Trump, in Oval Office, signs first order on Obamacare

[rooster59]

Trump, in Oval Office, signs first order on Obamacare

By Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump walk along Pennsylvania Avenue during the inaugural parade from the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump directed government agencies on Friday to freeze regulations and take steps to weaken Obamacare, using his first hours in the White House to make good on a campaign promise to start dismantling his predecessor's healthcare law.

Heading into the Oval Office shortly after the conclusion of his inaugural parade, Trump signed an order on the Affordable Care Act that urged government departments to "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation" of provisions that imposed fiscal burdens on states, companies or individuals.

It also called for efforts to give states greater flexibility in implementing healthcare programs while developing "a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance."

Health experts had speculated that Trump could expand exemptions from the so-called individual mandate, which requires Americans to carry insurance or face a penalty, or the requirement that employers offer coverage.

Experts also believe the administration could try to reduce the “essential benefits,” such as maternity care and mental health services, that insurance plans must cover.

The White House did not provide further details about the executive order.

Trump's spokesman Sean Spicer said the White House also directed an immediate regulatory freeze for all government agencies in a memo from Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus. He did not offer details.

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, one of former President Barack Obama's signature laws, was a central pledge for Trump during the presidential election campaign. Republicans in the U.S. Congress have not yet laid out a plan to recast the insurance program.

In a hastily arranged ceremony, surrounded by some of his aides, Trump sat behind the presidential Resolute Desk and signed the order. He also signed commissions for his newly confirmed defense secretary, James Mattis, and his homeland security secretary, John Kelly.

Trump spoke briefly about his day with reporters. "It was busy, but good. It was a beautiful day," he said.

Vice President Mike Pence then swore in Mattis and Kelly in a separate ceremony.

There were other signs of change in the Oval Office, which Obama vacated on Friday morning. Golden drapes hung where crimson ones had earlier in the day and new furniture dotted the room.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-21

 

[uptheos]

Trump's White House deletes all reference to climate change and gay rights from website as it takes the ax to Obama's pet policies

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4141976/New-WH-website-doesn-t-climate-change-LGBT-rights.html#ixzz4WN52RQoq 
 

[KarenBravo]

Is it right that after a life-time of saving and financial prudence, that a person can go bankrupt in the US due to a pre-existing condition?

Is it right that many US people are stuck in jobs they hate, but have to stay because of the employer's health care program?

Is it right that the US will spite the world, damage the climate for everyone, just for a few perceived American jobs?

[dave_boo]

2 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Is it right that after a life-time of saving and financial prudence, that a person can go bankrupt in the US due to a pre-existing condition?

Is it right that many US people are stuck in jobs they hate, but have to stay because of the employer's health care program?

Is it right that the US will spite the world, damage the climate for everyone, just for a few perceived American jobs?

1. If the person is as prudent as you are suggesting, why didn't they plan for such an eventuality?  Family history is asked at all medical checkups.  I know that diabetes has been a problem in my family; I do what I can (being human means I'm not perfect) and hope for the best.
2. Yes.  Nothing stops them from creating their own business and contracting with Insurance Companies.
3. If it's wrong for the US to tell the world what to do, than it's wrong for the world to tell the US what to do.  I highly doubt (and sincerely hope) that the climate protections being undertaken won't be dismantled.  After all it's not like Trump will be Emperor for life and it could be very costly for manufacturers/energy companies/etc. to not be conscious about being environmentally friendly.

If people who are clamouring so loudly about possible environmental issues that could arise under Trump why don't they responsibly recycle their iPhones and other electronic gizmos and encourage everyone else to do the same?  Those products are produced in China where environmental regulations are...lax to say the least.  And if you are buying them, or your friends and family are buy them, you are more guilty of polluting our earth for future generations than what could happen under Trump.

[KarenBravo]

For most of the civilized world, health care is a right, not a privilege.

Go to a single payer system and costs can be controlled. The USA has the most expensive health care in the world. Why is that? Could it be company profits at the expense of citizen's well-being?

 

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by KarenBravo

[KarenBravo]

46 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

1. If the person is as prudent as you are suggesting, why didn't they plan for such an eventuality?  Family history is asked at all medical checkups.  I know that diabetes has been a problem in my family; I do what I can (being human means I'm not perfect) and hope for the best.
2. Yes.  Nothing stops them from creating their own business and contracting with Insurance Companies.
3. If it's wrong for the US to tell the world what to do, than it's wrong for the world to tell the US what to do.  I highly doubt (and sincerely hope) that the climate protections being undertaken won't be dismantled.  After all it's not like Trump will be Emperor for life and it could be very costly for manufacturers/energy companies/etc. to not be conscious about being environmentally friendly.

If people who are clamouring so loudly about possible environmental issues that could arise under Trump why don't they responsibly recycle their iPhones and other electronic gizmos and encourage everyone else to do the same?  Those products are produced in China where environmental regulations are...lax to say the least.  And if you are buying them, or your friends and family are buy them, you are more guilty of polluting our earth for future generations than what could happen under Trump.

 

Your answer on health care. Apply it to jobs.

There are plenty of jobs. Unemployment is at a low of 4.7%.

Why don't these workers just simply move to where there are jobs, or, retrain themselves at their own expense to get a job that is in demand?

It's not the governments job to create jobs.

[dave_boo]

1 minute ago, KarenBravo said:

 

Your answer on health care. Apply it to jobs.

There are plenty of jobs. Unemployment is at a low of 4.7%.

Why don't these workers just simply move to where there are jobs, or, retrain themselves at their own expense to get a job that is in demand?

It's not the governments job to create jobs.

 

I have a better answer to health care; expand Medicare to cover everyone.  Then the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate with the government.  Takes care of the pre-existing condition question.  I can't imagine that the increase in taxes would in any way exceed the penalty under ACA.

 

Is that stat of 4.7% from the same people that predict a landslide Clinton victory?  Millennials ain't so good with the maths is they? (grammatical errors intentional)

 

If their desire is to move to more favourable areas than what's stopping them?  Their own apathy?  Their own stupidity?  Take your pick.

 

It isn't the government's job to create jobs, but it is their job to ensure that there is a level playing field.  Providing small business loans to generate opportunities of job creation is well in their purview in order to ensure a healthy happy populace.

[KarenBravo]

Unemployment rate varies from 4.6% to 5.1% according to different sites (including US government).

I actually agree with you that Medicare should be extended to everyone. Voila! A single payer system which is a proven system.

 

The Republican nominee for Health said he wants all US citizens to have access to health care. Bernie Sanders (I'm not a supporter) popped that disingenuous reply by stating that he had access to buy a billion dollar house, but, he can't afford it as he doesn't have the money.

 

Trump has unequivocally stated he wants affordable health insurance for all citizens. Let's hope he can make that true.

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

Is it right that after a life-time of saving and financial prudence, that a person can go bankrupt in the US due to a pre-existing condition?

Is it right that many US people are stuck in jobs they hate, but have to stay because of the employer's health care program?

Is it right that the US will spite the world, damage the climate for everyone, just for a few perceived American jobs?

 

Don't get too excited. It's all well and good talking about bringing jobs back to the US, but the inflation that comes with it will go down like a lead balloon.

 

My guess is he's going to make a mess and leave the next bloke to clean it up like Bush Jr. did.

(And he'll line the family pockets in the process, also like Bush Jr. did).

Drain the swamp, yeah right.

 

[Old Croc]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

For most of the civilized world, health care is a right, not a privilege.

Go to a single payer system and costs can be controlled. The USA has the most expensive health care in the world. Why is that? Could it be company profits at the expense of citizen's well-being?

 

 

Interesting that The First Lady is from the country at the top of that list.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Is it right that after a life-time of saving and financial prudence, that a person can go bankrupt in the US due to a pre-existing condition?

Is it right that many US people are stuck in jobs they hate, but have to stay because of the employer's health care program?

Is it right that the US will spite the world, damage the climate for everyone, just for a few perceived American jobs?

 

Give the US what it system determined ... and the Devil take the hindmost! Sometimes, unfortunately, it takes a 2x4 across the forehead of the mule, to get its attention. Revoking requirements broadly without and clarification, what could go wrong!!!

[up-country_sinclair]

I know it seems unlikely, but it is possible that Trump may end up introducing what amounts to a single payer plan.

 

He promised to repeal and replace, and he also promised insurance for all.  He's also always talking about negotiating for a better deal, and the Federal government is the greatest negotiating position possible.

[Jingthing]

Nobody likes the mandates, including me.

But the mandates were necessary to make it possible for ACA to exist.

So yes, killing the mandates effectively kills ACA.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Jingthing

[Basil B]

I his speech Trump refereed to derelict factories and unemployed and making America rich again...

 

America is extremely wealthy as a country, the problem is 50% of the wealth is held by Trump and just a small percentage of the population and the poorest people in America are poorer than some of the poorest people in some of the poorest countries in the world... 

Do you see a man who illegally evicted by intimidation poor income tenants for profit to repent and become charitable???   

Empty factories and unemployed, many greedy American companies went "International" buying up overseas companies, exploiting the workers and grinding the companies into the ground before moving on the the next country... and I am sure Trump is keen to expand his international empire.

  

[SOTIRIOS]

....'weaken Obamacare'.....

 

...continually painting positive....as negative.....

 

....wow...

 

...more like ...'find an alternative for the populace....so they can have medical coverage that won't bankrupt them'.....

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Is it right that after a life-time of saving and financial prudence, that a person can go bankrupt in the US due to a pre-existing condition?

Is it right that many US people are stuck in jobs they hate, but have to stay because of the employer's health care program?

Is it right that the US will spite the world, damage the climate for everyone, just for a few perceived American jobs?

Bravo Karen you bring up many good points that sadly will go unanswered. There will be no Mexican wall and the only wall of consequence is the wall Obama built over 8 years. Yes 8 years of Republican frustration must be torn down first. Billions to bring it into law and billions to be spent in tearing it down all in the name of spite.  Looking back at past wars its always a case of blowing it up and then rebuilding it. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by elgordo38

[Jingthing]

....'weaken Obamacare'.....
 
...continually painting positive....as negative.....
 
....wow...
 
...more like ...'find an alternative for the populace....so they can have medical coverage that won't bankrupt them'.....

For some of the populace.

[Trouble]

The problem with ACA was that it tried to do everything for everyone with an ill-conceived plan never read by the democrats who pushed it through. The person who basically put the plan together admitted to the deception. Lower costs, keep your doctor - slogans touted by the last administration were blatant lies to sell the program.  What really happened was that a group of people requiring subsidized health care got it and the burden was placed not on the entire population as a tax but on those businesses and individuals already paying for health care with higher fees.  The past administration pumped billions into the program to keep it afloat by executive order, not through legislation.  It could never have been economically solvent as it was written with what it tried to do.  The program was a total failure for the majority and only helped a certain segment of society. One could argue that those needing subsidized health care got it but at what price to everyone else?  What's needed is a complete look at the health care system, what the nation can afford to do and what it can't afford to do.  I have never considered health care a right of being born. Society may choose to collectively help those less fortunate because of health issues, just as they collectively decide to education their children, but it is not a right. As long as we live in a society where individual choices can lead to health problems then I don't feel the obligation to treat smokers for lung cancer, or people that take in too much sugar over their lives for diabetes.  Genetics surely are a great factor in ones good or bad tendencies for health, however individuals have a responsibility as well. The ACA should have started out trying to tackle catastrophic events and slowly worked toward widening benefits.  The problem was that the Obama and his followers wanted to leave a political legacy rather than work to make the system work better.  The ACA was to the Democrats who passed it without reading it, a political move rather than an attempt to make things work better.  That's the problem with government all to often. Political motives are more important than truly fixing anything.  Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. 

[Ulysses G.]

9 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

I know it seems unlikely, but it is possible that Trump may end up introducing what amounts to a single payer plan.

 

He promised to repeal and replace, and he also promised insurance for all.  He's also always talking about negotiating for a better deal, and the Federal government is the greatest negotiating position possible.

 

That is what I am hoping for, but he better not call it "single payer" as that term has been demonized. All Inclusive Trump-care has a nice ring.

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is what I am hoping for, but he better not call it "single payer" as that term has been demonized. All Inclusive Trump-care has a nice ring.

You're hope is pointless. trump recently definitive said he's not supporting single payer. Forget about it. It will be more like the old status quo with these things:

 

preexisting conditions only if you've had insurance consecutively for 16 months

mandate gone

subsidies gone

tax credits replace subsidies

expanded Medicaid gone

regular Medicaid with is already very limited (state rules) will be by block grants to states (usually either basically almost homeless but not homeless because you need an address, zero assets, and often limited only to single mothers)

people will be able to purchase bare bones plans cheaper

older people will pay more (current Obamacare limits age increases)

Many millions of people will indeed lose all cover, generally the poorer and sicker people 

Unlike current Obamacare, if you get sick and you're uninsured, you can't buy insurance and have your conditions covered. This problem was addressed with the mandates but the mandates will be gone. 

The end result ... some people will win with cheaper insurance (healthy, younger, rich enough to find the tax credits of use) and many millions will lose access (perhaps  20 to 30 million people) plus the issue of future access. 

This will mean winners and losers compared to the current system but the harsh fact that many millions fewer people will be insured and the fake keeping of covering preexisting conditions is going to be political poison for the republicans. That's why they want to get it over with as early as possible. The truth is if you polled the people today and told them this quite likely B.S. "replacement" they would reject it.

 

People want everything ... and it's not possible.

As everyone serious knows, the only answer that really can provide full access and lower costs is universal, but it's simply politically impossible in socialist phobic USA, especially now with this FAR RIGHT WING shift. 

 

These are my best ROUGH guesses based on current information.

But absolutely, it is VERY SILLY to think trump with a republican congress is going to pass a Canadian system. IMPOSSIBLE. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

I know it seems unlikely, but it is possible that Trump may end up introducing what amounts to a single payer plan.

 

He promised to repeal and replace, and he also promised insurance for all.  He's also always talking about negotiating for a better deal, and the Federal government is the greatest negotiating position possible.

 

And he is not a natural Republican, and he seeks the adulation of the masses. Yeah, I think it is possible too, though unlikely, same as you. Would the Republicans swallow it as a quid pro quo for the deregulation and corporate tax sweeteners? Time will tell.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Nobody likes the mandates, including me.

But the mandates were necessary to make it possible for ACA to exist.

So yes, killing the mandates effectively kills ACA.

 

The greatest mandates of the ACA never even came to pass as Obama kept giving out deferments. He cut his own throat.