Reply With Quote
It's not a stealth repeal if the en lement still exists. It's simply an en lement that's not payed for.
It happens all the time at all levels.
Are there enough police hired to enforce jaywalking laws, following too close, California stops, etc?
It's not a stealth repeal if the en lement still exists. It's simply an en lement that's not payed for.
Hence the stealth nature of the repeal by inaction. Like I said, this practice is nothing new.
The problem is that the bill will come due with hospitals and insurers crying over unpaid premiums and bills. When the judiciary gets involved then it becomes a big cluster .
It's bad leadership whoever the individuals on either side who participate. Political brinksmanship creates market instability and its getting really really old.
In the case of the med device tax, the push back is pretty bipartisan...not really a case of brinkmanship imo.
Go figure. Congressmembers from both parties want to cut taxes while not taking away the en lements the taxes were intended to pay for. Again, if you can't repeal the en lement, you shouldn't be able to repeal the mechanism enacted to pay for it. Say what you will about the ACA, but there was an attempt to make the law revenue neutral. If you wanna repeal the law, then garner the political capital to repeal the law. It's irresponsible to repeal the the taxes while leaving the en lement in place.
Sure but the push to completely dismantle the bill via defunding is all GOP.
I still say the good way to tackle the issue is an rust scrutiny of the hospital system and pricing transparency. Medical ethics seems about limiting liability and creating a noncompe ive marketplace. You cannot just cash in full on the free market and then cry ethics to justify price gouging.
No argument here but its going to take a league of political capital to even consider, much less legislate along the lines of monopolistic practices.
We need The League of Extraordinary Senators®.
Moderate Republicans buck Kochs, pass Montana Medicaid expansion
Montana is slated to become the 29th state to pass Medicaid expansion after a critical vote in the Montana House Thursday, in which a half-dozen poison pill amendments from tea party Republican Rep. Art Wittich were beaten back.
After Wittich's committee hearing—dominated by "witnesses" from the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity, a "do not pass recommendation" from the committee, and a complicated rules battle—moderate Republicans and Democrats prevailed and got the bill to the floor.
It passed on its second reading, after all amendments but one were rejected, in a 54-46 vote. Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill, which has already been approved by the Senate. Final action by the Senate, which will have to reconsider the bill because it has been amended, is expected Saturday.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376774/-Moderate-Republicans-buck-Kochs-pass-Montana-Medicaid-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%2 9
Expect the Kock Bros to try to defeat the Repugs who voted for expansion.
WATCH: Terrified ‘Tea Party Patriot’ realizes he could lose Obamacare if GOP wins in 2016
A conservative video blogger with over a million views on YouTube said this week that he would likely vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because he was terrified that a Republican president would take away his affordable health insurance.
James Webb, a 51-year-old YouTube celebrity who devotes his “Hot Lead” channel to topics like his love of guns and ranting about gay men kissing on The Walking Dead, may have shocked his viewers on Monday when he revealed that he was torn over which party to vote for in the 2016 election.
“And I’m serious because I asked myself, ‘Which party has helped me out the most in the last, I don’t know, 15 years, 20?’ And it was the Democrat [SIC] Party,” Webb lamented. “If it wasn’t for Obama and that Obamacare, I would still be working.”
“With Obamacare, I got to retire at age 50 because if it wasn’t for Obamacare, I would have had to work until I was 65 and get on Medicare because health insurance is expensive when you’ve got medical problems,” he continued.
Webb said that he hoped to lose some weight and get in shape by taking advantage of a gym membership that was covered by his health insurance.
“But you know, the Republican Party, they haven’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing,” he remarked. “So, I’m leaning toward voting for Hillary unless something major comes up. I don’t trust the Republicans anymore because they’re wanting to repeal the Obamacare. And I don’t want them to do that, man, because then I’ll have to go to work again.
My life’s already planned out.”
“Just a tough decision,” Webb sighed. “I voted for Republicans for 32 years, I’m a charter member of my Tea Party Patriots chapter. I’m also a veteran of the U.S. Army under Reagan, when Reagan was in. That was great when Reagan was in there.”
“Things have changed. So unless the Republicans change with it, I’m probably going to have to swing my vote over toward Hillary.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/w...e+Raw+Story%29
Some of you Repugs are at least FUNNY assholes.
Repugs will AGAIN run on kiling Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, because ing up stuff is all the Repugs do.
Hey GOP, look! Medicaid and Medicare keep costs down better than private insurance
Just to emphasize, this is spending per capita, comparing covering the elderly and disabled and low income people—generally a more expensive group to take care of—versus everyone else with coverage. Public heath coverage is more efficient, and cheaper, than private insurance.
That's not really news, you only have to look at where the U.S. ranks compared to other developed nations which all have some variety of single-payer healthcare system.
We're consistently dead last on outcomes and first in spending.
That's the system Republicans want to see swallow up Medicare and Medicaid—the system that costs us far more and keeps us sicker. Is it time for more healthcare reform?
For Medicare for all? Yes, it is indeed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...28Daily+Kos%29
No, Obamacare isn't unpopular with the majority of Americans
It's a given if you're a Republican: everyone hates Obamacare. And it's actually true—if you are a Republican. In the rest of the political world, a big majority of people are okay with it. In fact, according to the latest Bloomberg poll, 63 percent think the law should either just be left entirely alone (12 percent) or allowed to work to see what small changes should be made (51 percent—a majority). Who wants it repealed? The same roughly 35 percent who've been screeching for repeal for the past three years.But there's more to keep in mind about that 35 percent: Obamacare doesn't really affect them.
Only a third of the country supports full repeal, and, like the Republican coalition itself, it is a very old third—comprised of the only people in the country with almost no stake in the law's core costs and benefits.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, whose tracking poll is a touchstone for measuring public sentiment about Obamacare, the law is under water—barely. Forty-one percent of respondents hold favorable views of the ACA, while 43 percent hold unfavorable views. But if you break it out by age cohort, you find that that two percent margin is entirely attributable to people who have aged out of the program.
Among 18- to 64-year-olds—the people who pay for the law, or are eligible for the law's benefits, or might become eligible for the law’s benefits at some point in the future—Obamacare is breakeven. Forty-two percent favorable, versus 42 percent unfavorable. Among those whose opinions we should generally ignore on this issue—old people—it's a bloodbath. Only 36 percent view the law favorably, while 46 percent view it unfavorably.
That's likely most attributed to the big Medicare lie that dominated two election cycles—the $716 billion cuts in Medicare Republicans hammered on and lied about incessantly (the same $716 billion Paul Ryan included in his budgets to make his numbers work).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/20/1379029/-No-Obamacare-isn-t-unpopular-with-the-majority-of-nbsp-Americans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%2 9
Overhead is lower, because of economies of scale, as well as the fact that Medicare doesn't have to tack on profits on top of what it actually costs.Repugs will AGAIN run on kiling Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, because ing up stuff is all the Repugs do.
Hey GOP, look! Medicaid and Medicare keep costs down better than private insurance
Just to emphasize, this is spending per capita, comparing covering the elderly and disabled and low income people—generally a more expensive group to take care of—versus everyone else with coverage. Public heath coverage is more efficient, and cheaper, than private insurance.
That's not really news, you only have to look at where the U.S. ranks compared to other developed nations which all have some variety of single-payer healthcare system.
We're consistently dead last on outcomes and first in spending.
That's the system Republicans want to see swallow up Medicare and Medicaid—the system that costs us far more and keeps us sicker. Is it time for more healthcare reform?
For Medicare for all? Yes, it is indeed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Pretty much blows the argument that "private sector always does it more cheaply than the government" out of the water as a hard, fast rule.
Obamacare customers happier with plans than other insured people
People who had coverage through Obamacare had an average satisfaction score of 696 (out of 1,000) in 2014, thinking back to their last year of coverage.
During that same year, people in mostly employer-based plans had a satisfaction rating of 679—17 points lower. […]So why would these plans score higher?
The J.D. Power survey suggests that there's another variable enrollees think a lot about: choice. Their research also shows that people with employer-sponsored coverage who have "multiple plan options" have the exact same satisfaction rating as the people on Obamacare.
And this might actually circle back to the cost issue. People shopping on Obamacare have the option to decide whether they want a plan with a high premium or a low one.
Shoppers have typically gravitated toward the lower-cost premium.
The average monthly premium on Healthcare.gov is $374. For people getting coverage at work, the average premium is $464.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...8Daily+Kos%29#
Oops! Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit Would Invalidate Reagan Tax Law If It Succeeds
A lawsuit attacking the Affordable Care Act relies on such a sweeping legal theory that it would invalidate countless laws if it were successful — including a prong of President Ronald Reagan’s tax policy.
The latest chapter in the “never-ending saga” of lawsuits seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act ended in failure on Friday, and in one of the most conservative courts in the country to boot — a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit turned away an effort to strike down the entirety of Obamacare.
Hotze v. Burwell rests on an obscure provision of the Cons ution which provides that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The bill that became Obamacare began as a House bill, so even if it counts as a bill “for raising Revenue” — itself a doubtful proposition — the requirement that the law had to “originate in the House” is met. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in Hotze claim that the law is void because of the particular way that it became law. As the Fifth Circuit explains, the Affordable Care Act began in the House as an irrelevant bill known as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. After that bill passed the House, “the Senate struck the language of the SMHOTA in its entirety and subs uted the language of the ACA.” The plaintiffs claim that this practice, of replacing an entire bill with an amendment, is not allowed.
The problem with this argument, however, is the second part of the cons utional provision quoted above: “the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” There simply aren’t any limits, whether cons utional or otherwise, on the Senate’s power to amend bills to say something entirely different than what the House originally stated. Moreover, this power to enact amendments replacing bills in their entirety stretches back almost to the beginning of the republic. As Vice President Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1801 manual on parliamentary practice, “Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition[.] . . . A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of Amendment, on the words ‘Be it enacted,’ &c.”
Indeed, the practice of amending a revenue raising bill in its entirety is sufficiently common that, were the courts to side with the Hotze plaintiffs, it would force them to go line by line through the entirety of federal law, effectively crossing out provisions at random. One law that would need to be crossed out is the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a tax bill signed by President Ronald Reagan that was enacted through the very same process as the Affordable Care Act. That alone would raise a cloud of cons utional doubt over any tax filing that would have been different if Reagan had not signed this law more than three decades ago, casting the finances of the United States into chaos.
The Fifth Circuit, for its part, avoided the question of whether Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson were right about the Senate’s power to amend legislation, instead kicking the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. Nevertheless, the decision, which was authored by the conservative Reagan appointee Judge E. Grady Jolly, is a significant setback for this effort to kill Obamacare.
Though the lawyers behind this suit may be able to find a better plaintiff who does have standing to bring the suit, it will take months or even years for that case to work its way up to a Fifth Circuit panel. In that time, millions more Americans will sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and a judicial decision repealing the law will become even more reckless — potentially deterring judges who would otherwise be inclined to stretch the law in order to strike a blow at the Affordable Care Act. (It’s worth noting that Hotze is not the only case raising the same legal challenge to Obamacare. Last July, a unanimous DC Circuit panel rejected a similar lawsuit on the merits.)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-law-succeeds/
This small, wonky Obamacare program saved $384 million over two years
Medicare's independent actuary has certified that an Obamacare program has saved money — $384 million over the past two years, to be exact. And the Obama administration is now eying how to make this program bigger — and, ideally, generate even more savings.
The big question, however, is whether America's health care system is ready. We don't know if the savings reflect the fact Obamacare has found a better way to deliver medicine — or if they show us that a handful of go-getter, entrepreneurial hospitals were able to innovate in ways that other systems can't replicate. But we're about to find out.
Obamacare punishes hospitals who provide bad care — and rewards doctors who do better
In 2012, the Obama administration launched a plan to change that. The Pioneer Accountable Care Organization, or Pioneer ACO, rewards hospitals that deliver high quality care at lower-than-expected costs — and punishes high spenders.
If hospitals in the Pioneer ACO program covered Medicare patients at lower-than-expected costs, they kept 70 percent of the savings in 2014 (the other 30 percent went back to the federal government). But if they spent more than expected, they would have to pay the feds back the difference.
All of a sudden, the Pioneer ACO program gave doctors a reason to spend less in a system that typically rewards anyone who spends more.
Obamacare actually found a way to save money. That's huge.
Thirty-two hospital systems signed up to become Pioneer ACOs in 2012 (thirteen have since dropped out, and you can read more about that, and what it means, here). And two papers reviewing the program's performance — published today here and here — are largely positive in their findings.
HOSPITALS SAVED, ON AVERAGE, $300 PER PATIENT
The Pioneer ACO hospitals saved $384 million in two years — $280 million in their first year and $105 million in the second. This worked out to a savings, on average, of about $300 per patient
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/4/8545993/obamacare-costs-aco-savings
Senate Republicans Pass Budget That Throws 27 Million Americans Off Health Insurance
The GOP budget takes away health insurance from 27 million Americans by disabling the federal health insurance exchanges, “According to a report from the Senate Budget Committee Democrats, Republicans would take away health insurance from 27 million Americans by disabling the federal health insurance exchanges.”
The Republican passed budget promises big tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires that are paid for by throwing people off of their health insurance and turning Medicare into a voucher system. Today’s vote was a message to millions of people that the billionaire controlled Republicans in Congress are coming for their health care.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/05/senate-republicans-pass-budget-throws-27-million-americans-health-insurance.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Pol iticus+USA+%29
New study gives more evidence of Obamacare gains for millions
As congressional Republicans move toward another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act, new evidence was published Wednesday about the dramatic expansion of insurance coverage made possible by the law.Nearly 17 million more people in the U.S. have gained health insurance since the law's major coverage expansion began, according to a study from the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica nonprofit research firm.
That tally takes into account 22.8 million newly insured people and 5.9 million who lost coverage in the last year and a half.
Researchers found gains across all types of insurance, including employer-provided coverage, government Medicaid programs and policies offered through state insurance marketplaces created by the law.
At the same time, the vast majority of Americans have seen no change in the source of their coverage, with 80% remaining in the same insurance, researchers found.
“The ACA has greatly expanded health insurance coverage in the United States with little change in the source of coverage for those who were insured before the major provisions of the law took effect,”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-obamacare-coverage-20150506-story.html
Koch brothers clash with GOP lawmakers as their lobbyists turn Tennessee into a ‘horror movie
Some Tennessee Republicans are getting tired of the Koch brothers meddling in their state politics.
The billionaire libertarians pour cash into Republican campaigns and steer pro-business policies through their Americans for Prosperity organization — which attacks GOP lawmakers who are insufficiently supportive.
That’s what happened to state Rep. Kevin Brooks (R-Cleveland), who asked his GOP colleagues to at least consider Republican Gov. Bill Haslam’s plan to use federal dollars and extend Medicaid health coverage to 280,000 low-income residents through his Insure Tennessee proposal, reported The Tennessean.
AFP launched a series of radio ads claiming that Brooks, the House assistant majority leader, had betrayed voters by flip-flopping on Obamacare.
Insure Tennessee ultimately failed twice in this year’s General Assembly after AFP attacks on Brooks and GOP state Reps. Jimmy Eldridge and John Holsclaw for their perceived support of the governor’s plan.
But the Koch brothers’ disproportionate influence on the state’s politics rubbed some Republicans, including the governor’s top political adviser, the wrong way.
Tom Ingram, the advisor to Haslam and a registered lobbyist during the last session for a business group supporting Insure Tennessee, blames the situation on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
He said AFP is able to pour money directly and indirectly into state politics and push their agenda in ways that individual voters cannot.
“I find something out of whack about that,” Ingram said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/koch...e+Raw+Story%29
Repugs, tea baggers, VRWC/Kock Bros are the REAL DEATH PANELS, killing 1000s of red state victims by denying them health care.
This is what ripping holes in Obamacare looks like: The horrific human cost of the GOP’s anti-reform crusade
Case in point: this Charlotte Observer profile of Luis Lang, a rock-ribbed conservative from South Carolina who refused to comply with the ACA’s insurance mandate and proudly paid for all his own medical care, until disaster struck:
But after 10 days of an unrelenting headache, Lang went to the emergency room on Feb. 25. He says he was told he’d suffered several ministrokes. He ran up $9,000 in bills and exhausted his savings. Meanwhile, his vision worsened, and he can’t work, he says.
That’s when he turned to the Affordable Care Act exchange. Lang learned two things: First, 2015 enrollment had closed earlier that month. And second, because his income has dried up, he earns too little to get a federal subsidy to buy a private policy.
Lang, a Republican, says he knew the act required him to get coverage, but he chose not to do so. But he thought help would be available in an emergency. He and his wife blame President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats for passing a complex and flawed bill.
“(My husband) should be at the front of the line, because he doesn’t work and because he has medical issues,” Mary Lang said last week. “We call it the Not Fair Health Care Act.”
We’ve been hearing stories similar to Mr. Lang’s for a long time now – low-income people in red states who are in acute need of medical care but refused to be a party to the Affordable Care Act owing to their conservative politics. They made a decision: the ideological satisfaction of resisting “big government” outweighed the practical benefit of access to medical care. And partly as a consequence of that decision, they’ve suddenly found themselves in the situation that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent: they’re sick, uninsured, and unable to obtain coverage.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/13/this...eform_crusade/
Evil Gov. Rick Scott Would Rather Shut Down Government Than Give Healthcare To Florida Poors
Florida is having quite a dumb fight right now, simply because gross reptile Gov. Rick Scott refuses to take federal money to pay for low-income people’s healthcare if it’s got Obamacare all over it.
So let’s shut down the government!
Gov. Rick Scott told agency heads to prepare for the worst Thursday, asking them to list only the state’s most critical needs in the event the Legislature can’t reach an agreement on a budget that doesn’t expand health care to the poor. […]
“Prepare a list of critical state services our citizens cannot lose in the event Florida is forced to shut down on July 1st,” Scott wrote.
In writing the letter, Scott is further digging in his heels in his refusal to expand health care coverage to 800,000 Floridians, a move that could cost the state more than $1 billion in federal money to help hospitals treat the poor, which is called the low-income pool.
In the event that they are FORCED to shut down!
So, who is forcing them to do that?
Rick Scott is forcing them to do that because, as we all know by now, he is an asshole.
Because you see, the Florida Senate was okay with expanding Medicaid, because as yr Wonk has explained before, the Senate is full of corporate s, but they’re okay with being practical on occasion.
The House, on the other hand, is full of morons, Jesus freaks and other sorts of characters who pick the corn out of their own poop, and they can’t handle the idea of expanding Medicaid, because that’s part of evil socialist Obamacare, therefore it’s different from taking federal money in other non-Obama ways.
http://wonkette.com/585681/evil-gov-rick-scott-would-rather-shut-down-government-than-give-healthcare-to-florida-poors
The best study done so far shows people with Obamacare plans like their plans
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/21/8631863...tion-enrollees
Who would have guessed that a bill written by profitcare lobbyists who lead to this?
CPI Shows Sharply Rising Medical Costs; Huge Obamacare Hikes Planned
Health Insurers Seek Hefty Rate Boosts
Worse yet, planned Obamacare premiums are about to explode, setting the stage for debate over federal health law’s impact.
The Wall Street Journal reports Health Insurers Seek Hefty Rate Boosts.
Major insurers in some states are proposing hefty rate boosts for plans sold under the federal health law, setting the stage for an intense debate this summer over the law’s impact.
In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016. The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.
All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.
“This year, health plans have a full year of claims data to understand the health needs of the [health insurance] exchange population, and these enrollees are generally older and often managing multiple chronic conditions,” said Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group. “Premiums reflect the rising cost of providing care to individuals and families, and the explosion in prescription and specialty drug prices is a significant factor.”
-- more -->
lol Vox. Peeps like free/subsidized stuff. ShockerThe best study done so far shows people with Obamacare plans like their plans
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/21/8631863...tion-enrollees
.... so what is your solution to a rip-off health care racket where people can't afford the insurance, never mind actual treatments?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714872/kff1.png)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714880/kff2.png)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714890/deductible.png)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714908/shopping.png)