Home | About | Donate

Why Donald Trump and the GOP Can’t Repeal Obamacare


Why Donald Trump and the GOP Can’t Repeal Obamacare

Sonali Kolhatkar

After Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare with “something terrific,” his administration has just released a set of tweaks to the health care law—and those tweaks all favor the insurance industry over ordinary Americans.


Simply not. thought. through. djt just picked up the rhetoric, which is grounded in ideology and nothing else.

My favorite development so far is the IRS taking djt's EO to heart and backing off on holding people to the penalty for not being insured. Oh!!! Undermining the other implementations! Who'da thunk?


Last August a specialist told me of a small procedure I needed. I did some calculations and found out I earned enough money to pay for the procedure out of pocket. I also made enough money to pay for premiums from a basic marketplace plan. However, I did not make enough money for both.

A little ironic that I can only afford health care if I DON'T have health "insurance". A little insulting that, because I took the time to crunch the numbers and find this out, I will be fined $700 (or however much).

A friend of mine does have coverage through ACA, on a special low-income plan with a different level of subsidies (i.e. not just tax credits). She is in desperate need of surgery, so she was glad to have it, but then found out the network essentially doesn't exist. She found a few surgeons who were in the network, but the hospitals they work with aren't--and vice-versa.

I'm helping her pay her costs while she is going through this. (I've also offered to help my mother with medical costs when she is recovering from stroke and needs heart surgery.) But I'm sure there are still a lot of people who think I'm an irresponsible deadbeat because I didn't bother to get insurance for myself.

When ACA was new, the liberals among us who opposed it did so mostly not because it wasn't an improvement over what it replaced, but because we knew Obama et al. would be forever patting themselves on the back for having solved a problem that was far from solved, and because we knew that once it had passed, no legislator would want to fight for something that actually would solve that problem.


Well, sorry, but you violated the whole purpose of the ACA, and you're part of the reason the GOP is so gleefully "repealing" it. The whole. point. is for everyone to have insurance, and before they need it. You're not supposed to "crunch the numbers" and make a decision. And your premiums before you needed your small procedure would have helped provide care for your friend and your mother. That's how insurance works.


You sound like a typical "yea-Obama!" liberal. I did not have insurance the year before because I did not think I could afford it at all. I crunched the numbers in August to see if I could afford it next year. And your line about my premiums helping my friend and my mother sounds like the result of complete Obama brainwashing. Yes, I know that when healthy people pay higher premiums (or buy "insurance" when they probably don't need it), it helps keep premiums of less-healthy people from sky-rocketing even more. I know that. But to use that as justification that someone on an individual basis should pay for "insurance" that will, AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE, very likely put THREE people in financial or medical jeopardy is irresponsible and irrational, not to mention so is the simplistic reasoning to think that anyone in their right mind actually would behave that way--"Gee I might not be able to afford insurance, and I have two people who are likely to become financially dependent upon me, but let me buy insurance that I might not be able to afford anyway, because that is the right thing to do for the health insurance market as a whole." No.


How about your auto insurance? Do you get to decide whether or not to have it? No. Well, I wonder why that may be? Perhaps because it is in the best interest of the public as a whole instead of your self-centered, selfish desires.


My selfish, self-centered desires to not want to see my loved ones suffer, and to help them with their medical costs? Maybe you didn't bother reading my post. Or if you did, explain what is selfish about that. Better yet, maybe you can tell me about, or show me an article about, someone who refused to help their family and friends when they were in desperate need because that was the selfish thing to do. Jesus! My mother had a stroke and was gauged at a high probability to have another. Tell me, would you have refused to help your mother, thinking she might die, because that was a self-centered thing to do?


Sam! It's called a society. We share the burdens. We share becoming greater and greater than we ever were.

Actually, @sbrownn, what you're required to have on your car is liability insurance, so if you damage someone else or their property, they won't be dependent on your ability and willingness to pay. Health insurance is rather different.


Wendell Potter might disagree with you on that a bit. Here is how it works: they collect as much from you as they can, make you pay more copays than you can handle, and then deny you coverage every chance they get so the CEO can bank on our misery and sickness--and poverty.

Now when denying a 7 year old girl due to preexisting cancer hits the news, they sing a different tune for 24 hours.

Yes the ACA is so much better for so many, but greed is still the very heart of the system.



Should have said "how it's supposed to work." Unfortunately, I know too directly how it really does. Still, I'm more secure under the ACA than I ever was before. Please read my whole comment, in the context of @nephewsam's complaint.


I have a preexisting condition so the ACA is pretty meaningful to me. There are problems with it, as there are with any large program. The thing is, the biggest problems could be fixed pretty easily by doing 2 things: 1) raising the subsidies so they extend into the middle class deeper; and 2) electing governors that are willing to expand Medicaid. Just those two changes would make the law far more robust and, in the case of the first item, all it would take to implement is Democratic congressional majority. It could be done via reconciliation, avoiding filibuster.

We want single payer, I do, you do. But, if we can get to at least those two changes, that would be a direct improvement in people's lives. They are much more attainable too. Of course, if Trump creates enough chaos in the markets, all bets are off anyway. Don't forget, dreams of single payer can be smashed on the shores of an activist right wing Supreme Court just as easily as Obamacare too.