Tag: obamacare
Senator JD Vance

Vance Says Trump 'Salvaged' Obamacare (Which He Tried To Kill)

In an exchange about health care during the vice presidential debate on CBS Tuesday night, Sen. JD Vance claimed that Donald Trump took action to “salvage” the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, when he was president.

But in reality, Trump tried to kill the law that brought health insurance to millions.

Vance: Donald Trump has said that if we allow states to experiment a little bit, on how to cover both the chronically ill but the non-chronically ill, it’s not just a plan, he actually implemented some of these regulations when he was president of the United States.

And I think you could make a really good argument that it salvaged Obamacare, which was doing disastrously until Donald Trump came along.

In 2017, Trump backed the American Health Care Act, which would have repealed significant portions of Obamacare. According to data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, if the legislation became law, 24 million people would go uninsured.

The bill passed through the House, which had a Republican majority at the time, and Trump celebrated in the Rose Garden of the White House with congressional leaders. But the bill ultimately failed in the Senate, due to unified opposition from Democrats along with Republican John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski.

Under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the health care law has been expanded to cover more people, and Harris has said that she will continue to back the law if she is elected president.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

 J.D. Vance

Vance Reveals How Trump Would Kill Coverage Of Preexisting Conditions

The Washington Post was the only paper out of five of the top newspapers to cover in print Sen. JD Vance’s (R-OH) indication that a second Trump administration would gut the Affordable Care Act, reversing protections for seniors and people with preexisting conditions.

There hasn’t been a single news article about Vance’s comments in the A sections of the five papers’ print editions in the time between when the senator’s comments aired on Sunday and 3 p.m. on September 20. The only print coverage of the comments came from two opinion pieces in The Washington Post.

After praising former President Donald Trump's 2017 efforts to repeal Obamacare (which would have left 23 million Americans uninsured), Vance attempted to clarify the campaign's position on health care during a September 15 interview on Meet the Press, which he described as “deregulating the insurance markets”:

Think about it: a young American doesn't have the same health care needs as a 65-year-old American. A 65-year-old American in good health has much different health care needs than a 65-year-old American with a chronic condition. And we want to make sure everybody is covered.

But the best way to do that is to actually promote some more choice in our healthcare system and not have a one-size-fits-all approach that puts a lot of people into the same insurance pools, into the same risk pools, that actually makes it harder for people to make the right choices for their families.

Vance doubled down during a rally in North Carolina, explaining the policy in more detail:

If you only go to the doctor once a year, you're going to need a different health care plan than somebody who goes to the doctor fourteen times a year because they've got chronic pain or they've got some other chronic condition.

That's the biggest and most important thing that we have to change. Now, what that will also do is allow people with similar health situations to be in the same risk pools.

As Jonathan Chait explained, “The Trump plan, according to Vance, is to permit insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.” Which in essence means “Vance is advocating a partial or complete return to the system that existed before Obamacare."

Media Matters reviewed print articles in the A sections of five of the top U.S newspapers for coverage of Vance’s comments and found that only 2 opinion articles in The Washington Post mentioned them. The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all failed to cover Vance’s comments on the ticket’s health care plan.

In The Washington Post’s coverage, a piece from the editorial board noted the Trump/Vance plan “could explode costs for older Americans or those with preexisting conditions.” The other opinion piece clearly explained the stakes:

Vance is referring to letting insurance companies offer different plans and pricing based on whether patients have preexisting conditions or might need more medical care because of their age, health status, gender, etc., or perhaps even their genetic profile. Rather than spreading the insurance risk around to a larger group of people who to some extent cross-subsidize one another, Vance wants to segment riskier patients into their own “pools.” Sicker, higher-risk, more expensive people can “choose” to go into one pool; healthier, less risky, cheaper-to-insure people can “choose” to land in another.

The Washington Post also had a news article about Vance’s comments in its online edition.

As the health care research organization The Commonwealth Fund explained the last time Trump tried to repeal the ACA:

The reality is that high-risk pool coverage was prohibitively expensive and there is little evidence to suggest that the existence of such pools made coverage less costly for others in the individual insurance market. Without substantially more federal funding than currently proposed, these facts are not likely to change. People with preexisting conditions may have “access” to coverage, but most will not be able to afford it and those who can will face limited benefits and extremely high deductibles and out-of-pocket payments.

With American voters consistently rating health care as a top election issue, these newspapers must do a better job of informing readers about the stakes of the race: If Trump and Vance repealed the ACA, it would be disastrous for those who need care the most.

Methodology


Media Matters searched print news articles in the Factiva database from the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post for any of the terms “Trump,” “former President,” “Vance,” “nominee,” or “candidate” within roughly the same paragraph as any of the terms “Obama care,” “Obamacare,” “health care,” “healthcare,” “Affordable Care Act,” “ACA,” or “insurance” or any variations of any of the terms “condition,” “pre-existing,” “cover,” “risk,” or “pool” from September 16, 2024, the day after GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance outlined the campaign's health care plan on NBC's Meet the Press, through 3 P.M. EST on September 20, 2024.

We included print news articles, which we defined as instances when Vance's comments were mentioned anywhere in the body of the text in the A section of the paper. We included editorials and op-eds but not letters to the editor.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

late Sen. John McCain

How The Little Guys Lose Under Trump's Tax Plan

The late Sen. John McCain didn't much like Obamacare, but in 2018, the Arizona Republican pulled it out from under then-President Donald Trump's hatchet. Why? Because McCain saw the "skinny repeal" measure as a sneaky attempt to eviscerate the health coverage of little guys to free up money for tax cuts favoring the wealthy.

Hold that thought as you look upon Trump's vow to extend much of his 2017 tax cuts in a second term. Here are some shocking numbers:

Extending the tax cuts would cost $4.6 trillion over 10 years at a time of already high deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And projected U.S. debt as a share of GDP would rise by 36 percentage points to over 200% by 2054, numbers from the Center for American Progress.

Of course, there's a way for that not to happen. Huge cuts could be made to Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. Also Defense, research at the National Institutes of Health and even farm subsidies. And then what? Trump and company will say, hey, the debt crisis has left us with a choice. Social Security is simply unsustainable. That's the plan.

Drop the baloney about the 2017 tax cuts "paying for themselves," which is how they were falsely marketed. It's true that a few changes goosed some investments, according to Harvard economist Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, but the cuts didn't come close to offsetting the cost of them. On the contrary, they were deficit-financed, and so would be their extension.

While the middle class may lose benefits long taken for granted, its members would see little in the way of reduced taxes under Trump's proposed extension. While households with income in the top one percent would enjoy an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, those in the bottom 60% would see less than $500, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As for the original 2017 tax cuts, Trump claimed they would "very conservatively" boost household incomes by $4,000. As it happened, workers who earned less than $114,000 on average in 2016 saw zero benefit from the cut in the corporate tax rate. The top tenth of the one percent did considerably better with an average after-tax boost of $252,300 in income.

Trump's vow of another payday has some Wall Street magnates and tech billionaires setting aside their previous objections to his attempt to violently overthrow the American government. Not long ago, Blackstone Group co-founder Stephen Schwarzman, a big Republican donor, wisely argued that his party should look elsewhere for leadership. Now the multi-billionaire donor is back in harness and all for Trump.

"Wall Street has never been known for high character and high values," Dan Lufkin, co-founder of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, the investment bank where Schwarzman once worked, bluntly told Bloomberg News.

Bear in mind that many Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires are not rising to the bait, but arguing that Trump's contempt for the rule of law is actually bad for business. Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, wrote that without America's predictable, rules-based environment, "New York, and America, would not have become the hubs of innovation, investment, profit and progress that they are."

And what about Joe Biden? He would keep the tax cuts for Americans making less than $400,000 a year and let most of the other provisions in the 2017 law expire on schedule.

McCain was a conservative patriot who believed America was about more than money. The billionaires slobbering for more tax cuts are all about the money.

It's OK to like money. It's not OK to take it out of the little guys' hides.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Ron Johnson Scheming To Repeal Obamacare In 2023

Ron Johnson Scheming To Repeal Obamacare In 2023

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said Monday that if his party regains control of Congress in Washington, D.C., it will again push to take away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans.

In an interview with the right-wing website Breitbart — first flagged by the progressive research group American Bridge 21st Century — Johnson was asked what Republicans would do if they win back the majority in the November 2022 midterms.

The second-term Republican replied by noting that as long as President Joe Biden is in the White House, they will be unable to pass much legislation — but could use the next two years "to stop any further slouching toward Gomorrah," a reference to the late extreme right-wing jurist Robert Bork's 1996 book blaming the decline of America on liberalism, and "any future slide toward socialism."

Johnson then noted that if Republicans can win back the White House in 2024 and maintain control of Congress, they need to have a plan in place to "make good on what we established as our priorities."

He specifically cited getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010 and commonly known as Obamacare, saying, "For example, if we were going to repeal and replace Obamacare — OK, I think we still need to fix our health care system — we need to have the plan ahead of time so that once we get in office, we can implement it immediately, not knock around like we did last time and fail."

Like many other Republicans first elected in the 2010 tea party wave, Johnson ran originally on a promise that he would "repeal and replace" Obamacare.

"Ron will vote to repeal the Health Care Bill and replace it with market-based solutions that will include: portability, malpractice reform, mandate reduction, insurance purchase across state lines, lower costs, and a safety net for those with pre-existing conditions," the issues section of his 2010 campaign site noted.

Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 on an explicit but vague promise to "immediately" replace Obamacare with something "terrific" that would guarantee health insurance coverage to every single American.

Without any actual plan to do that, Trump in 2017 signed on to a congressional GOP health care plan that the Congressional Budget Office said would have kicked 23 million people off of their insurance. Johnson repeatedly backed Trump's proposals, but the Republican majority in the Senate could not muster the needed 51 votes for any of multiple attempts to repeal Obamacare.

Johnson vowed in 2017 that he would not give up on finding a way to get rid of Obamacare. But by 2018, the once-unpopular law had become significantly more favorably viewed by the American public, and Republicans began to scrub their websites of any repeal-and-replace language.

Johnson's own campaign issues page no longer mentions Obamacare at all, and his old "Real Reforms for Health Care" page is now gone.

As of last summer, Department of Health and Human Services data showed that about 31 million Americans now receive health insurance coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's tracking poll, as of October the law enjoyed 58% public approval and only 41% disapproval.

But Obamacare's success and popularity have not deterred Johnson, whose own approval ratings are in the mid- to low 30s, from his quest to get rid of it.

Johnson's latest comments come just weeks after he said that he did not think affordable child care was society's problem.

The Wisconsin Republican, who in 2018 had an estimated net worth of more than $39 million, told a reporter in January, "People decide to have families and become parents. That's something they need to consider when they make that choice. I've never really felt it was society's responsibility to take care of other people's children."

"If you're proposing that the federal government incur even more deficit spending to provide child care for parents? I mean, I don't see how that's a solution at all," he added.

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World