Ed Senate vote to repeal ACA

[Regnad Kcin]

Did Rubio show up to vote for it?

Oh no he didn't!

 

[jakesteele]

Republicans: "Let's try to end health insurance for millions of people!"
A month later:
Republicans: "I don't understand, why aren't people voting for us?"

If they get any more cartoonishly evil they'll start construction on a Death Star.

I don't follow this this aspect of Obama's presidency, are there really millions of people on OC.? Is that what you're talking about or is it something else?

 

[DavidJames]

I don't follow this this aspect of Obama's presidency, are there really millions of people on OC.? Is that what you're talking about or is it something else?

Asking the question on Google:

"how many have signed up for obama care" gave me the answer

Here is a link to Google if you're unfamiliar with it:

Google.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks! I'll be sure to keep thehill.com in mind for the next time I'm looking for details on a particular piece of legislation.

From the article:

The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.

[ . . . ]

It repeals the expansion of Medicaid adopted by 30 states as well as many of the law’s tax increases, which the House bill left in place.

It cuts funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund and eliminates risk adjustment programs from insurance companies that lose money because of the law.

The House bill eliminates the individual and employer mandates, the "Cadillac tax" on expensive insurance plans and the medical device tax.​

The article also mentions the Planned Parenthood funding issue, and a couple other points of dissent among the legislators.

Anyway, it's about what I expected: They're not really repealing the ACA, they're just defunding the key provisions of the ACA, which would have about the same effect. It's all academic, though since as many have pointed out the president will obviously veto the thing anyway (assuming it ever gets to his desk).

What I find interesting is that in addition to defunding some ACA provisions, it also eliminates the penalty for anyone who chooses to not to have or provide insurance. And it cuts taxes.

That is until we have President Tump elected next year to shepard us through our coming bankruptcy to be the strong a vibrant nation we always were and never stopped being and will be again some day.

 

[IXP]

The sad thing is that voters in country are so stupid they would applaud the congress for repealing it, then blame Obama when they lose their health insurance.

IXP

 

[foophil]

I'm not too familiar with this particular clam. Do you mean that the budget was spending money elsewhere, that it stopped spending when the ACA spending was approved in its place? And this bill not only gets rid of the ACA spending but also restores the other spending the ACA had replaced?

Sorry, I missed this question.

I was just repeating something I heard on NPR so I admit I don't know much about it myself. It is why I phrased it that way (in hopes someone could clarify for me). I thought the reconciliation method used here requires whatever they are passing to be revenue neutral. From what I had read in other sources, gutting or repealing the ACA would increase the debt over the long term.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

 

[theprestige]

Sorry, I missed this question.

I was just repeating something I heard on NPR so I admit I don't know much about it myself. It is why I phrased it that way (in hopes someone could clarify for me). I thought the reconciliation method used here requires whatever they are passing to be revenue neutral. From what I had read in other sources, gutting or repealing the ACA would increase the debt over the long term.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

Ah. The budget is the government's spending plan for the year. Revenue neutral in this context means that any spending increase in this year's plan has to be offset by a spending decrease elsewhere in the same plan, or a tax increase elsewhere in the same plan. Similarly for spending decreases, tax increases, etc.

Revenue neutrality doesn't look at national debt projections in future years. It only looks at changes to the current year's spending plan.

 

[3point14]

They're wasting a once-a-year process on a bill they know won't pass?

Why am I surprised by that?

Why is there a process that can only be used once a year?

 

[The Don]

The sad thing is that voters in country are so stupid they would applaud the congress for repealing it, then blame Obama when they lose their health insurance.

IXP

QFT

 

[theprestige]

Why is there a process that can only be used once a year?

Probably because budgeting is an annual process, and this was a budget change. Nothing requires Congress to wait a year before doing it again, but congressional leadership probably aren't interested in going through budget review any more often than they have to, regardless of the opportunity it presents for partisan hobby horsing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is there a process that can only be used once a year?

Could be a result of it not being open to debate and thus not subject to filibuster.

 

[foophil]

Ah. The budget is the government's spending plan for the year. Revenue neutral in this context means that any spending increase in this year's plan has to be offset by a spending decrease elsewhere in the same plan, or a tax increase elsewhere in the same plan. Similarly for spending decreases, tax increases, etc.

Revenue neutrality doesn't look at national debt projections in future years. It only looks at changes to the current year's spending plan.

Got it, thanks for explaining.

 

[Travis]

I think they are counting on Obama to do the right thing and veto it. It would be very interesting if Obama called their bluff, didn't veto it and then they had to explain to voters why their health insurance went away.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think they are counting on Obama to do the right thing and veto it. It would be very interesting if Obama called their bluff, didn't veto it and then they had to explain to voters why their health insurance went away.

They know for a fact Obama will veto it.

 

[Travis]

They know for a fact Obama will veto it.

Which means it is all for show as they know their vote will actually have no consequences.

"Hey, I voted for the terrible thing the responsible adult didn't allow to happen!"

 

[Peterson]

Is defunding really the right word to use with regards to Planned Parenthood. I agree it's defunding if they pull Title X funds and whatever other subsidies they get. But the bulk of the fed money (75% from what I heard) is for Medicaid. If they remove Medicaid access from Planned Parenthood, these women will go somewhere else (if there is any place in their area) and they will accept the Medicaid. So really, from the governments perspective it's not going to save them any money at all.

How will "defunding" Planned Parenthood help them achieve the goal of funding community health centers if the "defunding" doesn't really save the government that munch money? Am I seeing this correctly or am I misunderstanding something?

For the record, I am pro-life and anti-Planned Parenthood but this has nothing to do with abortion and seems wrong to me. I would be in favor of putting money into community health centers like they propose but I'm not sure I believe that this is what they want to do.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

am I misunderstanding something?

Yes. You misunderstand their goal. It's not to save money - but to take it from those baby-killing sluts and give it to those who really deserve it - the 1%.

I would be in favor of putting money into community health centers like they propose but I'm not sure I believe that this is what they want to do.

Of course it isn't what they really want to do. Next step is to find an excuse to defund community health centers. They have probably already written the script for the fake undercover video.

 

[Travis]

And what if there isn't a community health center that can provide those services?

 

[sunmaster14]

Did Rubio show up to vote for it?

I guess Rubio is lazy. But he did manage to get a risk corridor provision passed in January 2014 that seems to be throwing the Obamacare exchanges into turmoil (emphasis added):

A little-noticed health care provision that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law.

...

The risk corridors were intended to help some insurance companies if they ended up with too many new sick people on their rolls and too little cash from premiums to cover their medical bills in the first three years under the health law. But because of Mr. Rubio’s efforts, the administration says it will pay only 13 percent of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. The payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risks they assumed when they decided to participate in the law’s new insurance marketplaces.

...

Like many other observers of the health law, the Obama administration initially failed to appreciate the impact of the Rubio restrictions. Kevin J. Counihan, the chief executive of the federal insurance marketplace, told state officials in July that money collected from insurance companies would be “sufficient to pay for all risk corridor payments.” More recently, the administration consoled insurers by telling them that it would make additional risk corridor payments from money collected in 2015 and 2016.

But in a new report, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s says that money will not be there.

Thanks Rubio Obama.

 

[3point14]

And what if there isn't a community health center that can provide those services?

The Market will provide...