So here is a summary of Rand Paul's proposal for replacing the ACA. I'll let you read it, but one of the things it does away with is the rule that says you can't deny coverage to those with pre-exisiting conditions.
@mattbbpl if you have time feel free to tell me what you think, I value your insight highly on such matters.
Haha, thanks, I'm flattered.
They are free to pass it (the only ones who can stop them at this point are themselves), but I don't see how this plan as reported will meet expectations. I will give credit for publicly acknowledging that to get rid of the mandate you must get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause, but I fail to see how this will increase coverage rates. This is particularly true given that, by the author's own admission, costs are being pushed further onto consumers and moved into a "save up for when you're sick" model.
If coverage rates fall (ensuring people aren't covered) and the payment model is pushed more from an insurance model to a savings model (ensuring that some people who are covered will still be unable to pay such as those who are young and haven't been able to contribute for long or those who are poor and haven't been able to contribute much), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 ensures that free riders will increase and the cost burden on those paying will continue to rise even as a percentage of the cost of the system.
Sure, they could fix that by repealing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, but I'm pretty sure they're not ready as a party to go there yet.
Log in to comment