• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
The house introduced draft legislation to replace Obama care
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...gov/files/documents/AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf
draft legislation is subject to change
The GOP plan dumps the ACA's individual mandate, creates a system of tax credits to provide access to care and freezes Medicaid expansion beginning in 2020.
"The American Health Care Act is a plan to drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.

But the plan keeps two major provisions of the ACA in place, such as provisions for not denying care for pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents' insurance.

What the bill does:

The bill immediately eliminates the individual mandate, which requires people to obtain health insurance or face a penalty. Over the next three years, Obamacare taxes, penalties, and subsidies will be repealed.

The legislation creates an age-based tax credit to help Americans purchase health insurance, but in a concession to conservatives, House republicans added an additional cap on those credits.

Despite opposition from Senate Republicans who said they will not support a bill that doesn’t protect state expansions to Medicaid, the House plan freezes Medicaid expansion starting on January 1, 2020.

Those currently enrolled in Medicaid or who will join the government program that provides medical coverage to low income families and individuals will be grandfathered in.

The bill also gets rid of government funding for Planned Parenthood. The White House proposed preserving federal funding for Planned Parenthood on the condition that it ends its abortion program, but their offer was rejected.

What it does not change:

The bill keeps in place two of the most popular Obamacare provisions: those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, and young people can stay on their parent’s health insurance plans until they reach the age of 26.

What we don’t know yet:

The cost and number of people who could lose insurance is still unclear. The bill has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan congressional research office that provides guidance on economics and the budget for Congress.

Their guidance will provide information about how many Americans could potentially lose their coverage and the full cost of the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-unveil-obamacare-replacement-plan/story?id=45949840
 
caf said:
How many people (including Tornicade) actually read these walls of text?
O/U - 0.5

@The Oi @Maximus
Click to expand...

I do. Tweets may get all the press as demonstrative and tangible evidence of mental illness, but this is the meat and potatoes that effect people's lives.
 
Tornicade said:
The house introduced draft legislation to replace Obama care
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...gov/files/documents/AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf
draft legislation is subject to change
The GOP plan dumps the ACA's individual mandate, creates a system of tax credits to provide access to care and freezes Medicaid expansion beginning in 2020.
"The American Health Care Act is a plan to drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.

But the plan keeps two major provisions of the ACA in place, such as provisions for not denying care for pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents' insurance.

What the bill does:

The bill immediately eliminates the individual mandate, which requires people to obtain health insurance or face a penalty. Over the next three years, Obamacare taxes, penalties, and subsidies will be repealed.

The legislation creates an age-based tax credit to help Americans purchase health insurance, but in a concession to conservatives, House republicans added an additional cap on those credits.

Despite opposition from Senate Republicans who said they will not support a bill that doesn’t protect state expansions to Medicaid, the House plan freezes Medicaid expansion starting on January 1, 2020.

Those currently enrolled in Medicaid or who will join the government program that provides medical coverage to low income families and individuals will be grandfathered in.

The bill also gets rid of government funding for Planned Parenthood. The White House proposed preserving federal funding for Planned Parenthood on the condition that it ends its abortion program, but their offer was rejected.

What it does not change:

The bill keeps in place two of the most popular Obamacare provisions: those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, and young people can stay on their parent’s health insurance plans until they reach the age of 26.

What we don’t know yet:

The cost and number of people who could lose insurance is still unclear. The bill has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan congressional research office that provides guidance on economics and the budget for Congress.

Their guidance will provide information about how many Americans could potentially lose their coverage and the full cost of the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-unveil-obamacare-replacement-plan/story?id=45949840
Click to expand...

This will have a tough time in the Senate.
 
King Stannis said:
This will have a tough time in the Senate.
Click to expand...
It progress though with the grandfather clause and 2-3 year effect date.

the funding limitation will be a negotiating point.

much improved over the January submission

What I dnt see is any provision to make the program much more viable over Cobra or competitive with employer provided insurance.

on a side not mos tof the states that did not elect to utilize the expanded Medicaid . did so because they didn't want to contribute state funds.

I think those 19 states will be facing pressure to run programs similar to what Ohio has in place.
 
Tornicade said:
I post the Updates. if you guys don't want to discuss them. then don't. Otherwise. don't read it.
Click to expand...
We can comment if we'd like. If you don't like it, write a personal diary
 
I think the bill needs more incentives for Health care providers.

what I would really like to see is no cap on Medicaid extension and an Employer Option that maintains Employers current level of contributions.

for instance My current company has 3 different types of health care plans. they should have the option to offer a 4th market based plan.

That way companies can offer better coverage but the there is a basic level of insurance for everyone.
 
caf said:
I'll save you the trouble.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

^^All the executive orders in one nice space.^^
Click to expand...
this link is actually in the first post. In fact all the executive orders are linked to their source.

I post the new executive orders as they are released and then ideally people could comment or discuss them.
The Non partisan Government Action thread Source Links.
Links to the source

Hyper links to the reposted copy of text is updated and provided as it was previously requested.
The Non partisan Government Action thread in thread Directory.

Non partisan doesn't mean to not have an opinion for against. it is just a matter of having an opinion on a topic that doesn't require bashing people for being Democrats, Republicans or Independents.

It also doesn't prevent from discussing whether a bill will go through or has a shot to pas based on political support.

for instance the American Health care act will need to be a bit more adjusting to find a compromise with House democrats because the GOP is very fractured on the topic and will need Democratic support to get such a reform bill passed as their staunchest opposition will be from within.
 
These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/sli...l-judge-in-hawaii-halts-trump-travel-ban.html


I'm interested in other people's opinions of a judge making a ruling in this fashion... Openly disregarding the text of the EO in favor of a personal interpretation of it?

Should EOs be treated in the same vein as Herman Melville novels?
 
caf said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/sli...l-judge-in-hawaii-halts-trump-travel-ban.html


I'm interested in other people's opinions of a judge making a ruling in this fashion... Openly disregarding the text of the EO in favor of a personal interpretation of it?

Should EOs be treated in the same vein as Herman Melville novels?
Click to expand...

The potential infringement on Constitutional rights warrants heightened scrutiny including intent. The judges are not out of line at all.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if President Loudmouth hadn't trumpeted to the heavens that he would impose "a total ban on Muslims." No one is going to buy the argument that it isn't a Muslim ban when the man himself keeps calling it that.
 
King Stannis said:
The potential infringement on Constitutional rights warrants heightened scrutiny including intent. The judges are not out of line at all.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if President Loudmouth hadn't trumpeted to the heavens that he would impose "a total ban on Muslims." No one is going to buy the argument that it isn't a Muslim ban when the man himself keeps calling it that.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty slippery slope.

If a President expresses a strict anti-gun stance during his campaign ... Should all subsequent gun control EOs be thrown out regardless of text? How would that situation not infringe on the second amendment?
 
caf said:
That's a pretty slippery slope.

If a President expresses a strict anti-gun stance during his campaign ... Should all subsequent gun control EOs be thrown out regardless of text? How would that situation not infringe on the second amendment?
Click to expand...

The EO wasn't thrown out. It has been enjoined with a temporary restraining order until further judicial review either clears it or then throws it out.

The same measures would be applied to any EO regarding the 2nd Amendment as well if there is a potential for infringement.

Here is the full decision if anyone is interested in reading it:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000
 
King Stannis said:
The EO wasn't thrown out. It has been enjoined with a temporary restraining order until further judicial review either clears it or then throws it out.

The same measures would be applied to any EO regarding the 2nd Amendment as well if there is a potential for infringement.

Here is the full decision if anyone is interested in reading it:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000
Click to expand...

The full decision was linked in my original post.

And this EO is as much of a Muslim ban as the Individual Mandate wasn't a tax.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top