Discussion for article #232136
This is all so damned bloody ridiculous. Congress could fix all this in a matter of minutes with simple votes for a “technical fix” to make it plain that subsidies were intended for people in all fifty states, whether said states did or did not set up their own exchanges. Those could even be voice votes so constituents wouldn’t know how their representative or senators voted.
But Republicans have precluded this fix, so now they have to come up with something that maybe cons millions of Americans to believe that, yes, the GOP cares whether or not they can afford health care.
That we have this mess now is one of the most appalling things I’ve witnessed in several decades of closely watching politics in America. (That we have a Supreme Court that will probably knock out the ACA is also way up there on the appalling scale.)
53 Likes
Every other country in the world can manage a nation’s healthcare, but we can’t? What a terrible shame this is.
27 Likes
Like my mother always said, " Be careful what you wish for…you just might get it."
5 Likes
This was obviously coming and the whole point of the whining: The GOP’s handlers want to be rid of the med device tax, 80/20, employer mandate, and other consumer-friendly irritants. The complaint is silly, but they’ve worked the system to get to leverage a few easily changed words into getting big changes.
16 Likes
“It would be wrong not to. … That’s something that is an ongoing conversation and we’re doing all of our diligence on that.”
Dude caught himself in the middle of admitting that it would be wrong not to fix it and thereby screw millions of people. They can’t even admit that publicly because it highlights that right there is all the reason needed for them change one or two words in the fucking statute to undo these ridiculous semantic games.
NO. FUCKING. BARGAIN.
I will be more irrationally outraged than you’ve ever seen me if Obama doesn’t hold their tiny cocks to the fire on this.
24 Likes
And NOW we get to the heart of the matter. THIS.
The ACA was implemented not because a lot Americans needed health insurance but health insurance companies were losing people from their rolls. Either people were losing jobs that had health insurance OR they their jobs were dropping health insurance coverage OR the jobs were changing workers’ hours so they couldn’t qualify OR… At that point, health insurance companies needed people. Enter the ACA (a formerly Republican plan).
I still say that SCOTUS pushes this right back to Congress. To rule against the subsidies, is essentially to kill off health insurance companies in the US.
7 Likes
What a freaking clown show…
5 Likes
Yeah, it’s all just a shakedown. Straight up.
The White House shouldn’t play this game. If they want to own killing Obamacare now that it’s up and running and benefiting people – and throw our healthcare system into total chaos in the process – let 'em. I’d think about giving up the medical device tax for something additional in return (or for the givebacks the device industry refused in the first place), but really, that’s it. No more of this bullshit. You break it, you bought it, assholes.
14 Likes
There’s no way that health insurance companies can exist if they’re only operating in a handful of Blue states. The minute the subsidies dry up, people are gone. With a total lack of wage growth, there’s no alternative for people to fall back on. The industry can’t exist under conditions like that.
And, of course, I;m not even talking about what happens to people who are currently getting ins. coverage.
9 Likes
Top insurers can bite me. We should have single payer…in any case but especially if SCOTUS kills the ACA
8 Likes
Look carefully at the language he is using, “grand bargain.” They aren’t thinking of trading ACA provisions for a fix if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies, they (and their conservative allies) are thinking they can potentially use the situation to get the White House on board with entitlement reforms in exchange for a legislative fix to restore the subsidies.
14 Likes
If SCOTUS kills the ACA, you will get NOTHING. Really, nothing. This Congress would never, in this or any other life, approve of it. The only “fall back” that will be presented are health savings accounts.
In other words, nothing.
4 Likes
I don’t think so. There is way too much money at stake here. The insurers are doing SOOOOO well under ACA. They just want to do even better. This is about sucking more money out of the system. As always.
4 Likes
In other words, another hostage situation.
8 Likes
I agree; if this blows up, the WH should walk away and let it stay “blowed up.”
5 Likes
TPM:
“We’re obviously doing contingency planning for King v. Burwell,” House Ways and Means Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) told reporters after the meeting.
“I’m in charge of the beer,” Ryan continued. “Boehner is getting the wine and liquor. Steve Scalise is getting the cheese. We’re gonna party like it’s 1985 - the second Reagan inauguration! Boo-ya! And then we’re gonna go after Social Security. There’s too many old people not dying off quickly enough.”
17 Likes
The ACA was bad politics. It helped some people–significant numbers. That’s good. But it’s overly complex and even people who benefit from it don’t know they benefit from it. It’s a kludgy and weak alternative to single payer, which was always the better idea but which Obama never tried for. he’s done a terrible job explaining or defending it. Now the Democratic Party is chained to this mess of a bill, we are constantly trying to shore up its many leaks and vulnerabilities, and again it’s a GOP idea. The Supreme Court will likely kill it and we will be back where we were in 2008. Sure, the GOP turned all its guns on the ACA but that’s the thing–the ACA was vulnerable from the start, it was like building the BIsmark: too big, too complex, too vulnerable.
So here’s what will likely happen: Supreme Court guts the ACA, Obama hammers out a “bargain” that cuts social security. Stock in cat food companies goes up.
Oh shit. We’re actually going to have to finally do our fucking jobs…
7 Likes
If the SCOTUS does do away with ACA then its time to remove the insurance industries anti trust protections that they have enjoyed for many years and that taxpayers subsidize each year to the tune of $70 BILLION. Fuck um
7 Likes