The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[keepthefaith]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

·

3h

Very proud of my Executive Order which will allow greatly expanded access and far lower costs for HealthCare. Millions of people benefit!

19K

8.9K

44.6K

 

And the media will be called bad for pointing out lies like this

 

 

Bull sh it. They pick at anything so they can simply destroy it and give their donors a huge bloody tax cut

Your problem is you simply can't get beyond the idea that some people should pay a lot more so many can pay less or not pay at all.

[Tiberius]

Your problem is you simply can't get beyond the idea that some people should pay a lot more so many can pay less or not pay at all.

 

I guess you are right. And I'd love to have the power to enforce that idea with full power.

[B-Man]

Trump Faithfully Executes Obamacare;Media, Democrats Go Nuts

by Andrew C. McCarthy

 

Original Article

[BringBackOrton]

Taking away people's health care is not evil? Are you sure you are not looking at that through partisan eyes?

 

It's evil

 

I like how open and honest you are

 

 

Fig leaf

Killing the ACA will help more people in the long run.

[Doc Brown]

 

 

This was done in March before the GOP failed miserably in repealing Obamacare. This was an incredibly dumb move by Trump and it makes the Republicans look horrible to anybody who isn't a Republican (at least 70% of population). You suck it up, make the payments to help stabilize the market (I really could care less if it was an Obama EO - it's the right thing to do), and then continue to work on repealing and replacing the law next year.

[/dev/null]

I guess you are right. And I'd love to have the power to enforce that idea with full power.

So you want the power to compel people to do something they may not want to do because it serves your purpose

 

How very Progressive

[Doc Brown]

Here's how much each state relied on these CSR's as of March of 2016. Minnesota and New York relied on them the least. Mississippi and Alabama relied on them the most.

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Doc Brown

[BringBackOrton]

Here's how much each state relied on these CSR's as of March of 2016. Minnesota and New York relied on them the least. Mississippi and Alabama relied on them the most.

 

So what?

[B-Man]

So what?

 

 

He wants them continued...........because it would be too hard to switch at this point.

 

 

Of course, he' is still ignoring the whole illegal part...............but...............

[Magox]

Here's how much each state relied on these CSR's as of March of 2016. Minnesota and New York relied on them the least. Mississippi and Alabama relied on them the most.

 

 

 

I'd like to make the point that the actual people who receive the CSR assistance largely, will not be affected. Doesn't matter where you live. This map is by and large, useless.

 

The entities that will be affected by this decision are the following:

 

A) Insurance providers. Why? Even though the government (for now) is cutting off the CSR subsidy TO THE CARRIER'S, the health insurance providers are contractually obligated to maintain the CSR assistance to the clients if they decide to participate on the exchange. Meaning they have to come up with the money to pay for the CSR assistance.

 

 

B) The tax payer: Why? Because premiums will go up even higher and as premiums go higher then the subsidies go higher meaning that tax payers will shoulder the majority of the increase.

 

C) Middle Class/Upper income people who purchase plans through the exchange: Why? Because the premiums will go higher because of this decision. However, they don't qualify for the subsidies and since they do not qualify, they will have to pay for the increased premiums.

 

 

Who will not be affected?

 

A) Lower income folks who are receiving both premium and CSR subsidies. Why? Because the carriers are contractually obligated to continue offering the CSR assistance. Meaning that the CSR subsidies will remain for lower income folks. (Unless carriers bail out of the exchanges leaving no carriers to provide coverage in that area)

Edited October 14, 2017 by Magox

[B-Man]

 

 

I'd like to make the point that the actual people who receive the CSR assistance largely, will not be affected. Doesn't matter where you live. This map is by and large, useless.

 

The entities that will be affected by this decision are the following:

 

A) Insurance providers. Why? Even though the government (for now) is cutting off the CSR subsidy TO THE CARRIER'S, the health insurance providers are contractually obligated to maintain the CSR assistance to the clients if they decide to participate on the exchange. Meaning they have to come up with the money to pay for the CSR assistance.

 

 

B) The tax payer: Why? Because premiums will go up even higher and as premiums go higher then the subsidies go higher meaning that tax payers will shoulder the majority of the increase.

 

C) Middle Class/Upper income people who purchase plans through the exchange: Why? Because the premiums will go higher because of this decision. However, they don't qualify for the subsidies and since they do not qualify, they will have to pay for the increased premiums.

 

 

Who will not be affected?

 

A) Lower income folks who are receiving both premium and CSR subsidies. Why? Because the carriers are contractually obligated to continue offering the CSR assistance. Meaning that the CSR subsidies will remain for lower income folks.

 

(Unless carriers bail out of the exchanges leaving no carriers to provide coverage in that area)

 

 

Well put sir.

 

 

unfortunately your last point is more than likely to occur.....................................(as planned ?)

[Magox]

 

 

Well put sir.

 

 

unfortunately your last point is more than likely to occur.....................................(as planned ?)

 

Most likely not this year.

 

So I've done tons of research on this over the past couple days. It appears that many carriers, State insurance commissions and in some cases some state exchanges have anticipated that this would happen. For almost all consumers of insurance or for that matter news, this is news to them. But by no means has this caught the insurance industry off guard.

 

It appears that this has already been factored in.

 

Covered California and some of the other state based exchanges had already slapped surcharges to the plans. Those surcharges were in anticipation of this happening and that money is to be distributed to all the carriers who offered and sold silver tiered plans on the exchanges.

 

Some State insurance commissions increased the prices of some of the plans, some added it to all the metal tiers (bronze, silver, gold) what they are calling broad Broad Metal Load . Some are only applying it to the Silver plans, calling it Silver Metal Load. They did this in anticipation of the Trump administration doing this and that would help offset the CSR discrepancies.

 

Some State insurance boards instructed the carriers to submit 2 sets of rates, one assuming that CSR payments would be made from the Federal government and one without.

 

Some carriers just took it upon themselves and increased the rates (Such as Molina), assuming that Trump would do this.

 

If you want real actual information and not sensationalized info then here is a good site.

 

 

 

This is a phenomenal spreadsheet with detailed info.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W2EQhCXowRDDuqJhy6PUJtIGHjoND9f_K7oALyDAbLg/edit#gid=0

[Koko78]

 

 

He wants them continued...........because it would be too hard to switch at this point.

 

 

Of course, he' is still ignoring the whole illegal part...............but...............

 

Laws are for the little people, and do not apply when they conflict with progressive handouts.

[Magox]

 

 

Well put sir.

 

 

unfortunately your last point is more than likely to occur.....................................(as planned ?)

 

Analysis from the CBO:

 

I largely agree with their view. Without a new law being implemented, the exchanges would continue.

 

• Some insurers would pull out of the Obamacare markets, but not enough to cause a collapse: According to the CBO, if Trump ended CSRs, insurers would exit some of the Obamacare exchanges due to the higher costs. The exits, said the report, would impact areas where only 5% of the US population lives. By 2020, "almost all areas" would have at least one option for insurance according to the report. Health policy experts have previously warned that ending CSRs could lead to a mass exodus of insurers from the market; however, the CBO does not expect this to be the case

[B-Man]

Analysis from the CBO:

 

I largely agree with their view. Without a new law being implemented, the exchanges would continue.

 

According to the CBO, if Trump ended CSRs, insurers would exit some of the Obamacare exchanges due to the higher costs. The exits, said the report, would impact areas where only 5% of the US population lives. By 2020, "almost all areas" would have at least one option for insurance according to the report. Health policy experts have previously warned that ending CSRs could lead to a mass exodus of insurers from the market; however, the CBO does not expect this to be the case

 

 

 

Well sir. your research, links and your own opinion are way above the level of the rest of us in this thread.

 

I will stick to the political side of it.................and my own experiences.

 

 

So I guess your CBO reference does not quite jibe with the media's take on the Trump E.O.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by B-Man

[Doc Brown]

 

 

I'd like to make the point that the actual people who receive the CSR assistance largely, will not be affected. Doesn't matter where you live. This map is by and large, useless.

 

The entities that will be affected by this decision are the following:

 

A) Insurance providers. Why? Even though the government (for now) is cutting off the CSR subsidy TO THE CARRIER'S, the health insurance providers are contractually obligated to maintain the CSR assistance to the clients if they decide to participate on the exchange. Meaning they have to come up with the money to pay for the CSR assistance.

 

 

B) The tax payer: Why? Because premiums will go up even higher and as premiums go higher then the subsidies go higher meaning that tax payers will shoulder the majority of the increase.

 

C) Middle Class/Upper income people who purchase plans through the exchange: Why? Because the premiums will go higher because of this decision. However, they don't qualify for the subsidies and since they do not qualify, they will have to pay for the increased premiums.

 

 

Who will not be affected?

 

A) Lower income folks who are receiving both premium and CSR subsidies. Why? Because the carriers are contractually obligated to continue offering the CSR assistance. Meaning that the CSR subsidies will remain for lower income folks. (Unless carriers bail out of the exchanges leaving no carriers to provide coverage in that area)

That's exactly the point of the map. The states whose insurance companies rely most on those federal CSR subsidies will have to make up for it as mandated leading to the highest premium increases in the deep South for middle class/upper class people who purchase the ACA plans. Some may pull out of the market completely.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Doc Brown

[ALF]

Medicaid payments to ECMC slashed by two-thirds

Medicaid special reimbursement payments to Erie County Medical Center are being slashed by two-thirds for this fiscal year after Congress failed to reinstate a key portion of the federal program for hospitals by Oct. 1.

State officials notified the hospital that the institution's payments would be reduced by $29 million.

http://buffalonews.com/2017/10/14/state-cuts-medicaid-payments-ecmc-two-thirds/

Between Congress and Trump healthcare is taking a hit. This is just one hospital.

[Magox]

That's exactly the point of the map. The states whose insurance companies rely most on those federal CSR subsidies will have to make up for it as mandated leading to the highest premium increases in the deep South for middle class/upper class people who purchase the ACA plans. Some may pull out of the market completely.

 

That's not how it works. Those regions show the highest CSR usage. Meaning that in those regions there will be less affected by Trumps executive order than areas that have less overall CSR usage.

 

Why?

 

Because consumers who qualify for CSR will largely be unaffected because CSR assistance stays intact. Those regions represent populations who are less affected because the population makeup has a higher percentage of low income families.

 

Low income families are barely affected.

 

The region's who have lower CSR usage are the ones who are more affected.

 

Why?

 

Because these regions have less people who qualify for the CSR meaning they won't qualify for the premium subsidies to offset the increased premiums.

 

If they wanted to show a map of people who will ACTUALLY be affected by the executive order than they should have made an inverse map showing regions of less CSR usage that show more middle class folks that would be affected by the decision.

 

Make sense?

 

 

Well sir. your research, links and your own opinion are way above the level of the rest of us in this thread.

 

I will stick to the political side of it.................and my own experiences.

 

 

So I guess your CBO reference does not quite jibe with the media's take on the Trump E.O.

 

 

 

 

 

That's how the media works.

 

When they report things in this manner they are either ignorant to the affects of the law or are purposely sensationalizong and misrepresenting the facts and creating more fear and confusion among their viewers.

 

And let's be real, they are all a bunch of shills for the progressive party.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Magox

[B-Man]

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RAM THROUGH UNPOPULAR LEGISLATION ON A PARTY-LINE VOTE:

Obamacare Was Built With the Flaws Trump Now Exploits: Executive orders allowed the past administration to keep the program alive. They allow this administration to destroy it.

 

Do I just hate the poor so much that I can’t stand to see them getting help paying for health care? Well, no. I have no particular objection to the payments as policy. Except for one small thing, which is that they seem to be sort of illegal.

 

But at this point, such arguments are moot. It might be more fruitful for Obamacare’s supporters to ask what role they themselves played in bringing us to this pass.

 

A few years ago, as we all stood gaping at the disastrously bungled launch of the Obamacare exchanges, I was invited by Intelligence Squared to participate in a debate: “Resolved: Obamacare Is Beyond Rescue.” Longtime readers know that my motto is “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.” I was thus reluctant to declare, without equivocation, that Obamacare was already dead, dead, dead. But I’m a huge fan of Intelligence Squared, so I accepted, and then I resorted to a time-honored debate-weasel: 2 I reframed the question.

 

Thus I chose not to argue that Obamacare was going to collapse and be repealed in its entirety, but rather, that Obamacare would not, and could not, be the program that had been promised or intended. It had already failed to deliver on key promises for coverage, affordability and of course, the infamous promise that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” It was also dangerously unstable, requiring steady executive intervention just to keep the program from collapsing. I argued that

these executive interventions, enthusiastically supported by the law’s proponents, were setting a precedent that would eventually be used against it. Worried that health care was too hostage to the vicissitudes of the markets, Democrats had instead made it the prisoner of politics.

 

“Essentially they’ve made it so that Republicans can undo two-thirds of this law with a stroke of the presidential pen,” I said at the close of my opening statement. “Obamacare is now beyond rescue. The administration has destroyed their own law in order to save it.” Four years later, we are watching those dominos fall.

 

 

Indeed. But there’s a bright side: By Cutting Off Obamacare’s Insurer Subsidies, Trump Might Help More People Get Health Coverage: The president has finally brought the law into constitutional compliance.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278332/

Edited October 15, 2017 by B-Man

[Alaska Darin]

Medicaid payments to ECMC slashed by two-thirds

 

Medicaid special reimbursement payments to Erie County Medical Center are being slashed by two-thirds for this fiscal year after Congress failed to reinstate a key portion of the federal program for hospitals by Oct. 1.

 

State officials notified the hospital that the institution's payments would be reduced by $29 million.

 

http://buffalonews.com/2017/10/14/state-cuts-medicaid-payments-ecmc-two-thirds/

 

Between Congress and Trump healthcare is taking a hit. This is just one hospital.

America was broke long before Trump took office. Try again.