�鶹Ů��

The GOP House leadership’s plan to repeal Obamacare and then find a replacement three years from now has generated broad consensus: It’s a terrible idea. The Freedom Caucus’s incoming ringleader, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), says his group will put up major resistance. He thinks Obamacare should be repealed and replaced — just like Republicans promised — all within the 115th Congress. (Jennifer Rubin, 12/6)

In the six years since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have sworn that, given the chance, they would “repeal and replace” it. Now they need to deliver. Repeal should be relatively simple. Enacting a replacement and implementing it won’t be. And repeal without having an agreed-on plan for replacement in place is a recipe for calamity, as a new Urban Institute study shows. ... Ending those parts of the ACA that can be repealed without the threat of a Senate filibuster and delaying implementation for two years would leave more people without insurance than would have been the case if the law had never been passed, the study finds. Those actions would increase the number of people without health insurance by nearly 30 million in 2019. (Henry J. Aaron and Robert D. Reischauer, 12/7)

After campaigning for years on a plan of “repeal and replace Obamacare,” Republicans finally have the means within their grasp to make much of that possible. They control the presidency, the House, and the Senate. The filibuster still poses some potential threats to their plans, but it’s also within their means to abolish its widespread use in such a way that they could both repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something of their own design. What would that be? In contrast to what many say, there are Republican plans out there to consider. (Aaron Carroll, 12/6)

Senate Republicans on Tuesday announced they plan to act quickly to strip away Obamacare’s funding while leaving elements of the program in place for two or three years. The move would put them in lockstep with House Republicans, and would enable President-elect Donald Trump to sign a bill effectively repealing the program on his first day in office. Democrats promptly warned that the move would destabilize insurance markets in the short term and deprive millions of people of coverage in the long term, causing a “huge calamity” for America as well as for the Republican Party. (Jonathan Cohn and Michael McAuliff, 12/6)

Donald Trump's pick for health and human services secretary has hawked a detailed plan for years on how to replace the Affordable Care Act. While others in his party must answer the question, “Replace with what?” the question for Price is, “Would your replacement work?” In case you haven’t guessed, it wouldn't. (Rich Barlow, 12/7)

Almost from the moment of its inauguration in 2009, the Obama administration has struggled, often against adamant resistance, to enact and implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The 2016 election has brought to power opponents of the ACA who will control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and many state houses and governorships. ACA repeal, or “repeal and replace,” seems to be a very real, indeed likely, possibility. It is important, therefore, to take a sober look at what the ACA has achieved in its nearly six years of existence, and what repeal, or repeal and replacement, might look like. (Timothy Jost, 12/6)

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump sent mixed messages about his position on reproductive rights. Whatever his personal opinion may be, his appointees and their actions could put reproductive health care out of reach for millions of women, especially those living in poverty. Mr. Trump has promised to appoint a Supreme Court justice who opposes Roe v. Wade, but overturning that decision would be a long process, probably requiring two new justices. Even without that change, there are many potent ways to restrict reproductive rights — including not defending them against legal attack. (12/7)

Carson’s nomination as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised some eyebrows, and not just because Carson had recently said he wasn’t interested in running a federal agency. The responsibilities of the job — running a federal agency whose budget in 2016 neared $50 billion and that is responsible for helping local housing authorities manage over a million households — struck some as an odd fit for his training as a neurosurgeon. ... But public health professionals are hoping that he’ll bring his medical lens to the job — pushing for quality housing for low-income people and improving people’s health conditions within public housing. (Ike Swetlitz, 12/6)

Americans who buy health insurance through a job may take for granted the protections of employer-based plans. All eligible workers, whether triathletes or cancer survivors, are offered coverage. A coworker is not denied benefits because he’s had four heart attacks. In group policies, insurers do not single out people with health problems. Everyone is pooled together and everyone shares the cost. The employer usually kicks in a good chunk of money, too. (12/6)