As I noted when I crunched the numbers for Texas, it's actually easier to figure out how many people would lose coverage if the ACA is repealed in non-expansion states because you can't rip away healthcare coverage from someone who you never provided it to in the first place.
As I noted when I crunched the numbers for Texas, it's actually easier to figure out how many people would lose coverage if the ACA is repealed in non-expansion states because you can't rip away healthcare coverage from someone who you never provided it to in the first place.
As I noted when I crunched the numbers for Texas, it's actually easier to figure out how many people would lose coverage if the ACA is repealed in non-expansion states because you can't rip away healthcare coverage from someone who you never provided it to in the first place.
In Montana, assuming 59,000 people enroll in private exchange policies by the end of January, I estimate around 39,000 of them would be forced off of their private policy upon an immediate-effect full ACA repeal, plus another 61,000 enrolled in the ACA Medicaid expansion program, for a total of 101,000 Montana residents kicked to the curb.
As for the individual market, my standard methodology applies:
As I noted when I crunched the numbers for Texas, it's actually easier to figure out how many people would lose coverage if the ACA is repealed in non-expansion states because you can't rip away healthcare coverage from someone who you never provided it to in the first place.
As I noted when I crunched the numbers for Texas, it's actually easier to figure out how many people would lose coverage if the ACA is repealed in non-expansion states because you can't rip away healthcare coverage from someone who you never provided it to in the first place.
Over at Business Insider, Bob Bryan has posted a writeup explaining where exactly things stand regarding the Republican Party's ongoing ACA repeal process. He's even included the handy checklist to the right.
The US House of Representatives on Friday struck the second blow in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare.
The House passed a resolution Friday that will direct committees in the Senate to draft legislation that would repeal the ACA.
The resolution's passage followed a morning of spirited debate, including a colorful goat analogy from one Republican lawmaker. But both parties largely stuck to their talking points: Republicans highlighted increasing premiums and costs, while Democrats focused on expanded coverage to more than 20 million Americans.
UPDATE 4/6/17: It looks like the GOP is trying one more time to cram through their much-hated "American Health Care Act" (aka Trumpcare 2.0) bill. The twist this time is that in addition to allowing states to kill off Community Rating and Essential Health Benefits (with the key phrase being "kill"), they'd also make High Risk Pools part of the mix (HRPs were already allowed in the earlier version, but apparently they'd be specifically mandated this time around...I think).
Given this development, I'm re-pinning this entry to the front of the site again.
(Update: Thanks to Griffin Cupstid, MD for the link to the CNN transcript, which allowed me to make some minor wording edits below).
So, I watched the ACA-related segments of Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's CNN Town Hall thing last night. He took several questions about the ACA (Obamacare, remember) and Medicare, but I'm just gonna focus on the first one here. The questioner was a self-described lifelong Republican who used to hate the idea of the ACA...right up until he was diagnosed with cancer and given just months weeks to live. Pre-ACA he would have been denied coverage for the pre-existing condition and would have died. He profusely praised the ACA and flat-out thanked President Obama for saving his life.The actual question was "why would Ryan repeal the ACA without a replacement in place."
QUESTION: I was a republican and I worked for the Reagan and Bush campaigns. Just like you, I was opposed to the Affordable Care Act. When it was passed, I told my wife we would close our business before I complied with this law. Then, at 49, I was given six weeks to live with a very curable type of cancer. We offered three times the cost of my treatments, which was rejected. They required an insurance card. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I'm standing here today alive.
Being both a small business person and someone with pre-existing conditions, I rely on the Affordable Care Act to be able to purchase my own insurance. Why would you repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement?
RYAN: Oh, we -- we wouldn't do that. We want to replace with something better. First of all, I'm glad you're standing here. I mean, really -- seriously.
QUESTION: Can I say one thing? I hate to interrupt you...I want to thank President Obama from the bottom of my heart, because I would be dead if it weren't for him.
Given the massive backlash/debate going on over the impending (supposed) repeal of the Affordable Care Act, there seems to be one particular fact which a huge number of Obamacare opponents (and even many supporters of the law) don't seem to be aware of.
One of the big talking points among ACA opponents is "Why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to subsidize someone else's lazy ass?"
Now, aside from the fact that a) "being self-employed" or b) "happening to have a job which doesn't offer health benefits" or c) "being married to/a child of either a) or b)" hardly makes one "lazy", there's something which these folks should know:
nearly everyone's healthcare coverage is heavily taxpayer subsidized.
Assuming 310,000 people enroll in private exchange policies by the end of January, I estimate around 207,000 of them would be forced off of their private policy upon an immediate-effect full ACA repeal, plus another 532,000 enrolled in the ACA Medicaid expansion program, for a total of 739,000 New Jersey residents kicked to the curb.
Thanks to Louise Norris for providing this report which breaks out the Medicaid expansion numbers by county. It's worth noting that like New York, New Jersey will also see more people lose Medicaid coverage post-ACA repeal than technically signed up "because" of the law because they, too, had previously partly expanded Medicaid via a pre-ACA waiver which has since expired. Unlike New York, however, in New Jersey's case I had already baked the larger number into my estimates anyway, so it hasn't changed anything.
As for the individual market, my standard methodology applies:
Over at Business Insider, 
