Dems go on offense against GOP lawsuit on pre-existing conditions
BY REID WILSON - 10/17/18 03:06 PM EDT
A new lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act has a new starring role in Democratic advertisements across the country, as candidates warn their Republican opponents would seek to end the law’s protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
The lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R), claims the Affordable Care Act was rendered unconstitutional after Congress included a provision in last year’s tax-reform package to eliminate the individual mandate to buy health care. Initial arguments took place last month in a federal courtroom in Fort Worth.
After years of defending President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement as it became a political albatross, Democrats see an opportunity to go on the offensive with voters.
“The Republican mantra at first was, 'this is just too expensive and premiums are going to go up and this is a bad law.' And listen, once the law was implemented, I think people saw that was a red herring,” said Sean Shaw, a Florida state representative and the Democratic nominee for attorney general. “Unfortunately for [Republicans], Americans and Floridians have started to feel the good part of the law.”
In many states, Democrats are using Paxton's lawsuit as a cudgel against some of the attorneys general who signed on — and who are now seeking higher office.
“Now the threat is Patrick Morrisey’s lawsuit to take away health care from people with pre-existing conditions. He is just dead wrong, and that ain’t gonna happen,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) says in a campaign advertisement, in which he shoots a copy of the lawsuit with a rifle.
Morrisey, West Virginia’s attorney general, was one of eighteen Republicans who joined Paxton’s suit. So did Josh Hawley, Missouri’s attorney general and now the GOP nominee against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).
McCaskill told volunteers this week she wanted them to talk about health care when they knocked on doors on her behalf.
McCaskill said Monday Hawley is “willing to score a political point for the ideology of being against ObamaCare and allow people to pay a price when they don’t have that protection,” according to the Kansas City Star.
In Wisconsin, Democrats are using the suit to go after Gov. Scott Walker (R), who faces a tight reelection battle against state schools chief Tony Evers (D). Walker signed off on Schimel’s decision to join the lawsuit in February.
“If Scott Walker takes away the protections for pre-existing conditions, I won’t be able to afford the treatments that are saving my life. It’s a matter of life and death for me,” says Mary, a Madison woman who appears in an advertisement for a Democratic PAC backing Evers.
Republicans have recognized the threat they face from Democratic attacks. In Missouri, Hawley has run an advertisement revealing that his son has a pre-existing condition. In an op-ed for the Springfield News-Leader this week, Hawley called McCaskill’s attacks a “smear campaign.”
“I’m committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions. And I’m committed to getting health care costs down for all Missourians,” Hawley wrote.
Walker supporters point to his Health Care Stability Plan, which the Walker campaign says will bring premiums down in 2019. Walker aired ads during a Green Bay Packers game featuring Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R), herself a cancer survivor.
Other Democrats are attacking even those Republican attorneys general who did not join the lawsuit against the ACA. In Michigan, former state legislator Gretchen Whitmer (D) has made health care a top issue in her bid for governor against Attorney General Bill Schuette (R). So has former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray (D), who faces his successor Mike DeWine (R) in a tight battle for governor.
Neither Schuette nor DeWine joined Paxton’s suit. But Democrats have hammered them for opting not to join several Democratic attorneys general in legal filings opposing Paxton’s position.
Schuette “is in FAVOR of protecting insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions,” spokesman John Sellek said in an email. Sellek said Schuette wants to see work requirements for some of those on Medicaid. “Gretchen Whitmer is lying to fit the attack plan set up nationally by the Democrat Party.”
The shift in focus comes after years in which Republicans used the Affordable Care Act in negative advertisements. Almost a decade after it was passed, about half of Americans say they see the ACA in a favorable light, according to tracking surveys from the Kaiser Family Foundation, while just 40 percent see the law unfavorably.
Polls also show voters trust Democrats to handle health care issues more than they trust Republicans. A Fox News survey released last month showed 49 percent of voters said Democrats would do better handling health care, while just 34 percent favored the GOP; only 38 percent of voters approved of the job President Trump was doing handling health care.
McConnell Defends Lawsuit to Undo Pre-Existing Condition Protection
By Steven T. Dennis and Sahil Kapur October 18, 2018, 4:00 AM EDT
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended a lawsuit to undo the Affordable Care Act’s protection of insurance for pre-existing health conditions even though it’s become a problem for Republican candidates in the campaign for control of Congress.
“Our candidates are able to deal with it,” McConnell said regarding a barrage of Democratic ads criticizing his party’s candidates on the issue. "There’s nobody in the Senate that I’m familiar with who is not in favor of coverage of pre-existing conditions."
The case, filed by Texas and backed by the Trump administration, contends that because Congress eliminated the tax penalty for violating the requirement that most individuals have insurance, the rest of the law including the consumer protections must be thrown out. Many legal scholars see the lawsuit as a long shot, including some conservatives who supported previous suits against Obamacare.
During an interview Tuesday with Bloomberg News, McConnell said he doesn’t think the lawsuit is a mistake.
"It’s no secret that we preferred to start over" to repeal and replace Obamacare, he said. That vote failed in 2017. "So no, I don’t fault the administration for trying to give us an opportunity to do this differently and to go in a different direction," the majority leader said.
While Republicans sometimes have accused Democrats of turning to courts and executive actions when they were unable to get their way in Congress, McConnell said he didn’t see an issue with backing the lawsuit.
‘Nothing Wrong’
"Nothing wrong with going to court. Americans do it all the time; we can do it too," he said.
Vulnerable red-state Senate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri have used the lawsuit as a cudgel against their Republican opponents -- in each case the attorney general of their state -- who signed on to the lawsuit.
A recent Manchin ad featured the senator shooting a copy of the lawsuit and accusing Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of wanting to "take away health care from people with pre-existing conditions; he is just dead wrong." McCaskill has run a series of video testimonials featuring Missourians who depend on the health-care rules.
Other Democrats like Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly, Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Montana Senator Jon Tester are similarly using the GOP’s support for the Texas lawsuit against their Republican rivals in competitive races.
Republican candidates argue that Obamacare isn’t necessary to protect pre-existing health conditions, although they have yet to agree on an alternate plan to preserve those provisions. GOP-backed bills in the House and Senate would open the door to letting insurers charge higher rates to sick people or provide fewer benefits.
The clash comes down to a difference between Democrats and Republicans about what it means to cover pre-existing conditions. Democrats believe insurers should have to cover a minimum set of benefits without price discrimination based on medical history, while many Republicans want to relax those rules as a way to reduce premiums for healthier people.
Several Republican senators have criticized the Texas lawsuit, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the health committee. Alexander backed legislation that would restore some protections for pre-existing conditions if the lawsuit is successful, but Collins declined to back it, saying it didn’t go far enough to save provisions in the Affordable Care Act.
So cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not enough for Mitch! They want to end or alter protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Don't get old in America, it's brutal.
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "Both very busy, sir..." "Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
I hear this every single time but it never happens. As far as I can tell this is fear mongering.
Umm they are literally suing to end it bro... I know that doesn't fit your agenda and you hate being on the wrong side but facts are facts.
Quote:
The lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R), claims the Affordable Care Act was rendered unconstitutional after Congress included a provision in last year’s tax-reform package to eliminate the individual mandate to buy health care. Initial arguments took place last month in a federal courtroom in Fort Worth.
Continuation of coverage has always covered you with PEC...it is when YOU CHOSE to stop coverage and want to start again that causes problems....this lawsuit aims to protect insurers from people that will inevitable want coverage after they find out they are sick....kinda like buying insurance after you wreck your car or find your house burnt down or flooded.....honestly I dont blame insurers on this...you dont play they dont pay...this is stopping people from joining the Boston Marathon by blending at mile 25.
Except it also hurts people teetub. A personal example of mine:
- I left a job because the paychecks started coming in late. I've been with a company that was 50M in debt and until the day we dissolved I never had a late deposit. So this to me was a huge red flag and I left.
- joined a company that was just establishing US presence. Because of this we didn't have 401k/medical etc. But they said just use COBRA, and we'll expense it. So I used COBRA to keep my old coverage.
- company I used to work for goes totally money dry , taking insurance with it. No insurance means no more COBRA!
- I had to get Obamacare , with a wife who was pregnant. I was scared . After all I heard alot of Fud about Obamacare on the internet. However this was an incredibly easy sign up process and my medical was actually a few bucks cheaper a month than my COBRA plan for the same benefits.
Had the ACA not been enacted, there is no way my wife gets insurance under the old system. Pregnancy is a PEC . So yeah, maybe you think it's fair that I would get screwed through no fault of my own. But I know my story is not the only one of it's kind, and it's why to me insurance companies should not use that excuse to deny coverage.
Maybe the do nothing dems in congress should have read it before passing it in the first place and got it right from the beginning.....but nah blaming the cons is more politically expedient.....
Continuation of coverage has always covered you with PEC...it is when YOU CHOSE to stop coverage and want to start again that causes problems....this lawsuit aims to protect insurers from people that will inevitable want coverage after they find out they are sick....kinda like buying insurance after you wreck your car or find your house burnt down or flooded.....honestly I dont blame insurers on this...you dont play they dont pay...this is stopping people from joining the Boston Marathon by blending at mile 25.
If you buy individual insurance, you don't get to choose to stop coverage. You get dropped every single year and have to sign up again. It's not a choice.
People should have healthcare, including the sick. Would you prefer they just die?
You dont just get dropped...you are given a specific date of the end of coverage by the company during which you have time to find continuation....yes I use to buy individual insurance...and secondly guaranteed coverage that mirrors employer provided plans is expensive and the number 1 reason premiums soared under the ACA....you want guaranteed coverage and got it...but complain about the cost...typical.
Just make it a guaranteed right, take the profit sucking middlemen out of it, reel in the price gouging, and shift the focus to healthier living and prevention. If Canada can do it, I reckon we can.
You dont just get dropped...you are given a specific date of the end of coverage by the company during which you have time to find continuation....yes I use to buy individual insurance...and secondly guaranteed coverage that mirrors employer provided plans is expensive and the number 1 reason premiums soared under the ACA....you want guaranteed coverage and got it...but complain about the cost...typical.
Not any different, you dont get a CHOICE whether you continue coverage. You get kicked out.
The fundamental issue of our healthcare is it's tied to your job.
Possibly.
But, on the other hand, do you know what health care costs your employer?
I do. I have both dealt with COBRA as a recipient and I'm involved in benefits packages for medical and retirement at my current business. We bear 100% of the premium cost so that way our workers don't need to worry about paying that bill. We pay a great deal for our insurance. It's easily our biggest expense after wages on the US side of our business. Compare that to our European business where we don't pay healthcare as a business expense (nor retirement) and it's a drag on businesses too.
Did you have a specific reason in mind in making your statement , or did you just assume I don't know these things ?
The fundamental issue of our healthcare is it's tied to your job.
Possibly.
But, on the other hand, do you know what health care costs your employer?
I do. I have both dealt with COBRA as a recipient and I'm involved in benefits packages for medical and retirement at my current business. We bear 100% of the premium cost so that way our workers don't need to worry about paying that bill. We pay a great deal for our insurance. It's easily our biggest expense after wages on the US side of our business. Compare that to our European business where we don't pay healthcare as a business expense (nor retirement) and it's a drag on businesses too.
Did you have a specific reason in mind in making your statement , or did you just assume I don't know these things ?
Yes, I did have a specific reason.
Most employees don't know what they cost the company they work for, in health insurance.
Most people don't know what their taxes would be IF the gov't. took over health insurance.
So...if an employer is paying say $500/month for a single, $1000/month with spouse and $1500 for family (those numbers are actually pretty close)...and the silver ACA premium is pretty close to those numbers...who picks up up that cost if employers no longer foot the bill they agreed to in the beginning....do they forward the savings to the employee in increased wages to pay the taxes and premiums? Do they forward the savings on to the state or feds in form of taxes to pay for the new program needed? Or do they just pocket the savings and let the employee and the Gov figure it out??
When I took my job it was based on the total value of the compensation...I expect that compensation to be maintained...if the compensation is $75k between salary,insurance and benefits....then it best be $75k with just salary and benefits.
I think there are examples of single payer systems in the world that demonstrates not only viability , but also superiority to our current system. My business has the US side and European side and it does provide interesting insights.
Frances system is amazing. You pay 8% of your paycheck above a floor amount a year , and in exchange you get 80% coverage for your hospital visit. This is very similar to 80/20 plans in the US, for a competitive price. And this system covers every french citizen and legal resident, even those living abroad. My boss is French and he gets 100% coverage for all hospital visits in America from the French govt. Pretty nice. France also allows for private medical coverage to cover the 20% shortfall, so if people want they can pay a bit more and have fully funded coverage. Most in France consider their system partially socialized , vs the fully socialized system in Canada and the UK.
It's not a perfect system, but no one in France goes bankrupt due to medical bills. People are free to be entrepreneurs and not lose medical care. It's a very good system, and readily demonstrates how poor our system is.
As for who pays, there are several examples in the world to draw from. The UK and Canada are full single payer, France is a mix, and Germany is multi payer but with universal coverage. Companies typically adjust wages once a year for merit increases , so I have a hard time believing that doing a one time adjustment would be impossible for them to do.
The reason you forward the savings is because it's cheaper to forward than horde the windfall, and it provides free Goodwill to your employees , raising morale.
The fundamental issue of our healthcare is it's tied to your job.
Possibly.
But, on the other hand, do you know what health care costs your employer?
I do. I have both dealt with COBRA as a recipient and I'm involved in benefits packages for medical and retirement at my current business. We bear 100% of the premium cost so that way our workers don't need to worry about paying that bill. We pay a great deal for our insurance. It's easily our biggest expense after wages on the US side of our business. Compare that to our European business where we don't pay healthcare as a business expense (nor retirement) and it's a drag on businesses too.
Did you have a specific reason in mind in making your statement , or did you just assume I don't know these things ?
Yes, I did have a specific reason.
Most employees don't know what they cost the company they were work for, in health insurance.
Most people don't know what their taxes would be IF the gov't. took over health insurance.
Most people who don't know, don't care. They are eating the government cheese.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
The fundamental issue of our healthcare is it's tied to your job.
Possibly.
But, on the other hand, do you know what health care costs your employer?
I do. I have both dealt with COBRA as a recipient and I'm involved in benefits packages for medical and retirement at my current business. We bear 100% of the premium cost so that way our workers don't need to worry about paying that bill. We pay a great deal for our insurance. It's easily our biggest expense after wages on the US side of our business. Compare that to our European business where we don't pay healthcare as a business expense (nor retirement) and it's a drag on businesses too.
Did you have a specific reason in mind in making your statement , or did you just assume I don't know these things ?
Yes, I did have a specific reason.
Most employees don't know what they cost the company they were work for, in health insurance.
Most people don't know what their taxes would be IF the gov't. took over health insurance.
Most people who don't know, don't care. They are eating the government cheese.
To be fair, most people dont even know how much taxes they pay each year. Or care.
This narrative that people on 1099 are more tax 'woke' than people on W2 makes no sense to me. Especially as someone who has dealt with both. Why is it a huge hassle? I've done 1099 work and it was very simple from where I stood: I just took $0.30 of every dollar I made and put it to the side, and each quarter I put those accumulations into a payment to OH and Federal IRS. Through various deductions I actually didn't get that close to the 30% figure, but I admit I was a bit scared of being in the "red" from where the IRS was concerned. The self employment tax is a bummer, but it didn't affect me significantly.
I just don't get the narrative in play here, other than insinuating that people who receive W2's are dumber than people who get invoiced and receive a 1099.
This narrative that people on 1099 are more tax 'woke' than people on W2 makes no sense to me. Especially as someone who has dealt with both. Why is it a huge hassle? I've done 1099 work and it was very simple from where I stood: I just took $0.30 of every dollar I made and put it to the side, and each quarter I put those accumulations into a payment to OH and Federal IRS. Through various deductions I actually didn't get that close to the 30% figure, but I admit I was a bit scared of being in the "red" from where the IRS was concerned. The self employment tax is a bummer, but it didn't affect me significantly.
I just don't get the narrative in play here, other than insinuating that people who receive W2's are dumber than people who get invoiced and receive a 1099.
And lets not forget that the SE tax is not near as bad as 1099ers make it out to be (remember w2 folks also pay 50% of the SE tax it is FICA and MEdicare)...they are able to deduct 1/2 the cost of the SE tax...granted it is above the line so it is not dollar for dollar...but 1099ers are able to deduct a heck of alot more of their 1099 income before it gets subject to the SE tax (like travel and commuting). If a w2 worker could deduct the cost of travel to the job site before taxes are calculated that would be huge.
Yea, the deductions I received simply working from home on a 1099 was NUTS. Outright nuts. It made up for the SE tax, probably multiple times over. I easily pay more in tax now as a W2 employee than I did getting paid via invoice.
If you dont handle your 1099s as if you are a business owner then that is your problem because you should. You are a self employed business owner/contractor and should take advantage of that lose definition.
If you dont handle your 1099s as if you are a business owner then that is your problem because you should. You are a self employed business owner/contractor and should take advantage of that lose definition.
Clearly you have never been a business owner.
Fairly certain the only title youve ever held is Troll.
If you dont handle your 1099s as if you are a business owner then that is your problem because you should. You are a self employed business owner/contractor and should take advantage of that lose definition.
Can you quote me where I said 1099 is all you need to be a business owner? I have a business entity (two actually) and have dispatched invoices on behalf of both and received gross receipts that were later distributed via LLC pass through mechanisms. By definition that makes me a business owner, unless you wish to change the definition of what one is
Still, I find myself wondering, why precisely are you trying to say I don't know what being a business owner is like? Perhaps my reading between the lines is off base here, but you seemed to want to make a clear distinction that my contributions to this conversation do not carry the same weight as you (or arch). Is that accurate?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
