1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

House Passes Health Care Bill

Discussion in 'Politics Forum (Local/National/World)' started by searcher, May 4, 2017.



  1. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama fights for his legacy: Former President appeals to Congress to save Obamacare but refuses to mention Trump as he receives the JFK Profile in Courage Award in front of Michelle and Biden
    • Obama was careful not to mention Donald Trump by name on Sunday night as he referenced the current administration's efforts to dismantle much of his signature health care law
    • He was speaking after receiving the John F. Kennedy Profile In Courage Award in Boston
    • His acceptance speech was one of his most high-profile since leaving the White House earlier this year
    • The former President called on members of Congress to show courage in the debate over health care
    • Caroline Kennedy and JFK's grandson Jack Schlossberg presented the award to Obama


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4483246/Barack-Obama-honored-JFK-Profile-Courage-award.html#ixzz4gTr48pFM
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  2. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another View: Betrayal, hypocrisy on health care
    • 7 hrs ago


    What a betrayal: Republicans promise to maintain access to health insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions, and then on Thursday press a bill through the House that would eliminate those guarantees.

    What a joke: Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., objects to the loss of protection, and then pretends that a paltry $8 billion over five years will fix the problem.

    And what hypocrisy: House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., claims to be restoring fair process to his chamber, and then orchestrates a vote on this hugely consequential bill before the Congressional Budget Office can tell lawmakers what it will cost or how many people will lose access to health care as it takes effect.

    Carelessly, the bill would threaten the integrity of even employer-based health care plans in every state, apparently by accident. Recklessly, its drafters introduced just one day before the vote new legislative language that an independent expert called "incoherent, arbitrary and technically complex." Tragically, the repeal-and-replace effort is causing so much uncertainty that, even if this bill dies in the Senate, it may unravel the existing health care system.

    There can be no doubt that this legislation would erode protections for people with pre-existing conditions. States seeking to weaken regulations protecting vulnerable people would face few legal barriers. The Brookings Institution's Matthew Fiedler warns that once these states got federal waivers allowing insurance companies to hike premiums on sick people, many of those with pre-existing conditions would be priced out of any comprehensive individual insurance market plan, whether or not they kept coverage continuously to that point. There would be few requirements on states to offer a real backstop — no mandates on who or what a high-risk pool must cover, or even that a high-risk pool be created.

    And the $8 billion Upton secured? "If all the states with Republican governors opt for waivers, the $8 billion will dwindle into insignificance," wrote health policy expert Nicholas Bagley.

    Meanwhile, the bill's sloppy drafting means that employer-based health care plans might be permitted to impose annual spending limits and lifetime coverage limits, even if most states attempted to keep strong market protections in place. And do not forget that much of the bill is unchanged from March, when the CBO found that it would result in 24 million fewer people with health insurance. It still rolls back a Medicaid expansion for the near-poor and de-links federal health care subsidies from income and region. The money saved would go to wealthy people in the form of tax cuts. Poorer, sicker and older people would feel the pain.

    This process began with Republicans seeking to solve a problem that exists only in their imagination, the supposed catastrophic failure of Obamacare. Their solution has involved half-baked legislative language and magical thinking at every step. It is beyond sad that this is what passes for a "win" for President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in Congress.

    — The Washington Post

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_a599633f-081e-506c-a66d-66a6d0b3adf2.html
     
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do Bigfoot and moderate Republicans have in common?
    • By CATHERINE RAMPELL The Washington Post
    • 7 hrs ago


    WASHINGTON — For years, reports of a mythical figure have lingered in Washington and reverberated through congressional districts around the country. Its legend is spread by talking heads, donors, even many of us in the news media.

    This is the Myth of the Moderate Republican.

    To be sure, among the general population, moderate Republicans are real and plentiful. But not on Capitol Hill, where the moderate Republican — a creature whose prudence and clearheadedness will rescue the country from the uncompromising dogmatism of the House Freedom Caucus — is an extraordinary popular delusion, a madness of crowds.

    We're told of these centrist leading lights of the Grand Old Party, people who listen to experts and weigh evidence. They emphasize substance over sloganeering, country over party.

    They are reasonable, rational, sensible. Or so we like to tell ourselves.

    But at the point that they vote to remake 18 percent of the economy without hearings, without expert testimony, without a public text of a bill even a day before their vote, without waiting for an estimate of either the budgetary or human cost of their handiwork, well, at that point, they lose any claim to "seriousness" or "moderation."

    If there's one thing to take away from Thursday's health care vote, it's this: Next time you think these moderate Republicans are going to save the United States from doing something catastrophically stupid, constructed from the whims of ideologue colleagues, disabuse yourself of the notion.

    Immediately and forever.

    On Thursday, the House voted on, and passed, the American Health Care Act. This is a bill that, despite President Trump's pledge not to cut Medicaid, cuts Medicaid by more than $800 billion, a savings that will be used to offset hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the wealthy. In so doing, it cuts special ed, prenatal care for the impoverished, coverage for the disabled and substance-abuse treatments for the working class, among other worthy purposes that rich countries typically feel a moral imperative to fund.

    It is a bill that incentivizes states to eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

    It also allows states to kill requirements that insurance plans cover certain essential benefits, such as maternity care, prescriptions and emergency services. These are requirements that help consumers compare plans on an apples-to-apples basis and avoid shelling out thousands for "coverage" that covers almost nothing, mini-med plans that will never pay out.

    This is a bill that guts caps on annual and lifetime out-of-pocket spending, not just for plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, but also for employer-sponsored plans, which would likely send more Americans with high medical bills into bankruptcy.

    This is a plan that, by at least one estimate, would also effectively end enrollment in the ACA exchanges for families who make under $75,000 a year.

    This is a plan that, according to the best projection we have (a dated one, because Republicans did not allow time for a new Congressional Budget Office score), would cause 24 million people to lose insurance.


    This is a plan opposed by nearly every stakeholder imaginable, including doctors, hospitals, AARP, the March of Dimes and patient-advocacy groups.

    But apparently none of this means anything to those alleged moderate (or alternatively, "mainstream") Republicans who voted for it. They are so apparently desperate for a partisan win — and so committed to fulfilling their empty, seven-year-long pledge to "repeal Obamacare" — that they have ignored their constituents and experts of all stripes. They have ignored the pleas of cancer survivors, of parents of sick infants, of people desperately in need of mental health care.

    They have even ignored the usual expectation that they read the text of their own bill, to know what they've doomed their constituents to.

    There's a certain parallel with last weekend's failed Fyre Festival, for which people paid thousands of dollars to attend a private-island music festival with luxury accommodations, only to find themselves in disaster relief tents with cheese sandwiches and no water or sanitation. With both the island fiasco and Obamacare repeal, organizers were so taken in by their own promises that they neglected to pay attention to any of the critical details.

    They were, in short, suckered by their own viral-marketing campaigns.

    "Let's just do it and be legends, man," a Fyre Festival marketer infamously declared shortly before completely foreseeable disaster struck; "Let's get this f -- ing thing done," Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (Ariz.) reportedly told her Republican colleagues hours before completely foreseeable disaster unfolded in the House.

    Good thing there are all those moderate Republicans in the Senate to save us.


    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.


    Catherine Rampell writes for the Washington Post Writers Group. Send email to crampell@washpost.com. Follow her on Twitter @crampell.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_07ee18d6-c7d6-54b6-bb71-ce5ae887ef7f.html
     
  4. GOLDZILLA

    GOLDZILLA Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus Midas Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    5,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All I care is that they remove the tax penalty for choosing not to have it.
     
  5. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already done from what I hear.
     
  6. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    4,687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    8 years of pissing & moaning about obama care & this is what you asshats come up with.......... you sir's are a disgrace of the highest form. You have broken your oath to those you represent. Amature Kabuki theater at best....... but really incompetence on full display.
     
  7. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    5,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The red team maggots that infest the capitol building know they needn't be great, they need only be better than the available alternatives. Let's face it, when the success bar is set to chucky schumer and nanner piglosi, one can suck pretty hardcore and still keep their job.
     
  8. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keiser Report: Fake Healthcare (E1070)
    RT



    Published on May 13, 2017
    Max & Stacy continue to discuss the fake legislation passing with a fake vote in the House of Representatives to repeal and replace the fake healthcare system known as ‘Obamacare’ – aka the Affordable Care Act. Max continues his interview with Dr. Cory Annis of Unorthodoc.com about the membership model of healthcare in the age of bureaucratic paper-pushing financial services masquerading as medical care.

    Check Keiser Report website for more: http://www.maxkeiser.com/
     
  12. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Health insurance covering pre-existing conditions is like car insurance covering pre-existing damage or home fire insurance covering pre-existing fire damage or flood insurance covering pre-existing flood damage.

    Wah the mean insurance companies won't insure my home because it burnt to the ground last week.

    The whole idea is ridiculous. Why would any sane person pay for fire insurance if one can just sign up for it after his house burns to the ground? Or what if one could just sign up for auto insurance after getting into an accident? Same goes for health insurance covering pre-existing conditions...only in socialist America would this even be discussed.
     
  15. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CBO: Republican health care bill raises premiums for older, poor Americans by as much as 850% 13 / 31
    [​IMG]
    Vox.com

    German Lopez
    13 hrs ago



    The American Health Care Act would make a low-income 64-year-old in the individual market pay more than half his income for health insurance.


    Republicans’ American Health Care Act would be devastating to older Americans who rely on the individual insurance market, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

    The CBO found that the revised Republican bill does bring down overall premiums in the individual market by anywhere from 4 to 20 percent by 2026 compared with what they would be under current law.

    The variation depends on whether a state accepts waivers under the American Health Care Act, which would allow insurers to offer much skimpier health plans at lower premiums. States that take up such waivers would see lower premiums, although the health plans would provide fewer benefits. States that don’t adopt such waivers would have higher premiums, but their health plans would offer more benefits — a trade-off.

    But the CBO’s analysis includes a big caveat: Premiums would differ greatly based on age and income. In general, the older and poorer you are, the higher your premiums would be under the American Health Care Act compared with current law.

    The CBO offers an example of a single individual with an annual income of $26,500.

    If that person is 21 years old, he could benefit from the Republican health care bill. Under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), he would on average pay $1,700 in premiums for insurance. Under the Republican plan, he would pay $1,250 if he’s in a state that accepts regulatory waivers and makes moderate changes to market rules — although, again, this also means his health plan would likely be skimpier. If his state doesn’t take up a waiver, his premium would actually increase by $50 to $1,750.

    But if that person is 64 years old, he would be hurt by the Republican bill. Under Obamacare, he would also pay $1,700 in premiums for insurance. But under the Republican bill, he would pay $16,100 (about 60 percent of his annual income) if he lives in a state that doesn’t accept regulatory waivers, and $13,600 — still more than half his annual income — if he lives in a state that does adopt waivers to make moderate rule changes. That amounts to as much as an 850 percent increase in premiums from Obamacare to the Republican bill.

    A 64-year-old who’s making $68,200 a year could fare a bit better. Under Obamacare, he’s expected to pay $15,300 in premiums for insurance, because his income would be too high to receive the law’s tax credits. Under the Republican bill, the tax credit, which is now based on age instead of income, begins phasing out at $75,000. So his premium would drop to $13,600 — a bit below Obamacare levels — in a state that gets a regulatory waiver but would actually increase to $16,100 in a state that doesn’t get a waiver.

    Here’s how all of that looks in chart form:

    [​IMG]
    © Provided by Vox.com A CBO chart of the effects of the American Health Care Act on people’s premiums.


    Congressional Budget Office

    Older people with an annual income of $75,000 or more would get fewer to no subsidies under the Republican bill. So they would likely face higher premiums than they did under Obamacare, much like the lower-income consumer.

    The Republican bill accomplishes all of this in two ways.

    First, it abandons Obamacare’s income-based tax credits (which give more money to people with lower incomes) to instead give anyone with an annual salary below $75,000 a tax credit based on age, with older people getting more money and a phaseout for higher incomes.

    But it also peels back an Obamacare rule that protects older people from higher premiums. Under Obamacare, insurers are generally only allowed to charge an older person about three times what they would charge a younger person — under the theory that older people are often sicker and therefore need to use more insurance. But under the Republican bill, the limit of three times would go up to five times, effectively letting insurers charge older people 66 percent more than they would under Obamacare.

    Republicans argue this is necessary because it would also let insurers charge younger people less, which would encourage younger and generally healthier people to come into the insurance pool — and therefore bring down the overall cost of health care by making it so more younger, healthier people are effectively subsidizing everyone’s care.

    The CBO found that’s broadly true: It would bring insurance premiums down in general, and it would cost at least some young people less to get signed up for a health plan. But it would do all of that at a very high cost to older, particularly poorer Americans.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insu...as-850percent/ar-BBBuT0m?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  16. southfork

    southfork Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    13,286
    Likes Received:
    10,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No bill will be passed, Dems completely out of power yet the rinos cave to their every whim and demand, no fkin guts cowards.
     
    andial and Mujahideen like this.
  17. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CBO report rips GOP health bill
    • 9 hrs ago


    When House Republicans narrowly passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) a few weeks ago, they did so without waiting for an analysis of the bill's impact by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO released its report on Wednesday, and now we know why the GOP was in such a hurry to move its version of health care reform.

    According to the CBO, repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replacing it with the AHCA would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by 23 million by the year 2026, leaving a total of 51 million uninsured by that year. In addition, some 14 million Americans would lose their coverage under Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and lower-income individuals, thanks to the AHCA's $834 billion cut in Medicaid funding.

    The CBO said the Republican plan would disproportionately hurt older people with lower incomes and those with pre-existing conditions, combining ever rising premiums with diminishing coverage. The report went on to say that individual states' insurance markets could become destabilized, with the result that insurance coverage could become unaffordable for all but the healthy.

    Tom Price, secretary of Health and Human Services, was quick to criticize the CBO report as inaccurate, as was the White House. Said Price: "The CBO was wrong when they analyzed Obamacare's effect on cost and coverage, and they are wrong now."

    Perhaps it is unwise to accept everything the CBO has to say. But it's equally unwise to reject the office's findings out of hand. Health care is an issue that touches virtually every American. Just as it's too big to rely on one set of findings, it's foolish to discount the CBO analysis. There's enough there to give everyone pause, particularly members of the Senate who will next take up the AHCA.

    The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center has this to say about the CBO report:

    "We come to three conclusions. First, the only real benefit of this legislation goes to the 1 percent and insurance and pharmaceutical industries that will receive $600 million in tax breaks. Second, this is a bill that badly undermines health care for millions of Americans and Pennsylvanians ... third, ... the Senate must seek a full CBO analysis so that it does not pass a bill that harms far more people than it helps."

    Senators from both parties have indicated they're prepared to write their own bill, apparently well-aware that what the House is sending over is simply bad lawmaking. We've noted before that the House GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is a travesty, given that Republicans have had seven years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act to put together their own health care package that actually is good for America. What they passed a few weeks ago was a mess.

    The only way we're going to get decent health care at an affordable cost is for Democrats and Republicans to park their partisan differences and actually work together for the good of the country. After all, that's what they were elected to do.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_7f5f2d89-dea4-5d09-8fad-aac2513d4772.html
     
  18. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    McConnell May Have Been Right: It May Be Too Hard to Replace Obamacare
    [​IMG]
    The New York Times

    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ROBERT PEAR
    10 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON — Shortly after President Trump took office, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, met privately with his colleagues to discuss the Republican agenda. Repealing the Affordable Care Act was at the top, he said. But replacing it would be really hard.

    Mr. McConnell was right.

    The many meetings Republicans held to discuss a Senate health care bill have exposed deep fissures within the party that are almost as large as the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Elements of a bill that passed the House this month have divided Republicans.

    Mr. McConnell faces an increasingly onerous math problem. He can afford to lose only two Republicans if he is to get a bill through the Senate, and that would require the help of Vice President Mike Pence, who would have to cast the tiebreaking vote. But at least three senators in the party are diametrically opposed to the views of at least another three, so the path to agreement is narrow.

    Republicans are roughly split over whether the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act should be rolled back or continued, at least in the short run. They disagree about how the federal government should grant states more control over setting insurance standards. They are also divided over a critical portion of the House bill, which would allow states to obtain waivers from two of the most important federal mandates: a requirement to provide a minimum set of health benefits and a prohibition against charging higher prices to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

    The challenges facing Senate Republicans are so great that overhauling the tax code is starting to look easier by comparison. “I allow that’s a possibility,” said Senator Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is closely involved in negotiating both issues and favors a rollback of the Medicaid program.

    This week, the normally circumspect Mr. McConnell conceded that it was going to be difficult to get the votes needed from Republicans to pass a health care bill. A Congressional Budget Office report on the House bill, forecasting an increase of 23 million Americans without insurance in a decade and significantly higher premiums for older and sick people, bolstered the resolve of Republican senators who have been skeptical of the House effort.

    Most Republicans in Congress would like to keep their vow to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but they face a more urgent challenge: to stabilize insurance markets that, in some states, are in danger of melting down next year.

    Every week brings word of insurers seeking big rate increases or announcing plans to pull out of another market in 2018. It is conceivable that the two parties could work together on short-term fixes outside the repeal process at some point.

    “I don’t think we want the market to fail,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Finance Committee, which is responsible for tax legislation and much of the Affordable Care Act. “We don’t want premiums to be so high that people can’t afford them.”

    Republicans could pass a repeal measure and return to the health care system that was largely in place before the Affordable Care Act became law. But Speaker Paul D. Ryan, among others, has repeatedly stated that his party has a plan to make the system better, which would require the replacement part of the repeal-replace equation.

    With health care negotiations sputtering, many Republicans are quietly turning their attention to changes in the tax code as a possible path for legislative success. Generally, Republicans are more unified around the fundamentals of a tax overhaul than on the details of health policy. The White House team working on tax issues is far less ideological than the team directing health care efforts, and it has worked harder to build early momentum, Republican aides say.

    Though Republicans have been calling for a repeal of the health care law almost since President Barack Obama signed it in 2010, those calls have become more urgent as some of the insurance exchanges have struggled.

    But with millions of Americans newly insured under the law, many governors, including some Republicans, are loath to roll it back, and many senators agree. Twenty Republican senators come from states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

    The House bill, starting in 2020, would sharply reduce federal payments to states to cover those who became eligible for Medicaid as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

    The law also has provisions to help drug addicts, and the opioid crisis sweeping many states with Republican senators has been a key motivator.

    “The opioid issue definitely plays a role,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. “A lot of the young population that is being insured under Medicaid has problems with substance abuse or mental illness.”

    While fixing the nation’s tax code has long been considered even harder than passing health care legislation on Capitol Hill, the opposite could end up being the case.

    Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary D. Cohn, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, have held numerous meetings with lawmakers — including Democrats — on the matter and have attended several hearings against the backdrop of the contentious health care talks.

    “Taxes has more consensus with Republicans and some Democrats,” said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio.

    Republican senators have been watching closely as House Republicans have twisted themselves in knots over the tax “blueprint” that they released last summer. Many lobbyists and tax experts are hoping that the Senate emerges as a voice of reason.

    Republican senators continued free-flowing conversations among themselves this week to analyze their options and search for consensus on a health care bill that they said would be significantly different from the one passed by the House.

    Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the majority whip, and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said they expected staff experts to draft legislative language for Republicans to consider when the Senate returns from a weeklong recess on June 5.

    “We’re talking about this nonstop between ourselves,” Mr. Johnson said of the Republicans. “It’s an appropriate time now to have leadership and committee staff, working with leadership and committee chairmen, sit down and draft a bill, a proposal, for discussion.”

    If the Senate decided not to vote on a health care bill, it would be likely to enrage the White House, as it did when Mr. Ryan at first failed to produce a bill that could pass. However, Mr. Trump has considerably less leverage with Mr. McConnell than he did over House leaders, as Mr. McConnell and Republican senators are less susceptible to pressure from the White House.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ace-obamacare/ar-BBBy3eh?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  19. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    4,687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He mitch..... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HARD IS.............. keep this shit up & you will.
     
  20. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. Buck

    Buck Fabian Society Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    and by this time next year, we will all feel another price hike on our "health care"

    Isn't insurance supposed to pay our bills?
    that's why we have it
    So, if I don't cover my deductible, and my insurance doesn't kick in a dime
    Do I really have insurance?

    Why have insurance?

    None of this ACA was about health insurance, at all

    Just another part of the global elitists control agenda


    Learn who your Fed Reps are, vote accordingly next election
     
  22. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    4,687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Out of my local radio listening area yesterday & ran across a financial show........... They were talking about the correct / fair value of stocks. The "expert" financial guy said stocks are undervalued and wages are going up at a rapid pace................. because you HAVE to factor in the cost of healthcare in "total compensation"........ Even the host asked the dimwit the same question that crossed everyone's minds at the same time........ If you factor in health care costs in total compensation how does that give the consumer any more buying power to increase the value of stocks?
     
  23. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conservatives tell senators to pass health care bill or lose control of Congress

    [​IMG]
    Tribune Washington Bureau
    By Lesley Clark
    8 hrs ago




    WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans this week will try to prove they’re not slow-walking the remake of America’s health care system, a dicey approach under President Donald Trump and one that’s been causing considerable conservative angst.

    To that end, Senate Republicans will get a status update during their weekly caucus luncheon Tuesday, during which they’ll learn about some options being considered for repealing the Affordable Care Act. They’ll hear about potential tax credits, a possible timeline for ending Medicaid expansion and considerations about state waivers.

    And with dozens of reporters outside the meeting room, details will get out quickly, allowing Republicans to reassure constituents and interest groups through the press that they’re moving ahead on one of the Republican Party’s most high-profile campaign promises over the past seven years.

    “Every day you get closer to an election is a day that it gets harder to do the tough stuff,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican political consultant in Kentucky who has worked for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “And the risk in ultimately not getting something done is that you’re accused of breaking your campaign promises. Failure to act is a message to the voters that the status quo reigns in Washington, and that was absolutely what they didn’t want coming out of the November election.”

    Failure to deliver would be lethal, said Andy Roth, vice president of government affairs at the Club for Growth.

    “Republicans campaigned on full repeal of Obamacare not just this past November, but for multiple election cycles, and now they’ve been given the mandate and the White House to do it,” Roth said. “If they don’t they’re going to lose their majorities in 2018.

    “The reason why voters voted for Trump is because they wanted to get something done. Republicans keep saying one thing and then not following through when they get elected,” Roth said.

    The Senate prides itself on taking a cautious, deliberative approach to legislation. But that style poses risks, including that the demands of the legislative calendar means a health overhaul will bump up against must-do legislation, including raising the debt limit and writing the 2018 federal budget.

    Pushing health care beyond Congress’ August recess could imperil the legislation and give Democrats an opportunity to spend the summer bashing the plan — just as conservative activists spent the summer of 2009 lambasting Democrats and the Obama administration for the Affordable Care Act.

    Senators on a weeklong recess last week sounded pessimistic about the chances for progress, even as Senate staffers began putting some proposals to paper. Echoing several of his colleagues, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. told a North Carolina TV station it was “unlikely” the Senate would reach a deal this year. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, insisted otherwise, telling a Texas radio station he was confident the Senate would act before leaving town for August.

    “Oh, absolutely, we’ll get it done by the end of July at the latest,” Cornyn said.

    Monday evening, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said the Senate leadership is narrowing its options, but that the Senate needed to hold a vote, trailing off as he said, “if we don’t pass something and we go into ’18 ….”

    But he suggested that Republican supporters don’t yet have the votes. “In the end we’ll get to where we have something to vote on and I would hope that we get to where we have 50 votes plus the vice president because I think it’s really important for us to act on this and try to put a fix in place.”

    Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said leadership is “optimistic and we’ll see how it goes in the next few days.” But he said the Senate at a certain point will need to move on: “I don’t think this gets better over time,” he said. “My personal view is we’ve got now until the Fourth of July to decide whether the votes are there or not.”

    What’s the risk of not holding a vote?

    “Oh, I won’t answer that,” Sen Bill Cassidy, R-La., said.

    Health care has been the chief talking point at the weekly lunches for the Republican caucus for weeks. House and Senate Republican leaders also are expected to meet Tuesday with Trump at the White House and discuss health care.

    The slow pace so far could prompt additional prodding from Trump, who didn’t hesitate to lash out at House conservatives when he blamed them for imperiling the legislation in the House.

    “Oh, Mark, I’m gonna come after you big time,” Trump said at one point, singling out Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who at the time opposed the bill that Trump and House leaders wanted to pass.

    For now, Trump has stuck to cajoling Republican senators, saying on Twitter that they are “good people” who could “hopefully” get a bill passed.

    Vice President Mike Pence offered some pressure, telling a crowd in Iowa over the weekend that “this summer, this Congress must come together and heed the president’s leadership, and we must repeal and replace Obamacare.”

    More moderate Senate Republicans and those from states that have expanded Medicaid under the 2010 law have voiced worries that the House plan would not provide stability for families in Medicaid expansion programs, which would be phased out under the bill. Conservatives, meanwhile, say the alternatives don’t go far enough to repeal what they consider overreaching provisions in the 2010 law.

    Some conservative groups are pressing the Trump administration to move ahead dismantling the Affordable Care Act in the face of Senate inaction. Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity last week sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price urging him not to wait for the Senate.

    “We’re disappointed that the Senate is taking so long and that some senators are saying ‘Can this really be done this year?’” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity. “We certainly hope it can be done this year, but either way we’re encouraging Price to move now.”

    Still, Freedom Partners noted that rushing legislation would be as much a risk as moving cautiously.

    “Repealing is a top priority, but we want the best legislation possible,” said Nathan Nascimento, Freedom Partners’ vice president of policy. “From our point of view, we’ve always called on Congress to take a thoughtful, orderly and transparent approach.”

    Senate Republicans have a tenuous path. They hold a narrow majority of 52 to 48 and can lose only a few votes, if Pence casts a tiebreaking vote. And divisions in the GOP there are just as stark as the differences between its factions in the House, which stymied the bill’s progress in that chamber.

    Democrats are looking to 2018, believing they have a case to make, regardless of the outcome. Failing to pass the legislation opens Republicans to charges that they broke their promises, but Democrats point out that recent polls suggest Americans are recoiling at reports that millions of people could lose insurance under the Republican plan.

    “This bill is as popular as a toxic waste dump so the longer it lingers, the more damage it will do to people who are carrying it,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist working with Protect Our Care, a coalition of liberal groups that have joined to fight repeal of the Affordable Care Act. “Yet even as we’ve seen a lot of Republicans who don’t want to own the damage of health care repeal, we’ve not seen a lot willing to stand up and stop it.”

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...l-of-congress/ar-BBC78zP?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  24. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obamacare repeal and replace is on life support as Republican senators say they find a new problem every time they solve one
    • Subsidies for low-income people on federal exchanges and pace of Medicaid changes are tension points
    • Some taxes could remain
    • House prohibitions on abortion pose parliamentary problem
    • Conservatives want immediate tax cuts while centrists focusing on millions who would lose health care
    • Search for 50 Republican votes
    • Even if Senate is able to move a bill this summer, it will be different from the one that cleared the House before it's final budget score came in


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4589312/Obamacare-repeal-replace-life-support.html#ixzz4jYqzRBcS
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  25. latemetal

    latemetal Platinum Bling Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trusting the Republicans to save a Democrat program is amazing, just tell the poor people to please die QUIETLY in a corner is the Republican way and thats what they should do.
     
    Mujahideen likes this.
  26. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Senate health-care draft repeals Obamacare taxes, provides bigger subsidies for low-income Americans than House bill

    [​IMG]
    The Washington Post
    Paige Winfield Cunningham
    23 mins ago

    Senate leaders on Wednesday were putting the final touches on legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system by dramatically rolling back Medicaid while providing a softer landing to Americans who stand to lose coverage gained under the Affordable Care Act.

    A discussion draft circulating Wednesday afternoon among aides and lobbyists would roll back the ACA’s taxes, phase down its Medicaid expansion, rejigger its subsidies, give states wider latitude in opting out of its regulations and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

    The bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes. While the House legislation pegged federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income as the ACA does. The Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill, but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also removes language restricting federally-subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) intends to present the draft to wary GOP senators at a meeting on Thursday morning. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote before senators go home for the July Fourth recess, but he is still seeking the 50 votes necessary to pass the major legislation under arcane budget rules. A handful of senators from conservatives to moderates are by no means persuaded that they can vote for the emerging measure.

    Aides stress that the GOP plan is likely to undergo more changes in order to garner the 50 votes Republicans need to pass it. Moderate senators are concerned about cutting off coverage too fast for those who gained it under Obamacare, while conservatives don’t want to leave big parts of the ACA in place.

    Moderates who are on the fence about whether to support the Obamacare overhaul are likely to be pleased at the bill’s approach to subsidies because they would be based on financial need, potentially preserving coverage for more people who got insured under the ACA.

    Subsidies are currently available to Americans earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2020, that threshold would be lowered to 350 percent under the Senate bill -- but anyone below that line could get the subsidies if they’re not eligible for Medicaid.

    Yet the Senate bill would go farther than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid spending. In 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index than the one used in the House bill. That move could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

    In a move that is likely to please conservatives, the draft also proposes repealing all of the ACA taxes except for its so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators had previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA’s taxes.

    The House had a difficult time passing its own measure after a roller-coaster attempt, with the first version being pulled before reaching the floor after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (D-Wisc.) determined he did not have the votes. House Republicans went back to the drawing board and passed their own measure – which would more quickly kill Medicaid expansion and provide less-generous federal subsidies – on May 4.

    Even if the Senate measure does pass the upper chamber, it will still have to pass muster with the more conservative House before any legislation could be enacted.

    Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...an-house-bill/ar-BBD0oWr?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  27. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    >>>provides bigger subsidies <<<
    That is it in a nutshell
    Just another giveaway program with the RINO name stamp on it
    Why vote for a Republican when they are really just the usual Democrats in disguise?
    Dayum this stuff gets old
     
  28. hammerhead

    hammerhead Not just a screen name Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Nation F/K/A USSA
    The article did name Ryan as a Democrap. That was either a mistake or a statement.
     
  29. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At Heart of Health Bill Is $800 Billion Medicaid Rollback
    [​IMG]
    The New York Times

    By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
    6 hrs ago




    Tucked inside the Republican bill to replace Obamacare is a plan to impose a radical diet on a 52-year-old program that insures nearly one in five Americans.

    The bill, of course, would modify changes to the health system brought by the Affordable Care Act. But it would also permanently restructure Medicaid, which covers tens of millions of poor or disabled Americans, including millions who are living in nursing homes with conditions like Alzheimer’s or the aftereffects of a stroke.

    “This is the most consequential change in 50 years for low-income people’s health care,” said Joan Alker, the executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “This is a massive change that has hardly been discussed.”

    Since its founding, Medicaid has operated as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Each pays a share of patients’ medical bills, with no overall limit on spending. The American Health Care Act would try to slim down the federal share of that spending, by limiting how much the federal government would pay for each person enrolled in the program. The Senate version of the legislation, expected this week, is likely to make the payments still leaner in later years.

    The results, according to independent analyses, would be major reductions in federal spending on Medicaid over time. States would be left deciding whether to raise more money to make up the difference, or to cut back on medical coverage for people using the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the changes would lead to a reduction in spending on Medicaid of more than $800 billion over a decade. (That figure also includes additional cuts to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.)

    Medicaid is the country’s largest government health care program, covering more Americans than its better-known sibling, Medicare.

    Its reach is broad: About half of all births in the country are covered by Medicaid, and nearly 40 percent of children are covered through the program. Medicaid covers the long-term care costs of two-thirds of Americans living in nursing homes, many of them middle-class Americans who spent all of their savings on care before becoming eligible.

    It covers children and adults with disabilities who require services that most commercial health insurance doesn’t include. It covers poor women who are pregnant or raising young children. Those populations were all included in the program before Obamacare became law.

    It also provides insurance for poor adult Americans, and recent evidence shows that its expansion under Obamacare has given more poor people access to health care services and reduced their exposure to financial shocks.

    The Republican approach would set a formula for determining a maximum payment for each person in the program. Then that cap would grow by a set rate each year. Lawmakers are negotiating about the rate to use, but all of the options are intended to grow more slowly than expected under the current system. The gap would be left for states to fill — or cut.

    “While details remain elusive, this is shaping up to be the largest intergovernmental transfer of financial risk in our country’s history,” said Matt Salo, the executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, in an email. Mr. Salo said that some of his directors would welcome caps if they came with more program flexibility, but said the current approach amounted to a funding cut.

    The growth in medical spending tends to be uneven year over year, which means states might hit the caps in one year and fall under them in another, even without any program changes. Researchers at the Brookings Institution recently looked back at historical Medicaid spending to see what would have happened under a cap. They found that random variation was substantial.

    Medicaid advocates worry particularly that a fixed growth rate doesn’t account for this varying pattern of health expenditures, which might shoot up in a year where there’s an epidemic or an important new treatment. Many Medicaid budgets increased in recent years after the introduction of expensive but effective medications for hepatitis C, for example. States had to pay more for the drug, but federal spending also increased to match it.

    “Could you imagine tomorrow if finally we had a Zika virus vaccine, and that vaccine costs $50K a dose?” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. “Would you not want every woman of childbearing age to be immunized?”

    Advocates for the structural change point to inefficiencies and waste in the current program. There is some evidence that Medicaid programs enroll some people who are not eligible and sometimes cover some services that are not medically necessary. James Capretta, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that the current system, where the federal government matches all state spending, discourages efficiency.

    But he and co-authors have also suggested a different, more generous approach than the one in the Republican legislation.

    Most researchers who study the program closely say that it is already quite lean. Major savings, they say, will be hard to achieve without reducing medical benefits or cutting higher-cost patients from the program.

    Trump administration officials and Republican members of Congress have argued that the Medicaid changes won’t cause anyone to lose insurance coverage directly. That statement is true in only the narrowest sense.

    Because the funding cuts would fall to states, it is state officials who would decide whether to save money by raising taxes, reducing payments to nursing homes or eliminating benefits like home-based care for disabled beneficiaries, a few available options under the law.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enrollment in Medicaid would decline substantially over a decade, as states pursued a variety of strategies to save money, some of which would push people out of the program.

    Still, the Medicaid caps have not drawn the same public outcry as other provisions of the law that would cut back on coverage more directly. Several Republican senators have expressed concerns about changes to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which broadened the program to include more low-income adults in 31 states.

    Others worry about changes to private insurance subsidies that would make insurance less affordable to older, middle-class Americans. Fewer have spoken out about the cuts to Medicaid’s legacy beneficiaries. That means that, as the Senate works out final details, the forced diet for Medicaid is likely to stay in the bill.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...caid-rollback/ar-BBD09bm?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  30. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  31. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iron workers make a great union salary around here. Why doesn't he reach in his pocket and help mom out instead of asking everyone else to?
     
  32. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Senate GOP leaders unveil health-care bill

    [​IMG]
    The Washington Post
    Sean Sullivan, Juliet Eilperin, Paige Winfield Cunningham
    1 hr ago

    Senate Republicans on Thursday released a health-care bill that would curtail federal Medicaid funding, repeal taxes on the wealthy and eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood as part of an effort to fulfill a years-long promise to undo Barack Obama’s signature health-care law.

    The bill is an attempt to strike a compromise between existing law and a bill passed by the House in May as Republicans struggle to advance their vision for the country’s health-care system even though they now control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

    Read the full text of the GOP healthcare bill

    At around 9:30 a.m., Republican senators entered a room near the Senate chamber where leaders started briefing them on the bill. The legislation, labeled “discussion draft” and numbering 142 pages, was then posted online by the Senate Budget Committee.

    “Republicans believe we have a responsibility to act — and we are,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a speech on the Senate floor, underscoring the taxes and regulations in the Affordable Care Act that the GOP measure would repeal.

    Senate Democrats intend to protest against the bill Thursday and ask for more time to debate and review it than McConnell is planning to allow.

    The Senate proposal largely mirrors the House measure with significant differences, according to a discussion draft circulating Wednesday among aides and lobbyists. While the House legislation would peg federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income, as the ACA does.

    The Senate measure would cut off expanded Medicaid funding for states more gradually than the House bill but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also would eliminate House language aimed at prohibiting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, a provision that may run afoul of complex Senate budget rules.

    But McConnell faces the prospect of an open revolt from key conservative and moderate GOP senators, whose concerns he has struggled to balance in recent weeks. Republicans familiar with the effort said Senate leaders have more work to do to secure the 50 votes needed to pass the measure, with Vice President Pence set to cast the tiebreaking vote, from the pool of 52 GOP senators. No Democrats are expected to support the bill.

    According to two Republicans in close contact with Senate GOP leadership granted anonymity to describe private conversations, McConnell is threatening to bring the bill to a vote next week even if he doesn’t have the votes to pass it. But some believe that message is aimed at trying to pressure Republicans to support the bill, rather than an absolute commitment. A McConnell spokeswoman declined to comment.

    Republican aides stressed that their plan is likely to undergo more changes to secure the votes needed for passage, but there were major concerns Wednesday from senators on opposite ends of the GOP spectrum.

    “My main concern is I promised voters that I would repeal — vote to repeal Obamacare. And everything I hear sounds like Obamacare-lite,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

    Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), whose state expanded Medicaid and has been pushing for a more gradual unwinding of that initiative than many conservatives prefer, said she is waiting to scrutinize what is released but has not seen anything yet that would make her drop her concerns with the proposal.

    “Up to this point, I don’t have any new news — tomorrow we will see it definitively — that would cause me to change that sentiment,” she said.

    Like the House bill, the Senate measure is expected to make big changes to Medicaid, the program that insures about 74 million elderly and lower-income Americans and was expanded in most states under the ACA. In effect, the revisions would reduce federal spending on the program.

    The Senate measure would transform Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to one in which federal funding would be distributed to states on a per capita basis. The Senate measure would also seek to phase out the program’s expansion — although at a more gradual rate than the House version.

    Yet the Senate bill would go further than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid funding in the future. In 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index than the one used in the House bill. That move could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

    That provision, a nod to conservative lawmakers led by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), risks alienating moderates, including Capito and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who also represents a state that expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Some Republicans worry that such a move would force states to cut services or coverage, potentially leaving millions of low-income people without sufficient health care.

    The growth rate that is applied to Medicaid spending going forward has major implications, said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “That inflater is critical, because it translates into billions of dollars over time,” she said.

    Portman and Capito have also been pushing for the inclusion of a $45 billion fund to treat and prevent opioid addiction. As of early Wednesday afternoon, the opioid money was not included in McConnell’s proposal, according to a top GOP senator and Senate aide familiar with the discussions.

    “I don’t think there is right now,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked whether the legislation includes a distinct opioid fund. “It might have to be considered separately.”

    But Portman and Capito, like all senators, will have a chance to introduce amendments to the bill when it heads to the Senate floor, which McConnell said is likely to happen next week. This process will allow senators to draw attention to the causes they have championed and potentially change the final bill.

    Senators will have “an opportunity to offer a virtually unlimited number of amendments,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). One of the unanswered questions is whether Democrats will support any efforts to move the bill to the center. Asked this question Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) declined to show his hand. “We’re not going to discuss strategy publicly,” he said.

    GOP moderates who are on the fence about whether to support the Obamacare overhaul are likely to be pleased at the bill’s approach to insurance subsidies because they would be based on financial need, potentially preserving coverage for more people who got insurance under the ACA.

    Subsidies are currently available to Americans earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2020, that threshold would be lowered to 350 percent under the Senate bill — but anyone below that line could get the subsidies if they’re not eligible for Medicaid.

    That provision, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, would be “a real benefit to poor people in states that don’t expand Medicaid.”

    In a move that will please the health-care industry, the draft also proposes repealing all the ACA taxes except for its “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators had previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA’s taxes.

    It would also eliminate Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood for one year. Federal law already prevents taxpayer funding to pay for abortions except to save the life of the woman or in the case of rape or incest. But some Republicans want to ban all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which also provides health services such as birth control, because their clinics provide abortion services.

    Like the House measure, the Senate bill would eliminate two central requirements of the current health-care law: that individuals provide proof of insurance when filing their annual tax returns and that companies with 50 or more employees provide health coverage for their workers.

    In a move that is critical to insurers, the Senate measure would continue to fund for two years cost-sharing subsidies that help 7 million Americans with ACA plans. House Republicans have challenged the legality of the $7 billion in subsidies — which help cover consumers’ deductibles and copays — in court, and insurers have warned that they will have to increase premiums dramatically next year unless the federal government commits to continuing the payments.

    McConnell has told Republican senators that he wants to maintain protections for people with preexisting conditions under the law. But it was not clear to some lawmakers Wednesday what that would entail.

    “I haven’t seen the draft yet. I like the idea of preexisting conditions being more firmly clarified,” Portman said.

    Paul criticized GOP leaders for potentially keeping some of the ACA’s “most expensive regulations,” which he says are the primary drivers of higher premiums.

    “It may well be that prices don’t come down at all,” he said.

    But the Senate proposal may change rules for waivers that states can file with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that could allow them to potentially scale back some of these federal mandates.

    Outside criticism of the GOP effort has also been mounting. The heads of 10 managed care organizations penned a letter to McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) this week saying they were “united in our opposition to the Medicaid policies currently being debated by the Senate.”

    While the details of McConnell’s proposal are expected to be made public Thursday, much of focus in recent weeks has been on the process used to draft the bill.

    Democrats and even some Republicans have been critical of Senate GOP leaders for crafting the proposal behind closed doors without hearings and consideration of the legislation by the relevant committees.

    Several GOP senators have expressed concern about moving quickly to a vote before they fully understand how it would impact health insurance markets and their constituents.

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said that in addition to reading the bill, “I’ll also want to get full input from constituencies in Wisconsin.”

    Given that there may be just a week between the bill being posted and a final vote, he added, “I find it hard to believe we’ll have enough time.”

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...lth-care-bill/ar-BBD2l6O?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
     
  33. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'This bill will do you harm!' Obama blasts Republican Senate's Obamacare repeal as he declares it's 'not a health care bill' but a gift to the rich
    • Barack Obama threw himself into the Senate's health care reform deliberations
    • Said in a lengthy post on Facebook that the GOP bill that was unveiled today is 'not a health care bill' at all - it's a transfer of wealth to the rich
    • Obama's final White House spokesman had said the outgoing president would not immerse himself in the partisan about his namesake law once he departed
    • Former president got involved Thursday to say the GOP 'cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation'
    • He called for compromise between Republicans and Democrats to come up with legislaton that helps, not harms, Americans


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4630622/Obama-blasts-Republican-Senate-s-Obamacare-repeal.html#ixzz4km5uhqMq
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  34. southfork

    southfork Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    13,286
    Likes Received:
    10,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you notice the protestors were laying on the ground and streets before they could have even had time to read the bill, they were plants ready to disrupt
     
  35. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
  36. andial

    andial Sir Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,651
    Likes Received:
    9,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republican's are real dumb shits for taking this on. Their policy should be " we are going to watch Obama's plan burn,it's their problem, if you are a registered republican or independant you can drop out. If you are a democrat you burn with the ship.
     
    Glasgow likes this.
  37. o b juan

    o b juan Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    TEX MEX BORDER
    Obama is gonna be worse than Bubba he aint never gonna leave.

    Ex presidents normallly leave and keep their mouth shut like Regan, Bush, Bush.

    But no, Carter - Bubba and The nkenyan hang around and gum up the motor.
     
  38. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Historic heist: Senate health bill a massive redistribution of wealth
    • By EUGENE ROBINSON
    • 8 hrs ago


    The "health care bill" that Republicans are trying to pass in the Senate, like the one approved by the GOP majority in the House, isn't really about health care at all. It's the first step in a massive redistribution of wealth from struggling wage-earners to the rich -- a theft of historic proportions.

    Is the Senate version less "mean" than the House bill, to use President Trump's description of that earlier effort? Not really. Does the new bill have the "heart" that Trump demanded? No, it doesn't. The devil is not in the details, it's in the big picture.

    Fundamentally, what Republicans in both chambers want to do is cut nearly $1 trillion over the next decade from the Medicaid program, which presently serves almost 70 million people. Medicaid provides health care not just for the indigent and disabled but also for the working poor -- low-wage employees who cannot afford health insurance, even the plans offered through their jobs.

    Additionally, about 20 percent of Medicaid spending goes to provide nursing home care, including for middle-class seniors whose savings have been exhausted -- a situation almost any of us might confront. Roughly two-thirds of those in nursing homes have their care paid by Medicaid.

    Why would Republicans want to slash this vital program so severely? You will hear a lot of self-righteous huffing and puffing about the need for entitlement reform, but the GOP's intention is not to use the savings to pay down the national debt. Instead, slashing Medicaid spending creates fiscal headroom for what is euphemistically being called "tax reform" -- a soon-to-come package of huge tax cuts favoring the wealthy.

    That's the basic equation in both the House and Senate bills: Medicaid for tax cuts. Both bills start with various of the taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act, but those are mere appetizers. The main course is intended to be big cuts in individual and corporate tax rates that would benefit the rich.

    There is no other point to this whole exercise. All the "Obamacare is in a death spiral" talk is Republican wishful thinking, aided and abetted by active sabotage.

    The ACA is far from perfect, but recall that it was designed with input from the insurance industry. The main reason so many insurers are pulling out of the program is that Congress and GOP-dominated state governments refuse to live up to their end of the bargain. Congress will not commit to funding promised subsidies to cover treatment for the poor and those with expensive ailments, or to keeping in place the mandate forcing individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Republican governors and state legislatures refused to set up exchanges that would make insurance more affordable and declined the opportunity to expand Medicaid coverage.

    It's actually a wonder that the ACA works as well as it does, given the GOP's determination to make it fail.

    Neither the House nor the Senate bill fully dismantles the scaffolding of Obamacare; rather, they allow the states to do most of the dirty work. Philosophically, Republican majorities in both chambers want to erase the central concept that the ACA established: that health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege depending on one's income.


    Like the House, the Senate wants to offer tax credits rather than subsidies to help the needy afford insurance. Like the House, the Senate wants to leave up to the states whether policies must cover such services as emergency, maternity and mental health care. Like the House, the Senate wants to eliminate the requirement that large employers offer insurance plans to their workers.

    There are a few distinctions, though I wouldn't call them real differences. The Senate would determine who gets tax credits to help buy insurance by income, rather than age. And the Senate bill would take more time to phase out the ACA's expansion of Medicaid coverage; despite claims that this represents "heart," it may have less to do with compassion than skewing how the bill is scored by the Congressional Budget Office. This pig's lipstick is being applied with a trowel.

    Ultimately, however, the impact is the same: sacrificing Medicaid for tax cuts. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had the bill drafted in strict secrecy and hopes to ram it through as early as next week. The ACA, by contrast, was drafted over the course of a year, with more than 100 public hearings.

    Does McConnell have the votes? Wavering senators should know that we're not fooled. We see exactly what you're doing -- and you should expect to be held fully accountable.

    Enjoying our content? Become a Bucks County Courier Times subscriber to support stories like these. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 44 cents a day.

    Eugene Robinson writes this column for The Washington Post. Email: eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

    http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....cle_e421333d-185b-5dc5-8237-cf0c86aac3ee.html
     
  39. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New Jersey mom publishes her three-year-old son's $231,115 heart surgery bill in a desperate plea to the Senate not to scrap benefits cap ban in Trumpcare
    • Ali Chandra posted the latest medical bill for heart surgery for her son Ethan
    • Bill came to a staggering $231,115 but thanks to insurance, she only paid $500
    • She fears that Trump's new healthcare bill could scrap Obamacare's ban on caps
    • Benefit caps meant insurers didn't have to cover claims after a certain threshold
    • It is not clear whether caps will be banned under Trumpcare if it is passed
    • She appealed to the Senate to remember 'stats' weren't just numbers, 'They're names and faces and little boys who stay up late catching lightning bugs'
    • The married mom-of-two, a registered New Jersey nurse, says the family would be forced to move to Canada if the benefit caps were allowed to return
    • 'A lifetime cap on benefits is the same as saying, "Sorry, you're not worth keeping alive anymore. You're just too expensive"'


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4637316/Mom-publishes-son-s-surgery-bill-protest-Trumpcare.html#ixzz4l1hB3szz
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  40. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,079
    Likes Received:
    36,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Donald Trump admits he called the Republican healthcare plan 'MEAN' before saying he wants the Obamacare replacement to 'have heart'
    • Trump's interview about the bill with Fox and Friends aired on Sunday morning
    • Asked out President Obama calling it mean, Trump said: 'Well, he used my term'
    • He then said he is confident a deal will be done on the 'very complicated' issue
    • Trump also used the interview to attack Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren
    • 'I call her Pocahontas and that's an insult to Pocahontas,' the president said


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4637390/Trump-admits-called-Republican-healthcare-bill-mean.html#ixzz4l1hZz44p
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     

Share This Page