Posted on 03/23/2017 4:05:02 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
I am so pissed off at Trump right now on this issue. Part of draining the swamp is making lawmakers subject to the laws they pass. What’s good for the goose must be good for the gander. Ryancare still exempts our rulers/betters while cramming this crap down our throats. REPEAL ONLY.
It is still legal for lawmakers to benefit from insider trading; that is a disgrace as well!
This fact tells us all we need to know about "lawmakers".
Matt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
My predicted scenario: The Ryancare Obamalite bill passes in the House today or in the next few days. Then the Senate ‘rats don’t pass it and it goes back to the House who write it correctly this time without entitlements, etc.
It might be premature to attack President Trump on this - he has veto power and will not sign a bill that is contrary to his campaign promises. I have full confidence in this.
The issues I can’t get past are the fees for not having insurance: those would be way more than the present penalty/tax and the lack choice in your coverage: I do not want need or desire to cover either pregnancy, birth control NOR Viagra. [And especially abortions!!] But I do not see that the present bill offers relief for that. Could be wrong.
My understanding is that the fee for not having insurance is NOW (w/new bill) only charged once you DO get insurance, after not having coverage. Not the yearly tax/fee for not having.
Supposedly choices FOR coverage will now expand.
The EHB’s you listed are now to be removed from being mandatory coverage, BIG change from 0Care.
> Otherwise, it will be a political disaster for the GOP and a waste of everyone’s time.
It’s certainly a waste of time. The issue is whether they do something now or waste the rest of 2017 on it. I can see this easily dragging on through the summer. Then they pass a crappy “ACA replace and rename bill” in the fall because they “promised to do something”. Then they push everything else to 2018 since “the budget is so important”. Then they pass a crappy Omnicrap budget in December after getting exactly NOTHING done in 2017. That’s how Ryan and republicans have worked since they got the majority. It’s obvious they had no plan for having a republican president and intended to follow the same pattern of getting nothing done and blaming the president for their lack of results.
Trump can’t force them to pass good bills (they don’t follow Ryan like Ds followed Pelosi). But hopefully he can negotiate republican bills in many areas and a republican budget.
I hate what they have now but prefer they rename it (the current “replace and repeal”) quick and get something done on taxes, budget, immigration, and other issues this year.
There seems to be little/no interested in R leadership to save money on Obama-Ryancare. So they better fix taxes (increase revenue), create jobs (move people off medicaid), and fix immigration (stop wasting money on benefits for illegals)
Right. As long as people save money on their insurance premiums, it will probably be considered a political success no matter how bad the rest of it may be.
“Charles Krauthammer declared that ‘For all its catastrophic flaws, ObamaCare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?’”
Isn’t this the way it always is? The leftists, when in power, institute some new “entitlement” program and the Repulsicans put up a half-hearted battle against it. Then, when the Repulsicans come to power, they make some window-dressing changes and say they can’t do more because people don’t want to have their “benefits” taken away.
So we have no rollback of socialism, no gain in individual freedom, “entitlement” spending is about 60% of the federal budge, and we’re about $20 trillion in debt.
Exemptocrats. You are right about.. if their sons, daughters, wives. And mothers had to suffer like the working class.. maybe things would look a lot different.
They are NOT!
Wait and see what is voted on and who supports it.
Then, wait again to see what the Senate changes.
Then, wait again to see what comes out of House/Senate negotiations.
Then, wait again to see what Tom Price changes in the regulations.
If they simply drafted a bill that even you considered perfect, it would DIE on the vine.
What you are describing is the essentials of Obamacare. Use “tax credits” as a new name for the “subsidies” and you have Obamacare 2.0.
The swamp is deeper than lots of folks here realize.
Yes. The number I heard is 30% of your premium for a year. If a policy is 1,000/mo thats 300x12 or 3600.
Thats a chunk o’ change. [add dollar signs where appropriate]
[And I did not pluck $1000 out of the air...there are several folks I know who have to buy independent policies and thats what a midlevel BCBS plan with no subsidy is costing....with a $5k deduct. Thats not insurance: thats a punishment, imho]
Not sure who collects it or who it goes to.
The zerocare law left way too much power to the HHS bureaucrats and Secretary and resulted in regulations that, for one example, allowed for abortion coverage even tho they piously denied abortions would be covered.
Things like that need to be written in the law and not promised in some gauzey phase 2 or 3.
I know we cannot go all the way back to the way it was though I wouldn’t mind it. heck, some 86% of folks were happy with it. Instead of repealing it we get this tinkering around the edges and now want to own a modified p.o.s.bill.
The rhetoric shifted from REPEAL! to repeal and replace to well-this-is-the-best-we-can-do...just wait till you see phase 2.
This fanatic carping about tax credits is a foolish losing strategy.
A portion of the population not obtaining insurance from employers using before tax employer funds is discriminated against. The equalizing should really happen to arrive at adjusted gross income rather than a tax credit. If no taxes are due, no credit is possible and the inequity still exists.
If you propose taxing the employer provided insurance payments you are just foolish. It ain’t gonna happen
Not sure who collects it or who it goes to.
Unfortunately....I THINK it goes to the insurance company.
Bailing out/covering insurance cos for covering pre-existing??? Not sure.
Actually these are refundable tax credits, which indeed makes it a straight subsidy by any other name.
You are right that the current law is discriminatory against the employer provided, but that should be corrected by phasing the employer provided out (and an equalizing tax deduction before and as that is done is indeed fair).
But compounding the market distortion by simply adding bad-policy tax credits to bad-policy employer-provided deductibility is further destructive to the free market. It also leads to a significantly lesser incentive effect to income tax policy.
Sadly, you are right.
We have a few resident concern trolls here already, and it’s not necessarily low-IQ individuals who fall for their nonsense.
I am among the group who was vehemently opposed to Trump early on in the primary. Eventually, he won me over, and I am now 100% behind him, even though I don’t always agree with him 100%. I do trust him to do the right thing for our country.
There are others here who have never gotten beyond their opposition to Trump, and they post frequently.
Oh, well, so glad I can pray for the success of Trump’s presidency.
Want to make sure that they do the right thing? Make sure that Congress is NOT exempt from the law.
I know, wishful thinking. But wouldn’t that make a great 14th Amendment equal protection suit?
High risk pool just means you pay a higher premium for the insurance.
Question: Why should bad drivers pay low auto insurance?
Answer: They don’t. They pay higher rates because they pose a bigger risk of claiming compensation.
Conservatives? Did I miss ‘em?
Still haven’t heard anyone pipe-up about Constitutional authority. Power to *tax* sure, but still nothing from the WHY or WHERE part of the discussion.
General welfare is a clause, it doesn’t negate A1S8, the 1st\5th\9th\10th a/o 13th.
for eight years the R and conservatives could hide behind the indifference of Obama. How many times was anyone invited to whitehouse? the president going to the hill?
now we have the Koch brothers trying to buy the power by paying for house members conservative or otherwise. Ivory tower pretend fighting.
old saying: those with tender stomachs should never watch law or sausage being made.
No, high risk pools as they existed pre-Obamacare were set up by some of the states to cover those the insurance companies would not cover. They were required because the government did not mandate pre-existing issue coverage. Since Trumpcare retains that requirement then why would states re-establish them. If they did away with the pre-existing coverage requirement then would the feds require states to set them up once again? Like I said before, only half the states had them.
Answer: They don’t. They pay higher rates because they pose a bigger risk of claiming compensation.
Auto insurance companies can also dump you as a customer. Health care insurance companies can't. Which is why their costs are so high.
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.