Obamacare: Republicans Can’t Win For Losing?

sharylattkisson.com ^ | May 27, 2015 | Sharyl Attkisson

[upchuck]

If the plaintiffs win the current Affordable Care Act (ACA) case before the U.S. Supreme Court, King v. Burwell, millions of Americans who bought health insurance through the federal marketplace or “exchange” will lose the federal tax dollars they’re getting to help buy their policies.

That’s because the Court would have ruled the ACA only allowed subsidies to be given to those buying policies on state-established exchanges; not the federal website.

It would theoretically be a victory for Republicans who oppose Obamacare: Americans would likely find the health care law less palatable if tax money isn’t helping pay for their mandatory policies. They would suddenly be exposed to the reality faced by those who aren’t getting subsidies: insurance may cost more, come with higher deductibles, and provide less coverage.

But some Congressional Republicans are more worried about winning the Supreme Court case than losing it.

“There are Republicans right now scared to death that we’re going to win,” says one Republican leader who did not want to be quoted by name. “They’re in meetings right now planning ways to revive the subsidies if the [Supreme] Court strikes them down.”

The irony is that Republicans would, in effect, be providing a crucial fix to a law they’ve opposed since its inception. In other words, when Obamacare would be at greatest risk of crumbling, Republicans would be ensuring its survival.

Republican Rationale

According to a dozen Congressional Republicans who discussed the topic but did not wish to be named, they worry the public wouldn’t view a strike-down of the subsidies as a weakness in Obamacare, but would instead blame Republicans for taking money away from them.

These Republicans also worry that the news media will coalesce behind that view, making it difficult to overcome from a public relations standpoint.

Politico reports that 31 senators are backing a bill by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, that would restore subsidies for the affected Obamacare customers through September 2017.

Large percentages of those polled say they would support a fix if the subsidies are found to be unlawful. Significant numbers of those polled don’t understand how the federal and state exchanges work.

Poorest Americans Will Still Receive Free Health Care

Meantime, there’s has been a great deal of misreporting implying millions will lose their health insurance if the Supreme Court wipes out subsidies for federal exchange customers.

In fact, such a decision wouldn’t remove anybody’s health insurance and those affected would still be required, under Obamacare, to have insurance; they would just have to pay for it themselves.

For example, under Obamacare, a couple earning as much as six figures with three children is currently eligible for taxpayer assistance to buy health insurance. If plaintiffs win the Supreme Court case, nothing would change for that family as long as they purchased their health insurance through a state exchange. If, however, they bought insurance through the federal website, they would lose their subsidy.

The poorest Americans will be unaffected no matter what the Supreme Court decides. They have long had free health care under Medicaid insurance for the poor. Under Obamacare, many states, such as California, extended Medicaid to people making more money than before, such as a couple with three children earning $39,206 a year.

[upchuck]

The Republicans needn't worry about this. Since none of them voted for nobamacare, the RATS own it 100%. They thought it was a swell idea. Fine, let them fix it. Here's a chance for nobama to show he really knows how to use that pen and that phone.

Am I being too harsh? NO!

Am I showing a "don't care" attitude towards those this may hurt? YES!

[upchuck]

Sharyl
Attkisson
Ping!

Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.

Amazon link to Sharyl's latest book.

Good news! Sharyl will be hosting a 30 minute Sunday morning talk show on the Sinclair network this fall. Info.

[Menehune56]

Been worried lately that John Roberts will take one for the team again since both major political parties apparently want to keep O-care.

[Lorianne]

“They would suddenly be exposed to the reality faced by those who aren’t getting subsidies: insurance may cost more, come with higher deductibles, and provide less coverage.”

They already face that reality even with the subsidies. Many people can barely afford the premiums even with the subsidies but they cannot afford the deductibles and co-pays. A $6,000 deductible per person might as well be a million. Either way, they can’t pay it. It would wipe them out.

So really, what are they getting for their premiums ... even with the subsidy? From people I’ve talked with, some who were enthusiastic supporters of Obamacare, many are well aware of what is going on with this and how screwed they are.

[Timber Rattler]

Morons.

[KC_Lion]

Thank You so much for the Ping Upchuck!

Could Sharyl's Articles Get any better?

[tumblindice]

Once again the Republicans are dithering over offending the wrong people.

[PGalt]

Obamacare Hillarycare.

Obama is the Clinton's lawn jockey whose greatest claim to fame is riding the Trojan Horse, Hillarycare, to the finish line.

The stable boys in the GOPe clean the stalls.

[Major Matt Mason]

What a complete bunch of losers these guys are. They could have been laying the ground work the past few months explaining why Obamacare was a poorly conceived bill, and that any bad results from the courts were the result of the poor legislation put together by Obama and the Democrats. Instead, they went into the fetal position and decided that giving Obama everything he wants was the way to go. What will they do when the taxes start kicking in next year? I'm afraid to even find out at this point.

[Yosemitest]

Just one small problem:

The "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" are trying to amend it TO SAVE IT
under the FALSE PRETENSE that they're trying to destroy its mandate
(which that provision will NEVER make it out of the "RESOLUTION COMMITTEE") .

The GOP NEVER FAILS TO SNACH DEFEAT from the jaws of VICTORY !

ANYTHING OBAMA SAYS is worthless.
Watch what he does, and not what he says.
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF wants ~ and is DIRECTING the policies that regulate ALL health care plans
in the United States ~ TO FAIL !
NEVER FORGET THAT !

Many of us have said for many years that Obama is doing this INTENTIONALLY.
He using the old Soviet Plan from 1934 or earlier.




Only idiots and the evil voted for Obama, or ANY of the Democrats.
AND NOW, WE CAN ADD "Establishment Republicans" TO THAT LIST, ALSO!
They've lied to us, constantly, and really are "Collapsing the System".
And now, these "Useful IDIOTS" who voted for them, are buying the lies that "Obamacare was designed to work." ?
It was designed to fail from the start.
THEN ... THEY GO TO THE "SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM".

Flashback: Obama's Campaign to Transition to Single Payer Health Care (VIDEO)


obama master plan on health careover the years in his own words--SINGLE PAYER!!! ( 3:38 )

They've been sucking our wallets dry for over four years now on the "Obamacare" LIE.
AND NOW THEY WANT MORE TAXES ?
Our Founding Fathers would have hung them already!

Lets review:

Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion?

...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...

Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim
that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.

"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)

So Democrats,

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM,
and now YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

Sen Mark Kirk's statement Thursday, Dec 1, 2011 ...

"There are 55 million Social Security beneficiaries that will see little or no extra cash from this 2012 tax holiday;
instead, the dedicated payroll contributions meant to pay for future benefits are being diverted from the Trust Fund
and replaced with Treasury debt that does not even have a AAA credit rating.
Social Security was designed to be independent and free from the danger of Congressional manipulation,
and maintaining the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general government funding is the best way to maintain the solvency of this important program.
Neither bill protects the Social Security Trust Fund
so I voted no. "

It's not our fault that DEMOCRATS raided the Social Security Trust Fund.
Let's remember ...

Not ALL are to blame for the empty lock box.

It's the Democrats Communists.

Let's take a deeper look.

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS need to shut up!!!

[Political Junkie Too]

“There are Republicans right now scared to death that we’re going to win,” says one Republican leader who did not want to be quoted by name.

they worry the public wouldn’t view a strike-down of the subsidies as a weakness in Obamacare, but would instead blame Republicans for taking money away from them.

These Republicans also worry that the news media will coalesce behind that view, making it difficult to overcome from a public relations standpoint.

It's time for these self-serving incompetents to get out of the kitchen. If they can't take the heat, then step aside and let the next generation take over.

-PJ

[etcb]

Americans would likely find the health care law less palatable if tax money isn’t helping pay for their mandatory policies.

It was my understanding that if subsidies were not available in a state, there could be no individual penalities for residents of that state and also the employer mandate could not be applied. Am I wrong about that?

[A CA Guy]

Also, if you have a family and just one of them is not insured they fine the whole family income.
Sounds like government sucking the life out of the middle class right there.

We only pay 9 thousand for our lousy insurance.
People who are broke get much better insurance for 15% of what I pay for the worst stuff.
If I got what the poor gets for near nothing it would cost me about $13,000 a year.

Where did the $2600 a year saving promised by our dictator Obama go?

[EagleUSA]

Obamacare remains a GROWING cancer by design. It must be taken down. As a starting point, our medical system should be returned to the way it was pre-Obamacare. Amazing things would happen to the cost of medical care which has been steadily inflating itself since the start of Obamacare, necessary and not necessary. The system can be re-evaluated at that point and with FREEDOM OF CHOICE returned to the people, the industry will become more competitive again. It all hinges on getting rid of Obamacare mandates and vote-buying giveaways.

[PGR88]

Conservatives must realize - you can NOT fight the effects of decades of an unlimited printing press of Federal Reserve fiat money, government debt and fake interest rates.

When every long-term, progressive social-engineering project can be implemented by government, societal attitudes change. Americans now expect government goodies, the power of the state grows, no one must ever be told “there’s no money” and we (and even the SCOTUS) have discovered all kinds of new “rights,” which someone else pays for.

[Ray76]

> they worry the public wouldn’t view a strike-down of the subsidies as a weakness in Obamacare, but would instead blame Republicans for taking money away from them.

These people are MORONS. The Democrat party passed it and are entirely responsible for it. Of course they know this, so I will upgrade them from morons to LIARS.

[etcb]

I went to the Heritage Foundation and found the following summary:

Abstract

If the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell are successful, an Obama Administration rule granting certain premium tax credits to those who obtain insurance through federal health care “exchanges” will be struck down. Absent action by the federal government or states, a ruling for the plaintiffs and against the Obama Administration would mean that individuals for whom insurance coverage became a greater out-of-pocket expense (exceeding 8 percent of their income in any given month) without the premium support tax credit would become exempt from the individual mandate. Furthermore, employers in states that refused to set up Obamacare exchanges would be exempt from the employer mandate because no federal outlays would be made to trigger the penalty. King is a consequential initial step on the road toward dismantling and replacing the ill-considered Obamacare statutory scheme.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Get rid of absurd mandates like pediatric care for sixty year olds and allow people to pick their care from companies across state lines and the cost of insurance will drop so much they won’t need government subsidies to keep them enslaved to the politicians.....

[pfflier]

According to a dozen Congressional Republicans who discussed the topic but did not wish to be named, they worry the public wouldn’t view a strike-down of the subsidies as a weakness in Obamacare, but would instead blame Republicans for taking money away from them.

Newsflash...these people probably wouldn't vote for a republican if the election was uncontested.

[Ronin]

Republicans are amazing. They can always find a way to kick themselves in the ass, shoot themselves in the foot, and otherwise snatch defeat from the slavering jaws of victory.