How the loss of Obamacare would affect almost every American

Yes, killing Obamacare is not a good idea, in fact it’s reprehensible even though the ACA has not fulfilled the promises made and rather than lower costs it increased them.

However, those who defend Obamacare, also mislead and fail to grasp the implications. Most people have been protected from pre-existing conditions since the enactment of HIPAA in 1996. Under the original ACA law, Americans were supposed to have health insurance… but millions ignored the law.

As for all those free, no-copay new benefits that stuck it to insurance companies and employers, they merely raised premiums and shifted costs from users to non-users.

We have not solved the health care coverage issue for all Americans.

Source: Liz Weston: How the loss of Obamacare would affect almost every American –


  1. When the government gets involved in anything the price goes up. Healthcare, College, even road repair. The ACA is just another example of the SNAFU the government brings to everything. The DMV is a prime example in most states, it sucks. As for the people without healthcare, the government could of just expanded Medicaid and left the rest of the healthcare system in tact.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sorry, Health Reform was a piece of crap, when it was approved by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009. The D’s knew it, and once they lost their 60 seat super majority in the Senate (special election in MA), they knew they couldn’t get that passed in a Senate that lacked 60 votes for cloture – so, the house held their nose, and voted for it, without changing a comma. It is why we also got HERA (or did you forget about that process).

    Health reform was confirmed to be a “wealth transfer” or “redistribution” or “spread the wealth around” process by the head of CMS in the Obama Administration.

    It asked people who had health coverage to pay more so that D’s could buy votes among those who did not have health coverage. It asked younger Americans to pay disproportionately more to cover old folks, when they were already paying the majority of the cost of Medicare for the aged (FICA-Med, and general revenue (income) taxes).

    With respect to pre-ex, just like all of the claims of widespread “medical bankruptcies”, this was a lie. And, should PPACA be reversed (which it won’t), it will be a big lie, again.

    To avoid application of pre-ex, individuals need only to maintain coverage. Further, most self-insured employer-sponsored plans had already removed pre-ex limits after HIPAA became law in 1996. And, even where pre-ex is applied, HIPAA and state insurance law limits the application so that it only applies when there has been a 63+ day break in coverage, pre-ex only applies to the specified condition, and generally applies for a maximum of no more than one year.

    So, we know that only those who would intentionally go without coverage will potentially subject themselves to pre-existing condition limitations – should PPACA be reversed, in total. Full reversal is, of course, highly unlikely since there are five justices on the Supreme Court today who, in 2012, held that major provisions could be severed (Medicaid mandate) leaving the rest of the law intact. The other reason why the entire PPACA won’t be reversed is because the court is likely to take judicial notice that the individual mandate was not integral to the operation of the law – at least not as a tax – given that there hasn’t been any revenue from the individual mandate provision for a couple of years.

    Maintaining coverage should be a priority for everyone. And, we know pre-ex is not a major issue where individuals maintain coverage. When PPACA took effect in 2010, we had a three year period (2011 – 2013), prior to the expansion in coverage in the public exchanges and Medicaid, where the federal government implemented the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program (PCIP). As you should know, HHS had estimated in 2010 that over 30MM individuals without coverage had a pre-existing condition. Apparently, it was just a little, teentsy-weetsy, ever so slight overestimate – the PCIP never had more than 105,000 enrollees in any month during the three year period.

    That is, we know what the issue is – cost. It was the issue in 2009 – 2010. It remains the issue today. PPACA prioritized expansion in coverage over provisions that would have reduced cost. There are alternatives, under PPACA, that would address the challenge of cost, however, there is no consensus in Congress to change priorities.

    This is all about speculation, lies and fear mongering. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was the same in 2009 – 2010 (you can keep your coverage, you can keep your doctor, your costs will decline $2,000 a year, etc.)


    Liked by 1 person

  3. I beleive the ACA could have been a great law if all state governments would have complied and had the spineless Congress not watered it down almost as soon as it was enacted. From what I read about it at the time the law itself had all the proper protections and requirements to be a good answer to a very complicated problem but once the hard part of enforcement came the Governors of some states decided to not join in so the medicaid aspect of it was invalidated , then Congress decided to change other aspects of cost which would have made the implementation effective and in so doing removed certain funding aspects which could have resulted in a more financially robust process. If they would just go back and enforce the original law the way it was written I believe it would be a pretty damned good solution to the health care problem. Of course unless some bi-partisanship plays in the entire issue is moot unless there is a complete sweep of both houses of Congress along of course with the Presidency in which case the Dems could/should enact all the legislation needed with the guts to fund it and then even if they loose a few elections down the road at least the legacy of their effort will sustain them in history. I point to a very good article from the New Yorker herewith. Enjoy a time when a man with a good heart and soul lived in the White House

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s