Connect with us

Everything

Will Graham-Cassidy lead to single-payer?

Published

on

The entire health insurance industry has come out against the GOP Graham-Cassidy bill.

Industry lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a letter to Senate leaders, outlined concerns that the law might lead to states setting up their own single-payer health systems.

The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal fails to meet these guiding principles, and would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market; cutting Medicaid; pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions; not ending taxes on health insurance premiums and benefits; and potentially allowing government-controlled, single payer health care to grow.

The letter outlined five other principles the health insurance industry would like to see addressed:

  1. Stabilize the individual insurance market
  2. Medicaid reforms must ensure the program is efficient, effective, with adequate funding
  3. Guarantee access to coverage for ALL Americans, including pre-existing conditions
  4. Provide sufficient time for everyone to prepare
  5. Eliminate taxes and fees

The association of 36 independent Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers have also joined the lobbying effort against the bill, with their primary dig that the proposal doesn’t repeal the “Cadillac tax” on health insurance.


Further reading…

Support Graham-Cassidy, because of the sparrows and the chickens by Steve Berman

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/20/support-cassidy-graham-because-of-the-sparrows-and-the-chickens/To get the most consumers, and make money doing it, capitalist insurance companies will find a way to carve themselves a piece of the most lucrative markets. At first, they all supported Obamacare because they smelled money, and many make it hand over fist in the markets where they compete, since they’re allowed to pull out where they don’t make money. Watch them lobby state legislatures and Congress to tweak coverages and products to their liking, and block the growth of medical sharing associations, direct to consumer health care markets, and other innovations. You’ll hear them say it’s “against consumer interest” and slam quality standards. Read more…

5 foolish reasons to support Graham-Cassidy and 2 solid reasons to oppose it by JD Rucker

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/20/5-reasons-support-graham-cassidy-2-reasons-oppose/Ask a conservative Republican voting for this if they think it’s going to work. Their answer will invariably be that it will “be better than what we’ve got.” They believe that if they pass nothing that President Trump will turn on them. He will. If this bill had been introduced five months ago it wouldn’t get 35 GOP votes. At this point, they’ll take anything they can get their hands on. That alone spells doom for America if it passes. I, for one, am not excited about the Graham-Cassidy-Stepping-Stone-To-Single-Payer Bill. Read more…


Perspectives

5 Factors That Could Interfere With Graham-Cassidy’s State Waivers | Christopher Jacobs, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/21/5-factors-interfere-graham-cassidys-state-health-care-waivers/If the sponsors believe in state flexibility, they should allow states to waive all federal insurance regulations, even ones, such as the under-26 mandate or mental health parity, they may personally support. Or better yet, they should move to repeal the regulations entirely, and let states decide which ones they want to re-enact on the state level.

Health insurers oppose Graham-Cassidy bill, citing single-payer concerns | Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/health-insurers-oppose-graham-cassidy-bill-citing-single-payer-concerns/article/2635075“To best serve every American, we need both a strong private market and an effective role for and partnerships with government,” Tavenner wrote. “Building on the choice, competition and innovation of the private sector and the strength, security and dependability of public programs is a far more effective solution than allowing states to eliminate private insurance.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that he intended to bring the bill to the floor next week. The Senate faces a Sept. 30 deadline to pass the bill through a simple majority vote, known as reconciliation, according to a recommendation by the Senate parliamentarian.

Why The Latest GOP Health Care Plan Is The Best One Yet | John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/20/latest-gop-health-care-plan-best-one-yet/Contrary to much of the media coverage this week, the push by congressional Republicans to do something about Obamacare isn’t a desperate last-ditch effort or a “health care zombie.” On the contrary, it might be the best health-care reform idea GOP leaders have come up with yet.

A Bogus Health-Care Number from the Center for American Progress | Dan McLaughlin, National Review

A new analysis by Avalere Health, funded by the left-wing Center for American Progress, is making headlines for supposedly finding that Graham-Cassidy would cut $4 trillion in health care funding to states through 2036. Outlets like CNBC and Axios have led their stories with the $4 trillion number in the headline. But it’s fundamentally dishonest and anti-democratic.

Reactions

Final Thoughts

Graham-Cassidy is health care reform turned on its head. Its supporters want it because they believe it will fail, and its opponents hate it because they think it could be implemented. In reality, the nay-sayers are likely right. Most states can’t pass enabling legislation in just three years. Some state legislatures only meet for 40 days a year, and require two readings for major legislation. How in the world could it possibly be in place, at the state level, by 2020, when Obamacare has not been fully implemented in seven years?

Therefore, the nay-sayers who think this will lead to state-level single-payer are playing a Pied Piper tune. And those who believe it GC will save $4 trillion are taking some kind of hallucinogenic drug. At best, the bill is a stepping-stone to the 2018 election for Republicans to say “See, we did something!” to their constituents, and a hope that the next round of reforms (which will be required) will move more toward a private system versus a government takeover.

Clearly, for insurance companies, they’d rather have an individual mandate–what company would be against forcing everyone to buy their product? That explains their united opposition. Doctors oppose it because it can’t work and would leave the health care industry perilously unstable–if allowed to actually take effect. But I think most people who have studied it agree that this bill, if passed into law, will never take effect.

The consensus is that there’s no possible way GC could ever work. Will passing it lead to single-payer? No more than not passing it. The only difference of opinion is over whether that failure is a good thing or a bad thing.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Steve Nickerson

    September 21, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    “pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions”
    Right there you can tell this is a lie
    Pre Existing conditions is the #1 thing the Insurance industry wants to NOT cover because it will bankrupt them

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Trump’s proposal to defund Planned Parenthood under Title X is fake news

Published

on

Last week, Donald Trump, the self-absorbed occupant of the White House who routinely rails against news outlets that print unfavorable news stories and refers to them as “Fake News,” engaged in a bit of his own version of fake news with his announcement that he would be defunding Planned Parenthood.

Calling it the “Protect Life Rule,” Trump proposed withholding $50-$60 million received by Planned Parenthood each year under the government’s Title X Family Planning program, which is used to provide family planning services to low-income individuals.

If the proposal is accepted—an unknown outcome since Trump provided no details on what it would look like—it will model a regulation first implemented by Ronald Reagan and modified over the years.

Despite claims by Ingraham—one of the many members of the so-called conservative media on the Trump Train—this is a fake news story because it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, a fact confirmed by a White House official on the day of the announcement.

“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law.”

Under the proposal, as long as Planned Parenthood uses taxpayer money to pay for what “candidate Trump once called the “good work” they do and not for the “relatively small part of the business” known as abortion, the largest provider of baby-killing services in America will continue receiving every penny of Title X funds they want.

Even if successful, Trump’s proposal is nothing more that a restatement of existing law. It’s been illegal for Planned Parenthood to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions ever since the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976, even though Planned Parenthood still receives federal funds that have now reached over half-a-billion dollars a year.

How is this possible? It’s because money is fungible.

By providing Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money, other funds are freed up to bankroll the murder of over 321,000 unborn babies a year. To put it another way, Planned Parenthood is able to make nearly all of its non-government revenue from killing babies because taxpayers are paying for everything else.

Of course, with 2018 being an election year and the GOP in serious danger of being wiped out by a Blue Tsunami come November, Trump’s fake news announcement fits right in with the rest of the GOP’s election-year game plan where recycled campaign promises are used to cover a track record of ineptitude and cowardice.

Much like the House “show votes” earlier this year regarding term limits and late-term abortions, this proposal by the man evangelicals are calling “the most pro-life president in history” is simply the latest effort by Trump and the GOP to get conservatives to the polls to vote Republican in November while doing absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?

Published

on

The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.

While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.

For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.

I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.

The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.

Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.

Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.

Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?

Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.

Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kentucky Primary

Published

on

Kentucky is the state that gave us Rand Paul. He is the biggest highlight, however he is not alone like Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Thomas Massie is also a strong Conservative. This primary has a chance to unseat a major swamp creature. Aside from this one race, there wasn’t much action to be had. Mitch McConnell shows that Kentucky does not have a rich history in holding bad politicians accountable. So if there are any Conservative victories in Kentucky, they should be celebrated vocally.

Best Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Worst Picks: Harold Rogers, Chuck Eddy, Andy Barr
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 6

District 1

James Comer is more fiscally responsible than most RINOs, but he still voted for Omnibus. He is unopposed.

District 2

Bill Gutherie is an unopposed RINO.

District 3

Three Republicans look to win Louisville. The first is Vicky Glisson. She is running a limited issues campaign focused on drugs, healthcare, and a hint of fiscal responsibility. Next is Rhonda Palazzo, the most upfront Conservative in the race. She is a real estate agent and devout Christian. Her stance is overly simplistic, to a fault. Lastly is Mike Craven. His platform is also too simplistic. This race is a three way crapshoot in terms of determining the best candidate.

Conservative Pick: Rhonda Palazzo

District 4

Since 2012, Thomas Massie has been a solid Conservative. He is unopposed.

District 5

Harold Rogers is a decades experienced swamp creature, 33 years in the making. Gerardo Serrano is his challenger. Serrano has Rand Paul potential in both foreign and domestic policy, such as FISA. His website features a unique story of him and a county sheriff, where he held a sheriff accountable when the 2nd amendment was in danger. (The sheriff wasn’t a villain in the story).

I especially like his twitter handle. Geraldo Serrano is a strong candidate, and we desperately as a nation need to unseat swamp monsters such as Harold Rogers.

Conservative Pick: Geraldo Serrano

District 6

Andy Barr is another RINO with a horrendous spending record. He is being challenged by Chuck Eddy. This was a huge disappointment.

I don’t believe he realizes how much a massive walking contradiction he is.

Conservative Pick: None, Barr will undoubtedly win

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.