Politico is reporting that Trump will drop ACA subsidies

[snacker]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/12/trump-obamacare-subsidy-243736

"President Donald Trump plans to cut off critical subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The decision to end the payments, worth an estimated $7 billion this year, marks Trump's most aggressive move yet to dismantle Obamacare after months of failed GOP repeal efforts on Capitol Hill. The move is likely to draw lawsuits and may put pressure on Congress to appropriate funding for the subsidies, which help insurers reduce out-of-pocket costs for low-income Obamacare customers..."

Damn him.

[left-of-center2012]

1. Trump really, really hates Obama

Trump doesn't give a damn about the American people.
He just wants to destroy everything Obama did.

[Bleacher Creature]

2. American voters are terribly uninformed, but theres no chance people blame Obama.

Trump is President now, and when the insurance market blows up, he will own it.

Republicans are going to pay in 2018.

[Cal Carpenter]

3. Not much detail in that article

Can he just do that unilaterally?

I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that, really, as I rely on those subsidies myself.

[unblock]

5. Hence the lawsuits.

By executice order, Donnie can decide not to enforce certain laws, and may be able to make specific rules where the law doesn't provide adequate detail.

But he can't take away money or rights that businesses or individuals are entitled to, such as subsidy payments.

Insurance companies will sue, and imho, they will win quickly.

[Cal Carpenter]

7. Okay, thank you for the info

That makes sense. I was wondering if it could have been something to do with how the ACA does or doesn't lay out the specifics of funding in an air-tight way. I could totally be wrong but I seem to remember that being a weak spot by which the ACA could be undermined.

Anyway, I hope you are right and I hope it happens fast. The courts are certainly not getting better and the more I learn about them the less surprised I am when they don't pull through on obvious shit. But the power of the insurance companies is real. Ironically, one of my least favorite things about the ACA is that it feeds that power, but that may be its saving grace in this round of the battle for real health care for all.

[WinkyDink]

11. He swore an oath to execute the office of the Presidency, and that office explicitly

requires faithfully upholding the laws of the land.

[unblock]

14. Yes, but presidents and governors have some discretion in how they enforce the laws

For example, they simply aren't given enough resources to pursue every single case of accused lawbreaking or to audit every single tax return.

So they (and their departments) set rules and priorities.

Moreover, some laws don't spell out every detail, and some explicitly leave some things up to the president or to particular departments, e.g., to allow for waivers or exceptions.

These are intended so that there's appropriate flexibility in implementing the law; but a president could also refuse to enforce a bad law, or, in this case, use that discretion to undermine the success of the law.

The only place I thing he ran afoul for legitimate presidential powers is that I think insurance companies are entitled to subsidies. I don't think these can be taken away by executive order.

[former9thward]

18. No and no.

This is a court case and the district court already ruled in the Republican's favor.

U.S. House of Representatives v. Price, 16-5202, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).

The Republicans in Congress sued saying the subsidy payments were illegal. The court agreed with them. The Trump administration kept the payments going while the case was being appealed. Now with this order they have stopped them. So the companies are out of luck.

[unblock]

20. That was stayed pending appeal, and I believe republicans dropped it after the election.

In any event, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it, so the question is hardly settled.

[former9thward]

22. I said it was under appeal didn't I?

So of course it is not settled -- although the SC doesn't have to rule on a case to "settle" it. It has not been dropped.

[unblock]

24. You said they're out of luck. They are not.

[ooky]

21. And Rubio started it.

[msongs]

4. I know a group at least 63 million + people who blame obama for everything nt

[Takket]

6. how can he do that??????????

The subsidies are an integral part of the law. how can he just change that without congress?????????

[Blaukraut]

8. and this is why no other Republicans will speak out against him

They're content letting him do their dirty work. They can watch him dismantle Obamacare and then claim later on that they had no hand in the carnage, because not one of those creeps wants to have their fingerprints on taking away healthcare for millions, but they do want the end result.

[Cal Carpenter]

12. That's what I was thinking too

If it can be done piecemeal through a few executive orders, the repubs as a whole don't have to take credit. The ones who need to can, and the ones in vulnerable districts wouldn't have to. I don't know if that would help them in 2018.

But as my husband pointed out people would be feeling it by then if it goes into effect next year. And if he manages to get the Medicaid expansion turned into block grants, people in some states will see the difference quickly.

If he can fuck with subsidies and that Medicaid funding, he's fucking with almost everyone who actually became insured because of the ACA. And the standards for policies are apparently under attack by today's executive order.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but given the exchange I had earlier in this thread, I think the power of the insurance companies may be the thing that saves us because those subsidies go straight to them.

[Blaukraut]

15. The insurance companies can't be counted on, though

They want the subsidies and the mandate, but would love to see preexisting condition coverage go away, so they're probably fine with the two pronged approach the POS is attempting with his two EOs. It forces sick and older people out of coverage (expensive for insurance companies) and entices the young and healthy to buy into cheap, shitty plans. Same as it was before ACA, essentially.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. I really don't understand how he can just change or nullify a law.

[former9thward]

19. There is a court case.

U.S. House of Representatives v. Price, 16-5202, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).

The court said the subsidies are illegal and not part of the law.

[WinkyDink]

10. There's no way Trump knows enough to come up with this. He is listening

to an (equally) evil advisor. Mulvaney would be my guess.

[superpatriotman]

13. Plenty of evil voices on their side

As a matter of fact they're all evil.

[Garrett78]

16. He can do whatever he wants to Obamacare, but he better leave the ACA alone.

snark

[NurseJackie]

17. It's what Susan Sarandon wanted. Just LOOK at how giddy and animated she is...

... she can barely contain her excitement at the horrors that await us.

[alarimer]

23. Trump is a fucking piece of shit.

Not news to anyone here.

But this was the essential weakness of the ACA. By relying on payments to insurance companies to subsidize insurance for people who could not afford it, it made the whole program vulnerable. Yet, only Congress has the power of the purse, so how can an executive order be legal here? I honestly don't know.

I also wonder if this would jeopardize single-payer (if we had it).