Thread: Paul Ryan to Sean Hannity: the filibuster is an obstacle in Obamcare replacement .

.
For those who are insistent that the Democrats did not change the rules to get Obamcare passed see How Obamacare Became Law

June 26, 2015 by Brian Sussman

”Remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. Therefore in order to pass the Act Senate Democrats decided to change the rules. They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill). This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. But that didn’t stop them.

So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation. The American system of governance was shafted. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”

It’s time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to assure President Trump that he will use all available power to repeal Obamacare and pass a Bill which ends our Federal Government’s strangle hold over the people’s health care, and includes a free market approach with each State accepting their responsibility to deal with the health care needs of their own poor and needy citizens, which is now done through Medicaid, which needs to be phased out, along with current taxes raised for this “program”.


JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the health-care needs of millions of aliens who have invaded America’s borders.

It found that as of June 2015, “the Administration awarded approximately $750 million in tax credits on behalf of individuals who were later determined to be ineligible because they failed to verify their citizenship, status as a national, or legal presence.”
The review found the credits went to more than 500,000 people – who are illegal immigrants or whose legal status was unclear due to insufficient records.”

Their anchor babies have healthcare under ACA - credits to 500,000 PLUS anchor babies costs - the figures on that cost must be staggering. No co-pays, everything is free - birthing, doctors, specialists, hospital, operations, testing, mental & physical disability treatments, dental, orthodontists, eyeglasses. Are they not @ 30% of our school children?

Yet, they bilk our seniors for thousands of dollars by not formerly admitting them for a few days from nursing home to hospital - health insurance does not cover that period. No correcting of that is discussed. It seems the repeal is just in name only to say "we did it" with nothing better to replace it with

US health bill 'to leave 14m more uninsured'

• 3/13/17

An estimated 14 million more people would lose insurance coverage in 2018 under the new Republican healthcare plan, according to a budget analysis.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a group of budget analysts and economists, released its assessment on the long-awaited Republican bill.
The group said the number of uninsured would jump to 24 million by 2026.
The plan to replace the Affordable Care Act has faced backlash from Democrats and even some Republicans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39261503

As long as it is 14 MILLION illegal aliens, refugees, asylum liars and their anchor babies.

Originally Posted by artist

Their anchor babies have healthcare under ACA - credits to 500,000 PLUS anchor babies costs - the figures on that cost must be staggering. No co-pays, everything is free - birthing, doctors, specialists, hospital, operations, testing, mental & physical disability treatments, dental, orthodontists, eyeglasses. Are they not @ 30% of our school children?

Yet, they bilk our seniors for thousands of dollars by not formerly admitting them for a few days from nursing home to hospital - health insurance does not cover that period. No correcting of that is discussed. It seems the repeal is just in name only to say "we did it" with nothing better to replace it with

I wonder if Sean Hannity will ever bring this up on his radio show. Why doesn't he ask Paul Ryan how his "Bill" corrects this outrageous crap which turns American Citizens into tax slaves to support illegal aliens and the cost of their giving birth to children who immediately become a public burden?


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the health-care needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax Cuts for the Rich

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2017

So much for President Trump’s pledge of “insurance for everybody.”

The Congressional Budget Office said on Monday that next year 14 million fewer Americans will have insurance if the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is repealed and replaced on the terms the president is seeking. That tally would rise to 21 million in 2020 and 24 million in 2026. By then, the total number of uninsured Americans would reach 52 million.

And for what? To give a gigantic tax cut to wealthy Americans.

According to the C.B.O. the loss of health care coverage under the Republican plan stems largely from gutting Medicaid for low-income Americans, even though Mr. Trump has said he would not cut Medicaid. Coverage would also be lost in part because insurance would become unaffordable for millions as subsidies are withdrawn, despite Mr. Trump’s claim that coverage would become “much less expensive and much better.” (another campaign promise gone awry)

Photo

Tom Price speaking to reporters about the Congressional Budget Office report on Monday at the White House. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Older people would be hard hit. The Republican plan repeals the penalty for not buying insurance. One predictable result of this change is that premiums will rise as younger, healthier people refuse to buy insurance. To hold down the cost of average premiums, the proposal would allow insurers to charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones, rather than three times, as permitted under Obamacare. The outcome would be reduced premiums for young adults, essentially paid for by charging substantially higher premiums for older people — and higher deductibles and other cost-sharing for everyone.

At the same time, the plan provides a $600 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy Americans, because they would no longer be subject to the taxes that pay for the health care subsidies. When the tax cuts for the rich and the spending cuts to Medicaid are combined, they would result in deficit reduction of $337 billion by 2026. That’s a small fraction of the national debt in exchange for an enormous amount of human misery.

Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans knew the C.B.O. report would be devastating, so last week they launched a pre-emptive attack on the agency, disparaging its professionalism and findings. Their insults were an impressive display of staying on message for an administration and party that has descended into infighting over the elements of the repeal plan. This might have been expected. Yet in the past President Trump himself has tweeted C.B.O. findings to attack President Obama on economic growth, tax cuts, employment and other issues.

“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said on Monday. “It’s just not believable.”

Well, whether Mr. Price wants to believe it or not, the numbers are the numbers. The C.B.O. has called it as it sees it, and the picture is clear: Trumpcare would throw millions of Americans off their health coverage. And no amount of spin or scorn for the C.B.O. can alter that reality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/o...ype=collection

Ted Cruz Calls CBO Health Care Report ‘Troubling’ | NBC News

NBC News

Published on Mar 14, 2017Republican Senator Ted Cruz says the report validated his main concern about the GOP health care bill: “It does not do enough to drive down premiums.” Cruz also predicts that the bill will not pass the Senate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH-NxAQp-hY

All I'm really seeing at this point is a trade-off ..... one bad plan for another. I don't have any answers, just making a personal observation.

7 Times The Congressional Budget Office Got Its Forecasts Dramatically Wrong

Aaron Bandler
March 15, 2017

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s ruling on Trumpcare – which the Daily Wire's Robert Kraychik summarized and analyzed here – has been predictably paraded by the left-wing media as indicative of the harm caused by repealing Obamacare, as The Federalist's Sean Davis highlighted on Twitter.
Two things can be true: Trumpcare is terrible, but the CBO's ruling was flawed, as expected, since it has a poor track record.
Here are seven times where the CBO had dramatically wrong forecasts.
1. Obamacare's enrollment numbers for the exchanges.
Roy elaborates further on the chart in Forbes:

As the below chart shows, in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was passed, CBO estimated that 21 million people would enroll in the ACA exchanges in 2016. The actual number was closer to 10 million. Even now, CBO believes that 18 to 19 million people will soon be enrolled in the exchanges, when in fact enrollment is degrading under current law, and will likely end up stabilizing at about 10 to 11 million.

2. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. According to Forbes, the CBO predicted that Medicaid's enrollees would cost around $4,200 per enrollee in 2015, putting the total cost of Medicaid expansion in 2015 at $42 billion; the enrollees actually cost around $6,366, putting the total cost of Medicaid expansion in 2015 at $68 billion.
The CBO's inaccurate forecast on the cost of Medicaid expansion was due to their predictions constantly understating the amount of new Medicaid enrollees:
Screenshot: Forbes
3. Economic growth under Obamacare. The CBO predicted 2010 to 2016 would see an average real GDP growth of 3.2 percent; in actuality, it was a meager 2.1 percent. Here is a chart that puts into context how sluggish that 2.1 percent number is:
Screenshot: Forbes
4. Publicly-held debt as a percentage of GDP in a ten-year timeframe. The CBO predicted in 2002 that by 2012, the publicly-held debt would be only 7.4 percent of GDP. The CBO was off by nearly a decimal point – publicly-held debt was 72.8 percent of GDP in 2012. Their forecast was just a little bit wrong.
5. The cost of farm bills. The CBO has a bad habit of claiming that farm bills save money when they actually worsen the country's debt, as this chart from the George Mason University's Mercatus Center shows:
Screenshot: Mercatus Center
The 2013 farm bill was ultimately defeated.
6. Projecting a surplus when there was really a deficit. In his book America's Fiscal Constitution: Its Triumph and Collapse, former Houston Mayor Bill White, a Democrat, wrote that in 1998, the CBO projected a surplus that never eventuated. They also forecast in 2000 that there would be a surplus until 2010; yet again, there was never a surplus in that time frame. White cited a 2000 Federal Reserve analysis that concluded, "there is no relationship between the CBO's projections and the actual surplus/deficit."
7. The cost of Medicaid Disproportionate Shared Hospital (DSH) payments. The CBO forecast in 1987 the cost of Medicaid DSH – which pays state hospitals for taking in Medicaid and uninsured patients – would cost below a billion dollars in 1992; the real cost was $17 billion that year.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14454/...aign=position6