Executive order to gut the ACA possibly incoming?

[Bullettime]

So they have plans to sell across state lines, the concern that those that are in poor health conditions will suffer worries me but then I remember that insurance companies are prolly against it because they will loose their precious monopolies.

Another note is that because the action goes into effect 3 weeks after the enrollment period starts for coverage on Jan 1, it will require a rewrite by insurance companies for their offered policies, premiums, and deductibles which will not be done in time for people to get coverage on the 1st. All of the plans set to be offered on Nov 1 are basically void..

Meaning, unless a federal court steps in and puts a hold on it immediately, which they can and likely will, people may actually find themselves without insurance period for the month of January.

Unless I'm wrong however. Feel free to correct me.

edit: Regardless, it's going to throw the marketplace into chaos because insurers will have no way to gauge how many people will be enrolling in plans in order to set pricing and coverage.

[cubby]

Link here

Basically after multiple failed attempts at healthcare reform, Trump is looking to use an EO to cut the legs out from under the ACA in an attempt to make Republican healthcare plans more palatable, at the cost of lives and money from those who are on it already.

I'm full well expecting a federal court to put a hold on this immediately.

I could not agree more. Thank god for checks and balances. Once this idiot and his Orange turdlings are gone, we can get some order back in the U.S. and the world. Meanwhile, we've got a good line of attorneys that will stave off bedlam as Cheeto (again) tries to fuck everyone in the U.S. over.

[ranzino]

Now real please: as everybody knows a court is able and will stop it, what is the purpose of said EO ?

[Kujako]

Now real please: as everybody knows a court is able and will stop it, what is the purpose of said EO ?

As I said, it's to let young healthy people without preexisting conditions buy junk insurance from non-insurance groups, diluting the insurance pools and driving cost for real insurance up.

[Sormine]

Now real please: as everybody knows a court is able and will stop it, what is the purpose of said EO ?

Hoping he could win and show that he's able to do something.

[Edge-]

Now real please: as everybody knows a court is able and will stop it, what is the purpose of said EO ?

"Look at me, I'm taking action! Look at all this action I'm taking! Go me!"

[Bullettime]

Now real please: as everybody knows a court is able and will stop it, what is the purpose of said EO ?

Looking like he's doing something and trying to cause more chaos to the market. Even if a judge puts a hold on it, and they will, adding more chaos to the market will make more providers pull out, raise prices, etc.

Instead of coming up with a good healthcare bill, he just wants to destablize the market enough to where the GOP bill is more palatable of a change. The EO doesn't need to stand for that to work.

[ranzino]

pfft
is Congress up in arms already ? they should be, just to defend their rights to propose and vote in such laws. if republicans are shy to defend their own privileges, they are pussies !

[Machismo]

I'm not sure Trump has the authority to do most of what he says he wants to do with reform, but I actually support some of it. If it involves loosening restrictions, and opening up the free markets (interstate purchasing), then I'm all for it. Of course, I really don't think he's allowed to do it unilaterally.

[The Penguin]

Link here

Basically after multiple failed attempts at healthcare reform, Trump is looking to use an EO to cut the legs out from under the ACA in an attempt to make Republican healthcare plans more palatable, at the cost of lives and money from those who are on it already.

I'm full well expecting a federal court to put a hold on this immediately.

The problem with the ACA is ultimately that it was passed on a party line vote. If it'd had Bi-Partisan support it could of been better. One of my biggest complaints on it isn't so much what it tried to achieve, but the means by which it was achieved and the Individual Mandate. Reid and Pelosi's actions are the biggest problem here. They now are weeping that Conservatives are doing to them what they got. Neither side will admit they were wrong either.

Repealing simply the mandate and then working to fix the ACA and improve it. Problem is because Obama was so goddamned flippant and dismissive to the Conservatives, the above will never be enough. They have to rip it to shreds and teach him a lesson, and then they'll talk. But they really won't. In short, we're dealing with the same crap Taran Zhu said once of the Alliance and Horde. I've reworded it to apply.

Common Sense: ENOUGH!! There will be no more bitching today. I see now why you Liberals and Conservatives cannot stop fighting. Every reprisal is itself an act of aggression, and every act of aggression triggers immediate reprisal.

Nancy Pelosi yells: They want dirty water and they support deporting millions!
Paul Ryan: We want to reduce regulations and they support illegal Sanctuary Cities!

Common Sense: SILENCE! YOU must break the cycle. It ends TODAY. Here. The cycle ends when you, Speaker, and you, Minority Leader, resign from your offices so others can do what you were supposed to do. The will of your people.

[Bullettime]

The problem with the ACA is ultimately that it was passed on a party line vote. If it'd had Bi-Partisan support it could of been better. One of my biggest complaints on it isn't so much what it tried to achieve, but the means by which it was achieved and the Individual Mandate. Reid and Pelosi's actions are the biggest problem here. They now are weeping that Conservatives are doing to them what they got. Neither side will admit they were wrong either.

Repealing simply the mandate and then working to fix the ACA and improve it. Problem is because Obama was so goddamned flippant and dismissive to the Conservatives, the above will never be enough. They have to rip it to shreds and teach him a lesson, and then they'll talk. But they really won't. In short, we're dealing with the same crap Taran Zhu said once of the Alliance and Horde. I've reworded it to apply.

Except what's being done today isn't being done by legislators. This is a power overreach by Trump to try to take the legs out from under a law passed by our legislators. It's also why the courts will put a hold on it.

If the GOP rammed through their shit, that'd be a different argument but it would at least be their area to legislate and make laws.

[Draco-Onis]

The problem with the ACA is ultimately that it was passed on a party line vote. If it'd had Bi-Partisan support it could of been better. One of my biggest complaints on it isn't so much what it tried to achieve, but the means by which it was achieved and the Individual Mandate. Reid and Pelosi's actions are the biggest problem here. They now are weeping that Conservatives are doing to them what they got. Neither side will admit they were wrong either.

Repealing simply the mandate and then working to fix the ACA and improve it. Problem is because Obama was so goddamned flippant and dismissive to the Conservatives, the above will never be enough. They have to rip it to shreds and teach him a lesson, and then they'll talk. But they really won't. In short, we're dealing with the same crap Taran Zhu said once of the Alliance and Horde. I've reworded it to apply.

The ACA was written on a bipartisan basis, it was designed on Romneycare and Newt Gingrich proposals on the recommendations of the heritage foundation. When it went through bipartisan committees several republican amendments were made only to have them not vote on it out of fear for the tea party. Your complaints are based on nothing but right wing fantasy.

[The Penguin]

Except what's being done today isn't being done by legislators. This is a power overreach by Trump to try to take the legs out from under a law passed by our legislators. It's also why the courts will put a hold on it.

If the GOP rammed through their shit, that'd be a different argument but it would at least be their area to legislate and make laws.

Part of the problem here is that half of the Country isn't going to buy that logic. They see it as a measure the Liberals passed on technicalities, gaming the system and by altering the rules. Thus regardless of what anyone says they won't see reason on it. All they care for is ripping it apart to prove a point.

This is one reason I feel Harry Reid has irreparably damaged the process. His efforts along with Pelosi of "Hurry! Pass it!" damaged more than just their party. It damaged the very institution of the House and Senate. Obama could of done a lot of good if he'd taken a strong stance and said:

"No. Something as massive as this requires Bi-Partisan Support. I understand you want this, but there's a right way, and a wrong way. /veto"

That would of cemented him in history as a very different person, and even Conservatives would be far, far harder pressed to speak ill of him. Unfortunately that wasn't his way. Because he rubber stamped it and even brought out some poor young boy to serve as a photo-op, many people believed and still believe that as far as Presidents go, he was just a puppet. The token Black President or "world first" as it were. Instead of inspiring people however, he acted like a obedient man-servant who did what he was told by his Party.

Is that rotten to say? You bet it is. But unfortunately that's the legacy he created. Instead of taking command and having his own style of doing things, he read from a teleprompter, vacationed and was obedient to a fault, falling in line. Whatever Pelosi or Reid wanted passed, he signed. In short, there was no check by the Executive Branch. There was just the glorious party and it's agenda.

That I believe is one reason why Trump is liked. Because while he is a Republican, there is no love lost. Some in the party hate him, and that is a very good thing. The Executive Branch is supposed to be a check on both the Legislature and the Judicial Branch. Trump may be disliked, but you can't deny that he's a very independent President by comparison.

[Redwyrm]

Dumbass basically forgot to sign the thing (Pence had to guide the old man back to the podium).



And this is not the first time he's done this.

[Fugus]

Part of the problem here is that half of the Country isn't going to buy that logic. They see it as a measure the Liberals passed on technicalities, gaming the system and by altering the rules. Thus regardless of what anyone says they won't see reason on it. All they care for is ripping it apart to prove a point.

This is one reason I feel Harry Reid has irreparably damaged the process. His efforts along with Pelosi of "Hurry! Pass it!" damaged more than just their party. It damaged the very institution of the House and Senate. Obama could of done a lot of good if he'd taken a strong stance and said:

"No. Something as massive as this requires Bi-Partisan Support. I understand you want this, but there's a right way, and a wrong way. /veto"

That would of cemented him in history as a very different person, and even Conservatives would be far, far harder pressed to speak ill of him. Unfortunately that wasn't his way. But because he rubber stamped it and even brought out some poor young boy to serve as a photo-op, people believed he was just a puppet. Whatever Pelosi or Reid passed, he signed. There was no check by the Executive Branch. There was just the glorious party and it's agenda.

Republicans made up half of the committee that drafted it, it had over 100 republican riders attached to it. They even agreed to pass it at first till they did an immediate about face and switched up to obstruction at all costs to make him look bad with the republicans refusing to get off their ass and do their jobs for 8 years and instead set records for obstructionism. And if I recall correctly, it wasn't rushed through, it took months to get through.

It was good ole Mitch the Bitch and his obstructionism that turned that into a huge deal just as it turned the debt ceiling into some huge deal and tried shutting down the nation twice to get their ways. Along with them refusing to do their job when it comes to hearing Supreme court nominees, leaving us with an illegitimate justice appointed by a president who wasn't his to nominate and refusing to look at the previous nominations all while setting a hugely dangerous precedence.

[Edge-]

Dumbass basically forgot to sign the thing (Pence had to guide the old man back to the podium).



And this is not the first time he's done this.

The evidence that Trump is suffering from dementia or something similar continues to mount. How do you forget to do the thing that you specifically call a press conference for...twice in a year?

[Gestopft]

The problem with the ACA is ultimately that it was passed on a party line vote. If it'd had Bi-Partisan support it could of been better.

You'll have to forgive the Democrats for taking a Republican healthcare plan from the 90's (and a sizable amount of political capital) and expecting Republicans to buy in. ACA didn't even have a public option- the Dems started by meeting the GoP halfway, and the final bill had plenty of Republican amendments in it- ultimately it was the GoP that decided to stop participating for political reasons (starting in about September of 2009 iirc).

Repealing simply the mandate and then working to fix the ACA and improve it.

The mandate is a big part of what makes the ACA function...how do you fix an insurance-based healthcare plan by shrinking the pool?

It's also how other developed nations with private insurance markets make it work.

It was also, like much of the ACA, a conservative idea from the Heritage Foundation. Every time conservatives complain about how "far left" the Democratic party has gone, I just point to healthcare, where the GoP has careened farther and farther to the right for decades.

[Breccia]

Trump eases ObamaCare rules with executive order

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at taking action on ObamaCare on his own after Congress failed to repeal the law.

Trump said Thursday the order is "starting that process" to repeal ObamaCare. It will be the "first steps to providing millions of Americans with ObamaCare relief," Trump said.

Administration officials said the order is just the beginning of the administration’s actions related to the health-care law.

Experts warned that the order could undermine the stability of ObamaCare markets by opening up skimpier, cheaper plans that would divert healthy people away from ObamaCare plans.

Democrats warn that the order is part of Trump’s larger plan to “sabotage” the health-care law and accomplish on his own what Congress could not.

The full extent of the effects will not be immediately clear. The executive order largely does not make changes itself; rather it directs agencies to issue new regulations or guidance. Those new rules will go through a notice and comment period that could take months, officials said.

The bolded part is no surprise. Trump has signed a number of "look this up and get back to me" E.O.'s in the past.

Trump’s order seeks to expand the ability of small businesses and other groups to band together to buy health insurance through what are known as association health plans (AHPs). It also lifts limits on short-term health insurance plans.

Because both of these types of plans do not have to follow the same ObamaCare rules, such as minimum benefits standards, experts warn that healthier people could join these cheaper plans and leave only sicker people in ObamaCare plans. That could lead to a spike in premiums for ObamaCare plans or insurers simply dropping out of the market.

The move is a victory for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long pushed for expanding association health plans, saying they give people choices for lower-cost coverage. He joined Trump at the White House on Thursday, calling the move the “biggest free market reform of health care in a generation.”

“This executive order is good for healthy people (while they're healthy) and bad for sick people,” Larry Levitt, a health care policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on Twitter. “Only question is the extent of the effect.”

Democrats have already been crying foul about administration cutbacks to outreach about the coming ObamaCare enrollment period, which begins Nov. 1, including a 90 percent cut to the advertising budget.

"Having failed to repeal the law in Congress, the president is sabotaging the system, using a wrecking ball to singlehandedly rip apart our health care system," Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) said in a statement.

"If the system deteriorates, make no mistake about it, the blame will fall squarely on the president's back," he added.

The American Hospital Association criticized the order, warning that it could "put patients at risk" and "destabilize" the market. The organization warned that the order opens up the ability for people to buy plans with fewer benefits and fewer protections.

The order does not address whether individuals can join association health plans, a move which would have made it broader and deepen its effects on the ObamaCare market.

However, officials have only discussed the change in the context of small businesses, and a senior administration official said “some employer-employee relationship must be present” for someone to join an association health plan. Officials do say that small employers in the same “line of business” anywhere in the country could join together.

It does not address whether people in the short-term or association plans would still have to pay a penalty for lacking insurance. But an official said that “presumably,” at least for the association health plans, people would not have to pay the penalty.

The order will also allow people to use tax-advantaged accounts known as health reimbursement accounts to pay for their premiums.

So, to sum up:
A) A lot of it is for show.
B) This goes back to the "buying across state lines" mantra, which everyone knows won't work as expected. If, say, Georgia sells insurance for $1000 and Texas for $1200, then letting people in Texas buy from Georgia will only raise the price in Georgia.
C) The key effects seem to be letting more people -- either by banding together to form some kind of alliance, or staying on the short-term gap coverages -- will cause more people to lose the ACA requirements, including such things as maximum total coverage caps and failing to pay for required items like ambulances. Which were made mandatory for a reason.
D) Trump is able to govern by E.O. by affecting how regulations work, as head of the Executive Branch. It's the same as when Obama did it, and Trump attacked him for it. Repeatedly. So, yeah, hypocrite.
E) From CNN:

The order, Trump said from the Roosevelt Room of the White House, would give "millions of Americans with Obamacare relief." It would "cost the United States government virtually nothing and people will have great great health care. And when I say people, I mean by the millions and millions."

Trump, again, is trying to get better care, for more people, for less money. This E.O. does one out of three at most, and only if you're healthy or become part of one of those groups that bands together to buy a cheaper plan with less protection. It will cost them less money, but as a direct result, cost everyone else more. It will also not cover more people, and the coverage by the very construction of the E.O. will be worse. Trump is blatantly lying. Also, he could be way off on the numbers. He said the estate tax affects millions of small businesses when it really affected 80 last year.
F) And, of course, the act of this signing alone will raise prices, because that's what uncertainty does to insurance markets. Insurers have already raised 2018 rates based on the potential that this might happen. It now has. Expect rates to rise further.
F2) Expect Trump to claim those rate increases are not his fault.
G) And the whole seems to be aimed at reducing state and federal enforcement, and I find it monumentally hard to believe that reducing oversight will somehow work out to the consumer's benefits by virtue of a better product for less money. I just don't think that's realistic.

[Gestopft]

B) This goes back to the "buying across state lines" mantra, which everyone knows won't work as expected. If, say, Georgia sells insurance for $1000 and Texas for $1200, then letting people in Texas buy from Georgia will only raise the price in Georgia.

Wouldn't it also mean Texans having to travel to Georgia for providers in the Georgia network? Or is that not how it works?

[Breccia]

Wouldn't it also mean Texans having to travel to Georgia for providers in the Georgia network? Or is that not how it works?

In the Across State Lines mantra, no, that's not how it works. You just magically get insurance, in Texas, at Georgia prices. Georgia does not raise their rates and they let you use your Texas doctor, hospital, and employer.

It is, of course, possible to set up a new plan that covers more than one state or employer. They do not charge people based on the cheapest. That's just mythology.