Obamacare v Republican plan compared

[Allybeboba]

As compared by BBC's North American reporter Anthony Zurcher

Link to the BBC article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39810145

[BrerBear]

Better one here at the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...-bill-compare/

The Washington Post version compares ACA to both House and Senate versions separately.
Also easier to read.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Is this the best our government could come up with?

Remember Trump: "more people will be covered, it will be cheaper, and it will be better quality."

Guess it is cheaper...for the government.

[Edge-]

Is this the best our government could come up with?

Remember Trump: "more people will be covered, it will be cheaper, and it will be better quality."

Guess it is cheaper...for the government.

"The government will pay for it"

Except when they don't. But remember, Trumps the honest, straight shooter than can be taken at his word!

[Gestopft]

Is this the best our government could come up with?

I was just listening to Rand Paul talk about how he's unsure about the bill because it doesn't have enough "free market" reforms.

Until our government (*cough* Republicans) realizes that market forces don't work in healthcare the way that they do for other consumer goods, and until they look around the world at the countries that do healthcare better and cheaper and realize that they all rate-set, then yes- this is the best they can come up with.

[Lenonis]

Eliminating the employer mandate is a stupid, stupid move. The second employers stop offering coverage will result in an ugly political backlash.

[primalmatter]

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

[Breccia]

Guess it is cheaper...for the government.

Right. In that respect, it's like the infrastructure plan, the air traffic control plan, and the Paris Accord.

The fact that prices for the average American will go up doesn't seem to matter. We need that trade war over a Wall that will never be built, so let's get those border tariffs on the table!

[Xeones]

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

Because the goal of republicans isn't to improve health care.

Their singular goal is to get a tax cut for the richest people in the country. Copying Canadas system would increase the tax burden on said elites.

[Orbitus]

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

Its too socialist for right wingers. But they don't realize what Medicare is.

[Mormolyce]

They're in an impossible position, they want to kill the ACA but the political consequences are basically apocalyptic, so instead they're just chipping away at the edges.

This is pretty much the last chance they will ever have to actually stop Obamacare in a meaningful sense, and the ideologues know it. But they'll probably eventually be brought to heel and this half measure will pass, leaving the skeleton of the ACA intact. And then it's permanent and you'll spend every election cycle either beefing it up or watering it down, but the core of it will become unassailable.

So Obama won.

Long term anyway. In the short term this bill may not pass at all.

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

Or Australia's, which Trump called "better than the US". Despite moving in the exact opposite direction.

[mvaliz]

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

How about you telling us why? The Republicans look at Canada's system and shout "SOCIALISM BAD!!!". Shit, man, the original draft of Obamacare had a Government-funded option, but all your republicans cried it was evil and was removed. >_<

[Thepersona]

Both seem pretty horrible. Why not copy Canada's healthcare system?

Because Canada's system is one of socialized medicine, and the republicans would die before that commie thing could come to america?

[paralleluniverse]

Better one here at the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...-bill-compare/

The Washington Post version compares ACA to both House and Senate versions separately.
Also easier to read.

The WaPo version is not accurate on pre-existing conditions, BBC is.

BBC (true):

Pre-existing condition coverage

Republican plan: States can let insurers charge as much as they like to sick people. Allocates $8bn to help subsidise those patients.

WaPo (technically true, but false in effect):

Insurance companies are not allowed to increase someone’s premiums or deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, though states may allow them to not cover costs associated with some conditions.

The truth is that allowing essential health benefits to be waived effectively ends protections for pre-existing conditions. It's not just that costs for some conditions may not be covered, as WaPo claims, but also that insurers in waiver states can price-discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, which WaPo fails to mention.

As I explained:

Allowing states to waive essential health benefits has the following effects:
- Protections for pre-existing conditions are gone, because this would allow insurers to offer plans with different benefits and price. Suppose you have cancer, then you need to buy a plan that covers cancer treatment. Since cancer treatment is no longer an essential health benefit as a waiver is granted, many plans may not include cancer treatment (if you bought this and then get cancer, you're screwed). The plans that do include cancer treatment could be more expensive by orders of magnitude. It could be so expensive that it is unaffordable for people with cancer. In short, insurers will able to price-discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.
- Ends the ACA's cap on annual and lifetime limits, even for employer plans, because this is based on EHBs.
- Ends the ACA's cap on out-of-pocket costs, even for employer plans, because this is based on EHBs.