Executive order to gut the ACA possibly incoming?

[ezgeze]

Just because he says something is the law doesn't mean it actually is.

If these subsidies were illegal, why has the GOP never challenged them in court in their attempts to sink the ACA over the past nearly decade now?

I mean, surely if they had such a simple legal path to undermining the ACA (and DACA) they would have taken it years ago, no?

The house did sue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...acare-lawsuit/

Judge Collyer, presiding in Washington, said the administration violated the Constitution when it made “cost-sharing” payments to Obamacare insurers, over the objections of Congress, which had zeroed out the funding.
“Authorization and appropriation by Congress are nonnegotiable prerequisites to government spending,” she wrote.
Judge Collyer said it was illegal for the administration to continue making the payments. But she stayed her own decision to give Mr. Obama a chance to appeal her ruling

Obamacare was failing before Trump. Trump is just allowing it to continue to its ultimate demise. If Obamacare wasn't a shitstain of a law and didn't attempt to hide the true costs by appropriating bailout money to insurance companies outside of its own bill, these payments would have continued under a law passed though the congress. Instead, Obama decided to bypass the house entirely and give away billions of dollars he had no power to authorize doing.

[Zan15]

If that were true, there wouldn't need to be an executive order to make it happen.

the exec order was a pony show...means nothing.

BTW here is the section in the ACA that allows it.

Here is a link that talks about it in march and has scans of the actual bill
http://jamiedupree.blog.palmbeachpos...der-obamacare/




Section 1333 of Obamacare (ACA) enacted in March 2010 took full effect in January 2016 (“Allowing Purchases of Out-of-State Health Insurance”). It is captioned, “Provisions Relating To Offering of Plans In More than One State.” As put forth in the link, the National Conference of State Legislatures indicates that this section:

... permits states to form health care choice inter-state compacts to allow insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Two or more states may enter into compacts under which one or more insurance plans may be offered in the such states, subject to the laws and regulations of the state in which it was written.
The link goes on to scribe:

The insurer would remain subject to the market conduct, unfair trade practices, network adequacy, consumer protection, and dispute resolution standards of any state in which the insurance was sold, be licensed in each state, and notify consumers that it was not otherwise subject to the laws of this selling state. HHS would have to approve interstate insurance sales, certifying that the coverage would be as least as comprehensive as that sold through the exchange, provide coverage and cost-sharing protections at least as affordable and cover at least as many residents as coverage under Title I, and not increase the federal deficit.

As of December 2016, at least eight states have enacted what has become known as “Interstate Health Compacts,” a/k/a “Freedom Health Compacts,” which propose and authorize broader health markets outside of the ACA or other federal law (“States Pursue Health Compacts”). However, insurers have been reticent to write across state lines ― in fact, reports are that none have ― for a variety of reasons, such as issues related to establishing the delivery of in-network providers; laws governing the writing of such policies and the enforcement of its terms, i.e., where the policies are written or the residence of the insured; and the local costs associated with delivering health care

[Edge-]

The house did sue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...acare-lawsuit/

I stand corrected, thanks.

[Zan15]

Bye bye, Obamacare.....

“Republicans are meeting with Democrats because of what I did with the CSRs, because I cut off the gravy train. If I didn’t cut the CSRs, they wouldn’t be meeting. They’d be having lunch and enjoying themselves, alright? They’re right now having emergency meetings to get a short-term fix of health care, where premiums don’t have to double and triple every year like they’ve been doing under Obamacare. Because Obamacare is finished. It’s dead. It’s gone. It’s no longer — don’t — you shouldn’t even mention it. It’s gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore.” - President Donald J. Trump, 10/16/2017

Trump is wisely dismantling every aspect of the Obama "legacy".

at least you finally admit the real reason why he is doing this.


but hey fuck the poor in order to just dismantle obama's legacy


btw if insurance companies are not making money on ACA plans, how is it a gravy train? remember obamacare was failing and they all were losing money.

last time i checked losing money puts no one on the gravy train.



oh because premium increase are not a thing prior to ACA

[Fugus]

Obamacare was failing before Trump. Trump is just allowing it to continue to its ultimate demise. If Obamacare wasn't a shitstain of a law and didn't attempt to hide the true costs by appropriating bailout money to insurance companies outside of its own bill, these payments would have continued under a law passed though the congress. Instead, Obama decided to bypass the house entirely and give away billions of dollars he had no power to authorize doing.

Obamacare wasn't failing, from all data given it was actually doing fairly well. Typically when I see this remark claiming it is failing, typically shows that the person saying it is't paying attention.

[Hammerfest]

the exec order was a pony show...means nothing.

We'll see.

[ezgeze]

Obamacare wasn't failing, from all data given it was actually doing fairly well. Typically when I see this remark claiming it is failing, typically shows that the person saying it is't paying attention.

It sure was failing. Companies were dropping from the exchanges left and right. Many areas//states had 1 or even 0 companies left in the exchanges. What about coverage? How about offering choices tailored to the obvious? We are currently mandating a 70 year old for reproductive related costs. Increased taxes on medical devices? Yeah. Tell me how taxing things used in medicine/healthcare is a good thing. I am sure that wheelchair tax sure helps grandma afford that wheelchair. What about that $2500 savings Obama said we were going to see? It didn't happen. How about keeping our favorite doctor? Another lie. What about the enrollment numbers that were forcasted? Oh that's right, lets expand Medicare and dump millions on it and claim Obamacare itself is a success. What a load of crap. What Obamacare essentially is doing is creating a marketplace of majority high risk, high medical using people subsidized by the government and a minority of healthy users who cannot don't currently need care but are too poor to afford the premiums so many actually just choose to pay a fine and go without insurance at all. Oh, and you don't even really need to pay the fine, increasing the costs of Obamacare itself. That's ACA in a nutshell.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#766e5dd711d2

Yes, It Was The 'Affordable' Care Act That Increased Premiums
While the debate proceeds over some details of the American Health Care Act, it’s worth pausing to take another look at how awfully misnamed the so-called “Affordable” Care Act has turned out to be, especially for people who buy their health plans on their own, rather than obtain it through an employer. While advocates and politicians have cited numerous examples of people facing huge premium increases, ACA advocates have been able to respond that those are cherry-picked cases, or that premiums were increasing before the ACA and would have increased anyway.
Those responses are no longer plausible. It turns out that across the board, for all ages and family sizes, for HMO, PPO, and POS plans, premium increases averaged about 60 percent from 2013, the last year before ACA reforms took effect, to 2017. In same length of time preceding that, all groups experienced premium increases of less than 10 percent, and most age groups actually experienced premium decreases, on average.

These findings come from new data from eHealth, which not only sells ACA Marketplace health plans, but sold a wide variety of health plans through its own website for many years before the ACA was passed, as well as both on and off the Exchanges after the ACA took effect. For years starting with 2014, the data include ACA-compliant, non-employer-sponsored plans sold both on and off exchanges. It does not include premium subsidies, which in any case are available only to on-exchange purchasers with qualifying income.
The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards.

In each case, the increases differed among age groups, with families headed by those under 30 and over 50 generally being hit the hardest by the ACA premiums increases. However, once we remove the self-sorting into different plan types, and average each age group and household type (i.e., family or individual), the results are very consistent – in the four years before the ACA, every age group and family type either experienced a premium decrease, or an increase of 9.2% or less. However, in the first four years of the ACA, every age group and household type experienced an increase of between 56.0% and 63.2%. For something as complex as health care, that’s a pretty narrow range. The dollar amounts of the increase varied from $2,524 for an individual between the ages of 31 and 40, to $12,040 for a family headed by someone over age 60. But the percentages are remarkably consistent: The ACA raised premiums by about 60 percent.

[Zan15]

We'll see.

huh? how is that even an answer?

i posted you the actual ACA language.

My god son just say, "oh shit i did not know that" guess it was in there the whole time......

[Fugus]

SNIP

It was not failing, the premiums were already raising before the ACA was implemented, the ACA actually slowed the rate that raise happened with the 80/20 rule included in it. Some of it's biggest problems had to do with the 12 states that blocked it hurting those states along with Atena who intentionally sabotaged it as one of the big providers in retaliation for them being blocked from merging with Humana.

And your link was to an opinion piece.

Never said the ACA was the best thing, it wasn't it was honestly shit. But as shit as it was, it was still better than what it replaced and every single alternative to what the Republicans has put forward and overall was NOT failing. Part of the reason why they wanted to sabotage it because it wasn't going to fail on it's own.

[Zan15]

It sure was failing. Companies were dropping from the exchanges left and right. Many areas//states had 1 or even 0 companies left in the exchanges.

Welp that is not true, every county and exchange has been covered for 2018, there are no exchanges left with 0 companies.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...re-bare-county

What about coverage? How about offering choices tailored to the obvious? We are currently mandating a 70 year old for reproductive related costs. Increased taxes on medical devices?

How about the fact when that 70 year old was 30, people were helping to offset the cost of his reproductive related cost.

oh and you obviously don't know how insurance works, if you want to regulate everything by age there is but a handful of people in this country whom will be able to even afford insurance over 50, since the cost increases exponentially from there.
Then why should someone in the 20-30's pay for the vast majority of expenses of a 70 year old?? because they will eventually be 70. sigh. that is how insurance works.

I. What about that $2500 savings Obama said we were going to see? It didn't happen.
How about keeping our favorite doctor? Another lie.
What about the enrollment numbers that were forcasted? Oh that's right, lets expand Medicare and dump millions on it and claim Obamacare itself is a success.

In fact you saved more then 2500 in the first 4 years of the ACA. the ACA reduced the premium increases that were forecast before the ACA we effective.

You had every right to keep your favorite doctor, nothing changed or forced your doctor to drop you. However you doctor did also have the right to leave you! He could retire, he could choose not to participate in X insurance, and the insurance company under the ACA did not have to keep your doctor in the network.

so you were given what was told. you will be able to keep your doctor, but obama never promised he would stay.

so if he retired would you still blame obama that you did not get to keep your doctor???

What about the enrollment numbers that were forcasted? Oh that's right, lets expand Medicare and dump millions on it and claim Obamacare itself is a success. What a load of crap. What Obamacare essentially is doing is creating a marketplace of majority high risk, high medical using people subsidized by the government and a minority of healthy users who cannot don't currently need care but are too poor to afford the premiums so many actually just choose to pay a fine and go without insurance at all. Oh, and you don't even really need to pay the fine, increasing the costs of Obamacare itself. That's ACA in a nutshell.

Slow down bro, no one was dumped into Medicare. I think you mean Medicaid.

Guess what the ACA is both the exchanges and Medicaid. The forecast numbers were very close overall, just where the people landed under the ACA program ended up being different, the end result was a very close numbers when projecting things multiple years out for millions of people...on top of a huge campaign by political parties to tell people not to sign up and pay the fine instead. tack on the # of people paying the fines that exceeded that estimate and poof you easily hit you numbers.





So after all this i ask you, what is your solution??? You seem to know what is wrong, so how do you fix it? just kick 30 million people to the curb??? end ACA and Medicaid and screw them??

Tell us all we are waiting for your answer

[LaserSharkDFB]

It sure was failing. Companies were dropping from the exchanges left and right. Many areas//states had 1 or even 0 companies left in the exchanges. What about coverage? How about offering choices tailored to the obvious? We are currently mandating a 70 year old for reproductive related costs. Increased taxes on medical devices? Yeah. Tell me how taxing things used in medicine/healthcare is a good thing. I am sure that wheelchair tax sure helps grandma afford that wheelchair. What about that $2500 savings Obama said we were going to see? It didn't happen. How about keeping our favorite doctor? Another lie. What about the enrollment numbers that were forcasted? Oh that's right, lets expand Medicare and dump millions on it and claim Obamacare itself is a success. What a load of crap. What Obamacare essentially is doing is creating a marketplace of majority high risk, high medical using people subsidized by the government and a minority of healthy users who cannot don't currently need care but are too poor to afford the premiums so many actually just choose to pay a fine and go without insurance at all. Oh, and you don't even really need to pay the fine, increasing the costs of Obamacare itself. That's ACA in a nutshell.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#766e5dd711d2

Counterpoint: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/emp...s-and-the-aca/

In 2011, the average employer-sponsored family plan premium jumped up 9 percent from 2010 — a big increase compared with the mere 3 percent increase for the year before. Republicans blamed the Affordable Care Act, but several independent experts told us the bulk of the increase was due to rising health care costs. They estimated that a 1 percent to 3 percent increase was attributable to benefit requirements instituted by the ACA.

Those benefit requirements included: covering preventive care without copays or deductibles, allowing adult children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26, increasing annual coverage limits, and covering children without regard for preexisting conditions. Experts also expected a boost to premiums that year simply due to the very low growth the previous year.

Gail Wilensky, who was the head of the Medicare and Medicaid programs during the George H.W. Bush administration and is now a senior fellow at Project HOPE, a health training and humanitarian organization, told us the increase due to the ACA provisions in 2011 would have been static.

“Those changes have been built into the rates, starting in 2012, so that unless there is a change in the provisions, they are still there but not growing,” she said in an email to FactCheck.org. “It’s why many of the insurance companies said in 2012 that even if the Supreme Court nullified the ACA, they would/could still keep those provisions.”

So much of the ACA has been studied and analyzed, but we could find no research that has attempted to tease out how much of the low growth in employer premiums since 2011 could be attributable to the health care law.

“We don’t think the ACA could have had much more of an effect on premiums beyond the 1-3 percent increase in 2011 attributable to those early requirements,” Fredric Blavin, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, told us in an email. “The biggest changes under the law since 2011 were the Marketplace and Medicaid coverage expansions in 2014, but very little has changed in the employer market (especially since the Cadillac Tax was delayed).”

...

There’s some truth to Spicer’s statement about employer-based insurance premiums going up because of the ACA. But the impact has been small and related to increased benefit requirements in 2011. Since then, employer plans have been growing at historically low average rates.

There's plenty of analysis on the ACA, but no consensus. But even if the ACA was dying, what Trump has done will make it inarguably worse.

[Fugus]

@Zan15

Thank you, had no time to get too elaborate on anything tonight. Just gave a quick 1 minute response to the last one because real life has me splitting attention between laundry and making sure kids are in bed for school.

[Mormolyce]

The irony here is that the US might end up with single payer because the Republicans fought Obamacare too hard.

[Fugus]

The irony here is that the US might end up with single payer because the Republicans fought Obamacare too hard.

One thing I honestly been seeing as a funny possibility long before this that just keeps getting closer. From how I have seen it....

Obama actually did it right with the ACA because of how the republicans reacted. They tried everything they could to screw it up and fuck it up. If Obama had released single payer, they would have tried to make it look horrible so too many would think it was just bad without looking into it. Instead, many of them see it as the ACA not going far enough and wanting Single Payer more.

Then you had Sanders coming in actually pushing for it and getting huge crowds over his stuff getting people more into it and forcing it into the conversation which then got increased more when Clinton cheated to get past him with all her crap.

Now, you had the republicans coming out with their stuff and all of them failing so badly in the other direction they actually made the ACA more popular. Then this, the public opinion for Single Payer is getting stronger and stronger the more the Republicans and the Republican-Lite Democrats try to fight and sabotage it or anything like it.

[Dontrike]

The Democrats created this - they fuck it up - and it is entirely THEIR mess. To try to push this onto Trump is fucking hilarious.

Let's see he quite literally swept the leg out from under the ACA so it could fail intentionally then brags how it failed because he "knew it would". So yes, it is all on him because he caused it.

Trump couldn't do it fairly with 4 attempts and had to use his get out of jail free card to ruin it when it was doing fine, but why care about American citizens when you can do the complete opposite at every turn. No president in history has tried so hard to undo what the previous one did, this is getting to the point where Trump has to have a crush on Obama-senpai and just wants him to notice how "good" he's doing.

Seriously, who should we blame except Trump for causing this? He could have waited for it to fail and then it would have proven his point, but instead he decided to do this, only making him look not only like an impatient child but a complete butthole for starting it off because he couldn't get rid of it through proper channels.

Obamacare was failing before Trump. Trump is just allowing it to continue to its ultimate demise.

The reason I shot my grandma was because she was going to die one day, I'm just "allowing her to continue to her ultimate demise" after all so it's okay.

[ezgeze]

The reason I shot my grandma was because she was going to die one day, I'm just "allowing her to continue to her ultimate demise" after all so it's okay.

That has got to be the dumbest fucking analogy I ever read.

[Felya]

That has got to be the dumbest fucking analogy I ever read.

Trump is now supporting a congress bill that would restore funding. Backpedal time!

[ezgeze]

Trump is now supporting a congress bill that would restore funding. Backpedal time!

Backpedal how exactly? Trump said the payments were illegal, they were. He is at least seeming to support a legal payment measure assuming it passes congress.

[Poopymonster]

Backpedal how exactly? Trump said the payments were illegal, they were. He is at least seeming to support a legal payment measure assuming it passes congress.

Which court decided they were illegal? I mean, that's where that shit is decided.

[ezgeze]

Which court decided they were illegal? I mean, that's where that shit is decided.

Some things should be so basic that it shouldn't need the courts to determine if its illegal or not.
Example:

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution unambiguously declares that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.”

Anyone with basic reading/comprehension skills would be able to see this for what it is. The ACA bailout payments to insurance companies were not authorized by congress therefore unconstitutional.

If that's not basic enough how about the federal judge that ruled the Obama administration has been improperly funding an Obamacare subsidy program?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...lawsuit-223121

Congress authorized the program but never actually provided the money for it, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer.

"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one,” wrote Collyer.