What is the Obamacare 'replace'?

sorry......dp

But did people who fell into that category (the bolded) actually get better care? I'm asking, because I don't know. I know they now had insurance under the ACA.....but did they get better care? Some of the insurance plans, that I did see, under the ACA were a joke. If you can't afford the deductibles then exactly what is the difference between that and having no insurance? Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm asking because I don't know.

I'm trying to catch up on this issue because the ACA didn't affect us at all. My wife is a federal employee so our insurance is through her employer (and it's excellent)....ACA was a non-issue for us. (funny how the ACA didn't affect federal employees, huh?)

Don't we already have such a plan in place in most states, known as Medicaid? 

Since nobody answered my question yet, about what the GOP plan looks like for 'replace', it appears that we are going to re-hash the ACA instead.  So- I'll try to defend the onslaught.  

so- to answer question #1.  Did they get better care.  well- first we have to look at who 'they' were.  as there are a few categories.  Let's start with the ones that wanted to have coverage but either couldn't afford it, or couldn't get it due to a pre-existing condition.  Yes- these people overall got much better care, because they were now able to see a physician for their ailments or when they walked into a hospital or emergency room, they had an insurance card.  When doctors know they are going to get paid, they are more likely to treat you.  

The ACA did little to define a standard of care.  And- while emergency rooms (if that's where you get your medical care) would treat people regardless of whether they could pay (thank you Reagan), we all ultimately shared in the expense of those unpaid visits.

Understand, that for the non-dickhead governors that allowed their people to receive federal payments, there was the part of the ACA known as the Medicade Expansion- which, on a sliding scale, helps lower income people with the cost of their health insurance.  So- yes, you have to buy insurance (or face a small tax penalty), but for those who cannot afford it, the government helps you buy it.  nice for these folks.  Oh, this included 8.4 million children- I presume at least a few of whom actually needed serious health care that their families in now way would have been able to afford.  I just can't imagine being a parent of a sick child and not be able to afford the medical care it would take to make them better.  

As I'm on the executive staff of a mid-size company, I'm aware of the additional costs to implement the ACA.  at first we were pretty scared, that (for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here), that it might cost us millions more in our health care costs.  Turns out- costs us a couple hundred tho' more (out of a healthcare budget of I think around $8M).  So, it seems to me that your employer may be 'blaming' Obama and charging you a little more - which ultimately goes into their own pocket. oh, sorry we need to screw you, it's Obama's fault.  Fortunately, my company's owners are bigger men than that.  Small biz owners (under 50 employees) are not affected.  Health care costs were skyrocketing, and after the ACA, the rate of increase was much reduced.  So- you don't really know what would have happened with your company's coverage if the ACA had not been implemented.  

but- no doubt, there are some increased costs. you can't help 30 million more americans get health insurance without additional costs (all covered/paid for in the ACA by a selection of tax increases- so it is at least a fiscally responsible bill).  And- since most american workers get their coverage through their employers, spouses, parents... then for them, a majority of americans, they could give two about those poor unfortunate souls, due to no fault of their own, who are getting screwed.  So- not everyone has empathy for their fellow man, and only see this as a cost that they need to bear.  so be it.  you'd rather save a few hundred in your own pocket than help others.  a valid position.  not exactly the moral high ground here, but valid.  depends on your morals tho'.

So- are we all agreeing here that there IS no replace plan?  So, Trump and all the GOP talking heads are just blatantly lying?

can we get back to "what is the GOP plan?"  that was the question.  unless you all still want to banter about the pros/cons of the ACA.  

and- you do all know that every single other economically developed country in the world has found a way to provide basic health care to its citizens, mostly at half the cost of how we do biz in the US.  Seems to me, that we're about to go back to the old system.  Which allowed insurance companies to deny people coverage, and where they would fight sick and dying people to not pay for their coverage.  it was pretty horrendous.  

me- I get my insurance through my company, am healthy, and have no pre-existing conditions.  so, screw the sick and the poor.  I'm fine.

I have no idea what will replace it, and yeah, for my family's situation it really doesn't matter. We can live with whatever comes.

Just so you know.....and I'm sure you do.  That bolded part is exactly why liberals are sitting on the outside looking in right now......and to use your words, if that's your position, so be it, it's a valid position. 

The problem is, you have no idea about my morals, and you certainly can't make an inference based on my opinion of a govt. program with many tentacles. But rest assured, every single time someone from the left tries to attack based on morals, values, etc. and tries to hold themselves up over someone they don't have any idea about except that they hate big govt........you have made a political enemy.  This is the reason your party has NO voice right now. 

I'd love to know the answer too. I suspect the answer is that there is no replacement, and I don't think it will much affect those who have corporate employers (including those who saw their premiums rise - do you really think you're going to see your rates go down with a repeal? Ha!), but I think you'll see a lot of people lose coverage. 

My husband owns his own small company and I'm self-employed as well. Our rates have stayed steady throughout the past 8 years, but we were already paying an arm and a leg just to have insurance prior to ACA. The main difference is I no longer lay awake at night worrying about someone in the family getting sick, getting dropped, etc.I have many artist friends who simply couldn't get coverage prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions. One of them survived throat cancer a few years ago - he would not have made it were it not for his insurance through the ACA. 

My $1200 per month insurance plan prior to ACA did not cover pregnancy (that kind of plan pretty much didn't exist at the time if you were self-employed), so I payed cash out of pocket for all of my prenatal care and delivery of my son and hospitation, despite having paid over $12,000 into my insurance plan that year. We have the money to do so and planned accordingly, but others are no so fortunate, and this repeal adds in the double whammy of taking away funding for Planned Parenthood. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out a lot of this. 

A lot of people seem to want to blame rising healthcare costs on the ACA, but I don't think that's the problem, and I suspect everyone who wants it repealed will still see increases in premiums regardless. I broke a rib this year and had to have an xray to rule out a lung puncture since it was displaced. It was a weekend, and two urgent cares turned me away because they wouldn't xray an abdomen, so I had to go to the ER. I paid $1200 out of pocket to get an xray and I have insurance. The healthcare system is just plain broken when a simple xray costs over $1000. I see the Republicans saying yeah it's broken let's do away with the current system, but I have yet to hear their solution. Repealing ACA isn't a solution unless there is some sort of plan to address skyrocketing healthcare costs.

Actually  my understanding is that there are 9 different plans.  (I do not know the details of said plans)  The issue is getting all parties to agree to one that can actually pass through the house and senate.  Unlike the ACA where no one had actually read it, I believe that they will be reviewing the plans and identifying what will and won't work.

This is going to be a very difficult thing to pass as the republican party is actually quite diverse in terms of economic, religious and societal beliefs.  Imagine trying to agree on what coverage should be included?  Birth Control?  Experimental procedures?  Mental Health?  Each one has it's own set of issues.  

I wasn't coming here to argue the benefits of the ACA.  I was just asking what the GOP plan was to replace it.

Here's what I think I've learned:

The GOP has no plan. The whole 'replace' thing is a smoke screen.  i.e.. they're lying.  None of you care or want to see a replacement.  I did not expect this. Thank you for giving me a look into your world.

I'm sure you're all wonderful people.  You give to charity, take care of those you love, etc.  I didn't call anyone here xenophobic or racist.  But, you are supporting the plan to take away health insurance from 10's of millions of americans so that the very wealthy can pay lower taxes.  There's an inherent moral decision there.  You can decide if it's good or bad.  It's not the world I want to live in, but perhaps it's the world you want.  

What I'd prefer to see from the right, is some action to actually make the country a better place to live.  It's so much easier to destroy than build.

and your strong opinions on climate change, do not outweigh the overwhelming science that says otherwise.  It just says that you've made up your mind and really don't understand what 5,000 climatologists have unanimously determined.  Apparently you know more than they do.  I'm not sure how, but you seem to feel strongly that you do.

It has more to do with gerrymandering, the electoral college, lack of education of civics, and media attention.  Democratic senate candidates received 23 million votes more than republican candidates.  and, as you are well aware, Hillary received almost 3 million more votes than Trump. But yeah (sarcasm), it's because you get offended when liberals claim the moral high ground for wanting the government to protect people from toxic water.

Oh, it's water and not health care now......got it.

Sorry, but I'm not offended, and I've been called anything you could possibly come up with.  I'm still laughing that the liberals still don't get it. For the record,you can claim whatever you want to claim. In fact, you can have the moral high ground if you need it to make a point, I'm fine down here with the folks who just go through life taking care of themselves and their families and not hurting others. That's my contribution to my fellow man, to not intentionally hurt anyone, not be a burden to anyone, and raise self-sufficient productive members of society.

Of course we can help those who get beat down through circumstances they have no control over, all decent people do that, it's expected....you have no high ground there and get no points for taking that position. Like I said,  it's expected of decent people.  But let's face it......there are a lot of poor life choices involved too. I can't fix that, and I'm not paying for it.

And you're wrong on the election, btw. I stood there on the protest lines and watched as folks who just wanted to live their lives were screamed at, spit on, blocked from going on their way, and talked down to by folks on the high ground you think you hold. I watched their faces and heard them talk to each other and nod knowingly. A year ago I warned that they would have their say.....and they certainly did.  For now they hold every card......and with 3 possible Supreme Court appointments coming they have assured they get to play them.  Happy now?  Claiming high ground doesn't mean you have it.  That's a lesson for your party....although from what I can see it's still not learned...despite the fact that your party was virtually destroyed and lost it's voice in November. Now you can sit and watch the Replicans do whatever they want.....that's your prize....at least your view should be good from up there.

Sure, Clinton moved ahead when the votes from California came in.....I can live with that. For fun, when you have to come down from the mountain to go to sleep.....check out the national county by county vote. 

If there was a detailed counter-plan to the ACA that was agreed upon by most / all of the Republicans in Congress, then it would've been pitched to us sometime during the past 8 years, probably during an election cycle.

When they finally do offer a plan, it will be the usual conservative checklist: block grants to states, defund Planned Parenthood, deregulate insurance companies (hello high risk pools and lifetime maximums), and oh yeah run up even more of a deficit.

And before anyone goes off and flames me, why don't we just sit back and see if my prediction comes true.

Maybe, but will it also have lower end plans that cost less for people who don't need an expensive plan with low deductible.  Will small businesses be able to ban together to purchase insurance on the same level of large companies?  Of course there are other improvements that could be made as well. 

Let's not pretend that Obamacare was the be all and end all....especially when it was insurance companies who helped write it. LMAO '

But yeah, it will have some Republican slant to it......that's the benefit of a Republican House, Senate, and President.  Maybe the Democrats should have thought of that while they were up there on that high ground.  

Not directly related, but a big cost savings would be if they change the law so that Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices.