Trump to halt ObamaCare subsidies: Report

[The Derp]

Nowhere does the constitution say that the gov't can give funds to private companies as subsidies. The whole damn thing is illegal.

What do you think paying a defense company to build a tank the Pentagon didn't ask for and didn't want, is? A fucking subsidy.

 

[busybee01]

Here is an intelligent person addressing the issue:


Media's shrill coverage conceals some first-rate moves by Trump on Obamacare

One other thing: Those subsidies aren't going to the poor, as NPR claims. They are going to the middle and lower-middle class, which do not qualify for the full free ride the poor get through Medicaid. These are people who probably could afford health care insurance, provided it was offered at a price they could pay and for services that serve their needs.


Under Obamacare, they get none of those things. Obamacare is larded up with costly mandates on things only a small minority of buyers will ever use, such as drug addiction treatment (which has a 90% fail rate) and pregnancy care. Not all buyers are going to want or need those services, yet they are sufficiently pricey to drive up the entire cost of health care policies disproportionately, and nobody can get out of them. There's no such thing as tailoring an insurance policy to coverage consumers actually want under Obamacare. The mandates are entirely one-size-fits-all, and consumers have no input.

_______

You won't hear that Truth from the New York Media which breached the implied duty it undertook when it accepted First Amendment Protections..the duty to tell the citizens the facts so they could form their own opinion of what to do about them...and has instead become the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party...which itself has become Karl Marx's Dream Come True.

_______

That argument has holes in it. Just because you may never use it does not mean that you should not have it. Many states require a minimum level of auto insurance.

You mean you won't hear what you want from the media. The public has formed their opinions because they can see what is going on. You can't stand the fact that voters see the truth and don't agree with you.

___________________________

States require a minimum amount of car insurance in case you kill or cripple someone though your negligence---your insurance company will have to pay for the damages you caused.

A 60 year old woman does not need maternity insurance, yet ObamaCare is forcing her to buy it, thus increasing her premium---to pay for the insurance of others.

There is simply no comparison between the two. Are you a fool?

Voters do agree with me. I am a Republican. Republicans control the Presidency, the Congress, 35 governorships, and most of the State legislatures. Are you a fool?

_____________________________

Yes there is a comparison. You are the fool.

A 60 year old woman likely wants something in their coverage that a younger person does not need. If the younger person does not want to pay for it then the cost of that coverage goes up for the 60 year old woman.

Voters do not agree with you. For years, Republicans have been able to run against Democrats without showing their hand. Now they are being forced to show their hand and voters are disapproving of it. Democrats are likely to retain the Virginia governorship and take over the NJ governorship. There are a handful of states where in 2018 where Republicans are in trouble due to term limited incumbents. You are the fool.

 

[The Derp]

Your ignorance of Ronald Reagan is impressive. In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", he said that no one should be prevented from seeing a doctor because they can't afford it. Reagan would have supported helping people however what he objected to was the bureaucracy. Reagan would have supported the subsidies however he would have opposed the bureaucracy behind it. I think he would have supported giving subsidies to people with modest incomes but he would have given it directly to the people and allow them to buy the insurance.

Why are we preserving a for-profit private insurance system everyone agrees is not germane to health care delivery? What sense does it make?

 

[busybee01]

No I know . Its called Trump Care now. Believe me I know how the Pubs fought tooth and nails to ruin the ACA since inception. I hate the Pubs for it. I esp hate trump and people who voted for the a hole, pussy grabbing pos. Pence , Paul and Ryan are just as bad.

In your own mind, P.

As long is a law of the land, with or without minor adjustments that law itself allows president to do thru executive orders, it's still leftist law. What if those changes turn out to be good?

By the way, did you run out of batteries?

It is making new law not a adjustment. The EO is illegal.

It's based on the same provision in the statute that allowed Barry to make adjustments to ACA. If Trump's EO is illegal, so was Barry's.

Trump supporters claim Obama's EO was illegal.

 

[The Derp]

It doesn't matter if is a milk or something else.

Yes it fucking does. A health insurance company administers reimbursement. A milk company produces and sells milk. So what each of those companies do is wholly different and mutually exclusive.

All you're doing is proving you don't understand the concept of health insurance.

 

[The Derp]

That is not entirely true. There has always been 2 branches of conservatism. One that ignores problems in the country and small government becomes more important. That is what caused the depression. The second branch seeks conservative solutions. Some of the aspects of Obamacare such as the mandate and refundable tax credits were part of the Heritage plan on healthcare reform. Reagan like myself are in the second group. Reagan said that no one should be unable to see a doctor because they can't afford it. What he despised was the bureaucracy. Unfortunately the so-called Freedom Caucus are in the first group. They worship at the altar of small government and tell people who are struggling to drop dead.

Why did Reagan despise the bureaucracy? Because "government is the problem". But consider the source...Reagan saying government is the problem, no one else but him and those like him who sought to destroy the administrative state for nefarious, selfish reasons. Of course government isn't the problem. The problem is who you elect to government. So if you elect a bunch of people to government who say government is the problem, are you really surprised that the result would be bad government? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and the cure is simple; stop electing Conservatives.

As PJ O'Rourke says "[Conservatives] say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it." Truer words....

You can't have a health care system that relies on private entities administering payments without a large bureaucracy to manage it. If you want a smaller bureaucracy, you'd support single payer. The reason there's so much bureaucracy in health care is because there are so many different privater insurers, each with their own individual goals and processes.

 

[Ame®icano]

No I know . Its called Trump Care now. Believe me I know how the Pubs fought tooth and nails to ruin the ACA since inception. I hate the Pubs for it. I esp hate trump and people who voted for the a hole, pussy grabbing pos. Pence , Paul and Ryan are just as bad.

In your own mind, P.

As long is a law of the land, with or without minor adjustments that law itself allows president to do thru executive orders, it's still leftist law. What if those changes turn out to be good?

By the way, did you run out of batteries?

It is making new law not a adjustment. The EO is illegal.

It's based on the same provision in the statute that allowed Barry to make adjustments to ACA. If Trump's EO is illegal, so was Barry's.

Trump supporters claim Obama's EO was illegal.

You're confused.

Without getting in legality of the ACA as whole, there is statute within the ACA that allows president to make adjustments. Therefore EO itself is legal, and Trump used the same statute provision to issue his EO.

However, the content of Barry's EO that force employers to provide birth control was illegal because of the 1st amendment rights.

 

[The Derp]

The alternative you're offering is government approved latest generation brick that runs on GSM (since LTE is expensive), with installed only government approved apps, of course I'll have to get on the waiting list to get it, and when I do, the only numbers I am allowed to dial are immediate family, government approved numbers and hotline designed to rat on suspicious anti-collective activities. The cost of the phone and government service to run it would be whatever government want it to be, plus the cost of the phones of several other members of community. Of course, government itself would have the special "unlocked" phones on that only they could have, with unlimited of everything, on LTE and satellite networks, at my expense.

WTF are you babbling about!? All a single payer does is serve as the one and only entity that administers reimbursement to your provider. That's it. That is the extent of what a single payer system does.

Now tell me, is government's business to sell the phone services?

It actually was that way for many years, then it wasn't thanks to the breakup of Ma Bell, now we have a small handful of telecom companies that everyone hates to deal with because their customer service sucks. After banks and cable companies, telecom companies are the next most hated industry. Why do you think that is?

 

[The Derp]

You're confused.
Without getting in legality of the ACA as whole, there is statute within the ACA that allows president to make adjustments. Therefore EO itself is leal, and Trump used the same statute provision to issue his EO.
However, the content of Barry's EO that force employers to provide birth control was illegal because of the 1st amendment rights.

All Trump and you Conservatives are doing is creating an environment where people will more strongly consider a single payer system to rid ourselves of the menace of greedy private insurers.

 

[Ame®icano]

Now tell me, is government's business to sell the phone services?

It actually was that way for many years, then it wasn't thanks to the breakup of Ma Bell, now we have a small handful of telecom companies that everyone hates to deal with because their customer service sucks. After banks and cable companies, telecom companies are the next most hated industry. Why do you think that is?

Let me get this straight... You're saying that government was running the phone company?
And then they split it because of the monopoly they had over it?

LOOOOOL

That was funny.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're confused.
Without getting in legality of the ACA as whole, there is statute within the ACA that allows president to make adjustments. Therefore EO itself is leal, and Trump used the same statute provision to issue his EO.
However, the content of Barry's EO that force employers to provide birth control was illegal because of the 1st amendment rights.

All Trump and you Conservatives are doing is creating an environment where people will more strongly consider a single payer system to rid ourselves of the menace of greedy private insurers.

When you say people, who are you thinking of? Obviously not me, since I am now, more than ever convinced that ACA has to go and let the free market do its way.

You're delusional.

 

[hadit]

The man has balls.

Traditional Wisdom is that once a Federal Give-Away Program has vested...it can never be taken away...because nobody in the Swamp has the guts to do so amid the screeching from the Democrat/Bolsheviks and their Pravda-like New York Media.

Some people are going to have to get off the Front Porch of the Federal Plantation and start helping to support themselves...instead of looking to hard-working Americans with their own families to do it for them.

Socialism takes a hit. Ron Reagan would be impressed.

Your ignorance of Ronald Reagan is impressive. In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", he said that no one should be prevented from seeing a doctor because they can't afford it. Reagan would have supported helping people however what he objected to was the bureaucracy. Reagan would have supported the subsidies however he would have opposed the bureaucracy behind it. I think he would have supported giving subsidies to people with modest incomes but he would have given it directly to the people and allow them to buy the insurance.

Then Congress should have appropriated the funds. Obamadon'tcare should have included the cost of the subsidies. Neither happened, so Obama simply went ahead and spent the money, Illegally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

The man has balls.

Traditional Wisdom is that once a Federal Give-Away Program has vested...it can never be taken away...because nobody in the Swamp has the guts to do so amid the screeching from the Democrat/Bolsheviks and their Pravda-like New York Media.

Some people are going to have to get off the Front Porch of the Federal Plantation and start helping to support themselves...instead of looking to hard-working Americans with their own families to do it for them.

Socialism takes a hit. Ron Reagan would be impressed.

Your ignorance of Ronald Reagan is impressive. In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", he said that no one should be prevented from seeing a doctor because they can't afford it. Reagan would have supported helping people however what he objected to was the bureaucracy. Reagan would have supported the subsidies however he would have opposed the bureaucracy behind it. I think he would have supported giving subsidies to people with modest incomes but he would have given it directly to the people and allow them to buy the insurance.

Then Congress should have appropriated the funds and Obamadon'tcare should have included the cost of the subsidies. Neither happened, so Obama simply went ahead and spent the money. Illegally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busybee01]

The man has balls.

Traditional Wisdom is that once a Federal Give-Away Program has vested...it can never be taken away...because nobody in the Swamp has the guts to do so amid the screeching from the Democrat/Bolsheviks and their Pravda-like New York Media.

Some people are going to have to get off the Front Porch of the Federal Plantation and start helping to support themselves...instead of looking to hard-working Americans with their own families to do it for them.

Socialism takes a hit. Ron Reagan would be impressed.

Your ignorance of Ronald Reagan is impressive. In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", he said that no one should be prevented from seeing a doctor because they can't afford it. Reagan would have supported helping people however what he objected to was the bureaucracy. Reagan would have supported the subsidies however he would have opposed the bureaucracy behind it. I think he would have supported giving subsidies to people with modest incomes but he would have given it directly to the people and allow them to buy the insurance.

Then Congress should have appropriated the funds. Obamadon'tcare should have included the cost of the subsidies. Neither happened, so Obama simply went ahead and spent the money, Illegally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Money for Medicare and Medicaid are not appropriated. Neither is money for Social Security.

 

[longknife]

Huge hit to Obamacare here, Trump doing the right thing. If these companies can't price themselves in the market and survive without government assistance, this should not be a burden on everyone.

Trump to halt ObamaCare subsidies: Report

President Donald Trump plans to halt payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law also known as ObamaCare.

It’s the latest effort in the president’s bid to ultimately “repeal and replace” what’s considered the signature legislation of his White House predecessor.

Word of Trump’s latest plan came from two people familiar with the decision, who spoke to the Associated Press. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The White House said in a statement that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers under the Obamacare law.

Trump's decision was expected to rattle already-unsteady insurance marketplaces. The president has previously threatened to end the payments, which help reduce health insurance copays and deductibles for people with modest incomes, but remain under a legal cloud.

Pushback expected

The president's action will likely to trigger a lawsuit from state attorneys general, who contend the subsidies to insurers are fully authorized by federal law, and the president's position is reckless. Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, called the decision “sabotage,” and promised a lawsuit.

After the president’s intentions were disclosed, leading Democrats in Congress were quick to criticize the plan.

In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., predicted that Trump’s expected action would increase Americans’ health premiums by 20 percent or more.

"If these reports are true,” the Democrats said in the joint statement, referring to the president’s plans, “the president is walking away from the good-faith, bipartisan Alexander-Murray negotiations and risking the health care of millions of Americans.”

The Democrats were referring to bipartisan talks being led by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to seek a bipartisan agreement for funding ObamaCare subsidies and stabilizing health insurance markets.

Order to lower premiums

Earlier Thursday, Trump predicted that “millions and millions of people” would benefit from an executive order he signed Thursday to make lower-premium health insurance plans more widely available.

But the changes Trump hopes to bring about could take months or even longer. That's according to administration officials who outlined the order for reporters. The proposals may not be finalized in time to affect coverage for 2019, let alone next year.

Trump Executive Order Could Save Millions from ObamaCare

This surprises me as it comes from the CATO Institute whose articles tend to be left-leaning. It actually lays out some good points to back up the claim.

Background: ObamaCare’s Hidden Taxes

Short-Term Plans

Health Reimbursement Arrangements

Association Health Plans

Working within the Law, Not Undermining It

Detailed explanation of each @ Trump Executive Order Could Save Millions from ObamaCare

 

[frigidweirdo]

Huge hit to Obamacare here, Trump doing the right thing. If these companies can't price themselves in the market and survive without government assistance, this should not be a burden on everyone.

Trump to halt ObamaCare subsidies: Report

President Donald Trump plans to halt payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law also known as ObamaCare.

It’s the latest effort in the president’s bid to ultimately “repeal and replace” what’s considered the signature legislation of his White House predecessor.

Word of Trump’s latest plan came from two people familiar with the decision, who spoke to the Associated Press. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The White House said in a statement that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers under the Obamacare law.

Trump's decision was expected to rattle already-unsteady insurance marketplaces. The president has previously threatened to end the payments, which help reduce health insurance copays and deductibles for people with modest incomes, but remain under a legal cloud.

Pushback expected

The president's action will likely to trigger a lawsuit from state attorneys general, who contend the subsidies to insurers are fully authorized by federal law, and the president's position is reckless. Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, called the decision “sabotage,” and promised a lawsuit.

After the president’s intentions were disclosed, leading Democrats in Congress were quick to criticize the plan.

In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., predicted that Trump’s expected action would increase Americans’ health premiums by 20 percent or more.

"If these reports are true,” the Democrats said in the joint statement, referring to the president’s plans, “the president is walking away from the good-faith, bipartisan Alexander-Murray negotiations and risking the health care of millions of Americans.”

The Democrats were referring to bipartisan talks being led by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to seek a bipartisan agreement for funding ObamaCare subsidies and stabilizing health insurance markets.

Order to lower premiums

Earlier Thursday, Trump predicted that “millions and millions of people” would benefit from an executive order he signed Thursday to make lower-premium health insurance plans more widely available.

But the changes Trump hopes to bring about could take months or even longer. That's according to administration officials who outlined the order for reporters. The proposals may not be finalized in time to affect coverage for 2019, let alone next year.

Trump Executive Order Could Save Millions from ObamaCare

This surprises me as it comes from the CATO Institute whose articles tend to be left-leaning. It actually lays out some good points to back up the claim.

Background: ObamaCare’s Hidden Taxes

Short-Term Plans

Health Reimbursement Arrangements

Association Health Plans

Working within the Law, Not Undermining It

Detailed explanation of each @ Trump Executive Order Could Save Millions from ObamaCare

Funny how the Republicans are all of a sudden so interested in saving money, when they wouldn't try and introduce a single payer system that would save far more money than they are pretending to save right now. It's not about saving money for everyone, it's about saving money for the rich, a govt for the rich by the rich.

 

[hadit]

The man has balls.

Traditional Wisdom is that once a Federal Give-Away Program has vested...it can never be taken away...because nobody in the Swamp has the guts to do so amid the screeching from the Democrat/Bolsheviks and their Pravda-like New York Media.

Some people are going to have to get off the Front Porch of the Federal Plantation and start helping to support themselves...instead of looking to hard-working Americans with their own families to do it for them.

Socialism takes a hit. Ron Reagan would be impressed.

Your ignorance of Ronald Reagan is impressive. In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", he said that no one should be prevented from seeing a doctor because they can't afford it. Reagan would have supported helping people however what he objected to was the bureaucracy. Reagan would have supported the subsidies however he would have opposed the bureaucracy behind it. I think he would have supported giving subsidies to people with modest incomes but he would have given it directly to the people and allow them to buy the insurance.

Then Congress should have appropriated the funds. Obamadon'tcare should have included the cost of the subsidies. Neither happened, so Obama simply went ahead and spent the money, Illegally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Money for Medicare and Medicaid are not appropriated. Neither is money for Social Security.

They are already set up through law. Obamadontcare doesn't contain any provision for the subsidies.

 

[Lumpy 1]

If Obamacare was truly "IMPLODING!" like Republicans have been crowing for the longest...why is this stunt even necessary?

If Democrats won't cooperate with Republicans in tweaking Obamacare, then it's fair for Trump to shove Obamacare off a cliff and force Democrats to the table.

Eh, Democrats are in full sedition .. top to bottom, a positive solution from them is laughable...

They're more like yapping dogs and parasites than responsible politicians.

Here is hoping you become uninsurable, and loose your job if you even work.

Is this the true Penelope or are you just being a meanie?

Where's the Democratic Party solution, 6 years and they have zero solutions, maybe I'm wrong, show me the legislation you're so thrilled about..

The Democrat plan is already in place. People want Obamacare fixed not repealed.

If people want Obamacare they can keep it.. .. it just won't be subsidised and they're welcome to pay full price.

Why should taxpayers support a 4+ billion dollar profit to Democrats favorite insurance fat cats and political contributors?

 

[Lumpy 1]

What Trump did was illegal. Selling policies across state lines is a state decision not the federal government. If I were a state official, I would arrest anyone who tries. You are a disgusting monster. You probably want people with low incomes to drop dead and as Ebenezer Scrooge said, "decrease the surplus population".
The Republicans need to lose the House to put a check on this garbage.

It's been the unspoken GOP/Conservative policy for years that they don't give a shit about people they don't know personally.

.. Derp seems like a good choice...

 

[BulletProof]

If people want Obamacare they can keep it.. .. it just won't be subsidised and they're welcome to pay full price.

The massive Obamacare tax credit subsidies are unaffected. And, the cost-raising regulation is also unaffected. Seriously, you think Trump eliminated Obamacare subsidies? Dumb, dumb. That's not even a passing thought for most Republicans.