Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (991843)	1/4/2017 6:11:19 PM
From: puborectalis	1 Recommendation Recommended By Broken_Clock Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570344

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said Wednesday that he would oppose the budget measure Republicans are counting on to begin the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, leaving the effort in danger of derailing if any other GOP senators defect. The Senate on Wednesday took its first procedural vote on the budget measure, a vehicle that Republicans can use to repeal the 2010 health-care law with a simple majority vote. Republicans now hold only 52 seats in the Senate, where most legislation needs 60 votes to pass. Paul said Wednesday he would vote against the budget measure because it adds too much to the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2017. “I’m a no,” he said in a brief interview. “It adds $9.7 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

To: i-node who wrote (991843)	1/4/2017 8:30:57 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570344

REPEAL IN NAME ONLY: THE REPUBLICAN PLANS TO EMBRACE OBAMACARE 2.0 By: Daniel Horowitz \| January 04, 2017 Gustavo Frazao \| Shutterstock Share Font Size A A APrint Images Print It is probably the best kept secret in Washington that has evaded scrutiny even from conservatives in recent weeks: Unless something changes, Republican leaders have no intention of repealing Obamacare. They are merely repealing most (but not necessarily all) of the funding mechanisms of Obamacare. Worse, they plan to use the savings from the repeal of those subsidies to create an Obamacare-lite replacement plan, which will likely be enacted on top of retaining the worst aspects of Obamacare itself. Repeal in name onlyThere is a lot of anticipation and excitement in the air about the pending repeal of Obamacare, especially after Senate Republicans introduced the budget resolution that will be used as the vehicle for the reconciliation process that could repeal the law and circumvent the filibuster. The problem is that they plan to repeal only the taxes, subsidies, and Medicaid expansion, but will retain every page of the insurance coverage regulations that are responsible for making insurance actuarially insolvent and depressing the job market. Thus, we are confronted with the worst of both worlds in which the public perception is that Obamacare will be repealed, but the worst aspects — the aspects of the leviathan that are solely responsible for unaffordable premiums and the lack of choice in the market place — will be preserved. How to repeal Obamacare fully through budget reconciliation Unfortunately, the preservation of the insurance mandates is not the only problem with the pending repeal plan. Members, such as Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. (F, 47%), are now pushing to retain the tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored health coverage. Don't Miss A Tweet Conservative Review @CR FOLLOW For years, Republicans have made the tax increases the shiny object to distract from repealing the heart and soul of the law. Now they want to retain the revenue from some of the new taxes in addition to not repealing the coverage mandates.Why do they suddenly want more revenue? Well, the answer to that question lies in another bizarre move suddenly promoted by leadership. In the budget resolution (Section 3002) that will serve as the vehicle to repeal (the minor parts of) Obamacare, Republicans created a reserve fund to recapture the budget savings from repealing the Obamacare subsidies. Why are they not using the savings from Obamacare repeal for deficit reduction, which after all, is the entire purpose of the budget reconciliation process? This is where the replacement plan comes into play. The creation of a reserve fund, along with the possible retention of some of the tax revenue, is a clear signal that Republicans plan to “replace” Obamacare with Obamacare 2.0. Why Obamacare-lite is a disaster In other words, they are planning to enact a massive scheme of refundable tax credits to further distort the insurance market and the supply side of health care. Consequently, they are going to need as much of the Obamacare revenue and extra spending they can salvage, so they are not caught in the embarrassing predicament of blowing a hole in the deficit to enact their plan, which was supposed to save money. Additionally, the budget resolution contains exemptions from budget rules, which as Congressional Quarterly trenchantly observes, are not designed to grease the skids for full repeal of Obamacare but to enable a liberal “replacement” bill. CQ explains as follows [ subscription required]: Even so, there are hints both from the budget resolution and GOP leaders that replacement legislation could cost more than the savings from repealing the health care law ( PL 111-148, PL 111-152). The resolution includes exceptions for health care replacement legislation from two Senate rules enforced by points of order that prohibit increasing the deficit. That means the cost of replacement legislation could exceed what is saved from repealing the current law. One rule, which goes back to the fiscal 2010 budget resolution, bars the consideration of legislation that would increase the deficit by more than $10 billion in any given year in the typically 10-year budget window. The other rule, from the fiscal 2016 budget resolution, prohibits legislation that would increase the deficit or mandatory spending in future years beginning after the 10-year budget window ends. Spend more to subsidize even higher pricesNow remember, this massive new entitlement will most likely be enacted on top of the Obamacare insurance regulations — not in lieu of them. It’s one thing to repeal first the unsustainable coverage mandates and then start from scratch and be open to some sort of “less than full free market” alternative as the final price for fully repealing the worst aspects of Obamacare. But to preemptively retain so much of the Obamacare spending and revenue from day one as the opening bid in negotiations is a complete sellout of the health care plan Trump ran on and the people voted for. Don’t be fooled. Unless Congress hears the wrath of the grassroots and unless Trump clarifies his plan on Obamacare, the record high premiums aren’t going anywhere. Trump ran on tearing down onerous insurance regulations, purchasing insurance across state lines, and expanding HSAs. In other words, he ran cutting prices, not on the elusive and counterproductive goal of universal coverage. Why are Republicans headed in the exact opposite direction, and why are conservatives missing in action? To summarize, the current plan would: retain the price-hiking insurance regulations;possibly retain some taxes;delay repeal of the remainder of the law for years; anduse most of the savings and some tax revenue to fund Obamacare 2.0.It’s time for conservatives to pull the fire alarm and demand immediate and full repeal at least of the coverage regulations, an outcome that absolutely can be achieved through reconciliation. Part of the challenge is that between the semantics of what Obamacare actually is, the complication of the budget reconciliation process, and the widely held hope and belief that a Trump presidency will bring immediate change has allowed many conservatives to let their guard down. ( Heritage Action has a useful guide for how to fully repeal the insurance regulations through budget reconciliation.) Don’t be fooled. Unless Congress hears the wrath of the grassroots and unless Trump clarifies his plan on Obamacare, the record high premiums aren’t going anywhere. - See more at: conservativereview.com

To: i-node who wrote (991843)	1/5/2017 8:31:46 AM
From: steve harris	2 Recommendations Recommended By Broken_Clock Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570344

I remember at the time not knowing what the right thing to do was. I wasn't sure. So, when the decision was made I never felt I could challenge it. I think you were pretty confident in your position at the time. I just never was. We got the money back, mostly, and i'm not sure what would have happened without it. That is my point today of its history. I think at the time most of us was mad about the govt was going to bail out everyone that was underwater in their new zero down no background check homes. Santelli's rant is still on youtube, why should I pay for my neighbor's house? But Congress passed it and everyone was happy, nobody was going to get thrown out of their houses. Guess what, after a few days passed, Bush told Paulson to take that money Congress authorized to help people losing their homes *and to do with it whatever he wanted*. Pauslon did, he passed it out worldwide to reimburse his banker friends who were left holding the bag on all of these bad house loans. (CDS) To sum up, wallstreet was reimbursed for losing their asses on CDSs, yet the people losing their homes didn't get any help and continue to lose their homes today. Elizabeth Warren was chairman of the Tarp oversight committee and didn't have any problems THEN with Paulson passing out a trillion dollars worldwide. Nor was anything said by any members of Congress that authorized the original TARP funds to help people being thrown out of their houses. If I was a member of Congress and voted for Tarp and found out Paulson gave billions of TARP to Deutsche Bank, I'd be all over the Sunday talk shows. As I see it, the TARP funds were embezzled and everyone involved should be brought before a jury of Americans. They were all in it together because I truly believe there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of Congress passing a TARP bill if Americans knew a trillion dollars were going to be used to bail out banks worldwide instead of helping Americans losing their homes. While you're here, I'm cynical enough to think looking back that Obamacare was the "Tarp" for the healthcare industry, what 1/6th of our GDP? Another payoff...... If Trump wants to do something, let's open all the books starting with every dollar Bush and Obama passed out worldwide.