jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (46 posts)

Trump burns his own voters with latest Obamacare decision

  1. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 4 days ago

    The White House just announced that Trump is killing subsidies to insurance companies for individual policies that keep prices down.

    Low-income people who get tax credits because of their lower income won't be affected. Higher income people who buy individual policies because they are retired or have a small business will see a massive increase in premiums.

    Higher income people tend to vote Republican, and many voted for Trump. They are the ones who will get hurt the most by his decision. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

    1. Readmikenow profile image93
      Readmikenowposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Promisem, What Trump actually did is enable insurance companies to sell across state lines.  This will increase competition and cause a significant decrease in premiums.  This is simple economics.  The market will determine the premiums and it will cost the US taxpayer nothing.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the response, Mike. Yes, I read about that executive order from yesterday on selling across state lines. The newest order is separate from that one and cancels the subsidies.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 … ikely.html

        1. colorfulone profile image90
          colorfuloneposted 4 days agoin reply to this

          Congress never passed an appropriation to fund Section 1402.  The Obama administration illegally found funds elsewhere, and stole money from Franny and Freddy to pay for low-cost subsidies.  The  United States House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful.

          AG,  “It has been clear for many years that Obamacare is bad policy.  It is also bad law. The Obama Administration unfortunately went ahead and made CSR payments to insurance companies after requesting – but never ultimately receiving – an appropriation from Congress as required by law.
          “In 2014, the House of Representatives was forced to sue the previous Administration to stop this unconstitutional executive action. In 2016, a federal court ruled that the Administration had circumvented the appropriations process, and was unlawfully using unappropriated money to fund reimbursements due to insurers.
          “After a thorough legal review by HHS, Treasury, OMB, and an opinion from the Attorney General, we believe that the last Administration overstepped the legal boundaries drawn by our Constitution.  Congress has not appropriated money for CSRs, and we will discontinue these payments immediately.”

          So!  I am glad President Trump is not willing to run an illegal healthcare operation from the Oval Office.  That is integrity.   
          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13739656.jpg  Obama's illegal legacy is dead!
          The previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system.

          1. Misfit Chick profile image92
            Misfit Chickposted 4 days agoin reply to this

            It really is quite amazing how brainwashed some people are. For T-fans who think you've discovered something NEW about our government since you've been listening to Trump - the shadow government has been around for a lot longer than you are giving it credit for. And since you are so ignorant about it, you continue to spout nonsense.

            The only thing you are right about is that Obama was a puppet of the shadow government - just like every other US President before him; and just like Trump is, now. If you think he has somehow escaped their influence - he is their freakin poster child; and you've fallen for their 'bait' hook, line & sinker!

            Policy changes isn't what this president is about - he's about stirring up infighting as badly as possible. Everything else he does - including forcing policies you want changed onto the rest of the country - is meant to keep the attention & approval of his brainwashed base while trying to manipulate everyone into more & more fighting - which he accomplishes on a daily basis via twitter.

          2. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

            Four inaccuracies:

            1. The existing budget includes the subsides. Congress did not pass "new" subsidies because it hasn't passed a "new" budget in eight years.

            2. Obama did not steal the money from Fannie Mae. The money came from reduced Medicare payments, the medical device tax and the Medicare payroll tax on high income families.

            3. The Supreme Court has ruled several times in favor of Obamacare. I think they are more credible about the law than Jeff Sessions.

            4. Trump didn't kill Obamacare. He killed the subsidies that help upper income families get affordable health insurance.

            1. colorfulone profile image90
              colorfuloneposted 4 days agoin reply to this

              The Treasury Department’s “Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013” provides evidence the Obama administration stole from Fannie and Freddie investors to fund Obamacare.

              https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-p … t%20v2.pdf

              House of cards!

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                Forgive me if I don't read the entire 237-page report to find the evidence you mean.  smile

                1. colorfulone profile image90
                  colorfuloneposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                  I know its not very entertaining to read.  But, on Aug. 17, 2012, the Obama Adm. finalized the amendment of the Treasury Department’s Senior Preferred Stock Agreements with Fannie and Freddie that robbed private and institutional investors of their legally due dividend payments.

                  It is known as the “Net Worth Sweep,” or NWS, whereupon, Obama's Treasury Department did in fact confiscate billions of dollars in Fannie and Freddie earnings.

                  I have talked about this many times before, thanks to Dr. Corsi. 
                  Who exactly burned his own voters?

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                    I have read several articles about Net Worth Sweep and haven't found a single reference to anyone saying the money was used for Obamacare.

                    What I did read was that the government was taking back the money it loaned to Fannie and Freddie plus interest after the Bush financial meltdown.

                    So I don't think "confiscate" was the right word. The taxpayers got their money back plus interest for saving two companies from bankruptcy.

                    I call that good government.

    2. Misfit Chick profile image92
      Misfit Chickposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Trump doesn't care how he accomplishes the policy changes that he ran on; and neither do his supporters - as long as he accomplishes them, even if it is a temporary situation (which makes the whole thing WAY more expensive). T-fans are the only voices who matter in this country, right? This isn't the United States of America - its strictly Trumpland at the moment. He doesn't have to do anything through Congress, because he's KING!

      The longer he is in there, the more I really wish they would impeach him with that long damn list of offenses that are racked up against him. Then again, the shadow government is LOVING Trump as potus - so that probably isn't going to happen.

      The more people he can divide as deeply as possible, the better. At least AB gets to go shopping, now - I'm guessing that she couldn't do that before, LoL!

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        As Forbes points out, no insurance company is willing to sell across state lines because it increases the size and cost of their provider networks. They want the smallest networks possible.

        So people who go shopping for new plans across state lines aren't likely to find many. And now they will face higher premiums because of his new order killing the subsidies.

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      The Affordable Care Act save the lives of people I know. Do not be mislead thinking that Trump's executive order will affect the wealthy. Insurance costs are like pennies are to the rest of us.
      Also Trump's orders exempts businesses from having insurance and so as not getting a tax, as best as I understand it.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Yes, it saves lives. Uninsured people have a 40% higher death rate.

        https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … -coverage/

    4. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      I confess I'm not following this line of reasoning at all; it appears to be pure spin in order to make a point.

      First, low income people never got a "tax credit"; you can't get a credit for what you don't owe.  Second, high income people already buy their own insurance, whether retired or a business owner, from their own pocket.  Their premiums may increase somewhat as they will not have the healthy but poor people being forced to subsidize them, but that's all.

      Looks to me like it will be the low income folks that will lose out, not the high income people that already buy their own insurance.  That will include some retirees; those that have retired early and are depending on others to pick up the cost of their insurance because they don't want to work anymore, but I'm fine with that.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        People don't follow the point when they rely on Sean Hannity about Obamacare. But that doesn't stop some of them for hating it anyway and claiming spin when it doesn't exist.

        1. A subsidy to an insurance company is not the same as a tax credit to an individual.

        2. The ACA tax credit is "refundable", which means it potentially pays out more than the individual's income. So a person with $10,000 in taxable income after exemptions and deductions and $15,000 of insurance premiums can get a $13,000 tax credit.

        3. Higher income people don't qualify for tax credits. So their $15,000 in premiums may now jump up to $18,000 or $20,000 thanks to Trump's decision.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

          Perhaps we're talking about different things.  I got a subsidy for premiums, but I never saw it - it was paid directly to the insurance company.  It wasn't a tax "credit" (whether playing games with semantics or not) - it was a payment on my behalf to the insurance company.  Is that the "subsidy" you're talking about?

          Why would the richer people see their premiums go up, except that they now don't have healthy people paying them via artificially high premiums themselves?  No tax monies involved, either to them or the insurance company.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

            Yes, thanks, we are talking about two different things. Obamacare reduces the price of premiums via insurance company subsidies and the actual cost to consumer of premiums via tax credits.

            Premiums for everyone in the individual market will go up because of Trump's decision. The actual out-of-pocket cost will vary according to the tax credits. Low income people may see no cost increase because of tax credits. High income people who don't have tax credits may get a jump.

            Politico explains it well:

            "The payments, known as cost-sharing reductions, are worth an estimated $7 billion this year and go directly to insurers to help offset out-of-pocket costs – such as co-pays and deductibles for low-income Obamacare customers. Without them, Obamacare insurers will still have to provide discounts to customers – they’ll just have to eat the added cost.

            "These subsidies are separate from another Obamacare program that helps low-income customers pay monthly insurance premiums. Those premium subsidies will continue for people purchasing coverage through the law’s marketplaces."

            But it may be a moot point. Both lawsuits and Congress may fix what Trump just did.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

              That's news to me.  When I signed up, the prices that were being shown seemed in line for my area, age, etc.  You're telling me that they were grossly inflated, then reduced back down via a subsidy from Uncle Sam so they would once again be reasonable? 

              If so, Trump's comment on the news tonight that those subsidies served only to pad insurance company bottom lines makes a lot more sense.

        2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 days agoin reply to this

          Wealthy people have high-cost, specialty insurance and private doctors. Insurance for these special, high-value clinics and doctors cost maybe $40-$80 K per year. That is spare change to the wealthy.

    5. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Really? I am a higher income bracket, and retired. I can speak from experiences, how Obamacare effected me, and how its changes will benefit me. When OC went into effect my insurance monthly cost almost doubled. My deductible did double to $8500.00. I have never reached that deductible. I have paid for not only my insurance premiums, but all healthcare in the past six years. I am not only paying for my healthcare but anyone that gets subsidies due to OC.  I fully expect that my insurance costs will go down due to being able to buy across state-lines.  "healthy but poor people being forced to subsidize them, but that's all." Not sure how you come about this conclusion. It is just the opposite. We that paid out of pocket helped subsidize those that could not pay along with government subsidizing the poor with free insurance.  Our taxes paid these subsidies. And we also paid higher premiums to help what the government was falling short on paying.   

      I guess we will all have to wait to see how this all works out. But I can verify OC did not work out for working people that paid for it....

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        I'm in a higher income bracket and semi-retired after nearly four decades of hard work.

        Your premiums increased for various reasons including:

        1. Removing the limit on lifetime expenses.
        2. Banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because someone gets very sick, i.e., cancer.
        3. Coverage for poor people who were going bankrupt from medical expenses and pushing those costs back on the rest of us.

        If you don't like those above three reasons, that's fine with me. But I know people before ACA with $30,000 a year of income who got into an accident and had a $100,000 hospital bill after 3 days in the ICU. And guess what? They went bankrupt, which means that $100,000 got passed on to the rest of us.

        Based on the six states that have insurance across state lines, you won't get lower premiums because insurance companies aren't going across state lines.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image82
        Ken Burgessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Exactly... this has always been, and always will be about making the Middle Class cover all the expenses and costs of the lower class, including the tens of millions of illegals that get everything from free health care coverage to subsidized housing to free education for their kids.

        This is why it is the Middle Class (what remains of them) that went out and voted for Trump, because he is the only one that spoke to their needs, admitted to them that they have been getting screwed all along by everything from Obamacare, to open borders, to NAFTA, TPP, etc.

        Just about everything done by Congress, and the last 3 Presidents, has screwed over the working class of America, from bailing out the banks while people lost their homes, because Congress and Clinton decided to toss out Glass Steagall and the common-sense restrictions inherent in the mortgage system (IE - If you can't show you have the income to pay back a loan, then you can't get a loan) which they deemed discriminatory.

        The saving grace, despite all the efforts to classify so much as racial or sexism issues, is that ANYONE in the working/middle class gets it, be they of Hispanic decent, or Asian, or whatever color or creed you want to use as a label they understand it is their paychecks that are getting squeezed, and their kids that can't find good jobs, and their healthcare costs that are skyrocketing.

        Trumpism... it isn't a race thing, it isn't a sex thing, it is an economic thing.  And to the D.C. insiders that have been giving the Middle Finger to the Middle Class for so long now, Trump is the people's big Middle Finger back to the establishment. 

        Obamacare will be dismantled and done away with... just like TPP... just like the Iran deal... now if he can just kill off NAFTA, CAFTA, and all the other job killing trade deals, our economy might actually get back on track, and we may see a boom the likes of which we haven't seen since the 80s.

    6. Ken Burgess profile image82
      Ken Burgessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Actually he is trying to do exactly what people who voted for him wanted him to do... which IS to get rid of Obamacare.

      Some people like Obamacare, some people support it, but they aren't the Trump voters.

      Just more slanted BS by you promisem, fortunately it is easily recognized as such.

      The 'middle class' people who you are talking about know exactly how Obamacare has impacted them, how insurance has changed for them, because they live with it every day.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Wow, Ken. Are you saying he didn't kill the subsidies? That premiums won't go up for people?

  2. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 4 days ago

    Agreed Mike. This is what this small business owner/operator has been waiting for! Now I can go shopping. Thank you President Trump!

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Even the very conservative Forbes magazine says the order to sell across state lines won't work. In fact, it has been a failure in the six states where it's already being tried.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapse … 7a0a35f99c

      And I'm simply replying to your post with information and not a criticism.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      How nice for you that you can go shopping. How long has it been since you last went shopping?

  3. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 4 days ago

    Well PP, since you've asked the question. I haven't shopped for Insurance, since Barack Obama overstepped his limited boundaries and Dictated that I go shopping or else!

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Ok, I wish you well in your insurance shopping experience. I would love to hear a report when you're done.

    2. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      I'm happy that I am no longer breaking the law by not paying for the illegal ObamaCare. 

      I'll be going shopping too.  smile  Legal and above broad...!

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Trump did not kill the individual mandate. He only killed the subsidies that go to insurance companies to keep prices down.

        And according to the Supreme Court, you are not breaking the law. You are only breaking the law according to one Republican judge on a lower court.

        http://www.npr.org/2015/06/25/417435290 … -subsidies

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        So, you voluntarily paid for your own insurance prior to the mandate? Or, have you always been uninsured and suddenly feel the urge to shop?

  4. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 days ago

    Low-income people who get tax credits because of their lower income won't be affected

    No.
    First started Medicare, Part A & B $56/m
    Part D by Bush43 started out free.

    Last Three years (AZ)
    Healthcare Part D w/Rx
    = $0   2015
    = $20 2016
    = $27 2017
    = $49 2018

    So changing it for 2018.
    Called Humana , was told by rep that can not sell me health insurance without Rx coverage. I asked her, "Then why do you have a health plan that doesn't offer it?"
    REP: for people with other insurance like VA
    ME:  so I can't buy separate Rx only insurance on my own?
    REP: No

    Rep failed to mention that this rule does not apply to those who receive Extra Help or live in Alaska or Hawaii.

    So I qualify for Extra Help. and able to get
    $0/m Humana A&D administered without Rx
    and
    $12.30/m Atena Rx only

    Glad I shopped around. But seriously concerned about Trump doing an EO to remove Extra Help.

    BTW, if do live in the states HI or AK and are less than 165% above poverty level than the state pays for your Part A/B premiums and free Rx. Have to apply for Special Individual -II, it's not given out automatically.


    The immediate elimination of cost-sharing-reduction subsidies will have a great impact. These subsidies lower the out-of-pocket expenses for individuals who earn between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level. About seven million people qualified for C.S.R.s, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13739923.jpg

    Most people get insurance through Medicare or Medicaid or are covered by an employer and will not notice significant changes to their insurance.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      If I understand your post correctly, you are mixing insurance company subsidies and individual tax credits together.

      The subsidies pay insurance companies to lower their prices on premiums. The credits reduce the final costs on premiums to the individuals.

      1. ptosis profile image80
        ptosisposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Oh. My bad. Sorry.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        "The credits reduce the final costs on premiums to the individuals."

        That's significant, I think - the actual premium is unchanged; it is only the entity paying it that shifts.  Shifting the cost from the insured to the rest of the nation does not change the premium being charged.  The insured is getting a subsidy, even though paid directly to the insurer, not the insurance company.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 days ago

    President Donald Trump and the The Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Eric Hargan and Medicare administrator Seema Verma will stop the payment of cost-sharing subsidies, which help lower copays and deductibles for people with modest incomes, to insurers because these subsidies lack formal authorization by Congress.

    Extracted  from: http://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-to- … subsidies/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      "“It is a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America,” said House and Senate Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi of California and Chuck Schumer of New York."

      Interesting that we are now up to providing for the middle class what they want but don't want to pay for.  The foundation supporting the nation, and they are now tied to the apron strings of congress, unable to support or care for themselves.  What happened to helping the needy?  Now it's just "Make the rich pay for themselves and everyone else as well"?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 days agoin reply to this

        Gee, I wonder where we'll get the money to live on when the rich finally have ALL of the money? I suppose they'll evict us....

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

          They'll get tired of having everything taken from them and leave before they ever get it all.  Wouldn't you?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 days agoin reply to this

            And go where? Other countries have the same problem and won't welcome any competition from the newcomers. Of course, many of the same people who are garnering over 90% of the capital in the US are doing so elsewhere as well. But then, that's the way the cookie crumbles with the present tax laws and no limits on profits from the monopolies.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

              Hmm.  The only monopolies I'm aware of are closely regulated.  Things like my power company, for instance.

              Which power company has unlimited profits?  And do you view the tax code as primarily a tool to redistribute wealth or just a method of funding the country?

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      I don't believe the "cost-sharing subsidies, which help lower copays and deductibles for people with modest incomes" is accurate.

      But Breitbart is not known for accuracy.

  6. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 days ago

    Do you not consider phama  companies with their patents on one-of-a-kind drugs to have a monopoly on some of their products, Dan. Those PIN drugs for highly allergic children and adults went from a few dollars to over 500 due to the monopoly.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Do think patents should not be allowed?  Just patents on drugs?  Just patents on drugs for children, tugging at our heartstrings? 

      With no patent, why would a company spend millions to develop a new drug?  Would you support cutting testing requirements by 90%, thus cutting cost to develop?

      Oh, and legally a patent isn't a monopoly.  From a practical standpoint it is, but not legally.  Other companies are, after all, free to develop a drug that will do the same thing.

 
working