Republicans move to spend billions on Obamacare — before they kill it

[GMDino]

Eight years.

They had eight years to "craft a plan" to replace the existing one.

They still don't have one.

For most of my adult life, whenever the GOP has total control of congress they have had no long term plan just one to keep saying they have a plan and hope people vote before they catch on.

It's sad.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-obamacare-subsidies-233618

Quote:On their way to killing Obamacare, Republicans are leaning toward funding up to $9 billion in health care subsidies this year to keep the program afloat — even though they sued the Obama administration to stop those exact payments.


The move is the most significant sign yet that the GOP is serious about propping up Obamacare temporarily to provide a smooth transition to a yet-to-be disclosed Republican replacement.



The irony is deep: Republicans have never voluntarily funded an Obamacare program. This particular subsidy, which covers out-of-pocket health care costs for low-income participants, has been a GOP target since 2014 when House Republicans went to court to argue the White House funded it unconstitutionally. Republicans were exultant last May when the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in their favor, even though the payments were allowed to continue pending an appeal.


Now, though, several Republican sources say they will have no choice but to appropriate the money. With President-elect Donald Trump and top lawmakers vowing a smooth transition to a new plan, they can't blow up Obamacare until they enact a replacement.


Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wants to see the program funded “one way or another," he told POLITICO. “If you don’t, the plans have the ability to cancel midyear, and we said we wouldn’t pull the rug out from under people — and we shouldn’t.”


The court case centers on cost-sharing subsidies that help certain low income people with out-of-pocket medical costs, such as doctors' co-pays — not the separate premium subsidies that are helping millions of people, including some middle-class families, purchase insurance through Obamacare.


If Republicans were to stop the payments, they would risk owning the very sudden and likely collapse of the Obamacare exchange markets. That’s because insurers would still be on the hook for the payments under the law, and would likely flee the markets almost immediately to avoid paying out billions.

Cutting off the money mid-year, “would be disastrous” for the state’s insurance market and those covered by it, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wrote House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Friday, urging Congress to fund the subsidies until year's end.


“As we work to re-craft healthcare in our country, we must be careful not to increase the rate of uninsured, particularly for our most vulnerable citizens,” Herbert wrote.


If Republicans do support the program, however, some fear they would be blamed for “bailing out” insurance companies. One idea that has been floated to counter that narrative is to give the funding directly to consumers rather than to insurance companies.


“What they say is, we’re only doing this because they can’t change the law quickly enough,” said Tom Miller, a health care policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute.


Several Republican sources stressed that no final decisions have been made, but they will have to come soon: The court allowed the subsidies to continue while the Obama administration appealed the decision. The Trump administration must inform the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by Feb. 21 whether it will continue that appeal. If it should stand down, the payments could end almost immediately and Congress would have to be prepared to make a decision.


Republican conversations around how to deal with the fallout of the House v. Burwell lawsuit include how the subsidy program would be funded — whether in an appropriations bill or in one of the Obamacare repeal and replacement bills— and whether the entirety of the $9 billion program would be replaced.


“While we build replacements, we want the 11 million Americans who now buy insurance on the exchanges to be able to continue to buy private insurance,” Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said on the Senate floor. “Among the actions that will help are to… approve the temporary continuation of cost-sharing subsidies for deductibles and co-pays.”


Not everyone is on board with the argument that Republicans should continue the subsidy through an appropriation.݅

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations subcommittee, said the GOP isn’t responsible for funding the mistakes Democrats made while writing Obamacare.


“You can’t [fund the program] unless you’re going to increase the allocation to the committee,” he told POLITICO, referring to the overall limits on health spending his committee must work with. If the House has to fund the program, other health care programs would have to be cut to pay for it.


“I don’t know that we're particularly obligated to pay for the mistakes that the Obama administration made that violated the law,” he said.


But even Cole said he wants to see a smooth transition and doesn’t want to see benefits dropped suddenly.


Insurance companies have a huge stake in the program. The cost-sharing payments are made to insurers, who must use them to defray consumers' out-of-pocket costs. The companies added language to their contracts for 2017 that allows them to leave the market is the payments are ended, although they have not said that they would definitely drop coverage immediately.


Besides its strategy on Obamacare, the House has long-term constitutional concerns in the case.


For the first time, a federal district court said the legislature could sue the White House over appropriations disputes. The House wants to ensure that ruling stands, according to senior Republican aides. They’re likely to lose on that point if the Trump administration moves ahead with the Obama administration’s appeal, according to court-watchers.


“The D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] consists of a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan Law School professor who argues the House doesn’t have the right to sue. “I think this is not a long-term winner for them.”

That means the House has a strong incentive to encourage the Trump administration to drop the appeal, even if that means a future White House could be sued by the House of Representatives.


“We’re working through the mechanics on it because we also want to preserve the court victory,” Walden said. “Regardless of who is in power, if you get to the point where a president can spend whatever he or she wants without any check and balance from the Congress, you don’t have these branches anymore.”


The first decision will come from the new Trump administration Justice Department. While several Republican sources expect Trump’s DOJ to drop the appeal, the president-elect’s transition team has not tipped its hand. A Trump spokesman declined to comment on the case because it involves the current White House.


“Upon taking office, the Trump administration will evaluate this case and all related aspects of the Affordable Care Act,” the spokesman said.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

The lack of a replacement for Obamacare after all this time tells you where their focus is or isn't.

[Benton]

That's what was frustrating about spending millions of tax dollars on Obamacare repeal attempts. They did it over and over knowing they didn't have a plan It was just hollow grandstanding.

On the other hand, if they had come up with a plan, said this is our alternative, and then tried to repeal it, then ok. At least try to do your job halfway instead of just taking an 8-year vacation.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-15-2017, 12:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The lack of a replacement for Obamacare after all this time tells you where their focus is or isn't.

Or it tells you they didn't expect to win the Oval Office.

Or maybe they actually do have a plan and the liberal blogs are ignoring it. I don't know, I haven't researched it but I don't let equally ignorant bloggers form my opinions. I am, however, willing to bet when Repubs eventually get around to voting on a plan that the "they don't have a plan" meme will be replaced by "their plan sucks' memes, or perhaps "their plan screws you" memes.

The main difference between Repubs and Dems is that many people still think there's a significant difference. In either case, none of that matters.  Results matter....and Obamacare was a disaster.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-15-2017, 04:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or it tells you they didn't expect to win the Oval Office.

Or maybe they actually do have a plan and the liberal blogs are ignoring it.  I don't know, I haven't researched it but I don't let equally ignorant bloggers form my opinions.  I am, however, willing to bet when Repubs eventually get around to voting on a plan that the "they don't have a plan" meme will be replaced by "their plan sucks' memes, or perhaps "their plan screws you" memes.

The main difference between Repubs and Dems is that many people still think there's a significant difference.  In either case, none of that matters.  Results matter....and Obamacare was a disaster.

So you're unaware of the Obamacare replacement plan because it hasn't been publicized on all the liberal blogs you read? And Huffpo or Vox haven't told you the plan sucks, yet?

[GMDino]

(01-15-2017, 04:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or it tells you they didn't expect to win the Oval Office.

Or maybe they actually do have a plan and the liberal blogs are ignoring it.  I don't know, I haven't researched it but I don't let equally ignorant bloggers form my opinions.  I am, however, willing to bet when Repubs eventually get around to voting on a plan that the "they don't have a plan" meme will be replaced by "their plan sucks' memes, or perhaps "their plan screws you" memes.

The main difference between Repubs and Dems is that many people still think there's a significant difference.  In either case, none of that matters.  Results matter....and Obamacare was a disaster.

A friend posted a link late last night that Paul Rand has a plan, plans to submit it and it has been either "approved" by Trump or it was something trump said he would approve of.  I need to find the link.

[GMDino]

Paul Rand's plan.  First page anyway.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-14-2017, 06:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Eight years.

They had eight years to "craft a plan" to replace the existing one.

They still don't have one.

For most of my adult life, whenever the GOP has total control of congress they have had no long term plan just one to keep saying they have a plan and hope people vote before they catch on.

It's sad.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-obamacare-subsidies-233618

Contract with America was a plan.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2017, 01:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Contract with America was a plan.

It was a talking point that lasted a few years.

[Benton]

(01-16-2017, 01:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Contract with America was a plan.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mind-gop-pussycats

Quote: My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.

Republicans have gotten very, very good at naming things to drum up support. If they'd called it what it was — Contract to Increase Government to Support Our Campaign Supporters — it probably wouldn't have ushered in the next great generation of tax cuts for the wealthy and large companies at the expense of workers and small businesses.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I know it's hard to believe, but Trump announced he has a plan and that the Republicans probably won't like it, but he will get them to toe the line. I've been telling people that Trump believes in Universal Healthcare for a while now.

[Benton]

(01-16-2017, 01:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know it's hard to believe, but Trump announced he has a plan and that the Republicans probably won't like it, but he will get them to toe the line. I've been telling people that Trump believes in Universal Healthcare for a while now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/16/trump-reportedly-insists-healthcare-replacement-will-have-insurance-for-everybody.html

You could be right. I haven't seen anything discussing the cost though. If it's like his infrastructure plan, it's not going to happen. 

Lobbing Democrat ideas at a Republican congress without any support isn't going to get very far.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-16-2017, 02:18 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/16/trump-reportedly-insists-healthcare-replacement-will-have-insurance-for-everybody.html

You could be right. I haven't seen anything discussing the cost though. If it's like his infrastructure plan, it's not going to happen. 

Lobbing Democrat ideas at a Republican congress without any support isn't going to get very far.

Numbers is what we are waiting on. But even so, I don't think it could get worse that what we already have. 
And don't dismiss the power to Twitter. He will shame Republicans that don't support his plan, just like he does with businesses that try to leave the US for greener pastures. And right now, no one wants to be on the shaming side.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2017, 01:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know it's hard to believe, but Trump announced he has a plan and that the Republicans probably won't like it, but he will get them to toe the line. I've been telling people that Trump believes in Universal Healthcare for a while now.

Is this the same plan Rand Paul said he'll present?

Nonetheless it will end up being Obamacare+plus and his supporters will think he repealed Obamacare.

[Benton]

(01-16-2017, 02:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Numbers is what we are waiting on. But even so, I don't think it could get worse that what we already have. 
And don't dismiss the power to Twitter. He will shame Republicans that don't support his plan, just like he does with businesses that try to leave the US for greener pastures. And right now, no one wants to be on the shaming side.

Mitch McConnell could care less.

Leahy will serve another 40 years after Trump is out of office.

Hal Rogers has been considered one of the worst congressmen in the country, but since 1994 he hasn't gotten less than 74% percent of the vote.

Nationally, for a while now, people talk about how crappy of a job Congress has done. And yet incumbents keep getting sent back. People complain about Congress... but never their congressman.

That's one thing I don't think Trump understands. He can't shame a member of Congress into voting his way; they have no shame. And he can't get on the phone and pretend to be his own press secretary and say  he "heard from a reliable source" that some Congress member was going to vote his way.

But as far as the "worse than we already have," eh, I dunno. I've never supported either plan (although I guess mine would be closer to the Dems, in that I would go with the federal government negotiating an insurance collective that people can take part in if they want, which should make it cheaper since it would have millions of customers for inruance companies willing to participate). I don't like the Dems plan because it costs money (taxes), and I don't like the Repubs plan (Obamacare) because it forces people to spend their own money.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2017, 01:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know it's hard to believe, but Trump announced he has a plan and that the Republicans probably won't like it, but he will get them to toe the line. I've been telling people that Trump believes in Universal Healthcare for a while now.

My understanding is that his plan is still relying on the market to provide insurance. That could be wrong, and I could be conflating it with other plans I had heard about, but that is what I seem to remember. Any of these plans where the government relies on the market for health insurance is going to fall flat.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2017, 04:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding is that his plan is still relying on the market to provide insurance. That could be wrong, and I could be conflating it with other plans I had heard about, but that is what I seem to remember. Any of these plans where the government relies on the market for health insurance is going to fall flat.

Not is it universal healthcare. Where is the conservative outrage at another entitlement program propagating a cycle of dependency which they have to pay for these free loaders?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-16-2017, 04:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Not is it universal healthcare. Where is the conservative outrage at another entitlement program propagating a cycle of dependency which they have to pay for these free loaders?

When it saves people money, tunes change very fast. If it is a Universal Healthcare, I certainly hope all members of Congress must use it as well.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2017, 06:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: When it saves people money, tunes change very fast. If it is a Universal Healthcare, I certainly hope all members of Congress must use it as well.

How does anyone know it will save them money if no one has seen the plan?

[Benton]

(01-17-2017, 12:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How does anyone know it will save them money if no one has seen the plan?

you have to pass the plan before you can know what's in the plan.