Mediaboss Marketing

Members of the conservative congressional Freedom Caucus vow to defeat the GOP health care bill. (Inform)

The GOP House health care plan has lots of moving parts, but dont fret. We at PolitiFact have been analyzing the legislation since its release.

Heres what you need to know.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the GOP bill, the American Health Care Act, actually retains some important parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Staying in place are provisions that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for a pre-existing health problem, like cancer, and a provision that prohibits insurance companies from raising premiums based on a persons health. Kids can continue to stay on their parents health insurance until they turn 26. Insurance marketplaces where people browse for coverage stay in place. And regarding Medicare, Republicans retain long-range spending limits that they once railed against.

The Republican bill also continues to subsidize premiums to make insurance more affordable, but the size of those subsidies and who gets them changes significantly. The Congressional Budget Office said the average subsidy would be about 60 percent of what people would get under Obamacare. This part of the GOP plan delivers one of the top two spending reduction moves in the overall bill, the CBO said.

To help people who buy insurance on their own, the American Health Care Act uses refundable tax credits based on the following schedule:

Under age 30: $2,000

Between 30 and 39: $2,500

Between 40 and 49: $3,000

Between 50 and 59: $3,500

Over age 60: $4,000

No household would get more than $14,000 worth of credits and the credits taper off for single filers making over $75,000 and joint filers making over $150,000.

The GOP bill makes one other key change that affects premiums. It would allow insurance companies to charge older people up to five times more than younger ones. Under Obamacare, the limit is three times more. Combine that with the new subsidy approach and, by the CBOs estimate, the impact on older, poorer Americans would be large.

A 64-year-old making $26,500 would be responsible for $14,600 in premiums under the American Health Care Act. With the Affordable Care Act, the same person would pay $1,700. A 40-year-old making the same amount would also pay more, but his or her bill would go from the same $1,700 to $2,400 under the GOP bill.

Republicans counter that the CBO analysis fails to take into account future GOP plans to change the health care system through overhauling regulations and additional legislation.

Aside from premiums, Obamacare offered cost-sharing to defray the out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles and co-pays, for people making between 100 and 250 percent of federal poverty. The American Health Care Act eliminates that additional assistance.

Another big change in the American Health Care Act is the end of the insurance mandate. Today, nearly everyone must buy insurance or face a tax penalty. The Republicans do away with that, although their bill would allow insurance companies to charge a one-year 30 percent premium fee for those who had failed to buy insurance when they could have.

Big changes for Medicaid

The bills Medicaid provisions deliver the other large basket of savings for the federal budget. One of the key balancing acts for Republicans involves the 31 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare to include people making up to to 138 percent of federal poverty. The standard cut off is 100 percent.

Part of the deal was Washington would cover at least 90 percent of the costs for people in the expansion group. The typical federal match is more in the 50 to 75 percent range. The American Health Care Act takes several steps to eliminate the higher rate.

States that havent expanded Medicaid by March 1, 2017, would not be able to get the more generous federal match if they expand Medicaid eligibility. Those that had expanded would see the higher match end as of January 2020, with one exception: The bigger federal share would continue for anyone in the expansion group as of December 2019, so long as that person never had a break in eligibility longer than one month.

2020 marks another game changer in Medicaid. That year federal payment to states would shift to a per person basis with limits on the growth in those payments going forward. Alternatively, states would have the option to shift to a block grant approach, but just for the non-expansion participants. A block is what it sounds like -- a lump sum payment that is independent of the number of people in the Medicaid program or the cost of their care. Either way, the changes put more on the shoulders of the states, either to control costs or raise taxes.

Lastly, states would have the option to impose a Medicaid work requirement for anyone who isnt pregnant, disabled or elderly.

Tax changes

At the same time the House bill cuts spending, it also cuts revenue for the federal government. Obamacare helped pay to cover the poor and working poor by taxing wealthier Americans, insurance companies and medical device makers. The Republican bill does away with all of those as of January 2017.

Taken together, the most valuable of the tax cuts are the ones for individual taxpayers making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. They have been paying more in Medicare taxes and another charge called the net-investment tax. The combined total tax reduction is more than $275 billion over a 10-year period, according to the CBO.

The American Health Care Act also increases tax incentives for Health Savings Accounts and makes more health care expenses tax deductible.

Other important elements

The American Health Care Act creates a $100 billion fund over nine years to help states cover a range of contingencies, including caring for the most expensive patients, lowering the premiums and out-of-pocket costs for people 50 to 64 years old and other health care related expenses.

The bill also aims to prevent government funding for abortion. It bans all money for Planned Parenthood and blocks the use of tax credits to pay for insurance plans that include abortion or abortion services.

For states that choose the Medicaid block grant option, family planning would no longer be a mandatory covered service.

For anyone who wants all the details, we recommend the side-by-side comparison work of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Share the Facts

7

A cheat sheet

What's in the American Health Care Act?

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

03/22/2017

Original post:
PolitiFact's guide to the Republican health care bill - PolitiFact

Hawaii Rep. Beth Fukumoto talks to reporters about why she's leaving the Republican Party on March 22, 2017, in Honolulu. Cathy BussewitzAP

(HONOLULU) A Hawaii lawmaker who says she was pressured to give up her leadership post at the statehouse after criticizing President Donald Trump resigned Wednesday from the Republican Party.

Rep. Beth Fukumoto said members of the GOP refused to oppose racism and sexism including a suggestion by Trump to create a Muslim registry during his campaign.

"As a Japanese-American whose grandparents had to destroy all of their Japanese artifacts and items and bury them in the backyard to avoid getting taken and interned, how could I not have said anything?" Fukumoto asked. "And how could my party have not said anything?"

Fukumoto was voted out of her post as House Minority Leader in February after calling Trump a bully in a speech at the Women's March in Honolulu, saying many of his remarks were racist and sexist and had no place in the Republican Party.

Since then, she sought feedback from her constituents about leaving the GOP and said three-quarters of the more than 470 letters she received supported the move.

She said she agrees with many Democratic positions on affordable housing and equitable taxes, and hopes to join that party.

Hawaii Democratic Party leader Tim Vandeveer said Democrats will give Fukumoto a fair shake, but some members are concerned about her past voting record on civil rights and women's issues.

"Changing political parties is not like changing jackets, just because the weather's better on our side of the street," Vandeveer said.

Fukumoto voted against same-sex marriage when it came before the Legislature in 2013. She said Wednesday she voted that way to represent the majority of her constituents, but if she was voting on her own, she would have voted yes.

On reproductive rights, Fukumoto said she does not believe in abortion in all three trimesters but does not want to rescind individuals' rights once they have been granted.

"We have choice laws in Hawaii and I'm not looking to repeal those laws," she said.

Members of the Democratic Party on Oahu will ultimately decide whether to accept Fukumoto, but the process could take months, Vandeveer said.

Fukumoto said she's received letters of encouragement from Democrats and Republicans in nearly every state.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz welcomed her to the party in a tweet, saying he's proud of her courage.

Republican state Rep. Cynthia Thielen, a Fukumoto ally who voted against removing her from leadership, said, "the tiny party's brand is further weakened and its relevance to the wider, diverse constituency looks bleak."

With Fukumoto's departure, Hawaii has just five Republican state representatives and no Republican state senators.

Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Fritz Rohlfing declined to immediately comment because he had not yet reviewed Fukumoto's resignation letter.

Read more:
Hawaii Republican Resigns From Party After Criticizing Trump - TIME

NPR

House Set To Vote On Republican Health Care Bill NPR A vote on the Republican health care plan in the House is scheduled for Thursday. Some very conservative Republicans say they'll vote against it. Facebook; Twitter. Google+. Email. Get The Stories That Grabbed Us This Week. Delivered to your inbox ...

Visit link:
House Set To Vote On Republican Health Care Bill - NPR

New York Times

How the Rich Gain and the Poor Lose Under the Republican Health Care Plan New York Times An average family making more than $200,000 a year would gain $5,640 while a family making less than $10,000 a year would lose $1,420 if Congress passes the health care plan proposed by House Republicans, according to a new analysis. and more »

Go here to read the rest:
How the Rich Gain and the Poor Lose Under the Republican Health Care Plan - New York Times

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the lawmaker overseeing one of the main investigations of the Trump-Russia scandal, went rogue on Wednesday when he told reporters that a source had provided him information that indicates that the US intelligence community collected intelligence on Trump associatespossibly Donald Trump himselfin the course of authorized surveillance aimed at other targets. Nunes, who chairs the House intelligence committee, said this happened during the transition period and was unrelated Russia's meddling in the 2016 campaign or to Trump associates' connections to Russia. Without revealing any real evidence of wrongdoing, Nunes suggested that something amiss had occurred when the identity of these Trump-related people were noted in reports disseminated in intelligence channels.

Nunes' theatrical press conferencesnot one but two!indicated he was perhaps more concerned about politics than national security and the protection of civil liberties. At his first presser, held in the Capitol, Nunes described the materials he had been given as "normal incidental collection" and "all legally collected foreign intelligence." Nonetheless, he said, he was "alarmed" by the fact that some of the Trump associates had been "unmasked" in the reports. ("Incidental collection" refers to Americans whose communications are monitored not because they are the target of the surveillance, but because the person they are communicating with is the target. The identities of these non-targeted Americans generally are supposed to remain hidden in intelligence reports, but there are rules that allow their identities to be unmasked in such reports when that provides needed context.)

"The job of the committee is to do oversight of the executive branch, not to bring them into their investigation or tip them off to things they may be looking at. I've got to believe that other members of the committee are horrified at what they just witnessed."

Still, Nunes said he was rushing to the White Housewithout even having spoken to the Democratic members of his committee about thisto brief Trump immediately. "They need to see it," Nunes told reporters before he dashed off to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But when asked whether Trump was specifically and intentionally targeteda sensational claim that would bolster Trump's widely debunked March 4 tweets accusing former President Barack Obama of "wire tapping"Nunes said he wasn't sure. In fact, nothing Nunes said would back up Trump's tweets. He was referring to legally authorized surveillance conducted under a court order that targeted a foreign intelligence source but that happened to also pick up Americansnot an uncommon occurrence.

At his White House press conferencefollowing his meeting with Trumpa reporter asked, "But just to clarify, this is not intentional spying on Donald Trump?"

"I have no idea," Nunes replied. "We won't know that until we get to the bottom of: Did people ask for the unmasking of additional names within the president-elect's transition team?"

This was a disingenuous response. Nunes had earlier acknowledged he was only referring to officially authorized surveillance, which could not be ordered by a president. (There's a whole process through which the FBI and other intelligence agencies go to a special court to receive permission to conduct surveillance.) Yet here was Nunes slyly hinting that well, just maybe, this would back up Trump's fact-free charge. This was the tell. If he were only concerned with the unmasking of Americans caught up in incidental collection, Nunes could have instructed his committee staff to examine the matter and worked with Democrats on the committee on how best to handle the matter. Instead, he ran to the White House to share his information with the fellow who is the subject of an investigation Nunes is overseeing. Nunes was pulling a political stunt to provide Trump some cover.

And Trump took the cover. After Nunes' briefing, the president told reporters that he felt "somewhat" vindicated by what Nunes reported to the public on Wednesday. "I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found." The revelations, though, don't vindicate Trump at all; he accused President Obama of directing the phones in Trump Tower to be tapped in October. Nunes' new information refers to incidental collection after the election. Trump compared the situation to "Nixon/Watergate," and called Obama a "Bad (or sick) guy!" Nunes made clear the surveillance was legal. Trump suggested Obama had somehow broken the law.

Adding to the political nature of what Nunes did is the fact that he didn't consult with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House committee, before he briefed Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, reporters (twice), and the White House.

"I'm going to be meeting with Mr. Schiff at some point to talk about where we go with this investigation," Nunes told reporters when the issue came up after he briefed the president. "I had to brief the speaker first, then I had to talk to the CIA director, the NSA director, and I'm waiting to talk to the FBI directorThen I went and talked to all of youand then I voted, and then I said I was coming here to brief the president, and then I'll be glad to talk to others later."

Schiff issued a statement Wednesday afternoon slamming Nunes' actions.

"This information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been," Schiff said. "Indeed it appears that committee members only learned about this when [Nunes] discussed the matter this afternoon with the press. [Nunes] also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation. I have expressed my grave concerns with [Nunes] that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way."

Schiff added that Nunes told him that most of the names within the intelligence reports were, in fact, masked, "but that he could still figure out the probable identity of the parties." This means that the intelligence agencies followed the law, Schiff said, and "moreover, the unmasking of a US Person's name is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information."

Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.), accused Nunes of leaking classified information.

Jeremy Bash, who formerly served as chief counsel for the Democrats on the committee, said Wednesday that what Nunes did was unprecedented and very concerning.

"I don't think in the 40 years of the committee's existence, since the post-Watergate-era reforms, with the Church and Pike committees that emerged from those scandals, I have never heard of a chairman of an oversight committee going to brief the president of the United States about concerns he has about things he's read in intelligence reports," Bash told MSNBC Wednesday afternoon. "The job of the committee is to do oversight of the executive branch, not to bring them into their investigation or tip them off to things they may be looking at. I've got to believe that other members of the committee are horrified at what they just witnessed."

Read the original post:
The Republican in Charge of the Trump-Russia Probe Just Pulled a Crazy Political Stunt - Mother Jones