Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the GOP Health Care Bill to Finally Pass New York Times Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the G.O.P. Health Care Bill to Finally Pass. By MATTHEW BLOCH, HAEYOUN PARK and ADAM PEARCE MAY 4, 2017. House Republicans passed a long-anticipated health care overhaul bill, more than a month after ... Lawmakers plot to oust Tuesday Group leader over health billThe Hill all 64 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the GOP Health Care Bill to Finally Pass - New York Times

The Affordable Care Act took money from the rich to help pay for health insurance for the poor. The repeal bill passed by House Republicans would do the opposite. retrorocket/Getty Images/iStockphoto hide caption

The Affordable Care Act took money from the rich to help pay for health insurance for the poor. The repeal bill passed by House Republicans would do the opposite.

The health care bill passed by the House on Thursday is a win for the wealthy, in terms of taxes.

While the Affordable Care Act raised taxes on the rich to subsidize health insurance for the poor, the repeal-and-replace bill passed by House Republicans would redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars in the opposite direction. It would deliver a sizable tax cut to the rich, while reducing government subsidies for Medicaid recipients and those buying coverage on the individual market.

Tax hikes reversed

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is funded in part through higher taxes on the rich, including a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent payroll tax. Both of these taxes apply only to people earning more than $200,000 (or couples making more than $250,000). The GOP replacement bill would eliminate these taxes, although the latest version leaves the payroll tax in place through 2023.

The House bill would also repeal the tax penalty for those who fail to buy insurance as well as various taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. The GOP bill also delays the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end insurance policies from 2020 to 2025.

All told, the bill would cut taxes by about $765 billion over the next decade.

The lion's share of the tax savings would go to the wealthy and very wealthy. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 20 percent of earners would receive 64 percent of the savings and the top 1 percent of earners (those making more than $772,000 in 2022) would receive 40 percent of the savings.

Help for the poor reduced

Over time, the GOP bill would limit the federal contribution to Medicaid, while shifting control of the program to states. Depending on what happens to costs, states may be forced to provide skimpier coverage, reduce their Medicaid rolls, or both. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that an earlier version of the bill would leave about 14 million fewer people covered by Medicaid by 2026. (The House voted on the current bill without an updated CBO report.)

CBO also anticipated fewer people would buy insurance through the individual market. With no tax penalty for going without coverage, some people would voluntarily stop buying insurance. Others would find coverage prohibitively expensive, as a result of changing rules governing insurance pricing and subsidies.

The GOP bill would allow insurance companies to charge older customers up to five times more than younger customers up from a maximum 3-to-1 ratio under the current health law. The maximum subsidy for older customers in the GOP plan, however, is only twice what is offered to the young.

The bill also allows insurance companies to offer more bare-bones policies. As a result, young, healthy people could find more affordable coverage options. But older, sicker people would likely have to pay more.

In addition, because the subsidies offered in the Republican plan don't vary with local insurance prices the way subsidies do in Obamacare, residents of high-cost, rural areas would also suffer. That could include a large number of Trump voters.

View original post here:
GOP Health Care Bill Would Cut About $765 Billion In Taxes Over 10 Years - NPR

As the vote on healthcare was taking place in the U.S. House , activists were already protesting at the state Capitol in Phoenix, on May 4, 2017. Tom Tingle/azcentral.com

Freshman Rep. Andy Biggs, who represents a conservative congressional district east of Phoenix, was the only Arizona Republican to vote against the legislation, joining Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva,Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema in opposing the bill.(Photo: David Wallace/The Republic)

Arizona conservatives were largely on board Thursday with the House's passage of the American Health Care Act, a move that revived Republican hopes of repealing central parts of President Barack Obama's signature health-care law.

Freshman Rep. Andy Biggs, who represents a conservative congressional district east of Phoenix, was the only Arizona Republican to vote against the legislation, joining Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva,Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema in opposing the bill.

Republican Reps. Trent Franks, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert, along with Rep. Martha McSally, went along with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on the legislation, which is a top priority of House GOP leaders and President Donald Trump.

MORE:What does the Republican Obamacare repeal bill actually do?

Biggs was one of 20 Republicans who voted "no" along with 193 Democrats.The House voted 217-213 to pass the bill.

In a statement explaining his vote, Biggs criticized the measure for leaving "the basic framework of Obamacare in place," and "even worse, I have seen no compelling evidence that the AHCA will offer substantive relief to Arizona families who have been crushed by devastatingly high health insurance premiums."

McSally, whose swing district's complexion ensures constant re-election pressures,was credited with a companion bill to eliminate the American Health Care Act's exemption for members of Congress and their staff.

I have seen no compelling evidence that the AHCA will offer substantive relief to Arizona families who have been crushed by devastatingly high health insurance premiums.

"This is not a perfect bill, but it is better than a failed system," McSally said, referring to Obama's Affordable Care Act.

McSally drew attention Thursday, after an Associated Press congressional correspondent, via Twitter, quoted her as using profanity to rally her fellow Republicans. McSally was said to have urged her colleagues to get this "(expletive) thing" done, per the AP reporter's tweet.

While he supported the bill, Gosar was measured in his praise of it.

"As a dentist impersonating a politician, I am going to tell Arizonans the truth about the updated version of the AHCA: This bill is NOT a full repeal, I repeat NOT a full repeal of Obamacare," Gosar said in a written statement."However, after working alongside my colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus, we have been able to secure Conservative, time-tested changes to the original version of the AHCA. These changes will immediately eliminate Obamacare taxes, lower health insurance premiums, offer more choices for Arizonans and begins the process of rebuilding a patient-centered market."

Schweikert was instrumental in an earlier amendment that would create a $15 billion federal risk-sharing program to help pay for coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and high-risk patients.

"Two Arizona Republicans played pivotal roles here," Biggs said of Schweikert and McSally's contributions.

Ryan and Trump suffered a political setback in March, when an anticipated House vote on an earlier version of the bill was canceled because of a lack of support from House conservatives.

The House-passed bill now faces an uncertain future in the GOP-controlled Senate.

"Let's face it, the Senate is often where great ideas go to get screwed-up," Schweikert said Thursday in an interview on Phoenix radio station KFYI-AM (550).

If you're like me, if you're asthmatic or something else you have, you get coverage. So if you hear someone using the term 'pre-existing condition, you're not going to get coverage,' they're lying to you.

Ryan and the Republicans touted the bill's new refundable tax credits to help people who don't get insurance via their employers; its changes to Medicaid that they say will make the program "flexible and responsive to those it was created to serve"; it boosts tax-free "Health Savings Accounts" to help people whose insurance plans carry high deductibles; and its defunding of Planned Parenthood, which provides women's health services including abortions.

House Democrats savaged the revised legislation as cruel and even deadly, saying, among other criticisms, that, unlike Obama's Affordable Care Act, it inadequately protects the tens of millions ofAmericans with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans addedanother $8 billion for patients who already have diseases such as cancer to the $130 billion already in the package. The gesture won over some Republicans who wereon the fence.

Ahead of the vote, Schweikert pushed back on claims that pre-existing conditions are not covered.

"If you're like me, if you're asthmatic or something else you have, you get coverage," Schweikert, a member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, said on KFYI. "So if you hear someone using the term 'pre-existing condition, you're not going to get coverage,' they're lying to you."

MORE:Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short

Despite the addition of the extra money for such conditions, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other critics on Thursday continued to blast the bill's provisions concerning pre-existing conditions as grossly insufficient.

In a written statement after the vote, Gallego said, "Millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, and those who keep it will incur higher out-of-pocket costs and face longer waiting periods for coverage. The GOP plan kills protections for people with pre-existing conditions, eviscerates Medicaid, and will leave veterans with fewer choices about where to seek care. Republicans should be prepared to be held accountable for their yes votes on this disastrous bill when the American people head to the ballot box in 2018."

O'Halleran, a freshman representative from northern Arizona, objected to the bill because he said it would put thousands of Arizonans at risk of losing coverage.

The expansion of Medicaid, which helps low-income working families get access to health care (is important to Arizona). If that gets cut, which this current bill proposes, it'll cost Arizona $5.6 billion over the next six years. Now that's huge.

The precursor version would have increased the number of uninsured people by 24 million in 2026, according toan analysisby the Congressional Budget Office. But House Republicans proceeded with the updated bill without getting an updated CBO analysis, which Pelosi said shows they are afraid of the facts.

"While the ACA is far from perfect, this replacement legislation does little to fix the problems our families are facing," O'Halleransaid in a written statement. "Arizonans with pre-existing conditions such as cancer or Alzheimers could lose coverage, and nothing has been done to stem the skyrocketing premiums our seniors will face or protect veteran care."

Speaking Wednesdayon radio station KTAR-FM (92.3), Sinema said, "Obamacare is not working in Arizona," where costs have soared,but that "the (Republicans') bill isn't good enough the way that it's written."

She said some parts of the Affordable Care Act areimportant to the state."For instance, the expansion of Medicaid, which helps low-income working families get access to health care," Sinema said in the radio interview. "If that gets cut, which this current bill proposes, it'll cost Arizona $5.6 billion over the next six years. Now that's huge."

After the vote, Sinema said she voted against the bill because it "jeopardizes the economic security of hardworking Arizona families."

Franks, the senior Republican in the state's House delegation,described the bill as landmark.

Passing the American Health Care Act is the start of our promise to 'repeal and replace'Obamacare," Franks said in his post-vote statement. "The AHCA moves us closer to a patient-centered system that meets the needs of more Americans better than under Obamacare. People with pre-existing conditions will be protected while allowing states greater flexibility to lower premiums and stabilize the insurance market."

McSally said she had worked to make the legislation better.

"I have voiced concerns, identified constructive improvements, prevented destructive additions, and ultimately secured victories for the vulnerable in our communities totaling $165 billion," she said in a statement after the vote.

Before the vote, Biggs reiterated that he opposed the American Health Care Act because "it is not a clean repeal of Obamacare" and that he is still committed to doing that.

Biggs submitted two amendments that were not included in the GOP package.He soughtto change the bill to let people buy health insurance across state lines. He also wanted to let states opt out of any Affordable Care Act or American Health Care Act provisions without getting a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services.

In an interview with The Arizona Republic, Biggs suggested he would have liked more time to work on the bill, which despite his opposition he called a dramatic improvement over the previous incarnation.

"I think there's a narrative out there that nothing's been happening, and so people get antsy, and they want to see something fast," Biggs said. "And legislating takes a while, especially legislating on something that is one-sixth of the entire economy."

READ MORE:

Trump executive order targets birth control, church involvement in politics

Court challenges to Trump policies may multiply

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2qJOPNJ

Read the original:
Arizona House Republicans except one on board with health bill - AZCentral.com

New Jersey Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur, author of the waiver that exempts Congress from the elimination of Obamacare protections for pre-existing conditions, at the Capitol on March 23.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Update, 5:55 p.m.: Both the AHCA and the bill repealing the AHCA's exemption for Congress passed the House today. The AHCA, however, could be passed through the Senate with only 50 votes because it's part of the budget reconciliation process; the exemption repeal would require 60 votes. So Republicans will need Democratic votes to eliminate an embarrassing loophole that they created themselves.

Original post, 10:34 a.m.: Last week House Republicans took a PR hit when Vox reported that the portion of the American Health Care Act that revokes Obamacare's guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions includes a section that requires insurers to continue guaranteeing pre-existing condition coverage to members of Congress. The representative who'd proposed that section of the bill, New Jersey's Tom MacArthur, subsequently claimed that he planned to eliminate the Congress loophole. Now it's a week later, and what would you knowa vote on the AHCA is scheduled for Thursday, but the congressional loophole is still in it.

"The version of the bill the House will vote on Thursday still contains the exemption for legislators," Vox's Sarah Kliff writes, adding that a proposal that would eliminate the exemption does exist but is separate from the AHCA:

The 60-vote issue is relevant because the AHCA itself could be passed with 50 Senate votes through the budget reconciliation process. So, maybe the loophole will be closed, maybe it won't. But right now it sure looks like Republicans in Congress are about to pass, on a party-line vote, a bill that would revoke health care protections for most Americans but protect them for Republicans in Congress.

More here:
Republican Bill Still Exempts Republicans in Congress From Repeal of Obamacare Protection (Updated) - Slate Magazine (blog)

News Release Vermont Progressive Party May 4th, 2017

Contact: Josh Wronski Executive Director, Vermont Progressive Party 802-229-0800

Montpelier, VT Last night Progressive House Legislators stood unanimously opposed to a thinly veiled attempt to undermine workers rights in Vermont.

Governor Phil Scotts proposal to negotiate a statewide health insurance plan for teachers was rejected on Wednesday by a tie vote in the Vermont House. The plan would have stripped teachers and support staff of their right to negotiate health insurance with their local school boards. Gov. Scott claimed that the plan would save the state 26 million dollars. Progressives argue that the savings in the Governors plan are unproven, and that the amount and use of any savings should be negotiated between local employees and their communities. They say that the savings will happen through negotiations with educators and their school boards as school boards transition into less expensive health benefit plans in accordance with Affordable Care Act regulations.

Gov. Scotts plan to attack teachers health insurance and collective bargaining rights was supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. House Progressives stood unanimously opposed to the measure. Our caucus unanimously opposed this measure because it would have upended decades of labor practice with virtually no vetting, said Progressive Caucus Chair Robin Chesnut-Tangerman. We are confident that we can achieve savings without undermining the right of teachers to collectively bargain. Robin went on to say that a single payer healthcare system would avoid this issue completely and save money.

Progressive Party Director, Josh Wronski, stated that The Beck Amendment should have easily failed in a Democratic-controlled legislature. One must ask how dedicated Democrats are to organized labor with such a close outcome. Progressives respect educators right to bargain, especially over bread and butter issues like health insurance. Our Progressive caucus unanimously opposed this measure and proved again that we are the party of working people and their unions.

More:
Progressives Stand with Teachers and Their Families - vtdigger.org