trump care ; Koch Plan

[QueEx]

House Republicans release long-awaited
plan to repeal and replace Obamacare

http://wapo.st/2lPAw7APlay Video2:30


President Trump, Vice President Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) keep saying a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare will be released soon, but few details have been released so far.

House Republicans on Monday released long-anticipated legislation to supplant the Affordable Care Act with a more conservative vision for the nation’s health care system, replacing federal insurance subsidies with a new form of individual tax credits and grants to help states shape their own policies.

The legislation would preserve two of the most popular features of the 2010 health-care law:

Letting young adults stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 and forbidding insurers to deny coverage or charge more to people with preexisting medical problems.

It would also target Planned Parenthood, rendering the women’s health organization ineligible for Medicaid reimbursements or federal family planning grants — a key priority for antiabortion groups.​

Taken together, the bills introduced Monday night represent the Republicans’ first attempt — and best shot to date, with an ally in the White House — to translate seven years of talking points about demolishing the ACA into action.

At the same time, major aspects of the plans, notably the strategy for tax credits and Medicaid, reflect the treacherous terrain that Republicans face to win enough votes within their own conferences in the GOP-controlled House and Senate.

The bills must address concerns of both conservatives worried about the cost of the overhaul and worries that it might in effect enshrine a new federal entitlement, as well as more moderate members who want to ensure that their constituents retain access to affordable health care, including those who received Medicaid coverage under the ACA.

Even so, signs emerged on Monday that Republicans in Congress’s upper chamber could balk either at the cost of the proposal or if it leaves swaths of the country without insurance coverage.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) one of at least three conservative senators who opposes the plan to provide income-based tax credits, tweeted: “Still have not seen an official version of the House Obamacare replacement bill, but from media reports this sure looks like Obamacare Lite!”


And four key Republican senators, all from states that opted to expand Medicaid under the ACA, said they would oppose any new plan that would leave millions of Americans uninsured.

“We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The four senators were split on exactly what proposals would meet their standards, but with 52 Republicans, McConnell would not have enough votes to pass repeal without the support of at least two of them.​

Democrats, meanwhile, have given no indication that they intend to work with Republicans, and top party leaders decried the GOP plan Monday as a betrayal of everyday Americans. “Trumpcare doesn’t replace the Affordable Care Act, it forces millions of Americans to pay more for less care,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

In particular, the plan to target Planned Parenthood has already generated fierce pushback from Democrats and doubts from some Republicans who have noted that federal funds are already barred from funding abortions and that Planned Parenthood provides routine medical care to millions of American women.
There is no precedent for Congress to reverse a major program of social benefits once it has taken effect and reached millions of Americans.
​

The tax credits outlined by the Ways and Means Committee’s portion of the legislation incorporate an approach that Republicans have long criticized: income-based aid to help Americans afford health coverage.

Until now, the GOP had been intending to veer away from the ACA subsidies that help poor and middle-class people obtain insurance, insisting that the size of tax credits with which they planned to replace the subsidies should be based entirely on people’s ages and not their incomes. But the drafts issued Monday proposed refundable tax credits that would hinge on earnings as well as age — providing bigger credits for older and poorer Americans.

This big pivot, developed by the Ways and Means Committee under the guidance of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), stems from a combination of problems that were arising with the idea of age-only credits that would have been available to any individual or family buying insurance on their own, no matter how affluent.

The Republican plan would offer tax credits ranging from $2,000 per year for those under 30 to $4,000 per year for those over 60. The full credit would be available for individuals earning up to $75,000 a year and up to $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. The credits would phase out for individuals earning more — for each $1,000 in additional income, a person would be entitled to $100 less in credit, meaning a 61-year old could make up to $115,100 and still receive some credit.​

The income-based phaseout of the credit allows the GOP plan to be funded without taxes on employer-provided insurance that had been considered earlier in the drafting process. In addition, the latest proposal would delay the ACA’s “Cadillac” tax, a levy on the most generous employer-provided health plans, until 2025. It also retains the tax exclusion for premiums paid for employer-provided health plans.​

Estimates from congressional budget analysts and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget kept showing that the credits would be both too small to provide enough help to lower-income people and too expensive overall for a GOP determined to slash federal spending that the ACA has required.

Those analysts have not had time to assess how this new configuration would affect federal spending or the number of people with insurance coverage.

​

While the number of Americans who can afford health insurance has never been the priority for the GOP that it is for Democrats, President Trump has made clear that he is sensitive to any changes that would strand large numbers of people who gained coverage under the ACA.

[Conservative groups and lawmakers demanding ‘full repeal’ could derail Obamacare rollback]


Compared with the ACA’s subsidies, the tax credits would go to more people but provide less financial help to lower-income people, according to Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Meanwhile, the portion of the legislation drafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee would substantially redesign Medicaid in a way that attempts to balance the GOP’s antipathy toward the ACA’s expansion of the program against the concerns of a significant cadre of Republican governors — and the lawmakers from their states — who fear losing millions of dollars that the law has funneled to help insure low-income residents.

Medicaid would be converted from its current form of entitlement to anyone eligible into a per capita cap on funding to states, depending on how many people they had enrolled. In states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, the government for now would continue paying for virtually the entire cost of the expansion.


SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.480523b8b71a


.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[QueEx]

Battle erupts over 'TrumpCare'


A war of words has broken out over the GOP’s ObamaCare replacement bill,
with Democrats branding the legislation “TrumpCare” in their attempt to
derail it.

The White House is rejecting the term, which Democrats from Senate Minority
Leader Charles Schumer on down are using to attack the Republican push to
repeal large portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“To the extent that ‘TrumpCare’ is a brand or phrase that both encapsulates
the anger voters will have toward the policies this plan puts forward, as well
as the anger that voters feel toward Donald Trump and their excitement and
enthusiasm to oppose Trump, that will potent tool.”

In a five-minute speech Wednesday on the Senate floor, Schumer used the term
“TrumpCare” 15 times.

“TrumpCare will make healthcare in America worse in almost every way and
likely leave more Americans uninsured,” Schumer said. “With respect to women,
TrumpCare would send us back to the dark ages.”

The battle over the labeling of the legislation is a role reversal for the two parties.
Republicans began calling the ACA "ObamaCare" early in their opposition to former
President Obama's reform effort. Similarly, the administration initially resisted
the term.

Now, Democrats are in lockstep with the Senate Democratic leader.

The party’s primary campaign arms — the Democratic National Committee, as well as
the House and Senate committees — are flooding the inboxes of supporters to rally
opposition to “TrumpCare.”

Legions of Democratic lawmakers have taken up the term, which liberal writers and
commentators like Jonathan Chait and Chris Hayes using it with aplomb. The
“TrumpCare” hashtag was trending on Twitter in the wake of bill’s release on Tuesday.

“We’re not into labels,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said at a daily
briefing with reporters.

And White House counselor Kellyanne Conway insisted that the law should go by its official
name — the American Health Care Act.

In an interview on Fox News Channel’s "America’s Newsroom," Rep. Mark Meadows
(R-N.C.), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, responded directly to
Conway for her description of the bill -- -- “This bill is just ObamaCare in a different
form.

This is smoke and mirrors when we suggest that we’re gonna dupe the American people,
we’re gonna do this bill behind closed doors and roll it out and expect the American people to
believe it,” Meadows said. “Let me just tell you, they’re smarter than that and they understand
that this is just Obamacare with a different label.”

Other opponents of the House's legislation are trying to make it an albatross for Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.):

Breitbart News, the conservative website that relishes making GOP leadership’s life difficult,
is attacking the measure as “Speaker Ryan’s ObamaCare 2.0.”

The conservative Club for Growth went even further, calling the bill “RyanCare.”​

SOURCE: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322978-battle-erupts-over-trumpcare


.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[QueEx]

One-On-One With Bernie Sanders On Trumpcare,
All In Chris Hayes 3/8/17

 

[QueEx]

Politics

The G.O.P.’s High-Risk Strategy for Health Law Repeal


The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR and
THOMAS KAPLAN
MARCH 11, 2017


WASHINGTON — President Trump and House Republicans are pressing forward with a high-risk strategy to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, disregarding the views of medical professionals and potentially imperiling the party’s political future in conservative states where many voters stand to lose their health care.

The effort could cause upheaval in an already roiled insurance market next year, as Republicans face voters for the first time with Mr. Trump in the White House — though that turmoil would happen only if the plans manage to clear a divided Senate.

Mr. Trump is showing only a tenuous grasp of the legislative process and mercurial leadership in rounding up support. But Republicans who spent seven years promising to scrap President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement say their strategy is worth the risk.

“If you ask someone to give up something, there will be resentment,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health. But, he added, “If that claims my congressional career, so be it. It will be worth it to me to have effected this change.”

The risks mounted steadily throughout this past week. The insurance and health care industry cited likely damage to medical coverage for millions of Americans. Conservatives fought the bill on the grounds that it did too little to reduce subsidies. And House leaders moved forward even though the influential Congressional Budget Office has yet to assess the costs or effectiveness of the plan.

Ultimately, Republicans are counting on Democrats to step in and help repair what even Republicans anticipate as upheaval if a repeal measure is passed without a broad remake of American health care. Republican leaders have made no effort to hide the strategy. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan spoke at length this past week about a three-stage effort:

First, with only Republican votes, repeal major parts of the health law and put in place some new provisions.

Second, let Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price use regulatory powers to try to stabilize insurance markets.

Third, pressure Democrats to help with a series of bills to complete the replacement and change the health care system more to the liking of conservatives.​

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan outlined the Republicans’ bill, called the American Health Care Act, at a
news conference on Thursday. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times​

But that bet carries enormous peril for consumers and insurers — and congressional Republicans and the Trump administration.

Democrats, eyeing potential turmoil in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, have little political reason to cooperate. “One thing is clear,” said the House Democratic whip, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland. “House Republicans are going to have to find the votes on their own to dismantle the protections incorporated in the Affordable Care Act that the American people now have.”

A growing chorus of Republican policy experts and senators are pleading to slow the process down or risk a political blood bath.

But Republican leaders and Mr. Trump appear to be laying the groundwork for blaming the law they are annulling [Obamacare] for the fallout likely to come in the repeal’s wake [Trumpcare].

Mr. Trump asserted on Friday that 2017 would be “a disaster” for the health law. “That’s the year it was meant to explode, because Obama won’t be here,” he said, adding that “as bad as it is now, it’ll get even worse.” On

Saturday, he took to Twitter: “ObamaCare is imploding and will only get worse. Republicans coming together to get job done!”

And Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Louisville, Ky., on Saturday to assure residents that “the Obamacare nightmare is about to end.”​

What is clear is that 2018 — a year that Republicans say will be messy — will loom large for them as they move toward a vote on the measure. But Republicans say that gives them nearly a year of time, since people will experience few changes with their health care in 2017.

Under the proposed House legislation, individuals would no longer be subject to a penalty if they go without health insurance, a politically popular change that would be retroactive to 2016. But they would still enjoy the protections of the Affordable Care Act: Insurers would have to offer a suite of essential health benefits, could not deny them coverage because of pre-existing conditions and could not impose annual or lifetime caps on coverage.

Insurers would be free to raise their premiums to meet these requirements, but because current policies are locked in for the year, voters would not see the effects until 2018. If young, healthy Americans flee the market, freed from the mandate, premiums could soar next year.

Insurers say this is a recipe for havoc. Eliminating the penalties used to enforce the mandate that most Americans have insurance “would add to short-term instability in the market,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, the chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers.

Instead of the current tax penalty for failing to secure coverage, the bill would introduce a penalty for purchasing insurance after letting coverage lapse: To encourage people to maintain “continuous coverage,” insurers would impose a 30 percent surcharge on premiums for people without coverage for 63 days or more.

But that provision would not take effect until 2019 — again leaving 2018 unprotected.

All of that has created immense uncertainty for insurers, which have until June 21 to notify the government if they intend to participate in the federal insurance marketplace next year.

“The current uncertainty makes it difficult to assess what our product offerings for 2018 might be,” said Roy D. Vaughn, a senior vice president of BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, which has lost more than $400 million in the federal insurance exchange in the last three years. “All options are on the table for 2018.”

For all those worries, the Republicans’ repeal campaign did gain momentum this past week as two House committees approved the legislation, with the full House expected to take it up later this month. Mr. Trump praised the legislation, even as it was harshly criticized by doctors, hospitals, insurers and state officials, who said it could increase the number of uninsured and destabilize insurance markets. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to render its verdict on the legislation this coming week, with an estimate of the bill’s costs and its effect on coverage. Republicans are bracing for bad news.

Deep Banerjee, who follows insurers for Standard & Poor’s, estimated that the Republican plan would reduce enrollment in the individual market by two million to four million people and in the Medicaid market by four million to six million. Brookings Institution analysts predicted that the budget office would expect the bill to cause the number of uninsured to rise by at least 15 million.

“Republicans do not currently have the votes to pass their health care bill in the House,” said Kim Monk, a health care analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, a policy research firm for investors. But she sees a 60 percent likelihood that they will clear that hurdle.

“Republicans campaigned on ‘repeal and replace,”’ said Ms. Monk, a former Senate aide. “If they do not deliver, the Affordable Care Act will stay in place, and Republicans would pay a price in the next election.”

The bill may need to move to the right to get through the House, where a formidable bloc of conservatives wants more aggressive steps to rein in the growth of Medicaid. But to win approval in the Senate, the bill may have to move in the opposite direction — to satisfy more moderate Republicans and those from states that have expanded Medicaid, like Ohio and Colorado. At the same time, three Republican senators — Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky — will be tugging the bill to the right.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is determined to secure repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has called “the single worst piece of legislation that has been passed in the last half-century.”

But several provisions of the bill, including proposed cuts in Medicaid, face resistance from health care providers, especially hospitals, which are present in virtually every congressional district and plan an all-out lobbying campaign. In addition, Democrats are gaining some traction with their argument that the bill acts like Robin Hood in reverse, taking health insurance from the poor and giving tax breaks to the rich.

On the other hand, Mr. Trump has successfully defied conventional wisdom before. His Twitter-fueled ability to command a spotlight could be a formidable asset as Republican leaders try to collect votes for the health care bill.

For health policy experts, liberal and conservative, the rush to enact a measure that even its authors concede is incomplete is dangerous. On Friday, two conservative critics of the Affordable Care Act, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta, urged Republicans to slow down and get their health legislation right.

“While the emphasis on moving quickly is not surprising, there is also a significant risk that unnecessary haste could lead to major mistakes in the legislation that would generate strong political backlash,” wrote Mr. Antos and Mr. Capretta, scholars at the American Enterprise Institute. “The A.C.A. has extended insurance coverage to millions of people with expensive health problems, and to many lower-income households. Acknowledging this is not the same thing as saying the A.C.A. should not be changed.”

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.


SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/politics/republican-health-law-repeal-strategy.html?_r=0


.

 

[QueEx]

.detail-icons .count{display:none;}

David Horsey Copyright 2017 Tribune Content Agency

 

[muckraker10021]

The RepubliKlan "Cure"!!
24 Million People Will Lose Their Health Insurance

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[QueEx]

A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

The Facts on the GOP Health Care Bill

• By D'Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Vanessa Schipani
• Posted on March 8, 2017 | Updated on March 14, 2017

House Republicans released their replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act on March 6. How does the GOP’s American Health Care Act differ from the ACA? We look at the major provisions.


Is there a requirement to have insurance or pay a tax?

No. For all months after Dec. 31, 2015, the bill eliminates the tax penalties that the ACA imposes on nonexempt individuals for not having health insurance, as well as employers with 50 or more full-time workers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. (To be clear, unless this bill becomes law quickly, those filing their 2016 tax returns will still be subject to the penalty.)



Are insurance companies required to offer coverage regardless of preexisting conditions?

Yes, but there’s a penalty for not having continuous coverage. Under both the ACA and the GOP bill, insurers can’t deny coverage to anyone based on health status. Under the GOP bill, they can, however, charge 30 percent higher premiums for one year, regardless of health status, to those entering the individual market who didn’t have continuous coverage, which is defined as a lapse of coverage of 63 days or more over the previous 12 months.



What happens to the expansion of Medicaid?

It will be phased out.

Prior to the ACA, Medicaid was available to groups including qualified low-income families, pregnant women, children and the disabled. The ACA expanded eligibility to all individuals under age 65 who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $16,643 a year for an individual), but only in states that opted for the expansion. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have opted in to the expansion, which includes enhanced federal funding, so far. More than 11 million newly eligible adults had enrolled in Medicaid through March 2016, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation of data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost.

Are insurers required to cover certain benefits?

Yes. The bill keeps the essential health benefits requirement under the ACA. Insurance companies would still have to cover 10 health services, including maternity coverage, prescription drugs and mental health care. State Medicaid plans, however, would not have to meet this requirement after Dec. 31, 2019.



Are there subsidies to help individuals buy insurance? How do they differ from the Affordable Care Act?

There are two forms of financial assistance under the ACA: premium tax credits (which would change under the GOP plan) and cost-sharing to lower out-of-pocket costs (which would be eliminated).

Let’s look at the premium tax credits first. They would be available to individuals who buy their own coverage on the individual, or nongroup, market. But instead of a sliding scale based on income, as under the ACA, the Republican plan’s tax credits are based on age, with older Americans getting more. (The plan, however, allows insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than younger people, as we will explain later.)

The ACA tax credits also take into account the local cost of insurance, varying the amount of the credit in order to put a cap on the amount an individual or family would have to spend for their premiums. The Republican plan doesn’t do that. (See this explanation from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation for more on how the ACA tax credits are currently calculated.)

There are income limits under the GOP bill. Those earning under $75,000, or $150,000 for a married couple, in modified adjusted gross income, get the same, fixed amounts for their age groups — starting at $2,000 a year for those under age 30, increasing in $500 increments per decade in age, up to $4,000 a year for those 60 and older. The tax credits are capped at $14,000 per family, using the five oldest family members to calculate the amount. This new structure would begin in 2020, with modifications in 2018 and 2019 to give more to younger people and less to older people.

For those earning above those income thresholds, the tax credit is reduced by 10 percent of the amount earned above the threshold. For instance, an individual age 60 or older earning $100,000 a year would get a tax credit of $1,500 ($4,000 minus 10 percent of $25,000).

That hypothetical 60-year-old gets $0 in tax credits under the ACA. But if our 60-year-old earns $30,000 a year, she would likely get more under the ACA than the GOP plan: In Franklin County, Ohio, for instance, the tax credit would be $6,550 under the ACA in 2020 and $4,000 under the Republican plan. (This interactive map from the KFF shows the difference in tax credits under the health care plans.)

As for the cost-sharing subsidies available now under the ACA — which can lower out-of-pocket costs for copays and other expenses for those earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level — those would be eliminated in 2020. However, the GOP bill sets up a Patient and State Stability Fund, with $100 billion in funding over nine years with state matching requirements, that can be used for various purposes, including lowering out-of-pocket costs of a state’s residents.

Small-business tax credits would end in 2020. The health insurance marketplaces stay, but the tax credits can be used for plans sold outside of those marketplaces. And the different levels of plans (bronze, silver, etc.) based on actuarial value (the percentage of costs covered) are eliminated; anyone can buy a catastrophic plan, not just those under 30 as is the case with the ACA.



What does the bill do regarding health savings accounts?

It increases the contribution limits for tax-exempt HSAs, from $3,400 for individuals and $6,750 for families now to $6,550 and $13,100, respectively. Excess money from a premium tax credit also can be contributed and won’t count toward that limit. It allows individuals to use HSA money for over-the-counter drugs, something the ACA had limited to only over-the-counter drugs for which individuals had obtained a prescription.



There were so-called winners and losers in the individual market under the ACA. How would that change under this bill?

Both the current law and the Republican proposal primarily impact the individual market, where 7 percent of the U.S. population buys its own health insurance. As we’ve written many times, how the ACA affected someone in this market depended on their individual circumstances — and the same goes for the House Republicans’ plan. In general, because the ACA said that insurers could no longer vary premiums based on health status and limited the variation based on age, older and sicker individuals could have paid less than they had before, while younger and healthier individuals could have paid more.

The GOP plan allows a wider variation in pricing based on age: Insurers can charge older individuals up to five times as much as younger people, and states can change that ratio. Under the ACA, the ratio was 3:1. So, younger individuals may see lower premiums under this bill, while older individuals could see higher premiums.

Older Americans do get higher tax credits than younger Americans under the Republican plan, but whether that amounts to more or less generous tax credits than under the ACA depends on other individual circumstances, including income and local insurance pricing. Those with low incomes could do worse under the GOP plan, while those who earned too much to qualify for tax credits under the ACA (an individual making more than $48,240) would get tax credits.

We would encourage readers to use the Kaiser Family Foundation’s interactive map to see how tax credits may change, depending on various circumstances. “Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement,” KFF says. “Conversely, some people who are younger, higher-income, or live in low-premium areas (like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington) may receive larger assistance under the replacement plan.”



Which ACA taxes go away under the GOP plan?

Many of the ACA taxes would be eliminated.

As we said, the bill eliminates all fines on individuals for not having insurance and large employers for not offering insurance. Also, beginning in 2018, for high-income taxpayers, the bill eliminates the 3.8 percent tax on certain net investment income and the 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on earnings above a threshold. That same year, the bill repeals the 2.3 percent tax on the sale price of certain medical devices and the 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services. It also gets rid of the annual fees on entities, according to the IRS, “in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks,” as well as fees on “each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.”

It reduces the tax on distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) not used for qualified medical expenses from 20 percent to 10 percent and the tax on such distributions from Archer medical savings accounts (MSAs) from 20 percent to 15 percent. It lowers the threshold for receiving a tax deduction for medical expenses from 10 percent to 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. And from 2020 through 2024, the bill suspends the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance plans offered by employers.



Will young adults under the age of 26 still be able to remain on their parents’ plans?

Yes. The bill does not affect this provision of the ACA.



How does the bill treat abortion?

It puts a one-year freeze on funding to states for payments to a “prohibited entity,” defined as one that, among other criteria, provides abortions other than those due to rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. This would include funding to Planned Parenthood under Medicaid, which is most of the organization’s government funding. Under current law, Planned Parenthood can’t use federal money for abortions, except those in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life.

Also under the GOP plan, tax credits can’t be used to purchase insurance that covers abortion beyond those three exceptions. Health insurance companies would still be able to offer “separate coverage” for expanded coverage of abortions, which individuals could then purchase on their own.



How many people will have insurance under the plan, as compared with the ACA?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would lead to 14 million fewer people having insurance in 2018 and 24 million fewer insured in 2026, compared with current law under the ACA. An earlier analysis from S&P Global Ratings estimated a decline in the insured of 6 million to 10 million people under the bill.


How much will the bill cost, as compared with the ACA?

CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the next decade, 2017-2026. It would reduce revenues by nearly $883 billion, mostly by repealing the ACA’s taxes and fees, and reduce spending by $1.22 trillion for a net savings of about $337 billion, according to CBO.



Where can I get more information?

The full text of the bill is here. A detailed summary is available from the Kaiser Family Foundation.



Editor’s Note: This story will be updated and revised on our website, FactCheck.org, as new information becomes available. Those who are not reading this on FactCheck.org can click here for the latest version.


Categories:Featured Posts and The Wire

Locations:National

Issues:Affordable Care Act, health care, health insurance, and medicaid

author:DAngelo Gore, Lori Robertson, and Vanessa Schipani



Q: During President Trump’s address to Congress, did top Democrats remain seated during a standing ovation for a Navy SEAL’s widow?

A: No. There were two ovations and video shows Democratic leaders stood for both. However, they did not remain standing as long as Republicans.

Read the full question and answer

View the Ask FactCheck archives
Have a question? Ask us.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
  

© Copyright 2017 FactCheck.org

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Politics
38 Million Angry Seniors Just Told Paul Ryan What Will Happen If Congress Passes The RyanCare Plan

By Paula Kennedy
Posted on March 19, 2017

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Comments

President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress just got some bad news – millions and millions of senior voters are angry as hell!


AARP leaders, representing 38 million of America’s senior citizens, issued an angry statement this week targeted at Republicans in Congress who are trying to dismantle important health care programs for America’s senior citizens. AARP is warning that they will make sure voters know how their representatives voted on the awful health care and spending plans.


The top leaders at AARP are calling the Trump-Ryan proposal “harmful legislation,” because it will increase taxes and fees on the elderly and drastically diminishes the Medicare program that millions of seniors rely upon.

Here’s a brief list of the major issues that the AARP has with the current Republican plan:

• Creates an Age Tax
• Cuts the life of Medicare
• Gives sweetheart deals to big drug companies and insurance companies
• Does nothing to lower the cost of health care or prescriptions

The statement came from AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond. Read more, via AARP.org:




We intend on letting all 38 million of our members know exactly how their Representative voted. Our members care deeply about their health care and have told us repeatedly that they want to know where their elected officials stand. We will communicate the results of the House vote to our members and the public through The Bulletin, a print publication that goes to all of our members, as well as through emails, social media, and other communications channels.

… We are also profoundly disappointed that the big drug and insurance companies were given sweetheart deals while nothing was done to lower the cost of health care or prescriptions. Congress must do more to bring down the unsustainably high health care and prescription drug costs for consumers and taxpayers.

Wake up, Congress! Americans are not going to forget about all of this the next time voting comes around.

Daily Kos reports:

AARP is not playing around.

Serious consequences coming from AARP for any Republican Rep. voting YES for the Trumpcare healthcare monstrosity and CBO scored disaster, that financially slams Seniors into bankruptcy. AARP is going to make sure all its 38 million members know how their Congressional Representative voted.

Make no mistake, a YES vote by any Republican puts that Representative on record for 2018. That’s YES to stripping away the healthcare of 24 million and to bankrupt millions of older Americans.

Hopefully all of these bums get voted out of office!

 

[Heavenlywings77]

We haven't taken him out yet?

 

[QueEx]

They Don't Have the Numbers to Pass a Repeal & Replace.
And, they Need a Way Out.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

They Don't Have the Numbers to Pass a Repeal & Replace.
And, they Need a Way Out.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Another day, another embarrassing failure for the Trump administration.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

This is the Freudian slip of the century!

 

[QueEx]

The Art of the Deal Fail!

 

[muckraker10021]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[yureeka9]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

lol..

trumpy bout to go on vacation again.....

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Try again, actually, don't.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Governor Andrew Cuomo
34 mins ·
This week, Washington showed the people of this nation a disgusting display of government at its worst.

We saw Members of Congress openly bribe one-another at the expense of their own constituents, racing each other to decimate New York’s healthcare system while attempting to ram through a piece of legislation that would jeopardize the healthcare of 24 million people and supported by only 17 percent of Americans.

Some Republican Members of Congress apparently forgot who put them there in the first place. So let me remind them: you are elected to fight for your constituents – not hurt them. For the first time in my life, I witnessed New York elected officials pound their chest proudly while cutting nearly $7 billion in funding for the people they serve, tripping over themselves to cut taxes for millionaires while simultaneously cutting healthcare services for seniors, women, and the disabled and killing jobs across the state.

This bill appears to be on life support for now – it should be killed once and for all.

Republican leadership may have counted on the complexity of the issue to confuse the debate, but at the end of the day it’s actually quite simple. This Congress tried to play the people of this nation for a fool – they were wrong, and they lost.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[COINTELPRO]

They just need to break up this massive bill and pass smaller reforms like the individual mandate, Medicaid, and the subsidies that have broad support.

The free market failed to implement measures to deal with pre existing conditions and other areas that caused the government to step in.

The Democrats have tied their fate to the insurance companies who will print rate increase letters come election time.

 

[QueEx]

The Republican Waterloo​

Conservatives once warned that Obamacare would produce the Democratic Waterloo. ​

Their inability to accept the principle of universal coverage has, instead, led to their own defeat.​

 

[QueEx]

Koch Brothers Sabotage Trump's Big Plans ​

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Trump promotes Fox News show calling for Paul Ryan's resignation over health care failure

President Trump licks wounds day after health care bill implodes

U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan looks down after pulling Trump's health care bill from the floor of the House of Representatives.
(WIN MCNAMEE)
“I want to be clear, this is not on President Trump. Nobody expected a businessman to understand the nuances of Washington,” she added.

Pirro later claimed that she did not collude with the White House on her biting remarks against Ryan.

“I want to be perfectly clear,” Pirro told two guests. “He and I had absolutely no conversation, no discussion, no email, nothing.”

President Trump pauses as he speaks from the Oval Office about the failed health care bill.
(MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
White House spokesman Sean Spicer offered no ulterior motive for Trump's tweet and said the President is merely a fan of the show,according to the Washington Post.

LUPICA: GOP mess makes flawed Obamacare look like Bill of Rights

The segment aired as the President’s motorcade headed to the Trump International Hotel for dinner.

Ryan rescinded the Affordable Care Act repeal on Friday for lacking enough support from the House Freedom Caucus, prompting a two-face reaction from the Trump administration.

Television personality Jeanine Pirro (seen at Trump Tower in November) slammed Ryan for the bill's failure.
(MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS)
The President publically praised Ryan for working “very, very hard” and pinned the blame on Democrats for refusing to join their health care crusade.

He repeatedly said "I don't blame Paul," in a surprise phone call to the Washington Post on Friday night.

Trump pulls plug on Obamacare repeal vote as GOP support falters

Meanwhile, Trump’s aides reportedly suggested Ryan was at the heart of the failure.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

The Trump approach to healthcare was never going to
be ‘repeal and replace.’ It was always ‘bait and switch.​

 

[QueEx]

Trump's Negotiation Theory:
If you can't just out slick em;
Then do your best to sink em.


Trump is such an amateurish chump!
and, it wouldn't matter, if it didn't matter, but it does:

- His tiny hands are on the nuclear trigger;

- His tweets are likely to be misunderstood by U.S. third graders and world leaders alike;

- By an ill advised executive order, we could be on the verge of a civil war, in this country;

- Putin is likely to treat him like a puppet; and have his amateurish ass for lunch;
- Even high school cheerleaders know it: "2, 4, 6, 8 -- Trump can't negotiate !!!" ​

Has hate placed us all, in Jeopardy



.