Obamacare Question

[FakePigtails]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interesting numbers about ACA.

And the Republicans keep saying there is a mandate to get rid of the ACA...yeah a 45-50 approve/disapprove is a real mandate. <end sarcasm>

Especially when so many disapprovals are caused by misunderstandings or only apply to a few parts of the law.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, FakePigtails said:

Especially when so many disapprovals are caused by misunderstandings or only apply to a few parts of the law.

Exactly. I think the requirement to either buy insurance or pay a penalty is what stuck in many peoples' craws. They don't realize that was the part that was forced by the insurance companies to spread out the risk pool. I so wish we could just have a single payer system, but that would be over most Republicans' dead bodies.

[FakePigtails]

8 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Exactly. I think the requirement to either buy insurance or pay a penalty is what stuck in many peoples' craws. They don't realize that was the part that was forced by the insurance companies to spread out the risk pool. I so wish we could just have a single payer system, but that would be over most Republicans' dead bodies.

I've seen people complain because they can't get the super cheap plans like they used to - either not knowing or not caring that those didn't cover many things and would refuse coverage for anything the company could show any semblance of relation to a pre-existing condition (which could include teenage acne or irregular periods!).

I also think single payer is the only option. Expand medicare or medicaid or whatever to all. Let people stick with private insurers if they want; I'm sure they would naturally change to the government option over time.

The opposition to "socialized medicine" baffles me. The only explanations I can think of are people believing outlier or made-up stories from countries with good systems (ooh, waits, that would never happen here . . .) or thinking that even if the systems elsewhere work out particular government is incapable of handling it. It's so frustrating.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

I think we need to keep reminding Trump supporters "this is what you voted for." I'm sure for some of them, it will never sink into their thick skulls. But there might be some who realize what a mistake they've made. 

Oh, if only the rest of us didn't have to suffer along with them. 

The people that drive me nuts are the ones that think they should be able to keep whatever benefit they receive, but it should be taken away from "those people". 

[RoseWilder]

2 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

The people that drive me nuts are the ones that think they should be able to keep whatever benefit they receive, but it should be taken away from "those people". 

I know. Or the people who received benefits in the past but now don't want other people to. My Aunt and Uncle lived in government housing for a few years when they were first married, and now she's all over her Facebook page complaining about people who are on government assistance. She's such a hypocrite. 

[Elvis Presby]

A story of sickness, from a US family

My husband had a cold and it lasted about 10 days, which is typical.  On his day 5 I got sick.  OK, also typical.  Husband got better, but I have gotten sicker each day.  I am on day 8 now and have gotten a steroid shot in the butt.  Our youngest is just starting to get sick and he is on antibiotics and steroids also.  When the baby boy and I got home today my 14 year old son was showing me the bloody booger thing he just got out of his nose.  Gross.  

Anyway, I tell you all that to say that 3/5 of our family is sick right now.  We pay a lot in premiums each month.  A lot!  Our boys have chronic conditions.  They need meds and regular visits to the doctor.  Prescriptions are part of our deductible now (since Obamacare).  The maintenance medication for the boys is a little more than our premiums!  

Fast forward to now, I am so sick that I just want to die.  My littlest is sick.  We went to the doctor together.  My 14 year old is right on our heels and will probably need to see a doctor very soon.  I am expecting a big bill from the doctor next month.  BIG bill.

I miss the days of co-payments.  Why should an insured person have to wait so long to see a doctor because they're afraid of the bill?

 

[47of74]

On 12/15/2016 at 5:22 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Yeah, I'm right there with you, but instead I think I'll quote Sheldon Cooper from one of my favorite episodes of "The Big Bang Theory": "I informed you thusly"!

I'm the type that will not be that polite and instead say, "Fuck you, you dumb ass racist four flushing anti-women piece of shit.  This is exactly what you voted for, you orange humping human paraquat."

Especially since they vote for pieces of shit like this;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-huizenga-health-care-reform_us_585b0513e4b0d9a5945716c2

Quote

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) says there’s “definitely” going to be changes in health care delivery after Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, and people are going to need to take more responsibility for the cost of their treatment.

He gave a personal example of how do this: When his 10-year-old son recently fell on the driveway one evening and injured his arm, Huizenga waited until the next day to take him to the doctor because it cost less than bringing him to the emergency room that night.

“We weren’t sure what was going on,” the GOP lawmaker said in a Monday interview with a local news outlet, MLive.com. “So I splinted it up, and we wrapped it up, and the decision was, okay, do we go to the E.R.? We thought it was a sprain, but weren’t sure. Took every precaution and decided to go in the next morning.”

It turned out his son’s arm was broken.

 

[JMarie]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 8:51 PM, FakePigtails said:

I've seen people complain because they can't get the super cheap plans like they used to - either not knowing or not caring that those didn't cover many things and would refuse coverage for anything the company could show any semblance of relation to a pre-existing condition (which could include teenage acne or irregular periods!).

I also think single payer is the only option. Expand medicare or medicaid or whatever to all. Let people stick with private insurers if they want; I'm sure they would naturally change to the government option over time.

The opposition to "socialized medicine" baffles me. The only explanations I can think of are people believing outlier or made-up stories from countries with good systems (ooh, waits, that would never happen here . . .) or thinking that even if the systems elsewhere work out particular government is incapable of handling it. It's so frustrating.

I have relatives, Him and Her, who are diehard Fox News fans.  It's usually on in the background when I'm talking to them on the phone, they listen to it on the car radio, ect.  Him retired in his 70s, so when he retired, they were automatically eligible for Medicare.  Since then, one has had many minor health issues, while the other has had several hospitalizations (including a few major surgeries).  I last talked to Her a few days after the election.  Of course she was super excited that Trump won.  I asked her about her and her husband's experiences with Medicare.  I asked her if she'd ever been denied an office visit or procedure simply because she was on "government" insurance.  She said no.  So I asked her why it couldn't be like that for everyone, but then she brought up the defenseless third-trimester fetuses.  Sigh.

(Now, I love both of them dearly, but I wish they could at least consider that not everyone has had the very financially-comfortable married life they've enjoyed)

[47of74]

I have relatives, Him and Her, who are diehard Fox News fans.  It's usually on in the background when I'm talking to them on the phone, they listen to it on the car radio, ect.  Him retired in his 70s, so when he retired, they were automatically eligible for Medicare.  Since then, one has had many minor health issues, while the other has had several hospitalizations (including a few major surgeries).  I last talked to Her a few days after the election.  Of course she was super excited that Trump won.  I asked her about her and her husband's experiences with Medicare.  I asked her if she'd ever been denied an office visit or procedure simply because she was on "government" insurance.  She said no.  So I asked her why it couldn't be like that for everyone, but then she brought up the defenseless third-trimester fetuses.  Sigh.

(Now, I love both of them dearly, but I wish they could at least consider that not everyone has had the very financially-comfortable married life they've enjoyed)

I wouldn't be anywhere near as nice to such people, regardless of whether or not they were related or not.

And the reason I'm so goddamn mean is that I'll be one of the people getting fucked when Republicans implement their go off and die health ideas.

[Howl]

11 hours ago, 47of74 said:

And the reason I'm so goddamn mean is that I'll be one of the people getting fucked when Republicans implement their go off and die health ideas.

Warning: lots of F-bomb action: 

I think I said this upthread, but I'll say it again: When I read that Paul Ryan wanted to do away with MediCare, I instantly realized that I would face medical bankruptcy in my lifetime, and I'm incredibly healthy now.  I began MediCare at age 65 and have yet to encounter a medical practice that wouldn't take it, but have encountered those who would not deal with MediCare Advantage plans.  Going to a voucher system is just another way of saying, we (collectively) are totally and completely f**ked.  Even thinking about this as a possibility makes my stomach hurt. 

Please be aware that MediCare is not free.  My premium is $125/month.  My retirement benefit from my previous employer covers the 20% of Part B that isn't covered by MediCare.  DH, who doesn't have a retirement benefit that covers the 20%, has to have a supplemental policy for that, which is another $150/month, plus a small policy for prescription drugs, even thought he takes no prescription meds.   His supplemental policy absolutely will not cover anything not approved by MediCare.   

That said, apparently calmer heads in the Senate know that it's political suicide to try to dismantle Obamacare and f**k MediCare and Social Security all at the same time.  

We know how bad it is, because Republicans have had many, many years to come up with a way to deal with health insurance.  They are wetting themselves in excitement because they can now dismantle Obamacare and they don't have a f**king clue on how to replace it because of the power of the medical insurance lobby.   

[JMarie]

17 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I wouldn't be anywhere near as nice to such people, regardless of whether or not they were related or not.

And the reason I'm so goddamn mean is that I'll be one of the people getting fucked when Republicans implement their go off and die health ideas.

If it makes you feel better, Him and Her's adult children didn't vote for Trump.  So that "apple falling from the tree" thing doesn't apply.

[GreyhoundFan]

Trump could quickly doom ACA cost-sharing subsidies for millions of Americans

Quote

Even without Congress repealing the Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration could undermine the law by unilaterally ending billions of dollars the government pays insurers to subsidize the health coverage of nearly 6 million Americans.

Given that insurers would still be required to provide consumers that financial help, such a move could create upheaval in the ACA’s marketplaces — prompting health plans to raise their prices or drop out, according to health-policy experts in both major political parties.

Intervention by the new president to stop the payments “would precipitate a pretty serious crisis almost immediately” unless Congress stepped in, said James Capretta, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The money is for a kind of financial assistance that is less familiar than the tax credits the law gives most people for their ACA plan premiums. These “cost-sharing reductions” are designed instead to lower the deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket fees for nearly half the customers this year.

The payments are expected to total $9 billion in 2017. Eligible consumers would not feel their loss right away because the law still would compel insurers to lower the fees charged. But without government money to make up the difference, the insurers would take an instant hit.

The subsidies could be eliminated as soon as President-elect Donald Trump takes office, a consequence of an unusual lawsuit that House Republicans brought against the Obama administration two years ago.

The GOP’s case, part of its sustained attack on the 2010 law, contends that the cost-sharing reductions to insurers are illegal because Congress has not provided a specific appropriation for them — an argument the administration disputes. In May, a federal district judge ruled in favor of the House but left the subsidies in place while Obama officials appealed the decision.

Once Trump is sworn in, his administration could simply drop the appeal. At that point, the payments would stop, barring a reversal by the Republicans who sued to get rid of the subsidies. Lawmakers would then have to approve funds to keep the payments in place. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has granted a House request to pause the case until Trump takes office.

Members of Trump’s transition team have not signaled whether the incoming president intends to exercise this power, and sources who have spoken with transition staffers say no decision appears to have been made. Transition spokespersons did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

However, Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), is a vehement ACA critic who has been outspoken in opposing the cost-sharing subsidies. The day of the lower court’s ruling, Price hailed the decision as “a momentous victory for the rule of law and against the Obama administration’s overreach of constitutional authority.”

The uncertainty over cost-sharing’s future is alarming Obama administration officials, insurers that participate in ACA marketplaces and even some ACA detractors such as Capretta.

Andy Slavitt, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that carries out much of the sprawling law, said that ending the subsidies would be “a drastic move” and “an enormous step backwards.”

The payments are one way in which the ACA helps make private insurance affordable for people with relatively low incomes who buy coverage through HealthCare.gov or similar marketplaces at the state level. While the law offers premium tax credits for marketplace customers with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line, the cost-sharing reductions are for a narrower group. They help those with incomes up to 250 percent of the poverty level — just under $30,000 for individuals or about $60,000 for a family of four — who buy the second-lowest tier of ACA coverage, known as silver plans.

Some 5.9 million consumers — or 56 percent of the people with ACA health plans — benefited from such subsidies in the first half of this year, HHS figures show. This week, two consumers went to court seeking to take part in the appeal. They argue that an end to the subsidies “will produce devastating consequences for the individuals who receive these reductions, as well as for the nation’s health insurance and health care systems generally.”

At America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), preserving the cost-sharing payments is a top priority during the industry trade group’s private conversations with lawmakers over the GOP’s plans to dismantle the health-care law. “Without those subsidies, that is a dramatic financial cost burden that goes to the plans,” AHIP spokeswoman Kristine Grow noted.

Grow predicted that additional plans would follow the insurers that already have withdrawn from ACA marketplaces, citing unexpectedly high-cost customers. “If they feel the market is unstable and there is no pathway, there is a very high likelihood they will pull out of the market at the first logical opportunity,” she said.

Typically, insurers must choose each spring whether to participate in the federal health exchange and state-run marketplaces for the coming year; that timing means the next round of decisions will be made a few months after Trump takes office. But a wrinkle in the plans’ federal contracts gives them a possible way to withdraw much earlier.

The 10-page agreement that health plans sign with the CMS says the agency recognizes that plans designed their coverage and set their prices on the assumption that both premium tax-credits and cost-sharing reductions would be available. “In the event that this assumption ceases to be valid,” the agreement says, plans “could have cause to terminate” their participation.

“Everyone is in limbo right now,” said J. Mario Molina, president of Molina Healthcare, which sells ACA coverage in nine states. Two-thirds of its customers qualify for cost-sharing. As of last month, the company had received $172 million from the government this year for customer subsidies — about 12 percent of Molina’s revenue.

If the payments ended, he said, that would “completely wipe out” the company’s small operating margin. The uncertainty is particularly untimely, coming in the midst of the ACA’s fourth enrollment period, as the insurer prepares to mail membership cards and benefit brochures to those who are signing up.

“We have no choice at this point [but] to go forward,” Molina said. Yet he knows that if Trump stops the cost-sharing, his company will face the hard choice of losing money or dropping out of its ACA marketplaces.

In defending the cost-sharing reductions in court, Obama administration officials have pointed out that without the payments, ACA insurers would ultimately raise their prices, which would mean higher government costs for the law’s premium tax credits. The amount of money going to those credits could jump by as much as 30 percent, the HHS estimates.

For their part, the House Republicans who sued say there is a constitutional issue to prove about the power of Congress over spending. The outgoing administration counters that authority for the subsidies is already embedded in the law.

A House leadership aide, briefing reporters last week, said it is not yet clear how lawmakers would respond if Trump moved to cut off the cost-sharing payments. But, the aide acknowledged, “There are cascading effects about insurance markets we are very aware of.”

 

This is so scary. I know we don't know what is going to happen, but I have a bad feeling about it. Personally, I'm lucky to have insurance through my job, but my insurance improved with the ACA and a goodly chunk of the premiums are paid by my employer. I don't know what I'd do if I was counting on the federal subsidy. Unfortunately, my job is not very secure -- my company is infamous for layoffs and as I have a fairly long tenure, I worry that I'm on the chopping block in favor of newer employees with lower salaries and benefits.

[JMarie]

I, too, am scared about what Trump might do to Obamacare.  I predict he'll be even more cranky once he realizes he can't build that wall (where will the initial funding come from?  where will the construction crew(s) come from?  what's the timeline), he can't deport all the illegal immigrants (who will do the arresting?  how will they get back to their native countries?  what's the timeline), and he can't imprison Hillary (or face impeachment).   And don't forget that his wife won't live with him, so no, um, action for him, or he faces impeachment like Bill Clinton did.  Plus, aren't there a bunch of people he said he'd sue, like all those women he denied molesting?

He's gonna need to do SOMETHING as president, before he goes back to Trump Tower for good.  I fear that screwing up Obamacare will be the one thing he proudly (in his mind, at least) accomplishes. 

[Cartmann99]

On 12/25/2016 at 1:16 AM, JMarie said:

And don't forget that his wife won't live with him, so no, um, action for him, or he faces impeachment like Bill Clinton did. 

 

I just don't see a Republican controlled Congress trying to impeach Trump for infidelity. They only get on their "Family Values" moral high horses when Democrats get caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. 

If if does come out that President Trump (gag!) is being unfaithful, he'll give a speech where he blames everybody but himself for his tiny orange bits going rogue, the religious right will talk about how a wife's duty is to keep her husband satisfied at all times, and we'll get back to drafting every warm body under 50 in order to fight all the new wars we'll be engaged in.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

I just don't see a Republican controlled Congress trying to impeach Trump for infidelity. They only get on their "Family Values" moral high horses when Democrats get caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. 

If if does come out that President Trump (gag!) is being unfaithful, he'll give a speech where he blames everybody but himself for his tiny orange bits going rogue, the religious right will talk about how a wife's duty is to keep her husband satisfied at all times, and we'll get back to drafting every warm body under 50 in order to fight all the new wars we'll be engaged in.

I agree with you. Infidelity doesn't bother the Republicans unless they are complaining about the Democrats. And, with Agent Orange, there are so many other issues, infidelity would be the least of their concerns.

[JMarie]

Except for Jason Miller, who was going to be Trump's communications director.  After a woman on Trump's transition team implied that Miller was cheating on his wife, he suddenly remembered that his wife is due to give birth in less than a month and resigned, siting that old standby, needing to spend more time with the family.

[GreyhoundFan]

A couple of good articles in The Washington Post today.

"Republicans may not be prepared for the Obamacare war" and "These coal country voters backed Trump. Now they’re worried about losing Obamacare". Both articles are lengthy, so I won't quote them in their entirety, but here are some interesting points.

From the first article:

Quote

Republican Senate and House leaders who have summarily decided on a “repeal and dawdle” plan for Obamacare don’t seem to understand what they are up against. They see House and Senate majorities, an incoming president who vowed to repeal all of Obamacare and a reconciliation process that allows them to gut Obamacare taxes and subsidies, essentially killing the program with 51 votes in the Senate. Do they understand it won’t be that easy?

The first problem is Republicans in the House and Senate. Several Republicans have already voiced doubts about repealing Obamacare with no ready replacement. Every freshman congressman from an unsafe district should be voicing his or her concern. Repeal Obamacare and then go back to the voters in 2018 with nothing?! Yeah, it’s risky for those new lawmakers who promised something better than Obamacare, not making health-care coverage disappear.

... SNIP...

Republicans may very well jam through a repeal of Obamacare with no alternative plan in sight. They may be surprised, however, at the resistance they encounter and the magnitude of the opposition. Rather than be an “easy” win early in the new president’s term, it may turn into a knock-down-drag-out fight, or even a punt to delay action. What sounds good in a campaign ad or a white paper often becomes much more problematic when facing the consequences of such a monumental about-face in health-care policy.

From the second article:

Quote

Last night, CNN aired a terrific segment on people from coal country who voted for Donald Trump — but are now worried that his vow to repeal Obamacare will deprive them of crucial protections that enable them to stay afloat financially. This dovetails with other reporting that suggests a lot of Trump voters may be harmed by repeal of the law.

Which raises a question: Did voters such as these know they were voting for this? After all, Trump promised countless times throughout the campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act, didn’t he? If they are complaining about this now, don’t they have only themselves to blame?

No. I’m going to argue that, while Trump did repeatedly vow repeal, these voters were absolutely right to conclude that he would not leave them without the sort of federal protections they enjoy under Obamacare. That’s because Trump did, in fact, clearly signal to them that this would not happen.

... SNIP ...

In January of 2015, Trump said he wanted “to try and help” lower income people get health care, even if it cost him the GOP nomination — signaling a core difference with the GOP on this moral imperative. During the primaries, Trump pointedly told fellow Republicans he would not allow people to “die on the street,” telegraphing that core difference once again. Trump also repeatedly vowed not to touch Medicare, explicitly holding this up as proof he is not ideologically aligned with Paul Ryan on the safety net. As David Leonhardt details, Trump repeatedly demonstrated an ideological willingness to embrace a role for government in expanding health care to, well, all Americans.

And so, if many Trump voters didn’t really believe they’d lose protections under President Trump, this was not a crazy calculation to make. Now, Trump and congressional Republicans may indeed end up rolling back protections for millions who voted for him. But if that happens, and these voters do end up feeling betrayed by Trump, they will be right to feel that way — they will, in fact, have been scammed by Trump.

Perhaps, like other scam victims, they should have looked more closely at the fine print. But the broad conclusion they reached was a perfectly reasonable one.

 

[Childless]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A couple of good articles in The Washington Post today.

"Republicans may not be prepared for the Obamacare war" and "These coal country voters backed Trump. Now they’re worried about losing Obamacare". Both articles are lengthy, so I won't quote them in their entirety, but here are some interesting points.

From the first article:

From the second article:

 

Nope.  Not going to give them a pass on this one.  While Trump may have said he wouldn't take away their healthcare (even though anyone with a lick of sense could figure out he was lying), they also voted in Republican Senate and House members and they gave no illusion that they supported anything other than a purely capitalistic healthcare system free of government influence and even campaigned on privatizing Medicare.  If you're going to be that stupid, I don't feel sorry for you in the least.  Votes matter.  Consider this a hard lesson learned.

[bashfulpixie]

13 hours ago, Childless said:

Nope.  Not going to give them a pass on this one.  While Trump may have said he wouldn't take away their healthcare (even though anyone with a lick of sense could figure out he was lying), they also voted in Republican Senate and House members and they gave no illusion that they supported anything other than a purely capitalistic healthcare system free of government influence and even campaigned on privatizing Medicare.  If you're going to be that stupid, I don't feel sorry for you in the least.  Votes matter.  Consider this a hard lesson learned.

I agree with you 100%, except for the hard lesson learned part.  They'll keep making the same mistakes since most of them are glued to Fox News who will say it's the Dems fault.

[RoseWilder]

On 12/22/2016 at 7:25 PM, 47of74 said:

I'm the type that will not be that polite and instead say, "Fuck you, you dumb ass racist four flushing anti-women piece of shit.  This is exactly what you voted for, you orange humping human paraquat."

Especially since they vote for pieces of shit like this;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-huizenga-health-care-reform_us_585b0513e4b0d9a5945716c2

 

I had a broken leg as a child as a child and we waited to seek treatment till the next day (in my case it was because I wasn't feeling any pain) and I ended up needed surgery because I had accidentally moved it too much (as most four-year-olds would do.) Because I moved it too much, the broken bones got twisted around in a weird way and they had to do surgery to untwist the bones. 

So count me among the people who think waiting to seek medial care is a bad idea. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting article: "Repealing Obamacare affects everyone"

Quote

Obamacare touches just about everyone.

It's not just for the 20 million people who have health insurance through the individual Obamacare exchanges or Medicaid expansion.

Under Obamacare, senior citizens pay less for Medicare coverage and for their prescription drugs. Many Americans have received free contraceptives, mammograms, colonoscopies and cholesterol tests. And small business employees with older and sicker workers have not been slapped with super-high premiums.

"The ACA made changes in every part of the health care system," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the Affordable Care Act. "Virtually everyone has been touched by the ACA."

President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed to swiftly repeal Obamacare. They plan to start with the provisions that affect spending and revenues -- including the federal subsidies, Medicaid expansion, taxes and mandates that all individuals obtain coverage and large employees provide it. That will require only a majority of votes in the Senate. But Republicans have promised to eventually undo all of President Obama's signature health reform law, save for the provision allowing children under age 26 to stay on their parents' plan.

Here's how Obamacare and its full repeal would affect all Americans:

Medicare

Dismantling Obamacare would likely mean higher premiums, deductibles and cost-sharing for the 57 million senior citizens and disabled Americans enrolled in the program. It would also bring back the infamous "donut hole" in Medicare's prescription drug coverage.

The health reform law made many changes to Medicare. It slowed the growth of payment rates to hospitals and other providers, reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans and improved benefits for enrollees. Repealing Obamacare would increase Medicare spending by $802 billion over 10 years, according to estimates by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

As a result, Medicare beneficiaries would pay more because premiums and deductibles are tied to the growth of federal outlays. So seniors would face higher deductibles and co-payments for their Part A, which covers hospital stays, and higher premiums and deductibles for Part B, which pays for doctor visits and other services. The White House estimated that the typical Medicare beneficiary is paying about $700 less in premium and cost sharing this year because of slower growth in costs.

Under Obamacare, Medicare enrollees receive free preventative benefits, such as screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This provision would disappear under a full repeal.

Also, Obamacare called for closing the gap in Medicare's drug coverage in stages, completely eliminating it by 2020. Senior citizens have to pay more for drugs while they are in the donut hole. For 2016, the gap begins when enrollees and their insurers have spent $3,310 for medication and ends after they hit $4,850 in costs. Since Obamacare was passed in 2010, more than 11 million people have saved an average of more than $2,100 a person on prescription drugs, according to the White House.

The donut hole would return if Obamacare were repealed.

Higher-income enrollees, however, would see some financial benefit from repeal. Obamacare froze the threshold for the Medicare premium surcharge at $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples, so more people have become subject to it. The law also added a premium surcharge on drug coverage for wealthier beneficiaries.

Employer-sponsored insurance

Say goodbye to the employer mandate if Obamacare is repealed. Companies with at least 50 employees would no longer be required to provide affordable insurance to their staffers who work more than 30 hours a week.

This likely wouldn't have a major impact on the 150 million workers who are insured through their jobs since most larger employers already offer coverage for full-time workers, Levitt said.

However, setting the bar at 30 hours a week prompted some employers to extend coverage to more of their staff, since many companies had considered that threshold to be part-time. If repealed, companies could opt to cover only those working at least 35 or 40 hours a week, leaving some people uninsured.

Also, companies would no longer have to keep children on their parents' plans until they turn 26. This has proved to be one of the more popular Obamacare provisions, with 2.3 million Americans ages 19 to 25 signing up between 2010 and the start of open enrollment in 2013, according to the White House's most recent figure. (Trump has said he may keep this policy.)

Workers, however, may have to start paying again for contraceptives and preventative screenings, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Obamacare requires these to be provided free-of-charge.

Obamacare also prohibits employers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on benefits and caps out-of-pocket spending (to $6,850 for single workers in 2016). But most companies' policies already met these criteria.

Repealing Obamacare could have a bigger hit on employees who work at companies with fewer than 50 workers.

They enjoyed many of the benefits Obamacare brought to the individual market. Insurers could no longer ban workers with pre-existing conditions or ask them to pay more. It required plans to cover an array of benefits, including maternity, mental health and prescription drugs. And it limited insurers from charging older workers premiums more than three times those of younger workers. All this could be reversed under repeal.

Individual market

Obamacare has had the largest impact on the individual market, which was largely unregulated prior to the health reform law.

It sought to make health insurance more accessible and affordable in a number of ways. It required insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and banned them from charging the sick more. The law ended the practice of insurers imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefits, and it also placed limits on annual out-of-pocket spending. It mandated that individual insurance cover an array of benefits, including medication, maternity and mental health. It prevented insurers from charging women more and restricted premiums for older folks at no more than three times those of young adults.

Obamacare set up health insurance exchanges to allow Americans to shop for individual policies and created federal subsidies so low- and moderate-income enrollees could buy policies for less than 10% of their income. Another set of subsidies limit the deductibles and co-payments for lower-income policyholders. Some 10.4 million people were covered through the Obamacare exchanges, as of June.

Another 6.9 million Americans purchase individual policies outside of the Obamacare exchanges. They cannot apply for subsidies, but receive all of the other benefits.

(Trump has said he would continue to require insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but only if they were continuously insured. Those who did not have coverage could be subject to higher premiums or forced to apply for policies in state-based high-risk pools.)

Medicaid

Before Obamacare, most Medicaid enrollees were low-income children, pregnant women, parents, the disabled and the elderly.

The health reform law opened up the program to low-income adults with incomes of up to 138% of the poverty line -- $16,400 for a single person -- in states that opted to expand their Medicaid programs. So far, 31 states, plus the District of Columbia, have done so, adding nearly 17 million more people to the rolls since late 2013, just before the provision took effect. (This figure includes both those newly eligible under expansion and those who always met the criteria.)

Under the program, the federal government paid 100% of the costs of the expansion population for the first three years and slowly lowered the reimbursement rate to 90%.

Repealing Obamacare would leave millions of the poorest Americans without insurance.

Uninsured

Under Obamacare, nearly all Americans have to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, which this year hit $695 per adult or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater. This mandate would be lifted by repeal.

Sigh, just sigh. I'm sure Paul Ryan's non-existent replacement plan will be just as good. (Please note sarcasm font).

[JoyfulSel]

Sharing on Facebook, thank you @GreyhoundFan. So sad to read this, and sitting here knowing I'm going to lose insurance, and so is my mother who desperately needs back surgery. I hope my Trump-voting step-grandpa enjoyed his free colonoscopies.

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, JoyfulSel said:

Sharing on Facebook, thank you @GreyhoundFan. So sad to read this, and sitting here knowing I'm going to lose insurance, and so is my mother who desperately needs back surgery. I hope my Trump-voting step-grandpa enjoyed his free colonoscopies.

 

I'm sorry you and your mother will lose insurance.

 

It is scary. I have insurance through my employer, but since the ACA, the coverage improved drastically. I'm going to get as much done in 2017 as possible, since who knows what will happen in 2018? One of my vocally Trumpian co-workers was yammering the other day about how "crappy" the ACA is. He got ticked off when I reminded him that his Gold plan covered quite a bit -- he has numerous serious health issues -- and that our company could choose to drastically reduce coverage next year. He doesn't believe me, but this is a company that stopped letting employees carry over paid time off from one year to the next, just to save some $$.

[JoyfulSel]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

I'm sorry you and your mother will lose insurance.

 

It is scary. I have insurance through my employer, but since the ACA, the coverage improved drastically. I'm going to get as much done in 2017 as possible, since who knows what will happen in 2018? One of my vocally Trumpian co-workers was yammering the other day about how "crappy" the ACA is. He got ticked off when I reminded him that his Gold plan covered quite a bit -- he has numerous serious health issues -- and that our company could choose to drastically reduce coverage next year. He doesn't believe me, but this is a company that stopped letting employees carry over paid time off from one year to the next, just to save some $$.

Thank you. I am self-employed so the ACA was the way for me to finally afford health insurance. I worry about my friend with MS who has employee insurance, but is still mainly under her father's plan to take care of her treatments. This is truly affecting everyone, and I hope Trump-stumpers on my Facebook take a gander at this article.

It's interesting that you mention that about employer insurance. The same thing happened to my father (his company is small and only has single-coverage, nothing for spouses and dependants unfortunately.) His job now offers a gold plan that offers low-copays and small deductibles. My father also pays very little into the plan through his check, which has been amazing. Now I worry about him too, and how this will effect his coverage. Ugh.

[candygirl200413]

Thank you so much for posting this @GreyhoundFan. I'm still on my parents health insurance but over 18 and even though I feel very strongly in making sure I can support however it may be for individuals that can lose it, I honestly forgot that it could affect me since I forgot Obama up the age.

Also if anyone knows this answer, don't Congressional people have government health insurance? such as obamacare? ( or whatever they had before obamacare was enacted). I'm wondering how they'll be affected since not all of them are exactly a spring chicken.

 

Edit: I think also either today or tomorrow that POTUS is making his way to have a meeting with the Dems on strategies to see if they can actually do anything.