Posted on 12/21/2015 3:56:12 AM PST by rootin tootin
Yes, yes. I know. Only a RINO or a (Trumphradites may insert preferred epithet for thinking Republicans here) would claim that the House omnibus spending bill contains anything conservatives can applaud. It does, nonetheless, include such a provision. As Ronald Reagan (who signed several omnibus bills himself) famously said, facts are stubborn things. And one of the most intransigent facts about this bill is that it imposes a deadly dose of fiscal restraint on Obamacare. It requires the law's risk corridor program to remain budget neutral. This is far more dangerous to the Affordable Care Act than most observers realize.
Specifically, it thwarts the Obama administration plan to indiscriminately use taxpayer funds to revive Obamacare’s moribund insurance exchanges. These marketplaces are facing extinction because they have failed to hit their enrollment goals and the individuals who have signed up are far sicker, on average, than expected. Thus, insurers selling coverage through the exchanges are incurring unsustainable losses ... Senator Marco Rubio led a successful effort to insert language that forbade HHS to use general appropriations or Medicare funding to finance the risk corridor program.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“Trumphradites”, why the need to use that term?
And who determines what constitutes "remaining budget neutral"? And if (in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event) it is determined that HHS violated "budget neutrality", what is going to be done about it, and by whom?
The law only matters if it is obeyed and enforced. As we have seen many times the current inhabitant of the White House chooses which laws he will obey and enforce.
As to actually limiting spending, has there been an audit of this administration? Every day we a treated to Obama saying he is going to spend a billion here for some project and give a few billion to some country or international organization. Does Congress, or anyone else, know if this administration isn’t simply just spending money whether or not there is an appropriation?
A public corporation by law reconciles its books monthly during the closing process and files statements quarterly with the SEC. Its annual financial statements are audited by independent auditing firms. Does anyone know if the federal government ever reconciles its books or does it just keep collecting, borrowing and spending money?
When the time comes, Obama will ignore this...and Congress will gleefully go along.
Very difficult to read beyond the name calling
While RINOs might be insulting, it is a true characterization of people who have harmed this nation by supporting and enabling Clinton bush Obama after being hired to do the opposite
Where this name you use for Trump supporters insinuates something wrong with Trump supported, a majority of the conservative bar, by the way, that you alienate, who have good intentions for this country
It’s outrageous
Maybe they should try making all federal spending budget neutral for a while to see how that would work.
The RINOs aiding and abetting the goal of single payer healthcare.
If the ‘benefit’ claimed by the author is “it restricts the Corporate Risk Reduction program under HHS from using general fund $ for bailouts” it is an unintentional mistake by the RINO Ryan.
So, if Obama is forced earlier than necessary to call foul and let some exchanges go bankrupt, it will just force the overall Democrat call-to-single-payer all the earlier. The bill is spending more money than we earn, it doesn’t reduce entitlements, and even though it funds the military, Obama is using the military to help Iran and ISIS, IMO.
We got screwed and didn’t even get a kiss.
Rubio is a weasel & the author is shameless in bashing Trump & promoting Rubio ..... that being said, I have to give credit to Rubio for doing this. Of all the damage that could be done to Obamacare, cutting off the insurance company bailouts via taxpayer (i.e. unlimited) funds is causing Obamacare to implode. United Healthcare suggested strongly they might not be in the market next year ... this assures it. Other companies will drop like flies. Obamacare required the bailout to be revenue neutral, but Obama/HHS were going to ignore that; however, now they are they are forced to adhere to the law. I am somewhat shocked Rubio’s prohibitive language survived in a spending bill that gave Obama the keys to the treasury, but it’s a very good thing.
This was a disastrous idea poltiically.
The Democrats had owned Obama-Care.
You break it, you fix it — now the ‘G’ OP owns it. Their caving had been a perpetual and tacit acceptance of Obama-care, but now with the ‘G’ OP as the super-villains.
Gee, ‘thanks’, Paul Ryan. You will cave on this after you are blamed for killing patients. You need a new drastic plan, and fairly soon.]
That was already the law. We could have had that with a continuing resolution and saved money ...
This is just a puff piece for the Rube and his
Rubidiotic supporters affectionately called Rubidiots.
A flimsy attempt to portray Rubio as the sneaky little
runt that he is, but in a good light.
‘I have to give credit to Rubio for doing this.”
So now the ‘G’ OP owns the death panels while the Rats are Doctor Santa Claus. Oh this was ‘wonderful’.
No, the notion of Obama-care should be fought philosophically, not by being the penny-pinching Scrooge who looks upon Tiny Tim as part of the ‘surplus population’, or in this case as a ‘frivolous expense’.
Exactly laws are only good if they are obeyed and if there is someone there to kick some ass when they are not obeyed.
The audit would, by its nature, tell you if the agency spent more than they were appropriated by Congress. The audit would not necessarily tell you if they spent money in a way Congress not authorized by Congress, but the auditor would have to disclose that if it came to their attention.
I know all this because I am an accountant with the Department of Defense, who prepares the financial statements that are supposed to be audited.
HOORAY! More hope and change from “lawmakers”. /s
Gang of 536 (CONgre$$ and POSOTUS) should be in prison.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder - You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
“The Law” - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
This is a clear and present danger to the ‘G’ OP.
So Obama is Doctor Santa, while we are the Death Panel Grinch.
Standing for a diminished cost of healthcare is a lose-lose. We win when the debate is philosophical, not over economizing Obama’s death panels.
Darn. I read “re” as “in”...
I can’t answer your specific questions, but I can tell you that the same language has already worked last year. The insurance companies only got 12.6% of what they asked for. This is a huge blow to companies that had been assured by HHS/Obama that they would reimburse them (if not 100%, then close to it) for their losses. The original Obamacare bill calls for the companies making a profit to pay into the risk corridor “pool”. Those companies losing money would be reimbursed for their losses from this pool. Only money paid in by the insurance companies was to be used ... obviously, 12.6% was not “sufficient” to reimburse losses. The Obamacare business model is failing (despite the lies to the contrary you hear daily) & to keep the insurance companies from bolting Obamacare, reimbursement above & beyond the pool monies was going to be made out of taxpayer funds. Rubio’s language restricting it to Obamacare’s original intent (bailout only to the extent of monies in the pool) rather than letting HHS use other funds, caused havoc last year (UnitedHealth Group just announced they expect to lose $700 million in the Obamacare exchanges and are seriously considering withdrawing from the program in the coming year - this language for a 2nd year in a row will assure they withdraw) and is going to cause a further stampede of companies to flee the Obamacare market.
Several most excellent articles on the subject at this link - last 3 in particular:
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.