Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down

[Atomic Kid]

Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down - CNNPolitics

The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.

In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
It's a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement -- protections for people with pre-existing conditions -- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

Trump’s Justice Department notified a federal appeals court in New Orleans late Monday it would asking judges to toss out the entire ACA which is going to put healthcare for millions of Americans in jeopardy. Previous Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare triggered a backlash that propelled Democrats back into the majority of the House in the last election. Months ago, when people were polled about what their main concerns are, health care was their number one concern. Undoing everything Barack Obama did was Trump's first objective. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, he can now focus on repealing Obamacare. What's next, rollbacks in Medicare?

Trump just handed the Dems a nice present for 2020 wrapped with a big fat red MAGA bow.

 

[HumblePi]

What reversal?

Obese Donald Trump said he would immediately repeal and totally replace the PPACA "on day one".

He is finally getting around to doing that?

What brought this on?

He's been quite busy the past two years discrediting the Mueller investigation and accusing the FBI of being the 'deep state'. Now that the threat of Mueller is over, he finally decided it's time to move forward and do more of the damage he set out to do originally by destroying anything that had Obama's mark on it. And, he'll do that at any cost, even at the cost of American lives.

 

[yankintx]

Still stuck on the Russia thing? That's so yesterday. He won fair and square, plan for 6 more years.

Now who is counting their chickens?

 

[HenryChinaski]

Filthy rich politicians with Cadillac health insurance and care access funded by the tax payer . Levels of coverage unobtainable for the average citizen, including myself, making healthcare decisions for citizens where the literal outcome can mean life or death There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

 

[JustHanging]

Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down - CNNPolitics

The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.

In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
It's a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement -- protections for people with pre-existing conditions -- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

Trump’s Justice Department notified a federal appeals court in New Orleans late Monday it would asking judges to toss out the entire ACA which is going to put healthcare for millions of Americans in jeopardy. Previous Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare triggered a backlash that propelled Democrats back into the majority of the House in the last election. Months ago, when people were polled about what their main concerns are, health care was their number one concern. Undoing everything Barack Obama did was Trump's first objective. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, he can now focus on repealing Obamacare. What's next, rollbacks in Medicare?

Attacking the black POTUS' legacy is always a good way to excite the base.

 

[JustHanging]

You're simply unwilling to address the hard truth: The transition to single-payer is not popular in America..

Yep, you really can't fix stupid.

All the Conservative leadership need to is say "socialist", or remind the base that the current version is named after a black POTUS, and the base will fight tooth and nail to pay nearly twice for an inferior product.

WHO - USA ranked 37th in healthcare


No wonder Trump loves his base. SMH.

Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'


Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Trump administration now says entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down - CNNPolitics

The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.

In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."

"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
It's a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement -- protections for people with pre-existing conditions -- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

Trump’s Justice Department notified a federal appeals court in New Orleans late Monday it would asking judges to toss out the entire ACA which is going to put healthcare for millions of Americans in jeopardy. Previous Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare triggered a backlash that propelled Democrats back into the majority of the House in the last election. Months ago, when people were polled about what their main concerns are, health care was their number one concern. Undoing everything Barack Obama did was Trump's first objective. Now that the Mueller investigation is over, he can now focus on repealing Obamacare. What's next, rollbacks in Medicare?

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

 

[Phys251]

No, you're not addressing the dishonest way the question is being asked. Single Payer is the only way to solve the spiralling cost issue. Moreover, a public option does not address the spiralling cost, doesn't remove the middle man, and keeps the entrenched privilege protection program in place.

You can preach the gospel of single-payer all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that right now, it's politically infeasible. The voters--not the government, the voters--in Colorado made that crystal clear in 2016.

 

[Phys251]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

Why do you want to throw millions of people off of affordable healthcare?

 

[HumblePi]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

I'll tell you why, it's because there's more than 11.8 million people that depend on that health care. Have you heard what the republicans plan to replace it with yet? No, neither have I. What is this 'new and better legislation' you speak of. Do you know anything at all about it? Nobody does because it's non-existent. Trump is ready to pull the trigger on nearly 12 million people without a backup plan and only because of his hatred for Barack Obama. That's the problem. Are you okay with that? Will you be alright when you or your mom or dad is suddenly denied the surgery they need or the medications that are keeping them alive because insurance companies will say they aren't paying because of a pre-existing condition? Are you really ready to commit possibly hundreds of thousands of children and elderly people to death over your Trumpistic loyalty?

 

[Napoleon]

Why do you want to throw millions of people off of affordable healthcare?

Well, the entire premise of the ACA making healthcare affordable was that it addressed the number one reason cited by healthcare providers for high costs - the need to scalp the insured to recoup costs incurred by treating the uninsured. The idea being that slamming millions of people into insurance plans would result in a natural market correction to lower costs. But that didn’t happen.

So you can throw millions off of healthcare but there’s no use arguing that it’s affordable. The objective of the ACA was not to saddle the rest of us with the same high costs and claim victory because it’s suddenly “affordable” by way of taxpayer funded subsidy for people too poor to pay anything. The ACA flopped and it’s time for a different solution.

 

[Obscurity]

You can preach the gospel of single-payer all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that right now, it's politically infeasible. The voters--not the government, the voters--in Colorado made that crystal clear in 2016.

It is the only option. It's totally feasible. And it's the only hope, your bandaid solutions are ****ing useless.

 

[Napoleon]

It is the only option. It's totally feasible. And it's the only hope, your bandaid solutions are ****ing useless.

Almost as useless as a supposedly “feasible” solution that nobody can articulate a method of implementing.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

Because republicans don't have a "replace" option. All they are offering is "repeal". We already know that from the first time this idiot tried repealing ACA.

 

[Phys251]

It is the only option. It's totally feasible. And it's the only hope, your bandaid solutions are ****ing useless.

Sounds like you got it all figured out. Tell me, how are we gonna convince a majority of the voters to get on board with removing employer-based health insurance? Show your work.

 

[JacksinPA]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

The Republicans have no replacement plan. If they did they'd be talking up its advantages. This is just smoke to divert the public's attention away from the Mueller Report & the fact that a case could be made that Trump obstructed justice. And how they concluded that there was no collusion with the Russians is beyond me.

 

[Obscurity]

Almost as useless as a supposedly “feasible” solution that nobody can articulate a method of implementing.

What's nonsense is that it's not able to be implemented. It's been implemented in countries ALL around the world. It's only this sickening "Well, we can't do what they did, we're the exception! Hey, you can't articulate how to pay for it!"

How much for the war on terror?

War on drugs?

Prohibition of Cannabis?

Spare me the noise.

We CAN and SHOULD implement it. Institute a wealth tax, cut out all private insurers, replace insurance with mfa; couple this with: ending the war on drugs and on terror, stop funding wars overseas, and focus on true defense.

Get rid of the Trump cuts for everyone making over $250k a year.

There are PLENTY of ways to pay for it, but the MSM will of course spin it up into absolute nonsense.

Anyone, ANYONE, who says it can't be implemented is talking straight out their ass.

 

[Obscurity]

Sounds like you got it all figured out. Tell me, how are we gonna convince a majority of the voters to get on board with removing employer-based health insurance? Show your work.

Easy. Tell them the truth and stop ****ing spinning it with fake questions that are designed to create an outcome the media is ok with.

Stop listening to and proliferating the nihilistic bleatings of the moronig right wing.

 

[Excon]

Why do you want to throw millions of people off of affordable healthcare?

Because being forced in to such a program is not freedom.
Because being force to contribute to another that which they should be providing for their self, is not freedom.

 

[Napoleon]

What's nonsense is that it's not able to be implemented. It's been implemented in countries ALL around the world. It's only this sickening "Well, we can't do what they did, we're the exception! Hey, you can't articulate how to pay for it!"

How much for the war on terror?

War on drugs?

Prohibition of Cannabis?

Spare me the noise.

We CAN and SHOULD implement it. Institute a wealth tax, cut out all private insurers, replace insurance with mfa; couple this with: ending the war on drugs and on terror, stop funding wars overseas, and focus on true defense.

Get rid of the Trump cuts for everyone making over $250k a year.

There are PLENTY of ways to pay for it, but the MSM will of course spin it up into absolute nonsense.

Anyone, ANYONE, who says it can't be implemented is talking straight out their ass.

If you’re not prepared for a serious conversation about it then you shouldn’t be talking about it. How you intend to double the annual revenue of the federal government to pay for this program is just one of the myriad other details that it’s proponents have yet to hash out. I know what it would take, but I’m waiting for people such as yourself to take your ideas seriously enough to commit to paper the enormous tax burden required among other details because it’s time for you and others to stop pretending that all those other countries you laud did was as simple-minded as merely changing who writes the checks.

 

[JasperL]

Disagree. It's only because of right wing talking points that anyone would even fathom the centrist position could win.

For one, it ignores the reality of what I said. Americans at large do not differentiate insurance and healthcare. The two are separate issues. Americans like their HEALTHCARE, not their INSURANCE PROVIDERS. The media with their polling is skewing public perception with their faulty quesitoning and you already know that.

Moreover, purity test my ass.

Single payer or bust. It's too costly to do a public option. And, it's a disservice and would keep a major industry which has been culpable in far too much damage to our economy going.

I don't agree with your analysis here, simply because single payer versions of UHC are the exception across the world, and lots of countries have very good healthcare systems with a combination of government and private insurers. Employers also just DO pay a huge share of the healthcare costs in this country. Economic theory would say that when employers no longer have to fund healthcare, they'll give people raises, and salaries will go up, and offset the huge tax increases necessary to fund a single payer system. That might happen in aggregate, but lots of people won't get raises, including those currently NOT covered at work, and the tax increases will be paid by everyone, and it will be obvious.

Bottom line is I don't see single payer getting through Congress, and IMO making the choice - single payer or bust - is a bad mistake, politically as well as from a policy standpoint.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Because being forced in to such a program is not freedom.
Because being force to contribute to another that which they should be providing for their self, is not freedom.

Yes as opposed to freedom to have no options for affordable healthcare and treatment, sounds great. You live in a civilized society, so channel up some inner-altruism and be happy that a few bucks of your tax money are being used to help the less fortunate. Try not to be such a selfish sociopath.

 

[MTAtech]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

The GOP controlled the WH, the Senate and the House in 2017. After lofty proclamations that they drafted a better bill, what they presented was a plan that was far worse.

One can't pick and choose the "supportable" elements of the ACA. The three elements are essentially a three-leg stool. Remove one leg and it doesn't stand.

As I've previously explained, everyone wants coverage of preexisting conditions. But, if you just do that, people will sign up only when they are sick, creating a rates spiral because the pool would only be sick people. So, you need an individual mandate, that requires that the healthy and young sign up, thus creating a reasonable pool. But some people still won't be able to afford it so they need subsidies for the poor. However, you also have to control insurance companies charging higher rates for the sick, making it unaffordable. That's what community ratings is for.

The GOP has proven they really can't take away the mandate and subsidies and have rates low and cover everyone. The free-market approach was the ACA and Romneycare. The GOP plan skyrocketed premiums, especially for seniors, and was horrid.

 

[JasperL]

Why should we keep a really REALLY bad law on the books instead of repealing and replacing it? The President is on record that the few supportable elements in Obamacare will be incorporated into new and better and more supportable legislation. Providing some way to cover pre-existing conditions is just one of those elements, but it should be done without forcing everybody in the country to buy inflated expensie insurance they don't want or need just to accomplish it.

Trump wants to repeal the ACA. What does he propose to replace it when the courts strike down the entire law?

It's very, very, very easy to say we all want a "better and more supportable legislation" but so far impossible for Trump or the GOP to come up with such a plan and get it scored, then passed, with all the difficult trade-offs made clear.

FDR nailed the GOP strategy decades ago:

Let me warn you and let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion which says, “Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them—we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”

But, my friends, these evaders are banking too heavily on the shortness of our memories. No one will forget that they had their golden opportunity—twelve long years of it.

Remember, too, that the first essential of doing a job well is to want to see the job done. Make no mistake about this: The Republican leadership today is not against the way we have done the job. The Republican leadership is against the job’s being done.

 

[JasperL]

The GOP controlled the WH, the Senate and the House in 2017. After lofty proclamations that they drafted a better bill, what they presented was a plan that was far worse.

One can't pick and choose the "supportable" elements of the ACA. The three elements are essentially a three-leg stool. Remove one leg and it doesn't stand.

As I've previously explained, everyone wants coverage of preexisting conditions. But, if you just do that, people will sign up only when they are sick, creating a rates spiral because the pool would only be sick people. So, you need an individual mandate, that requires that the healthy and young sign up, thus creating a reasonable pool. But some people still won't be able to afford it so they need subsidies for the poor. However, you also have to control insurance companies charging higher rates for the sick, making it unaffordable. That's what community ratings is for.

The GOP has proven they aren't really can't take away the mandate, keep rates low and cover everyone. The free-market approach was the ACA and Romneycare.

All that's true of course, and what's so sad and pathetic about the GOP approach to healthcare is that they've lied for so long about the trade-offs necessary that none of what you type will sink in. It's breathtakingly irresponsible IMO.

Just for example, employers are forced to cover pre-existing conditions, period. But the same requirement on the exchanges is somehow the death of market based insurance, although something like 90% of those writing this for whoever they're shilling for at that moment, is protected with the same pre-existing condition restrictions as those seeking insurance on the exchanges.

So it's the mandate that's the problem, but if you don't have a mandate, then you get the dreaded death spiral, where sick people ALL sign up and young and healthy often don't, which drives up premiums, which means fewer young and healthy sign up, which drives up premiums some more. Employers get around this with huge taxpayer subsidies for paying for part of the cost of care for every employee, such that it makes no sense for the young and healthy NOT to sign up and forego a big part of their available pay, so they sign up and the young and healthy at work subsidize the old, sick guys like me, and all those old writers and propagandists on the right wing.

But the GOP hacks and shills explain none of this to their readers. So it's not explained that the real problem with ACA as it is involves those who make too much money to get big ACA subsidies, but still need insurance. Some of them cannot afford the premiums, in large part because the young and healthy didn't sign up, which drives up premiums, and is the death spiral in many ways. Getting rid of the inadequate penalty makes this worse, of course, intentionally. That's the point - make the ACA worse, more expensive, for the non-poor - the goal, the intended impact.

If the GOP wanted to work with Democrats to solve this, the answer is simple enough - we need to move the subsidies up the income ladder, to cover some part of healthcare for really everyone not the super rich, and enforce the mandate with penalties - to move the needle from 'makes no financial sense to sign up' to the reverse. We expand the pool, premiums come down, more people sign up, and it's a virtuous spiral, not the death spiral. But the truth is the GOP don't want the ACA to work, and it's only because it is a good thing politically for Democrats if the ACA actually works.