LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.

LyrArc Article Gist
With the rushed approach adopted by the Trump administration not enough consideration was given to winning support in the House from 25 conservatives in the Freedom Caucus. Without their support the bill cannot be passed in the House of Representatives. The fight also includes one over what are essential health benefits including whether  maternity care would be included. As a result some moderate Republicans are also expressing opposition on the grounds that less people will be covered and fewer benefits will be provided under the Republican House plan called AHCA. President Trump has not involved himself in the details, and the bill comes very early in the first 100 days, leading to the perception that health care has become a partisan conflict without really grappling with the problems of high cost of health care and creating a solution that all can support. Democrats are seen as having made the same error early in Obama administration's first term. President Trump sees this as a much needed win with a drop in his approval ratings, making this even less of an effort to come out with a good plan.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House Health Care pLan in 2017 relies on tax credits of between $2000 and $4000 based on age. Under the Affordable Health Care Act the elderly poor in high cost insurance areas received additional help. These people would lose over $2000 per person and may forgo full coverage or coverage entirely under the Republican House Health Care Plan. A report by Standard & Poor's estimates about 2 to 4 million people who are in 50's and 60's not yet qualifying for Medicare might lose their coverage they now have under ACA. The Republican plan also gives incentives through tax credits higher for older people, $4000 for a 60 year ol and $2000 for a 25 year old. Under the ACA the insurers are not allowed to charge more than three times what is charged for younger people, under the Republican plan this goes up to five times. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. House of Representatives votes to repeal and replace the Affordable care Act 217-213. Moderates were won over by an addition of $8 billion  to add coverage for a popular feature of the ACA that covered people for pre-existing conditions.  The bill that passed gives credits of $2000 to $4000 a year, depending mostly on age, upto $14,000 for a family. Credits are reduced for individuals making over $75,000 a year or families making over $150,000. There is no mandated insurance coverage. This trims the federal budget deficit, yet also is expected to keep 24 million more Americans without health coverage after 10 years. The bill now goes to the Senate where moderate Republicans are worried that this may increase premiums for older people, one of the drawbacks of the earlier version of the House Republican bill.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The distrust in negotiations between Republicans Boehner, Ryan, Cantor and Democrats Reid, Obama, and Pelosi, during the weeks in October 2013 preceding the reopening of U.S. government after the shutdown. Republicans call attention to the rising deficit from $4.9 trillion in 1993 compared to $16.7 trillion in 2013, triple the increase in the deficit in just one decade compared to the five decades prior to this period. Democrats say sharp spending cuts would hurt economic growth and the unemployed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas declare their opposition to the Republican Health Care bill proposed by Senator McConnell. This decision by the two senators makes it impossible to begin debate on the bill. Earlier two other senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky announced their opposition. This means the Republican health care bill has no chance in the Senate even after changes to the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Republicans have a thin majority in the Senate make it difficult to pass legislation. Collins met with residents in Maine and Moran with people in his home state of Kansas, and both senators heard a lot about the negative effects of the Republican bill on people in their state. The bill is seen as hurting people in rural areas, elderly, and not likely to do enough to bring down premiums. Its plan to slash Medicaid spending has drawn strong opposition from all Democrats.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Senator Ben Sasse suggests an alternative approach of simply repealing the Affordable Care Act called Obamacare and replacing it at a later date. This is endorsed by president Trump. This is the new Republican strategy in July 2017. Forty nine senators voted in favor of this repeal in 2015, when president Obama vetoed this legislation. Two more senators are expected to support repeal according to Ben Sasse.

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A health care practitioner says the real problem is the high cost of medical care in the U.S. when compared to other countries. She points out that the Obama bill in 2008 did not take effective steps to bring down the cost of health care before enacting legislation to cover the uninsured, leading to higher premiums for the middle class. The link between healthcare and profits is seen as the main problem. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The loss of some 4 million jobs is expected by experts in 2009, and Obama economic advisor Christina Romer has presented information at a meeting that shows the current downturn will be more severe than anything we experienced in the last 50 years. At that meeting on December 16, 2008, Obama met with Romer and other economic and policy advisors for 4 hours. It was decided that the target for jobs should be 3 million jobs created in 2009 and 2010. This still means a lot of the 4 million job loss will still occur in 2009, even if the infrastructure jobs estimated at $136 billion by the nation's governors get off to a fast start as they are supposedly ready to go. Money to states and local governments will reduce job losses and loss of services, and money in the form of lower payroll taxes would probably be saved to reduce debt by the public. Money to the poor to support medicaid and health care services and expanding healthcare coverage for those who lose coverage will be safety net reinforcement and support. So finding places to spend where jobs can be created quickly will be a challenge going forward and some of the $1 trillion stimulus will not go directly to job creation but as support. For the December 16 meeting Romer consulted with Martin Feldstein the senior Republican economist who said that " without action the economy will continue to decline rapidly." For a long time Martin Feldstein has been advocating strong action especially to reduce foreclosures and help stabilize housing prices. As the economy has weakened he has revised upwards what needs to be done, and his estimates are close to the lower end of the $800 billion to 1.3 trillion that is being estimated for 2 years. Lawrence Lindsay and other economists are supporting upto $1 trillion stimulus. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
California's governor Jerry Brown has put forward his budget plan for fiscal 2013 showing a budget surplus of $851 million. Brown was able to get Proposition 30 passed in the November 2008 elections. Higher income earners pay more in taxes for several years and the sales tax is increased. An improved economy with unemployment down from 11.3% in 2011 to 9.8% in Nov. 2012 is helping with higher tax revenues. General fund revenues are expected to increase 3.3% to $98.5 billion in the 2013 fiscal year from $95.4 billion the prior year. Brown has accomplished a remarkable feat of balancing the budget for 2013 and still continuing to invest in education and healthcare. Spending will increase 5% to $97.7 billion in fiscal 2013 from $93 billion in fiscal 2012 with higher spending on education and health care and lower spending in other areas. Brown's path to achieving this was eased after Democrats won control of both houses in the the state legislature. Says Brown: "Right now, for the next 4 years, we'll be talking about a balanced budget, we're talking about living within our means... This is new." Even Republicans praise this effort from a veteran of California politics- his father was governor in the Kennedy years, and he was governor in the 1980's....