Log in or Sign up

President Trump

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy -(FORUM CLOSED)-' started by TIME, Jan 20, 2017.

Page 67 of 147

John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

6,590

Likes Received:

15,641

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

CEO - Big Baller Brand

Offline

Also, let's hold off on the Hitler comparisons. Highly offensive to compare mean words to the slaughter of 7 million.

Hitler: 7 million
Obama: 2
Trump: hurt your feelings

John3:16, Nov 12, 2018

#1321

Lakeshow85 and KareemtheGreat33 like this.
ZenMaster - Lakers All Star -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

5,803

Likes Received:

12,900

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Dude... I'm not talking about taxes on small businesses. Personal taxes.

It's a pretty common knowledge that those are pretty low in US.

So... Win some lose some?

And as always... you chose to refer to the least important part.

ZenMaster, Nov 12, 2018

#1322
ZenMaster - Lakers All Star -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

5,803

Likes Received:

12,900

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

John3:16 said: ↑

Also, let's hold off on the Hitler comparisons. Highly offensive to compare mean words to the slaughter of 7 million.

Hitler: 7 million
Obama: 2
Trump: hurt your feelings
Click to expand...

Nope. I won't hold off.

Hitler wasn't running around killing Jews, Gypsies and gays in 1933. Crystal night, for instance, happened in 1938.

In 1933 Hitler was giving speeches about national pride, economy and making Germany great again.

You don't see how it impacts the world. You probably don't care.

There is a wave of nationalist (read, nearly fashist) parties gaining a lot of power through out the world. That's not an exaggeration. Look it up.

It curiously coincides with Trump coming on to the big stage.

He may not be the catalyst, but he is a validation that all kinds of "<insert color here> power" parties are A-OK again. "Leader of the free world" is doing it...

Pogroms always start with complacency.

ZenMaster, Nov 12, 2018

#1323
John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

6,590

Likes Received:

15,641

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

CEO - Big Baller Brand

Offline

Nothing wrong with National Pride. Ever watch the World Cup? Thousands are marching toward the US border carrying flags of the counties they're running away from.

Nationalist is taking care of your own before others. I can't help your fsmily in Israel if mine is starving. We have people here homeless and starving. Fix that and then we can help others. That's what Nationalism is all about.

John3:16, Nov 12, 2018

#1324
ZenMaster - Lakers All Star -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

5,803

Likes Received:

12,900

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

You say like it's one or the other. Also, I think you misunderstand what nationalist parties are these days.

They are not about national economy, I can tell you that. More often than not, and this is well documented, their platform boils down to scaring people with "damn foreigners coming in and stealing our jobs, raping our women and killing our children".

They don't usually mention caravans though... Less common.

ZenMaster, Nov 12, 2018

#1325
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

revgen, Nov 16, 2018

#1326

KareemtheGreat33, sirronstuff, Punk-101 and 1 other person like this.
Weezy Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

17,892

Likes Received:

72,670

Trophy Points:

113

Location:

Anaheim

Offline

Weezy, Nov 19, 2018

#1327

sirronstuff likes this.
Savory Griddles Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 7, 2014

Messages:

9,133

Likes Received:

22,303

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

John3:16 said: ↑

Nothing wrong with National Pride. Ever watch the World Cup? Thousands are marching toward the US border carrying flags of the counties they're running away from.

Nationalist is taking care of your own before others. I can't help your fsmily in Israel if mine is starving. We have people here homeless and starving. Fix that and then we can help others. That's what Nationalism is all about.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants our money, John. We need to take care of that caravan before we take care of ourselves. :Kuzmawhoknew:

Savory Griddles, Nov 20, 2018

#1328

sirronstuff and John3:16 like this.
OX1947 - Lakers All Star -

Joined:

Jun 3, 2016

Messages:

7,982

Likes Received:

17,257

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

This nationalism hysteria turning into Germany 1933-1945 is just as laughable as the illegals ruining this country hysteria.

Everyone is programmed to pick their "thing" and have it be the gospel. When in fact it's a distraction from the real scum of this country to pillage and rape.

Can't fool me. I'm more of the George Carlin ilk. The game is rigged. Not gonna trick me. Eff both sides.

OX1947, Dec 17, 2018

#1329
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

I’m A Senior Trump Official, And I Hope A Long Shutdown Smokes Out The Resistance

The Daily Caller is taking the rare step of publishing this anonymous op-ed at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose career would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.

Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.

The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.

On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.

Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.

They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.

Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.

Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.

Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.

When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.

Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.

The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.

I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”

But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.

President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.

President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.

The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.

A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.

The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.

Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.

The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.

The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.
Click to expand...

LINK

This is a long read, but well worth the time to look at.

revgen, Jan 20, 2019

#1330

sirronstuff, KareemtheGreat33 and John3:16 like this.
KareemtheGreat33 - Lakers MVP -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

11,066

Likes Received:

22,721

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Brow-beater

Location:

Las Islas Filipinas

Offline

Well that's Machiavellian but true in all countries, the bureaucracy is bloated with useless unproductive employees and will continue to do so because of political favors

KareemtheGreat33, Jan 21, 2019

#1331

sirronstuff, revgen and JohnnyComeLately2k6 like this.
John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

6,590

Likes Received:

15,641

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

CEO - Big Baller Brand

Offline

KareemtheGreat33 said: ↑

Well that's Machiavellian but true in all countries, the bureaucracy is bloated with useless unproductive employees and will continue to do so because of political favors
Click to expand...

While in the military I worked with a lot of federal employees. The union is what made them lazy. If it wasn't in their job description, they wouldn't do it. Nothing gets done. And they couldn't be fired.

John3:16, Jan 21, 2019

#1332

LTLakerFan, sirronstuff, revgen and 2 others like this.
KareemtheGreat33 - Lakers MVP -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

11,066

Likes Received:

22,721

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Brow-beater

Location:

Las Islas Filipinas

Offline

Those employees are also the most disgruntled and the ones who complain all the time lol...as described in this op-ed, one has to work around all that incompetence in order for the office to function

KareemtheGreat33, Jan 21, 2019

#1333

LTLakerFan, sirronstuff, John3:16 and 2 others like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Congress’ Nonpartisan Research Arm Says Trump Could Have DOD Build A Wall Without State of Emergency or Congressional Approval

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a paper internally that suggests President Donald Trump may have the authority to use Department of Defense resources to build a wall without obtaining congressional approval or declaring a state of emergency.

CRS, Congress’s in-house research arm, internally published a paper Jan. 10 titled “Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall?,” which The Daily Caller News Foundation has obtained. It says (emphasis added):

Another statute that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assist civilian law enforcement with counterdrug activities may provide some authority for the construction of barriers along the border. 10 U.S.C. § 284 (Section 284) provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” …

Use of Section 284 would not require a declaration of a national emergency under the NEA. However, the DOD’s Section 284 authority to construct fences appears to extend only to “drug smuggling corridors,” a condition that may limit where DOD could deploy fencing.

“Drug corridors” are not defined in law, according to a congressional aide.

The president has suggested using executive authority as a workaround to the stalemate that led to the partial government shutdown. House Democrats have refused to allocate $5.7 billion Trump requested to build part of a wall along the southern border, and the president has refused to support legislation opening the government that does not include border wall funding. Trump said Jan. 4 that he has considered using a “state of emergency” to build the wall. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley urged Trump not to declare a state of emergency, expressing concerns about overreach and setting a precedent that Democrats could also use when in power.

But the CRS report suggests that there is another option beyond negotiating with Congress or declaring a national emergency.
Click to expand...

LINK

So we don't need Mexico to pay for it, the Democrats' approval, or a national emergency to build a wall? Amazing!

revgen, Jan 26, 2019

#1334

sirronstuff likes this.
sirronstuff - Lakers Legend -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

30,416

Likes Received:

74,842

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Your time is running out Ham

Location:

Laker Purgatory

Offline

I like the idea of cutting govt waste

sirronstuff, Jan 27, 2019

#1335

LTLakerFan, revgen, John3:16 and 1 other person like this.
sirronstuff - Lakers Legend -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

30,416

Likes Received:

74,842

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Your time is running out Ham

Location:

Laker Purgatory

Offline

thought this was funny

sirronstuff, Jan 28, 2019

#1336

revgen likes this.
sirronstuff - Lakers Legend -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

30,416

Likes Received:

74,842

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Your time is running out Ham

Location:

Laker Purgatory

Offline

sirronstuff, Feb 5, 2019

#1337
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Trump’s plan to improve healthcare, that everyone said wouldn’t work, is already working

by Jack Hunter
| February 04, 2019 04:41 PM

In June, the Trump administration instituted new rules that would allow small businesses and individuals to access health insurance through what the president called “ association health plans.” This would permit certain businesses and the self-employed to band together, even across state lines, to provide coverage for members outside of Obamacare’s strict rules.

Critics declared Trump’s plan dead on arrival. Democrats called it “ junk insurance.” Liberal news outlet Vox called it a “ flop.” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the plans “ aren’t saving anyone money.” Andy Slavitt, who helped oversee the implementation of the Affordable Care Act said, "Association health plans are not the solution to any problem Americans have. They won't make drugs more affordable, they won't help Americans get health care they need.”

They’re all wrong.

It turns out association health plans have quickly become a solution to many Americans’ coverage problems, are more affordable than Obamacare, and are helping many get the care they need.

“It's time to acknowledge that critics may have misjudged one of the Trump administration's signature health-care policies – ‘bigly,’” writes Washington Post Assistant Editor and Opinions Contributor Robert Gebelhoff.

“New reports suggest that much of that fear might be overblown — at least for the time being,” he continued. “As The Washington Post's health policy guru Paige Winfield Cunningham laid out this week, more than two dozen association health plans have been developed since the administration issued its new rule, and so far they don't look nearly as skimpy as experts predicted.”

Cunningham’s coverage included these developments.

“Chambers of commerce and trade associations have launched more than two dozen of these ‘association health plans’ in 13 states in the seven months since the Labor Department finalized new rules,” Cunningham reported. “And there are initial signs the plans are offering generous benefits and premiums lower than can be found in the Obamacare marketplaces.”

“When it comes to these new association health plans, they appear — at least so far — to offer benefits comparable to most workplace plans and haven't tried to discriminate against patients with preexisting conditions,” she continued.

“The farm cooperative Land O’Lakes, which is expanding its association plan to farmers in Nebraska and Minnesota, has said its premiums will cost 25 percent to 35 percent less than plans sold on Nebraska’s ACA marketplace,” Cunningham noted.

About 25 to 35 percent less than Obamacare is obviously significant savings. Cunningham’s entire report outlines how association health plans have been far more help to Americans than a hindrance.

And remember, the Washington Post is not exactly a Trump-friendly outlet.

Gebelhoff expounded on Cunningham’s findings (emphasis added):

"The Congressional Budget Office released a report Thursday that predicted coverage gains as a result of the new rule … The CBO projects that, as a result of these two rules, an estimated 5 million people will enroll in either a short-term plan or an association health plan every year over the next decade, including more than 1 million people annually who were previously uninsured."

“The CBO states that most of the movement (around three-quarters) will be due to association health plans,” Gebelhoff noted.

“So far, it seems these plans could work exactly as his administration promised: By helping offer coverage options for middle-income families who are making too much to qualify for federal ACA subsidies but are still struggling to afford premiums,” Gebelhoff concluded.

So far, it appears association health plans are working much better in practice than what critics feared in theory.

The biggest long-time supporter and ally of President Trump’s in advancing association health plans has been Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who was also front and center when the president signed this executive action in June.

For months, I worked directly with President Donald Trump and Secretary Acosta to make this happen. I’m happy to see the results. https://t.co/ei9WSzOJmg

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) February 1, 2019

These free market-oriented association health plans are something Paul has long pushed for.

“If these individuals can join large groups across state lines, I think they’ll get protection, less expensive insurance, and it’ll be able to solve a lot of the problems we have in the individual market,” Paul said in 2017.

Now, thanks to the Trump administration’s new rules, more individuals are joining groups across state lines, receiving protection, and enjoying less expensive insurance.

Critics be damned.
Click to expand...

LINK

The author is liberterian-friendly and gives a general overview on how these association health plans have successfully lowered costs while providing similar benefits compared to the Obamacare plans. He includes links to two other articles that I've posted below.

The Health 202: Association health plans expanded under Trump look promising so far

By Paige Winfield Cunningham
January 30

THE PROGNOSIS

A crop of new health insurance plans enabled under regulations from the Trump administration appears more consumer-friendly and less like “junk” insurance than Democrats originally charged.

Chambers of commerce and trade associations have launched more than two dozen of these “association health plans” in 13 states in the seven months since the Labor Department finalized new rules making it easier for small businesses to band together to buy health coverage in the same way large employers do. And there are initial signs the plans are offering generous benefits and premiums lower than can be found in the Obamacare marketplaces.

President Trump billed the new rules as one of several ways to provide consumers with cheaper coverage options than they could find in the Obamacare marketplaces, prompting complaints by Democrats that he was undermining consumer protections laid out in the Affordable Care Act. There’s indeed plenty of evidence the administration is trying to weaken the ACA, including the Justice Department’s refusal to defend it in court.

But when it comes to these new association health plans, they appear — at least so far — to offer benefits comparable to most workplace plans and haven't tried to discriminate against patients with preexisting conditions, according to an analysis released today by Kev Coleman, a former analyst at the insurance information website HealthPocket.

“We’re not seeing skinny plans,” said Coleman, who founded a website last year with information on association health plans. “We’re seeing the regular doctor care, we’re seeing emergency room care, we’re seeing mental health coverage.”

The farm cooperative Land O’Lakes, which is expanding its association plan to farmers in Nebraska and Minnesota, has said its premiums will cost 25 percent to 35 percent less than plans sold on Nebraska’s ACA marketplace. Every category of essential health benefits — which are required for marketplace plans — is covered, according to an analysis by Modern Healthcare.

Several business associations in Nevada have started offering association health plans to member companies. Enrollees in the plan offered by the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce have cited lower deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Two of Michigan’s largest business associations are partnering to offer members association plans managed by BlueCross BlueShield of Michigan, some of which will cover essential health benefits and offer different premium and deductible levels.

According to Coleman, who analyzed 28 association health plans operating under the new rules, a majority of the new association plans are being launched by regional chambers of commerce, four out of five are being managed by a third-party insurance company, and half the plans offer tax-free savings account options.

The idea behind expanding association health plans was to make more widely available the type of coverage often offered to employees of big companies. Small businesses have typically struggled to provide affordable coverage for workers, given the small size of their risk pools.

The new regulations allow small businesses, associations and self-employed individuals — including those operating in different industries – to band together to buy health coverage by pooling all of their employees together. The health consulting firm Avalere has estimated 3.2 million people could eventually be covered by such plans, which have to comply with the same rules governing large employer plans.

The association plans don’t have to cover the essential health benefits required of plans purchased by individuals in the ACA marketplaces — something Democrats have been quick to note. Analysts have also warned that they'll cause marketplace premiums to increase by as much as 3.5 percent, by drawing healthy people away from Obamacare plans and into association coverage.

But what’s sometimes been lost in heated, politicized exchanges is that the Labor Department did ban these plans from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditons. That perhaps reflects a growing realization among Republicans that opposing these popular protections is a political loser.

Democrats' claims that association plans constitute “junk” insurance aren’t necessarily true. That’s because the plans are subject to the same requirements currently in place for large employer plans, including requirements to fully cover preventive care and bans on limiting annual and lifetime benefits.

Republicans strove to highlight association health plans in a contentious Capitol Hill hearing Tuesday. Ways and Means Democrats spent their time bashing GOP lawmakers for trying so long and hard to knock down the ACA and its protections for people with preexisting conditions.

For their single witness, Republicans brought in Rob Robertson, chief administrator of the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation. The organization for farmers and ranchers is offering an association health plan it says will cost 25 percent less than plans currently offered in the state’s individual market and will cover a broad range of benefits including prescription drugs, emergency room visits and prenatal and maternity care.

The plan won’t discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, Robertson said. That’s now a point of emphasis for Republicans, who spent last year’s midterm elections on the defensive as Democrats accused them of abandoning people with serious medical conditions and drawing attention to a GOP-led state lawsuit against the ACA that could dismantle those protections.

“I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, take ‘yes’ for an answer,” Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) said. “We agree with you. This reform is good; this reform will stay as the law of the land.”

But even if association health plans ultimately prove successful — and it’s too early to say for sure — Republicans face a harsh reality on health-care policy. After years of slamming the ACA but failing to come up with a viable alternative, they’re now stuck in a defensive posture as energized Democrats leveraged the issue to their favor in 2018 and seek to do the same in 2020.

“They get that preexisting conditions must be protected,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said sarcastically in remarks aimed at his colleagues on the other end of the dais. “They hear the message — it only took years; it only took hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign commercials.”
Click to expand...

LINK

Here's an excellent article by the Washington Post, which usually supports socialist/progressive/neo-con ideologies. The author admits that Trump's association plans appear to be working well. Which is no surprise, since they offer similar benefits that large corporations like Microsoft, Apple, etc. offer to their employees. The article ends with a backhanded compliment patting socialists/progressives on the back for "teaching" conservatives/libertarians that they must consider the needs of those with pre-existing conditions.

Experts hated this Trump health-care policy. So far, they’re wrong.

By Robert Gebelhoff

Assistant editor and Opinions contributor
February 1

It’s time to acknowledge that critics may have misjudged one of the Trump administration’s signature health-care policies — “bigly.”

Last summer, the administration issued new rules designed to help small businesses and self-employed people get health insurance through what are known as association health plans. The plans, which have existed for decades, allow small businesses in the same field or region to band together into “associations” and provide insurance for their members. Because these plans are able to use their size to negotiate lower premiums and are not subject to all Affordable Care Act regulations, they are often cheaper than those found on the individual market.

Soon after the administration issued its rule, health-care experts piled on with criticism, warning that it would lead to skimpy “junk” plans that do not cover all of the ACA’s essential health benefits, such as care for substance abuse and outpatient prescription drugs. They also feared that the plans would pull healthy patients out of the ACA’s individual exchanges, forcing premiums to go up. One analysis estimated that the administration’s rule could increase marketplace premiums by as much as 3.5 percent.

But new reports suggest that much of that fear might be overblown — at least for the time being. As The Post’s health policy guru Paige Winfield Cunningham laid out this week, more than two dozen association health plans have been developed since the administration issued its new rule, and so far they don’t look nearly as skimpy as experts predicted.

One analysis found that the plans offer benefits similar to those in most employer insurance and they haven’t attempted to circumvent Labor Department regulations forbidding them to discriminate against consumers with preexisting conditions. Another analysis examining Land O’ Lakes, a farmer-owned cooperative, found that the plan covered all of the ACA’s essential health benefits with substantially lower premiums than on the individual market.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office released a report Thursday that predicted coverage gains as a result of the new rule, in conjunction with another rule from the administration that makes it easier for consumers to buy short-term health insurance. (Such short-term plans were also, perhaps more legitimately, criticized for offering “junk” plans.) The CBO projects that, as a result of these two rules, an estimated 5 million people will enroll in either a short-term plan or an association health plan every year over the next decade, including more than 1 million people annually who were previously uninsured. The CBO states that most of the movement (around three-quarters) will be due to association health plans.

The CBO acknowledged that these rules will likely raise premiums for other insurance markets by roughly 3 percent. But, in terms of insurance plans on the ACA exchanges, the report also notes that federal subsidies will defray much of those higher costs.

It’s entirely reasonable to be skeptical of Trump’s true intention for expanding association health plans, given his promise to “let Obamacare implode.” Perhaps Trump simply wanted to use his executive power to throw the exchanges into chaos after Congress failed to repeal the ACA last year. But so far, it seems these plans could work exactly as his administration promised: by helping offer coverage options for middle-income families who are making too much to qualify for federal ACA subsidies but are still struggling to afford premiums.

And now that Congress has done away with the ACA’s mandate to buy insurance, it’s difficult to imagine families moving over to association health plans solely to fulfill the mandate at a cheaper cost. Without that mandate, these “skimpier” plans still have to prove to families that their coverage is worthwhile.

None of this means these plans are off the hook. Health policy experts should continue to scrutinize these plans and make sure that they’re providing meaningful coverage and not committing fraud, as they’ve been known to do in the past.

Nor do association health plans absolve the Trump administration of its assault on American health care. Trump still owns the loss of health coverage that accrued over the past year. Whatever the association health plans contribute toward getting Americans coverage must be weighed against the damage done by other changes from the administration, such as allowing states to add work requirements for Medicaid.

But we should give credit where credit is due. The goal is, and always will be, to attain universal coverage. So long as the United States has its hodgepodge of private and public health-care policies, we should at least keep an open mind about how association health plans can help us attain it.
Click to expand...

LINK

Another WaPo article admitting to being wrong about the AHP's. But the article ends by poo-pooing the end of the individual mandate.

Hopefully, Trump can take this a step further and allow AHP's for non-employee organizations. AHP's for AARP members would be a huge step forward.

revgen, Feb 7, 2019

#1338

KareemtheGreat33 and sirronstuff like this.
davriver209 - Rookie -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

770

Likes Received:

655

Trophy Points:

93

Occupation:

Police Officer

Location:

Stockton, CA

Offline

The only role the govt should play in healthcare is little to none. Privatize the whole thing, and just make a playing field that’s fair for consumers and providers

davriver209, Feb 10, 2019

#1339

JohnnyComeLately2k6 and revgen like this.
John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

6,590

Likes Received:

15,641

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

CEO - Big Baller Brand

Offline

Any thoughts on Jussie and the fake hate crime by Trump supporters?

I read he was charged with making a false police report tonight.

Big picture, he's very lucky there were no riots or retaliation for his sick lies.

John3:16, Feb 20, 2019

#1340

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 67 of 147

Share This Page