GOP deceptive tweet reminds us that they are the stupid party

Speaker Boehner's tweet

Today, House Speaker John Boehner found a new opportunity to demonize the Affordable Care Act and mislead his constituents.  His tweets proclaim that "Obama administration says 11 million will pay higher premium costs for their health care under ObamaCare."

Boehner's tweet derives its conclusion from a GOP  requested study from the Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which was released last Friday, the 21st of February.

The first thing that I should mention is that the population of people considered by the study is individuals who receive their health insurance through their small business employer and not through the ACA state health insurance exchanges.  So this is not about ObamaCare causing people financial harm even though Boehner interpreted it that way.

When the Affordable Care Act was created, it added requirements known as sections 2701, 2702 and 2703 to the Public Health Services Act.  These sections are intended to end discrimination by insurers on the patient population.

Section 2701 is titled "Fair Health Insurance Premium" and changes a practice called "community rating" where insurance companies used to be able to discriminate by charging higher prices for women of child bearing age; those having more health claims; or the elderly.  Now premium prices can only vary between individuals because of individual versus family enrollment; geographic area; age (but the ratio of higher premiums for the elderly is reduced from 5:1 down to 3:1); and tobacco use.

Section 2702 requires insurers to accept all applicants and is designed to prevent insurance company discrimination due to pre-existing conditions.

Section 2703 requires that group and individual health insurance must be renewable.

So, Boehner's tweet is actually attacking that part of the ACA that protects consumers from discrimination, probably because he didn't read it or perhaps because he didn't understand it.  The obvious fact is that he just read the lines in the study that supported his unreasonable view that "ObamaCare is bad" and tweeted.  This is unfortunate because there are important aspects of the study that place their own conclusions into serious doubt.  Some of this is self revealed, such as the admission that there are other studies that have found insignificant change in premiums.  Also, some parts of the study text indicate that the results are highly suspect and subject to large variations.

The study also found that the employer sponsored health insurance premium price changes would only affect small employers (100 employees or less) and the premium changes would only come from section 2701 requirements.  This is because they speculate that smaller and younger companies have younger employees who have been able to take advantage of the greater old to young ratio in premium prices allowed before ObamaCare and section 2701 requirements.  This would make those employers (only if they provide insurance for their employees) more likely to have increased premium prices after January 1, 2014.  The study also only speculates that any increase in the employers insurance costs would be passed on to their employees.

Additionally, these new requirements are only effective for employer health policies that are not grandfathered.  Grandfathered policies are any that existed on or before March 23, 2010.  So only new small businesses who provide employer sponsored health insurance and were created after March 23, 2010 should have been considered in the study.

However, the study indicates that 17 million individuals would be in this population.  This can be shown to be inaccurate by using the Business Dynamics Statistics data from the census.gov website.  One can see there that the maximum number of employees in new small businesses, using the largest employee population cited in a range for the category of small business created through all of 2010 and 2011 is about 2.3 million each year.  This calculates to 4.6 million employees.  Estimating a 20% increase year over year through 2013 adds another 6.2 million employees for a total population of 10.8 million.  This is a very high estimate since it would mean that nearly all of the increase in employment in the USA since 2010 has been from small business.   Prior government estimates of jobs created by small business is closer to 45% of the total.   A more reasonable population would be 5 million affected.  Still not a small number, but much smaller than the estimate of 17 million cited in the study.  (Even less than GOP led states have refused to provide expanded medicaid for.)

The study also speculates that about 35% of the population would receive reductions from their pre-ACA insurance premium costs.  The other 65% would receive increases that would put their 2014 premiums at about the average cost for health insurance prior to the ACA.

Additionally, the number affected is further trimmed down by the number of individuals who purchase health insurance from the ACA exchanges in their state.  The benefit is that many who earn less than 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal tax reductions.  Hopefully, many of those people will take advantage of that and stop listening to misleading GOP rhetoric instructing them to avoid buying from the insurance exchanges.

Further the study stipulates that small businesses who currently provide health insurance may find it more advantageous for themselves and their employees to discontinue providing insurance and telling their employees to get their health insurance from the ACA state exchanges.  Again, Republican deception has made a large portion of America uncomfortable with ObamaCare, so it is not clear that employees would readily accept this idea.

The small business employer also has the option to utilize the small business health insurance exchange established by ObamaCare.  This option would allow the employer to continue providing insurance to its employees and be exempt from the section 2701 requirements.

Another option for the small business employer would be to self insure.  This would also allow them to provide insurance to their employees and be exempt from the section 2701 requirements.

The total number of employees affected by minor premium increases is likely to be less than 3 million and even that number depends on a lot of the variables mentioned which could make the number much smaller.  My suggestion for small business employees is to get your health insurance from the state exchanges.

Ultimately, if our Republican leaders would stop spreading misinformation and start to support ObamaCare, more people would benefit.  The federal government can be a valuable partner to business and individuals despite what radical GOP-ers want you to believe.

GOP says government could open if only Dems would cave on medicare, social security, ObamaCare and social safety net

Eric Cantor

Congressional GOP leaders announced today that the government could re-open provided Democrats were willing to discuss fiscal issues important to the GOP.  Essentially, they have proposed a new fiscal super committee composed of Republicans and Democrats to discuss government funding on condition of cuts to social security funding, medicare funding and Obamacare funding.  Wait, didn't the original super-committee fail after months of such discussions?  Plain and simply this is just more fooling around  that we don't have time for.  We are headed for a financial crisis.  Why don't Republicans get it?

They are so generous!  Imagine, they are willing to discuss cutting or reducing funding not only for Obamacare, but now also social security, medicare and other social safety net programs before they
will consider opening the government.  Of course, their pre-requisite is that tax loopholes, tax subsidies and any new taxes are off the table.  What a plan!  Are you seeing the pattern here?  Republicans are the hostage takers.  All they need to do is pass a clean continuing resolution but they won't allow a vote on it.  They have to use this as a mechanism to pass their party's legislation.  Legislation which was rejected when we ended Mitt Romney's political career.

Republicans are hopeful that their simple-minded followers as well as other gullible voters might see this as a real genuine offer to get the government funded and avoid a debt ceiling crisis. Can they be so arrogant?   If any Democrats go for this idea our government is finished.  Remember, we don't negotiate with terrorists!  One outcome of this fiasco should be for the ethics committees in Washington to change their rules so that doing harm to America is not allowed as a negotiation tactic.

The GOP should do the right thing and pass a continuing resolution that funds the government now and immediately after, approve the debt ceiling increase.  Then there would be time to sit down and talk about fiscal issues.   However, if Republicans insist that revenue is off the table, there will be no discussions.

When did extortion become synonymous with negotiation?

In an earlier post, called "A Republican to English Dictionary" I tried to unmask the language that our Republicans leaders use in conversation so that America could know that their words are hiding ulterior motives for their actions.  You can see that blog here.

After listening to John Boehner speaking with George Stephanopoulos this morning, it has become apparent that Republicans think they are negotiating when they are actually using extortion.

Boehner insisted that the government shutdown and any damage done by defaulting on our debts would be the President's and Harry Reid's fault because they "refuse to talk."

John Boehner

Boehner explained that Republicans were united in making the decision to use the continuing resolution to force a discussion around cutting the social safety net, social security, medicare and Obamacare.  This is even more than was originally planned, since only Obamacare was used in the Republicans' original threats.  When asked if Republicans would negotiate on new revenue he emphatically refused, saying that the President already got his new revenue and there would be no new taxes.

Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the advice of economic experts about how economically destructive defaulting on our loans would be.  He asked Boehner if he was willing to let this happen.  Boehner used his often repeated comment during the interview, that "it would be the President's fault" if we did.  It was clear that even if the President gave in to the Republicans extortion of America and sat down to talk with them, he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Is this politics as usual or is something running amuck here?

If someone threatens you with global economic disaster unless you meet their demands, most people would think you are a terrorist.  Republicans think it is just everyday negotiating.  The Republican mind is a curious thing.

In the 2012 Presidential elections, Republicans campaigned on reversing all Obama-era legislation, changing medicare, revamping social security, cutting the social safety net, giving government welfare to the rich, reducing legislation on business and repealing Obamacare on the first day Romney took office.  And then they lost the election.  The majority of Americans do not support those policies but that does not stop Boehner from stating publicly that current Republican threats are just "doing what America wants", proving Republicans are stupid as well as stubborn.

In America there is a way to change laws.  It follows democratic principles; not the terrorist handbook.  Republicans have failed when using the democratic method to defund Obamacare over 40 times.  So now they seem content with using tactics that threaten the economic health of America.

Americans know that our government does not negotiate with terrorists.  Why should we stop when the terrorists are Republicans?

Republicans reduce demands for releasing the government hostage, but the threat of shutdown continues

John Boehner

When House Republicans started the debate over the continuing resolution to fund the government they started their bargaining at the high end.  Not only would ObamaCare have to be defunded, but nearly all of the Mitt Romney economic policies he campaigned on were added to the pot.  The Democrats in the Senate would not hear any of it, so they stripped everything out of the House bill except for the continuing resolution itself and returned it to the House.

Democrat majority leader Harry Reid forewarned House Republicans that any bill sent in response that included any changes to ObamaCare would be "dead on arrival" to the Senate chamber.  That didn't stop the Republicans on their second volley attempt at modifying the bill.

Late Saturday night, House Republicans reduced their requirements to two major ones related to ObamaCare.  They are now seeking a one year delay in the introduction of the program and elimination of a 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers which was a requirement of ObamaCare funding.  Although this reduction in demands may be seen by the Republican base as a serious offer, it is unlikely to be met with anything but refusal when the bill goes to the Senate.

Neither the Senate nor the House is expected to be in session on Sunday, so it is almost certain that the government will shutdown unless a new bill can be drafted and passed by both chambers of Congress on Monday, September 30.

In an apparent concession that the government will close down, Republicans also passed a bill that would continue uniformed military pay in the event of a government shutdown.

As always, Republicans have been cunning in formulating strategies to advance their political agenda.  One Republican Congressman interviewed by MSNBC indicated that the goal of the one year delay was to allow time for Republicans to regroup and win the Senate back in 2014 when they could take care of the whole deal with ObamaCare.  A comment that made one think they planned to eliminate the program as soon as they were in control of both Houses.

The 2.3% medical device tax was a requirement of ObamaCare on medical device manufacturers' profits.  At the time of creation, legislators and manufacturers agreed that ObamaCare, with all of the new patients being covered, would give a windfall of new profits to all medical industries, some of which should be used to help fund the program.  Other medical industries agreed that between $60 billion and $80 billion was a fair amount to return for the increased revenue from ObamaCare over ten years.  The medical device industry however, has said that the 2.3% tax would be damaging to their industry and have spent over $150 million on lobbyists trying to get out of the deal.  If Republicans were successful in removing the proceeds from this tax, ObamaCare would essentially be defunded by some $35 billion over 10 years.

How long will it take Republicans to realize that Democrats just need a clean continuing resolution bill without attachments related to changes to ObamaCare?  Republicans have gone outside of the normal procedures of a democracy.  It is new ground that they are breaking by threatening harm to America unless they get their policies passed.  We can only hope that they do not repeat the same behavior when the debt ceiling comes up for a vote in the next few weeks.

Their actions during this President's term in office should give policy makers ample reason to justify legislation to reign in such harmful tactics by members of Congress.

What John Boehner did on his summer vacation

John Boehner

In a last ditch effort to scare the American public into thinking that Obamacare is the evil that will kill America as we know it, Speaker of the House, John Boehner has been very busy tweeting disparaging remarks about the Affordable Care Act law while on his summer vacation.

One of his most often repeated claims is that full time jobs are disappearing as a result of Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act, in an effort to not financially over-burden small businesses that may not be able to afford it, originally allowed a minimum employee requirement of at least 25 full time employees before a business must provide employee healthcare.  In order to compromise with Republicans, the law was later changed to require a minimum of at least 50 full time employees before insurance coverage was required.  Full time employees are defined as workers with at least 40 hours of work per week or 2080 hours of work per year.

This requirement was intended to protect businesses that may really be endangered financially if they were forced to provide insurance to their employees.   In other words, those businesses that may be forced out of business if they had to provide health insurance and could find no other way to save costs.  The Act also attempts to protect such fragile small businesses by providing tax credits of up to 50% of the non-elective contributions the employer made on behalf of its employees.

According to Boehner, businesses which do not fit the criteria are now using these allowances to side-step providing insurance for their employees.  Boehner cites one example of a business owner of 21 (yes, that's twenty-one) Subway restaurants who decided to reduce the hours of employees so that he could use the allowance to avoid having to provide health insurance.  Another report indicates that Wal-Mart is reducing full time employees and increasing part time employees (ten times more than last year) to keep costs down.  Apparently offering insurance is going to break the bank of the wealthiest family in the retail business.  Wal-Mart employs some of the lowest paid workers in the United States and in so doing are taking advantage of taxpayers who provide supplements to Wal-Mart employees wages in such programs as supplemental nutrition, medicaid, and increased medical premiums for unpaid medical bills.

It is odd that Boehner sees this as an Obamacare caused phenomenon instead of placing the blame where it belongs, on greedy and uncaring business owners.  I was struck by the statement of the wealthy subway owner who was quoted as saying "I know the impact that I am having on some of my employees."  The article left out the remaining thought that was obviously knocking around inside the owner's head but didn't come out...the one that goes something like "but I don't care."

Now there are plenty of studies that indicate the majority of employers are not side-stepping Obamacare  by taking what most would say are unethical steps to avoid it, so this rant that Boehner is taking may just be another Republican ruse that uses fear to deceive.  Republican leadership appears adamant to fight Obamacare by any unethical means possible, just as some unethical business owners are sure to use tactics that they have always used to avoid providing benefits for their employees.

The only fault I see with the Affordable Care Act law is the fact that there was a business allowance at all.  Short of being a single payer program, it should have required all business to provide insurance and perhaps give tax breaks based on the size of the business, with smaller businesses getting more of a tax break.  The temptation was too great for dishonest business owners to use it as a loop-hole and then flaunt their arrogance by blaming the law for their unethical behavior.

So let's call it like it is Mr Speaker.  You can't blame Obamacare for the unethical actions of your constituents.

John Boehner's August 1st press conference a precursor to expect more obstruction

John Boehner

I guess John Boehner has a weekly press conference even when there is nothing new to report.  I expected something new, but Boehner's introductory remarks and his answers to reporters seem only to be setting up America for more conflict and obstruction in Congress after the August recess.

To start the press conference he supported the efforts that Republican led committees were taking to get to the bottom of the so-called "scandals" of the Obama administration; the Benghazi incident and the IRS 501c auditing function.  Mentioning these things should tell America where John Boehner and Congressional Republican  priorities are.  And it's not with job creation, as they claim.

He blamed President Obama personally for the unacceptable pace of economic growth and indicated that the President's blockage of the Keystone pipeline prevents "tens of thousands" of American jobs.  He scolded the President for this being "no laughing matter" alluding to the President's recent speech where he claimed that the Keystone pipeline would only create about 50 jobs.  Boehner did not go into any details at all about Republican plans for real growth and jobs other than indicating that they had one.  Giving details on that plan would have been real news, if one really exists.

Boehner also blames Obama for denying that America has a spending problem and believes that there will be no prosperity until deficits and debt are under control.  He accuses President Obama of not being a leader and expects him to work with Republicans to essentially bend to their will.  (I'm paraphrasing.)

Apparently Mr. Boehner does not realize that under Obama our deficit has come down more than ever anticipated, government jobs have been reduced to the lowest levels since the President came into office and much of the social safety net spending has been cut.

What he also fails to see is that government subsidies to the wealthy, tax loopholes and favoritism for the one percent and decreased regulation around business also come under the category of government spending, but he never calls for those areas to be cut.  So Mr. Boehner, you are not really against government spending, as long as the spending goes on your party's constituents.  And you think Obama denies there is a spending problem?

Boehner says that sequestration will continue until the President cuts "reforms" (perhaps a slip of the tongue because I think he meant social programs) to allow the sequester to be replaced.

He indicated that he did not know if repealing Obama Care would be tied to debt ceiling discussions but also replied to another question by saying that appropriation bills would not be completed by September 30th.  Conveniently, this is about when deficit talks need to be finalized.  So I'm thinking Republicans are going to use either the debt ceiling or the appropriations bills as leverage to get what they want.

In an explanation to one reporter of how Congress should work Boehner said "All bills do not have to pass." and "There are more members participating in Congress than ever before."  It appears Boehner believes Congress should be all talk and no action.

Somehow, I think America expects more from its Congress.