Log in

View Full Version : Trump to end key ACA subsidies, a move that will threaten the law’s marketplaces



baseline bum
10-13-2017, 06:44 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-gut-aca-insurance-rules-and-undermine-marketplaces/2017/10/11/40abf774-ae97-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html

Trump to end key ACA subsidies, a move that will threaten the law’s marketplaces
By Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin October 13 at 5:51 AM

President Trump is throwing a bomb into the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act, choosing to end critical payments to health insurers that help millions of lower-income Americans afford coverage. The decision coincides with an executive order on Thursday to allow alternative health plans that skirt the law’s requirements.

The White House confirmed late Thursday that it would halt federal payments for cost-sharing reductions, although a statement did not specify when. Another statement a short time later by top officials at the Health and Human Services Department said the cutoff would be immediate. The subsidies total about $7 billion this year.

Trump has threatened for months to stop the payments, which go to insurers that are required by the law to help eligible consumers afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But he held off while other administration officials warned him such a move would cause an implosion of the ACA marketplaces that could be blamed on Republicans, according to two individuals briefed on the decision.

Health insurers and state regulators have been in a state of high anxiety over the prospect of the marketplaces cratering because of such White House action. The fifth year’s open-enrollment season for consumers to buy coverage through ACA exchanges will start in less than three weeks, and insurers have said that stopping the cost-sharing payments would be the single greatest step the Trump administration could take to damage the marketplaces — and the law.

Ending the payments is grounds for any insurer to back out of its federal contract to sell health plans for 2018. Some states’ regulators directed ACA insurers to add a surcharge in case the payments were not made, but insurers elsewhere could be left in a position in which they still must give consumers the discounts but will not be reimbursed.

A spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group that has been warning for months of adverse effects if the payments ended, immediately denounced the president’s decision. “Millions of Americans rely on these benefits to afford their coverage and care,” Kristine Grow said.

And California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who has been trying to preserve the payments through litigation, said the president’s action “would be sabotage.” Becerra said late Thursday that he was prepared to fight the White House. “We’ve taken the Trump Administration to court before and won, and we’re ready to do it again if necessary,” he said in a statement.

Trump’s move comes even as bipartisan negotiations continue on one Senate committee over ways to prop up the ACA marketplaces. Both Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have publicly said the payments should not end immediately, though they differ over how long these subsidies should be guaranteed.

The cost-sharing reductions — or CSRs, as they are known — have long been the subject of a political and legal seesaw. Congressional Republicans argued that the sprawling 2010 health-care law that established them does not include specific language providing appropriations to cover the government’s cost. House Republicans sued HHS over the payments during President Barack Obama’s second term. A federal court agreed that they were illegal, and the case has been pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“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,” a statement from the White House said. “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement that the administration was dropping its appeal of the lawsuit — something the White House did not mention in its announcement. Ryan called the move to end to the court case “a monumental affirmation of Congress’s authority and the separation of powers.”

Meanwhile, the top two congressional Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), excoriated the president’s decision. “It is a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America,” they said in a joint statement. “Make no mistake about it, Trump will try to blame the Affordable Care Act, but this will fall on his back and he will pay the price for it.”

For months, administration officials have debated privately about what to do. The president has consistently pushed to stop the payments, according to officials and advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Some top health officials within the administration, including former HHS secretary Tom Price, cautioned that this could exacerbate already escalating ACA plan premiums, these Republicans said. But some government lawyers argued that the payments were not authorized under the existing law, according to one administration official, and would be difficult to keep defending in court.

Acting HHS secretary Eric Hargan and Seema Verma, administrator of the department’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said they were stopping the payments based on a legal opinion by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “It has been clear for many years that Obamacare is bad policy. It is also bad law,” their statement says. “The Obama Administration unfortunately went ahead and made CSR payments to insurance companies after requesting — but never ultimately receiving — an appropriation from Congress as required by law.”

While the administration will now argue that Congress should appropriate the funds if it wants them to continue, such a proposal will face a serious hurdle on Capitol Hill. In a recent interview, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing HHS, said it would be difficult to muster support for such a move among House conservatives.

One person familiar with the president’s decision said HHS officials and Trump’s domestic policy advisers had urged him to continue the payments at least through the end of the year.

The cost-sharing payments are separate from a different subsidy that provides federal assistance with premiums to more than four-fifths of the 10 million Americans with ACA coverage.

Word of the president’s decision came just hours after he signed the executive order intended to circumvent the ACA by making it easier for individuals and small businesses to buy alternative types of health insurance with lower prices, fewer benefits and weaker government protections.

The White House and allies portrayed the president’s move as wielding administrative powers to accomplish what congressional Republicans have failed to achieve: fostering more coverage choices while tearing down the law’s insurance marketplaces. Until the White House’s announcement late Thursday, the executive order represented Trump’s biggest step to date to reverse the health-care policies of the Obama administration, a central promise since last year’s presidential campaign.

Critics, who include state insurance commissioners, most of the health-insurance industry and mainstream policy specialists, predict that a proliferation of these other kinds of coverage will have damaging ripple effects, driving up costs for consumers with serious medical conditions and prompting more insurers to flee the law’s marketplaces. Part of Trump’s action, they say, will spark court challenges over its legality.

The most far-reaching element of the order instructs a trio of Cabinet departments to rewrite federal rules for “association health plans” — a form of insurance in which small businesses of a similar type band together through an association to negotiate health benefits. These plans have had to meet coverage requirements and consumer protections under the 2010 health-care law, but the administration is likely to exempt them from those rules and let such plans be sold from state to state without insurance licenses in each one.

In addition, the order is designed to expand the availability of short-term insurance policies, which offer limited benefits as a bridge for people between jobs or young adults no longer eligible for their parents’ health plans. The Obama administration ruled that short-term insurance may not last for more than three months; Trump wants to extend that to nearly a year.

Trump’s action also is intended to widen employers’ ability to use pretax dollars in “health re*imbursement arrangements” to help workers pay for any medical expenses, not just for health policies that meet ACA rules — another reversal of Obama policy.

In a late-morning signing ceremony in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, surrounded by supportive small-business owners, Cabinet members and a few Republicans from Capitol Hill, the president spoke in his characteristic superlatives about the effects of his action and what he called “the Obamacare nightmare.”

Trump said that Thursday’s move, which will trigger months of regulatory work by federal agencies, “is only the beginning.” He promised “even more relief and more freedom” from ACA rules. And although leading GOP lawmakers are eager to move on from their unsuccessful attempts this year to abolish central facets of the 2010 law, Trump said that “we are going to pressure Congress very strongly to finish the repeal and replace of Obamacare.”

But in an early morning tweet Friday, Trump reached out to Democrats with an appeal to somehow work together on a health-care “fix.”

“The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding,” Trump wrote. “Massive subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped. Dems should call me to fix!”

The executive order will fulfill a quest by conservative Republican lawmakers, especially in the House, who have tried for more than two decades to expand the availability of association health plans by allowing them to be sold, unregulated, across state lines. On the other hand, Trump’s approach conflicts with what he and GOP leaders in Congress have held out as a main health-policy goal — giving each state more discretion over matters of insurance.

Health policy experts in think tanks, academia and the health-care industry pointed out that the order’s language is fairly broad, so the ensuing fine print in agencies’ rules will determine whether the impact will be as sweeping or quick as Trump boasted — his directive will provide “millions of people with Obamacare relief,” he said.

Significant questions that remain include whether individuals will be able to join associations, a point that could raise legal issues; whether the administration will start to let association health plans count toward the ACA’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance; and whether such plans can charge higher prices to small businesses with sicker workers — or refuse to insure them.

A senior administration official, speaking to reporters on the condition of anonymity shortly before Trump signed the order, said that the policy changes it sets in motion will require agencies to follow customary procedures to write new rules and solicit public comment. That means new insurance options will not be available in time for coverage beginning in January, he said.

Among policy experts, critics warned that young and healthy people who use relatively little insurance will gravitate to association health plans because of their lower price tags. That would concentrate older and sicker customers in ACA marketplaces with spiking rates.

Selling health plans from state to state without separate licenses — the idea underlying much of the president’s order — has long been a Republican mantra. It has gained little traction in practice, however.

Half a dozen states — before the ACA was passed in 2010 as well as since then — have passed laws permitting insurers to sell health policies approved by other states. And since last year, the ACA has allowed “compacts” in which groups of states can agree that health plans licensed in any of them could be sold in the others. Under such compacts, federal health officials must make sure the plans offer at least the same benefits and are as affordable as those sold in the ACA marketplaces.

As of this summer, “no state was known to actually offer or sell such policies,” according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. A main reason, experts say, is insurers’ difficulty in arranging networks of doctors and other providers of care far from their home states.

AaronY
10-13-2017, 06:45 AM
..and take zero of the blame for the rising premiums among his base

Will Hunting
10-13-2017, 08:54 AM
Fine, this will make my premiums lower as a young generally healthy 27 YO.

Sucks for all the fat rednecks who voted for Trump and are about to see a premium hike :lol

rmt
10-13-2017, 04:17 PM
Section 1402 of Obamacare requires insurance companies to reduce deductibles, copayments, and other similar payments for lower-income consumers and then says that the federal government will reimburse the insurers for their losses. Specifically, insurers will notify the federal government of the amount of their price reductions, and the government will “make periodic and timely payments to the insurer equal to the value of the reductions.”

Unlike other provisions of Obamacare covering other forms of subsidies (for example, Section 1401, which funded subsidies that helped cover insurance premiums), the law didn’t specifically appropriate any money to fund these payments. This isn’t a small thing. In fact, it implicates the core constitutional structure of our government. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution unambiguously declares that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.” The most relevant federal appropriations statute states quite clearly that “a law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury . . . only if the law specifically states that an appropriation is made.” In fact, there is unmistakeable evidence that President Obama knew that his administration needed a specific appropriation to fund Section 1402 subsidies — he asked Congress for the money. Congress said no. It didn’t appropriate a single dime. So Obama did what he did best: He “penned and phoned” the subsidies into existence. He directly violated the Constitution by spending the money anyway. The House of Representatives sued, and on May 12, 2016, federal district court judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in the House’s favor and held that the Obama administration’s payments were unlawful. Her opinion reads like a 38-page civics lesson, but for all its length the court’s core holding is simple: “The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred.”

The Obama administration argued that blocking the payments would lead to “absurd economic, fiscal, and healthcare-policy results.” The judge’s response was constitutionally and legally sound: The only result of the ACA, however, is that the Section 1402 reimbursements must be funded annually. Far from absurd, that is a perfectly valid means of appropriation. The results predicted by the [administration] flow not from the ACA, but from Congress’ subsequent refusal to appropriate money. In other words, if you have a problem with the lack of appropriation, take it up with the House and Senate.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452660/obamacare-subsidy-payments%3A-trump-illegal-subsidies

Sorry should have put it here.

rmt
10-13-2017, 04:24 PM
Fine, this will make my premiums lower as a young generally healthy 27 YO.

Sucks for all the fat rednecks who voted for Trump and are about to see a premium hike :lol

Insurance is about risk - you should pay less for health insurance - just like you pay more for auto insurance than old people. And please invest the savings so that when you are old, you have for higher premiums.

Will Hunting
10-13-2017, 05:09 PM
Insurance is about risk - you should pay less for health insurance - just like you pay more for auto insurance than old people. And please invest the savings so that when you are old, you have for higher premiums.

I don't mind paying more for insurance if it means there's a viable option for me when I'm older.

monosylab1k
10-13-2017, 05:47 PM
I don't mind paying more for insurance if it means there's a viable option for me when I'm older.

YOU COMMUNIST FUCK!

rmt
10-13-2017, 05:58 PM
I don't mind paying more for insurance if it means there's a viable option for me when I'm older.

Just because you pay more now doesn't mean that there will be a viable option for you when you are older. Who knows what the situation/party/politics will be by then? You could pay more now and still have no/hardly any option then. I'd rather keep the money/invest myself than trust promises.

ducks
10-13-2017, 10:22 PM
Time to put John McCain on it

Th'Pusher
10-13-2017, 10:45 PM
Just because you pay more now doesn't mean that there will be a viable option for you when you are older. Who knows what the situation/party/politics will be by then? You could pay more now and still have no/hardly any option then. I'd rather keep the money/invest myself than trust promises.

Americans aren’t good at saving and when it comes to providing healthcare, where physicians are required to provide service by law, it makes sense to make either buying insurance compulsory or by subsidizing care...Especially considering it’s in the state’s interest to have a healthy population.

Spurminator
10-13-2017, 11:22 PM
http://www.theonion.com/article/exhausted-trump-supporter-just-decides-massive-cut-57198?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

Exhausted Trump Supporter Just Decides Massive Cuts To Healthcare Subsidies Reason He Voted For Him

ducks
10-14-2017, 10:02 AM
Onion article

ducks
10-14-2017, 10:04 AM
Americans are not good at saving because the gov taxes bad
25 years think they need to live like 50 year olds
Gas goes up never done truckers pay more food goes up
Drugs are expensive

Spurminator
10-14-2017, 10:11 AM
Onion article

Very good, ducks!

http://www.pngall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Cookie-PNG-Clipart.png

boutons_deux
10-14-2017, 10:26 AM
Adds $200B to govt spending, but Trash must destroy Obama for embarrassing, ridiculing, roasting him at WH correspondents dinned

rmt
10-14-2017, 12:30 PM
Americans aren’t good at saving and when it comes to providing healthcare, where physicians are required to provide service by law, it makes sense to make either buying insurance compulsory or by subsidizing care...Especially considering it’s in the state’s interest to have a healthy population.

So we should have forced savings and promises that we'll be taken care of later. I'm for anything that keeps more money in my hands than in the government's with their promises because I will make better use of it than some fickle politician and inefficient government. It is disheartening to me that many of you young, smart people spend so much time on this board advocating for a bigger government that you think will take care of you instead of putting that energy toward securing your future. Go out there, use those good brains of yours, seek out the opportunity all around you and make your own way. You have the internet and Google at your disposal - make use of them instead of bickering on this board.

As far as health insurance is concerned, I want catastrophic insurance and tax-free dollars in my hands (HSA) to pay directly to the provider of my choice.

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 12:34 PM
So we should have forced savings and promises that we'll be taken care of later. I'm for anything that keeps more money in my hands than in the government's with their promises because I will make better use of it than some fickle politician and inefficient government. It is disheartening to me that many of you young, smart people spend so much time on this board advocating for a bigger government that you think will take care of you instead of putting that energy toward securing your future. Go out there, use those good brains of yours, seek out the opportunity all around you and make your own way. You have the internet and Google at your disposal - make use of them instead of bickering on this board.

As far as health insurance is concerned, I want catastrophic insurance and tax-free dollars in my hands (HSA) to pay directly to the provider of my choice.

Oh please, you can shove the sanctimonious horseshit about "seeking opportunity" and "making your own way" up your ass. You work for the fucking government and rely on it more than any young person on this board.

baseline bum
10-14-2017, 12:37 PM
Oh please, you can shove the sanctimonious horseshit about "seeking opportunity" and "making your own way" up your ass. You work for the fucking government and rely on it more than any young person on this board.

:lmao

Th'Pusher
10-14-2017, 12:53 PM
So we should have forced savings and promises that we'll be taken care of later. I'm for anything that keeps more money in my hands than in the government's with their promises because I will make better use of it than some fickle politician and inefficient government. It is disheartening to me that many of you young, smart people spend so much time on this board advocating for a bigger government that you think will take care of you instead of putting that energy toward securing your future. Go out there, use those good brains of yours, seek out the opportunity all around you and make your own way. You have the internet and Google at your disposal - make use of them instead of bickering on this board.

As far as health insurance is concerned, I want catastrophic insurance and tax-free dollars in my hands (HSA) to pay directly to the provider of my choice.

We all know. RMT cares about RMT and RMT alone.

My future is fine. I just know human nature and history. You can advocate for personal responsibility all you want, but the reality is, most people can’t afford or just wont save for healthcare. And when they get sick, everyone pays for it because treatment is compulsory. Just make it a right and pay for it collectively.

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 01:05 PM
We all know. RMT cares about RMT and RMT alone.

True, RMT doesn't want anyone else benefiting from the government but doesn't mind sucking at the taxpayer's teet with a government job.

vy65
10-14-2017, 01:50 PM
I literally just broke my irony bone.

rmt
10-14-2017, 02:02 PM
I KNOW that what this government job is getting from me is worth much more than what I am getting (from the pitiful pay by starting at the bottom of the scale - which I fully understand and accept) from it. I am in the position where I don't need this job - this is what I am talking about - that I have options. I choose to be there because I still have friends there, it's convenient and my brain needs more work than staying home, watching basketball/tennis and driving the youngest around. The boss, however, asks my friend, "Is xxx happy here? She's not going to abandon us, is she? He knows he cannot get a similar person (with prior knowledge of the system) willing to start at the bottom of the pay scale. Many of the mainframe programmers here will be retiring soon and all of the new hires don't know mainframe/COBOL as it's not even taught in school anymore. My quandry is do I want to be here when the s**t hits the ceiling? because that day is coming.

BTW, we're in for another treat - Federer vs Nadal tomorrow.

And I was not speaking to you personally Th'Pusher (what does that mean anyway?) - but to the young, single people here devoting so much of their time and energy on this board.

Splits
10-14-2017, 02:52 PM
Oh please, you can shove the sanctimonious horseshit about "seeking opportunity" and "making your own way" up your ass. You work for the fucking government and rely on it more than any young person on this board.

Jesus fuck.

lol

monosylab1k
10-14-2017, 02:55 PM
Oh please, you can shove the sanctimonious horseshit about "seeking opportunity" and "making your own way" up your ass. You work for the fucking government and rely on it more than any young person on this board.

Plus she only got that job being a Black-Asian affirmative action hire :lmao

Splits
10-14-2017, 02:55 PM
I KNOW that what this government job is getting from me is worth much more than what I am getting (from the pitiful pay by starting at the bottom of the scale - which I fully understand and accept) from it. I am in the position where I don't need this job - this is what I am talking about - that I have options. I choose to be there because I still have friends there, it's convenient and my brain needs more work than staying home, watching basketball/tennis and driving the youngest around. The boss, however, asks my friend, "Is xxx happy here? She's not going to abandon us, is she? He knows he cannot get a similar person (with prior knowledge of the system) willing to start at the bottom of the pay scale. Many of the mainframe programmers here will be retiring soon and all of the new hires don't know mainframe/COBOL as it's not even taught in school anymore. My quandry is do I want to be here when the s**t hits the ceiling? because that day is coming.

BTW, we're in for another treat - Federer vs Nadal tomorrow.

And I was not speaking to you personally Th'Pusher (what does that mean anyway?) - but to the young, single people here devoting so much of their time and energy on this board.

You're a fucking freak.

I can't believe god made a brain like this. Your posts are mindfuck pinball stupidity. It's like there's nowhere to begin.

Splits
10-14-2017, 02:56 PM
Plus she only got that job being a Black-Asian affirmative action hire :lmao

https://media.tenor.com/images/d3276249a978c7d76bb681435efddfda/tenor.gif

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 02:57 PM
Plus she only got that job being a Black-Asian affirmative action hire :lmao

:lmao I forgot her story about being a halfbreed Asian-Jamaican woman.

There's an affirmative action wet dream if I've ever seen one. They were able to fill like 3 quotas just by hiring her :lol

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:00 PM
:lmao I forgot her story about being a halfbreed Asian-Jamaican woman.

There's an affirmative action wet dream if I've ever seen one. They were able to fill like 3 quotas just by hiring her :lol

omg dude don't stop, you're on fire.

https://media.giphy.com/media/5YF9dwGZ29rVe/giphy.gif

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 03:00 PM
Jesus fuck.

lol

How much money you gonna be making this year? Probably paying enough taxes to cover rmt's salary :lol

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:03 PM
How much money you gonna be making this year? Probably paying enough taxes to cover rmt's salary :lol

Yeah this year only. I cleared around 100k by April, then changed jobs when I moved to Switzerland. I'll bank another 100k before year end, but da gummit can't touch that until it is over $140k/yr as an expat.

Fuck rmt and Nadal.

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 03:08 PM
Yeah this year only. I cleared around 100k by April, then changed jobs when I moved to Switzerland. I'll bank another 100k before year end, but da gummit can't touch that until it is over $140k/yr as an expat.

Fuck rmt and Nadal.

Be sure to make a thread about it early next year to piss all the conservatives off again :lol

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:08 PM
:cry I have options :cry
:cry I have friends there :cry

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:10 PM
Be sure to make a thread about it early next year to piss all the conservatives off again :lol

Yeah, mindblown when they have to read a Swiss tax return :lol

Fuck, tax return. I gotta file tomorrow.

baseline bum
10-14-2017, 03:14 PM
:lmao I forgot her story about being a halfbreed Asian-Jamaican woman.

There's an affirmative action wet dream if I've ever seen one. They were able to fill like 3 quotas just by hiring her :lol

She was full black Jamaican back when she was trying to show black people liked Trump during the election.

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:18 PM
She was full black Jamaican back when she was trying to show black people liked Trump during the election.

lol I think her douche husband is "that one black guy" always standing behind trump at rallies.

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/599dbf421e00002700c5f006.jpeg?cache=ndedivxepm&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

rmt
10-14-2017, 03:27 PM
I am happy to provide so many laughs for so many of you :-) And your recent replies give me a laugh too :-) - so many mis-conceptions - it's not as if there isn't a history of my posts (in which I've never claimed to be black or "half-breed" [isn't that so racist?] - it isn't my fault when people assume that all Jamaicans are black :-). And I don't think there's affirmative action for Asians anywhere in the US - it's certainly not where I am which has a disproportionate percentage (relative to US population) of Asian programmers - Chinese full-timers and Indian contractors.

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:30 PM
I am happy to provide so many laughs for so many of you :-) And your recent replies give me a laugh too :-) - so many mis-conceptions - it's not as if there isn't a history of my posts (in which I've never claimed to be black or "half-breed" [isn't that so racist?] - it isn't my fault when people assume that all Jamaicans are black :-). And I don't think there's affirmative action for Asians anywhere in the US - it's certainly not where I am which has a disproportionate percentage (relative to US population) of Asian programmers - Chinese full-timers and Indian contractors.

omg the goods keep on coming

:cry isn't that so racist :cry
:cry it isn't my fault :cry
:cry I am happy :cry
:cry so many misconceptions, too bad my home schooled children weren't included :cry

Will Hunting
10-14-2017, 03:35 PM
:lmao

Splits
10-14-2017, 03:40 PM
:cry disproportionate percentage :cry
:cry I can pound out COBOL code guddammit :cry
:cry those fucking Chinamen and Indian curry slurpers :cry

sickdsm
10-14-2017, 04:26 PM
I am happy to provide so many laughs for so many of you :-) And your recent replies give me a laugh too :-) - so many mis-conceptions - it's not as if there isn't a history of my posts (in which I've never claimed to be black or "half-breed" [isn't that so racist?] - it isn't my fault when people assume that all Jamaicans are black :-). And I don't think there's affirmative action for Asians anywhere in the US - it's certainly not where I am which has a disproportionate percentage (relative to US population) of Asian programmers - Chinese full-timers and Indian contractors.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nh/about/civilrights/?cid=nrcseprd412290

rmt
10-14-2017, 08:43 PM
omg the goods keep on coming

:cry isn't that so racist :cry
:cry it isn't my fault :cry
:cry I am happy :cry
:cry so many misconceptions, too bad my home schooled children weren't included :cry

I am happy to reply to this civil post. If I ever used terms like "half-breed" or "Indian curry slurpers" or "Chinamen", I would never hear the end of it from you guys. Double standard much?

rmt
10-14-2017, 08:47 PM
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nh/about/civilrights/?cid=nrcseprd412290

Somehow I don't think Asians are having problems getting tech jobs that they need affirmative action: Google - 35% Asian

https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/making-progress-diversity-and-inclusion/

boutons_deux
10-15-2017, 12:15 AM
"A key moment today at the ‘Values Voters Summit’.

Steve Bannon was listing off all the great things the President has done since his favored candidate went down to defeat in Alabama.

Among them, Bannon admitted what the White House has repeatedly denied, which is that

Trump decided to cut off CSR payments to make the health insurance exchanges blow up, thus making prices skyrocket.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/bannon-admits-it?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A

rmt
10-15-2017, 05:39 AM
Stunning display of offensive tennis - Federer in full flow - simply sublime.

Splits, there's one area we do agree on - I'm not a Nadal fan either.

Trill Clinton
10-15-2017, 09:17 AM
919246698081288192

RandomGuy
10-16-2017, 09:12 AM
Insurance is about risk - you should pay less for health insurance - just like you pay more for auto insurance than old people. And please invest the savings so that when you are old, you have for higher premiums.

Insurance is about pooled risk.

Health care is not a substitutable good.

Our risks are pooled, and we pay for it anyway, one way or the other.

Single payer is pretty much the only way to get all the costs/benefits out in the open. Any other format is just hiding your head in the sand, or plain ignorance of cost-shifting.

RandomGuy
10-16-2017, 09:13 AM
919246698081288192

Whoops.

ducks
10-16-2017, 12:18 PM
Trump: Republicans, Democrats Working on Short-term Healthcare Fix
President Donald Trump said Monday that Republicans and Democrats in Congress are working on a short-term fix for healthcare insurance markets after he last week scrapped subsidies to insurers.

Trump, speaking to reporters at the start of a meeting with his cabinet, said he believes congressional Republicans will agree to a long-term fix for healthcare by March or April, but said he does not expect Democrats to support that effort.

boutons_deux
10-17-2017, 01:31 PM
self-deluding asshole

Trump pronounces Obamacare dead, admits it’s all his now

“Obamacare is finished. It’s dead. It’s gone. It’s no longer, you shouldn’t even mention it”

At the same time, however, he argued that the law, which has not actually been repealed, was still causing problems for Americans. :lol

the Trump Administration had been paying the subsidies even as it continually threatened to eliminate them.

Because of the way that the ACA is written, however, the payments to the insurers must be made, even if they are not explicitly budgeted.

As a result of Trump's ending of the CSR payments, 16 states plus a bunch of insurance companies have begun filing lawsuits to force the funds to continue to keep going.

The controversy is almost certain to lead to a lot of wasted funds for lawyers because the federal government has the money elsewhere (https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/cutting-off-the-cost-sharing-payments/). As health care expert Nicholas Bagley notes,

"the question is thus not whether the government will pay, but when.” :lol

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/16/trump-pronounces-obamacare-dead-says-its-all-his-now/

boutons_deux
10-17-2017, 01:38 PM
Senators Announce Deal To Undo Trump’s Obamacare Cuts
On Tuesday, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) announced a deal that would

fund the cost-sharing reduction payments for two years,

make it easier for states to waive some health care regulations, and

restore some of the budget for open enrollment outreach Trump gutted (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-hhs-open-enrollment-navigators-sabotage) earlier this fall.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/alexander-murray-csr-deal-trump?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20tpm-news%20%28TPMNews%29

boutons_deux
11-02-2017, 10:48 AM
How Obamacare is beginning to look a lot like Medicaid

The irony of new Obamacare developments

In a great irony, the Republicans, who promised to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and roll back Medicaid expansions, are in essence about to do the reverse – at a huge cost to the U.S. Treasury.

This year Obamacare will become what could be seen as an expanded version of Medicaid.

An ineffectual Congress unable to pass even minimal corrective legislation and bullying actions from the White House have produced an enormous increase (http://avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/silver-exchange-premiums-rise-34-on-average-in-2018) in nominal premiums of at least 34 percent for 2018 plans offered on the individual exchanges.

The increases came about as plans scrambled to cover the higher risk of expensive care. Meanwhile, large group premiums continue to grow at a little over 6 percent (https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html).

But not all marketplace consumers will pay for those increases – taxpayers will.

The average subsidy for Obamacare consumers will grow by 45 percent (https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/258456/Landscape_Master2018_1.pdf), making the net premium costs even lower for many!

Subsidies are determined by taking the difference between stated premiums and a fixed percent of an enrollee’s income (2 percent for those just above the poverty level; up to 9.5 percent for at the top).

Originally, sliding-scale subsidies based on income were to make access affordable for everyone.

But sky-high premiums mean that only those qualifying for these subsidies are likely to purchase insurance on the exchanges, while others are priced out.

So Obamacare becomes an extended Medicaid expansion

This latest scenario looks a lot like the Republican plans for Medicaid under the waivers, as enacted by Indiana and planned widely in red states (http://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0688).

Effectively, many of the same people rotate between conventional Medicaid and the Obamacare insurance exchange.

Thanks to the subsidies under the ACA, these folks will not suffer the 34 percent increase in premiums and will stay with exchange plans. Since subsidies are rising, many of them may pay far less, or even zero premiums (https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-aca-plans-to-come-with-no-premiums-in-2018-1509096602).

As over three-quarters of those on the exchange receive substantial subsidies,

the enrollment on the exchanges will not drop precipitously although government outlays will jump.

So the bottom line is that most folks left in Obamacare will be those still receiving significant subsidies.

These are the people who look a lot like conventional Medicaid enrollees – because they were enrolled before or are on the edge of eligibility now.

Effectively, we have expanded the Medicaid program to them through the back door.

Does anyone win?

The only winners here may be those low-income people who now have higher subsidies and a lower net cost of insurance.

Virtually no one else comes out ahead –

not insurers,

not other individuals,

not the government.https://www.salon.com/2017/11/02/how-obamacare-is-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-medicaid/

"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated" :lol

RandomGuy
11-02-2017, 12:22 PM
I am happy to reply to this civil post. If I ever used terms like "half-breed" or "Indian curry slurpers" or "Chinamen", I would never hear the end of it from you guys. Double standard much?

They are being a bit mean, IMO. Don't let them get to you.

You're still wrong though. :D

RandomGuy
11-02-2017, 12:25 PM
How Obamacare is beginning to look a lot like Medicaid

The irony of new Obamacare developments

In a great irony, the Republicans, who promised to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and roll back Medicaid expansions, are in essence about to do the reverse – at a huge cost to the U.S. Treasury.

This year Obamacare will become what could be seen as an expanded version of Medicaid.

An ineffectual Congress unable to pass even minimal corrective legislation and bullying actions from the White House have produced an enormous increase (http://avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/silver-exchange-premiums-rise-34-on-average-in-2018) in nominal premiums of at least 34 percent for 2018 plans offered on the individual exchanges.

The increases came about as plans scrambled to cover the higher risk of expensive care. Meanwhile, large group premiums continue to grow at a little over 6 percent (https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html).

But not all marketplace consumers will pay for those increases – taxpayers will.

The average subsidy for Obamacare consumers will grow by 45 percent (https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/258456/Landscape_Master2018_1.pdf), making the net premium costs even lower for many!

Subsidies are determined by taking the difference between stated premiums and a fixed percent of an enrollee’s income (2 percent for those just above the poverty level; up to 9.5 percent for at the top).

Originally, sliding-scale subsidies based on income were to make access affordable for everyone.

But sky-high premiums mean that only those qualifying for these subsidies are likely to purchase insurance on the exchanges, while others are priced out.

So Obamacare becomes an extended Medicaid expansion

This latest scenario looks a lot like the Republican plans for Medicaid under the waivers, as enacted by Indiana and planned widely in red states (http://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0688).

Effectively, many of the same people rotate between conventional Medicaid and the Obamacare insurance exchange.

Thanks to the subsidies under the ACA, these folks will not suffer the 34 percent increase in premiums and will stay with exchange plans. Since subsidies are rising, many of them may pay far less, or even zero premiums (https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-aca-plans-to-come-with-no-premiums-in-2018-1509096602).

As over three-quarters of those on the exchange receive substantial subsidies,

the enrollment on the exchanges will not drop precipitously although government outlays will jump.

So the bottom line is that most folks left in Obamacare will be those still receiving significant subsidies.

These are the people who look a lot like conventional Medicaid enrollees – because they were enrolled before or are on the edge of eligibility now.

Effectively, we have expanded the Medicaid program to them through the back door.

Does anyone win?

The only winners here may be those low-income people who now have higher subsidies and a lower net cost of insurance.

Virtually no one else comes out ahead –

not insurers,

not other individuals,

not the government.https://www.salon.com/2017/11/02/how-obamacare-is-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-medicaid/

"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated" :lol

IF the consequences weren't so impactful to people, it would be funny to watch the GOP scramble to patch their self-inflicted wound.

Winehole23
12-18-2019, 07:45 PM
Unelected judges pursuing an activist agenda, overturning duly enacted law and the will of the people

(blued)

1207420362583085056

Winehole23
12-19-2019, 01:10 PM
Once upon a time, half the board would be in here tap dancing around the ACA's open grave.

RIP policy discussions on ST.

boutons_deux
12-19-2019, 01:14 PM
IF the consequences weren't so impactful to people, it would be funny to watch the GOP scramble to patch their self-inflicted wound.

red states that didn't expand medicaid have a higher mortality rate among poor people than (blue) states that did.

iow, oligarchy/Repug policies KILL PEOPLE for profit.