General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHouse Republicans to Brainstorm on Health Care
Yay.
https://politicalwire.com/2025/11/12/house-republicans-to-brainstorm-on-health-care/
House Republicans to Brainstorm on Health Care
November 12, 2025 at 5:40 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
kacekwl
(9,144 posts)they're going to fall short.
Jack Valentino
(5,011 posts)IA8IT
(6,423 posts)RockRaven
(19,365 posts)And don't say that Oz guy. He's a charlatan.
pat_k
(13,371 posts)sakabatou
(46,143 posts)leftieNanner
(16,159 posts)The ACA passed in 2010.
But I'm sure they will have something ready to go in two weeks.
Hugin
(37,847 posts)Yeah, and probably an unfunded health care savings account. So they can shrug and say that they have no responsibility and blame the victims for not having any money in it.
sakabatou
(46,143 posts)leftstreet
(40,666 posts)and also modeled on Romneycare. The only bitching GOPers did about the ACA was the subsidies
There's really nothing they can do here but go...left
haele
(15,393 posts)That everyone needed to be on it or on a market or employer's plan that had similar coverage requirements it if they wanted the tax breaks and -
A minimum of health care services were required to be covered by the ACA or other health care plans that got the tax exemptions whether or not the covered person thought they needed it or not.
Remember the huge nit-picking stink about OB/GYN requirement on all the plans -
"I'm a Healthy 30 year old Man, I shouldn't have to pay extra for women's health care or Cancer screenings or Autoimmune Diseases or Geriatric Services until I'm Good and Ready to...if all I want is Catestrophic coverage, that's all I should need to get..."
Couldn't ever explain to them Health Care is not like going to a Starbucks, and why the pool had to be large enough to affordably cover everyone.
We're going to end up with the "affordable" crap they had from around 1987 to 2011, where tens of thousands of working class people a year went bankrupt or lost their homes from unexpected medical bills and - hundreds of thousands a year more went "another year putting off seeing a doctor" due to limits on annual visits and coverage until their health situation became so bad they either ended up in the ER or had to quit working due to disability - and then struggle for years in poverty trying to get on SSDI if they were too far away from retirement.
That's what the GOP now wants, because "Romney Care" is no longer needed for businesses to keep a relatively productive workforce in place; AI will cut that workforce need in half - or get rid of it altogether.
If you're not needed, you're fired - go get another job or starve.
They don't care.
Jack Valentino
(5,011 posts)(A concept of a plan to prevent any improvements in American health insurance costs)
NewHendoLib
(61,857 posts)gab13by13
(32,314 posts)the CEO's of Insurance companies who will do the brainstorming.
wolfie001
(7,659 posts)Dumbass Rubio did some shenanigans that caused increased prices early during the rollout. These rePUKE fuckers will only make things worse. Protecting billionaires.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2025, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Without it, all companies need to set rates that include the possibility of insuring one or more of the very high cost people. This raises the cost for everyone and most of the time simply leads to higher profits.
When this policy of the federal government essentially covering catastrophic costs was added to the ACA bill it led to a BIG reduction in overall costs as modeled by the Congressional Budget Committee. Rubio's eliminating it raised premiums AND the cost to the government of ACA.
wolfie001
(7,659 posts)I've always known him (Rubio) to be a piece of trash and a phony.
Disaffected
(6,399 posts)I'm guessing the latter...
thought crime
(1,562 posts)A shitstorm by any other name...
markie
(24,017 posts)Changing the name to GOPCare or TrumpCare wont take long
.
Obama is the only part of the ACA they dont like
. If theyre honest
oh wait
.
RazorbackExpat
(938 posts)a tsunami of shitty ideas
yaesu
(9,327 posts)Jack Valentino
(5,011 posts)'Republicans brainstorm'...
Frasier Balzov
(5,060 posts)Just let the free market work its magic, right?
Xolodno
(7,349 posts)Reagan wanted to just give a block grant to each state depending on population and let them decide how to go about it. One thing about the GOP in Congress, they rather punt on an issue than deal with it every few years.
Rincewind
(1,357 posts)They couldn't come up with a brain light mist.
chouchou
(3,142 posts)Lovie777
(22,961 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2025, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)
shithole and the Republicans re-name Obamacare (ACA) to "thrumpcare", seriously.
Clouds Passing
(7,928 posts)The Project 2025 agenda would severely decrease access to and the quality of affordable private health insurance. It would expand junk health plans (short-term limited duration plans) that do not comply with the ACAs protections (470). These plans may charge women and people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage and do not have to cover the ACAs Essential Health Benefits, such as prescription drugs; pregnancy, maternity and newborn care; and preventive services, leaving many without the coverage they need. Project 2025 also seeks to separate unsubsidized and subsidized health plans into separate marketplaces, making it more difficult for people to compare various plans scope and quality (469).
Project 2025 directs the administration to reissue a 2019 Final Rule (473) that essentially made ACAs modest protections for people to access abortion coverage meaningless, with devastating effects on health and economic futures. As part of its anti-science agenda, Project 2025 also conflates abortion and emergency contraception and proposes eliminating coverage of emergency contraception from the ACAs contraceptive mandate (485). Further, the extremist playbook aims to undermine the ACAs womens preventive services mandate, which requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without cost-sharing, by narrowing coverage of evidence-based care and restoring ideologically driven and antiscience recommendations from the past (484485).