With Noem Support, Obamacare Repeal Passes House
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today voted to repeal Obamacare and replace the failed health care law with patient-centered reforms, moving forward on a long-held promise made to South Dakotans.
“Health care is one of the most personal issues people deal with, which is why I’ve fought so hard to return control to patients,” said Noem. “I’ve heard from many, many South Dakotans who were being asked to defy their family’s budgetary constraints and pay $10,000 or more per year on health coverage under Obamacare. What’s worse, the deductibles on that coverage were so high they couldn’t actually afford to use it. The legislation passed today would repeal this failing system.”
Noem continued: “The proposal we’ve been working on with President Trump offers new safety nets: a tax credit to individuals and families, additional resources for states to help beyond what the credit offers, protections for those with pre-existing conditions, assurances to young people that they can remain on their parents’ plans until age 26, and enhanced Health Savings Accounts. Ultimately, I do not believe the federal government should be the decision maker on health care. When programs are necessary, states should be in charge, and in all other cases, it should be you, the patient, who is in the driver’s seat. That’s the vision reflected by today’s bill.”
Oh boy! There will be hell to pay now! They own it now and it will be fun to see what the impact will be nationally starting in 2018. Nothing will change in South Dakota though because the SDDP brand will have been completely destroyed by then.
I don’t know that I’d be crowing about voting for this if I were her. This isn’t what the voters envisioned when all the Republicans ran on repeal and replace. It’s amazing that we have the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and THIS is the best we can do? I think it’s time the Republicans started acting like winners and stick it to Chuckles Schumer and Nancy Paloathsome. We also need new leadership; McConnell and Ryan need to be sent packing, but nobody has the spine to stand up to them.
The Republicans are now finding that they have the job of herding cats. Not all Republicans are conservative. Not all Republicans are moderate. Some Republicans are Republicans In Name Only. Trying to get enough of these vast groups together on something is an accomplishment in and of itself. What would you have liked Ryan to do? What would you like McConnell to do? I do not particularly admire either of these people, but when you face the facts that not everybody is as conservative as some of us in the Midwest, they have to get all of those people together.
This bill has to go to the Senate now. By the time they are done with it, I am guessing it will look quite different. Then the sausage making fun will start to happen.
John “Root and Branch” Thune is on the job ! 😉
Who are these people that are paying $10000 a year for health insurance under Obamacare? And how many of these families after tax breaks from Obamacare are actually paying an actual $ 10,0000 per year? And are these gold plan folks, too? Our family only pays $ 3000 a year and since its pre-taxed, its really only about $ 2500 a year. And twice under Obamacare (2013-17) our family has actually seen our yearly premiums go down. Sure our deductible keep going up but they did before Obamacare too – but before Obamacare, we didn’t have free physicals, coverage for children through age 26, the end of the donut hole for Medicare recipients, and an any guarantees against pre-extisting condition clauses… Not to mention free birth control, free colonoscopies, and greater Medicaid coverage for the working poor….
Are you sure these “$10,000 families” are not small business people who pay as employer and employee both? For instance, if you are self-employed, the SS tax is not 7+%, rather it is 14+% as an example…..
Free, really?
What are you 3?
Obama Care is and has been in a death spiral. It’s unsustainable and is in its last gasp. Iowa will have no participating carriers by the end of the year. Deductible never increased this fast along with premiums per Obama care rip off. Your ponies and candy rainbow isn’t beared out by the facts. Even most dems know this. You gave up the house, senate, governors, state houses and countless amounts of political Capitol. Come on, let’s solve this issue and stop denying that democrats destroyed health care.
Its “free” to a working class family that has health insurance thanks to Obamacare, which offers “free” physicals so that they don’t have to worry about finding the $ 400 for a physical. Its a lot easier or “free” when the cost of that physical is hid in the overall payments of ones insurance through the course of the year, than up front….
Obama care is not in a death spiral. What is happening in Iowa is the result of the Republicans having defunded the risk pool for insurance companies who participate in the Obamacare networks.
We lost all of those political seats you mention primarily because of the Koch brothers and gerrymandering. Plus, the Democrats need to defend Obamacare better than they have done in the past as I am not a shame to do. Because before the Democrats came to town, pre-existing condition clauses existed, the donut hole existed, unless you were in college, you were only covered on your parents’ plan until age 19, physicals were not “free” ( 😉 ), and the working class had less coverage under Medicaid.
You say you want the Democrats to work with the Republicans. Okay, let us start by dealing with the word “access.” Republicans think health care means having access, while Democrats know it means being able to afford it. So I guess if you cannot afford it but need health insurance, then the only way to get it, is if its “free” or the cost is spreader amongst a larger pool and not a smaller pool. Currently, the Republican plan makes the pool smaller and also harder for the working poor to get “free” Medicaid….
Amen!
Um, it does not matter whether you are self-employed or not. SS is around 14%. If your employer is paying half, that is not out of the goodness of his/her heart. That is out of the salary you otherwise would be getting.
Yeah, right and I have an 8th Street bridge in Sioux Falls that I own which I want to sell to you, too…..
Free! Nothing is free, someone is paying for those visits and I’m pretty sure it has to do with our taxes. Silly to think it’s free!! Great for your family, but there are many families that lost their insurance. Oh, and Medicaid is not insurance. Remember when we were told you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Blah! Blah! Blah!
Well, its “free” if you have negative income due to earned income credits, isn’t it? It’s not silly, if the guarantee that a physical is covered 100% means that you don’t have to come up with $ 400 in the next month for a physical exam.
Oh, if Medicaid is not insurance, then why is the children’s benefit from that program called Children’s Health Insurance Program?
No one lost insurance because of Obamacare. Some may have lost the program they had, but every year before Obamacare we all lost our insurance who were dependent upon private and or employer insurance plans, then we had to sign up again for another year with difference options and different plans.
On your last contention, I have to admit you got me on that one. Apparently, some were dumb enough to believe that quote, when they had never been able to keep their previous plan before for more than one year at time (and as I mentioned in the previous paragraph as further comment to this contention).
But when it is all said and done, I would rather be a member of a Party which lied about a health care law, yet still insured an additional 22 million people, then a member of a Party that lied about WMD, which resulted in an unnecessary war and, in fact, a continual which we are still fighting to this day with no end in sight….
Medicaid is NOT insurance; if you believe that you are naive. That’s like saying abortion is health care. They name the program that to make people think they are covered. Parents, who are suppose to take responsibility for their family, do NOT pay for anything to cover their kids when enrolled in CHIP.
It is silly to trick yourself into thinking it’s free. People, you and me, are paying for their care with our tax dollars. Pay attention to what is happening.
Maybe I should have said people dropped their plans instead of lost their plans because costs were no longer affordable.
Give me a break. 22 million people on medicaid are people receiving care from American’s TAX dollars. But you keep doing you and thinking you are well-researched.
Abortion is health care if the health or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. That’s why women and doctors should have the last say when it comes to abortion and not legislators…
How do you know these parents don’t pay anything? If they paid in the past and pay in the future, then they are a part of the funding source which helps to keep Medicaid funded.
Aren’t you glad that many have health care through Medicaid? If you are pro-life, I would think you would be elated. And you sound pro-life….
There is nothing wrong with my research. The fact that you have collapsed to the point that you are challenging the definitions of my words proves that you are becoming tangent to the debate as you try indicting the messager because you cannot defeat the message….
No, it is not free. What it is is a re-distribution of income, going from one group of people to another. It is about one group of people taking money from another. It is about the federal government forcibly making someone pay for someone else to go to the doctor. To the person who is receiving the benefit, it is free. But to everyone else who is paying the taxes in to cover it, it is another expense. But anybody who believes that the employee is not paying all of his/her Social Security tax would not understand this.
The actual redistribution of income actually comes from the fact that because of low wages a government program needs to step in to solve the problem. Medicaid benefits not only the recipient, but also their employers. Indirectly, Medicaid has become a form of corporate welfare, where the taxpayers subsidize what the employer should be doing from day one and that is offering affordable health care to their employees.
Plus, why is it only seen as a redistribution of income when the state does it, but when an employer offers good benefits it is just called a great job?
As far the SS debate, If you really thing that absent SS taxes that wages would go up, then your an idealist which no liberal could ever match. Employers would just pocket that windfall if SS taxes all sudden went away…. Get real!
This TrumpoRepublikan bill just shucks way too much back on the states. Trumpo is breaking a couple of his promises here by doing that. He promised he’d “never touch Medicaid.” Well, turning it into a block grant and dumping it on the states touches the hell out of it. As for pre-existing conditions coverage being “in the bill,” he’s apparently just demonstrating how his reality differs from the real world. All the red states are like ours are gonna come up with flimsy excuses to qualify for waivers. The poor will not be able to get health care because the states won’t have funded their high risk pools any better than South Dakota did back in the 80s and 90s. Insurance programs will stop paying for well checkups and preventive stuff, so the poor will go back to the emergency rooms for their health care. It’s absolutely no wonder this dumbass bill passed by just 1 vote.
Also is absolutely no wonder that Mrs. Noem voted for it. I’m sure, though, she’ll be hitting the town halls to explain it. As if.
The clowns were in the Capital yard just yuking it up like they actually did something— Also the beer carts were rolling in for their festivities…..Do they not know or do they not want to inform “glorious leader” that this thing just started.. To the Senate and back to the House, It is gonna be hilarious….
Like when we had to pass obamacare to see what’s in it? Yeah that was a good one. Or how about keeping your Dr or health plan, that was a hilarious lie. Or the lie that it wasn’t a tax until the Supreme Court saved it by saying it actually is. Oh those lies by the democrats and Obama were hilarious.
As far as your first comment, is that why the Republicans today passed Trumpcare without the CBO analysis? And as far as the old Dr. or health plan lie issue, well, we as Democrats lied and then insured an additional 22 million Americans, the Republicans lied about WMD and gave us a continual war. And for the tax issue, well, it was a conservative Chief Justice Roberts, who claimed it was a tax and then called Obamacare for the most part constitutional, that mustard stain is on the GOP and not the Dems….
Medicaid is NOT health insurance. People, enrolled in this program are NOT paying anything for their care….YOU are paying for them. Do your research. Typical Liberal.
Why is it called the Children’s Health Insurance Plan then? CHIP is a part of Medicaid. If paying into a system defines insurance, then no child in America has insurance, because they don;t pay into it…. I think my prior comments more than certain prove that I do my research… I still want to meet these $ 10000 families though…..
Last I checked, CBO is wrong anyway. So why have the analysis? Obamacare was supposed to have less than $1,000,000,000 price tag over a decade. I have seen where the CBO has estimates as high as $2,000,000,000,000. So much for the accuracy of the CBO and why bother? But you keep thinking that you want to suck off the giant American teat.
The current CBO director was appointed by then Congressman Price, who is now the Secretary of HHS. What’s the matter, you don’t trust conservatives now?
Our sewing group could not be more proud of you Kristi! Keep up the good work! Block grants for Medicaid with an overall reduction to this worthless program is essential to save our country from ruin. Thank you!
The truth is there are very few additional people paying for health care today then pre-Obama rip off care. We have additional taxes and a government now controlling a massive almost entitlement plan. As the price continue there increases along with deductibles then it will be a net negative the the democrats wil have the solution, VA medicine for all which is unsustainable and corrupt.
Clauses very easily refuted democrat talking points are a 5 yr olds rebuttel to his mother. Non-sense
There is nothing in this world free, someone’s paying for.
Health care in the US has become more and more expensive. Without insurance coverage it is impossible for those earning middle or lower incomes to pay for it. A relatively common surgical procedure can cost up to $50,000. Of course those complex hospital stays can end up costing much more than that. And this act that was passed yesterday will take away coverage for 20 million of these folks? Wow, that’s a lot of people. And a lot of misery.
Take maternity care. What is the cost now? $25,000 or so. What was it in 1950? I am not certain but I believe it was around $100. We have to live in the real world of today and recognize that costs are now prohibitive for these basic health services. A government role is not my first choice either but, under these circumstances, I see no no alternative.
What would $100 hospital bill in 1950 cost in today’s dollars? I believe its about $1100.
Our European and other strategic allies either laugh at us or feel sorry for us in how we seem to screw each other over healthcare here in the US. It is very sad.
A neighbor of mine had a driver high on pot and cocaine fly at highway speeds thru a stop sign. This drugged driver had no insurance driving a car that was not hers. She broadsided a family of 4 and killed the mother. The widowed father and his two children were in the hospital for a week and he was unable to work as an Ironworker for a while due to his injuries. They lost a mother, he lost his wife and will now go bankrupt because of a drugged driver who does not care about her or others lives. The father cannot get any money to recover damages.
It’s called uninsured-underinsured motorist. Look it up
EC,
You need an Econ 101 refresher.
Whether an employer pays an employee in all cash or a combination of cash and benefits, It is earned compensation.
When earned compensation is seized by force* from one person and given to another in cash or benefits, it is a forced redistribution of income.
When earned compensation is given voluntarily to another in cash or benefits, it a voluntary redistribution of income.
*. If the entity holding the gun is the government, it the legal institution of a form of slavery. If the person holding the gun is a thug on the street, it is a crime.
Oh, I don’t need a refresher. I just pointed out what many of you on the right don’t like to talk about and that is that redistribution of income is not only found in a classical sense as you point out, but also indirectly when the business community benefits from lower wages, because they know that the safety net will supplement their low wage policies….
Its not “slavery” because we are the government. That’s the problem with you conservatives. You guys are always waving the flag, lecturing us to make sure we support the troops, and uphold the original intent of the constitution, then you turn around and crucify the actual entity or government, which the flag represents, the troops defend, and the constitution upholds……
President Trump has just complimented Prime Minister Turnbull saying that Australians “have better healthcare than we do”. It is my understanding that Australia spends about half what we do… and has universal coverage.
Should we adopt their system then? What is his point?
Jimmy,
Good point. Australia has universal coverage for basic care. Nothing catastrophic.
— Have a heart attack and you might get a stent but you won’t get bypass or a transplant.
— Get a cancer and you might get it cut out but not an expensive regimen of chemo and radiation.
This is how they keep their national expenditure on health care down- People don’t get catastrophic care to the same degree as here because they choose not to buy insurance to cover it.
So back to your questions? I have no idea if Trump is contemplating something along those lines (Universal basic care and private care for catastrophic) but it is at least something to discuss (i’m open to discussing most matters).
People and employers buy the catastrophic coverage from private insurers.
Australia has a universal coverage system that promotes preventative care. When you have such a system, then future catastrophic demands upon such a system decline making catastrophic insurance more affordable.
Obamacare began the transfer of our health care system from one of curative to one of preventive medicine.
One of the major problems with Trumpcare is that its complicated pre-existing clause requirements will cause many to fall through the cracks of our health care system, thus requiring many to carry catastrophic insurance, which they probably will not be able to afford given their pre-existing conditions…. And in turn, these people will not report to a doctor until its time to go to ER, which further skyrockets the cost of health care for us all, especially when these people are not covered because they could not afford health insurance, yet the hospitals cannot turn them away….
We have that already because of Obama Care. Nits called very high deductibles and it’s all over the middle class.
EC,
If misrepresenting and misusing economic terms which have meaning in order for both sides communicate accurately is your intent, I find it dishonest and not conducive to discussion. Otherwise, you don’t know what you are talking about.
I don’t disagree that big business has loved pushing costs to big government and I oppose it for alot of reasons but one relevant to this discussion is it gives the impression there is a free lunch.
It is slavery if the matter is a “right” because somebody gets to enslave another to gain the benefit of the right. If we are talking about privileges, it isn’t slavery but societal accommodation. The difference is real and a distinction WITH a difference.
A huge difference
The “misrepresenting and misusing” does not come from me, rather it comes from the denial on right, which thinks that Medicaid for the working poor is redistribution of income, but at the same time, that same redistribution some how does not exist to the benefit of the working poors employers. One cannot assume that all companies or corporations pay taxes or pay their fair share of taxes, which only further establishes them as one that is on corporate welfare (directly or indirectly) and thus a “taker” of income redistribution…. You are assuming that the “job makers” all pay taxes or their just amounts, but you cannot assume that, thus it’s a free lunch often for them.
Your slavery comments are fascinating. Accept, if you believe in democracy and especially representative democracy, then you are attempting to make a distinction between what you call privileges and accommodation, when both are actually the product of a democratic means. What you call slavery, I would call duty to the social contract, what you call accommodation, I would call an exercise in our societal norms and or values….
To suggest that Medicaid benefits and it redistribution of income quality is slavery to those who are taxed, but the benefits that the business community receives, although indirect, when their employees receive benefit from our safety net is merely an accommodation is extremely disingenuous, because it assumes that all employers are “givers” and not “takers”…… And the only true slavery comes from those who wish to have us live in a denial about whether corporate welfare exists and whether it exists not only in the obvious but also in the indirect manner as well…
They lost any integrity they had left when they supported sequestration a few years ago, then had the audacity a few years later to wonder why the ER facilities on the reservations were lacking or non existent….
Or how about when they would send Republcian Senators Thune, Rounds, and Republican Representative Noem to Washington to repeal Obamacare, while at the same time, Republican Governor Daugaard was traveling to Washington to bring Obamacare to South Dakota…. Wow, have they any shame?
At least now we know not entering into the Medicaid bribery scheme was very smart. SD legislators deserve credit.
Yeah, I forgot. Disagreeing with a democrat classifies one as a racist, a homophob, a sexist, anti-Muslim and anti baby. Yet the above is fine killing in the womb. No hypocracey there but when it suits their political interest, they care again.
A democrat showing their true colors.
Yeah. I thought so.
EC,
Quite a rationale you have there:”If you perceive another not even part of the conversation is dishonest, you are justified to be dishonest.”
Democrat arrogance and hypocrisy. You avoid debating the points and instead focus on spelling and sentence structure. Texting on i phones isn’t second nature to me.
But your responses speak volumes. Keep losing seats and power. Don’t change a thing.🍾🐵🙈🙉🙊🙂
I believe it was the Repubilcan who started the “spelling and sentence structure” debate, however. But thanks for the fumble, I just made a touchdown…. 😉
Keep focusing on the shiny objects. You’ll keep losing seats. If you don’t care for SD, then don’t come here. Not hard.
Where have I been dishonest in this debate? I have merely exposed your two dimensional definition of the word “redistribution” and shown it to have at least three or more dimensions. It is more complex than you want it to be, but that is what happens when you allow a debate to collapse into a world of grammar and debatable definitions, when the obvious surface facts of a debate are not on your side….. Its a strategy lawyers often use, when the facts are menacing to their cause.
But why are we so surprised? Increasingly, some are asking us to Iive and accept a world where “alternative facts” and the allegations of “faux news” are given a platform they are not deserving of regardless of their definition(s), and thus we are then asked to fall into such an abyss, where the ill conceived legitimacy of these false concepts receive an attention or respect that is not warranted at all ……
EC: “Plus, why is it only seen as a redistribution of income when the state does it, but when an employer offers good benefits it is just called a great job?”
TJ: I explained whether an employee is paid in cash or cash and benefits, both are compensation and not a “redistribution” by any economic definition.
EC: Rather than accepting you misused a term to make an argument, you doubled down by some convoluted argument that since we can’t determine that all companies “pay their fair share,” it is permissible to then assert Medicaid which goes to their employees is a form of “redistribution.” Now you are really being dishonest by conflating about three or four issues colored by your perceptions of what is “fair share” vs. what the law says.
EC, you are a smart guy (thanks for using a consistent moniker) which means I have a higher expectation of intelligent discussion with you vs. the anonymous who posts three times trying to give a perception alot of people agree with him and brings up the same snarky criticism (ala Ravnsberg picture).
Troy,
I respect your intellect too and always enjoy our discourses as well, but let me just say before I iron for church tomorrow, that in theory a compensation beyond what the market will bear, hence a “good job,” is “redistribution” from an universe of one versus an universe of many, and either universe is democratic or potentially democratic.
Therefore, the thought of “slavery” as mentioned earlier is not true. And only if you indict the government, which governs you, can you make a distinction between the democratic universe of one (a business owner themselves) and the democratic universe of many (a direct or representative democracy, which dictates a requirement)….. Hence the argument earlier about the concept of government itself and whether you accept or recognize its sovereignty to govern…
As far as your “convoluted” concern, the “law,” however, requires us to live in that political plain, which you claim illuminates an actual distinction between “fair share” and “what the law says.” You, however, see it as two competing interests, but that is only possible if you see the law on multiple plains. And if you accept multiple plains, then only are you really conflating. Because you are asking me to live in one plain with my argument, which is fine with me, but you are then conveniently debating me from multiple plains at the same time to try to win the point….
The thing that is missing in our conversation on this board is one that our group unabashadly supports, the Republican notion that you have no legal compulsion to help others in obtaining healthcare. Want an abortion? Why should I pay for something I hate. Had a heart attack? Too bad, maybe you should work out a payment plan with the nonprofit and cut back on the snacks. Employer mandate? Give me a break. You hit business with so many taxes and regulations that it is lucky we even have employees. Here is the truth: if I like you and care about you I will offer a donation. However, if I don’t know you, why should I be forced to make a donation to support your bad decision making. When we met with Kristi, she got it and stood with us. The ladies in our group donate 15 hours per member to civic service each week, because we want to help, but the forced support and damaging values espoused by Barry Obama were killing our country. We are proud of our fantastic Congresswoman and wish her the best.
EC, the following is my response:
Paragraph #1) You use the word “theory” but the proper word is “hypothetical” because your statement doesn’t stand up to practical observation (via the scientific method which you are referencing) because a employer pays employees both what the market will bear up to what the work is worth to the employer. They do not in the real world then give excess out of a desire to “redistribute.”
Paragraph #2) If the government “redistributes” as a component of the good of the whole or the social contract, it is a bestowing of benefit/privilege to some members and imposing a cost to others. Ideally (in my opinion), this allocation is done in the context of the rule of law and constitutional democracy (vs. a benevolent dictator or the whim of the mob majority).
However, if the same thing is because a person has “right” (incorporates concepts of who is the “right-giver” and judgment of some “rights” transcend other “rights”) to goods of another means the producer of the goods is to some degree enslaved to the other person. And the producer’s right to the goods is subordinate to the person claiming these rights. This is when you get into the slavery discussion.
And, while it may seem to be an argument of semantics, the semantics have real world consequences. In the former, respect is afforded both parties. In the latter, one is given respect while the other is not.
Paragraph #3) Not following this point at all. Maybe with the above information making my point more clear, your understanding of what I”m trying to say might be different and that paragraph is moot. Or, you need to make your point more clear to me of feeble mind.
Troy
He’s already ran for cover. Enjoyed the exchange though. Well thought through.