How Do You Sabotage A POS That Is Already Collapsing On It's Own?

[mudwhistle]

Democraps have been waiting for a long time to use this tactic. Accuse the GOP of sabotaging their shitty health care program. The program has long been an albatross over the heads of Americans and now these dishonest fuckwads are trying to blame Trump for it's demise.

While the Trump administration failed to repeal Obamacare, it's doing everything it can to whack it administratively — pulling (illegal) resources, while pursuing strategies that are likely to depress sign-ups for the law's fifth open enrollment. As a result, even supporters acknowledge that Obamacare enrollment will likely drop for a second straight year as more young and healthy people jump ship, putting even more stress on fragile markets and driving a fresh round of partisan bickering over who's to blame.

"They're trying to sabotage the markets," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), warning that Republicans are fully responsible for the law's fate. "It's now all them. It is all them. One hundred percent."

Republicans insist that if enrollment tanks, it will be because of rising premiums and dwindling choices.

"A much bigger driver than a government agency trying to get you to enroll is what's going on in the market itself," said Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan. "Our market has been the poster child of the disaster."

Democrats accuse Trump of ‘sabotage’ on Obamacare sign-ups




Several Senate Democrats have talked with Get America Covered about turning their own political networks into a makeshift campaign to drive people to HealthCare.gov.

"If the administration is going to try to undermine open enrollment, we're going to have to build a massive operation outside of Washington," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who met Tuesday with the group. "I'm going to be helpful in any way that I legally can be, including pushing the message out and helping raise money for it."

On Friday, 13 former regional CMS directors wrote to acting Health and Human Services Secretary Don Wright objecting to the agency's decision not to allow regional directors to participate in sign-up events around the country.

"To continue down the current path would undermine the will of Congress in passing the ACA — which remains the law of the land — and unnecessarily damage the marketplace," they wrote.

​

Let me get this right......this piece of shit is collapsing and they want people to join them outside of the system in the same program that isn't federally funded? Isn't that what Trump just did when he used an EO to stop subsidies?

October 16, 2017, 12:05 am

If it’s “the law of the land” let them live with it as written.


Beltway Democrats never tire of telling us that Obamacare is “the law of the land.” It appears, however, that their state level accomplices failed to get the news. One day after the White House announced that cost sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers would stop, Democrat attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit for the purpose of forcing the Trump administration to pay the subsidies. A federal court has ruled these CSR payments unconstitutional, and the U.S. Attorney General has concluded that they violate the statute itself. Thus, Trump is merely upholding the law.

So, if Obamacare is the law of the land and the President is studiously upholding it, what’s the problem? For the 19 AGs involved, as with Democrats everywhere, it’s all about the Benjamins. If they abide by the text of the “Affordable Care Act,” they will lose a chance to pick the taxpayer’s pocket for $7 billion a year. Given the choice between pulling off such a lucrative heist and following the letter of the law, no Democrat breathing would follow the latter course. The AGs don’t admit that, of course. Instead, their complaint resorts to the tried and true tactic of pretending that the law doesn’t mean what it says:

By amending 31 U.S.C. § 1324, the ACA created a permanent appropriation for both premium tax credits and CSR subsidies. As a result, the Executive Branch has both the authority and the obligation to make premium tax credit and CSR payments to insurers on a regular basis. No further appropriation from Congress is required.

This is a work of fiction. As U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions phrased it in an October 11 letter to the secretaries of Health & Human Services (HHS) and Treasury:

[T]he plain reading of the text is that the ACA permanently appropriated money for section 1401 premium tax credits, but not for section 1402 CSR payments to insurers … The ACA’s amendment to the permanent appropriation in 31 U.S.C. § 1324 refers only to section 1401 tax credits …

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer reached the same conclusion last year when she ruled the CSR payment scheme contrived by the Obama administration unconstitutional:

The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred.… Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution.

Judge Collyer also pointed out that the actions of Obama administration officials suggest they knew there was no permanent appropriation for CSR payments in the health care law, noting that HHS “sought an annual appropriation for Section 1402 reimbursements” in its FY 2014 budget. They obviously would not have done so if they believed the CSR spending was already authorized. Indeed, it was only after the Republicans regained their congressional majority and refused to fund the CSR subsidies that the Obama administration began making the claim that the subsidies were part of a permanent appropriation.
Dems Sue Trump for Abiding by Obamacare on Subsidies

Blitzer Refuses to Refute Guest Saying GOP Wants to 'Purposely, Physically Harm People'

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[BlackFlag]

Democraps have been waiting for a long time to use this tactic. Accuse the GOP of sabotaging their shitty health care program.

Waiting? Uh, the GOP started sabotaging the ACA years ago, and Democrats have been accusing them of that since the moment the sabotage began.

For something that you're so confident is "collapsing on its own," you possibly inbred morons sure are trying to force through as much sabotage as possible to make sure that happens. Almost like you're afraid it won't.

 

[mudwhistle]

October 17, 2017
Fleeing Obamacare: How Doctors Are Insuring Their Own Families
By Robyn Dolgin
It isn’t a secret that physicians in private practice despise insurance companies and view them as (well) the enemy.

Now, more than ever, doctors who (even) voted for Obama -- not once but twice -- admit to scrambling to escape federally-mandated insurance for themselves and families. Most patients haven’t caught on that a growing number of practitioners are defecting and reveling in saner cost guidelines offered by healthshare ministries. They started out as small religious groups who would share medical expenses: They could never have anticipated the hundreds of thousands who would come banging on their doors in hopes of opting out of the (un)Affordable Care Act. (There are approximately four major faith-based groups in the country.)


This doesn’t sit well with the biggest ACA cheerleader of them all, Barack Obama, who worries that the trend could challenge the stability of the insurance markets.

That hasn’t stopped the idea from catching on like wildfire, even among Jewish doctors. “I couldn’t believe the hypocrisy of the government to say ‘catastrophic insurance’ doesn’t measure up as quality insurance,” says Steve Davidson, a cranial osteopath in private practice in Phoenix. “But isn’t that what the ACA is now offering: Families are stuck paying an average of $25,000 annually (for four), and absorbing out-of-pocket medical costs because of exorbitant deductibles?” He sums up the inverted federally-mandated logic with: “Wouldn’t you call that catastrophic coverage -- only you’re forced to purchase services you don’t need or want.” Dr. Davidson joined the stampede among his colleagues to sign up with a faith-based medical cooperative.

Apparently, Forbes magazine’s projection of a $25,000 annual health care insurance bill for a family of four may be a thing of the past. “I thought my insurance company made a mistake,” averaging nearly $1,000 per family member, says Junella Chin, an osteopathic physician in New York with a family of four. No mistake about it. Dr. Chin fired her insurance carrier, rather than paying the astronomical $46,800 annual premium. She had heard from more than one colleague about a cooperative, Liberty HealthShare, based in Ohio, which was earning a reputation for integrity in paying out claims. Many physicians struggling with spiraling costs for themselves and patients still worry about the uncertainty of pooling medical expenses. Some take a more pragmatic view.

“How could any group be worse than BlueCross BlueShield?” said one physician who wanted to remain anonymous. “The company is becoming more creative at denying claims with each passing quarter.” He, too, opted out of federally-mandated insurance for a ministry healthshare. “I felt like I was aiding and abetting the enemy,” said the doctor of his monthly payments to the behemoth-size carrier.

Surprisingly, the ministries are starting to garner positive coverage in the financial newspaper of record, the Wall Street Journal. Kristine Willington, 37, of Beverly, Mass., was reportedly horrified to learn that her family’s insurance was almost doubling to $2,100 a month with a $5,000 deductible, according to the WSJ. Willington nearly sounded like an advertisement for the healthshare cooperative she decided to join, pointing out that her revised payment was nearly 75 percent less, paying $475 a month, with a $1,500 annual deductible. Her son’s $30,000 hospital bill was taken care of by members, answering her worries about consumer risks in a faith-based group, according to the article.

Group members even pray for you, at no extra charge.

Ironically, leaders of the ministries thought signups would be slow because of subsidized payments being offered on the ACA insurance exchanges. “Our purpose is ministry, not profit,” said the Rev. Howard Russell, chief executive of Christian Healthcare Ministries, whose philosophy serves as the abiding principle for the religious group. Their message is being heard loud and clear by taxpayers, not necessarily all Christians, desperately trying to opt-out of ObamaCare. Ministries are accepting non-Christians, but they are not PC about who they choose. They are known to routinely turn away marijuana users, and applicants suffering from obesity and/or addictions, along with many pre-existing conditions. They will insure members when they become sick.

A self-employed painter -- who launched Samaritan Ministries International -- from his remodeled chicken coop in his backyard, recalls members began joining in 1994.

The group has moved into a three-story headquarters and recently threw a luncheon celebrating 50,000 members, according to the WSJ. “None of us imagined it would be this big,” said James Lansberry, executive vice president of Samaritan.

Perhaps he should consider thanking Obama, because his numbers are only expected to grow from here.

It isn’t a secret that physicians in private practice despise insurance companies and view them as (well) the enemy.

Now, more than ever, doctors who (even) voted for Obama -- not once but twice -- admit to scrambling to escape federally-mandated insurance for themselves and families. Most patients haven’t caught on that a growing number of practitioners are defecting and reveling in saner cost guidelines offered by healthshare ministries. They started out as small religious groups who would share medical expenses: They could never have anticipated the hundreds of thousands who would come banging on their doors in hopes of opting out of the (un)Affordable Care Act. (There are approximately four major faith-based groups in the country.)

This doesn’t sit well with the biggest ACA cheerleader of them all, Barack Obama, who worries that the trend could challenge the stability of the insurance markets.

That hasn’t stopped the idea from catching on like wildfire, even among Jewish doctors. “I couldn’t believe the hypocrisy of the government to say ‘catastrophic insurance’ doesn’t measure up as quality insurance,” says Steve Davidson, a cranial osteopath in private practice in Phoenix. “But isn’t that what the ACA is now offering: Families are stuck paying an average of $25,000 annually (for four), and absorbing out-of-pocket medical costs because of exorbitant deductibles?” He sums up the inverted federally-mandated logic with: “Wouldn’t you call that catastrophic coverage -- only you’re forced to purchase services you don’t need or want.” Dr. Davidson joined the stampede among his colleagues to sign up with a faith-based medical cooperative.

Apparently, Forbes magazine’s projection of a $25,000 annual health care insurance bill for a family of four may be a thing of the past. “I thought my insurance company made a mistake,” averaging nearly $1,000 per family member, says Junella Chin, an osteopathic physician in New York with a family of four. No mistake about it. Dr. Chin fired her insurance carrier, rather than paying the astronomical $46,800 annual premium. She had heard from more than one colleague about a cooperative, Liberty HealthShare, based in Ohio, which was earning a reputation for integrity in paying out claims. Many physicians struggling with spiraling costs for themselves and patients still worry about the uncertainty of pooling medical expenses. Some take a more pragmatic view.

 

[BlackFlag]

It's cruel to get an aspy drunk and film their tantrums

 

[mudwhistle]

Another last-ditch effort to overhaul Obamacare stalled within hours of its release

Another last-ditch effort to overhaul Obamacare stalled within hours of its release

Yet another last-ditch effort to tackle the nation’s health-care system stalled within hours of its release by a bipartisan pair of senators Tuesday, with President Trump sending mixed signals and Republicans either declining to endorse the proposal or outright opposing it.

The week began on Capitol Hill with a renewed sense of urgency to craft legislation following Trump’s decision last week to end key payments to health insurers that help millions of lower-income Americans afford coverage but that the president argued were illegal under the Affordable Care Act.

The compromise offered by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Tuesday proposes authorizing those payments for two years in exchange for granting states greater flexibility to regulate health coverage under the ACA. Those payments help offset deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for low-income consumers who obtain insurance through the law; critics of Trump’s decision said eliminating the subsidies would cause insurers to back out of marketplaces across the country
The measure presented congressional Republicans with an uncomfortable choice between helping sustain coverage for many Americans and making good on a long-standing campaign promise — and paying the consequences — by allowing the ACA to falter.

Senate Republican leaders did not immediately endorse the proposal. Influential House Republicans panned the blueprint and the White House offered conflicting reviews.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

In an address at a Heritage Foundation dinner Tuesday in the District, Trump commended “the bipartisan work” of Alexander and Murray but said that a longer-term fix is needed.

“Not as easy as we thought, but we’re going to get it done. You watch,” Trump said.


“None of our guys voted for Obamacare,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a close ally of House GOP leadership, said in an interview. “They’re not very interested in sustaining it.”

Trump stopped the CSR payments last week, arguing that the subsidies were illegal because they were not explicitly authorized under the ACA, and he instructed Congress to decide whether to appropriate the funding. He initially expressed support for the Alexander-Murray plan to re-up the subsidy funding — then he appeared to be setting the stage to walk that back as he blamed Democrats for problems with health care.

“Yes, we have been involved and this is a short-term deal,” said Trump at a joint news conference with the prime minister of Greece. He said the plan would “get us over this intermediate hump,” and allow Republicans to later revisit efforts to aggressively undo the ACA.

Later in the day, however, the president tweeted: “Any increase in ObamaCare premiums is the fault of the Democrats for giving us a “product” that never had a chance of working.”

Senate Republican leaders were also less than enthusiastic.

“We haven’t had a chance to think about the way forward yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at his weekly news conference, minutes after Alexander announced the deal about 20 feet away, outside a Republican policy luncheon.

A leading House conservative was outright hostile. “The GOP should focus on repealing & replacing Obamacare, not trying to save it. This bailout is unacceptable,” said Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) in a statement posted on Twitter. Walker is the chairman of the influential Republican Study Committee.

Alexander said the deal he struck with Murray would extend CSR payments for two years and provide states “meaningful flexibility” under the ACA, allowing them to make changes to insurance offerings as long as the plans had “comparable affordability,” which is a slightly looser definition than the existing one.

In an interview, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said both parties made concessions to produce a deal that would “stabilize the Affordable Care Act and undo a good amount of the sabotage that we’ve seen in recent days.”

“Each side had to give some, but that’s what this is all about,” Schumer added.

The framework would also allow insurers to offer catastrophic insurance plans to consumers aged 30 and older on ACA exchanges, while maintaining a single risk pool. It would shorten the time period for federal review of state waiver applications, expedite review for states in emergency circumstances and those with waiver proposals that have already been approved for other states, and allow governors to approve state waiver applications rather than requiring state legislative approval.​

 

[konradv]

How Do You Sabotage A POS That Is Already Collapsing On It's Own?
-----------------

Given the track record of the Trump administration, they'll fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

How Do You Sabotage A POS That Is Already Collapsing On It's Own?
-----------------

Given the track record of the Trump administration, they'll fail.

Yep....no matter how hard he'll try, the thing will implode completely on it's own.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, there are signs of bipartisanship to save ACA... Not everyone is a brainwashed fool or a billionaire a******... If they had expanded medicaid in those red states there would be a lot more...