Senate Trumpcare May Preserve ACA Taxes

Filed in National by on July 12, 2017 7 Comments

Because the whole point of Trumpcare is to give a huge tax break to millionaires and billionaires, < href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-taxes-high-earners">this seems highly unlikely.

Nevertheless, it is a start. If McConnell’s Senate somehow comes up with a program that 1) retains the ACA tax structure, 2) continues to ensure preexisting conditions are covered in a real way, and 3) doesn’t cut or privatize medicare or medicaid – they might just get some Dems on board.

Top Senate Republicans have indicated that it’s likely that the Affordable Care Act taxes on high-earners that the initial GOP repeal bill eliminated would be be put back in the latest draft expected this week.

“Well, that’s the current discussion, ” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters Tuesday afternoon, “that they will remain in there and the goal would be to provide more stability funds to help bring premiums down and more flexibility for the governors and legislators to deal with deductibles.”

Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dana says:

    The best that the Republicans can do is come up with Obamacare Lite!

    There are three, and only three options:

    1 – Some form of single-payer;
    2 – A government-assisted program using the existing private insurance system, which is what both the Affordable Care Act and whatever the GOP plan winds up being are; or
    3 – The federal government does not guarantee health care coverage.

    That’s it, there’s nothing else, no other options. I’ve said it before: I prefer the third option, even if that means that people without health insurance die sooner than they would otherwise.

    But I’m one of the few people who believe that who is honest enough to say it in public, and with the ACA already in place, the GOP does not have the balls to take that position. If the third option is off the table, the only real break from the ACA is single-payer.

    Donald Trump made some noises in support of single-payer many years ago, and if there was a bare amount of support for that among the Republicans in Congress, the President would go for it, and pass it with primarily Democratic support.

    At least that’s my guess, but I doubt that there’d be enough GOP support to make it a possibility.

    If the Democrats were bold enough, they’d introduce such a bill, and it just might work.

    I’ve often wondered if the GOP could have grudgingly accepted the ACA had they not hung the name Obamacare on it.

  2. meatball says:

    The ACA WAS the republican plan developed by the Heritage Foundation as the alternative to the Clinton plan in the 90’s. The only reason there is Republican outrage is because of Obama’s name and because of Mitch McConnell.

  3. SussexAnon says:

    ‘Total repeal’ is so far off the table we are leaving most of Obamacare in place.

    That should go really well at the freedumb caucus meeting.

    Meatball is right, Obamacare WAS the republican plan. In the 90’s. Back when Republicans still (kinda) believed in providing a functioning gov’t.

    The current for-profit insurance scheme is unsustainable. Even now, with Obamacare subsidies, they are pricing themselves out of business with huge deductibles and out of pocket requirements.

  4. alby says:

    “I prefer the third option, even if that means that people without health insurance die sooner than they would otherwise. But I’m one of the few people who believe that who is honest enough to say it in public”

    I’m pretty sure that your preference to protect the amount of your money we’re talking about at the expense of human lives makes you a sociopath. That you’re willing to admit it means you have a blurting problem, or you’re just that big a herk.

    Of course, I say that from the perspective of the rest of humanity. As Republicans go, you’re just another soldier.

    PS: Saying it under an internet identity hardly makes you honest. Don’t sprain your wrist there.

  5. Dana says:

    alby wrote:

    Saying it under an internet identity hardly makes you honest. Don’t sprain your wrist there.

    While I post under “Editor” on my site, the visitors know who I am. I did that when I was still working — I’m retired now — so as not to cause any problems for my employer. And my real name, and picture, are available on my Twitter feed. I am not anonymous.

    I’m pretty sure that your preference to protect the amount of your money we’re talking about at the expense of human lives makes you a sociopath. That you’re willing to admit it means you have a blurting problem, or you’re just that big a herk.

    That you would so define me surprises me not at all; that such name-calling rolls off my back like water off a duck ought not to surprise you. That I am honest about my positions simply makes me honest.

  6. alby says:

    If there’s no name for it, please justify your money over other people’s lives. Let me guess — freedom?

  7. alby says:

    Oh my goodness. I had no idea you had a site so devoted to showing yourself a sociopath, or libertarian, or whatever you brave lone patriots call yourselves these days. I guess it’s honesty. Why you’d be proud of it I can’t fathom.

    I couldn’t find any sign of you or your name, or where you live, or anything like an identification of any editors, just the usual whining about how tough white guys like you have it, and how anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid.

    You have some nerve criticizing people here for what looks like the same type of content at your site. We’re not at your place pissing in the punch bowl. As I said, you only come here to gloat or show off your bravado, and we can tell which one this is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *