Mediaboss Marketing

Issa wouldnt protect us from a bill that raises premiums and causes 24 million to lose their insurance. new Save My Care ad attacking Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)

Seven vulnerable Republican lawmakers are being targeted with $1 million in television spots by a liberal group backed by labor and progressive interests. The ads generally focus on the lawmakers apparent support for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the failed House bill that was designed to replace the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. The ad tries to capitalize on the interesting shift in public sentiment about Obamacare, suddenly more popular as it has comeunder legislative assault by the Trump administration.

Lets walk through the claims in the ad aimed at Issa. As attack ads go, this one is relatively careful about its language.

Congressman Issa promised to protect our health care. But when right-wing politicians tried to pass a disastrous health-care repeal bill that raises costs and cuts coverage, Issa wouldnt oppose them

Well get into the specifics about raising costs and cutting coverage below. But whether Issa wouldnt oppose the health-care replacement backed by President Trump is a matter of dispute. Save My Care pointed to a variety of news articles in which Issa indicated that changes made in the bill to attract votes had swung him toward a yes position. The right-leaning American Action Network even ran an ad thanking Issa even though a vote never took place.

But Calvin Moore, Issas communications director, said Issa never supported the bill: The congressman said that the bill wasnt in a form that I can approve of, then followed it up later on Fox News,telling the network that hes not prepared to vote for it as is right now. He said that Issa raised concerns that the bill wouldnt do enough for mental health, that it could leave many particularly those nearing retirement worse off, and that it didnt do enough to expand the risk pools to help curb some of the premium increases in Obamacare. Issa has proposed to open the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) to all Americans.

Moore said the AHCAhad beenimproved, which is why Issa said he was leaning toward a yes, but it still had not won Issas support when it was pulled from a vote. He noted that after the bill was pulled, Issa issued a statementcalling the bill imperfect and said lawmakers need to get back to the drawing board.

In the end, Issa never pledged his support for the bill. One presumes thats why the ad says he did not oppose it, which is technically correct.

Issa wouldnt protect us from a bill that raises premiums and causes 24 million to lose their insurance

Weve criticized Democrats for seizing on a Congressional Budget Office report to claim that the bill would throw 24 million people off health insurance, take away health care for 24 million, or make 24 million lose their insurance. Here, the ad more conservatively says causes 24 million to lose their insurance. But it still could be confusing to ordinary people.

The CBO projected the impact of the AHCAcompared to existing law, and concluded that 24 million fewer people would have health insurance by 2026. As the CBO put it, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026. But that does not mean that all of those people involuntarily lost their insurance, as the ad suggests.

Initially, CBO said, many of the people who would be uninsured would choose not to have insurance because they had decided to obtain health insurance only to avoid a penalty under the ACAs individual mandate; the replacement bill eliminated the mandate. Others, such as elderly Americans, would not get insurance because the premiums would become higher for the elderly. But by 2026, 14 million of the uninsured people would lose insurance because of reductions in Medicaid enrollment after some states discontinue the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. By 2026, 7 million fewer people also would have health insurance through their employers, CBO estimated.

As for raising premiums, again the CBO projected the impact versus current law. Premiums would initially be higher, but by 2026 premiums would be about 10 percent lower. (This does not mean that premiums would decline by 10 percent, just that they would increase at a lower rate than now projected.)

But the reasons for the decrease were not necessarily favorable for the proposed law. Thats because insurance premiums would spike for older people (20 to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old) and many older people would drop out of the insurance markets. Then the pool of people getting insurance would be younger and healthier, leading to lower premiums than currently projected. The Brookings Institution, in an effort to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison, estimated that premiums under the proposed law would actually be 13 percent higher if adjusted for coverage and age.

Save My Care pointed to the Brookings study to justify the phrasing on raising premiums. Given that the premiums were projected to decrease mainly because older people were being priced out of the market, the language in the ad about premiums is acceptable.

wouldnt oppose a massive age tax on people over 50

Age tax is a phrase coined by AARP, the old-age interest group, to refer to the fact that proposed law would have changed the Obamacare requirement that older people could pay no more than three times a young person. Under the AHCA, the 3:1 ratio would have become 5:1. The result, as noted above, would have meant premiums would have dropped for younger Americans, relative to current law, but increased sharply for older Americans.

So its not really a tax, but an increase in health-care premiums.

and isnt fighting to protect coverage for preexisting conditions.

One of the most popular features of the ACA is its ban on insurance companies considering preexisting conditions. But conservative Republicans have pushed for changes that experts say could undermine that aspect of the law, such as allowing states to opt out of a requirement to provide certain benefits and charge the same price to everyone the same age. Save My Care says this line is based on the fact that Issa has not stated a position onthese proposals. The bill was amended just before Congress went on recess, but the amendment did not include the broader changes sought by conservatives.

Moore noted that the AHCA contained protections for preexisting conditions, as does Issas own health-care proposal. Preexisting conditions coverage is a part of his FEHBP-based bill which he said should be part of the conversation when we go back to the drawing board,' he said.

The ad is carefully worded, apparently in an effort to avoid becoming fact-checker bait. We noted our concern about the phrasing concerning the 24 million losing insurance, but even that did not push the envelope as much as many Democrats have in the past. The ad also leaps to a conclusion that Issa isnt fighting to provide coverage for preexisting conditions, when he has indeed been a supporter of that aspect of Obamacare.

Also missing, of course, is any notion that there are serious problems with the Affordable Care Act, including higher premiums and shrinking insurance options, that Congress at some point needs to tackle. Issa certainly has been a critic of Obamacare, but unlike the suggestionin this ad, he never fully embraced the House Republican bill either. Readers should always be wary of the claims made in 30-second attack ads, as the truth often is much more complex.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

How would you rate this claim? (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Share the Facts

2

6

One Pinocchio

Lawmaker "wouldnt protect us from a bill that raises premiums and causes 24 million to lose their insurance"

Save My Care

liberal-leaning interest group

in a television ad

Saturday, April 8, 2017

04/08/2017

View post:
Now, Democrats attack Republicans for failing to protect Obamacare - Washington Post

Americas governors want Congress to end a longstanding ban on internet gambling at least, enough of them do to warrant the National Governors Association firing off a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsIs Trumps presidency the patriarchys last gasp? Republicans of all people should shun federal online gambling ban Sessions: Congress will fund Trump's border wall MORE.

The regulation of gaming has historically been addressed by the states, the governors explained. While individual governors have different views about offering gaming in a variety of forms within their own states, we agree that decisions at the federal level that affect state regulatory authority should not be made unilaterally without state input.

In his opening remarks during his confirmation hearing, then-Senator Sessions assured his colleagues that if confirmed to lead the agency he would respect your Constitutional duties, your oversight role, and the particularly critically important separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Sessions also expressed disdain for agencies that set about their own agendasfocused only on what they feel are the goals of their agency (without giving) sufficient respect to the rule of law.

Yet, during that same confirmation hearing, Sessions indicated that as attorney general he would revisit and likely overturn a 2011 opinion by the agency that restored federal gambling law to Congresss original intent and returned power to regulate intrastate gambling to the states.

Conservative split with GOP mega-donor (and casino owner) Sheldon Adelson over his efforts to block online gambling. https://t.co/3a7JHI4hpG pic.twitter.com/e3U6rmPx2r

Whats your view of Obamas administrations interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, prompted Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamRepublicans of all people should shun federal online gambling ban McCain, Graham push Trump for 'greater military action' in Syria Tax march protesters pressure Republicans who called for Trump tax returns MORE, who has twice introduced bills to ban online gambling. I was shocked at the memorandumand criticized it, Sessions answered. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justices position, but I did oppose it when it happened. When asked if he would revisit the decision, Sessions nodded. I would revisit it and make a decision about it based on careful study and I havent gone that far to give you an opinion today, he said.

The comments sent shockwaves throughout the states many of which legalized some form of Internet gambling and many others are still considering proposals to do so. The memo at issue was one issued by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 2011 making it clear that the Wire Act, a law enacted by Congress in 1961 to prosecute the mobs telephone sports betting rackets, only prohibits interstate sports gambling.

Though Graham and a handful of other Republicans insist that the OLCs opinion was a unilateral reinterpretation of the Wire Act, it actually restored the law to the original meaning intended by the Congress that enacted it. As I thoroughly detailed in a 2014 study for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, there is no doubt that law was meant to assist the states in the enforcement of their laws, and not to create a blanked federal prohibition on all Internet gambling.

Opponents of state efforts to legalize online gambling have seized on Sessionss comments, claiming it is indicative of an unstable legal environment as a way to scare state legislatures that are considering proposals to legalize online gambling. Everyone is sort of waiting to hear what the DOJ has to say, Pennsylvania Rep. Aaron Kaufer told reporters. With the fluid situation in Washington, internet gambling is an unreliable and possibly nonexistent source of revenue, David Cookson warned during this months joint hearing on Internet gambling proposals before the Pennsylvania legislature. Cookson represents casino-owner Sheldon Adelsons Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling.

While a small number of Republicans want a federal online gambling ban, many other Republicans, free market organizations, and proponents of federalism have loudly opposed a ban. As he indicated in his testimony, Sessions should be on the side of letting Congress make the lawsnot the DOJ.

As a Republican, he should also favor letting people and the states that represent them make their own decisions and be very cautious about setting a dangerous anti-federalism precedent, not just for online gambling, but for any number of other politically disfavored activities. The decisions made now about online gambling will impact all sorts of issues for years to come.

Michelle Minton is a fellow specializing in consumer policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read this article:
Republicans of all people should shun federal online gambling ban - The Hill (blog)

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said "further action will definitely be considered by the United States" if the Assad government uses chemical weapons again, during his daily briefing on April 10 at the White House. (Reuters)

It's getting tougher and tougher to be shocked byour politics these days. But if there's one stat that should shock you, it's this one spotlighted by James Hohmann in Tuesday's Daily 202:

Here's how that remarkable political evolution looks:

The stat comes courtesy of our new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which tested reactions to President Trump'sstrikes last week and also tested views back in 2013, when President Barack Obama was considering doing the same. (Democrats, for what it's worth, experienced no such evolution, with 38 percent supporting strikes in 2013 and 37 percent supporting them today.)

So what accounts for the difference for Republicans? The 2013 chemical weapons attack was actually deadlier, so it's not as though this one was unprecedented. Perhaps Republicans decided a more serious response was now warranted, given that the United States didn't wind up retaliating in 2013 and given that Syria did it again after failing to turn over all of its chemical weapons stockpile, as it promised to in a2013 deal.

These are indeed the most charitable conclusions you can draw for the GOP's complete 180.

Much more likely, though, is that it has just about everything to do with partisanship and the man in charge not being named Obama. Here's why.

There was actually another Washington Post-ABC News poll that tested views of what the United States should do in response to Syria using chemical weapons. It came in December 2012 before the 2013 chemical weapons attack. It was a hypothetical.

The question: What if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against its people? In that case would you support or oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria?

In response to this question, fully 67 percent of Republicans said they would support military involvement.

So 67 percent of Republicans favored military action ifSyria usedchemical weapons. Nine months later, it happened and Obama asked for congressional authorization for missile strikes, and just 22 percent of Republicans supported it. Then, four years later, Syria used chemical weapons again and Trump struck without congressional approval, and 86 percent of Republicans gave him the thumbs-up.

Democrats have often accused Republicans of obstructing everything Obama did for no other reason than that it was Obama doing it. I'll confess here that I think that often oversimplified things and that there were plenty of legitimate ideological differences.

Butat least on one issue, it's pretty clear what happened. Republicans wanted action when Obama didn't, then they didn't when he did. And now that their guy's in charge, they'reeven more gung-ho than they were in 2012.

Yay,blind partisanship.

Original post:
Republicans' transparent, Obama-tinged flip-flop on Syria - Washington Post

United Airlines is under fire after a passenger was forcibly removed from an overcrowded plane in Chicago.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Republicans say they are troubled and horrified by the forcible removal of a United Airlines passenger from an overcrowded flight, but they letting state and federal regulators handle the matter for now.

Airport security personnel on Sunday dragged a man from a flight at Chicagos OHare airport, leaving him bruised and bloodied. The video-taped event has sparked national outrage and heavy criticism of United UAL, -0.30%

Also Read:Why you could also get dragged off a plane

In statements emailed to MarketWatch, the top Republicans on the House Transportation Committee said they are monitoring the situation and keeping in contact with the federal regulators as they investigate.

I am troubled by the incident in Chicago in which a paying customer was forcefully removed from a flight without apparent just cause, said Rep. Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican. This entire situation was poorly managed and avoidable. No one should ever be treated this way.

Also Read: United stock takes a hit

Congressman Frank LoBiondo, a New Jersey Republican, called the incident horrific and absolutely avoidable.

The chief spokesman for President Donald Trump called the United incident troubling, but he also said it was a local matter already under investigation by the proper state and federal authorities.

To watch a human get dragged down an aisle with their head banging off armrests and not think it couldnt have been handled better, I would assume we can all agree upon that, said Sean Spicer in the White House daily briefing with reporters.

House Democrats were more vocal.

Reps. Peter DeFazio and Rick Larsen, the chambers top Democrats on transportation matters, criticized the airline industry practice of overbooking. They asked the Transportation Department to determine whether federal laws were violated and report back to Congress.

While overbooking is not illegal, we are deeply disturbed by the actions taken aboard Flight 3411 to deal with the situation, they said in a joint statement.

Other Democrats on the panel said they would seek hearings.

Late in the day, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became the first Republican to call for a tougher response. Saying the practice of overbooking has become unconscionable, he urged the Transportation Department to temporarily suspend the authority of airlines to engage in the practice until a thorough review is done.

Opinion: What United should have done after man violently pulled off flight

Under current law, airlines are supposed to offer customers up to $1,350 in exchange for accepting later flights on overcrowded routes.

Hundreds of thousands of seats are overbooked each year, the result of airlines seeking to ensure they dont lose any revenue because of undersold flights or customers who dont show up.

Read the original post:
Republicans 'troubled' by United passenger incident but keeping hands off for now - MarketWatch

People gather in Mesa on Feb. 18, 2017, to protest U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake's decision to not hold a town-hall meeting. The protest was held near the senator's house, but Flake was apparently not home at the time. Wochit

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., is interviewed on Capitol Hill on March 24, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

WASHINGTON Reps. Leonard Lance of New Jersey andRyan Costello of Pennsylvania appear to be the only swing-district Republicans who voted for their partys bill to replace Obamacare who will directlyface constituents over the April recess, according to a USA TODAY analysis of scheduled town halls compiledby Townhallproject.com.

Fourteen Republicans from competitive congressional districts sit on the three congressional committees that voted last month for their partys controversial health care plan before GOP leaders pulled the bill from the House floor because it lacked support to pass. The lack of town hall meetings in key swing districtsduring a spring break that lasts until April 23 underscores the partys precarious political position on health care and peaking civic activism byprogressives.

Costello and Lancehad both voted for the bill in committee but opposed the final bill, saying changes made by House leaders made it more likely the bill would raise costs and reduce coverage for theirconstituents.

The migration away from public forums has been going on for months, despite complaints from constituents and local media. There have been roughly 30 recent newspaper editorials slamming lawmakers for avoiding town halls and calling on members to face their voters, not only in bluer portions of the country like New York but also in critical battlegrounds like Pennsylvanias 6th and 7th districts, represented by Reps. Pat Meehan and Costello.

Costellos office screened participants for his Saturday town hall through the online reservation site Eventbrite and forbid videotaping, leading the local Democratic Party chair to call the event staged. Others lawmakers are holding question-and-answer events over the phone or Facebook Live, a social media tool allowing them to speak to a camera while avoiding uncomfortable public exchanges with the citizens they represent.

Read more:

GOP revives Obamacare repeal bill with risk sharing plan

Speaker Paul Ryan says Republicans' Obamacare repeal may take months

Mike Pence and House Republicans scramble to resurrect Obamacare repeal

After a February congressional break generated spirited and even hostileface-to-face meetings with constituents including one lawmaker who snuck out a back door to avoid an angry crowd grass-roots organizers creditedthe power of those imagesin sending a message to moderate Republicans.

TheGOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare stoodat 17% approval by the time it was pulled from the floor, according to a late March Quinnipiac survey. Republican leaders announced just before the break that they are still negotiating provisions of the bill and have not given up on passing it this year.

Republicans have already squandered a lot of political capital on a bill that went nowhere. The longer the health care issue lingers the more displeased members of both bases are, said David Wasserman, the House analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

One member who's drawn criticism for avoiding town halls is Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill. In an email, his spokesman said the congressman has averaged more than one telephone town hall per month. "As we've seen around the country, large, unstructured events tend to devolve into shouting matches. Both sides compete with each other over who can scream the loudest," said David Pash. Tele-town halls are "a much more effective way to engage a larger number of people, including those who aren't able to make it to an in-person event," he said.

Rep. Peter Roskam arrives for the meeting of the GOP conference with President Trump as he rallied support for the GOP health care bill on March 21, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, another vulnerable Republican who voted for the bill in committee, isn't doing town halls, but his spokesman saidhe hasn't ruled them out and he's received and responded to more than 42,000 constituent emails, letters and phone calls and held tele-town halls. "There are numerous ways Rep. Smucker can engage with his constituents. We are constantly determining which combination of the many different outreach tools we can use is most effective," said Bill Jaffee.

While the strategy may be smart in the short term, allowing members to avoid images of themselves on thedefensive, in the longer term it could hurt, said Ross Baker, a political science professor who specializes in Congress at Rutgers University. Just like the Tea Party-driven protests against Obamacare in 2009 came with a price for House Democrats, who lost control of the House in 2010, Republicans should not ignore the current backlash, he said.If theres anything worse than being on the wrong side of a political issue its appearing cowardly and not facing your constituents, said Baker. Politics is all about accountability, he said.

Progressive organizers are flipping the script by scheduling town halls and inviting the members to attend them, setting up empty chairs and posting missing signs when the invitation is declined.

Its not an attractive quality in an elected official to be as nervous as a Christmas goose when youre dealing with your constituents, said Baker. Its something people remember.

One top target for Democrats, Mimi Walters of Californias 45th district, acknowledged in a recent radio talk show that she used to hold town halls but she wont anymore because she believes activists simply use them to generate campaign attacks. The whole goal is to try to get as much press as they can, and then try to get me to say something that they could use against me in the campaign, she said on AM 870s The Answer. Walters, who has held 10 town halls since 2015, also said town hall attendees want to get a lot of press.

These members are staring at the ghosts of 2009, and images of angry town halls held by Democrats are making them think twice, said Wasserman. I dont think anyone begrudges members for wanting to take steps to make sure a town hall is a civil affair. But you dont want to appear as if youre dodging, said Wasserman.

For instance, during a debate last year, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska bashed his opponent, incumbent Democrat Brad Ashford, for avoiding constituents. I will be doing town halls in every part of this district, he said at the time. Over the recess, he is holding personal meetings with constituents and taking an overseas trip but will not hold town halls, according to his office, which says he is planning to announce one forApril 29.

Costellos town hall restrictions drew the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union. It raises serious Constitutional concerns for a sitting Congressman to host a public event at a courthouse, forbid any recording, and deny entry to any constituent who doesnt turn over their cell phone at the door, ACLU spokesman Karthik Ganapathy said in a statement.

On Friday, Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind., took questions on a wide variety of topics via Facebook Live, with about 100 people tuning in. The event demonstrated the limits of social media since there was no opportunity for follow-up questions. For instance, while Bucshon addressed the outstanding health care bill, his comments were vague. Were working through that. Its a difficult and complicated process because health care is difficult and complicated, said Bucshon.

The only pushback was a parade of angry emoticon faces dancing across the screen, mixed in with a few thumbs up emoticons.

Bucshon promised to interact more directly with constituents in the coming weeks. Youll find me all over the district, he said.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2oSnUm4

Follow this link:
Republicans avoid town halls after health care votes - USA TODAY