Scott Walker's desperate, cynical, poll based reelection Hail Mary!!!

Scott Walker's sudden whiplash inducing support of the ACA's marketplace is a shocking admission he's been wrong and knows it. But what's worse is Walker's desperate out-of-character scheme based solely on high priority polling data showing how badly Republican have abandoned their voters biggest concerns.

Can it get any clearer than this.

WisPolitics.com JR Ross explained why Walker flip flopped, so even low information "Stand with Walker" voters will get it; it's about polling demographics that contradicts the extreme GOP agenda. JS:

Ross: "Those suburban women we were talking...health care is their number one issue. If you look at some of the things that Walker proposed, a lot of them check boxes of demographics that they need come November...the rural economic development fund, that was a nod to rural voters who are going, 'hey, where's mine, we're worried up here when Foxconn gets $4.5 billion...One person told me that Republican got convinced because it's all polling. They saw what was going on out there, and they realized they needed to do something like this, and that helped to push this through."

Need more proof?

Walker Supports...and wants to kill the ObamaCare Marketplaces? Having it Both Ways: The Journal Sentinel headline reflects down-the-rabbit-hole politics, and how bad Walker wants it:

Gov. Scott Walker signed a $200 million bill Tuesday to stabilize Obamacare markets in Wisconsin even as state Attorney General Brad Schimel sued seeking to block the entire law. The GOP governor — a longtime critic of the Affordable Care Act — has emphasized:

“Our Health Care Stability Plan is our solution to Washington’s failure; we want to provide health care stability and lower premiums for Wisconsin." 

Not only does Walker not mean what he's saying, but apparently, the changes Republicans pushed through in Congress didn't just weaken the health care law, they made it "no longer constitutional." 

But Schimel, also a Republican, received Walker's sign-off to move this week in a different direction, leading a group of 20 states who are suing to block Obamacare entirely. Though Republicans in Congress failed to repeal the law last year, Schimel argues that they made enough changes that the law is no longer constitutional.

The reason?

In a 2012 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in Obamacare by saying Congress had the authority to impose a tax on consumers who don't purchase health insurance. Last year, Congress and President Donald Trump eliminated the tax.

Schimel's lawsuit argues that because the tax has been dropped, the individual mandate to buy health insurance and, with it, the entire law are no longer constitutional.

It's the old Republican ploy; create a problem, then find away to avoid solving it.

Fitting perfectly in with the theme here, check out the latest from Brian Strassburg:

Paul Ryan scheme: Spend Tax Cut savings on Higher Insurance Premiums.

Voters are finally getting to see who the real Paul Ryan is, and why he's not their friend at all.

Looking out the little guy and fighting for the forgotten average American struggling to just get by is not the real Paul Ryan, and his tax cut plan piggybacked with the repealed ObamaCare subsidies (SRC) is Ryan finally showing his hand. Note: The subsidies are part of the ACA, the funding source unfortunately was inadvertently not specified:

Thanks to Ryan and Trump's threats to destroy the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies hell bent on making a profit are dumping out of the Marketplaces and raising premiums trying to stay ahead of the Republican chaos: 

Think about it, any tax savings Republican voters were counting on will simply find their way into higher insurance premiums.

Not only did Ryan lie about the subsidies being illegal, since that has never been determined by the courts, but Ryan made it seem like the subsidies helped insurers merge into giant monopolies, something Republicans don't give a rats ass about. Mergers have been going on for years:

In a statement to reporters, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday night the administration concluded that Congress had not appropriated money for the subsidies and thus they were "unlawful payments" to "bailout insurance companies."

Paul Ryan signaled Monday he does not want to restore Obamacare subsidies that President Donald Trump is cutting. Instead, Ryan said, Congress should take a more comprehensive approach the answer is not to shovel more money at a failing program that is doubling premiums and causing monopolies. 

"Propping up Obamacare and just giving insurance subsidies to insurance carriers to keep a failing system propped up is not the answer."

But unlike Ryan, Steve Bannon came right out and told the truth:

Bannon said Trump's decision to not continue funding Obamacare subsidies, was designed to "blow up" the health-care law and insurance marketplaces. "Gonna blow those exchanges up, right?"

Anyone still think Paul Ryan is even remotely serving the people who voted for him? 

The Sanders Medicare-for-All plan! Democrats finally put it out there...

The biggest problem Bernie Sanders is going to have over his Medicare-for-all plan is paying for it. I heard one radio caller, who claimed to be conservative, call for a national 1 percent sales tax to help pay for the cost. A good idea.

But what so many pundits are missing is Sanders plan is a full throttled dream plan. And for once, Democrats aren't starting in the middle like so many of their past proposals...like the ACA.

Sanders plan is more comprehensive than most universal systems around the world, and that's why the cost is so high, no matter how much money it will save Americans right from the beginning. 

Mind Bending Opposition Reasons Defy Logic: The insurance industry just came out with the most ridiculous list of reasons universal care "cannot work," despite the fact every other industrialized country in the world has made it work, and saved money to boot. Let's take a look: 

“Whether it’s called single-payer or Medicare For All, government-controlled health care cannot work,” David Merritt, executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “It will eliminate choice, undermine quality, put a chill on medical innovation, and place an even heavier burden on hardworking taxpayers."

The statement touted private market solutions.

Because the private market worked so well in the past? Didn't think so.

1. Ever Doctor, Every Hospital is your doctor, you hospital: I've heard it so many times before and not one reporter has ever called it into question, how does universal care eliminate choice? Having only one health insurance plan with only one network of doctors and hospitals seems to "eliminate choice" in so many more ways, right? Free market my ass.

2. Chill Medical Innovation? Who seriously thinks creators and innovators will walk away from life saving medical discovery's and equipment because they won't be able to make obscene amounts of money? There is one truth; if someone can't cut it in the marketplace, someone else will step in to take their place. That's the free market.

3. Heavier Burden on Taxpayers? Sure, taxes will go up, but every single American will not have to pay for ever rising insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, the uncertainty of being dropped, and those surprise medical bills from doctors not in your network.

The Bernie Sanders Plan: There are a couple of great articles at Voxdotcom that provide a no nonsense look at his plans. First there's a comparison between what the Democrats want to do and the Republicans. Eye opening (below the Sanders plan listed here).

Second, Vox looks deep at what Sanders wants to do and the mounting cost of doing it. Surprisingly, it's not just the U.S. that seems to think dental and vision are not two of the most important parts of our body that need constant care. The U.S. and other countries believe it should be separate, mostly for cost containment.

The plan is significantly more generous than the single-payer plans run by America’s peer countries. The Sanders plan does not subject consumers to any out-of-pocket spending on health aside from prescriptions drugs. This is out of line with international single-payer systems, which often require some payment for seeking most services. Medicare, employer coverage, and these other countries show that nearly every insurance scheme we’re familiar with covers a smaller set of benefits with more out-of-pocket spending on the part of citizens. Private insurance plans often spring up to fill these gaps.

A single-payer health plan would have the authority to set one price for each service; an appendectomy, for example, would no longer vary so wildly from one hospital to another. Instead, the Sanders plan envisions using current Medicare rates as the new standard price for medical services in the United States.

Single-payer systems change who pays for health care, often shifting more of the burden onto wealthier individuals to create a more progressive system. A proposed 9 percent income tax would be far more expensive for the $100,000 worker than the $30,000 earner.

1. It would bar employers from offering separate plans that compete with this new, government-run option. 

2. It would sunset Medicare and Medicaid, transitioning their enrollees into the new universal plan. 

3. Four years to transition into the new coverage. In the interim, they would have the option to buy into Medicare or another publicly run option that does not currently exist.  

4. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, lab services, maternity care, and prescription drugs as well as vision and dental benefits.

Now here's the Republicans latest scheme...and they're not kidding:

This was an amazing almost surreal twitter post by Fox News. Ironic, a gaffe...because the ACA was a conservative Heritage Foundation idea. Sweet disconnect huh?

Here's a detailed look at how Sanders plan might get its revenue, which will be no easy task. I can't even summarize it. Here's the last few paragraphs by co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Dean Baker:

There is also a question of what the policy would be if progressives actually took power. What would a Democrat who ran on a single-payer plan like the one pushed by Sanders do if she actually was in the White House? Would she be able to back down and offer less than promised? Perhaps, but this is something worth considering. It’s not clear that it is a good thing for progressives to gain power if they are committed to a program that really is unworkable policy. That has generally not proven to be a good long-term strategy for advancing progressive goals.

There are many steps that can be taken to rein in costs and extend coverage that are short of a big leap to single payer. Lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 55, as the new Sanders plan proposes, would be good a start, along with allowing a buy in for people at younger ages. We can also look for some of the cost savings envisioned under single payer, most notably public funding of research for prescription drugs and medical equipment so these items can be sold in a free market without patent protection. And, we could be looking to get the pay of our doctors and dentists down to the levels in other wealthy countries, which would save us close to $100 billion a year from our health-care bill.

The target of eliminating almost all out-of-pocket expenses may also be too ambitious. If we set the target at 1.4 percent of GDP, the same as people in Canada and the UK now pay, instead of the 0.3 percent in the Sanders’s plan, it reduces the annual shortfall by $250 billion, apart from any impact on utilization. And it wouldn’t really mean much hardship for most of the population. For example, if a family earning $100,000 a year was expected to spend $1,600 annually on various health-care expenses, it is hard to see this imposing a great burden.

In short, the current political environment is presenting a great opening for progressive health-care reform. This opening could be wasted if progressives are not willing to work for a wide range of reforms that would extend coverage and reduce costs and, instead, insist on a single-minded focus on single payer. The new proposal that Sanders put forward with 16 Senate co-sponsors offers the sort of flexibility needed to structure a workable incremental approach. This is a huge step in the right direction.

Conservative Hypocrite Tomi Lahren joins long list of clueless Repeal ObamaCare beneficiaries.

Conservatives have a bizarre unexplainable disconnect from reality, that I believe acts as a defense mechanism against what I call "inadvertent hypocrisy." 

Take the Republican attempt at health care reform, otherwise known as tax cuts for the wealthy. It's the ultimate in a massive big government bureaucracy with burdensome regulatory hoops to jump through for every possible health care need, like Medicaid eligibility and high risk pools. "Inadvertent hypocrisy." 

Or how about staying on your parents health care plan until you're 26, while still complaining about the horrors of "ObamaCare." "Inadvertent hypocrisy."

The cell phone clip below is from a conservative audience member. I'm mentioning that because the guy who recorded this, loudly proclaimed his allegiance to Trump throughout the video, except during the Tomi Lahren/Chelsea Handler exchange featured here. Coincidence? Just wanted you to keep that in mind: 

Crooks and Liars: Tomi Lahren, conservative mouthpiece who was fired from The Blaze after her pro-choice comments, was invited to chat with Chelsea Handler ... she also dropped this poorly timed sentence:

Chelsea Handler: "So do you have a health care plan?"

Tomi Lahren: “Luckily, I am 24, so I am still on my parents’ plan.”

That line drew loud boos from the crowd at her insane hypocrisy. Duh. Does she even think before she speaks? She is sitting there bashing the *very* program that allows her to actually retain insurance after she was fired just a few months ago ... Tomi, you should be thanking Obama.

A few quick comebacks that Democrats should hammer home, for people like Tomi Lahren:

1. Comparing universal health care to VA health plan: Sorry, but try comparing our private system to every other country in the world with a national health care plan, skip trashing the VA.

2. There are waiting lines in Canada and other Countries: There are waiting lines in the U.S., we're not different. Anyone try seeing a dermatologist lately for that cancerous looking sore on your arm?

3. Every State is So Different: No, the people in those states aren't any different than humans in every other state. Same biology, same health care needs, same diseases. They aren't different in each state.

4. The American People voted, they Don't Want ObamaCare, elections have Consequences: Ah, Americans didn't know what Republicans were going to offer as a replacement, and they didn't vote for any one of the quickly cooked up "plans" over lunch on napkins, or in a back room with no public input. That's a huge difference.

It's Always Someone Else's Fault: Remember how Republicans said Bush policies failed because he wasn't conservative enough? Well, the same will be said about Trump and...Scaramucci, because they both weren't just conservative enough, they were once "liberals." Once liberals is the key, meaning they are now Republicans. Period.

I don't have the video, but here's the transcript from Variety:

The pair did seem to come to an agreement on one thing — Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s incoming communications director. When Lahren defended Trump’s staff selections and those he surrounds himself with, one person in the audience shouted, “Scaramucci.”

Lahren: “He’s a former liberal, so he is one of yours.”

Handler: “Well, you can have him."

Despite Human Toll, Trump would "Let ObamaCare" Fail."

If you saw something that effected hundreds of millions of people falling apart, becoming a danger to everyone, who would let that happen - without fixing it - even if you were politically opposed to it?

Our sociopathic, malignant narcissist illegitimate president Comrade Trump would let it happen. A breathtaking comment not to be forgotten:

Trump’s Obamacare repeal position changes in a day: On Tuesday, President Trump said, “We’ll let Obamacare fail.” On Wednesday, he appeared to change his tune, saying, “We have to repeal and replace Obamacare. The best is repeal and replace.” He also suggested senators should remain in Washington, D.C., until they get that done.

When 32 Million Americans Losing Insurance Doesn't Matter: The one question no one has asked yet; despite promising to repeal ObamaCare, when Republicans found out how many Americans would lose insurance, wouldn't you think they'd back away from the idea and change course? Thoughtful smart people would say yes, but not the ideologically driven politicians that have never had to deal with buying insurance and get it free from taxpayers:

Conservatives are furious – furious – that Senate Republicans got close to repealing big parts of Obamacare and are now on the verge of walking away from the effort altogether, possibly leaving President Obama’s health-care law on the books for the foreseeable future. No issue motivated conservative activists more over the past seven year ... Their path seemed clear ... Just about every Republican who won a national election since the ACA was passed had promised to repeal it as part of their platform.

FreedomWorks is prepping a “Freedom Traitor Award” along with a bust of Benedict Arnold to deliver to the offices of any Republicans who help block the repeal effort next week ... the group is “aggressively targeting” Portman and Capito’s offices.

Tea Party Patriots and Club for Growth launched a website called "Obamacare Repeal Traitors" featuring photos of Murkowski, Capito and Portman.

And good luck with targeting these GOP "traitors," since many of them aren't up for reelection till at least 2020 or 2022.

CBO Report Out: The Cruz amendment would have little effect, according to the CBO. That seems odd to me, knowing how the individual market would collapse and premiums skyrocket...

22 Million More Uninsured Under Senate Obamacare 'Replacement,' CBO Says: By 2026, 50 million Americans would lack health coverage, compared with 28 million if the Affordable Care Act were left in place, the Congressional Budget Office projects in its new report.

In exchange for these coverage losses and the Senate bill’s weakening of consumer protections for health insurance policyholders, health care corporations would enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.

Again, just how can Republicans tweak this, and then try to sell it? I would love to them try:

The Congressional Budget Office concluded in a report published Wednesday:

1. The result of these changes would be chaos in the insurance market, in addition to millions losing their Medicaid coverage.

2. Thirty-two million more people would be uninsured after 10 years, including 17 million next year alone. 

3. Health insurance premiums would double over the coming decade. 

4. And insurance carriers would flee a market destabilized by the continued guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions but without a mandate for healthy people to enroll or financial assistance for low- and middle-income people to get insurance, eventually leading to three-quarters of the country living in a geographic area without health insurance providers.

What "Choice" and "Competition" do we get with TrumpCare Disaster?

I took a day off after watching the Trump administration media blitz on the Sunday "news" shows dishing nothing but hyperbolic bullshit. Come on, cutting $880 billion from Medicaid isn't a cut...my god the balls!

In fact, I just found this Morning Joe clip that backs up my claim, and that it wasn't just me who noticed the bold face lying:



While the press continues to ease up on Trump and the Republicans over a health care plan that CBO initially said will drop insurance for 24 million Americans, I have a question about "choice" and "competition" on their "free market" TrumpCare model.

1. What "choice" do I have with a prepackaged insurance policy that is basically a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? Having "shopped" for insurance in the individual market for over 20 years, plans don't vary much from one insurer to the next. The only competition would be between insurers, and that hasn't worked for decades. NOTE: The big regional hospitals are the ones in control of costs, and they set the prices. Good luck with lowering costs.

2. Even worse, the magical unicorn in the room is never addressed; how do we get "competition" when we're locked into dominant area insurer plans dictating coverage limits, costs, doctors, hospitals and networks? What about those fly by night out-of-state insurers? Think about how dumb and expensive that would be to set up regional offices and oversee billing, patients and providers with no real negotiating ability.

Never forget Paul Ryan and the Republicans, who ‘‘gut Obamacare and rescued the American people!’’ Yeah, 24 Million will Lose Insurance, Taxpayers will Pay for the Sick.

Paul Ryan has finally passed a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that will create taxpayer supported costly high risk pools and an exemption for states to dramatically reduce essential health care benefits. All of this on top of the CBO's original estimate that 24 million will eventually lose their insurance.

A real feather in Ryan's cap. Janesville must be embarrassed.

And because of the uncertainty created by Ryan's tea party House of Representatives, insurers did indeed start pulling out of the exchanges.

Ryan may want to blame ObamaCare, but the Iowa insurer who's pulling out of most counties in that state, blamed Ryan and the Republicans:

Medica, a Minnesota-based health insurer, released a statement suggesting it was close to following two larger carriers in deciding not to sell such policies in Iowa for 2018, due to instability in the market. The company’s statement said:

“Without swift action by the state or Congress to provide stability to Iowa’s individual insurance market, Medica will not be able to serve the citizens of Iowa in the manner and breadth that we do today."

Save this video clip forever! When Americans start looking for someone to blame for this disaster filled with empty problems and absolute lies about lower premiums and lower deductibles, this happy clueless ghoul is your guy:



All the Republican details are Wrong: Check out the House announcement and analysis that trashes this irresponsible bill. Employer plans are also going to see reduced coverage and increased costs. Interesting to note: About half of all employees getting coverage have preexisting conditions, and 86% of 55 to 65 year old's have a preexisting condition - that's essentially half the population. That additional $8 billion means nothing:

It cuts the Medicaid program for low-income people and lets states impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients. It transforms Obama’s subsidies for millions buying insurance — largely based on people’s incomes and premium costs — into tax credits that rise with consumers’ ages. It would retain Obama’s requirement that family policies cover grown children until age 26.

But states could get federal waivers freeing insurers from other Obama coverage requirements. With waivers, insurers could charge people with pre-existing illnesses far higher rates than healthy customers, boost prices for older consumers to whatever they wish and ignore the mandate that they cover specified services like pregnancy care.

Here's the Trump Rose Garden chest thumping by Republicans that seem to think their bill was a good idea:

Republican Rep. Davidson compares buying Health Care to buying a flip phone: "We weren't endowed by our creator with health care..."

Health care is like a flip phone? And it's not like health care is endowed by our creator either. God just gave us life, after that, you're in the free market baby, cough up the cash or die. Just a few pearls of wisdom from Ohio Republican Rep. Warren Davidson:

Warren Davidson: "Lots of people don't believe in a free market, they want health care as if it were endowed by your creator for health care. (eliciting loud yes', exactly). We weren't, but we weren't. We weren't endowed by our creator with health care, we were endowed with life. So  you're not entitled to someone else's stuff. So in health care for example, we have to protect the free market."

Free markets were endowed by our creator? No wonder so many "pro-life" groups don't care about providing health care, no reason to save the "baby" after it's born. (check out Supply Side Jesus below)

Funny thing, constituents knew and groaned in reaction to Davidson's easily recognizable inhumanity.

I started the town hall video off with Davidson's big mistake about his own party's health care subsidies, based on age. He wrongly claimed it was based on income, you know means tested, like it is on the Affordable Care Act. And these guys are going to pass a national health care plan?:

Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) told the mother of a service industry worker who has benefitted from the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion that her son should get a better job if he wants decent insurance when Obamacare is repealed.  

Her grown son lacked health insurance for four years, because his job in the service industry did not provide it. He received coverage through Medicaid.

Constituent: “Can you explain why my son and millions of others in his situation are not deserving of affordable, decent health care that has essential benefits so that he can stay healthy and continue working?”

Davidson: “OK, I don’t know anything about your son, but as you described him, his skills are focused in an industry that doesn’t have the kind of options that you want him to have for health care. So, I don’t believe that these taxpayers here are entitled to give that to him. I believe he’s got the opportunity to go earn those health benefits” (eliciting boos from the crowd).  “If he doesn’t want a catastrophic care plan, don’t buy a catastrophic care plan. If you don’t want a flip-phone, don’t buy a flip-phone” (eliciting loud groans from the audience).

Constituent: “I’m sorry, health care is much different than a cell phone and I’m tired of people using cell phone analogies with health care.”  

Davidson’s metaphor resembled remarks by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), that people should not buy iPhones if they wanted the money to pay for health insurance.
Consumers do not have the same power to command lower prices for health care, since it is not a product they can choose to not have.

Before he was a Senator, Al Franken put this piece together:

New GOP Health Care con keeps ACA benefits, then grants Waivers to ACA benefits!

Here's my theory; Republicans want to keep the ACA framework in place so they can keep blaming "ObamaCare" for the failure of their meddling "revisions."

What else could explain the "new and improved" revised TrumpCare plan. Try not to laugh at how transparently ridiculous it is: Keep all the provision of Obamacare, but grant waivers to all the ObamaCare provisions!!! Nuts right?

The MacArthur Amendment would:• Reinstate Essential Health Benefits as the federal standard• Maintain the following provisions of the AHCA: Prohibition on denying coverage due to preexisting medical conditions. Prohibition on discrimination based on gender. Guaranteed issue of coverage to all applicants. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. Coverage of dependents on parents' plan up to age 26. Community Rating Rules, except for limited waivers.

Here are waivers that basically repeals ObamaCare, state by state:

The amendment would create an option for states to obtain Limited Waivers from certain federal standards, in the interest of lowering premium costs and expanding the number of insured persons.

Spelled out, "Maintaining the following provisions of the AHCA" which maintain some of the provisions of the ACA, means choosing not to maintain the provisions. You can't make this stuff up:

States could seek Limited Waivers for:• Essential Health Benefits• Community rating rules ... freeing insurers to go back to using an individual rating system to set premiums ... except for the following categories, which are not waivable: Gender. Age (except for reductions of the 5:1 age ratio previously established)o Health Status (unless the state has established a high risk pool or is participating in a federal high risk pool).

The "Limited Waiver Requirements" may include just of the following excuses to rip health care to shreds. Republicans desperately want to push sick people into high cost "state risk pools," where we socialize the care of our sick with taxpayer money, and give insurance companies healthy people and healthy profits:

States must attest that the purpose of their requested waiver is to reduce premium costs, increase the number of persons with healthcare coverage, or advance another benefit to the public interest in the state, including the guarantee of coverage for persons with pre-existing medical conditions. The Secretary shall approve applications within 90 days of determining that an application is complete.

Thank god Trump stepped up with a few of the finer details?

Trump: "This is a great bill, a great plan, and this will be great health care. It's evolving, it was never a give up...and the plan gets better, and better and better. And it's gotten really really good. And a lot of people are really liking it a lot."

As Vox's Sarah Kliff reports:

But because of the conservatives, they won’t provide the funding experts say is necessary to really make those high-risk pools work. So people are at risk again.

Of course ignoring public opinion is nothing new....

Visualization by Graphiq

Threat of Trump/Ryan Repeal will Kill the Affordable Care Act's Market Places!!! It's that easy.

JUST TO BE CLEAR: IT WILL BE THE REPUBLICANS FAULT FOR CAUSING THE ACA (OBAMACARE) COLLAPSE!!!

While Democrats may have won the health care debate for the time being, Republicans are patiently and very openly waiting for the ACA to implode, or as Trump so inaccurately claims, “blowup.”

In fact, it's not just the ACA that’s in danger, but the whole individual market (non-employer insurance); profits won’t be big enough. Modern Health:

Aetna said Thursday that it will stop selling individual policies both on and off the state's Affordable Care Act exchange next year. The decision follows on the heels of Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield's announcement that it will exit Iowa's individual market in 2018. Now thousands of Iowans will be forced to switch health insurers—if they can find one.

But because both Aetna and Wellmark are pulling the plug on both on- and off-exchange individual plans, the consequences extend beyond dwindling choice on the ACA federal marketplace. “It's not clear how many options people may have even if they are able to pay full price and buy off exchange,” Cox said.

The Republican “Repeal” Poison Pill Set this in Motion: What major insurance company can conduct business under the threat of repeal? Insurers said as much:

1. An Aetna spokesman said the decision is a result of “financial risk and an uncertain outlook for the marketplace.” 

2. With a number of regulatory unknowns and no clear sign that the federal government will continue to support the individual marketplace, experts say other states could soon see an insurer exodus as well … health insurers have threatened to quit offering policies on the ACA's marketplace if they don't get the regulatory details they need to design and price their insurance plans. 

3. Insurers have warned Congressional leaders that they need to see signs that the Trump administration will work to stabilize the individual market if they are to commit to selling plans in 2018. Iowa's situation is an example of what may happen across the nation if insurers don't get answers soon.

Sounds like a problem created by Trump and Paul Ryan, ya think?

Oh, and about those tearful insurance company “losses;” let’s just call it a “decline in grotesque profits:”

Wellmark said it lost about $90 million from ACA-compliant health plans sold in Iowa over the past three years. But it is a drop in a bucket relative to the $2.7 billion in revenue Wellmark recorded in 2016 alone, financial documents show.

Given the minor loss, it is likely that Wellmark's exit has more to do with the uncertainty surrounding the future of the health insurance landscape and the prospect of further financial losses if the Trump administration fails to shore up the marketplaces, experts said.

Trump and Ryan inaction will Kill the ACA: 

It is unclear if insurers will get the details they need to commit to the exchanges for 2018. In most states, they have until June 21 to decide whether to participate. But the Trump administration has yet to address insurers' most pressing concerns about availability of cost-sharing reductions and the enforcement of the mandate that consumers purchase coverage. Those two policies are essential to ensure the individual market stays afloat and affordable during the transition period to an ACA replacement plan.

And no, it’s not a problem caused by the Affordable Care Act:

“We're deeply troubled by the angst and concern the Affordable Care Act is causing in Iowa," Iowa Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen said in a statement. "This is a problem created by the Affordable Care Act and needs to be fixed by Congress."

Ryan's Unforgettable TrumpCare Failure!!!

As it turned out Freedom Caucus Tea Party Republicans, who wanted no real replacement to help Americans buy insurance, resulted in moderate Republicans voting no on Paul Ryan's TrumpCare monstrosity. Take note, every Wisconsin GOP Representative would have voted for the final version of this cruel inhumane joke.

The fact that Paul Ryan never came up with, or tried to put together, an agreeable GOP plan in seven years cannot be lost in all of this. TrumpCare finally exposed this self-righteous fraud.

Trump: "We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning.”

Ryan Comment #1: "Moving from an opposition party to a governing party...?" No, really, you think?

Ryan Comment #2: "Are we willing to say yes to the good, the very good even if it's not the perfect?" 24 million losing their health care is "very good" and "not the perfect?" Like it's close, right?

Ryan Comment #3: "I'm really proud of the bill we produced. It would make a dramatic improvement in our health care system, and provide relief for people hurting under ObamaCare." My god what is wrong with this guy...see picture -----------------------------

Ryan Comment #4: "So I don't think the architects of ObamaCare...I'm sure they may be pleased right now,  but when they see how bad this thing gets...I don't think they're going to like that either." Sneaky. Ryan is promising not to lift a finger to fix the ACA in the future. And repeal still hangs over insurers, who may see no future in staying on the exchanges. That makes this the GOP's fault. Modern HealthCare:

Experts expect HHS Secretary Tom Price to try to pare down those mandates through rule-making. 

Insurers have complained that the huge uncertainty caused by the GOP effort to repeal and replace the ACA has made it difficult or impossible for them to make plan and rate decisions for 2018. Some say they're weighing whether to withdraw from the individual market. And that was before House Republicans and the White House last week unveiled their proposal to erase the ACA's minimum essential benefit requirements. “This is adding even more uncertainty to an already-uncertain situation, making it unlikely insurers would continue to participate,” said Cynthia Cox, associate director of health reform and private insurance for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Trump wont fix ACA, also set it up to die from uncertainty for insurers, and then blamed the Democrats? Here's Trump's promises, his failure and MSNBC's Joy Reid showing Democrats just how to drive the point home over and over again, never letting Republicans off the hook:

Changes proposed to attract additional Republican votes for the party’s bill will narrow the amount of deficit reduction by more than half, according to the nonpartisan CBO.

Many Republican governors were relieved they wouldn't have to make really really unpopular cuts:

The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found in a study this week that trying to maintain the existing levels of Medicaid coverage would have taken cuts equal to one-fourth of some state governments' education budgets to keep the coverage without raising taxes, the report found.

Trump Denied ever saying Repeal and Replace? Well....



NJ Democrat Frank Pallone nailed Republicans for voting yes...should have gotten more press:



Important Health Care Points:

There also were concerns that eliminating the federal benefit rules or delegating benefit determinations to the states could drive up premiums for people with chronic conditions. In addition, removing the essential benefits requirement would essentially neuter the ACA's ban on insurers setting annual and lifetime caps on benefits, since they could set limits on services that are not required benefits. Removing the basic benefits mandate also would make it harder for consumers to shop and compare plans.

Oops, Ad's thanked Republicans for ACA repeal! Premature victory laps are embarrassing enough, but don't be surprised if the GOP starts congratulating itself for not repealing the ACA...that's next:

Basketball fans in several Republican-adjacent TV markets are enjoying a series of ads, prematurely bought by the American Action Network PAC, inviting viewers to call their representatives to thank them for repealing Obamacare today—something that did not happen.

Ads praising Virginia’s Barbara Comstock; it ran during the Wizards-Nets game ... ads for Fresno’s David Valadao and Des Moines’s David Young; both ran on CBS stations before March Madness coverage. Money well-spent, we think.

ObamaCare troubles a Republican Creation!

The Affordable Care Act is in trouble because Republicans refused to tweak the system as problems cropped up. 

Another problem is the introduction of competition in the insurance marketplace. Consumers finally had a chance to compare insurer plans side-by-side, forcing insurance companies to provide lower premiums to get their business. But that hurt their bottom line, and they left the exchanges. Real comparison shopping for insurance in the individual private market is impossible, which is why many sought out insurance agents for advice.

The three other biggest reasons? Republican Sabotage:    

1. See, Insurance Companies are Leaving the Exchanges…ObamaCare Failed? 

Rep. Marco Rubio severely limited the supposed "bailout fund" in the Affordable Care Act for what are called called risk corridors, a temporary aid for insurers to adjust premiums.

Rubio helped persuade Congress to prevent Health and Human Services from being able to cover expenses in its own budget. But experts have said Rubio is wrong to call the program a bailout, and that the program is supposed to pay for itself through fees from insurers.

2. See, since CBO wrongly estimated ACA enrollment, can't believe 24 million will lose insurance? Only 32 states expanded Medicaid, instead of all 50 states after the Supreme Court struck down the coverage mandate. That blew a hole in the CBO estimate:

3. See, Medicare is Going Broke, so now we have to Privatize to Save It: 

A key Ryan change would repeal a Medicare tax on high earners a year earlier than originally proposed. Obamacare imposed an additional payroll tax of 0.9% on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 (among other changes to Medicare) … leading to about $10 billion of lost revenue. “Here you have a bill where Congress is voting to actively undermine the trust fund, and it’s singularly for the purpose of providing tax breaks for the wealthy,” says Stacy Sanders, federal policy director for the Medicare Rights Center.

Health Care for Americans loses out to Tax Cuts for the Wealthy by brutal GOP.

It's hard for me to imagine the cruel dedication Republicans have for money, profits, and capitalism. Not even our God given earthly bodies, with all our God given rights, can't compete with the almighty dollar. Check out the last line in this screen grab:

I though it was just me, picking up on something I imagined. Nope, others are seeing it too, what should be painfully obvious to everyone.

This beautifully poignant comment by Congressman Joe Kennedy III brought it all together for me. From The Boston Globe:

"I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan, where he called this repeal bill 'an act of mercy.' With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill. This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice."

Here Joe Kennedy's accurate reaction to Paul Ryan's desperate plea to pass his reforms: it's a tax cut:



With the same message, the Center For American Progress's Neera Tanden: Cuts taxes for wealthy, a redirection of wealth benefits:



And from former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, who I thought wisely state the Democratic case for keeping the ACA, why it's not just a shift in wealth but also a program of roadblocks keeping people away from health care:

Beshear: "These folks, they amaze me. Their ideology, their rigid ideology and all of their policy are making them to forget about what we're really talking about, that's human beings, that's lives...these are people, some of them are going to die if their coverage is taken away from them. Doctors tell you this, this is a real situation. This is life and death for millions of Americans..."   

Holy Crap, Republicans don't know anything about Health Care Insurance!!!

When it rains stupidity it pours stupidity.

Breaking News: America should be waking up to the idea that Republicans don't understand health care at all, or for that matter, how insurance works.

In a breathlessly stupid number of recent comments, we're supposed to put our faith in a Republican "the time is here, the time is now" remake of health care?  

It wasn't just the Rep. Jason Chaffetz's moment either (with a great response from former Mayor Gavin Newsom), add to it Rep. Roger Marshall, (R-Kan.) comments below, a first-term congressman who spent three decades as a physician and is a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus. He said:

“There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves. Just like homeless people... I think just morally, spiritually, socially just don’t want health care.”

“The Medicaid population, which is [on] a free credit card as a group, do probably the least preventive medicine and taking care of themselves and eating healthy and exercising. And I’m not judging; I’m just saying socially that’s where they are. So there’s a group of people that even with unlimited access to health care are only going to use the emergency room when their arm is chopped off or when their pneumonia is so bad they get brought [to] the ER." 

What, pregnancy has something to do with guys? It's still mind boggling to think that conservative men don't connect pregnancies to guys, and the resulting "prenatal care."

Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.) was talking with Republican Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.) about Shimkus’s objections to the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for health-insurance plans. Doyle asked Shimkus,“What mandate in the Obamacare bill does he take issue with?”

Shimkus: “What about men having to purchase prenatal care?” 

At that point, one could hear the room start to stir.

Shimkus: “I’m just . . . is that not correct? And should they?”

Paul Ryan doesn't get Insurance? True!: After all these years, you'd think Ryan would at least know a little something about insurance, since he wants to hand all our health care needs over to them. But he doesn't. He wants the government/taxpayers to pay for the sick instead of insurers? He said the following like it was something bad. Scary, Ryan doesn't get it:

Ryan: "Young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for the older sicker people. So the young healthy person is going to be made to buy health care and they're going to be paying for the person who gets breast cancer in her 40's, or gets heart disease in his 50's...the people who are healthy, pay for the people who are sick. It's not working and that's why it's in a death spiral." 

That's how insurance works....what in gods name is this guy inhaling? No wonder this is all so screwed up:



No, the public should not pay for the sick so insurance companies can make hefty profits. Democrats...are you there?

University of New Hampshire's Stephen Pimpare, the author of "A People’s History of Poverty in America" and the forthcoming "Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen," summed up nicely exactly what ails the Republican Party and their envious resentful voters:

For people like Chaffetz or Paul Ryan, this stubborn insistence that people could have more money or more health care if only they wanted them more absolves the government of having to intervene and use its power on their behalf. In this way of thinking, reducing access to subsidized health insurance isn’t cruel; it’s responsible, a form of tough love in which people are forced to make good choices instead of bad ones. This is both patronizing and, of course, a gross misreading of the actual outcome of laws like these....The implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone...Set aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?

Just because what Chaffetz is saying isn’t novel doesn’t mean it isn’t uninformed and dangerous. Chaffetz, Ryan and their compatriots offer us tough love without the love, made possible through their willful ignorance of (or utter disregard for) what life is actually like for so many Americans who do their very best against great odds and still, nonetheless, have little to show for it. Sometimes not even an iPhone.

TrumpCare Republicans know more than Medical Providers, Doctors, Hospital CEO's and Insurers!!!

Why didn't Democrats toss off tea party protesters as paid off lackey's of the Koch brothers who opposed the Affordable Care Act? 

Why didn't Democrats brush off complaints about climate change as the last gasps of industry special interests willing to say anything? 

Democrats never denounce anything or predict failure and disaster over pending Republican legislation. It actually gives everyone the impression Republicans have a legitimate argument to make.

TrumpCare Disaster: Now Republicans are slamming a huge swath of their voters; doctors!!! Doctors have been a big voting block for Republicans, but even they have had it with their parties attack on health care.

Republicans pushing the legislation are unfazed by the criticism, charging the groups are simply to seek to protect the benefits they received from the Affordable Care Act.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday pushed back, saying the legislation isn’t aimed at winning over special interests.

“We would love to have every group on board, but every single deal we heard about getting through [in ObamaCare] … over and over again, it was one deal after the other, to buy votes to get it through the Senate,” he said, in response to questions about criticism from the AMA and AARP.

“If you want to line up how many special interests that got paid off last time versus now, they’ll probably win, hands down. This isn’t about how many special interests in Washington we can get paid off, it’s about making sure that patients get the best deal that lowers prices.”

Many industry and patient groups are charging Republicans with the opposite: making care more expensive and harder to pay for, in addition to potentially taking away coverage from millions of Americans.

This didn't go over well. Modern Health Care:

The CEOs are impatient, especially after Trump's recent statement—which amused and alarmed many of them—that “nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.”

Republicans aren't interested in getting input from every front line health care provider. That can't be good:

Of CEOs responding to the survey, 77.9% oppose repealing the ACA, even with the promise of a replacement plan and a transition period. And 79.2% favor keeping the law's expansion of Medicaid coverage to low-income adults, which would be eliminated or phased out in most Republican proposals. 

The Power Panel is mostly made up of leaders of large hospitals and health systems, including some that operate their own health plans. But the participants also include CEOs of insurers, suppliers and technology companies, as well as associations representing sectors across the industry.

That's not all:

1. Nearly two-thirds (65.4%) want to preserve generous premium subsidies so no one pays more than a set percentage of income for health insurance. That contrasts with the House GOP plan to base premium tax credits on age rather than income. 

2. About the same percentage prefers to keep the ACA's minimum essential benefits, which would be erased under Republican plans.

3. Just 2.6% want to kill the law's requirement that nearly everyone buy coverage, a prime target of the repeal effort.

Trump tries to discredit soon to be released CBO TrumpCare estimates!

The CBO's reality check on the Republicans first ever free market approach to a national health care plan in the world is about to be released. The CBO's past reports over their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act has become a festering sore no doctor can cure.

Just days away from a new estimate based on Paul Ryan's recently released free market reform plan, the CBO predicted in January 2017....NY Times:

18 million people could lose their insurance within a year and individual insurance premiums would shoot upward if Congress repealed major provisions of the Affordable Care Act while leaving other parts in place, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

If nothing followed the gutting of President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the budget office said, 32 million people could lose their health insurance by 2026, and premiums in the individual insurance market could double.

“Eliminating the mandate penalties and the subsidies while retaining the market reforms would destabilize the nongroup market, and the effect would worsen over time,” the budget office said.

The office said the estimated increase of 32 million people without coverage by 2026 resulted from three changes: About 23 million fewer people would have coverage in the individual insurance market. Roughly 19 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage. And there would be an increase in the number of people with employment-based insurance that would partially offset those losses.

Trumpian preemption: Sean Spicer deceptively twisted reality again, this time about past CBO predictions that he said were way off. 

That's just not true when you look at their updated 2012 estimate, and not just the original 2010 estimate. On the cost and taxes, the ACA saved even more money than the CBO estimated:

  

Check out the second to last column for CBO estimate and Realized 2014 count!

...and who cares about accurate numbers, when "good policy" is all that matters?

Spicer: “If you’re looking at the CBO for accuracy, you’re looking in the wrong place.".

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.: “Unelected bureaucrats.”

Jeffrey Anderson, a Hudson Institute scholar, for the Weekly Standard: “The CBO’s score will most likely be wildly off, [and] most Americans don’t much care what the CBO thinks. Those who debate and pass legislation should focus on whether it would be good policy ... not on the grounds of the CBO’s generally dubious scoring.”

The CBO predictions didn't account for the stunningly over the top criticism and outright lies about the new health care law that ended up discouraging hundreds of millions of people from trying it out. Most of the reported individual horror stories were debunked when ACA victims learned the truth about signing up and what they would actually save: 

Spicer based his criticism of the CBO on the fact that the office estimate in 2010 that 24 million people would acquire health insurance. Only 9 million people are covered in the exchanges now, however.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he would give more weight to a CBO analysis of a tax cut than he would to one of how many people would be insured under a bill, because the latter delves into predicting consumer behavior. Ironically, conservatives have long complained that the CBO did not take human behavior into account when scoring tax bills, and in 2015 passed a rule requiring the CBO to use what’s known as “dynamic scoring” on tax legislation.

The TrumpCare patchwork of tax credits nightmare.

The interactive map below offers up an unstable and frightening look at health care insurance through the eyes of the Republican Party, what is now known as TrumpCare.

Younger and older Americans get clobbered, in some states and in some counties, especially when adjusted for income. The thing is, all of us at one time or another could find ourselves falling into one of these costly categories, disrupting our lives and wiping out our life savings. And the credits below are opposed by a growing list of Republicans who want a completely free market system with no public support at all.

It would be the only free market system in the world, in one of the biggest countries in the world. It would be system based on the false premise that health care is a consumer product. Big mistake: