quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

Then again, have we got any ConLaw specialists here? I seem to remember that Congress can't actually force the President to spend money that Congress appropriates, but I might be wrong on that.

Not a Con law specialist, but a quick perusal of a search engine found this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...f_appropriated_funds

Impoundment is dead...

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.

But it ought to be brought back.

One solution would be that rescission would happen UNLESS over-ridden by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. That would require Congress to change the Impoundment Control Act which doesn't seem likely anytime soon....

August 6, 2017

Want more of the same? Elect them again.

When you go to work, part of what you earn is going to provide people too lazy to work and people who have entered our country illegally with income, food, phones, tattoos, beer, health care, education, housing, entertainment, transportation, etc. You will also be paying for the failing government war on poverty, the failing government war on drugs, a failing government retirement scheme called Social Security, a poorly managed government health care program called Medicare, a health care program for many too lazy to work called Medicaid, and numerous other dysfunctional government programs created to make politicians appear compassionate and caring human beings.

Additionally, every minute of your life will be spent under the weight and cost of regulations, legislation created by this same government. This government has encumbered you, your children, and your grandchildren with more debt than has ever been accumulated in the history of this planet. Every day, part of your wages will be taken just to pay the interest on that debt.

Concerned for their own future more than that of working Americans, these same government representatives recently refused to repeal a health care system that was unaffordable for working Americans but requires those same working Americans to pay for the health care necessary to support those who are too lazy to work.

At this point in time, career politicians continue to protect the "freebies" for those who are too lazy to work instead of the rights of those who do work in the belief that they will obtain the vote of those receiving "freebies" at the next election. Thus, they will retain their position of power and prestige.

In the meantime, those who work for a living must hope for the very best as related to their health and must survive under a government health care program they can't afford.

http://www.americanthinker.com...lect_them_again.html

To many of us, obamacare is in a death spiral with rapidly rising costs and high deductibles.

but the rules of obamacare shield poor people from those rising costs.

This chart is from a National Review article:



It shows the percentage of people in the exchanges for each income interval

Note the very high 81% of people in the 100 to 150% of Federal Poverty Level. To people in that category, obamacare is wonderful. Because taxpayers are covering all the increases in costs.

If someone between 100 and 150% FPL buys a Silver plan, they get:

deductible = zero dollars

max out of pocket = $ 1000

inpatient hospital = $ 100 per admission

This is the cost sharing feature of obamacare.

For premium subsidies, people in this FPL range are limited to about 3 % of their income for health insurance premiums. ( a few hundred dollars)

So while the obamacare costs have skyrocketed, the lower income people have been shielded almost completely.

obamacare is very heavily weighted to the advantage of the 100 to 150 % of FPL.

Thanks, sdy. You had me wondering what amount that would be so I took a quick look at the healthcare.gov website....

Federal Poverty Level (FPL)

A measure of income issued every year by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Federal poverty levels are used to determine your eligibility for certain programs and benefits, including savings on Marketplace health insurance, and Medicaid and CHIP coverage.

The 2017 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2016 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2017.

$12,060 for individuals
$16,240 for a family of 2
$20,420 for a family of 3
$24,600 for a family of 4
$28,780 for a family of 5
$32,960 for a family of 6
$37,140 for a family of 7
$41,320 for a family of 8

Federal Poverty Level amounts are higher in Alaska and Hawaii. See all HHS poverty guidelines for 2017.
How federal poverty levels are used to determine eligibility for reduced-cost health coverage

Income between 100% and 400% FPL: If your income is in this range, in all states you qualify for premium tax credits that lower your monthly premium for a Marketplace health insurance plan.
Income below 138% FPL: If your income is below 138% FPL and your state has expanded Medicaid coverage, you qualify for Medicaid based only on your income.
Income below 100% FPL: If your income falls below 100% FPL and your state hasn't expanded Medicaid coverage, you won't qualify for either income-based Medicaid or savings on a Marketplace health insurance plan. You may still qualify for Medicaid under your state's current rules.

"Income" above refers to "modified adjusted gross income" (MAGI). For most people, it's the same or very similar to "adjusted gross income" (AGI). MAGI isn't a number on your tax return.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glo...l-poverty-level-FPL/

MAGI =

Adjusted Gross Income (AGI, as defined by IRS)
+ Excluded foreign income
+ Tax exempt interest
+ Non-taxable Social Security benefits

GOP Ad: Democrats Will Destroy Health Care Even More with Single-Payer

Republicans shift from promises to repeal Obamacare to warning shift in party control would make things even worse



After repeatedly failing to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare, the Republican Party has transitioned to warning Democrats would further devastate the nation’s health care system by pursuing a single-payer if granted congressional majorities in 2018.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — the House GOP’s campaign arm — is spending a six-figure sum on a new ad targeting Democrats in eight key states: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota and Virginia. The 58-second digital ad called “Control,” which is set to run for two weeks, ties Democrats who support a single-payer healthcare system in key House districts to embattled House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"Big government has destroyed the American healthcare system as we know it. But it gets worse," the ad's voiceover said. "A new plan brought to you by the same Democrats who gave us Obamacare."

"Tell Nancy Pelosi and California Democrats we can't afford single-payer healthcare," the ad continued as it singled out the House minority leader and her growing unpopularity within her own Part.
Article continues below

In particular, the ad targets Democratic House candidates in California's 25th and 10 Districts: Bryan Caforio and Josh Harder, respectively. Jack Pandol, a NRCC spokesman, told The Los Angeles Times that these two candidates were singled-out because they "aren’t being up front with the progressive base and mainstream voters about their position on single-payer. They can’t escape taking a position on this forever."

A single-payer system would subject the U.S. to a government-run socialized system and adopt progressive-liberal values that would reach far further leftward than Obamacare.

The ad also featured the case of Charlie Gard, a British baby born with severe birth defects who died July 28 following his parents' prolonged struggle with the British government and its healthcare system.

"European-style single-payer healthcare is the new litmus test in the Democratic Party," NRCC spokesman Matt Gorman said in a statement, according to the Washington Examiner. Gorman added that "every day from today until Election Day, Democrats will be forced to answer whether they support this disastrous plan."

For his own part, Trump has lashed out repeatedly at both the "obstructing" Democrats and the "foolish" Republicans for failing across the board to reform healthcare and bring relief to the millions of Americans suffering under Obamacare's collapse.

"Republicans in the Senate will NEVER win if they don't go to a 51 vote majority NOW. They look like fools and are just wasting time ... If the Senate Democrats ever got the chance, they would switch to a 51 majority vote in first minute. They are laughing at R's. MAKE CHANGE!" Trump tweeted July 29. "After seven years of "talking" Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!"

http://www.lifezette.com/poliz...h-care-single-payer/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...-parenthood-n2365581

Collins, Murkowski: We Sunk Skinny Repeal to Protect Planned Parenthood

Two of the senators who singlehandedly derailed the skinny repeal of Obamacare were awarded a sit down interview with the admiring Dana Bash Friday on CNN. The bright faced journalist applauded Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) for having the “cajones” to vote against the Republican bill when they knew half the country would view them as heretics.

“I made a statement to the president that I’m not voting for the party, I’m voting for the people of Alaska,” Murkowski recalled.

“I remember being so proud of you” for standing up to Trump, Collins said.

Part of standing up for their states, the senators argued, was protecting Planned Parenthood funding. Under the GOP bill, the massive pro-abortion organization would be defunded for a year.

Murkowski's support for Planned Parenthood became apparent in June when she penned a letter to an Alaskan constituent ensuring them that she was "committed" to protect its funding.

*****************

so they screwed the entire country to protect Planned Parenthood funding. Unbelievable

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
Why do we allow hospitals to gouge insurance companies which In turn jack up their rates and gouge us?

Third party payments always cost more - just like college tuition and auto body repair. There's another thread going on in regards to truck prices. If lenders were not allow to finance purchases out to seven years prices would have to come down. Basic economics.

From the Pajama boy perspective, the failure of Obamacare is going to be all Trump's fault:

Premiums will rise 20% if Trump stops Obamacare payments, says CBO
Ethan Wolff-Mann
August 15, 2017

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and President Donald Trump have continued paying cost-sharing reduction payments, but have not guaranteed that they will continue, a move that has scared away many insurers from the ACA exchanges. (Reuters)

If President Donald Trump stops cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers participating in the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges, premiums for individual plans would go up 20% on average, according to new analysis released on Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Trump has repeatedly said the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is “failing” and that “he’s not going to own it.” But despite making these statements from the highest office, they are not accurate by multiple analyses from health think tanks like Kaiser Family Foundation to Standard and Poor’s.

Trump himself has great power over whether the ACA survives, and one of the ways to help “Obamacare victims,” a term Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have used, is to guarantee these cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, instead of threatening to stop them.

The Office’s findings underscore that Trump has control of the costs of these health insurance premiums. Many insurers that exited the marketplaces said they did so because of uncertainty over whether they would receive the cost-sharing payments.

“The most important thing that the president and the Republican senators can do is to ensure the funding for the cost-sharing reductions continues,” Dr. Mario Molina, former CEO of Molina Healthcare, told Yahoo Finance in July. “[Trump] has funded those on a month-to-month basis with no assurance they will continue. This is causing a lot of destabilization in the marketplace.”

For the insurers that have elected to stay on the exchanges to offer plans, many premiums were set in a similar ballpark to the CBO’s 20% as the insurers sought to hedge should the payments stop.

“If he withdraws the funding, [Trump] will immediately cause collapse and there will be no one to blame but him,” said Molina. “Many insurers will raise premiums, and many will withdraw.”

Should the payments cease in 2018 — they are guaranteed until December — the CBO and JCT estimate that 5% of people would live in areas without insurers. By 2020, however, further stabilization will have occurred and “people in almost all areas would be able to buy nongroup insurance.”

The premium hikes would severely pinch people already fed up with rising ACA premiums, but around 85% of ACA recipients get a premium tax credit and would not see significant increases since the credits are tied to the premiums’ cost, not a fixed dollar amount.

That actually means that the federal government would end up shouldering the expense of higher insurance premiums for many consumers, since it would have to pay additional tax credits. Should Trump stop the payments, the CBO writes, the deficit would increase by $6 billion in 2018, $21 billion by 2021 and $26 billion by 2024.

Ethan Wolff-Mann is a writer at Yahoo Finance focusing on consumer issues,
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...s-cbo-193821263.html

Quite frankly this is the republicans fault now. They are in charge, they are now responsible. It does not matter if it was their idea to begin with. If they do nothing they will still own it. Watching them screw up the repeal was like watching them commit political suicide.

quote:

Quite frankly this is the republicans fault now. They are in charge, they are now responsible.

... and I would submit, at this point, that the responsible thing to do is to end the "cost-sharing reduction payments" (subsidies) to insurers. It's the exact opposite of what the Pajama boy above wants.

Also, direct the IRS not to even ask whether or not you have health insurance. That effectively ends the mandate.

If he does those two things, Obamacare is effectively repealed. Then, and only then, can we make some free-market reforms.

Sounds like some states are moving out even if congress can't get the job done.

Iowa Seeks Ambitious Waiver to Reshape Health Law Within Its Borders

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i...s-borders-1503482400

Iowa officials filed a federal application to alter major aspects of the Affordable Care Act next year, the most ambitious so far of a growing crop of state efforts to tweak the health law with the goal of shoring up individual insurance markets.

Iowa’s proposal, which state officials said they are already preparing to implement pending federal approval, would go the furthest in revamping the health law’s rules, and its path will be closely watched in other states as Republican efforts to overhaul the ACA at the federal level appear stalled.

State officials, who are applying under a special waiver setup allowed by the ACA, argue they need to repair a market that is expected to be down to just one insurer that has requested sharp rate increases for 2018.

States including Idaho, Minnesota and Oregon have submitted applications for less-sweeping waivers that aim to blunt insurers’ expense for covering the claims of people with costly health conditions. In total, 13 states have passed laws authorizing state officials to craft ACA waiver requests, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. At least six others are considering such legislation.

Iowa Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen, a Republican, said that the new application was “based on feedback from CMS,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the state has worked in a “collaborative” process with federal officials. Mr. Ommen said that Iowa is working to get its new system up and running before individual-plan enrollment kicks off in November. “We’re doing everything that’s needed to start it up as though we already had a yes,” he said. Iowa is also asking federal officials to move faster than the 180-day waiver review timeline designated by the ACA.

Iowa’s largest insurer, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, says it will reverse its current plans to exit from the state’s individual market and will instead sell plans in every county next year if the state wins approval for its proposal. Currently, a different insurer, Medica, is slated to be the only one in Iowa’s insurance exchange for 2018.

The Iowa proposal would change important features of the federal health law. The ACA premium subsidies that enable lower-income people to buy health insurance would become flat payments tied to age and income, and Iowa’s setup would eliminate so-called cost-sharing subsidies that help cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for the lowest-income enrollees. Consumers would still be able to buy 2018 plans during this fall’s open enrollment period, but to purchase them after Jan. 1 they would in many cases need to show they had maintained continuous coverage, with no gap longer than 60 days in the previous 12 months.

A reinsurance program would limit health insurers’ costs for the most-expensive enrollees.

Mr. Ommen said the state’s plan would reduce the cost of premiums for many enrollees, strengthening the market by retaining a healthier pool of consumers

Ohio is eyeing a proposal that would pare back a central ACA requirement that most people purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Oklahoma, which has submitted a limited request to set up a reinsurance program, is crafting a broader proposal that state officials view as a chance to undo some ACA regulations.

Among other changes, that plan would seek to waive the list of benefits currently required of ACA plans. Julie Cox-Kain, the state’s deputy secretary of health and human services, said officials hope to use the waiver process to repeal and replace the ACA in Oklahoma if lawmakers in Washington fail to pass a bill achieving similar aims. “For us, it’s our replace program, and we consider it to be a fairly significant reform,” she said.

****************

while not the preferred way to gut obamacare, if multiple states got waivers for the fundamental pillars of obamacare, that could destroy it over time. I would like to see the states take a very aggressive approach to waivers.

quote:

while not the preferred way to gut obamacare, if multiple states got waivers for the fundamental pillars of obamacare, that could destroy it over time. I would like to see the states take a very aggressive approach to waivers.

That's good news.

Now.... end the CSR payments!
All they have to do is drop the appeal:

Due to a lawsuit filed by the House of Representatives during the Obama administration, paying insurers directly has been a point of contention for years now. The House claimed that federal payments to insurers was unconstitutional, and won!

Instead of defending the subsidy payments, Trump has been reviewing month-to-month whether he’ll continue to pay insurance companies.

https://hotair.com/archives/20...amacare-repeal-bill/

Here We Go: McCain, Trump Endorse Last-Gasp ObamaCare Repeal Bill

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain — who stuck a stake through the heart of the previous ObamaCare repeal effort — announced that he would endorse the only vehicle left remaining. McCain even said that he’d put aside his distaste for operating outside regular order to vote for the Lindsey Graham-Bill Cassidy version of repeal-and-replace:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday that he supports a newer version of an ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, throwing some support behind the last-ditch effort.

McCain said he backs a bill from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would convert ObamaCare spending into block grants for states. …

“If it’s not through regular order then it’s a mistake, but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for it,” McCain said when asked about his previous statements.

Monday is September 11, which gives Republicans 19 days to push it through the Senate. The odds have improved remarkably, thanks to the deals cut by Donald Trump to push off fights over the budget and debt ceiling off to December. Suddenly, Congress has a fairly light legislative calendar this month.

That may be just a wild coincidence, but … don’t bet on it. If Trump can get a win on ObamaCare repeal because of the sudden bandwidth available for it, his base will rightly hail him for it. Additionally, it will look like a stab in the back from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to progressives, who never wanted to deal with Trump in the first place.

Democratic 2020 Candidates All Move To Embrace Bernie's Medicare-For-All

The Democrats are finally making their play: they’re moving toward single-payer healthcare.

On Monday, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D) announced that he would support Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-Loonbagia) single-payer healthcare bill that would supposedly guarantee “Medicare-for-all.” He explained, “This is something that’s got to happen. ObamaCare was a first step in advancing this country, but I won’t rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care… you should not be punished because you are working-class or poor and be denied health care. I think health care should be a right to all.” This is Booker’s latest attempt at moving to the hard left in order to prep for a presidential run. He now joins California Senator Kamala Harris among the would-be 2020 candidates who have embraced Sanders’ plan.

This was no shock. First off, Sanders demonstrated that you simply cannot run too far to the left in a Democratic primary – no such category exists. Run too far toward the center, and a self-proclaimed socialist like Sanders will outflank you. Second, this shows that Democrats were lying all along when they stated that Obamacare was not the first step toward nationalized health care.

And even Medicare-for-all isn’t the last step. That’s because there are several problems inherent in the scheme. It’s dramatically expensive – so expensive that even California hasn’t attempted a state version. On the federal level, Medicare-for-all would cost a whopping $13.8 trillion just for the first decade. Medicare is already $58 trillion underfunded. According to the Tax Foundation, “Sanders’s plan would have reduced the U.S. GDP by 9.5% and after-tax income for all Americans by an average of 12.8% in the long run.” Beyond that, Medicare does not clearly increase quality of care. That’s because the reimbursement rates are so low that many doctors won’t take new patients at all. Unless you’re going to dramatically escalate taxes or ration care, Medicare-for-All isn’t a solution.

The only way a Medicare-for-All scam would work is if it became a universal program of last resort, and then citizens were expected to buy supplemental private health care on their own. That’s how much of Europe handles this problem. But that’s politically unpalatable too, because then citizens cover a larger share of their own insurance costs. It’s not universal healthcare – it’s universal basic care, and you’re screwed if you need anything more unless you buy it.

The Democrats could embrace an expansion of Medicare Advantage, a program by which the government allows you to buy subsidized private health insurance. Instead, they’ve sought to cut it, claiming that it creates inequality in the marketplace, because private companies bid under Medicare Advantage, whereas the public option is pegged to a particular pricing formula.

Democrats aren’t even interested in constructing the best possible system. They’re interested in a race to the bottom. But at least they can pander for votes. And that’s all that matters, right?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...-embrace-ben-shapiro

Clinton Makes Huge Admission About Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (ACA/”Obamacare”) is a step toward implementation of a communist health care system, said Hillary Clinton in a Tuesday-published interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein.

Barack Obama advanced the pursuit toward "universal health coverage" with the ACA, said Clinton: "[Obama was] getting us on the path to universal health coverage with the Affordable Care Act."

Existing federal programs should be expanded in pursuit of communist health care, said Clinton, pointing to Medicare and Medicaid as examples:

I’m for universal health care coverage that is high-quality and affordable for every American, and I think there’s a lot of ways of getting there that I’ve advocated for; to open up Medicare, to open up Medicaid. …

Maybe we would start with something resembling single-payer plus other payers, like some other countries that have universal coverage and are much better at controlling costs than we do, primarily in Europe. …

Our goal should be universal health care coverage. Universal, affordable, quality health care coverage for everybody, bar none.

Clinton also called for state-mandated price controls on medicines.

Public acclimation and dependence on socialistic programs are advantages for the Democrats, said Clinton, describing the ACA as something "people had gotten used to." Ending such programs, she added, was politically unpalatable:

When it came time to take something away that people had gotten used to, everybody said no. And that’s my larger point about what our goal really is.

You’re gonna tell 50% of America, “You’re no longer gonna have employer-based health care,” you’re gonna have massive resistance by people who are gonna say, “I’m happy with what I’ve got.”

Medicare and Medicaid should be expanded in pursuit of "universal coverage," said Clinton:

But if you say … we need to lower the age for Medicare … and we need to continue to expansion of Medicaid, we will be at universal coverage. Then once we’re at universal coverage and people know what that feels like. … I think it’s thrilling.

Medicaid has become very popular, even in Republican states, because it does save money and it is a universal program below a certain income level, and it takes care of middle income people. … I think we should be politically, realistically, and aspirationally on continuing the expansion of Medicaid … and making the political case every day for as long as it takes.

A “national plan” for health care would be better than “state-by-state” plans, said Clinton, preferring unitary central-planning at the federal level over state government administration of health care.

At no point did Clinton call for freer markets as a policy measure to improve health care value.

Destruction of the financial viability of health insurance markets is the ACA's purpose. Eventual economic collapse of health insurance companies in the absence of free market reform wlll be used as a pretense by Democrats and the broader Left to justify a state takeover of health insurance.

Democrats and the broader Left typically deploy incrementalism as a roadmap toward greater state-driven centralization of political power and economic planning.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...care-robert-kraychik

Republicans still trying one last effort to repeal.

description of the "attempt"

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.a490baa50929

more:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...repeal-bill-n2381805

To me , this is the single biggest failure of this Republican congress. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan should be replaced.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...mcconnell-on-notice/

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said on Friday that he informed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of his support for the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed this week that Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin supports the Graham-Cassidy legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare through block grants.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...n-as-momentum-grows/

House Speaker Paul Ryan signaled support for Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy’s legislation on Friday to repeal and replace Obamacare through block grants.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...-repeal-legislation/

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) backed the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal legislation in a tweet on Friday.
McCarthy said in a tweet, “#Obamacare is failing. #GrahamCassidy returns control to states and empowers them to innovate and stabilize costs.”

*****************

this wasn't the way to repeal obamacare. But I am all for anything that puts us on a path to end this hated legislation that was jammed down our throats