Republicans Are Still Coming After Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

[enhanced_deficit]

They can't seem to get anything done, will this time be different?

Republicans Are Still Coming After Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

JONATHAN ERNST
By The Fiscal Times Staff
November 6, 2017

Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday that House Republicans are still considering a repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate as part of their tax bill. "We have an active conversation with our members and a whole host of ideas on things to add to this bill. And that’s one of the things that’s being discussed," Ryan said on Fox News. President Trump touted the idea in a tweet last week, and Sens. Tom Cotton and Rand Paul have recently spoken in favor of using the tax bill to eliminate the mandate. The move would save the government $416 billion over 10 years as roughly 15 million people go without insurance due to lower spending on subsidies and health care services, according to the CBO. Those savings could be appealing as Republicans look for revenues in their revised tax bill. But if the controversial repeal of the mandate isn’t included in the tax bill, the White House is reportedly ready to roll out an executive order weakening the requirement that taxpayers provide proof of insurance to avoid paying a penalty.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/...vidual-Mandate

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1D820Q

Repeal of individual mandate would increase uninsured, premiums: CBO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday that repealing the Obamacare individual mandate would increase the number of uninsured by 13 million by 2027 and reduce the federal budget deficit less than initially forecast.

The CBO, the nonpartisan budget-scoring agency, said that eliminating the Obamacare mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance or else pay a fine would lower the deficit by $338 billion over the next decade, not $416 billion as it estimated in December.

The agency found that health insurance premiums would rise by about 10 percent in most years over the next decade in the individual market created by the Affordable Care Act, former Democratic President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement. It noted that markets in most areas of the country would remain stable.

The CBO said abolishing the requirement would cause premiums to rise because healthier people would be less likely to purchase insurance. It found that the resulting increases would cause more people to forego insurance.

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1D820Q

So the $#@! what you communist piece of $#@!.

[specsaregood]

The CBO said abolishing the requirement would cause premiums to rise because healthier people would be less likely to purchase insurance. It found that the resulting increases would cause more people to forego insurance.

Only as long as the insurance industry chose not to offer insurance that people would be willing to purchase. Rest assured, somebody would create insurance products at a price people would be willing to pay for. Insurance existed before the mandate and would exist after it was eliminated as well.

[Raginfridus]

I just wanted to say I read the title as Republicans are still coming, after Obamacare's individual mandate.

[angelatc]

$#@! insurance. Expand the VA, and let the commies wait in line behind the veterans.

[austin870]

Only as long as the insurance industry chose not to offer insurance that people would be willing to purchase. Rest assured, somebody would create insurance products at a price people would be willing to pay for. Insurance existed before the mandate and would exist after it was eliminated as well.

Actually premiums will not rise. Subsidies will go down is what happens. It is the way the entitlement junkies spin the situation. Technically the premiums would rise if subsidies are cut but only on those not paying their real premium cost in the marketplace in the first place. Premiums would go down dramatically on non subsidized individuals because they can get rid of all the dead weight of parasites looking for hosts on Obamacare.

If you want to attract people to any service or industry you "LOWER" rates and cut out subsidies. As long as you continue or raise subsidies people paying their own way will leave you like cheetahs at a salad bar.

[Zippyjuan]

Actually premiums will not rise. Subsidies will go down is what happens. It is the way the entitlement junkies spin the situation. Technically the premiums would rise if subsidies are cut but only on those not paying their real premium cost in the marketplace in the first place. Premiums would go down dramatically on non subsidized individuals because they can get rid of all the dead weight of parasites looking for hosts on Obamacare.

If you want to attract people to any service or industry you "LOWER" rates and cut out subsidies. As long as you continue or raise subsidies people paying their own way will leave you like cheetahs at a salad bar.

Ending the mandate means that healthy can drop their insurance- feeling they are not likely to need any healthcare- exercising their freedom of choice. The healthy help subsidize the costs of paying for treating the ill who do use health insurance like any insurance program (insured car drivers who don't have any accidents help pay for those who do get in accidents). If the pool of those paying in is reduced, the costs of paying for treatment doesn't go down by as much so the rates for those left in will have to be increased. The mandate was suggested as a way to get more people into the pool of people with insurance to spread the costs around farther and lowering the average costs for everybody.

[austin870]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1D820Q

The problem with the spin of your reuters article is they avoid the entire problem. The problem is Obamacare promotes middle class people to subsidize and support other middle class people. You can't subsidize one thing with a middle class person. When I subsidize someone's healthcare with no asset requirements I subsidize every asset they own. There are people on Obamacare with high six figures in home equity, 401K, stocks, bonds, investment property, cash reserves, life insurance and tons of other assets. There are ZERO asset requirements on Obamacare... only income.

Some poor slob in Arkansas living in an apartment making $40K a year living paycheck to paycheck is being forced to subsidize someone in San Diego with a pre-existing condition who has $700K home equity and $150 in a 401K. A family of 3 can make up to $80K a year and still qualify for subsidies. Obamacare combined with raising the asset amount and incomes you can have on Medicaid simply moved entitlements to the middle class. We now are stating $80K a year is poor and need help.

Medicaid and Obamacare are taking us down a long ugly road much like we faced in the 1960's with the welfare state programs. People will exploit the crap out of these medical subsidies and they will grow like wildfire. You make a stand now or will be steamrolled into an yet another giant extortion racket.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN1D92J9?il=0

Senate to delay corporate tax cut, breaking with Trump and House

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans’ version of a tax cut bill will delay corporate rate cuts by one year to take effect in 2019, and will not include a repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, Republican Senate Finance Committee member Bill Cassidy said.

Senate Republicans plan to propose delaying a cut in the corporate tax rate until 2019, according to a GOP senator.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) also said the individual mandate will not be repealed as part of the Senate tax overhaul proposal expected to be released Thursday.

The proposal breaks with President Trump’s preference that a corporate tax cut be put in place immediately. The House's tax-reform legislation proposes lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent in 2018.

Other big changes from the House version include adding back in a deduction for medical expenses and a full repeal of state and local tax deductions.

Republicans are seeking to get a bill to President Trump's desk by Christmas.

A House panel could report its version out of committee on Thursday, and that measure could get a vote in the full chamber next week.

The GOP-written legislation is not likely to win over any Democrats, who blast it as a giveaway to the rich and object to cutbacks in breaks used by the middle class. Republicans say their standard deduction increase and tax rate cuts will make up the difference.

[Zippyjuan]

The problem with the spin of your reuters article is they avoid the entire problem. The problem is Obamacare promotes middle class people to subsidize and support other middle class people. You can't subsidize one thing with a middle class person. When I subsidize someone's healthcare with no asset requirements I subsidize every asset they own. There are people on Obamacare with high six figures in home equity, 401K, stocks, bonds, investment property, cash reserves, life insurance and tons of other assets. There are ZERO asset requirements on Obamacare... only income.

Some poor slob in Arkansas living in an apartment making $40K a year living paycheck to paycheck is being forced to subsidize someone in San Diego with a pre-existing condition who has $700K home equity and $150 in a 401K. A family of 3 can make up to $80K a year and still qualify for subsidies. Obamacare combined with raising the asset amount and incomes you can have on Medicaid simply moved entitlements to the middle class. We now are stating $80K a year is poor and need help.

Medicaid and Obamacare are taking us down a long ugly road much like we faced in the 1960's with the welfare state programs. People will exploit the crap out of these medical subsidies and they will grow like wildfire. You make a stand now or will be steamrolled into an yet another giant extortion racket.

You are right- it is based on income, not personal assets. However, if you are a 40K a year person in Arkansas, you are not subsidizing somebody else. You are probably paying zero in income taxes and are eligible for your own insurance subsidy.



https://www.financialsamurai.com/sub...act-obamacare/

There are people on Obamacare with high six figures in home equity, 401K, stocks, bonds, investment property, cash reserves, life insurance and tons of other assets.

It is available to everybody who wants to buy it. The subsidies are not. Members of Congress are on Obamacare. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...care-goes-down

What type of insurance do our elected representatives in Washington, D.C., have? Is it true that they're insured on the ACA exchanges now and that any repeal and replacement will affect them too?

Under the Affordable Care Act, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate and their office staffs who want employer coverage generally have to buy it on the health insurance exchange. Before the ACA passed in 2010, they were eligible to be covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. (People working for congressional committees who are not on a member's office staff may still be covered under FEHBP.)

The members of Congress and their staffs choose from among 57 gold plans from four insurers sold on the DC Health Link's small business marketplace this year.

Approximately 11,000 are enrolled, according to Adam Hudson, a spokesperson for the exchange. The government pays about three-quarters of the cost of the premium, and workers pay the rest. They aren't eligible for federal tax credits that reduce the size of insurance premiums.

[euphemia]

I make less than that and I jolly well pay a truckload of taxes. Our combined income isn't all that much, either. Zippy, your charts don't mean squat.

[Swordsmyth]

I make less than that and I jolly well pay a truckload of taxes. Our combined income isn't all that much, either. Zippy, your charts don't mean squat.

The never do.

There are lies, %*#@ lies, statistics and charts.

[angelatc]

You are right- it is based on income, not personal assets. However, if you are a 40K a year person in Arkansas, you are not subsidizing somebody else. You are probably paying zero in income taxes and are eligible for your own insurance subsidy.



https://www.financialsamurai.com/sub...act-obamacare/



It is available to everybody who wants to buy it. The subsidies are not. Members of Congress are on Obamacare. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...care-goes-down

jfk - subsidies are a bad thing. They drive costs up because they increase demand while reducing the downward pressure on price. Stop with the feels.

10% of my income plus a $6000 deductible for a service I don't need? Yeah, I'll take my chances.

[shakey1]

Anything that needs subsidized... well then it means it's not working.

[Madison320]

So the $#@! what you communist piece of $#@!.

Amazingly, Zippy is actually right in this case. The individual mandate and the pre-existing condition mandate need to be paired together to work. You either need to have both or neither. Actually for the pre-existing condition mandate to work you need to have a stronger individual mandate. That's one reason rates keep going up is that more people are just paying the penalty and going without insurance, knowing that they can get it after they get sick.

[kcchiefs6465]

Amazingly, Zippy is actually right in this case. The individual mandate and the pre-existing condition mandate need to be paired together to work. You either need to have both or neither. Actually for the pre-existing condition mandate to work you need to have a stronger individual mandate. That's one reason rates keep going up is that more people are just paying the penalty and going without insurance, knowing that they can get it after they get sick.

Again, so what? Let them rise, let people opt out, let it crash, and let Zippy get a real job beyond the world of obfuscation.

My premiums won’t rise, by the way, as I can’t afford insurance already. So kindly, they can all $#@! off.

[Madison320]

Again, so what? Let them rise, let people opt out, let it crash, and let Zippy get a real job beyond the world of obfuscation.

My premiums won’t rise, by the way, as I can’t afford insurance already. So kindly, they can all $#@! off.

Yeah, it's big time effed up. I'd like to retire early but I need to keep a job just for the insurance. The socialists have won. I'm guessing the next elections are going to whoever promises universal health care. Although that could change if we get a dollar crash before that. In that case we won't be able to afford govt health care.

I thought about something depressing today about this. My contract where I work ends in a year and a half. So I was thinking I actually have 2 years to get a new job since I can go on unemployment. But then I thought "I'll bet my insurance is actually more than my unemployment check!" Yikes!

[austin870]

Ending the mandate means that healthy can drop their insurance- feeling they are not likely to need any healthcare- exercising their freedom of choice. The healthy help subsidize the costs of paying for treating the ill who do use health insurance like any insurance program (insured car drivers who don't have any accidents help pay for those who do get in accidents). If the pool of those paying in is reduced, the costs of paying for treatment doesn't go down by as much so the rates for those left in will have to be increased. The mandate was suggested as a way to get more people into the pool of people with insurance to spread the costs around farther and lowering the average costs for everybody.

That is simply not the function of insurance. Insurance is made up of pools according to risk. The health of that pool determines your rate and allows the insurance company to compete for the highly profitable low risk good drivers. Your rate is first based on your level of risk to the insurer/investors. Second you are put into a pool of like driver risks. The bad drivers are forced to pay higher rates based on their level of risk and they are also screened into a different insurance pool. In other words a pool of bad drivers pay for bad drivers. This is why many insurance companies won't even insure bad drivers at all. It keeps their pool healthy to be competitive.

Insurance is not a giant socialistic enterprise for good drivers or healthy people to subsidize lower rates and cover losses of the negligent high risk people. Healthcare insurance is also made up of risk pools except Obamacare which is run by government force instead of competition and free market principals. That is why accepting preexisting conditions is insurance pool suicide. You can't give high risk people low risk rates then jack up the low risk risk people to compensate. That makes as much sense as good drivers subsidizing drunk drivers because they can't afford their insurance rates based on their level of risk. Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance under that? Forced good driver rates for multiple accident and drunk drivers?

That is what they want with Obamacare or single payer. Under both those plans the high risk people are also allowed to keep unlimited assets and still have lower paid people with less assets subsidize their rates. It is extortion not insurance. They want to reward high risk behaviors and situations then penalize low risk behaviors and situations.

[Zippyjuan]

That is simply not the function of insurance. Insurance is made up of pools according to risk. The health of that pool determines your rate and allows the insurance company to compete for the highly profitable low risk good drivers. Your rate is first based on your level of risk to the insurer/investors. Second you are put into a pool of like driver risks. The bad drivers are forced to pay higher rates based on their level of risk and they are also screened into a different insurance pool. In other words a pool of bad drivers pay for bad drivers. This is why many insurance companies won't even insure bad drivers at all. It keeps their pool healthy to be competitive.

Insurance is not a giant socialistic enterprise for good drivers or healthy people to subsidize lower rates and cover losses of the negligent high risk people. Healthcare insurance is also made up of risk pools except Obamacare which is run by government force instead of competition and free market principals. That is why accepting preexisting conditions is insurance pool suicide. You can't give high risk people low risk rates then jack up the low risk risk people to compensate. That makes as much sense as good drivers subsidizing drunk drivers because they can't afford their insurance rates based on their level of risk. Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance under that? Forced good driver rates for multiple accident and drunk drivers?

That is what they want with Obamacare or single payer. Under both those plans the high risk people are also allowed to keep unlimited assets and still have lower paid people with less assets subsidize their rates. It is extortion not insurance. They want to reward high risk behaviors and situations then penalize low risk behaviors and situations.

Bad drives will probably cost the insurance company more money than that client pays in in premiums. That is also true of people needing catastrophic medical care. The premiums paid by people who don't end up filing any claims goes to help with paying for the claims of those who do. Without that low risk pool, the insurance company would go out of business. That is why they would rather not insure people with pre-existing conditions- they know that such clients will cost the company more money than they can collect in premiums. If they could, they would rather have only the people who pay and never file- that is where their profits are. The better drivers/ patients subsidize the others who do file a lot of claims. (The insurance company also takes a share of the premiums as profits and wages to their workers). Insurance does help socialize the costs of things.

[enhanced_deficit]

I just wanted to say I read the title as Republicans are still coming, after Obamacare's individual mandate.

Well if they were "going after" it, it could have been much more dangerous.



Related

How Repealing Obamacare Will Hit the LGBT Community Extra-Hard

A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would mean the removal of vital protections for LGBT Americans

Jan 29, 2017
You’re probably familiar with some of the things the ACA does, like protecting people with pre-existing conditions and keeping young people on their parents’ health plans. But it does some particularly important things for the ***** community. That’s because LGBTs are less likely than straight people to be insured, and less likely to have insurance through their spouse. And even when ***** people are insured, insurance companies are more likely to discriminate against them. So to fix that, the ACA set up a system in the Office of Civil Rights to make sure LGBTs get equal access to coverage. And sure enough, in just the first year since the ACA was enacted, the number of uninsured LGBTs decreased by 24%.

So now LGBTs are more likely to have health coverage, and less likely to have coverage denied. That’s a big deal, because there are a lot of health issues that disproportionately affect ***** people. Of course, HIV is the big one, and the ACA provides for free HIV tests as a preventative measure. But it also supports health care like smoking cessation, which ***** people are more likely to need. And screening for depression, which is of heightened concern for LGBTs. HPV, hepatitis, eating disorders, even breast cancer are more prevalent among certain ***** populations. And the ACA helps people deal with all of those things so you don’t have to declare bankruptcy just because you got sick.

[austin870]

You are right- it is based on income, not personal assets. However, if you are a 40K a year person in Arkansas, you are not subsidizing somebody else. You are probably paying zero in income taxes and are eligible for your own insurance subsidy.



https://www.financialsamurai.com/sub...act-obamacare/



It is available to everybody who wants to buy it. The subsidies are not. Members of Congress are on Obamacare. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...care-goes-down

How can you possibly have subsidies without drop dead barely surviving asset limits? What this means is anyone paying subsidies is actually subsidizing every asset the receiving person has. He pays their premiums while they sit on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is the insanity of a middle class entitlement. You are not subsidizing the persons healthcare. You are subsidizing their entire life style and stabilize them in a false standard of living they can't afford. It is a standard of living subsidy when you are not dirt poor.

Look at it like this... if I subsidize your healthcare insurance or car insurance etc every month as a middle class person you can then use the money you would have to pay for your healthcare on cigarettes, booze, cocaine and strip clubs. You are not living out of dumpsters being a middle class person with unlimited assets. Many of these subsidies are enough to pay for a real nice new car payment which they are allowed to have. The subsidies on a person with a preexisting condition are easily a house payment in most parts of the country not on the coast. You can't have a poor pitiful me person with preexisting conditions sitting on a bunch of assets wanting or demanding subsidies.

It is insane to subsidize people on these income levels with unlimited assets. They have to be reduced to nothing more than a beater car to get to work before getting handouts.

[Swordsmyth]

How can you possibly have subsidies without drop dead barely surviving asset limits? What this means is anyone paying subsidies is actually subsidizing every asset the receiving person has. He pays their premiums while they sit on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is the insanity of a middle class entitlement. You are not subsidizing the persons healthcare. You are subsidizing their entire life style and stabilize them in a false standard of living they can't afford. It is a standard of living subsidy when you are not dirt poor.

Look at it like this... if I subsidize your healthcare insurance or car insurance etc every month as a middle class person you can then use the money you would have to pay for your healthcare on cigarettes, booze, cocaine and strip clubs. You are not living out of dumpsters being a middle class person with unlimited assets. Many of these subsidies are enough to pay for a real nice new car payment which they are allowed to have. The subsidies on a person with a preexisting condition are easily a house payment in most parts of the country not on the coast. You can't have a poor pitiful me person with preexisting conditions sitting on a bunch of assets wanting or demanding subsidies.

It is insane to subsidize people on these income levels with unlimited assets. They have to be reduced to nothing more than a beater car to get to work before getting handouts.

Money is fungible.

[austin870]

Money is fungible.

So are people you don't know and never will... so what is your point?

[nikcers]

So are people you don't know and never will... so what is your point?

"Why do you hate America?"

[Swordsmyth]

So are people you don't know and never will... so what is your point?

I am agreeing with your point, when you give people money you are subsidizing them not just their healthcare etc., they can take money they would have spent on healthcare and spend it elsewhere.

[austin870]

"Why do you hate America?"

I don't "hate" anyone. I simply don't want to be forced to subsidize anyone. I don't need the government or some mob of strangers deciding how much. where or to whom I will give charity.

[austin870]

I am agreeing with your point, when you give people money you are subsidizing them not just their healthcare etc., they can take money they would have spent on healthcare and spend it elsewhere.

Yep, this is why subsidies and entitlements of any type don't work on the middle class. They only hold moderate value with the lower class too as there is no way to measure effort, ability etc to see if someone is even trying or putting forth effort to help themselves. With all subsidies and entitlements we also compensate people for poor life choices. Many for endless streams of them.

[enhanced_deficit]

Nov 14 2017, 4:29 pm ET

GOP Plans to Repeal Obamacare Mandate for Health Coverage

by Benjy Sarlin
WASHINGTON — To help pay for the GOP tax bill, Republican Senate leaders announced Tuesday that they plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act's requirement that Americans maintain health coverage.
The announcement comes one day after President Donald Trump urged Senators to eliminate the Obamacare mandate and use the savings to reduce the top income tax rate to 35 percent, a move that would exclusively benefit individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1,000,000 under the current Senate bill.
"We're optimistic that inserting the individual mandate repeal (into the tax bill) would be helpful," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters after a caucus meeting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...verage-n820791

[oyarde]

Nov 14 2017, 4:29 pm ET

GOP Plans to Repeal Obamacare Mandate for Health Coverage

by Benjy Sarlin
WASHINGTON — To help pay for the GOP tax bill, Republican Senate leaders announced Tuesday that they plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act's requirement that Americans maintain health coverage.
The announcement comes one day after President Donald Trump urged Senators to eliminate the Obamacare mandate and use the savings to reduce the top income tax rate to 35 percent, a move that would exclusively benefit individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1,000,000 under the current Senate bill.
"We're optimistic that inserting the individual mandate repeal (into the tax bill) would be helpful," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters after a caucus meeting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...verage-n820791

GOP Senate , you think they get that bill through ? Pence was in Indiana last week working on the Dem Senator whose re election chances are not high .