorable view of Obamacare, and that we just a few months ago.

I'd LOVE for a bipartisan solution to the health care crisis, people from both sides of the aisle sitting down together to pass the very best bill imaginable. But it's not going to happen in the political climate that we have today.

Would it be fair to say 46% of the country thinks it isn’t all that popular? I’ll admit have no idea what the Kaiser Family Foundation is and am not able to look it up at the moment, but that seems to me to be a split down partisan lines in this day and age? I, too, would like bi-partisan fixes to it and the new tax bill.

[OaklandA's]

And, ymmv, I believe he has also said repeatedly that he’s replace it with something “better” whatever that means.

Right, and what is that something better? Every plan that the GOP has proposed would result in tens of millions being dropped from the insurance rolls.

[Hornsby]

Would it be fair to say 46% of the country thinks it isn’t all that popular? I’ll admit have no idea what the Kaiser Family Foundation is and am not able to look it up at the moment, but that seems to me to be a split down partisan lines in this day and age? I, too, would like bi-partisan fixes to it and the new tax bill.

No, I don't think that would be fair...polls rarely work with straight splits. There are those who tend to be agnostic, and those who are undecided. Looks like 42% have an unfavorable opinion, so A 54% favorable view is pretty good...and this is a monthly tracking poll, so the numbers can vary slightly.

The Affordable Care Act
This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight increase in the share of the public who say they have a favorable view of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). The share of the public who say they hold a favorable view of the law has increased to 54 percent (from 50 percent in January 2018) while 42 percent currently say they hold an unfavorable view. This is the highest level of favorability of the ACA measured in more than 80 Kaiser Health Tracking Polls since 2010.

This change is largely driven by independents, with more than half (55 percent) now saying they have a favorable opinion of the law compared to 48 percent last month. Large majorities (83 percent) of Democrats continue to view the law favorably (including six in ten who now say they hold a “very favorable” view, up from 48 percent last month) while nearly eight in ten Republicans (78 percent) view the law unfavorably (unchanged from last month).

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-february-2018-health-care-2018-midterms-proposed-changes-to-medicaid/

[Bernie Brewer]

Right, and what is that something better? Every plan that the GOP has proposed would result in tens of millions being dropped from the insurance rolls.

I thought you said there were plans offered by both Dems and GOP that were worthy of consideration that Trump obstructed. Or were they not bi-partisan?