Thoughts On Trump’s ‘Mystery’ Health Plan; Questions For Price; Flirting With Repeal Disaster?

Los Angeles Times: Donald Trump, Rand Paul And The Myth Of A Cheap Obamacare Replacement
News on the Obamacare-replacement front was dominated this past weekend by Donald Trump and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who both touted their Obamacare replacement plans. To be absolutely precise, they touted the claim that they had Obamacare replacement plans. They didn’t go into any great detail about what would be in those plans. (That didn’t stop CNN from captioning its interview with Paul, “Rand Paul Releases Obamacare Replacement Details.”) (Michael Hiltzik, 1/17)

The Baltimore Sun: Trump's Mystery Health Care Plan 
Not only would his secret plan to replace Obamacare include "insurance for everybody" even "if you can't pay for it," it would also involve "lower numbers, much lower deductibles" and be "much less expensive." And Americans are not just going to be covered, they'll be "beautifully covered." That's a big contrast with what Republicans in Congress have been up to. Last week, they passed legislation to repeal most of the law, an effort that would, the Congressional Budget Office reported this morning, result in 18 million people losing coverage in the first year and a doubling of health insurance premiums over the next decade. In short, it would make things worse than they were before the ACA. (1/17)

The Washington Post: Topping Obamacare May Be Harder Than Republicans Think
The Congressional Budget Office put out a report today on the costs associated with repeal of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA). The analysis looks at repeal without replacement, which Republicans have figured out is a nonstarter. Nevertheless, the CBO provides a road map for Republicans if they want to claim honestly that they delivered something better than Obamacare. (Jennifer Rubin, 1/17)

The Wall Street Journal: How Republicans Can Overcome The Tyranny Of The Anecdote
While Republicans debate whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act outright or piecemeal, here are a few people they should meet: Paula, 52, a breast-cancer survivor; Namir, 35, with a rare tumor; Cameron, 44, who suffers from Parkinson’s; and Jason, 36, fighting a blood infection. They all received lifesaving treatment through ObamaCare; they, and others, will literally interpose their bodies in front of any attempt to reform or repeal it. (Merrie Spaeth, 1/17)

The Washington Post: The Magnitude Of The Health-Care Calamity Republicans Are About To Cause Is Becoming Clear
On Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a new report that makes clear the magnitude of the health-care calamity Republicans are preparing to unleash on the country. While it doesn’t tell the whole story of this debate, it shows why their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act is already spurring a public backlash, and why that backlash is only going to grow. (Paul Waldman, 1/17)

Vox: Here’s How Donald Trump Could Replace Obamacare Without Courting Disaster
Over the weekend, Donald Trump told the Washington Post that his plan would provide “insurance for everybody” with “much lower deductibles.” Oh, and don’t worry about the cost. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it,” he said. “That’s not going to happen with us.” There is simply no way, within the GOP paradigm of private insurance, lower taxes, and less regulation, to make that work. But perhaps he doesn’t need to. (Ezra Klein, 1/17)

Bloomberg: Trump Buries Paul Ryan Under Expensive Promises
What Trump is describing is not the Ryan agenda. What he is describing is a more generous and expansive version of Obamacare, the sort of thing Republicans routinely dismiss as "socialized medicine." Like others before him -- students at "Trump University," investors in bankrupt Trump casinos -- Ryan thought he could piggyback on Trump's self-interest. Trump would get the White House. Ryan would get his ambitious agenda: large tax cuts for the wealthy, huge spending cuts in anti-poverty programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid, and the replacement of Obamacare with a less-regulated system that reduces subsidies for the needy, leaving millions without reliable access to health care. (Francis Wilkinson, 1/17)

Forbes: Four Critical Problems With The CBO's Latest Obamacare Repeal Estimates
It’s right to say that if Republicans were to defund Obamacare, without passing a replacement, fewer people would have health insurance. That’s because H.R. 3762 would keep Obamacare’s regulations in place, while removing many of its funding streams. But the GOP has repeatedly promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. Over the weekend, President-Elect Trump stated that his replacement would provide “insurance for everybody,” which obviously means covering more people than Obamacare does. The CBO can’t score Trump's replacement because it hasn’t been drafted yet. But CBO's estimates of the impact of H.R. 3762 are largely meaningless without consideration of what the GOP’s replacement will look like. (Avik Roy, 1/17)

Bloomberg: Tom Price's Hippocratic Oath And The Future Of Obamacare
The other day, I was at a white coat ceremony, a ritual where medical students don their white coats to mark the transition from the classroom to the patient’s bedside. Seasoned physicians reflected on their experiences with patients and families who guided them along their own professional journey from student to doctor. There was no discussion of money, of insurance, of Obamacare. The day was all about the honor and duty of caring for people as they suffer or as they get well, of healing them. (Anne Armstrong-Coben, 1/17)

The New York Times: Tom Price’s Dubious Trades In Health Care Stocks
Even before Tom Price became President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, he played a big role in shaping health policy in the House. He also frequently traded health care stocks, raising questions about whether he used his position in Congress for personal profit. Mr. Price, who will testify at a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, has bought and sold stocks worth more than $300,000 over the last four years, The Wall Street Journal reported last month. (1/18)

Bloomberg: Hard Questions For Trump's Health Secretary Pick
At his confirmation hearing Wednesday, Tom Price, the U.S. representative from Georgia who is Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will no doubt be asked about conflicts of interest. Specifically, Price will face questions about his decision to trade stocks whose value may have been affected by legislation he sponsored. This is as it should be. But senators should save plenty of time to ask about Obamacare. (Jan. 18)

Bloomberg: UnitedHealth Has Trump Insurance 
UnitedHealth Group Inc. on Tuesday was the first of the big health insurers to report fourth-quarter earnings, and it largely demurred on the industry's burning question: What does Donald Trump mean for health care? CEO Stephen Hemsley emphasized that the company has "no better sense" than anybody else about what might happen to the Affordable Care Act.  Though it may deny extra insight, the company seems to have made better preparations. Its profit beat analysts' expectations, helped by an early pullback from the ACA's individual exchange markets and a push for diversification. The insurer looks better positioned than many rivals for whatever might come. (Max Nisen, 1/17)

Stat: Elevating Feelings Over Facts Is A Bad Way To Make Health Policy
The rise of feelings over fact can be seen in discussions about declines in crime, arguments about whether global climate change is real, and in discussions of how people feel about Obamacare, even as they support its provisions. When individuals’ feelings become equal to fact, it becomes difficult to move policy forward. If we can’t agree on a common set of facts established through rigorous methods that can be verified by others, it becomes tough to have reasoned discussions and find common ground. It is challenging to argue with how someone feels, especially if their sense of an issue may not be grounded in fact or supported by science that extends knowledge beyond the individual. (Jennifer Reich, 1/17)