Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

House Republicans Move to Gut Bank Regulations New York Times With only the support of Republicans, the House Financial Services Committee voted in favor of the Financial Choice Act, a bill that would gut central financial regulations created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The bill is expected to ... Republicans advance Dodd-Frank rewrite in HouseWashington Examiner Republican-led House panel votes to gut Dodd-Frank financial lawLos Angeles Times The Great Recession hurt millions. Now, Republicans want to risk a repeatThe Guardian Financial Services Committee - U.S. House of Representatives -The Hill -Financial Services Committee - U.S. House of Representatives all 257 news articles »

Read this article:
House Republicans Move to Gut Bank Regulations - New York Times

(Bastien Inzaurralde,Dalton Bennett,Jayne Orenstein/The Washington Post)

House Republicans on Thursday narrowly passed a controversial bill to overhaul the nations health-care system, claiming a major victory even as the measure faces an uncertain fate in the closely divided U.S. Senate.

Under intense pressure to show they can govern and to make good on their promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Republicans pushed through the bill after adopting a last-minute change that earned it just enough votes to pass. However, the House version fell significantly short of the GOPs long-held goals, making major dents in large portions of the current law but not outright repealing it.

The bumpy, months-long process that led to Thursdays vote also violated some of the GOPs own promises on how they would govern.

The measure proceeded without the benefit of an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office of its cost and impact on insurance coverage, and it did so after many Republicans openly acknowledged that they hadnt read the bill. President Trump also promised insurance for everybody, which the measure will not achieve.

The American Health Care Act, which passed by a vote of 217 to 213, nonetheless represented a significant if incomplete political victory for President Trump, who has struggled to secure legislative wins early in his presidency. The vote was also an important win for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who has spent years trying to dismantle Obamacare but has struggled in recent months to unite an ideologically divided caucus.

(Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

The House bill would shift power to states to set important health insurance rules. And it would end the ACAs subsidies for eligible people who buy health plans through marketplaces created under the law, creating and substituting new tax credits. It also would rescind several taxes that have helped pay for the law, including ones imposed on Americans with high incomes, health insurers, medical devices and tanning salons.

Among the bills more contentious provisions is one that would allow states to let insurers return to their old practice of charging more to customers with preexisting medical problems a practice that current law prohibits.

Republicans claimed credit for taking a first step toward meeting their promise with a televised celebration in the White House Rose Garden which Trump attended after postponing a long-planned event in New York with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea.

Were going to get this passed through the Senate Im so confident, Trump said.

This has really brought the Republican Party together, he added.

[What is in the Republican health-care bill? Your questions answered.]

Democrats, however, held their own celebration of sorts immediately after the vote, waving to Republicans on the House floor and chanting, Hey, hey, hey, goodbye an apparent taunt suggesting that Republicans would lose elections next year as a result of the vote.

Before the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that while many Americans cant name their member of Congress, Thursdays vote would earn their ire.

You will glow in the dark on this one, Pelosi warned. So dont walk the plank, especially unnecessarily.

The political positioning over the bill started immediately, with the GOP claiming that it would lower premiums and increase access to health insurance and Democrats casting it as a huge transfer of wealth because it would eliminate many of the taxes imposed under the Affordable Care Act, including on wealthy Americans.

And the nations health insurance industry, which has been lobbying for an aspect of the bill that would eliminate an ACA tax on insurers, nevertheless reacted critically to the House vote. The legislation needs important improvements to protect low- and moderate-income families, said Marilyn Tavenner, president of the trade group Americas Health Insurance Plans. She cited changes the bill would make to Medicaid and to tax credits for older Americans who buy coverage on their own, as well as lingering uncertainty over the fate of an ACA subsidy that helps nearly 6 million Americans with insurance co-pays and deductibles.

Every Democrat and 20 Republicans voted against the measure, the latter a mix of ardent conservatives upset that the bill didnt fully repeal Obamacare and members from suburban swing districts worried about the political fallout. The wide-ranging interpretations of whether the bill would gut the current law or wouldnt are likely to fuel the nature and intensity of that fallout.

For instance, the measure does not eliminate the ACAs requirement that most Americans carry health insurance, although the penalty for not having coverage would be erased. In its place, insurers would be allowed to charge 30 percent higher premiums for one year to customers who have had a gap in coverage of roughly two months or more.

Medicaid would also be transformed in two ways. For the 31 states that expanded the safety-net program under the ACA to include people with slightly higher incomes, the government would immediately stop paying for anyone new to enroll under the expansion and would eventually stop the extra federal money that came with the expansion. Starting in a few years, Medicaid would also end its half-century tradition as an entitlement program in which the government pays a certain share for each person who enrolls, switching instead to a cap with a fixed amount per person.

The vote capped a haphazard, months-long process that began before Trumps inauguration but quickly became mired in intraparty disagreement over how Republicans should make good on the campaign promise they had been running and winning on since 2010, when then-President Obamas signature domestic policy achievement became law.

In March, Ryan pulled an earlier version of the measure after it became clear that he did not have the votes to pass it primarily because of strong opposition from the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

After a two-week Easter recess, however, negotiations resumed, and Republicans came up with a new proposal that garnered support from Freedom Caucus members by allowing states to eliminate parts of the ACA that require insurers to include specific essential health benefits in health plans sold to individuals and small business and to set their own coverage requirements or none at all. The new version also added the language affecting customers with preexisting medical conditions.

The new proposal, however, threatened support among members of the Houses more moderate Tuesday Group. That, in turn, prompted yet another tweak this week to add $8 billion to help people with preexisting conditions pay for their health-care costs.

The amendment prompted powerful objections from a wide range of health policy experts and advocates, who questioned whether the amount of money was sufficient to help all the Americans who would need it.

It also revived questions about the measures fate in the Senate, where widespread disagreement remains among Republicans about how to proceed on health care. First, the Senates parliamentarian or rules-keeper cannot review the legislation and determine the rules of debate until the CBO submits its official estimate, which could take several more weeks to complete, according to congressional aides. That would mean that official Senate debate on the bill could not begin until June.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the second-ranking Republican, declined to commit to a schedule for when the Senate will begin consideration of the House health care rewrite.

There is no timeline, he said. When we get 51 senators well vote.

But other senators made clear that the process would be more deliberative in the upper chamber of Congress.

A bill finalized yesterday, has not been scored, amendments not allowed, and 3 hours final debate should be viewed with caution, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted on Thursday before the House vote.

House Republicans insisted that they were not ramming their health-care bill through without giving members a chance to absorb it as they accused Democrats of doing when the ACA was passed in 2010.

[Which Republicans are putting the health-care bill in jeopardy this time]

Democrats put a 2,000-page bill on the table they knew no one had time to read, and were not doing that, said Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.).

This is a rough and tumble exercise that the Founding Fathers anticipated, he added.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said he was willing to abandon his previous demands that leaders allow hearings and discussion of the legislation because members had opportunities to weigh in on amendments over the past several days. The decision marked a measurable shift for hard-line Freedom Caucus members, who have insisted that leaders give them ample time to read legislation and weigh in before a bill comes up for a vote.

I have read the bill no less than six times, Meadows said. If they havent read the bill it is because they havent spent the time to do that.

Republicans also disregarded the absence of a final estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Congresss official scorekeeper. Several said that last-minute changes to the legislation were unlikely to significantly change the final estimates.

Were still comfortable were saving billions and billions of dollars, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.).

Meadows, who struggled for weeks to rally his caucus around the measure, said the Senate will make changes he might not necessarily back.

Among other concerns, GOP senators from states that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA worry about rollbacks to that program included in the House bill. Then theres a trio of conservative senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who often buck GOP leaders. With just a 52-48 advantage over Democrats, Senate Republicans have a smaller margin for error than their House counterparts.

The House measure may run into other procedural roadblocks in the Senate. The original proposal initially left many of the ACAs insurance regulations alone with the goal of ensuring it would pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian but not all of them. The Houses version of the bill would undercut the ACAs insurance regulations even more. That might make it difficult for Republican senators to pass the measure under a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation, which is usually reserved for budget legislation.

Due to a series of resignations, Republicans needed just 216 votes to pass the bill, but left nothing to chance. Even Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), recovering from recent foot surgery, flew back to Washington against his doctors orders to vote for the bill.

It was a big important vote, and it was close. I didnt want to be the reason it failed, he told reporters.

While some Republicans were buoyant, others exhibited a palpable sense of relief that health care is off their plates at least for now.

It wasnt fun, said Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.).

Sean Sullivan, John Wagner, David Weigel, Kelsey Snell, Dino Grandoni, Elise Viebeck and Robert Costa contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Link:
House Republicans claim a major victory with passage of health-care overhaul - Washington Post

New York Times

Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the GOP Health Care Bill to Finally Pass New York Times Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the G.O.P. Health Care Bill to Finally Pass. By MATTHEW BLOCH, HAEYOUN PARK and ADAM PEARCE MAY 4, 2017. House Republicans passed a long-anticipated health care overhaul bill, more than a month after ... Lawmakers plot to oust Tuesday Group leader over health billThe Hill all 64 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Which Republicans Flipped to Allow the GOP Health Care Bill to Finally Pass - New York Times

As the vote on healthcare was taking place in the U.S. House , activists were already protesting at the state Capitol in Phoenix, on May 4, 2017. Tom Tingle/azcentral.com

Freshman Rep. Andy Biggs, who represents a conservative congressional district east of Phoenix, was the only Arizona Republican to vote against the legislation, joining Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva,Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema in opposing the bill.(Photo: David Wallace/The Republic)

Arizona conservatives were largely on board Thursday with the House's passage of the American Health Care Act, a move that revived Republican hopes of repealing central parts of President Barack Obama's signature health-care law.

Freshman Rep. Andy Biggs, who represents a conservative congressional district east of Phoenix, was the only Arizona Republican to vote against the legislation, joining Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego, Raul Grijalva,Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema in opposing the bill.

Republican Reps. Trent Franks, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert, along with Rep. Martha McSally, went along with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on the legislation, which is a top priority of House GOP leaders and President Donald Trump.

MORE:What does the Republican Obamacare repeal bill actually do?

Biggs was one of 20 Republicans who voted "no" along with 193 Democrats.The House voted 217-213 to pass the bill.

In a statement explaining his vote, Biggs criticized the measure for leaving "the basic framework of Obamacare in place," and "even worse, I have seen no compelling evidence that the AHCA will offer substantive relief to Arizona families who have been crushed by devastatingly high health insurance premiums."

McSally, whose swing district's complexion ensures constant re-election pressures,was credited with a companion bill to eliminate the American Health Care Act's exemption for members of Congress and their staff.

I have seen no compelling evidence that the AHCA will offer substantive relief to Arizona families who have been crushed by devastatingly high health insurance premiums.

"This is not a perfect bill, but it is better than a failed system," McSally said, referring to Obama's Affordable Care Act.

McSally drew attention Thursday, after an Associated Press congressional correspondent, via Twitter, quoted her as using profanity to rally her fellow Republicans. McSally was said to have urged her colleagues to get this "(expletive) thing" done, per the AP reporter's tweet.

While he supported the bill, Gosar was measured in his praise of it.

"As a dentist impersonating a politician, I am going to tell Arizonans the truth about the updated version of the AHCA: This bill is NOT a full repeal, I repeat NOT a full repeal of Obamacare," Gosar said in a written statement."However, after working alongside my colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus, we have been able to secure Conservative, time-tested changes to the original version of the AHCA. These changes will immediately eliminate Obamacare taxes, lower health insurance premiums, offer more choices for Arizonans and begins the process of rebuilding a patient-centered market."

Schweikert was instrumental in an earlier amendment that would create a $15 billion federal risk-sharing program to help pay for coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and high-risk patients.

"Two Arizona Republicans played pivotal roles here," Biggs said of Schweikert and McSally's contributions.

Ryan and Trump suffered a political setback in March, when an anticipated House vote on an earlier version of the bill was canceled because of a lack of support from House conservatives.

The House-passed bill now faces an uncertain future in the GOP-controlled Senate.

"Let's face it, the Senate is often where great ideas go to get screwed-up," Schweikert said Thursday in an interview on Phoenix radio station KFYI-AM (550).

If you're like me, if you're asthmatic or something else you have, you get coverage. So if you hear someone using the term 'pre-existing condition, you're not going to get coverage,' they're lying to you.

Ryan and the Republicans touted the bill's new refundable tax credits to help people who don't get insurance via their employers; its changes to Medicaid that they say will make the program "flexible and responsive to those it was created to serve"; it boosts tax-free "Health Savings Accounts" to help people whose insurance plans carry high deductibles; and its defunding of Planned Parenthood, which provides women's health services including abortions.

House Democrats savaged the revised legislation as cruel and even deadly, saying, among other criticisms, that, unlike Obama's Affordable Care Act, it inadequately protects the tens of millions ofAmericans with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans addedanother $8 billion for patients who already have diseases such as cancer to the $130 billion already in the package. The gesture won over some Republicans who wereon the fence.

Ahead of the vote, Schweikert pushed back on claims that pre-existing conditions are not covered.

"If you're like me, if you're asthmatic or something else you have, you get coverage," Schweikert, a member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, said on KFYI. "So if you hear someone using the term 'pre-existing condition, you're not going to get coverage,' they're lying to you."

MORE:Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short

Despite the addition of the extra money for such conditions, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other critics on Thursday continued to blast the bill's provisions concerning pre-existing conditions as grossly insufficient.

In a written statement after the vote, Gallego said, "Millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, and those who keep it will incur higher out-of-pocket costs and face longer waiting periods for coverage. The GOP plan kills protections for people with pre-existing conditions, eviscerates Medicaid, and will leave veterans with fewer choices about where to seek care. Republicans should be prepared to be held accountable for their yes votes on this disastrous bill when the American people head to the ballot box in 2018."

O'Halleran, a freshman representative from northern Arizona, objected to the bill because he said it would put thousands of Arizonans at risk of losing coverage.

The expansion of Medicaid, which helps low-income working families get access to health care (is important to Arizona). If that gets cut, which this current bill proposes, it'll cost Arizona $5.6 billion over the next six years. Now that's huge.

The precursor version would have increased the number of uninsured people by 24 million in 2026, according toan analysisby the Congressional Budget Office. But House Republicans proceeded with the updated bill without getting an updated CBO analysis, which Pelosi said shows they are afraid of the facts.

"While the ACA is far from perfect, this replacement legislation does little to fix the problems our families are facing," O'Halleransaid in a written statement. "Arizonans with pre-existing conditions such as cancer or Alzheimers could lose coverage, and nothing has been done to stem the skyrocketing premiums our seniors will face or protect veteran care."

Speaking Wednesdayon radio station KTAR-FM (92.3), Sinema said, "Obamacare is not working in Arizona," where costs have soared,but that "the (Republicans') bill isn't good enough the way that it's written."

She said some parts of the Affordable Care Act areimportant to the state."For instance, the expansion of Medicaid, which helps low-income working families get access to health care," Sinema said in the radio interview. "If that gets cut, which this current bill proposes, it'll cost Arizona $5.6 billion over the next six years. Now that's huge."

After the vote, Sinema said she voted against the bill because it "jeopardizes the economic security of hardworking Arizona families."

Franks, the senior Republican in the state's House delegation,described the bill as landmark.

Passing the American Health Care Act is the start of our promise to 'repeal and replace'Obamacare," Franks said in his post-vote statement. "The AHCA moves us closer to a patient-centered system that meets the needs of more Americans better than under Obamacare. People with pre-existing conditions will be protected while allowing states greater flexibility to lower premiums and stabilize the insurance market."

McSally said she had worked to make the legislation better.

"I have voiced concerns, identified constructive improvements, prevented destructive additions, and ultimately secured victories for the vulnerable in our communities totaling $165 billion," she said in a statement after the vote.

Before the vote, Biggs reiterated that he opposed the American Health Care Act because "it is not a clean repeal of Obamacare" and that he is still committed to doing that.

Biggs submitted two amendments that were not included in the GOP package.He soughtto change the bill to let people buy health insurance across state lines. He also wanted to let states opt out of any Affordable Care Act or American Health Care Act provisions without getting a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services.

In an interview with The Arizona Republic, Biggs suggested he would have liked more time to work on the bill, which despite his opposition he called a dramatic improvement over the previous incarnation.

"I think there's a narrative out there that nothing's been happening, and so people get antsy, and they want to see something fast," Biggs said. "And legislating takes a while, especially legislating on something that is one-sixth of the entire economy."

READ MORE:

Trump executive order targets birth control, church involvement in politics

Court challenges to Trump policies may multiply

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2qJOPNJ

Read the original:
Arizona House Republicans except one on board with health bill - AZCentral.com

The Affordable Care Act took money from the rich to help pay for health insurance for the poor. The repeal bill passed by House Republicans would do the opposite. retrorocket/Getty Images/iStockphoto hide caption

The Affordable Care Act took money from the rich to help pay for health insurance for the poor. The repeal bill passed by House Republicans would do the opposite.

The health care bill passed by the House on Thursday is a win for the wealthy, in terms of taxes.

While the Affordable Care Act raised taxes on the rich to subsidize health insurance for the poor, the repeal-and-replace bill passed by House Republicans would redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars in the opposite direction. It would deliver a sizable tax cut to the rich, while reducing government subsidies for Medicaid recipients and those buying coverage on the individual market.

Tax hikes reversed

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is funded in part through higher taxes on the rich, including a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent payroll tax. Both of these taxes apply only to people earning more than $200,000 (or couples making more than $250,000). The GOP replacement bill would eliminate these taxes, although the latest version leaves the payroll tax in place through 2023.

The House bill would also repeal the tax penalty for those who fail to buy insurance as well as various taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. The GOP bill also delays the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end insurance policies from 2020 to 2025.

All told, the bill would cut taxes by about $765 billion over the next decade.

The lion's share of the tax savings would go to the wealthy and very wealthy. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 20 percent of earners would receive 64 percent of the savings and the top 1 percent of earners (those making more than $772,000 in 2022) would receive 40 percent of the savings.

Help for the poor reduced

Over time, the GOP bill would limit the federal contribution to Medicaid, while shifting control of the program to states. Depending on what happens to costs, states may be forced to provide skimpier coverage, reduce their Medicaid rolls, or both. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that an earlier version of the bill would leave about 14 million fewer people covered by Medicaid by 2026. (The House voted on the current bill without an updated CBO report.)

CBO also anticipated fewer people would buy insurance through the individual market. With no tax penalty for going without coverage, some people would voluntarily stop buying insurance. Others would find coverage prohibitively expensive, as a result of changing rules governing insurance pricing and subsidies.

The GOP bill would allow insurance companies to charge older customers up to five times more than younger customers up from a maximum 3-to-1 ratio under the current health law. The maximum subsidy for older customers in the GOP plan, however, is only twice what is offered to the young.

The bill also allows insurance companies to offer more bare-bones policies. As a result, young, healthy people could find more affordable coverage options. But older, sicker people would likely have to pay more.

In addition, because the subsidies offered in the Republican plan don't vary with local insurance prices the way subsidies do in Obamacare, residents of high-cost, rural areas would also suffer. That could include a large number of Trump voters.

View original post here:
GOP Health Care Bill Would Cut About $765 Billion In Taxes Over 10 Years - NPR