What happens if Obamacare gets repealed?

[Little_Sheep]

For many people with serious pre-existing conditions, having healthcare coverage is not a luxury but rather a necessity. They would get sick and possibly die without it.

Yes, this. I do not believe there is any chance of Obamacare getting repealed. In fact, I think the next President will make it better.

OP, I am sincerely sorry for your stresses about this. I hope we will one day live in a country where healthcare is a given for all citizens. God bless.

 

[Little_Sheep]

if they can afford Obamacare, how can they not afford the penalty.

I have received exemptions the last two years because I did not make enough to purchase Obamacare.

My youngest sister took the penalty the 1st year the ACA was in play because she does not make much $ and felt like she could not afford it. But she dug deeper in year two and was able to find a very affordable plan and now she is covered. It may depend on what state you are in though.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My youngest sister took the penalty the 1st year the ACA was in play because she does not make much $ and felt like she could not afford it. But she dug deeper in year two and was able to find a very affordable plan and now she is covered. It may depend on what state you are in though.

they need to make health care insurance competitive like auto insurance.

 

[vz71]

Pre-obamacare, there wasn’t much, and what was out there was usubsidized so it would be likely out of reach for someone like me.

“Likely??”

Didn’t you do research into this?

I would think someone that is as you have described would be very familiar with health insurance, subsidies, pre-existing conditions, etc.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I guess what you’ll do will depend on what is put in place to replace it. If it were to be repealed, I highly doubt we’d go back to the mess we had before.

I live in California, never underestimate the ability of the government to foul something up. They can always make it worse, and it seems the more involved the worse it gets.

A lot will depend on whether the replacement is a well thought out coherent plan for sustainable insurance— or a tool to push us into single payer. I don’t want a repeal on day one, I want a two year project to develop the replacement with sub-groups working on specific issues. Before its voted on, I want our representatives to be able to brief us in detail every single item and its near and long term consequences.

However, the pre-existing condition is something that won’t go away. Everyone realizes it’s a huge hurdle imposed by tying health insurance to employment. Under the old system it was move employers, lose insurance. Big difference from auto insurance. Because auto-insurance is mostly based on things the customer can control- value/type of vehicle and their driving habits. Health insurance is tougher for actuaries in predicting who’ll come down with expensive diseases/conditions. (Here’s the problem with government being the sole provider, easier for them to justify being our nanny telling us what we can do/eat/lifestyle since its affecting other folks directly due to medical costs). Person paying a rate based on a lifetime odds comes down with something will be paying a cheaper rate than someone who had to shift insurance after the condition is known. That’s a break for the insurance company involved, shifting a customer from a risk pool to a known condition.

Whatever we do though, the basic math still comes down to the same. If the average cost of health care per individual in the country is $XX per person, than whoever is covering the health care costs has to come up with $XX per person plus overhead/profit. So as someone else called it winners or losers-- somebody has to pay more than they use plus more than the average, while others who just can’t afford it will have to be subsidized.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DarkLight;13725763]Pre-obamacare, there wasn’t much, and what was out there was usubsidized so it would be likely out of reach for someone like me.

Part of that problem is the government over-regulating the industry.

Simply put, a for-profit company has no incentive to offer health insurance to someone like me.

They don’t have much an incentive to offer insurance to people because of government interference.

Otherwise, why would a for-profit company turn away clients?

I’m always going to cost more than I can pay in premiums.

Well, if people keep voting for politicians who support bad policies because they are selfish, then yes, you ARE going to be paying for a lot, and not just for healthcare.

But this sulky attitude that some folks have is often an excuse to yield to the government solving the problem.

Pretty risky to have politicians with law degrees determining your health care decisions, but if people want to put hopelessness of feeling sad first, then expect similar results on the ROI.

 

[SuperLuigi]

My youngest sister took the penalty the 1st year the ACA was in play because she does not make much $ and felt like she could not afford it. But she dug deeper in year two and was able to find a very affordable plan and now she is covered. It may depend on what state you are in though.

It’s a bad policy that hurts 60% to benefit (probably temporarily) only 30% as decided by the government.

And I like what someone said on the radio earlier “I wish I had an euro every time an American said it must work for everyone because it worked out for me/my family.”

 

[DarkLight]

Part of that problem is the government over-regulating the industry.

They don’t have much an incentive to offer insurance to people because of government interference.

Otherwise, why would a for-profit company turn away clients?

Well, if people keep voting for politicians who support bad policies because they are selfish, then yes, you ARE going to be paying for a lot, and not just for healthcare.

But this sulky attitude that some folks have is often an excuse to yield to the government solving the problem.

Pretty risky to have politicians with law degrees determining your health care decisions, but if people want to put hopelessness of feeling sad first, then expect similar results on the ROI.

I think you missed the point here. For someone like me, medical care is going to cost a couple hundred a month, in expensive medications and the fees for the specialists to manage those meds. I don’t have a couple hundred a month to spare. No insurance company would want to take me for less than that couple hundred a month, because otherwise they would be taking me at a loss to themselves.

I saw what happened to people like me pre-obamacare. They stayed with family permanently because they couldn’t pay rent and medical bills at the same time. Or they bounced in and out of hospitals and racked up debt for bad treatment because they couldn’t afford necessary care to prevent emergencies. I was fortunate that my health problems hit after there was more offered for people like me.

 

[Thorolfr]

Otherwise, why would a for-profit company turn away clients?

Why would a for profit company take a client with a serious pre-existing condition that they know with 100% certainty would be a big money loser for them? They would only do this if they are forced to accept such clients.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Thorolfr;13726622]Why would a for profit company take a client with a serious pre-existing condition that they know with 100% certainty would be a big money loser for them?

It wouldn’t be a 100% certainty big money loser for them if you were a paying customer.

They would only do this if they are forced to accept such clients.

Not at all:

 

[SuperLuigi]

If Obamacare is repealed, then my relative who cannot afford health care will no longer be given a multi-hundred dollar penalty per family member, for being too poor to afford healthcare.
It is most unfortunate that a struggling worker is penalized through the taxation system and forced to surrender hard-earned money which might support better nutrition, a warmer home in the winter-things which actually support good health.

And where will your friend be if the government runs out of money, or if he/she won’t get treatment because of cost rationing, even though they are covered?

This is what happens when government is trusted to “help” people.

Think any of those people running policy on this in DC would give of their own stock to help your friend? Because it’s easy to use force to take money from others to pay for things, but it’s much less fun to give of your own to someone else.

This is why market-driven solutions whereas big government ones do not.

 

[Thorolfr]

It wouldn’t be a 100% certainty big money loser for them if you were a paying customer.

Not at all:

It would only not be a big money loser if the customer with a serious pre-existing condition is paying more for their insurance than the insurance company is paying out. But that’s not going to happen and that’s not how insurance works. The money paid by healthy customers subsidizes what the insurance company pays on the sick ones. But it the insurance already knows that a potential customer is sick and is going to cost them a lot of money, why would they willingly take such a customer?

So if a customer pays $7000 per year for their insurance, but the insurance company pays $16000 per year for that customer’s prescription medicines and doctor’s visits, how is that not going to be a big money loser for the insurance company?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DarkLight;13726591]I think you missed the point here. For someone like me, medical care is going to cost a couple hundred a month, in expensive medications and the fees for the specialists to manage those meds. I don’t have a couple hundred a month to spare. No insurance company would want to take me for less than that couple hundred a month, because otherwise they would be taking me at a loss to themselves.

Okay, then here’s what you need to do:

You either need up your education and find a better job or you need to take a better look at your budget and re-assess your priorities. Having internet, for one, and not being able to have health insurance would be problematic.

At the end of the day, I really don’t think you need to be in this situation.

I saw what happened to people like me pre-obamacare. They stayed with family permanently because they couldn’t pay rent and medical bills at the same time. Or they bounced in and out of hospitals and racked up debt for bad treatment because they couldn’t afford necessary care to prevent emergencies. I was fortunate that my health problems hit after there was more offered for people like me.

Repealing the AHA won’t solve all the problems, but it will be a start. All of these problems you keep listing are better solved in market-driven solutions. People can make whatever excuse they want, but the fact is governments do not make money, only take it by force and cannot in the end promise you or your friends anything.

 

[WillyAL]

I’m literally terrified of this - Obamacare for me is my only hope of being able to live a productive life right now. I can’t find a job that offers insurance. Without insurance I’d have to go on disability and not work, so I can get health care. Where do people like me turn if it gets repealed?

Not to worry. HRC is not going to repeal the ACA.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It would only not be a big money loser if the customer with a serious pre-existing condition is paying more for their insurance than the insurance company is paying out. But that’s not going to happen and that’s not how insurance works. The money paid by healthy customers subsidizes what the insurance company pays on the sick ones. But it the insurance already knows that a potential customer is sick and is going to cost them a lot of money, why would they willingly take such a customer?

So if a customer pays $7000 per year for their insurance, but the insurance company pays $16000 per year for that customer’s prescription medicines and doctor’s visits, how is that not going to be a big money loser for the insurance company?

First of all, getting rid of the AHA and instituting tort reform would bring both of those costs you cite down by default, but more so latter cost. Look at this issue holistically, please.

Secondly, too many of these comments are getting trapped in scenarios designed to rely on big government to save the day.

Third, states like MN have a great state-run program for people who are too poor for health insurance.

For those who think that the American federal government is the solution: If you LOVE what is going on with the VA Clinic, then you’ll LOVE the federal government running your health care. Be sure to expect similar if not worse results.

:tiphat:

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not to worry. HRC is not going to repeal the ACA.

We’re not allowed to talk specific candidates on here.

Whoever is the next president may not have much choice, especially after the rate hikes this year.

 

[DarkLight]

Okay, then here’s what you need to do:

You either need up your education and find a better job or you need to take a better look at your budget and re-assess your priorities. Having internet, for one, and not being able to have health insurance would be problematic.

At the end of the day, I really don’t think you need to be in this situation.

You mean the education I had to interrupt because I could either get my education done or have time to deal with my health? It doesn’t work that way. You have to take time to get an education, or time to work your way up to a decent job. That’s time people like me don’t get without access to healthcare first.

And things like internet service wouldn’t even make a dent in health care for someone like me - but cutting it off would put a serious dent in my ability to finish my education and possibly get to a better spot.

The thing with pre-obamacare health is it had a big gap for people like me. I make too much to be considered “poor” enough for state aid. But because of the conditions I have, I don’t make enough to pay my own healthcare expenses. And as has been said, no insurance company would take someone like me willingly.

 

[Latias]

Okay, then here’s what you need to do:

You either need up your education and find a better job or you need to take a better look at your budget and re-assess your priorities. Having internet, for one, and not being able to have health insurance would be problematic.

At the end of the day, I really don’t think you need to be in this situation.

Such a response, especially when one is not apprised of another person’s situation, seems to be ignorant. It would seem that your only response is to blame the OP for his particular for not being educated or being spendthrift.

It seems to affirm negative stereotypes on conservatives.

Repealing the AHA won’t solve all the problems, but it will be a start. All of these problems you keep listing are better solved in market-driven solutions. People can make whatever excuse they want, but the fact is governments do not make money, only take it by force and cannot in the end promise you or your friends anything.

What? Some market-driven nostrums and incantations are the only that is offered to assuage the concerns of the OP.

As pointed out in this thread, and is evidence through common sense, there is no market-based incentives that could provide individual health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions without exorbitant premiums. The only conceivable ways to address this issue are subsidies or risk pooling.

For those who think that the American federal government is the solution: If you LOVE what is going on with the VA Clinic, then you’ll LOVE the federal government running your health care. Be sure to expect similar if not worse results.

:tiphat:

That’s a red herring. The OP was clearly discontent with status quo ante ACA. The OP expresses doubts that a free market program could cover him like the ACA did. The challenge is to provide better alternatives that the status quo before Obamacare, not to criticize the VA Clinic’s shortcomings.

DarkLight, this may be an offensive question, and I would respect you if you chose not to answer it. Would you (or anyone else) in your situation vote for a candidate that supports abortion but would keep the ACA, while his opponent would repeal it but go against abortion. I precisely ask this because your personal interests are at stake.

My point for asking is to show that there are legitimate reasons one could not vote for a “pro-life” candidate. I object to the efforts of conservatives to portray civil and political issues as a matter of abortion and other issues pale in comparison. (I do not plan to vote in any election in 2016, just to say that I have no overt political preference.)

 

[Theo520]

I’m literally terrified of this - Obamacare for me is my only hope of being able to live a productive life right now. I can’t find a job that offers insurance. Without insurance I’d have to go on disability and not work, so I can get health care. Where do people like me turn if it gets repealed?

The direction is to replace it with a bi-partisan solution. I expect it would fix parts that are broken and make changes to actually reduce costs, but it wouldn’t result in refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

[jeannetherese]

if they can afford Obamacare, how can they not afford the penalty.

I have received exemptions the last two years because I did not make enough to purchase Obamacare.

Hi 7 Sorrows,
Not everyone who cannot afford Obamacare qualifies for an exemption. Then one pays a penalty and does not have health care.