My friends, you are welcome.
Some few will recall the inaugural post, here, was a very simple: “Welcome to the mad ravings of Perrin Lovett! I am proud to present my new blog. Let’s see how it develops. More to come soon!”
The soon, the first substantive post came four days later, on June 28, 2012: The Shared Responsibility TAX: ObamaCare a hit with the Supremes…
Time will certainly cure the injustice done today. In 500 or 1,000 years the Unaffordable TaxCare Act will be but a lousy footnote in history. …
Thanks to my relentless pounding of the issue, it only took 6.5 years. President Trump, via his tax cuts, took the teeth, of which Roberts and Co. lusting so greatly, out of the ACA. Now, a federal judge in Texas has declared the whole law unconstitutional and invalid.
A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.
The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. But it will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the survival of the landmark health law and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans, protections for people with pre-existing conditions and much more.
In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”
This is the fulfillment of Roberts’s idiotic logic from 2012. If it’s a tax, then it’s only a tax. Take that away and you’re left with nothing. Great.
There will be, maybe already is, an appeal. If it reaches The Nine (again), expect legalistic gymnastics to re-justify the Congressional criminality. However, I fear – I don’t think – it will go that far. While praising the ACA’s demise, The Trump is also calling for a STRONG new law. He’ll probably get one, probably next year, by working with the Dems. They, unlike the idiot party, know how to get things done.
But, if only for today, let’s all celebrate the end of a monstrosity, a pre-existing condition we can all live without.
The more things change … the more they make one want to run off screaming into the mountains and never return. And they stay the same. But, worse maybe – worse because of all the ignored history and experience.
We’re told that socialism is coming to America. (It’s been lurking here to some time but whatever). For example, they’re pushing Bernie-Care. It’s not just the junior senator from Vermont with the whacky hair and the whackier ideas. Elizabeth Warren, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, [__Insert Democrat Name Here__] – they’re all abuzz about socialized medicine. This is to be something beyond the [Un]Affordable [No]Care Act; it’s intended as true
Soviet Semashka British NHS-style, single-payer, socialized, communized “care.” Said care would likely consist of living in a box, paying exorbitant taxes, while some administrative flunky tells you that your emergency surgery has been postponed again and your doctor has defected to Mexico. But, anyway…
Courtesy of ObamaCare, here come a new round of double-digit premium increases:
Obamacare plan premiums may increase an average of 45 percent in Florida next year due to health care insurers rate hike requests, according to Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation.
There are six insurers in Florida selling plans on and off the exchanges in 2018 including Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Celtic Insurance Company, Florida Health Care Plan, Health First Commercial Plans, Health Options, and Molina Healthcare of Florida.
Molina Healthcare requested the highest rate increase of 71.2 percent. Individuals with this coverage can expect their monthly premium to increase from $402 to $688.
“Consumers enrolled in a silver on-exchange plan that do not receive a premium subsidy will have the option of purchasing a similar off-exchange silver plan without this extra cost,” the office said. “Plans other than the on-exchange silver plans will increase an average of 18 percent.”
“In 2013, an unsubsidized plan comparable to an existing silver plan would cost a family of four an average of $7,200,” the report states. “In 2018, the average unsubsidized cost for the same family totals $17,000.”
Thank God the GOP is on the case. Give them another eight years. Or 80. Never.
Here’s the current rumor about the great tax reforms:
Top White House and GOP leaders have agreed to raise the lowest individual tax rate from 10 to 12 percent, paired with doubling the standard deduction, 5 senior Republicans tell us.
Why this matters: Trump intends to sell the proposal tomorrow as a populist “tax cut.” But as recently as yesterday top Republicans on Capitol Hill were nervous as they got word that Trump wasn’t entirely thrilled with the product that had been hashed out in immense secrecy for weeks (with two members of his administration, Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin, working with GOP leaders.)
Late last night Republicans close to the process felt more confident that Trump had come around to supporting the framework — despite his misgivings about the corporate rate not being low enough and about the political risks of raising the lowest rate (even though many more people will now pay no tax because of the increased deduction, meaning they can accurately call it a tax cut for the middle class as well as for the wealthy.)
Big picture details: Republicans plan to collapse the number of brackets from seven to three. The standard deduction would almost double to $12,000 for a single filer and $24,000 for married couples, meaning Trump can accurately argue that many more low income earners would pay no tax under his plan. As we previously reported, the top tax bracket would fall from 39.6% to 35%.
Yes, but: Trump won’t go into great detail when he talks about the tax plan tomorrow in Indiana, leaving plenty of negotiating room for the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate. As of yesterday morning Trump hadn’t signed off on the final product, and as with all policy announcements involving Trump, Republican Hill leaders will be holding their breaths to some extent until the president actually utters the words. Speaking with conservative groups at the White House yesterday Trump, reassured them of his commitment when he gushed about the “tax cut” he was planning to unveil.
Technically, rate-wise, this is an increase for the poor and a cut for the wealthy. In reality, if any of this is true, it will mean less of an actual burden for all. That might make sense – more sense than the GOP Obama-Trump-Ryan-GrahamCare
repeal replace amendment meddling whatever, which has once again failed.
We’ll know more tomorrow or next year or, certainly, by the mid-terms. Then, suddenly, all the failure will be touted as smashing success. This is why many other countries have more than two parties.
Another year, another round of massive price increases.
Millions of people who buy individual health insurance policies and get no financial help from the Affordable Care Act are bracing for another year of double-digit premium increases, and their frustration is boiling over.
Some are expecting premiums for 2018 to rival a mortgage payment.
What they pay is tied to the price of coverage on the health insurance markets created by the Obama-era law, but these consumers get no protection from the law’s tax credits, which cushion against rising premiums. Instead they pay full freight and bear the brunt of market problems such as high costs and diminished competition.
On Capitol Hill, there’s a chance that upcoming bipartisan hearings by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., can produce legislation offering some relief. But it depends on Republicans and Democrats working together despite a seven-year health care battle that has left raw feelings on both sides.
The most exposed consumers tend to be middle-class people who don’t qualify for the law’s income-based subsidies. They include early retirees, skilled tradespeople, musicians, self-employed professionals, business owners, and people such as Sharon Thornton, whose small employer doesn’t provide health insurance.
Insurance premiums to rival mortgages. Thank God we have dedicated servants like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan fighting hard for
the banks and insurers us. They will surely fix this. And soon. Hold your breath.
Slow, torturous, idiotic, pitiful failure.
Totally in charge and utterly impotent. The Dems don’t even have a mouthpiece at present – not that they need one now. And those who voted LP, etc. threw their votes away? Maybe it’s time for an Alt-Right party.
This is the most pitiful crowd of governing idiots ever assembled. Tacitus’s recitation of Tiberius’s mocking condemnation of the Roman Senate seems kind and weak by comparison to what must be said of this rabble.
I miss the old days, when Republicans stood for repealing Obamacare. Republicans across the country and every member of my caucus campaigned on repeal – often declaring they would tear out Obamacare “root and branch!”
Now too many Republicans are falling all over themselves to stuff hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars into a bill that doesn’t repeal Obamacare and feeds Big Insurance a huge bailout.
Obamacare regulations? Still here. Taxes? Many still in place, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.
Insurance company bailouts? Those, too. Remember when Republicans complained about Obamacare’s risk corridors? Remember when we called the corridors nothing more than insurance company bailouts? I remember when one prominent GOP candidate during a presidential debate explicitly called out the Obamacare risk corridors as a bailout to insurance companies. Does anyone else?
Now, the Senate GOP plan being put forward is chock full of insurance bailout money – to the tune of nearly $200 billion. Republicans, present company excluded, now support the idea of lowering your insurance premium by giving a subsidy to the insurance company.
Remarkable. If the GOP now supports an insurance stabilization fund to lower insurance prices, maybe they now support a New Car stabilization fund to lower the price of cars. Or maybe the GOP would support an iPhone stabilization fund to lower the price of phones.
The possibilities are limitless once you accept that the federal government should subsidize prices. I remember when Republicans favored the free choice of the marketplace.
The Senate Obamacare bill does not repeal Obamacare. I want to repeat that so everyone realizes why I’ll vote “no” as it stands now:
The Senate Obamacare bill does not repeal Obamacare. Not even close.
In fact, the Senate GOP bill codifies and likely expands many aspects of Obamacare.
Thank you, again, Senator Paul. Much like his father and, unfortuantely, probably doomed to Ron’s effectiveness. There is no hope in either conservatism or in the utterly failed GOP.
All we have left? Applewhite/AP.
My Republican friends, please, please, please, please remember this (and more) come the next election – I’ll be here to remind you. Kindly retire the mantra that you, “have to vote Republican or else the Democrats will win.” You did and they have. The GOP, by this measure at least, is the worst offender of the two.
Just pathetic. Men not even fit for slavery.
American proponents of communism – let’s call it what it is – frequently point with enthusiasm to nations with national government healthcare. The UK’s NHS is a usual suspect.
On the whole, such a system just might be able to deliver more consistent, if not better, care than the current U.S. Obama-Trump-Ryan-insurance cabal
racket approach. It certainly couldn’t cost any more.
However, it would inevitably lead to cases like this:
The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son.
After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity”.
Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, had raised more than £1.3 million to take Charlie to the U.S. for partially untested, “experimental” treatment, which they claim could save his life.
Britain has a socialised healthcare system, and despite the fact his parents raised private funds for treatment, the courts could have acted as what some in U.S. politicians call a “death panel”, decided who is and who is not worth saving.
“We strongly feel as his parents that Charlie should get a chance to try these medications. He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain,” the mother wrote on a crowd-funding page.
Die with dignity, peasants!
So, your child is terminally ill. Death is certain. There’s a potential treatment which might work in another country. You have the financial means to try the treatment. You want to save your child, if that’s at all possible; you want to try the experimental way. What’s the risk? What’s the harm?
The risk is to the centralized power of your ever-benevolent government. The harm is that you might use freedom to solve a problem or simply that you might attempt to do so. That does little for the collective. It does nothing to keep certain people in positions of life-or-death power.
Therefore, rather than live free and make decisions for your family, you instead succumb to the agony of Nazi-style eugenics. The unfit will die. But, in England, they get to die with dignity!
In America, ObamaCare was put into place (and TrumpCare is debated [quietly]) for two overt reasons: 1) give more power to Washington; 2) prop up the leaching insurance syndicate. The covert reason for both these doomed-to-a-less-than-dignified death was(is): pave the way for universal government healthcare, like the NHS.
It’s coming, like it or not – probably within ten years or so. There are ways a partial government system could be made to work – maybe and not with much hope – in the USA. The Swiss and the Kiwis have systems that, while under state mandate, rely almost exclusively on privatization. They work extremely well. That probably wouldn’t work at all, here, due to demographic differences and the base evil of D.C.
Some with surely get their birth control pills and trans vegetable surguries for free under the coming programs. They may even find a way to scheme free tattoos into the graft (tattoo removal for the remorseful grifters). Others will surely watch a child die, with dignity or otherwise.
In the wake of such a program, and following the not-so-long-after collapse, we should look for fitting solutions to those problematic persons who give such gifts of dignity. Nature would seem to dictate rope.
Yesterday, while watching the whole-lot-o-nothing of the GOP attempt to … do whatever with healthcare, several things occurred to me. First, these people are pathetic idiots. Second, they, largely, have no concept of good health or medical needs. Then I concluded, again, that their slow, torturous legal wrangling isn’t concerned with keeping anyone healthy at all; it’s a bail out or subsidy program for the insurance
cartel industry and the corporate medical cabal professions.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe must have had similar thoughts lately. He posted a proposed solution to the dread problems of healthcare in America for Mises (here, via LRC); it’s an essay of sorts from 1993 and The Free Market. Yes, it’s all free market based – real freedom in the really free markets.
It’s true that the US health-care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.
It’s time to get serious about health-care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removing unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:
Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.
Here’s a summary of his four points:
1. Kill the licensing racket. It does nothing except add layers of complexity and expense.
2. Free the market for procedures, drugs, and devices. No more FDA.
3. Completely deregulate the health-insurance business. Allow the invisible hand to operate efficiently.
4. Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. You subsidize what you want more of; pay for more sickness, get more sickness. And more, waste, expense, fraud, etc.
These are pure Austrian principles. They are not that radical. The implementation would represent a return to the traditional American way of healthcare, departed not so very long ago – the days when a hospital stay cost hundreds, not tens of thousands of dollars. It would mean addressing the root problems rather than a band-aid for the superficial surface. It means common sense.
Ferre Bee Keeper.
Those are the reasons it would work – just as it did for most of American history (150-ish years) and almost all of human history (10,000 years, maybe). These are also the same reasons why the Congress and the industry will not go along. They don’t want to fix problems, especially problems of their own making. That would rather point out their useless, evil existence.
So, it’s not going to happen – any time soon or in the remains of the USA. Just know that the solutions are available.
A new poll indicates Americans, of all political stripes have very low levels of trust in the medical industry, government, and most major institutions. I’m planning to cover that, in-depth, a little later today.