Trump begins Obamacare dismantling with executive order

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 02:46 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Source please.

The announcement.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-13-2017, 02:46 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Source please.

To be fair, he said they had healthcare, nothing about being able to afford to use it.  That's the sort of things that Dems like to pat themselves on the back for and feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Basically a massive pay-off to the insurance companies to prop-up a phony achievement....and in 2016 when the govt sugar dried up, the insurance companies started dropping out of the exchanges left and right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2017, 02:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The announcement.

The EO directs the DOL to look in to it. It doesn't direct the DOL to actually allow anyone to buy anything across state lines.

[NATI BENGALS]

I cant wait to get my unregulated insurance policy from alabama. Some dude with a middle school degree living in a trailer park will probably be my primary care Dr.

Tax cuts for the rich. Health insurance wreckage for lower and middle class. And a prez wanting to strip away and eliminate News agency that dont sing his praises.

Great time to be an American

[Benton]

It's a good first step in fixing healthcare. There's a lot of complex issues that this will have no impact on, but, ultimately, it should make companies more competitive.

[GMDino]

And for that moment forward he has to own everything that happens...right?

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/10/trump-declares-there-no-such-thing

Quote:"Obamacare is finished, it's dead, it's gone," Trump declared. "You shouldn't even mention it. It's gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore."



He's absolutely right. When he signed the executive order raising premiums for everyone in order to take cost-sharing reduction assistance away from poor people, he ended any resemblance of the vision President Obama had for getting affordable healthcare to people.


This is TrumpCare, or perhaps more accurately, TrumpKills. So for one sentence buried in a giant pack of lies, Trump got something right.


But he got far more wrong, and intentionally so. He is lying when he says things like this:

Quote:"I knocked out the CSRs. That was a subsidy to the insurance companies. That was a gift that was frankly, what they gave the insurance companies just take a look at their stocks. Take a look where their stock was when Obamacare was originally approved and what it is today.

You'll see numbers that anybody if you invested in those stocks, you'd be extremely happy. And they have given them a total gift. They have given them you could almost call it a payoff. It's a disgrace. And that money goes to the insurance companies.

We want to take care of poor people. We want to take care of people that need help with health care. And that's what I'm here to do. And I'm never going to get campaign contributions I guarantee you that from the insurance companies but a lot of other people got them.

You look at the...take a look at how much money has been spent by the Democrats and on politicians generally. But take a look at the coffers of the Democrats."

That's a nice set of talking points you have there, Trump. Too bad they're all lies! Except wait! The tape is rolling without any counter to the LIES being told by our compulsive LIAR of a president.


FOR THE RECORD:

• The payments for CSRs were NOT subsidies to insurance companies.
• They are not a "bailout."
• They did, in fact, help poor people afford their healthcare.
• Removing them means everyone will pay more for insurance in order to cover the losses, because poor people will still have their deductibles and co-pays reduced.
• They are NOT -- I repeat, NOT -- the premium assistance tax credits, which are locked into the law.
  

Trump wasn't finished.

Quote:So the CSR payments has actually brought Republicans and Democrats together. Because we got calls emergency calls from the Democrats and I think probably the Republicans were also calling them.

Saying let's come up with at least a short-term fix of health care in this country.

Republicans just figured out that doing this will actually cost the government more, because the cost of silver plans determines the level of tax subsidies.


And of course, it's all about him, after all.

Quote:And the gravy train ended the day I knocked out the insurance companies' money which was last week. Hundreds of millions of dollars a month handed to the insurance companies for very little reason. Believe me. I want the money to go to the people. I want the money to go to poor people that need it. I want the money to go to people that need proper health care. Not to insurance companies which is where it's going as of last week. I ended that. So we have a lot of interesting things to do.

The reason these payments were structured the way they were is simple: People could not afford the up-front cost of co-pays and deductibles. So the law said insurers would reduce those for people earning up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level and then the government would reimburse them for those reductions. This saved those people from having to pay in advance when they would be unlikely to have funds with which to do that.


This executive order is a real source of pride for Trump. He's like a child who manages to use the bathroom without wetting his pants.


He wants to be praised for doing grave harm to his most ardent supporters


When asked about Steve Bannon's remarks about declaring war on the Republican Party, he went off again on healthcare, which he has just done terrible harm to and which harms his base.
On Bannon:

Quote:Steve is very committed. He's a friend of mine and he's very committed to getting things passed. I mean look, I have despite what the press writes, I have great relationships with actually many senators but in particular with most Republican senators. But we're not getting the job done

.
But don't worry about Trump, he's not going to take responsibility because he NEVER takes responsibility.

Quote:And I'm not going to blame myself. I'll be honest. They are not getting the job done. We've had health care approved and then you had a surprise vote by John McCain. We've had other things happen. And they're not getting the job done. I can understand where Steve Bannon is coming from and I can understand, to be honest with you, John, I can understand where a lot of people are coming from because I'm not happy about it and a lot of people aren't happy about it.

Here's what we need in River City, my friends. "We need tax cuts. We need health care."


Here's a preview of TrumpKills, courtesy of the killer himself:

Quote:"We're going to get the health care done in my opinion, what's happening is as we meet, 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."

Trump enjoys breaking things so that people have to scurry around and fix them before the whole house falls down, doesn't he?

Quote:"They're 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, gone. You shouldn't even mention it. It's gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore.

That's true. It's Trumpcare now. And when you can't get any help for your pre-existing condition, it'll be TrumpKills. That's just an executive order or two away, 
I'm sure.


Trump fancies himself a policy wonk, suddenly.

Quote:It is and I said this years ago, it's a concept that couldn't have worked. In its best days, it couldn't have worked. We are working on some kind of a short-term fix prior to the Republicans getting -- maybe with some Democrats. Again, it's obstruction. Maybe with some Democrats to fix health care permanently.

So I think we'll have a short-term fix with Republicans and Democrats getting together.

And after that, we're going to have a successful (REPEAL) vote because as you know, we were one vote short and I think we have the votes right now. Whether it's through block grant or something else, block granting the money back to the states, which does seem to make sense where the states run it because it's a smaller form of government that can be more individually sensitive.

Oh, Medicaid. It's really about Medicaid, isn't? And by the way, one of the reasons we have to have federal health care policy is because without a basic set of standards and policies across the entire country, no state could afford to handle it on their own.


Boy is Trump going to be mad after 2018 when Democrats take back at least one and hopefully both houses of Congress. Because then he'll have to step to those mean Democrats who obstruct everything. He can have a taste of what Barack Obama experienced. In fact, I'm happy to shovel down so much obstruction he chokes on it.

Quote:So that will happen. Fairly shortly. As soon as we have the next reconciliation, I think we'll get the vote for health care. I think we already have the vote for health care. Sadly, the Democrats can't join us on that which will be the long-term fix. But do I believe we'll have a short-term fix because I think the Democrats will be blamed for the mess. This is an Obamacare mess.

When the premiums go up that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that we had poor health care delivered written poorly. Approved by the Democrats. It was called Obamacare.

But I think we'll have a short-term fix and then we'll have a long-term fix and that will take place probably in March or April. We have a very solid vote. It will be probably 100% Republican. No Democrats. But most people know that's going to be a very good form of healthcare.

It was actually called the Affordable Care Act. And then the press, Republicans and Fox News called it Obamacare. And now that's gone.


I will wait for them to rename it Trumpcare, because he owns all of it now. Every death, every child who has no healthcare because CHIP expired, every working family who couldn't afford their copayments and deductibles is on Trump.


He owns it. All of it. And his tax cuts depend on killing our access to healthcare, which is why he keeps lying about it.

[GMDino]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/26/state-department-scraps-sanctions-office/

Quote:State Department Scraps Sanctions Office


The Trump administration is three weeks late on Russia sanctions. But it’s killed the office that coordinates them.


The State Department shuttered an office that oversees sanctions policy, even as the Donald Trump administration faces criticism from lawmakers over its handling of new economic penalties against Russia.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson eliminated the Coordinator for Sanctions Policy office, which had been led by a veteran ambassador-rank diplomat with at least five staff, as part of an overhaul of the department, former diplomats and congressional sources told Foreign Policy.


Instead, the role of coordinating U.S. sanctions across the State Department and other government agencies now falls to just one mid-level official — David Tessler, the deputy director of the Policy Planning Office. The Policy Planning Office, which previously operated as a small team providing strategic advice to the secretary but did not manage programs or initiatives, has grown in power under Tillerson’s “redesign” of the department.

The sanctions office was dissolved after the administration missed a key Oct. 1 deadline to implement new penalties against Russia adopted by Congress in August. The move has reinforced concerns among both Democratic and Republican lawmakers that the Trump White House is mismanaging the State Department and undercutting the role of U.S. diplomacy.

The “elimination of the sanctions coordinator appears to be part of the larger reorganization debacle underway at the State Department,” said Sean Bartlett, spokesman for Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The State Department declined to comment.

Both Cardin and Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had blasted the administration over its failure to implement new sanctions against Russia enacted by Congress. After blowing past the Oct. 1 deadline, the administration informed Corker on Thursday that it would finally issue guidance for the measures, identifying entities linked to Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.

Former officials and experts are torn on whether or not eliminating the Coordinator for Sanctions Policy office will undercut the State Department’s ability to oversee sanctions. Sanctions have become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy toward adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

Daniel Fried, a now-retired career diplomat who served as the coordinator for sanctions policy through February 2017, cautioned against misinterpreting the move.

“You can’t read into that a lack of commitment to sanctions,” he told FP, adding as long as State devotes staff to the issue, their title or bureaucratic placement in the department wasn’t important. “It’s not as if [the administration] is gutting sanctions altogether.”


Other former officials said scrapping the office and putting the job on the shoulders of only one policy planning official was a mistake, particularly at a time when the administration seems to be struggling to manage an array of foreign-policy issues and to articulate its stance.

“They messed up on this. They scrapped this when they could’ve taken it further,” said a former State Department official. “They said, ‘We’re just going to back to the point where there’s no clear coordination.’”

Another former government official familiar with sanctions said, without the office, there’s a danger of bureaucratic turf battles cropping up inside the State Department and with other agencies on sanctions. “This could be a real problem,” the former official said.

The Treasury Department takes the lead on the technical aspect of sanctions, but implementing punitive measures requires elaborate coordination with allies, particularly the European Union, to build diplomatic support and to ensure a unified approach. As a result, the State Department plays a crucial role in making sanctions effective.

As secretary of state under the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton created the coordinator for sanctions policy role. Fried said during his tenure, the office worked hand in glove with Treasury to carry out tasks such as working with Asian allies to push North Korea sanctions and identifying individual Russians trying to evade targeted U.S. sanctions.

The office kept the trains running on time, said Edward Fishman, a former sanctions policy official in the Obama administration. But for State to pack the biggest punch on sanctions, it needs a full-fledged and permanent bureau to coordinate sanctions issues, he said. Sanctions issues are currently scattered across a slew of offices including the Burea of Economic and Business Affairs, the International Security and Nonproliferation Bureau, and the Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

The move also highlights the growing influence of the Policy Planning Office under Tillerson. Some State Department employees and lawmakers have widely criticized Tillerson for expanding the office, historically used as an in-house think tank for long-term strategic issues and speechwriting. Under Tillerson, it’s grown in scope and influence, prompting concern he’s creating what one senior State Department official described as a “miniature fiefdom” to sidestep the wider department and legislative oversight.

The move, critics say, both cuts off department-wide input on key policy decisions and bottlenecks the department’s overall work as policy planning staff are stretched to the brink with an array of new responsibilities.

Sanctions have become a pillar of U.S. foreign policy, and the Trump administration has touted them as a pivotal tool to counter regimes in North Korea and Iran. Wherever sanctions policy is managed inside Foggy Bottom, the State Department has a pivotal role in determining whether sanctions actually work.

“You can churn out all the sanctions you want,” Fishman said. “But if you don’t have diplomats around the world pounding the pavement every day to get allies on board, they won’t be effective.”

[Belsnickel]

Wait wait wait, wasn't there a big thing in Congress about being able to sue a POTUS for not upholding the law? Didn't Republicans make a big stink about that?

[GMDino]

(10-27-2017, 09:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wait wait wait, wasn't there a big thing in Congress about being able to sue a POTUS for not upholding the law? Didn't Republicans make a big stink about that?

Was it a Democrat President?

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Was it a Democrat President?

You know, come to think of it...

But, as my feckless weasel representative, Mr. Goodlatte, said, the image of lady justice is one with a blindfold holding the scales. Justice, the law, it is blind and is not dependent on party lines.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2017, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know, come to think of it...

But, as my feckless weasel representative, Mr. Goodlatte, said, the image of lady justice is one with a blindfold holding the scales. Justice, the law, it is blind and is not dependent on party lines.

You mean like SC Justices saying that politics will not play a part in their decisions....while the POTUS and his supporters cheer from the mountaintop that a conservative is on the court?

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 09:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: You mean like SC Justices saying that politics will not play a part in their decisions....while the POTUS and his supporters cheer from the mountaintop that a conservative is on the court?

Eh, not quite. One can be conservative or liberal in your interpretation of the law without it being partisan/political.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2017, 09:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, not quite. One can be conservative or liberal in your interpretation of the law without it being partisan/political.

I say that because when pressed about what Trump offered before the election my friends have said as long as he gets to stock the court with conservatives that's good enough. 

My college roommate said he didn't mind voting for a man who knew was a liar and was unprepared (possibly unable) to do the job as long as he got 1-3 judges on the SC.

I consider that biting off your nose to spite your face.  Maybe that's just me.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 10:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: I say that because when pressed about what Trump offered before the election my friends have said as long as he gets to stock the court with conservatives that's good enough. 

My college roommate said he didn't mind voting for a man who knew was a liar and was unprepared (possibly unable) to do the job as long as he got 1-3 judges on the SC.

I consider that biting off your nose to spite your face.  Maybe that's just me.

It is. It also shows that they, and most people to be honest, don't understand the nuances there. Don't get me wrong, the SCOTUS is political, I don't deny that. But conservative and liberal mean different things there than they do in the legislative chambers.