Aaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaa!
Like that wasnât foreseeable!
But theyâll carry on with the kabuki of repeal and replace, and a fair number of GOP-controlled states will refuse to expand Medicaid or do so only after tossing in a bunch of useless, wasteful drug testing requirements. Accepting the ACA means admitting Obama wasnât the horrible Maoist Kenyan Muslim they all said he was.
@outsidertrading618 It really does feel like at least 18 months since we had a competent president.
This isnât #MAGA â itâs #GMAB: Good Money After Bad.
Everyone is reporting this as a bug rather than a feature. The âfactâ that government spending on the ACA is increasing is yet another reason to cut medicaid and give a tax cut to the rich.
Yet another bulletin from the Department of the Obvious.
âStudy: Ending OâCare Subsidies Would Cost Govât More Than It Saves.â
Yes, but we canât give out big tax cuts to the 1 percenters unless we end them, so there.
â. . . and give a tax cut to the rich.â.
This is always the clause that gets added to any republican discussion of taxes. Anything else is just flawed (trans.: Craven) reasoning based on that assumption.
Thatâs because Trump is so good, he can pack over 400 days worth of fail into a mere 100 days of calendar time.
So much winning!
I donât get how they (government) can get away with not paying subsidies to the insurers. Theyâre mandated by the Affordable Care Act which is no longer legislation but law ('pubs never talk about it as law). Sure, itâs a great way to kill OâCare if thatâs your purpose but I canât figure how they can legally do it. Itâs all contractual, from the government to the insurers, to the insured.
What am I missing?
What youâre missing is the DC court decision (insert usual activist-judiciary line here) explaining that this requirement for outlays without a specific authorization is different from all the other requirements for outlays without a specific authorization. And the fact that although an insurance company might eventually compel the feds to cough up after years of expensive litigation, they may not be willing to subject their shareholders to that level of expense and uncertainty.
Our assumption is that insurers would only increase silver premiums (if allowed to do so by regulators), since those are the only plans where cost-sharing reductions are available.
And with that unfounded assumption, Kaiser underestimates the true cost. When they increase pretax, employer-based premiums as well, itâs going to cost federal and state governments even more.
âEnding OâCare Subsidies Would Cost Govât More Than It Savesâ
to which the GOP twits respond - âwell if that is the price we have to pay to try to kill Obama-whatever and stop poor people from getting stuff - then OK ⌠because the only thing that matters is that my money never go to pay for other people who canât pay - but I love the idea of special treats & perks and tax breaks for millionaires - cause some day I might magically be one ⌠and that would be wonderfulâ
It was never about the efficiency or usefulness of the ACA.IT WAS always a matter of showing that uppity former occupant of the WH who was bossâŚthey are seething that they are too inept to make anything happen in a reasonable way despite years of half assed efforts.
Yes, but from the article it states â A federal judge agreed, but allowed the payments to continue while the case is appealed.â If thatâs what youâre referring to.
ETA: never mind.
Sen Warren corollary: âHeâs been there for 100 days. I swear, it feels like dog years."
in that same vein - but different topic - only a matter of time before some headline hungry / rabid base pandering GOP twit decides to push for formal de-legitimizing of the entire Obama presidency - formally pronouncing a âcloudâ over his birth record and passing a resolution refusing to fund or permit the hanging of an Obama official portrait - or some other stupidity
So, we now learn that this âgreat businessmanâ canât read a financial statement. Yeah, thatâs the guy I want running the government.
The Whizzer of Oz (Zeros)