In other words, the law states that your insurance premiums (charged to you by the insurance company) will actually be different depending on your income. You buy the plan at one price, someone who makes less money than you, will buy the same plan at a cheaper cost. This is oddly called "cost sharing". I guess it's "cost sharing" in the same manner that the entire law has made insurance "affordable".
 |
| I guess I should have read the law before we passed it. |
That is simply not true. That portion of the law is straight forward and still in place. Lower income Americans purchasing "qualified health plans" will still get the same breaks that they have always been given. Not doing so, would be a matter of insurance companies breaking the law.
The contention here is in the direct reimbursement to the insurance companies for the "cost" of said price breaks. While the law clearly requires that insurance companies provide breaks to the cost of insurance, and there is language that suggests that the insurance companies should be reimbursed, it's not so clear that "how" or "where" that funding is actually made available. According to the very distinct actions of everyone (including the current and former administrations, congress, and a district Judge) any such payments must be requested as a separate allocation from congress (almost like a news spending law) on a year to year basis to congress and apparently congress is under no obligation to provide it.
The previous Administration had suggested that the lack of such a requirement was an drafting oversight. They claim that the law was just poorly written, and that the cost was always meant to be covered somewhere (I guess Pelosi should have read it first). They are probably correct, and if this was anything but a matter of the "purse" the President could probably write an executive order to make a slight change to the law. But as it stands, there is no constitutional means for the executive branch to take funding from where it is otherwise legally appropriated and use it to pay insurance companies.
This would be no different than Donald Trump ordering that funding being appropriated for new security agents instead by used to fund the building of a wall. I am guessing that the people who supported Obama's fund shifting, would have an entirely different reaction if Trump did the same thing.
Bottom line: While insurance premiums on qualified plans will likely rise as a whole, this will not "specifically" effect those who are receiving the income related premium breaks from the insurance companies. They will still receive them as a matter of law. Anyone telling you or implying different, is simply flat out lying.
79 comments:
I tuned into this week with Stephanopoulos for the first time in a very long time only to see a discussion panel of four liberals, five including him all debating one trump supporter. This is why voters agree with Trump and are sticking with him. The slanted reporting is out of control.
As for trumps executive order, i hope it forces congress to get off their inactive asses and fix the aca which has been dying a slow death for five years now.
A few years ago, as we all stood gaping at the disastrously bungled launch of the Obamacare exchanges, I was invited by Intelligence Squared to participate in a debate: “Resolved: Obamacare Is Beyond Rescue.” Longtime readers know that my motto is “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.” I was thus reluctant to declare, without equivocation, that Obamacare was already dead, dead, dead. But I’m a huge fan of Intelligence Squared, so I accepted, and then I resorted to a time-honored debate-weasel: I reframed the question.
Thus I chose not to argue that Obamacare was going to collapse and be repealed in its entirety, but rather, that Obamacare would not, and could not, be the program that had been promised or intended. It had already failed to deliver on key promises for coverage, affordability and of course, the infamous promise that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” It was also dangerously unstable, requiring steady executive intervention just to keep the program from collapsing. I argued that these executive interventions, enthusiastically supported by the law’s proponents, were setting a precedent that would eventually be used against it. Worried that health care was too hostage to the vicissitudes of the markets, Democrats had instead made it the prisoner of politics.
“Essentially they've made it so that Republicans can undo two-thirds of this law with a stroke of the presidential pen,” I said at the close of my opening statement. “Obamacare is now beyond rescue. The administration has destroyed their own law in order to save it.” Four years later, we are watching those dominos fall.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-13/obamacare-was-built-with-the-flaws-trump-now-exploits
Three Intellegent views, just what Little Lady Lynn was craving.
It was never a y thing more then a power grab and "The lie of the YEAR".
Tillerson: Diplomacy With North Korea Will Continue 'Until The First Bomb Drops'
He's not denying the Moron. The Fake News bullshit is another symptom of the tragic disease Trumpism.
It is related to Alzheimer's and our esteemed host is at stage four. #tragic
How Congress Derailed the DEA’s War on Opiods
Washington Post: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription narcotics onto the nation’s streets.
“By then, the opioid war had claimed 200,000 lives, more than three times the number of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam War. Overdose deaths continue to rise. There is no end in sight.
“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by the Washington Post and 60 Minutes. The DEA had opposed the effort for years.”
____________________-
To these criminals, profits matter more than people.
Facing a firing squad would be too good to them.
It's politics, not one bit of concern about the people who will lose their insurance plans.
It's tragic. Governor Kasich today said exactly what I have been saying ever since the President punted to Congress. But here, the only thing that matters is the love of the President.
#pathetic
Five Days In North Korea
Nicholas Kristof just returned from North Korea:
On just the first day of a war between the United States and North Korea, according to a Stanford University assessment, one million people could be killed.
Yet after my five-day visit to North Korea with three New York Times colleagues, such a nuclear war seems terrifyingly imaginable. In the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, it was clear that President Trump’s threat to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea had backfired and is being exploited by Kim Jong-un for his own propaganda and military mobilization.
The country has seized on Trump’s words to reinforce its official narrative that its nuclear arsenal is defensive, meant to protect Koreans from bullying American imperialists. And North Korean officials use Trump’s bombast as an excuse for their own.
SO THIS STUPID PRESIDENT CONTRIBUTED MIGHTILY TO KIM JONG-UN'S PROPAGANDA HOLD ON HIS PEOPLE.
This is a lie. It's his opinion is full of false assumptions.
"That is simply not true. That portion of the law is straight forward and still in place. Lower income Americans purchasing "qualified health plans" will still get the same breaks that they have always been given. Not doing so, would be a matter of insurance companies breaking the law."
They will get increases that according to the CBO is at least 20%.
They will get increases that according to the CBO is at least 20%.
and lose coverage....yep, he's doing a bang up job of personal destruction....who needs middle class, they don't contribute anything to the party!!!
You are the liar.
Bottom line: While insurance premiums on qualified plans will likely rise as a whole, this will not "specifically" effect those who are receiving the income related premium breaks from the insurance companies. They will still receive them as a matter of law. Anyone telling you or implying different, is simply flat out lying.
Those who have been getting lower cost insurance plans because of the subsidies to the insurance companies. That is a FACT. The CBO proves that your wrong.
The White House announced late Thursday that it would no longer reimburse insurers for lowering costs for customers under the Affordable Care Act
Graham Says ‘We’re Dead’ If Tax Reform Fails
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told CBS News that if the Republican party cannot enact tax reform, just one item on the congressional agenda, “we’re dead.”
Said Graham: “If we don’t cut taxes and we don’t eventually repeal and replace Obamacare, then we’re going to lose across the board in the House in 2018. And all of my colleagues running in primaries in 2018 will probably get beat.”
He added: “It will be the end of Mitch McConnell as we know it.”
TRIGGERED.....
TRIGGERED.....
Tillerson Still Won’t Deny Calling Trump a ‘Moron’
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson refused to tell CNN whether he called President Trump a “moron.”
Said Tillerson: “I’m not going to deal with that kind of petty stuff. This is a town that seems to relish gossip, rumor, innuendo—and they feed on it. They feed on one another in a very destructive way. I don’t work that way. I don’t deal that way. And I’m just not going to dignify the question.”
____________________
In other words, you said it.
United States and North Korea, according to a Stanford University assessment, one million people could be killed.
Which stump broke and CH see as acceptable collateral damage.....Ths trump worm has eaten their brains......
White House Statement:
"Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare. In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. The United States House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful. The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system. Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people."
The cost-sharing reduction payment program gives health insurance companies subsidies to help cover the cost of low-income and high-cost patients on the Obamacare exchanges. The CBO says that this will increase the average cost of those who had been getting their insurance through companies that got the subsidies. SO there is NO way, your allegations are truthful.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimate for the Republican healthcare bill on Thursday, and it could put House GOP leaders on even worse footing than the office's original assessment.
The report from the CBO on the amendments added on Monday to the American Health Care Act show that 24 million more Americans could be uninsured by 2026 compared to the current healthcare system.
The most significant change in the CBO's score was that the reduction of the federal deficit the CBO projected would be less with the amendments than under the previous version of the AHCA.
According to the report, the updated AHCA would reduce the deficit by $151 billion between 2017 and 2026, less than the $337 billion projected in the original CBO report.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628.pdf
Effects on Health Insurance Coverage
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be
uninsured under the legislation than under current law. The increase in the
number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would
reach 21 million in 2020 and 24 million in 2026 (see Table 4). In 2026, an
estimated 52 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared
with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
Effects on Premiums
H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would tend to increase average
premiums in the nongroup market before 2020 and lower average premiums
thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019,
according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single
policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent
higher under the legislation than under current law. By 2026, average
premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be roughly
10 percent lower than under current law.
I report, you decide, who's lying is up to the observers.
The White House announced late Thursday that it would no longer reimburse insurers for lowering costs for customers under the Affordable Care Act
Keep fucking over the middle class, Roger, it's been a great strategy for the Donks the last 9 years
Recall my previous statement, Bumblecare is the greatest transference of wealth from the middle class to the moocher class in the history of man..
And you still defend it
Coal again is as dead as stump brokes fat white ass......
By Evan HalperContact Reporter
Every morning is filled with anxiety in this hardscrabble town so intertwined with the fortunes of its hulking coal power plant that a drawing of the facility is emblazoned on the community’s police force emblem.
Locals look out their windows to see if there are clouds drifting from its massive smokestacks, indicating the plant is still running. If they don’t see any, they wonder if plant owners have thrown in the towel for good.
“Everyone gets concerned when they wake up and don’t see smoke coming out,” said Rob Nymick, manager of the 1,700-resident borough that he says will be economically “crushed” if the plant goes dark.
As the Trump administration dismantles one of the world’s most aggressive programs to confront climate change, it is invoking the suffering of communities like this one, where the brawny coal power plant that anchors the local economy teeters on insolvency.
Yet as the Trump administration declares an end to what it calls the “war on coal,” Homer City isn’t any less under siege.
The plant remains an albatross to investors, and a source of increasing anxiety to the hundreds of Pennsylvanians who rely on it for their livelihood. It is likely to remain a loser financially no matter how far Trump goes in rolling back regulations.
“I’m not sold on the fact that the war on coal is putting that power plant out of business,” said Nymick, pointing to struggles to compete with cheaper natural gas, solar and wind energy. “You don’t know what to believe or who to believe.”
Other coal facilities throughout the country are also finding no salvation in the elimination of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which the Trump administration promised would reinvigorate them.
A fresh round of closures expected to cost at least 850 jobs was announced by Vistra Energy in Texas this week, even as the administration launched its repeal of landmark regulations on plant greenhouse gas emissions.
“The Clean Power Plan is not what hurt coal,” said Michael Wara, a professor of energy law at Stanford University. “It is hard to hurt someone more when they were already mortally wounded.”
That’s put the Trump administration in an awkward place. Even after straining to show the repeal of the Obama-era rules would boost the economy by baking into their plan financial assumptions that many experts dispute, their plan as written still doesn’t do much for the sagging coal industry.
A coal revival requires more than a Clean Power Plan repeal. It requires an outright bailout, an even less politically popular option, that the administration is also pushing. The Energy Department’s plan to force regional electricity grids to purchase large amounts of coal, unveiled days before the Clean Power Plan repeal was made public, is getting a hostile reception. Oil and gas companies are joining solar and wind advocates in working aggressively against it.
“The entire energy economics and energy law community thinks it is a crazy proposal,” Wara said of the subsidy plan. “I have not met anyone who does not have serious problems with it.”
It all leaves communities like Homer City in the lurch. At its peak, the Homer City Generating Station provided enough electricity to power 2 million homes daily on a power grid extending throughout the Nor
theast and deep into the Midwest. The plant generates hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity each year.
Only Roger would fret over North Korean propaganda.
of wealth from the middle class to the moocher class in the history of man..
probably keeps you employed also.....LOL
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Trump’s coal mining initiative
For the first time in nearly a decade, a new coal mine has opened here, and a US president has rallied alongside an industry deemed by many as obsolete.
The Acosta Deep Mine in Somerset County marks a dramatic upturn for the area. And while President Trump cannot claim that he brought the industry back here personally (this new mine was already being developed before the election), he is an effective cheerleader for folks who’ve been discounted by the political elite.
“We will begin by employing 70 to 100 miners and we hope to open a total of three new mines in the next 18 months — and that will mean additional hiring,” said George Dethlefsen, CEO of Corsa Coal, which owns the mine.
More than 400 people applied for the first wave of jobs that will pay from $50,000 to $100,000, Dethlefsen said.
Making America Great Again one stroke of the pen at a time.
Amb. Nikki Haley: ‘You’re Going to See Us Stay’ in Iran Nuclear Deal
by Kailani Koenig
WASHINGTON — The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, on Sunday said it's the administration's hope that America stays with the Iran nuclear deal if Congress takes action to keep it together.
“I think right now you are going to see us stay in the deal,” she said during an interview on NBC's “Meet The Press."
"What we hope is that we can improve the situation," she added. "And that's the goal. So I think right now, we're in the deal to see how we can make it better. And that's the goal. It's not that we're getting out of the deal. We're just trying to make the situation better so that the American people feel safer."
On Friday, President Trump declined to certify that Iran was in compliance of the 2015 agreement, and threatened to terminate it if Congress does not strengthen it.
Haley has been a long-time harsh critic of the agreement, and was one of the few voices in the Trump administration to encourage the president to declare Iran in violation.
"What we're trying to say is, 'Look, the agreement was an incentive. The agreement was for you to stop doing certain things,'" Haley added. "You haven't stopped doing certain things. So what do we do to make Iran more accountable so that they do?"
President Trump will be working "very closely with Congress," she said, "to try and come up with something that is more proportionate."
Haley also cited North Korea as an example of the kind of situation they’re trying to avoid with Iran, saying “the whole reason we are looking at this Iran agreement is because of North Korea."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Sunday also said the U.S. plans to "stay in" the agreement.
"The issue with the Iran agreement is, it does not achieve the objective," he said on CNN. "It simply postpones the achievement of that objective. And we feel that that is one of weaknesses under the agreement, so we're going to stay in. We're going to work with our European partners and allies to see if we can't address these concerns, which are concerns of all of us."
Haley on Sunday also didn’t specifically deny tensions with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during an interview on Sunday’s “Meet The Press," but did try to distance herself from it.
Last week, a White House official told Politico that escalating friction between the two appeared to be reaching "World War III” proportions" — following NBC News exclusive reporting that Tillerson had called Trump "moron."
"That is just so much drama," she said of the report. "I mean, it's really, it's all this palace intrigue."
Haley added that she feels "every member of the NSC [National Security Council]" works hard to put options on the table for the president, and that they share the common goal of keeping Americans safe.
But, she added, "I am glad to be living in New York just for that reason, is that I don't want to be near the drama and I don't want to be near the gossip."
United States and North Korea, according to a Stanford University assessment, one million people could be killed.
Which stump broke and CH see as acceptable collateral damage.
Well it depends on which million you're talking about. The ones in North Korea or San Francisco California.
Amb. Nikki Haley: ‘You’re Going to See Us Stay’ in Iran Nuclear Deal
rat and senseless are weeping
I just can't understand why you post something like that, when with a few minutes of research, to prove you were .. I hate to say a liar, but it's sure looking that way my friend.
halley, I watched Meet The Press. She did a good job of dodging the direct questions, and sounded loyal but it seemed to me, that she knew that deep inside, she was not comfortable.
The President in a rare moment, sited that the Iranissns are violating the 'spirit" of the agreement. They do support terrorists groups and worse, but they are not in violation of the agreement.Should we address that? Hell yes. But they are not developing nuclear weapons and have destroyed the centrifuges and other hardware. They are blocked for over 10 years.Then it may be negotiated again.
I'm a fucking loser.
Still waiting for roger to acknowledge that those subsidies trump is stopping are illegal and unconstitutional.
I'm still waiting for Roger to stop spamming every thread like a spoiled drunk.
"Well it depends on which million you're talking about. The ones in North Korea or San Francisco California."
There's a difference?
This is a blog for discussion of politics. The host posted something that with very little work,proved that his allegations were simply not true. Prove him correct, Loretta, of shut the hell up and wait for rrb so show up and tell you how to think.
Slightly off topic, but George Will agrees with most thoughtful Republicans, that are speaking out, or remaining silent for political reasons.
With eyes wide open, Mike Pence eagerly auditioned for the role as Donald Trump’s poodle. Now comfortably leashed, he deserves the degradations that he seems too sycophantic to recognize as such. He did Trump’s adolescent bidding with last Sunday’s preplanned virtue pageant of scripted indignation — his flight from the predictable sight of players kneeling during the national anthem at a football game. No unblinkered observer can still cling to the hope that Pence has the inclination, never mind the capacity, to restrain, never mind educate, the man who elevated him to his current glory. Pence is a reminder that no one can have sustained transactions with Trump without becoming too soiled for subsequent scrubbing.
A man who interviewed for the position Pence captured, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), is making amends for saying supportive things about Trump. In 2016, for example, he said he was “repulsed” by people trying to transform the Republican National Convention from a merely ratifying body into a deliberative body for the purpose of preventing what has come to pass. Until recently, Corker, an admirable man and talented legislator, has been, like many other people, prevented by his normality from fathoming Trump’s abnormality. Now Corker says what could have been said two years ago about Trump’s unfitness.
The axiom that “Hell is truth seen too late” is mistaken; damnation deservedly comes to those who tardily speak truth that has long been patent. Perhaps there shall be a bedraggled parade of repentant Republicans resembling those supine American communists who, after Stalin imposed totalitarianism, spawned the gulag, engineered the Ukraine famine, launched the Great Terror and orchestrated the show trials, were theatrically disillusioned by his collaboration with Hitler: You, sir, have gone too far.
Snip
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sinister-figures-lurk-around-our-careless-president/2017/10/13/09c9448c-af6e-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.074aa3d323f2
With their version of the identity politics practiced by progressives, alt-right theorists hold that the tribalism to which people are prone should not be transcended but celebrated. As Lopez explains, the alt-right sees society as inevitably “a zero-sum contest among fundamentally competing identity groups.” Hence the alt-right is explicitly an alternative to Lincoln’s affirmation of the Founders’ vision. They saw America as cohesive because of a shared creed. The alt-right must regard Lincoln as not merely mistaken but absurd in describing America as a creedal nation dedicated to a “proposition.” The alt-right insists that real nationhood requires cultural homogeneity rooted in durable ethnic identities. This is the alt-right’s alternative foundation for the nation Lincoln said was founded on the principle that all people are, by nature, equal.
More spam from the drunkard.
No one is surprised.
"Prove him correct, Loretta"
That's not how it works, genius.
YOU prove him wrong or shut the hell up.
I did prove his comments were incorrect, using the CBO and other sources. He claimed that suspending the subsidies would not raise the cost of insurance to ANYONE, especially those with pre existing conditions and low incomes. He's wrong, 100% and I proved it. Te fact that you are unable to read what he said, and what I posted, that contradicted his allegations and calling people that said the cost of insurance would go up is a liar. I proved last paragraph to be a flat out lie. . READ them or shut the hell up.
YOU prove him wrong or shut the hell up.
I did, but you just say alky spam and ignore what I posted. You are being completely dishonest. But we expect that from you.
No, you didn't prove him wrong.
CH
Bottom line: While insurance premiums on qualified plans will likely rise as a whole, this will not "specifically" effect those who are receiving the income related premium breaks from the insurance companies. They will still receive them as a matter of law. Anyone telling you or implying different, is simply flat out lying.
Roger
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimate for the Republican healthcare bill on Thursday, and it could put House GOP leaders on even worse footing than the office's original assessment.
The report from the CBO on the amendments added on Monday to the American Health Care Act show that 24 million more Americans could be uninsured by 2026 compared to the current healthcare system.
The most significant change in the CBO's score was that the reduction of the federal deficit the CBO projected would be less with the amendments than under the previous version of the AHCA.
According to the report, the updated AHCA would reduce the deficit by $151 billion between 2017 and 2026, less than the $337 billion projected in the original CBO report.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628.pdf
Effects on Health Insurance Coverage
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be
uninsured under the legislation than under current law. The increase in the
number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would
reach 21 million in 2020 and 24 million in 2026 (see Table 4). In 2026, an
estimated 52 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared
with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
Effects on Premiums
H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would tend to increase average
premiums in the nongroup market before 2020 and lower average premiums
thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019,
according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single
policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent
higher under the legislation than under current law. By 2026, average
premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be roughly
10 percent lower than under current law.
I report, you decide, who's lying is up to the observers.
I didn't prove him wrong?
Effects on Health Insurance Coverage
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be
uninsured under the legislation than under current law. The increase in the
number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would
reach 21 million in 2020 and 24 million in 2026 (see Table 4). In 2026, an
estimated 52 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared
with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
Effects on Premiums
H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would tend to increase average
premiums in the nongroup market before 2020 and lower average premiums
thereafter, relative to projections under current law. In 2018 and 2019,
according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single
policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent
higher under the legislation than under current law. By 2026, average
premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be roughly
10 percent lower than under current law.
You're spamming again, with apples and oranges.
Just stop.
You re not capable of analytical thinking.
Roger - the law is the law. I read the law and section 1402 is self explanatory. Your idea of "research" is to read your political pundits. Mine is to actually read the law. I also got confirmation from several of the legal blogs I read who echo this same reasoning.
There is also a provision that states that the carriers cannot exit exchanges mid-year and their contracts are already signed for 2018... so they are stuck with these prices (and will lose money) through 2018.
The CBO (whom almost nobody takes seriously) is stating that insurance (across the board) will be increased 20% - probably close to the truth. It's also possible that some people will be "priced" out of the game. But that 20% is across the board on all plans. There is nothing in the CBO score that suggests that the 1402 provisions will no longer be given.
Are you even familiar with what 1402 states, Roger? Clearly not. I suggest you read it (instead of letting other people think for you).
Although... back to the CBO.
How can it be true that the government will be ultimately paying "more" subsidies (less to insurance and more to individual) and that this will "raise" the deficit... but yet less people will be able to afford it?
Explain that to us genius? How can "more" subsidies overall end up costing people more?
But none of that changes the fact that Trump is not changing 1402. The section that provides the "cost sharing" reductions to lower income Americans are still in place. (anyone telling you differently is lying).
All he is doing is not "reimbursing" the insurance companies for it.
Ch, you grossly misuse quotation marks. Sometimes they are appropriate as you use them, but most of the time you would be better served by using italics.
In every thread article you misuse quotation marks.
james, in every thread you continue to post inappropriate spam from political_lire. Everyone would be much better served if you would cease. This is behavior not appropriate for a "pastor"
ROFLMFAO !!!
LOL
A Republican senator said President Trump’s order to scrap subsidy payments for ObamaCare customers will hurt “vulnerable people” from receiving health care.
“What the president is doing is affecting the ability of vulnerable people to receive health care right now,” Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
ADVERTISING
Trump last week signed an executive order that ends subsidies that help low-income people pay for health care through the Affordable Care Act, which former President Obama signed into law in 2010.
Trump said the payments are illegal because Congress never funded them and he characterized it as a bailout for insurers.
“This is not a bailout of the insurers. What this money is used for is to help low-income people afford their deductibles and their co-pays so that their health care is available to them,” she said, adding that Trump’s action will decimate the health care rolls.
“So these certainly are very disruptive moves that will result in smaller numbers of people being insured, that will make it more difficult for low-income people to afford their out-of-pocket costs, and that will destabilize the insurance markets,” she said.
Collins, one of the few Senate Republicans to oppose efforts to repeal ObamaCare, said Trump’s removing the subsidy will render the healthcare plan “useless.”
“I’m very concerned about what the impact is going to be for people who make under 250 percent of the federal poverty level because the funding that is available under the cost-sharing reductions isseed to subsidize their out-of-pocket costs,” she said. “And if they can’t afford their deductible, then their insurance is pretty much useless.”
Trump Decision to End Insurance Subsidies Sparks Outrage, Lawsuits
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Email
October 14, 201711:38 AM ET
Alison Kodjak 2016 square
ALISON KODJAK
Twitter
Enlarge this image
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he is joining with peers in California and several other states to file a lawsuit to protect the insurers' subsidies.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The reaction has been swift since President Trump announced late Thursday that he was cutting off Affordable Care Act subsidies to insurance companies.
The White House argues that the payments are illegal.
"Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare," the White House said in a statement. "In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments."
Many analysts and advocacy groups say this is just part of an ongoing campaign by the Trump administration to undermine the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
https://youtu.be/EJ-zRw9oIgA
Nearly 70 percent of Americans who receive benefits of subsidies to health insurance companies that President Trump just canceled live in states Trump won in the November election.
Roughly 4 million people who were living in the 30 states Trump won benefited from the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments, according to an analysis of 2017 enrollment data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services conducted by the Associated Press.
As an example, nearly half of 71,000 Kentuckians who bought health insurance on the federal exchange were benefiting from the cost-sharing subsidies Trump just ended.
Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of consumers who benefit from the cost-sharing payments, all but one, Massachusetts, were carried by Trump.
Trump last week announced he would stop paying the subsidies to health insurance companies that are meant to offset costs for lower-income people.
Critics have suggested without the government's subsidies, insurers could increase premiums or leave the insurance marketplaces.
Trump encouraged Congress to devise legislation to extend the subsidies, which were not authorized by Congress under the Affordable Care Act.
The subsidies have been the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. Trump argued the government cannot continue to legally make the payments without an appropriation by Congress.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/canceling-healthcare-subsidies-will-hurt-americans-in-pro-trump-states-the-most-report/article/2637583
A conservative "Non Fake News" source, says your claims are a lie.
LOL.
Roger is not a smart man.
Pitiful, really.
Insurance companies that will not get reimbursed will raise the costs significantly meaning ONE thing, that they will not offer plans, and many have said they woo't or will raise the costs 20% and up, some states, up to 40%
You tried to be cagey, but the real truth is millions of Americans will not be able to afford health insurance and you don't give a flying fuck.
I have asked Ch a question on the next thread up that he is taking a long time to answer.
While insurance premiums on qualified plans will likely rise as a whole, this will not "specifically" effect those who are receiving the income related premium breaks from the insurance companies. They will still receive them as a matter of law. is a way of making it look like the fact that millions will lose their insurance, and they WILL under TrmpCare, is the fault of the liberals and the free press. The coldheartedtruth is you don't care about the people who will die, you just wanted to make a ridiculous political comment. And implied,that people will not lose coverage. bit they will.
Heartless support of Trump again. Good God.
On issue after issue, Trump is putting the Republican controlled Congress in a position they wish he was not putting them in.
This is you again blaming the congress instead of the President for not providing legal subsidies, and your hero is right again.
So the implication from many news sources is that the decision of the Justice Department and Health and Human services (aka Trump) to end the subsidies will also end the cost reduction breaks given to those who qualify by income to receive them. Meaning the poor will suddenly lose all of these income based premium reductions.
That is simply not true. That portion of the law is straight forward and still in place. Lower income Americans purchasing "qualified health plans" will still get the same breaks that they have always been given. Not doing so, would be a matter of insurance companies breaking the law.
The contention here is in the direct reimbursement to the insurance companies for the "cost" of said price breaks. While the law clearly requires that insurance companies provide breaks to the cost of insurance, and there is language that suggests that the insurance companies should be reimbursed, it's not so clear that "how" or "where" that funding is actually made available. According to the very distinct actions of everyone (including the current and former administrations, congress, and a district Judge) any such payments must be requested as a separate allocation from congress (almost like a news spending law) on a year to year basis to congress and apparently congress is under no obligation to provide it.
Kepperneck suing the NFL.
GAWD, I love this ssssooooo much.
The President can spend 7 billion on anything he wants to, really HB, you sure about that?
Blogger Roger Amick said...
This is you again blaming the congress instead of the President for not providing legal subsidies, and your hero is right again.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
alky,
from the moment CH put up this thread and you started going off on it, i just knew that CH would thoroughly clean your clock.
and clean your clock he did.
as the law is written, CH is 100% correct.
andrew mccarthy lays it out beautifully:
It is very possible that such doomsday predictions are overstated, as our Robert VerBruggen explained in a Corner post on Friday. For present purposes, though, the point is: The ACA structure does not include symmetry between the premium tax credits and the cost-sharing subsidies. As written, the ACA unambiguously provides an appropriation for the former, but not the latter. If Congress does not enact an appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies, the insurance companies may not lawfully be reimbursed.
Everyone has known this from the beginning. It was not an oversight — lawmakers did not mind being seen as generous with tax credits for low-income Americans, but they did not want to be seen as money funnels for corporate insurance titans. That is why the Obama administration quietly made annual appropriation requests to Congress when Obamacare was first implemented. And it is why Congress has refused to appropriate the funds.
President Obama understood that without reimbursement, the insurance companies would flee the exchanges or raise prices prohibitively. His signature legacy monument would be threatened. To prevent that, he violated the law. In 2014, his administration unilaterally began making non-appropriated cost-sharing payments to insurance companies. Those payments have continued, even through the first nine months of the Trump administration.
These payments are blatantly illegal. The federal district court in Washington so ruled last year. For what it’s worth, I believe Judge Rosemary Collyer was wrong to grant the House of Representatives standing to sue the Obama administration. The Constitution gives Congress its own powerful tools to confront presidential lawlessness; the Article I branch does not need the Article III branch to do its heavy lifting. That said, Judge Collyer’s decision on the merits is unassailable.
The media-Democrat narrative that President Trump is imperiously flouting the rule of law has it backwards. In cutting off the insurance-company subsidies, Trump is enforcing the ACA as written, consistent with his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. It was President Obama who usurped Congress’s power of the purse by directing the payment of taxpayer funds that lawmakers had not appropriated.
Finally, the claim that Trump is “unraveling” the ACA would be laughable were it not so cynical. You can’t unravel something by honoring its terms. Obamacare is unraveling because it was designed to unravel. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Democrats want single-payer, socialized medicine, with all the central planning and rationing that implies. The public does not want that. Oh, it is fair enough to say the public doesn’t know what exactly it wants. It insists, for example, on mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions (which is the opposite of insurance) but objects to a mandate (or other form of tax) needed to pay for it. Still, the public has a strong sense that it does not want government-run health care.
The Democrats grasp this. They know they can accomplish The Grand Plan only by inuring the public to it incrementally. That is what Obamacare is built to do. It is intended to unravel, only gradually and with the right villains taking the blame, while the government — having actually caused the problems — emerges as the savior.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452674/trumps-obamacare-order-faithfully-executes-law
They will still receive them as a matter of law. is a way of making it look like the fact that millions will lose their insurance, and they WILL under TrmpCare, is the fault of the liberals and the free press.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
because it IS the fault of the liberals and the media.
the liberals wrote a piece of legislation poorly, most likely intentionally, which doomed it to failure... by design.
the liberals desperately need the media to paint trump as the villain because this planned-for failure needs a villain, a republican villain, present as it turns to shit so the liberals can then rush in to save the day.
pro tip -
when it comes to liberal democrats and the ACA, one cannot be too cynical because democrats really are that evil.
Yawn rrb used national review
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Yawn rrb used national review
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
yes alky, i did. when it comes to matters of the law i tend to rely upon the opinions of actual, you know, lawyers. as opposed to what you did which was to copy and paste opinions that can be summed up as - "trump is a big meanie."
care to refute a single point that mccarthy made? he lays it out as succinctly as CH did.
the geniuses who authored the ACA, democrats all, neglected to insert an appropriation mechanism in the law. what trump is doing is entirely legal and as mccarthy explains -
"Finally, the claim that Trump is “unraveling” the ACA would be laughable were it not so cynical. You can’t unravel something by honoring its terms. Obamacare is unraveling because it was designed to unravel. This is not a bug, it’s a feature."
the fact that this is collapsing by design is becoming clearer by the day. i'm normally not one for conspiracies, but this certainly bears all the hallmarks of a real beaut.
"and clean your clock he did.
as the law is written, CH is 100% correct."
Forrest isn't getting any of this.
Facts confuse HB.
The clinton foundation is keeping $250,000 and probably more in Whinstien contributions.
They simply can't afford it, unless some other new money comes in.
It is not a surprise to me, look how they have spent over 2 billion in her two faild runs for President.
While insurance premiums on qualified plans will likely rise as a whole, this will not "specifically" effect those who are receiving the income related premium breaks from the insurance companies. They will still receive them as a matter of law
Yes Roger...
The income related premium breaks ARE NOT SUBSIDIES!!!
They are price breaks that insurers are obligated (under law) to provide for those people who make under a certain amount... Those price breaks are not going away and none of the stories you post are suggesting as such.
Here is a quote from the NY Times (I believe you trust this publication)
The subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments, go to insurance companies to offset the cost of reducing out-of-pocket expenses like deductibles and co-payments for low-income customers. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers will still have to help those customers, but without the help of Washington, they say, they will increase premiums. And with their profits squeezed, they could abandon the marketplaces.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/us/politics/trump-congress-obamacare-insurance-subsidies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
So according to you, even the New York Times is lying about this? Because they say the same thing that the law states, that the legal bloggers are stating, and exactly what I am stating.
You need to get a fucking grip, Roger. You are completely out of control.
Why can't your side convince the American
people that it would be best to get rid 0f
Obamacare entirely? Why do they overwhelm-
ingly continue to believe it should be
fixed, not dismantled?
"You need to get a fucking grip, Roger. You are completely out of control."
He can't help it. He's not a smart man.
Exactly, tragicly stupid.
.16 lot size of the home is wife hold sole deed and title, he is not on it. She is smart enough to keep his hands off of it so he does not use it like his private ATM.
CA fires which the Gov of that finacial strapped so called State has again blamed Trump for the fires.
As CHT has correctly state being a good liberal means never taking responsibility for you own action.
Dem/Independent Joseph Lieberman , a Jewish man said President Trump is right on his handling of NK and Iran.
How is it Joe does not see 45 as a jewelry hating Hitler Nazi?
Once again for stump broken KD....coal is deader than his fat white ass.....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/15/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-epa-truths.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
“Trump Digs Coal” read the signs during the campaign, and Donald Trump promised he would be “an unbelievable positive” for the miners. Now he’s trying to deliver by repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and proposing to subsidize coal-fired power plants. These moves are, in fact, unbelievable: Not only are they a setback in the fight against climate change, but they also make no economic sense, since the cost of renewable energy is falling sharply.
1.
Trump can’t save coal.
He only claims he can.
On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency published its proposal to undo the Clean Power Plan without putting anything in its place. The plan was one of the most important parts of former President Barack Obama’s commitment under the Paris climate agreement to cut United States greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The plan was meant to accelerate emission reductions in the power sector.
Note: 2014 projections based on Annual Energy Outlook. Sources: Energy Information Administration (historical, 2014 projection); Rhodium Group (current projection without CPP)
Earlier, Mr. Trump’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to come up with rules that would require businesses, consumers and anybody else who uses the electricity grid to pay coal-fired plants to be ready to supply power whether that energy was needed or not. He claims such payments will make the grid more “resilient” — many experts doubt that.
Taken together, these proposals are a brazen attempt to promote one source of energy over others — a criticism that conservatives often lobbed at Mr. Obama for his attempts to do something about climate change. In fact, tied up in court, the Clean Power Plan has not even gone into effect.
2.
Coal use is declining.
Meanwhile, use of other energy sources has risen sharply.
Coal has been falling out of favor because utilities are switching to natural gas, which has become much cheaper in recent years thanks to a boom in shale production.
6:33 goes unanswered. :-)
Blogger Loretta said..
He can't help it. He's not a smart man.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Most amusing source.....
My bitch
He sure is, you broke him
Now the left loves fracking.
Ok, cool with me
All of the natural resources of the USA are in play.
My favorite team the SFAG 49'ers did what they do best, took a knee and sucked. 0 -6 so far
KD said...
Now the left loves fracking.
I see you are still a dumb, loser who like all righties, just makes shit up....very pathetic.....coal is as dead as your head.....LOL What does SF record have to do with anything....you think god is in control of their destiny???? Idiot The only sucking sound is coming from the whole in your head
Loretta said...
My bitch
October 16, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Blogger KD said...
He sure is, you broke him
Yep both morally bankrupt idiots in a unity of stupidity......Dayum funny how little the demented injun has to add....LOL Old bitch..
TRIGGERED.
So easy, mother earth continues to create oil. This Earth is designed so intelligently.
When the lower income earners are receiving the cost break, and if it is not offset by the subsidies that the law was predicated on, then I guess it's me who gets to pay for it. I don't really mind that part, if I get value from the policy. What DOES bother me, is that I'd be better off financially with NO medical insurance, until my wife reaches her (high) maximum out of pocket. Never mind the deductible, I'd rather pay the medical bill straight up.
The real difference is if I paid cash, unless I want to fight and bargain on every visit, I'd pay double (at least) what the insurance has negotiated. What this tell me is, the reform we really need is in medical pricing, not insurance pricing.
Post a Comment