GOP Loves Punishing The Poor-That Is Why Poor Republicans are A Confused Lot: The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory Unable to repeal Obamacare, Republicans persuade a judge to defund some...

Progressive One

The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory

Unable to repeal Obamacare, Republicans persuade a judge to defund some subsidies for the poor
SIX YEARS AFTER losing the battle in Congress over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans haven’t stopped fighting to reverse the results. They’ve had little or no luck on Capitol Hill, even though they now control both the House and the Senate. On Thursday, however, they won a skirmish in court when a federal judge canceled funding for the subsidies that help millions of poor people pay the out-of-pocket costs of doctor visits, outpatient care and hospitalizations. The GOP win, if upheld, is a loss for many of their constituents.
At issue are roughly $4 billion in annual “cost-sharing” subsidies for households at or near the poverty line who obtain discounted insurance policies through Obama-care. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held that the administration did, in fact, spend money that Congress chose not to appropriate, usurping Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. She also put her order on hold to give the administration the chance to appeal.
The ruling, if upheld, would give insurers two options. They could continue to provide the cost-sharing subsidies as required by the law, passing along the multibillion-dollar expense to all their Obamacare customers through higher premiums. Those with higher incomes would have to absorb the increase, while those with lower incomes would receive bigger premium subsidies — at taxpayer expense. Alternatively, insurers could argue that they were free to drop the subsidies if the government didn’t pay the reimbursements required by the 2010 law (a requirement that may also give them grounds to sue). That would put healthcare out of reach for many of those newly insured by Obamacare.
Either way, an enormous number of people could suffer. But that seems to be the GOP’s strategy in its scorched-earth approach to Obamacare: Rather than trying to fix the possible statutory defects and make the law work better, they’ve sought to destabilize it, causing enough pain and turmoil that Democrats abandon it. Yes, the law has problems, particularly when it comes to reining in the cost of coverage and care. But one key to slowing healthcare costs is making care more efficient and effective, a task that’s impossible to do when a large swath of the population is uninsured.
It’s unfortunate that a federal judge should inject the courts into the political fight over Obamacare, rather than letting lawmakers settle it themselves. The issue here isn’t Congress’ power of the purse so much as its ability to renege on a legal commitment to insurers and their customers without a vote. Republicans don’t like the commitments Congress made in 2010, but they shouldn’t be able to walk away from them while they’re still the law.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Democrats love the poor. That's why they buy them.

Progressive One

Super Dave wrote:

Democrats love the poor. That's why they buy them.

I can understand why the mean nasty people would see helping the poor as a bad thing. It is a part of their evil, awful persona as a human being.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory

Unable to repeal Obamacare, Republicans persuade a judge to defund some subsidies for the poor
SIX YEARS AFTER losing the battle in Congress over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans haven’t stopped fighting to reverse the results. They’ve had little or no luck on Capitol Hill, even though they now control both the House and the Senate. On Thursday, however, they won a skirmish in court when a federal judge canceled funding for the subsidies that help millions of poor people pay the out-of-pocket costs of doctor visits, outpatient care and hospitalizations. The GOP win, if upheld, is a loss for many of their constituents.
At issue are roughly $4 billion in annual “cost-sharing” subsidies for households at or near the poverty line who obtain discounted insurance policies through Obama-care. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held that the administration did, in fact, spend money that Congress chose not to appropriate, usurping Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. She also put her order on hold to give the administration the chance to appeal.
The ruling, if upheld, would give insurers two options. They could continue to provide the cost-sharing subsidies as required by the law, passing along the multibillion-dollar expense to all their Obamacare customers through higher premiums. Those with higher incomes would have to absorb the increase, while those with lower incomes would receive bigger premium subsidies — at taxpayer expense. Alternatively, insurers could argue that they were free to drop the subsidies if the government didn’t pay the reimbursements required by the 2010 law (a requirement that may also give them grounds to sue). That would put healthcare out of reach for many of those newly insured by Obamacare.
Either way, an enormous number of people could suffer. But that seems to be the GOP’s strategy in its scorched-earth approach to Obamacare: Rather than trying to fix the possible statutory defects and make the law work better, they’ve sought to destabilize it, causing enough pain and turmoil that Democrats abandon it. Yes, the law has problems, particularly when it comes to reining in the cost of coverage and care. But one key to slowing healthcare costs is making care more efficient and effective, a task that’s impossible to do when a large swath of the population is uninsured.
It’s unfortunate that a federal judge should inject the courts into the political fight over Obamacare, rather than letting lawmakers settle it themselves. The issue here isn’t Congress’ power of the purse so much as its ability to renege on a legal commitment to insurers and their customers without a vote. Republicans don’t like the commitments Congress made in 2010, but they shouldn’t be able to walk away from them while they’re still the law.

The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory br br Unable to re... (show quote)

At it again huh? You need to look at the entire picture, not just the tiny portion that you want to crab about.

The suit proved that Obama broke his own law. I supposed that's ok with you, so our of 300+ million people here that makes how many that feel as you do? Uh....including Barry...uh....2!

Your precious live for the poor is hollow and if you learned what the rest of us know, or admitted that you know it, you would see how the ACA is actually a terrible law, but if Barry got caught beheading someone you would applaud him.

You fancy yourself as being intelligent but you consistently prove otherwise.

robmull Loc: florida

Super Dave wrote:

Democrats love the poor. That's why they buy them.

And they said manufacturing in America is dead, SD, and the (D's) are bringing them in by the millions, supplying all the necessary "entitlements," creating secret, non-assimilating, "baby-making" factories, "From Sea to Shining Sea;" to say nothing of all the un-vetted, pro-Sharia, top-level government and NGO positions suddenly being "appointed." Oh, that's what they mean; "DEATH TO AMERICA." Hummmmmmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!

jim keris

It's funny You have a good job with good benefits you try to educate and better yourself. Then some Gov. wonk wants penalize you for being successful and expects you to carry the deadbeats.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory

Unable to repeal Obamacare, Republicans persuade a judge to defund some subsidies for the poor
SIX YEARS AFTER losing the battle in Congress over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans haven’t stopped fighting to reverse the results. They’ve had little or no luck on Capitol Hill, even though they now control both the House and the Senate. On Thursday, however, they won a skirmish in court when a federal judge canceled funding for the subsidies that help millions of poor people pay the out-of-pocket costs of doctor visits, outpatient care and hospitalizations. The GOP win, if upheld, is a loss for many of their constituents.
At issue are roughly $4 billion in annual “cost-sharing” subsidies for households at or near the poverty line who obtain discounted insurance policies through Obama-care. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held that the administration did, in fact, spend money that Congress chose not to appropriate, usurping Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. She also put her order on hold to give the administration the chance to appeal.
The ruling, if upheld, would give insurers two options. They could continue to provide the cost-sharing subsidies as required by the law, passing along the multibillion-dollar expense to all their Obamacare customers through higher premiums. Those with higher incomes would have to absorb the increase, while those with lower incomes would receive bigger premium subsidies — at taxpayer expense. Alternatively, insurers could argue that they were free to drop the subsidies if the government didn’t pay the reimbursements required by the 2010 law (a requirement that may also give them grounds to sue). That would put healthcare out of reach for many of those newly insured by Obamacare.
Either way, an enormous number of people could suffer. But that seems to be the GOP’s strategy in its scorched-earth approach to Obamacare: Rather than trying to fix the possible statutory defects and make the law work better, they’ve sought to destabilize it, causing enough pain and turmoil that Democrats abandon it. Yes, the law has problems, particularly when it comes to reining in the cost of coverage and care. But one key to slowing healthcare costs is making care more efficient and effective, a task that’s impossible to do when a large swath of the population is uninsured.
It’s unfortunate that a federal judge should inject the courts into the political fight over Obamacare, rather than letting lawmakers settle it themselves. The issue here isn’t Congress’ power of the purse so much as its ability to renege on a legal commitment to insurers and their customers without a vote. Republicans don’t like the commitments Congress made in 2010, but they shouldn’t be able to walk away from them while they’re still the law.

The GOP’s Pyrrhic victory br br Unable to re... (show quote)

Perhaps it shouldn't have been pushed on the people on a bed of lies.
Although ObamaCare was determined to be another tax on the people by SCOTUS.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

jim keris wrote:

It's funny You have a good job with good benefits you try to educate and better yourself. Then some Gov. wonk wants penalize you for being successful and expects you to carry the deadbeats.

Ahhhhh, you were just lucky, and the government made you rich.

Then they wonder why Trump is so popular.

Progressive One

Docadhoc wrote:

At it again huh? You need to look at the entire p... (show quote)

only an idiot would have to insult as they argue against millions attaining healthcare...only a sorry ass selfish fk would have opposition to such a thing.

robmull Loc: florida

jim keris wrote:

It's funny You have a good job with good benefits you try to educate and better yourself. Then some Gov. wonk wants penalize you for being successful and expects you to carry the deadbeats.

Not "some Gov. wonk," jim. Some "Marx/Alinsky" anti-American secular [communist, fascist, radical] liberal progressive who is just going by the "Rules." Saul Alinsky, the "lefties" "HERO" ["thrill up-the-leg" Matthews], devoted pages and pages and pages and pages [blueprint/"Rules for Radicals"], to explain the proper methods for the "radical communist activists to overthrow the enemy" [America]. American taxpayer funding ["Cloward & Piven"] is a BIG part of the "Rules." Hummmmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

only an idiot would have to insult as they argue against millions attaining healthcare...only a sorry ass selfish fk would have opposition to such a thing.

Or someone paying for it,
then can't afford the deductible themselves.

People are sick of the new tax, it wasn't what was promised.

Progressive One

everyone wants to benefit from the taxes of others but their selfish asses do not want to pay any. It is like the POS red states that have no state income tax but then they are subsidized by blue states.

robmull Loc: florida

the waker wrote:

Or someone paying for it,
then can't afford the deductible themselves.

People are sick of the new tax, it wasn't what was promised.

It seems Congress [government, liberal progressive organizations, SEIU, etc.] made DAMN sure, walker, that only the "unwashed [American taxpayer] masses" would have to pay the ever increasing ACA tax ["that really isn't a tax"], to subsidize [FOR EVERYTHING] the floods of illegal "non-assimilating" aliens (D), who are now purposely "swarming" America, "From Sea to Shining Sea!!!" Hummmmmmmmmmm.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

everyone wants to benefit from the taxes of others but their selfish asses do not want to pay any. It is like the POS red states that have no state income tax but then they are subsidized by blue states.

Keep your socialized programs, I ll keep my hard earned dollars and we re both good.

EL Loc: Massachusetts

Super Dave wrote:

Democrats love the poor. That's why they buy them.

Got that right!!!