WWTBAM Bored

On the heels of Donny's decision to undercut health care markets by allowing the sale of "skinny" policies that stop working if you actually get sick, his Press Secretary has now announced that Donny has decided to stop the cost-sharing payments that were promised in the Affordable Care Act. Rates will increase considerably as a direct result of this decision.

Fortunately, California anticipated this possibility and imposed a 12.5% surcharge on silver plans. The effect of putting the surcharge on the silver plans is that taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, will pay the extra money.

I fully expect that to be the effect nationwide as well (most of the extra expense imposed on taxpayers) unless the Republican majority finally gets off its ass and appropriates the money promised by the Act.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Donny doesn't give a damn how many people can no longer afford insurance.

In other news, Darryl Issa is down 10 points in his district. That's a little farther than I'd planned to go next October to knock on doors but he's certainly a deserving target. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:On the heels of Donny's decision to undercut health care markets by allowing the sale of "skinny" policies that stop working if you actually get sick, his Press Secretary has now announced that Donny has decided to stop the cost-sharing payments that were promised in the Affordable Care Act. Rates will increase considerably as a direct result of this decision.

Fortunately, California anticipated this possibility and imposed a 12.5% surcharge on silver plans. The effect of putting the surcharge on the silver plans is that taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, will pay the extra money.

I fully expect that to be the effect nationwide as well (most of the extra expense imposed on taxpayers) unless the Republican majority finally gets off its ass and appropriates the money promised by the Act.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Donny doesn't give a damn how many people can no longer afford insurance.

In other news, Darryl Issa is down 10 points in his district. That's a little farther than I'd planned to go next October to knock on doors but he's certainly a deserving target. --Bob

How does Trump have the authority to change that by executive order?

Bob78164 wrote: It's becoming increasingly clear that Donny doesn't give a damn how many people can no longer afford insurance.

I'm not sure whether Trump is smart enough to figure this out, but there's a school of thought among some Republicans that since most voters don't have any idea how insurance rates and pricing work, they can blame any big premium rate hike on Obamacare itself rather than Trump's continued efforts to dismantle it. Note that they aren't trying to appeal to the electorate as a whole with this claim, just enough of their core supporters in red districts to re-elect them.

Bob78164 wrote: Fortunately, California anticipated this possibility and imposed a 12.5% surcharge on silver plans. The effect of putting the surcharge on the silver plans is that taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, will pay the extra money.

So only taxpayers purchase silver plans?
What is "the extra money", a tax that is not called a tax, for income redistribution?
Why is that fortunate?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Fortunately, California anticipated this possibility and imposed a 12.5% surcharge on silver plans. The effect of putting the surcharge on the silver plans is that taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, will pay the extra money.

So only taxpayers purchase silver plans?
What is "the extra money", a tax that is not called a tax, for income redistribution?
Why is that fortunate?

The vast majority of people purchasing silver plans are entitled to subsidies which limit their payment based on their income. So when rates go up, the taxpayers pick up the difference. Carriers are also being encouraged to offer silver plans, without the surcharge, outside the exchanges. Those are intended for people who make too much money to get subsidized. It works rather nicely. People who get subsidized will have an economic incentive to stay in the exchanges because that's how they get their subsidies. People who don't will have an economic incentive to purchase the plans without surcharges outside the exchanges because there will be less out-of-pocket cost.

It's a good thing because the surcharge is calculated to reflect the additional premiums directly caused by Donny's sabotage with the cost-sharing payments. So this prevents Donny's sabotage from landing on the back of California policyholders and spreads its effects across the entire national population. I encourage other states who run their own exchanges to follow suit.

It's not the only way in which he's sabotaging the marketplaces, by the way. He has shredded the advertising budget for the exchanges and substantially shortened the open enrollment period. (California, which runs its own exchange, has a substantially longer open enrollment period and will again heavily advertise the open enrollment period.) The exchanges also will be down for 12 hours on almost every Sunday, so people who save their enrollment for the weekend will have a much harder time getting on.

Why, it's almost as if Donny doesn't want the system to work and is doing everything in his power to reduce the pool of insureds to those who are sick enough that they have to get insurance. The result, of course, will be higher rates, and they will all be Donny's fault and the fault of a Republican Congress that refused to put a stop to this sabotage. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote: How does Trump have the authority to change that by executive order?

Actually laughing out loud

bob, Please provide me with ONE instance of anyone on THIS PARTICULAR BORED where any regular poster on the bored referred to President Obama using a disrespectful form of his name like 'Barry', or 'Hussein'. You might find one, and if you do, never mind. But if you can't find one, I respectfully ask you to please do us the courtesy of sparing us from your childishness of referring to President Trump as 'Donny'. I know and really don't care about your disrespect for trump, but it would be nice to not have that childishness here.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:bob, Please provide me with ONE instance of anyone on THIS PARTICULAR BORED where any regular poster on the bored referred to President Obama using a disrespectful form of his name like 'Barry', or 'Hussein'. You might find one, and if you do, never mind. But if you can't find one, I respectfully ask you to please do us the courtesy of sparing us from your childishness of referring to President Trump as 'Donny'. I know and really don't care about your disrespect for trump, but it would be nice to not have that childishness here.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one instance of someone referring to President Obama as "Barry," but I don't care.

Donny is not normal. I won't normalize Donny by treating him as normal. Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:bob, Please provide me with ONE instance of anyone on THIS PARTICULAR BORED where any regular poster on the bored referred to President Obama using a disrespectful form of his name like 'Barry', or 'Hussein'. You might find one, and if you do, never mind. But if you can't find one, I respectfully ask you to please do us the courtesy of sparing us from your childishness of referring to President Trump as 'Donny'. I know and really don't care about your disrespect for trump, but it would be nice to not have that childishness here.

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=96645#p96645

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:bob, Please provide me with ONE instance of anyone on THIS PARTICULAR BORED where any regular poster on the bored referred to President Obama using a disrespectful form of his name like 'Barry', or 'Hussein'. You might find one, and if you do, never mind. But if you can't find one, I respectfully ask you to please do us the courtesy of sparing us from your childishness of referring to President Trump as 'Donny'. I know and really don't care about your disrespect for trump, but it would be nice to not have that childishness here.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one instance of someone referring to President Obama as "Barry," but I don't care.

Donny is not normal. I won't normalize Donny by treating him as normal. Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

Just call him 45.

Bob78164 wrote:Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

63 million people voted for Trump to be president over Hillary. That's a lot of people to dismiss just because you're afraid of the sitting president grabbing you.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

63 million people voted for Trump to be president over Hillary. That's a lot of people to dismiss just because you're afraid of the sitting president grabbing you.

If you had waited 6 minutes to post that, it would have been 24 hours of Bored silence.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

63 million people voted for Trump to be president over Hillary. That's a lot of people to dismiss just because you're afraid of the sitting president grabbing you.

Non sequitur. Respect is earned. Donny hasn't. He's earned my contempt. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Referring to him by title adds to his power by imbuing him with the respect ordinarily accorded to the holder of his office. Referring to him by surname also suggests that he is due a modicum of respect. I won't do that because he isn't. --Bob

63 million people voted for Trump to be president over Hillary. That's a lot of people to dismiss just because you're afraid of the sitting president grabbing you.

Non sequitur. Respect is earned. Donny hasn't. He's earned my contempt. --Bob

It just seems very childish to me. But it's up to you if you want to present yourself as a juvenile. And I will correctly assume that you would still prefer Hillary Clinton to be President. I am sure you, like all the Hollywood hypocrites, the media and the democrat party, will ignore and make excuses for her hypocrisy and double standards relating to Mr. Weinstien and all the rest of the unnamed perverts who make up the Hollywood liberal elite. Just another reason in a long list why we are very fortunate she didn't get elected. (She didn't get elected, bob. It might be a good idea for you to get over it.)

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
63 million people voted for Trump to be president over Hillary. That's a lot of people to dismiss just because you're afraid of the sitting president grabbing you.

Non sequitur. Respect is earned. Donny hasn't. He's earned my contempt. --Bob

It just seems very childish to me. But it's up to you if you want to present yourself as a juvenile. And I will correctly assume that you would still prefer Hillary Clinton to be President. I am sure you, like all the Hollywood hypocrites, the media and the democrat party, will ignore and make excuses for her hypocrisy and double standards relating to Mr. Weinstien and all the rest of the unnamed perverts who make up the Hollywood liberal elite. Just another reason in a long list why we are very fortunate she didn't get elected. (She didn't get elected, bob. It might be a good idea for you to get over it.)

Double standard? Double standard?

Weinstein's being ostracized and as far as I know, he's never been elected to anything. After Donny's crap came to light, the Republican Party made Donny its nominee and then got him elected.

And even restricting ourselves to how Donny's running the government (which I'm not willing to do), even there he's acting like a petulant and jealous child. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: Weinstein's being ostracized and as far as I know, he's never been elected to anything. After Donny's crap came to light, the Republican Party made Donny its nominee and then got him elected.

Flock does have a bit of a point. People in Hollywood knew about Weinstein, and not just some scared up-and-coming actresses whose careers might be destroyed. Kate Winslet said she made a point of not thanking Weinstein when she got her Oscar because of how he'd treated her, so plenty of his victims had a good bit of clout and didn't come forward. And there were plenty of male actors and executives who turned a blind eye as long as things weren't out in public because they had more to gain by staying on Weinstein's good side than stirring up a huge mess.

But you can bet there are more Weinsteins out there and that people know about them as well. Rita Moreno came forward about being molested as a teenager in the 1950's by a well-known Hollywood agent and the "casting couch" has been a staple of Hollywood lore since the days of Fatty Arbuckle. So people know and keep quiet until it becomes too public to keep quiet any more.

But you are right that the Hollywood elite don't continue to support someone after this level of misconduct becomes public as Republicans have with Trump.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Weinstein's being ostracized and as far as I know, he's never been elected to anything. After Donny's crap came to light, the Republican Party made Donny its nominee and then got him elected.

Flock does have a bit of a point. People in Hollywood knew about Weinstein, and not just some scared up-and-coming actresses whose careers might be destroyed. Kate Winslet said she made a point of not thanking Weinstein when she got her Oscar because of how he'd treated her, so plenty of his victims had a good bit of clout and didn't come forward. And there were plenty of male actors and executives who turned a blind eye as long as things weren't out in public because they had more to gain by staying on Weinstein's good side than stirring up a huge mess.

But you can bet there are more Weinsteins out there and that people know about them as well. Rita Moreno came forward about being molested as a teenager in the 1950's by a well-known Hollywood agent and the "casting couch" has been a staple of Hollywood lore since the days of Fatty Arbuckle. So people know and keep quiet until it becomes too public to keep quiet any more.

But you are right that the Hollywood elite don't continue to support someone after this level of misconduct becomes public as Republicans have with Trump.

Don't believe the lying story about Fatty Arbuckle and Virginia Rappe; it was totally discredited.

silverscreenselect wrote: But you are right that the Hollywood elite don't continue to support someone after this level of misconduct becomes public

That's the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Bobbie wrote:the Republican Party made Donny its nominee and then got him elected.

Nope, Hillary got him elected as sure has Ben Roethlisberger gave the Jaguars the win 30-9 last week by throwing 5 interceptions. And the liberals will get him elected again in 2020 if they continue their antics as they (and you) have since election day 2016. Keep it up.

But you are right that the Hollywood elite don't continue to support someone after this level of misconduct becomes public as Republicans have with Trump.

Oh, you can bet Weinstein will be back in a year or so, and he will become a spokesman against sexual harassment. (as if anyone [except anyone who opposes a democrat] is FOR sexual harassment). Only liberals can be resurrected like that. Witness Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Someone said, and I think it's true: "If liberals didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all."

Double standard? Double standard?

Weinstein's being ostracized and as far as I know, he's never been elected to anything. After Donny's crap came to light, the Republican Party made Donny its nominee and then got him elected.

You can't see the double standard, bob? Are you blind as well as dumb?

Hillary has no accomplishments, but she styles herself as the champion defender of women and children. With all her Hollywood connections, if she didn't know this stuff has been going on, she is as blind as you are. And it's not just the casting couch with beautiful young women.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/c ... ood-897403

Her condemnations are as sincere as Captain Renault declaring that he was 'Shocked that there is gambling going on in here!' (Casablanca).

As for the original topic of this post, there is no provision in the democrat Obamacare law that authorizes these 'cost sharing payments'. Since Obama couldn't get that provision through Congress, he used his pen and phone and decided to do it himself. Like every other pen and phone thing he did, subsequent Presidents can undo them.

What trump is doing is forcing the Congress to legislate it, like they are supposed to do, so that subsequent Presidents can't impulsively change it. And if Congress doesn't legislate it, then we go back to what they did legislate. He is doing the same thing with DACA. Sorry you don't like it, but at least he is trying to do it the correct way. People that he and you don't listen to warned Obama that using executive orders to legislate would come back and bite us all in the backside when someone who's politics we don't like gets elected. Now we are reaping what Obama sowed.

even there he's acting like a petulant and jealous child. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:As for the original topic of this post, there is no provision in the democrat Obamacare law that authorizes these 'cost sharing payments'. Since Obama couldn't get that provision through Congress, he used his pen and phone and decided to do it himself. Like every other pen and phone thing he did, subsequent Presidents can undo them.

What trump is doing is forcing the Congress to legislate it, like they are supposed to do, so that subsequent Presidents can't impulsively change it. And if Congress doesn't legislate it, then we go back to what they did legislate. He is doing the same thing with DACA. Sorry you don't like it, but at least he is trying to do it the correct way. People that he and you don't listen to warned Obama that using executive orders to legislate would come back and bite us all in the backside when someone who's politics we don't like gets elected. Now we are reaping what Obama sowed.

Actually a case could be made that the ACA did authorize those payments.

"When Congress passed the ACA, after all, it instructed HHS to make these payments. And in doing so, it effectively appropriated the necessary funds. As Georgetown University law professor David Super explained to my colleague Jordan Weissmann in 2015: '“The Supreme Court has been very clear that you do not have to have a law that says ‘appropriations’ across the top. You just need a law directing that the money be spent.'”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ourts.html

"When Congress passed the ACA, after all, it instructed HHS to make these payments. And in doing so, it effectively appropriated the necessary funds. As Georgetown University law professor David Super explained to my colleague Jordan Weissmann in 2015: '“The Supreme Court has been very clear that you do not have to have a law that says ‘appropriations’ across the top. You just need a law directing that the money be spent.'”

Not commenting on earnedel's post. Just went to read his link. I really like the 'ONE MORE THING' at the end of the page. It reassures me that I can go to Slate for unbiased information and facts.

The Trump administration poses a unique threat to the rule of law. That’s why Slate has stepped up our legal coverage—watchdogging Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the crackdown on voting rights, and more.

Senators Alexander and Murray have reached a deal. It's truly unfortunate this deal couldn't have been reached a couple of months ago. At this point it may be too late to reverse many of the premium increases (largely subsidized by the federal government) that the cutoff of cost-sharing payments necessitated.

This does not, of course, absolve Donny of his many other efforts to sabotage the federal marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, principally by limiting access to open enrollment and by slashing outreach efforts. --Bob