- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I hope T R U M P has an ace up his sleeve with this Obamacare subsidy move.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:10 pm
It is basically inevitable that this will blow up the whole healthcare system. Premiums are going up I'm telling you baws that right now. The subsidies were the only thing keeping Ocare alive on life support. The Democrats have ZERO incentive to come to the negotiating table. They just have to sit back and ride the shite storm of skyrocketing premiums back into power.
I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like from here.
I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like from here.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 3:12 pm
11
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:13 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Courts ruled it illegal. Don't know much more he has to say
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:16 pm to THDAY
quote:This.
Courts ruled it illegal. Don't know much more he has to say
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:16 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Huge risk taking away freebies for sure.
It will be interesting to follow.
I hope they actually try to fix the problem going forward instead of just handing out money which is all ACA did.
It will be interesting to follow.
I hope they actually try to fix the problem going forward instead of just handing out money which is all ACA did.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:28 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Trump's betting on two things:
1. Courts ruled the subsidies are illegal. He has an out and that most of the people will buy.
2. Associations buying insurance across state lines will increase or offset any losses from Obamacare users and will stabilize or reduced heath insurance costs.
1. Courts ruled the subsidies are illegal. He has an out and that most of the people will buy.
2. Associations buying insurance across state lines will increase or offset any losses from Obamacare users and will stabilize or reduced heath insurance costs.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:
1. Courts ruled the subsidies are illegal. He has an out and that most of the people will buy.
If you enjoy poking over to liberal forums to have a nice good chuckle every now and then
You would know that they have no fricking clue about that federal ruling and are all in on every state suing Trump for this in federal court and how unconstitutional this is
They are that stupid
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:34 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
I still think they should do a step-down approach.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:36 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
It is basically inevitable that this will blow up the whole healthcare system. Premiums are going up I'm telling you baws that right now. The subsidies were the only thing keeping Ocare alive on life support. The Democrats have ZERO incentive to come to the negotiating table. They just have to sit back and ride the shite storm of skyrocketing premiums back into power.
I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like from here.
He's hoping the voters will be dumb enough to blame it on Obama.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:37 pm to JJthomson
quote:
He's hoping the voters will be dumb enough to blame it on Obama.
Safe bet
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:44 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
On May 12, 2016, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the federal district court for the District of Columbia decided that the Obama administration cannot constitutionally reimburse insurers for the costs they incur in fulfilling their obligation under the ACA to reduce cost sharing for marketplace enrollees with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty level. Judge Collyer found that Congress has not specifically appropriated money for this purpose.
Why didn't the law include appropriations for CSRs? Was it a blunder by the author?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:50 pm to roadGator
quote:
Why didn't the law include appropriations for CSRs? Was it a blunder by the author?
She still hasnt read it
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:51 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
It is basically inevitable that this will blow up the whole healthcare system.
I thought that was the whole point? He couldn't get Congress to pass a repeal/replace bill on their own time, so now he ends the subsidies (that were illegal anyway) which inevitably destroys the ACA system and forces Congress to actually do something with healthcare
Posted on 10/13/17 at 3:55 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Congress can authorize the funding because they are the paid shills for the insurance companies and Trump will act like he worked really really hard to fix it.
And they all go golfing together and laugh and toast that Obamacare will never go away.
And they all go golfing together and laugh and toast that Obamacare will never go away.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:00 pm to mahdragonz
Now Congress if they give a shite about anything other than whining can actually do something that would be LEGAL, was no pressure on them before.
This is only the subsidies to insurance companies, not like all the handouts are going away, on the order of $7B this year and $10B next year.
Can the dems convince their dumbshit voters that mean old Trump took away all their handouts>
This is only the subsidies to insurance companies, not like all the handouts are going away, on the order of $7B this year and $10B next year.
Can the dems convince their dumbshit voters that mean old Trump took away all their handouts>
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:00 pm to roadGator
quote:
Why didn't the law include appropriations for CSRs? Was it a blunder by the author?
It was probably intentional. break it so badly that the only solution is single payer.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:10 pm to roadGator
quote:
Why didn't the law include appropriations for CSRs? Was it a blunder by the author?
Because like a lot of things with the Republicans today, if they see a bill they don't like, they tend to just say they won't pay it.
The law passed stating the government would make these payments , under the parameters of the law, Republicans in 2014 claimed they didn't approve the appropriation and so the president shouldn't make the payments. Then when the president made the payments they sued the administration(and also sued them for delaying the employer mandate, something they wanted done, but hey, when you have the opportunity to play partisan politics!). Its the equivalent of a congress getting the bill for Social Security and just saying they won't pay it. The precedent this actually sets is pretty consequential. It basically opens the door to every new congress just deciding they won't fund things they don't like. Completely usurping the democratic process through which such disagreements are usually confronted.
Like much of healthcare(Medicaid, Medicare, Employer insurance tax credit) the obligation is somewhat open-ended. So stating x amount of dollars just doesn't make any sense here.
EDIT: Fixed link
Of course, now the lawyers will be coming out. As this piece explains from a few years back:
LINK
His speculation on the case was off, but his explanation of the process is what it seems like we are about to observe as lots of commotion is going on with insurers lawyering up.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:21 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
This issue proves Cassidy is correct about block grants. Nothing can fix the system until there's accountability with spending. The subsidies are just a popular area of focus. From the state-level, there isn't a single request for Federal dollars that will be rejected.
If you look in the backyard, last summer Louisiana's legislature unanimously passed a bill that approved $70+ million for Medicaid MCO's. What made this particular matter unique was the explanation for the request... it was for "good will." The money wasn't requested to fund a current project or expense, it was to provide a bonus payment for contracts that expired the previous year.
Given the budget problems, such an expenditure would ordinarily catch people's attention. Fortunately, for this particular issue, legislative approval was only needed to request federally qualified money that would be distributed to the state.
That's just one example of a single bill in a single state. You can't fault any legislator for unanimously approving the bill that provides someone else's money to the people of their constituency. Honestly, fault should be applied to any representative who rejects such money. From a local perspective, every elected official should be pursuing every possible dollar available for healthcare before it runs out.
If you look in the backyard, last summer Louisiana's legislature unanimously passed a bill that approved $70+ million for Medicaid MCO's. What made this particular matter unique was the explanation for the request... it was for "good will." The money wasn't requested to fund a current project or expense, it was to provide a bonus payment for contracts that expired the previous year.
Given the budget problems, such an expenditure would ordinarily catch people's attention. Fortunately, for this particular issue, legislative approval was only needed to request federally qualified money that would be distributed to the state.
That's just one example of a single bill in a single state. You can't fault any legislator for unanimously approving the bill that provides someone else's money to the people of their constituency. Honestly, fault should be applied to any representative who rejects such money. From a local perspective, every elected official should be pursuing every possible dollar available for healthcare before it runs out.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:27 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Its the equivalent of a congress getting the bill for Social Security and just saying they won't pay it. The precedent this actually sets is pretty consequential. It basically opens the door to every new congress just deciding they won't fund things they don't like. Completely usurping the democratic process through which such disagreements are usually confronted.
What precedent?
You mean the constitution? The appropriations and taxing and spending clauses?
Congress decides how to spend federal money. And only Congress. They could cut funding to every single federal program tomorrow if they so choose. Arguing with them on "thats not fair" wont win either.
That is not some new revelation unless the constitution was written when Obama was in office.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:28 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I thought that was the whole point? He couldn't get Congress to pass a repeal/replace bill on their own time, so now he ends the subsidies (that were illegal anyway) which inevitably destroys the ACA system and forces Congress to actually do something with healthcare
I'm sure this is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:48 pm to Revelator
I'm all for some political brinksmanship but my problem is that this time us working stiffs are going to have to pick up the bill.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News