Trump Backs Delay Of Obamacare Repeal After Pressure From Rand Paul

Tyler Durden's picture

As we reported earlier today, while many items on the Trump agenda for both the "first day" and the rest of 2017, could take a substantial amount of time and effort before they are legislated and implemented, one thing that there was virtually unanimous consensus on, was that Trump would immediately launch the repeal of Obamacare, even if replacing the Affordable Care Law would take considerably longer (as it would require bipartisan support). 

However, it now appears that even the prompt repeal of Obamacare is in question as Trump has now backed waiting to repeal the Affordable Care Act until a replacement proposal is in hand, following in a Friday night phone call with Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican said Monday, adding to momentum for changing GOP leaders’ strategy on dismantling the 2010 health-care law.

Paul has emerged a vocal leader of a growing group of Republican senators expressing concerns with GOP plans to vote to repeal the health law early this year, then to hammer out over weeks or months what would replace it after a two- to three-year transition. Cited by the WSJ,  Paul said in an interview “I believe we should vote on replacement the same day we vote on repeal,” and added that Trump called the senator on Friday night “to say he agrees completely."

As the WSJ adds, a Trump transition official confirmed that the incoming president spoke with Mr. Paul on Friday, and said meetings are under way to determine how a replacement law could be approved at the same time—or close to it—that a repeal of the law is approved. Last week, Trump personally warned congressional Republicans on Twitter to “be careful” about the political consequences of moving quickly to repeal the law.

The push from both Trump and Paul, as well as at least five other GOP senators, will put pressure on Republican leaders to accelerate the process of crafting a unified GOP replacement plan. Republicans have proposed dozens of ideas over the years for overhauling the health-care system but have yet to coalesce around a plan.

In other words, in a shift on a popular Nency Pelosi statement, the Republicans "will not repeal it eventually come up with a replacement", but will do both at the same time. The question now is how long such a unified process could take.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who met with Mr. Trump in Trump Tower on Monday morning, appeared to indicate Sunday that Republicans were accelerating the process of settling on a replacement plan.

 

“We will be replacing it rapidly after repealing it,” the Kentucky Republican said Sunday on CBS. He wasn’t specific about the timing of the drafting of a new health-care system, or what it would entail, but he said, “There ought not to be a great gap between the first step and the second.”

Trump has said before that he wanted to “simultaneously” repeal and replace the health-care law, but GOP leaders on Capitol Hill hadn’t committed to that timeline.

One thing is clear: both repealing and replacing the health law would be complicated legislative maneuvers with sweeping repercussions for both the health-care industry and millions of American consumers. It could also take years, and keep Obamacare in its current form for a long time, contrary to Trump's campaign promises.

Reince Priebus said on Sunday that a new health plan might not be ready immediately after gutting the Affordable Care Act. “It may take time to get all the elements of the replacement in place,” Mr. Priebus said on CBS. “The full replacement may take more time than an instantaneous action.”

As reported previously, Republicans are planning to use a special process tied to the budget to pass legislation repealing the health law with a simple majority, but they can afford to lose few GOP votes. They would need all Republicans and several Democratic votes to then approve any replacement health-care system, in order to reach the 60 votes needed to clear the chamber’s procedural hurdles. Paul, who has objected to the budget maneuver over its spending levels, said that he would like to see what would replace the health law weeks later, after House and Senate committees have detailed how the ACA would be repealed. The budget specifies that they must produce their legislation by Jan. 27.

Meanwhile, in a separate article, Bloomberg reports that top advisers to President-elect Donald Trump will meet Monday evening with House Speaker Paul Ryan and his policy staff to discuss taxes and other policy issues, according to two people familiar with the plans. Topics on the agenda include tax reform, the budget, infrastructure and Obamacare.

As a reminder, tax reform was the other item that Trump is expected to be able to enact relatively painlessly.

Ryan and his team intend to walk through the tax reform plan House Republicans put forward last year, calling it a "priority issue" for the House and the president-elect, according to the other person, a Republican aide. House Ways & Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady will be the House Republicans’ point person on tax reform, the aide said. According to Bloomberg, though Trump and Ryan agree on plenty, points of contention include tariffs for companies that move jobs overseas, a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, as Trump has called for, and how many people an Obamacare replacement should insure.

Present at the meeting will be all the top economic Incoming White House aides Reince Priebus, Stephen Miller, Stephen Bannon, Jared Kushner and, of course, former Goldman President Gary Cohn.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
1980XLS's picture

Do it.

Just do it right.

Then stick it up the snowflake's ass.

07564111's picture

America been CONNED ;)

fx's picture

repealing barrycare is as easy as it is necessarey. Replacing it with a viable, efficient health care  system - not so much. Go, figure. Face it, folks: you have to bring medicare/medicaid costs down a lot, you have to scrap the near-monopoly profits of pharmaceutical companies and the rich 1 % will have to pay for the poorer 90%. Or else the U.S.A will go up in flames between now and 2100 without any external enemy firing even a single shot.

 

Overfed's picture

How about if we just repeal it and leave it at that for now.

nmewn's picture

Because tranny's won't have their operations paid for by someone else thats why!!! Because nuns will be without birth control thats why!!!

But seriously, this propaganda number of "newly insured" under ObamaCare being bandied about...20 million...I think is the latest...has anyone dove off into those numbers and found out the number who are COMPELLED to have it because its "the law"?

I would hazard a guess that stripping the number feeling FORCED to have health insurance instead of spending their money on other things would be around half that and there's only one way to find out...repeal the mandate and see what those numbers really are ;-)

Peak Finance's picture

My understanding from multiple sources is the ENTIRE 20 million + newly insured are from the Medicaid expansion, and are not new insurance purchasers. 

The_Juggernaut's picture

All these years of bitching about Obamacare and they still haven't figured out what system they'd prefer?  What a bunch of worthless fucktards.

ToSoft4Truth's picture

What has Rand Paul been doing since 2010.  LOL!!! 

 

Trump is going to create 20,000,000 'good paying' jobs that include healthcare.

panhead20's picture

Can't wait to see how much Trumpcare costs.
Until the entire medical industry stops making obscene profits from people getting sick, nothing will change.

tmosley's picture

How about we repeal it and replace it with a fucking free market?

There is no reason that I need to see someone with 26 years of schooling to set a fucking broken bone or get some stitches. 95% of medical care could be replaced with BS level medical professionals or less. Course bloat is a real problem in medical education. There is ZERO reason for a doctor to need to take humanities, chemistry, or any number of other things. Just fucking certify them and pump them out. Let them return to the lower middle class professionals that they were before the AMA was deified and our medical system descended into unaffordable fascism.

Bad Whitey's picture

You had me until "chemistry."  

robertsgt40's picture

I spent 30yrs in healthcare.  There is nothing the govt touched that didn't turn to sht. This will be no different. Rearranging the deck chairs won't help.

 

jusman's picture

Sadly that is because the "government" is in the pockets of the lobbyists of pharma and private hospitals.  As a Canadian, there is no question that the quality of government single payer health care is not as good as private health care covered (only partially) by Obamacare in the USA.  But EVERYONE is covered. And the differences are not worth 5x the cost.  And if one has the $$$ it is still possible to go elsewhere and pay for what you get.  So until it is possible to get the $$$ out of politics, I am afraid not much will change.

jeff montanye's picture

you are right.  and if the government used its market power to reduce prices and put the information on the internet about the actual performance of drugs, operations, doctors, hospitals, so consumers could have the crucial information they need to make efficient and informed choices, medicare for all would be the answer.

every other advanced nation and many others have single payer.  it gives good results, especially for the 99%, at a half of the price we pay or less.  

it is the simplest and cheapest system (we already have medicare).  tweak it with the best academic research and the experience of other nations.

also the government should support research into disease cures.  big pharma doesn't want cures, they want customers, i.e. lifetime drug therapies.

 

Multi's picture

Isn't Rand Paul supposed to be kind of Libertarian? Days like this is when I'm happy he got destroyed during the GOP debates.

What about this crazy idea: just repeal Obamacare, once we are at it repeal any other healthcare legislation, and let the (actual) FREE market do its thing. You do not replace it with anything. I know, a crazy idea, we don't want to upset Big Pharma, Unions, Medical Boards licensing, and so on.

Ace Ventura's picture

AMEN! Why the hell should the monstrous lunacy of Barrycare be 'replaced' with anything at all? Yeah, lets replace a punch to the gut with an uppercut to the jaw. If GUBBERMINT is involved, we're going to take a punch somewhere.

C'mon Rand, your dad has GOT to be pissed at how far from the tree you landed.

tip e. canoe's picture

"big pharma doesn't want cures, they want customers, i.e. lifetime drug therapies."

bingo, and they want doctors who prescribe treatments that create more customers.

Salzburg1756's picture

If u cant pay 4 it or get someone else to pay 4 it, then go without it. Its that simple. Medical costs would drop to 25 or 30% of present costs

jeff montanye's picture

we'll wait to hear from you after the cancer diagnosis.

tip e. canoe's picture

watch "The Truth About Cancer".

the doctors that are actually making positive inroads are getting harassed by the Feds.

American Psycho's picture

Repeal and replace with "the free market."

Secret Weapon's picture

How about this for a system?  I take care of my family and you take care of yours.  If I want to help out some one else I will.  Otherwise - - fuck off.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

Your on to something......Meedicaid is what? SINGLE PAYOR. That was the goal all along.

panhead20's picture

Everyone needs health insurance because everyone will see a doctor sometime in their life.
The alternative is to let be die in the streets if they cannot pay for their healthcare.
Hope your maids, waiters, nannies don't have any communicable diseases. They won't be getting treated if they don't have insurance.

LyLo's picture

Is this satire?  Are you serious?  I honestly can't tell.  I mean, ZH has me pretty jaded at this point.

If so, FYI: doctors take cash.  I don't know who told you otherwise, but it's not criminal for you to not have insurance (but there is a tax/penalty for being uninsured under certain conditions) nor is it illegal for doctors to treat you.  And ERs still can't turn anyone away.

And besides, maids and nannies are illegals so will either not be getting care or getting it for free, and waiters usually qualify for medicaid because they are underpaid so badly.  I know this, as these are my neighbors.

nmewn's picture

I normally don't respond to prog trolls but you're a special kind of dumbass snowflake troll. I went without health insurance for over forty years for my "healthcare" as a contractor for various companies and thats a fact. You wanna know how I did it? 

I Paid The Fucking Doctor In Cash For What I Owed.

Special snowflake dweeb.

Phat Stax's picture

Curious if you ever had a devasting accident or illness during that time.   One event of 4-5 nights in the hospital can have a $65K price tag attached.  Did you ever pay one of those off?  If you did, then you probably can afford to have that level contempt for others.

Ace Ventura's picture

Perhaps, but don't you wonder WHY a 4-5 night stay in a hospital costs as much as a friggin' Porsche?

We should not assume such insane pricing is a result of anything normal.

RAT005's picture

I'll join in to mention you are a complete moron. I agree with the guess that you equate health insurance with health care.  they have almost nothing to do with each other. There are providers that won't honor Obamacare and there is insurance that won't treat some people's issues so it is the same as no insurance.

Son of Loki's picture

This tax law should have been declared unconctitutional at the lower level before ever reaching the Supreme Court. Then they dropped the ball and also screwed over the American middle class.

"If you want to keep your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance."

One of Obama's Biggest lies that Democrats still freaking defend.

What a FARCE!

techpriest's picture

The issue is to define "repeal."

In its entirety, politically a handful of very loud people will lose their coverage. Then again it's going to happen no matter what so it's best to rip off the bandaid now.

It seemed that the more likely plan was a partial repeal, i.e. only the parts that hurt voters/employers. This would of course merely mean astronomical debt/taxes because the law is horrendously expensive, and someone must pay the bill.

But yes, the ultimate goal is to get to a point where we completely eliminate Obamacare, Medicare, and employer-provided healthcare. Then, costs can become affordable.

greenskeeper carl's picture

replacing it with what? why does it need to be replaced? What needs to be done is an overhaul of our healthcare system that involves enforcing existing price fixing laws on insurance companies and hospitals. FORCING people to buy a product from a private company is wrong, and ending that should be a top priority. Followed quickly by gettingthe government out of healthcare.

Billy the Poet's picture

Get rid of the lines around the states. That will create an entirely different world of options.

Son of Loki's picture

In general, I have had no problems with doctor bills since they usually work with you since they also know many fees are outrageous...unless they are hospital-employed doctors then they don't give a Phuck since they're on salary and even if you sue the hospital will cover them.

Hospitals are bandits and overcharge mercilessly from what I have seen. I helped my old neighbor fight a $120,000 hospital bill for his two total hip replacements that were uncomplicated. Crazy stuff!

In any case, I suggest NEVER use a hospital employed doctor and go to an independent medical or surgical group where they have skin in the game to maintain their reputation. I find them the BEST. Plus, med schools are too expensive and something needs to be done about them since only the 'entitled group' seems to qualify for scholarships these days so other kids are left with huge loans/debt.

If time. etc permits consider a foreign hospital in a big city like Beijing, Shanghai or Chaing Mai. Just pick a big teaching hospital associated with a med school.

TuPhat's picture

All doctors Texas are required to work through a hospital by law.  It sucks.

LyLo's picture

All that's left of our many hospitals in Northern KY after 2008 and the ACA is St. Elizabeth.  Then they bought every doctor's office in the region. 

Now, we only have one hospital, and they own every doctor.  Wooo!

tip e. canoe's picture

you will find similar monopolies all over rural & small city U.S.  in many places they also run the nursing homes, hospices & home health care.

check out the complaints some of these places have sometime, it will make your head spin.

post turtle saver's picture

"Get rid of the lines around the states. That will create an entirely different world of options."

amen... why am I dealing with 'blue cross blue shield of texas' for example when I should just be dealing with 'blue cross blue shield'

Chupacabra-322's picture

Things ran a lot smoother, effectively &'efficiently when certain Institutions were "Public" instead of Private for profit.

Remember, Public Access TV? Public Hospitals, Public Roads, Public Prisons? Etc... I could on but you get the picture.

The Global Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Crime Syndicate have Centralized those same Institutions.

Welcome to the NWO Global Fascism Model.

techpriest's picture

Public prisons didn't work. That's why private prisons came around.

More specifically, the drug war overfilled the public prisons (remember the news about that?), and private prisons sprang up to meet the additional demand. The root problem is the drug war and a relentless desire to jail people over trivial matters.

What Name's picture

Do you sleep with a pillow over your head? If not, you may be soon.

assistedliving's picture

stick to golf greenskeeper.  upvotes notwithstanding.  Obama's ACA was basically Romney's.  What i find hard to grasp is how we 'force' our kids to fight a war and die based on "mistaken" CIA info yet forcing them to buy their own healthcare "is wrong".  Isn't ending the longest wars in our history a greater priority than an admittedly lousy hc plan?

nmewn's picture

"Obama's ACA was basically Romney's."

There's a BIG FUCKING difference, one requires you to just move across a state line. ObamaCare requires you to move out of your country. And you want to talk about force? I wish you were standing in front of me I would show you what force really is.

And I would force you to tell me you like it.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

Bingo! Everything the gubmint gets into {edjewcation, home loan guarantees, healthcare, baby formula, rent, you name it} they put a floor on the price of it, and it just goes up form there, EVERY TIME. get the gubmint out of healthcare, and you could pay for allot of it out of your own pocket. Same goes for all the other items I listed above. But the Feds don't want you independent, they want you dependent on them, so they can control you. Once the gubmint gets involved in something, and the price of said something goes to da moon, the gubmint's continued presence in that role becomes indispensable, as you can no longer afford it by yourself. Most people can't see that, and that is why they will always cry out for more gubmint involvment.

techpriest's picture

The first time I was looking for insurance, it was a year before ACA, and a policy would have gone for $70/month with a $5k deductible. Do the Dave Ramsey thing and build up a $10k emergency fund, or even just get a credit card the size of the deductible, and you are good to go.

The same policy was $350/month after ACA.

FreedomGuy's picture

You don't know much about heathcare like most people posting. Because you visit a doctor or pharmacy you think you know how it works. You don't. There is nothing to can do to bring down healthcare expenditures. The demographics will overwhelm you. You can bring down the individual prices for some things but probably not much or people will not provide the products and services. It costs a lot to provide them and it is very complicated with lots and lots of rules and penalties/lawsuits if things go wrong. Medicare is already trying to make postive change with things like wellness visits and chronic care management that seem to have benefit.

People are living longer and having more things done at a later stage of life. I am amazed at the age of some people still getting joint replacements and the likes. There are more treatments, tests and procedures available than ever before...and that is a good thing. Unless people start expiring sooner they will get more treatments with a longer life.

Your monopoly statement is to say that there should be no patents? Would you take away tech patents, too? Do you believe in property rights? What percentage of healthcare costs are pharmaceutical and what is the cost of the treatment versus the alternatives including no treatment? What part is hospital and what part are office visits? You might be surprised.

Most of the things that would bring down costs and expenditures long term have to do with freedom and that will not be done. If you want long FDA processes to keep you safe, certified pharmacists, prescription controls, eleven years or more training for a doctor, EMR systems and lots of certifications, those come with structural costs. Most countries that have lower costs do not have the same controls.

And if you try to quote me Europe or foreign countries with their single payer systems, do not waste breathe. They have a different paradigm, authoritarian negotiations and are subsidized by the U.S. much they same way as their Boy Scout size militaries are backed by our 11 carrier groups. Contracting in socialist countries is a different game.

Obamacare is stupid leftists intervening in something they did not understand...and really did not care to understand. They wanted a talking point and a road to single payer. It's insanely expensive, virtually no actual coverage short of catastrophic and losing money. I can tell you part of the reason is they tried to eat the whole cost enchilada without understanding how our private system subsidizes the government systems. That's what dumb central planners do.

Paul and others are partially right. You need to figure out what happens to the currently insured or you will end up dumping many on the street insurance-wise. If they have a new condition they may not get reinsured. If they are generally healthy, it was relatively simple to buy a plan on the open market and pay for the level of coverage you wanted.

Americans choose to spend a lot on healthcare and they/we have lives that tend to need it over time. I doubt that will change.

Son of Loki's picture

i knew it was shitty coverage when gubmint employees refused to accept it so Gruber excluded them from being forced onto it.

 

The Democrats are 99% liars since the plan stinks and more and more doctors refuse to accept it.

It needs to go unless Schumer, Pelosi, Reid and Obama put themselves and their families on it...if it;s so great.

ToSoft4Truth's picture

The way to lower healthcare cost is to remove the economic dislocations.   And believe in the afterlife.