The effects of a repeal of ACA

[stpioc]

House Speaker Paul Ryan apparently did not update his Obamacare factoids, in his opening statement Tuesday.
Speaking at the National Association of Manufacturers summit, Ryan incorrectly said that Iowa would have counties next year that would lack an insurance provider on the Obamacare exchange. For some time this spring, it appeared that would be the case.

At that time, Minneapolis-based Medica signaled it might leave the Iowa exchange, which would have left nearly all counties in the state — and nearly 70,000 residents — without an insurance provider. However, Medica told CNBC last Friday it is staying in Iowa and all of the other states in which it is currently operating.

But that decision is coming at a cost. On Monday, Medica filed for a 43 percent rate increase in Iowa, citing the uncertainty in the market. John Naylor, CEO of the not-for-profit insurer, said last week that the big problem facing insurers is the uncertainty over cost-sharing reduction subsides and over the Trump administration's commitment to enforce the individual mandate.

Paul Ryan needs to update his Obamacare facts as Medica opts to state in Iowa

So, the only rationale the Republicans have to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something that is much worse is that they are arguing Obamacare is failing. To a considerable degree, they are the cause of that.

[stpioc]

Orin Hatch was against the reconcilliation procedure, calling it an abuse of democracy. Now that his own party is using it, not so much..

In short, in less than a week, Senate Republicans are considering ramming through a major piece of legislation that the public has not seen and will not be able to respond to, and they’re using a method specifically designed to circumvent any mechanism the Constitution allows the Senate’s minority party to stop it.

But don’t take it from me: Take it from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who agitated fiercely against the Senate Democrats’ rumored plan to pass Obamacare through reconciliation in 2010. “This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope,”

Hatch wrote in a 2010 Washington Post op-ed titled “Reconciliation on health care would be an assault to the democratic process.” “And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.”

In the op-ed, Hatch details exactly how reconciliation allows a majority party to abuse parliamentary power, and why it’s inappropriate for health care. “It sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle),” he wrote. “But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.”

But now, when it’s Republicans considering “[corroding] the legislative process,” Hatch is mum on the dangers of the process — even defending the bill’s secrecy.

The 2010 op-ed Senate Republicans don’t want you to read

Actually, compared to what the Republicans do with their AHCA, the introduction of Obamacare was a paragon of transparency and democracy, extending over a year and with many public hearings and debate..

Obamacare had 100 Senate hearings and 161 amendments from Republicans. Trumpcare has had 0 Senate hearings and 0 amendments from Democrats.

WATCH: McConnell signals Senate GOP will jam through Trumpcare after a few hours of debate