Bipartisan Senate bill to fund ACA healthcare, and approved by Trump!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Oct 17, 2017.

Tags:
  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Bipartisan Senate bill to fund healthcare, and approved by Trump!

    Ah.... What?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/key-senators-reach-bipartisan-health-care-subsidy-deal-and-trump-expresses-support/2017/10/17/72be5b04-b355-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_senatehealth-3p:homepage/story&utm_term=.3e4c82fa93ef
     
  2. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #2
    I'm glad Trump supports it (though I am positive he has no idea what any of those words mean), but I will be surprised if the GOP votes it through.
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    If they want to keep their jobs they will vote it through. But they will spin it to their constituents as, "We must get rid of ObamaCare".
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    Well, yes.

    If anything this shows the total incoherence of Trump's governing abilities and legislative skill. Trump vreportedly believed there was going to be fabulous Health Reform Bill sitting on his desk the day he took office. And of course there was no such thing, and couldn't be, given the Republicans incessant demands to not only repeal the ACA, but peddle the deluded notion that there were "free market" solutions to the problems of people with pre-existing conditions.

    Trump's approval of this deal strikes me as nothing other than naked opportunism. Having been repeatedly rebuffed in his efforts to repeal the ACA, backing possibly the most unpopular legislation in recent history, he senses an opportunity to bolster his poll numbers and popularity, by signing on to a proposal that is going to struggle to even make it to the floor of the Republican House of Representatives.

    It certainly is possible that, should the Senate pass a version of this deal, there will be enough pressure on Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans to bring this to a vote in the House. Maybe Trump can be of use lobbying Republicans to do so. If that happens, then I suppose he deserves at least a little credit.

    Trump wants to sign something (anything) that can be marketed as Health Care Reform. This stop-gap deal merely provides a band-aid to patch up the gaping wound Trump himself inflicted. If he wants to claim this as a fabulous victory, good luck to him.
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    Yesterday morning - Obamacare is dead.
    This morning - Obamacare is everything but dead
    Last hour - I support the ACA deal
     
  6. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    I have to laugh at Trump taking swipes at insurance companies. The largest, UnitedHealth reported quarterly earnings today and is up over 6% in part because they said one of the EOs Trump signed will be good for their business. Because of that the whole health care sector is up. Yet Trump is crowing about their stocks being way down due to his getting rid of CSRs.
     
  7. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    naked + opportunism

    perfect wording.
    King has no cloths.
     
  8. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #8
    Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't have that much faith in them. The more likely scenario, I think, is that most democrats the more centrist blue-state republicans vote for this. The rest will be tripping over themselves to vote 'no' as a way of showing their big corporate donors they are against ObamaCare.

    The question is - will enough republicans be willing to vote yes to get this passed. I think there are enough in the Senate, I am not sure there are enough in the House.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 17, 2017 ---
    Let's hope so, but so far Trump has shown he doesn't know how to do this. Late-night / early-morning Twitter tirades won't get this done. He doesn't know how to whip legislators to do what he wants, nobody in his cabinet does it seems, and most likely he will have some kind of foot-in-mouth remark that will actually do the opposite.
     
  9. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #9
    • Yesterday, insurance company subsidies are bailouts and bad.
    • Today, continuing payments for two years, good.
    Seriously, how can anyone support this man? He is all over the place like a drunk driver and you never know where the car will end up.
     
  10. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    This deal is never going to make it through the House. Conservative representatives can't tell their base that they helped keep Obamacare alive. At this point, we'll be lucky if Congress can handle tax cuts and [kicking out] DACA kids before the campaign posturing starts up in earnest.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    1) This should have never been taken up by the executive branch, thats Obama's mistake. Trump was right to throw it back down to congress.

    2) There should be a clause in this bill that states any insurance company that receives money is barred from lobbying or paying any money to political candidates for 10 years.

    3) US tax payer is about to get soaked to pad the pockets of executives again.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Wait. What?

    Trump didn’t rescind his executive orders. So how did he throw it back to Congress?

    It isn’t enough to just say, “Congress needs to get something done.”
     
  14. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    No one told the constitutional law professor that Congress appropriates money for the subsidies, not the executive branch. This insurance cash grab is finally back to where it belongs: congress.

    Insurance CEOs will be setting sail in their yacht paid for by us tax payers and bought with campaign contributions.
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    Can't wait to hear the campaign slogans...."I got nothing done, but reelect me...I'm sure I'll get it right next time!"

    I could be wrong, but I think it's going to be a bloodbath.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    I thought Trump wasn't making it till 4 years? Steam running out of Russia?
     
  17. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #17
    Not about Trump...try reading again....the discussion was about congress. Perhaps being in Canada, you have forgotten about these things called midterms.
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    It’s in Congress. But it’s also in the Executive Branch and in the courts.

    The constitutionality of the subsidies isn’t over, as I can almost guarantee it’s destined for a SCOTUS ruling of one form or another. Likewise I expect trump’s EO to run into some federal court roadblocks, just like his three travel bans.

    This isn’t over by a long shot.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn, Oct 18, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017

    Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    What are you talking about? It's in the constitution clear as day. How do you compel a president to do something thats unconstitutional and would be at his own discretion anyways? Do you realize how bizarre that is?

    Not only do you want Trump to appropriate funds out of thin air, you want to force him to do it.

    Premiums have skyrocketed since Obamacare and democrat pet insurance companies stocks have skyrocketed under ACA as well, how does that work? Oh yeah, by feeding your populace to the wolves.
     
  20. citizenzen, Oct 18, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    Please describe your level of expertise that allows you to leap to that conclusion.

    One thing I’ve learned from the ACA and the courts, is that it isn’t nearly as simple as people believe it to be.

    For instance, here was a post of your’s where you seemed sure that the Constitution didn’t cover mandatory purchases ...
    So you constitutional track record is spotty, at best.
     
  21. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    betwixt
    #21
    Such a clause would conflict with the 1st Amendment.
     
  22. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #22
    Congress does need to appropriate the funds for these payments. But this isn't something that was just "taken up by the executive branch." The law requires the executive branch to make these payments. It isn't like they were being made just because President Obama (or an executive branch agency) decided on his (or its) own that such payments were a good idea.

    The payments were being made because the law instructs the executive branch to make them. At the same time, the law arguably (and actually, I think) doesn't appropriate the funds needed to make them. The law itself is incongruent. So regardless of what the executive branch does in this situation, it is - in one way or the other - acting contrary to what is required by law.

    If an insurance company is a corporation, which is the case with the large ones, it's already prohibited from contributing money to political candidates or parties.

    That said, do you think that everyone who (or every entity which) receives money from the federal government - to include as reimbursement for products supplied or services rendered, perhaps on behalf of third-party beneficiaries - should be barred from lobbying or contributing to political candidates? A doctor who treats Medicaid beneficiaries? A grocer who sells to SNAP beneficiaries? A contractor which provides services to the federal government? A firearms manufacturer which sells to the federal government?

    Insurers are required, by the law, to pay out-of-pocket expenses for certain beneficiaries which they would not otherwise pay. Doing so would make certain plans economically unviable - they would lose money - unless those insurers were reimbursed for the related actuarial costs. So that's what the law provides. It requires that those insurers be reimbursed for those costs. The government is paying the insurers for the improved products (i.e. insurance coverage) which the law requires those insurers to offer to certain people. If the government wasn't doing that, the insurers wouldn't sell those improved products to those people. Or, in the alternative, they'd raise the premiums to what they should be for the improved products. In this context, that would mean that the federal government would have to pay more in premium subsidies instead of as cost-sharing reduction payments.
     
  23. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #23
    Trump is backing away to the thing he agreed with just yesterday.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...partisan-senate-healthcare-bill-idUSKBN1CN20N

    The man is nuts. Drunk driving the car all over the road again.
     
  24. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #24
  25. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #25
    It's a two year funding band-aid.
    Trump was correct in stating it was up to congress to deal with the funding, not the POTUS.
    The Constitution clearly states that Congress controls the purse strings. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
    Obama's EO that provided the subsidy payments was unconstitutional as it never had an appropriations bill from congress to fund it.
     

Share This Page

26 October 17, 2017