Study: ObamaCare repeal would cost $350 billion

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/312746-study-obamacare-repeal-would-cost-350-billion

Congratulations, if you're a taxpaying American, $2,500 of your payments would go to nothing.

[Meclazine for Israel]

My god.

That cannot be real. Does it take into account the savings from a new system?

[The Mikado]

350 billion over the next decade is 35 billion a year, not 350 billion a year. Just so we're clear.

[Beet]

The CBO also said full repeal would cost about $350 billion over 10 years

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obamacare-repeal-congressional-budget-office-deficit-119228

[Crumpets]

I suspect Trump will have the Fed make some $350 billion platinum coin with his face on it to pay for it.

[Hermit For Peace]

And the people voted for this party to head all houses of govt?

Blows my mind!!!

[Hermit For Peace]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-repeal-tom-cotton_us_586ecaf4e4b02b5f85880dcc?ubgarvh1i76fajor

There seems to be many Republicans who want to slow down the process of repealing the ACA until they have crafted a replacement. Some have expressed concern with what will happen to those who have healthcare now through the exchange.

I hope these saner minds prevail and the brakes are put on this thing until the GOP can offer a lower cost program that also helps more people. If they can't do this then what is hell is the point of repealing what is already in place?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Something interesting I learned from Vox the other day: bills normally can only be passed through the reconciliation process if they don't add to the deficit for ten or more years into the future.  Because Obamacare reduces the deficit, the Republicans would use the reconciliation bill to preserve Obamacare's cuts to Medicare doctor payments, so it is scored as reducing the deficit, because those cuts as well as the insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion swamp the revenue loss from repealing Obamacare's taxes.  So even if the Republicans succeed in getting a repeal bill passed (which is still uncertain, especially without a replacement mechanism included), not all of Obamacare's effects would be erased.

If Vox is correct on that, then that would render the CBO's estimate moot because what the Republicans are ultimately aiming for is not full repeal.  But that would obviously shake things up for them even more if they can't reach a consensus on how the repeal should move forward, never mind the hypothetical replacement that may or may not increase the deficit if it's included in the repeal bill.

But from what I heard, Trumpcare is going to be "something great" and we don't have to worry about any of that. </s>

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just another thing to add to the long list of reasons why we should keep ObamaCare.

[Torie]

Let me repeat what I said years ago. The only sensible way out out of the box of fiscal hell when it comes to the delivery of medical services, is to 1) raise more revenue via raises federal taxes to pay for the health insurance of the impecunious, 2) provide that the health insurance of the impecunious is paid for via a means tested income tax credit for the cost of an available plan that meets reasonable coverage criteria (and no, for such means tested subsidized coverage, not every medical procedure will be covered, if the treatment fails to met some algorithm of efficacy, cost and the age of the patient), and 3) pass a law requiring drug companies not to charge US consumers more than the drug companies charge foreign governments, adjusted solely for whatever cost savings are entailed in selling to but one large buyer. The higher taxes in essence will pay for the cost associated with the lost revenue arising from the tax credits.

Yes, it will be complex to work out a system, where when some sick person switches plans, such that the one company previously insuring the sickie makes a payment to the replacement insurance company to cover the actuarial liability associated with the new company insuring the sickie. But I assume that can be done, so consumers have a choice of plans, which would be available across state lines.

What I really hate most about Obamacare, is that rather than the taxpayers at large paying for the impecunious sick, young healthy people do via higher premiums than they otherwise would pay, on a basis that is substantially not means tested. That to me is wrong. I don't want healthy young folks not making that much money subsidizing the insurance of well to do, high cost olds like myself (I take a couple of hideously expensive drugs that cost of the system about 75K per year, almost all of which is paid for by someone other than me). It's immoral damn it!

It seems so obvious to me, which of course why it will never be done that way, so we will wallow in a non cost effective incoherent delivery system of medical services. And no, other than as outlined above, there will be no jihad against the drug companies to force down their prices, like foreign governments do, because that will truncate new drug research. The non price discrimination law will however end having US drug consumers pay for the drug research for the planet, which is effectively what obtains now.

Thanks for listening.

[Intell]

We should have medicare-for all, and universal healthcare system, paid for by a social welfare tax, and increased wealth taxes on the rich.

[Person Man]

So does this change reconciliation deal?

[BoAtlantis]

Something interesting I learned from Vox the other day: bills normally can only be passed through the reconciliation process if they don't add to the deficit for ten or more years into the future.  Because Obamacare reduces the deficit, the Republicans would use the reconciliation bill to preserve Obamacare's cuts to Medicare doctor payments, so it is scored as reducing the deficit, because those cuts as well as the insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion swamp the revenue loss from repealing Obamacare's taxes.  So even if the Republicans succeed in getting a repeal bill passed (which is still uncertain, especially without a replacement mechanism included), not all of Obamacare's effects would be erased.

If Vox is correct on that, then that would render the CBO's estimate moot because what the Republicans are ultimately aiming for is not full repeal.  But that would obviously shake things up for them even more if they can't reach a consensus on how the repeal should move forward, never mind the hypothetical replacement that may or may not increase the deficit if it's included in the repeal bill.

But from what I heard, Trumpcare is going to be "something great" and we don't have to worry about any of that. </s>

Basically, it's a budgetary acting job in favor of more tax cuts for the rich and dropping healthcare for the poor.

[Santander]

I suspect Trump will have the Fed make some $350 billion platinum coin with his face on it to pay for it.

Technically, the Mint makes coins.

[RINO Tom]

What did Obamacare cost?