Rand Paul just introduced his Obamacare Replacement Act


Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican and onetime presidential candidate, introduced his version of a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

The bill, named the Obamacare Replacement Act, would eliminate several provisions of the ACA, including the individual mandate and minimums on coverage standards. The bill’s fact sheet doesn’t mention any provision to allow parents to keep a child on their insurance until they turn 26.

Interestingly, Paul’s plan would provide a two-year window for people with preexisting conditions to sign up for care. It would then revert to pre-ACA rules in which people with preexisting conditions could still get coverage in the group market. It’s unclear what would happen to people with preexisting conditions in the individual market after the two-year open-enrollment period.

Additionally, the bill would provide every American a tax credit worth up to $5,000 for contributions to a health savings account to put toward health insurance and other healthcare costs

And what about people with pre-existing conditions who sign up and then later lose coverage because they lost a job or can’t afford their premiums. I assume that they would be in the same condition they used to be in which is that they would be unable to get individual health insurance.

This plan is going to screw over a lot of people. I hope it isn’t the actual replacement.

Have you actually read the plan?

Details of this plan have been floating around for a while. Its not going to provide universal coverage.

Does that really matter anymore?!?!?

Obamacare didn’t do that either.

But from what we know about Paul’s plan, it would cover fewer people than Obamacare.

My sister has a chronic condition that has already almost killed her. I’m trying not to panic but mostly failing. And the return of lifetime caps is freaking me out. I had to get a surgery in 2015 that they charged the insurance almost $25k for and I may need more of them. And skin cancer runs in my family. Healthcare is a basic need. We shouldn’t have to weigh getting treatment against affording our bills.

Here’s an article about the CatholIc view of the problem with a summary of a US bishops’ commission investigating the issue.

The ACA caused a lot of problems for a lot of people too.

Nobody seems to be considering the actual problems, and the result is all they offer is solutions that only work for some people.

I’m sorry, am I supposed to feel better about people, many of whom have severe health problems, losing their insurance or having to pay exorbitant sums because this guy doesn’t like the ACA? He seems motivated by ideology, not practicality.

In my comment below, jot is written for not. I apologize, and I can’t fix it because my browser won’t let me scroll down

Later in the article he touches on some of the practical problems, but he doesn’t go inti them deeply, possibly because there are different problems in different states.

I thought that the summary of some of the Catholic bishops’ comments and suggestions about the issue would be of interest to people on CAF; that was the main reason I posted it.

Just because a person doesn’t like the ACA doesn’t mean they just want to remove it and have everything go back to the way things were. The way things were, the more a persOn needed insurance, the more difficult it was to get. My own family had difficulties under the previous system.

But the ACA is not a good solution, and to me, the main reason it is jot a good solution is that it doesn’t address the actual problems in our medical delivery system. Pushing one problem, high costs, onto the government, is not a real solution.

nah, we’ll read it after its passed…oh wait…

Neither does Obamacare.

We’re actually talking about a smaller group. People with preexisting conditions have to be covered under ERISA-qualified employer provided plans, which is basically all of them.

So the real target group are those who:

  1. Have resources too great to allow them to access Medicaid, and
  2. Do not have employment with an employer who provides group coverage, and
  3. Cannot afford the premiums, and
  4. Have preexisting conditions that will not be covered by insurers, and
  5. Whose annual cost of care for those conditions exceeds Obamacare deductibles.

I have never seen anything that puts a number to that group. Nor have I ever seen anything that convinces me federal supplementation to state forced-placement plans, perhaps combined with MSAs, wouldn’t provide it more cheaply for both government and individuals than Obamacare. For myself, I suspect it might. And improvements in the delivery of healthcare might make it better still.

The HSA can be added to the existing ACA, can it not? But it’s less money to the Treasury either way. I’m sure it was considered before.

It’s unclear what would happen to people with preexisting conditions in the individual market after the two-year open-enrollment period.

Yes, that nagging problem of pre-existing conditions.

Well, my sister is in that group, so I’d like to see something concrete and not just guess that because a pseudo libertarian proposed it, that it will necessarily reduce costs and make everything better.

I work two part-time jobs and am under Obamacare because I don’t have private insurance, so I had no choice but to be under it or else be fined as a criminal (yes, let’s call it what it is) if I didn’t apply. I looked at all the “options” available and couldn’t afford a one on my own, so I took the cheapest which has a $7,500 deductible. There’s no dental, vision or prescription. What good does that do me? Because the government benefit pays into it, when I do my income taxes (EZ form, since when you don’t make money, that’s the one you use) I get $200 back along with my refund. That will pay a heating bill for a couple months. Whoopee!

As they say, it’s better than nothing. If I get run over by a dump truck, I’m covered, once I come up with $7,500. Then it’s Easy Street. Well, I don’t have $7,500. Who’s going to pay for that? Am I to be placed in a hallway in an Emergency Room and let nature take its course?

Here’s some things. 1) Revoke allowing hospitals, medical facilities and doctors from refusing to care for Medicare/Medicaid recipients. They have to take them. Won’t they get all that money? Aw, too bad. Looks like having to buy that third vacation house in Aspen won’t happen. If the one in Ft. Lauderdale isn’t enough, too bad. Care for everyone or else lose your license or be closed down. 2) Pre-existing means pre-existing. Under Obamacare, insurance companies can’t deny coverage, but it sure can charge more for it. Ask my neighbors who have two member with pre-existing conditions. Under Obamacare, they would have to pay over $12,000 a year. They took the “punishment” and will continue under Medicare. That costs us. 3) Having people receive health care when they need it is not a part of “free-enterprise” or “capitalism.” It’s a part of caring for each other. Even though medical/pharmaceutical/insurance corporations and individuals don’t make as much money to buy that extra vacation home, that BMW, that yacht, etc. they’ll still get lots of money. If that isn’t enough, then let them stop serving humanity. Their alternative will be to wear a blue vest and ask “how can I help you?” and wonder how to pay this month’s electric bill. Having one nice house and one nice car should be enough. If not, let them watch their spouses and children struggle to stay sheltered and fed.

When I was born in the stone-age of Happy Days, the total bill for everything was $250 and my dad’s work insurance, through a union insisting on it. Somehow, the doctor and the hospital made money. The doctor lived in a nice house and had a Cadillac with fins on it, the height of luxury back then. The hospital paid all its bills. Now you can’t visit a doctor for an ingrown toenail for that just for a consultation while reading a Better Homes and Gardens with coupons clipped out from three years ago as you wallow in the waiting room two hours after your appointment.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.