Trump signs Executive Order further Undermining Obamacare

Just this morning Trump spoke about his new executive order that will give us the best Healthcare because Obamacare is so bad. He was so excited about how good this new care is that he almost forgot to sign the Exec. Order and started to walk away. V.P. Pence had to stop him.

From Vox:

With the failure by Republicans in Congress to repeal Obamacare this year, President Trump is taking matters into his own hands, signing an executive order Thursday that targets the health care law.

Trump is asking federal agencies to look for ways to expand the use of association health plans, groups of small businesses that pool together to buy health insurance, and to broaden the definition of short-term insurance, which is exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s rules, administration officials said.

The ultimate impact will depend on any new regulations written as a result of the order, but overall, the Trump administration could make cheaper plans with skimpier benefits more available — and experts worry that will damage the ACA’s marketplaces.

“The president still firmly believes that Congress must act to repeal and replace Obamacare, but before that can be done, this administration must act to provide relief,” Andrew Bremberg, who oversees domestic policy at the White House, told reporters Thursday morning. “We expect these policy changes to potentially benefit tens of millions of Americans over time.”

Policy experts warn that together, these changes could represent a serious threat to Obamacare: Trump wants to open more loopholes for more people to buy insurance outside the health care law’s markets, which experts anticipate would destabilize the market for customers who are left behind with higher premiums and fewer insurers. [Read more here: ]

Trump is bound and determined to undo Obamacare and everything good Obama did for us.

cartoon of trump

489 thoughts on “Trump signs Executive Order further Undermining Obamacare”

    Ryan Grim

    A PURGE OF PARTY officials loyal to Keith Ellison is putting the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee in a difficult position, calling into question his ability to shape DNC decision-making.

    Ellison’s decision to accept the number two spot at the DNC was controversial among his backers, but he argued that he would be able to influence the party from the inside, and help steer Chair Tom Perez in a progressive direction.

    It’s a dilemma as old as politics itself, but the question of how to navigate in relation to the DNC is complicated by the party committee’s toxic political reputation among backers of the presidential bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders. If Ellison can’t reform the DNC, he risks becoming seen by a swath of the party as an apologist for it instead.

    On Thursday, four long-serving DNC officials who had backed Ellison’s bid to be DNC chair were removed from their positions. Ray Buckley, James Zogby, and Barbra Casbar Siperstein were bounced from the executive committee, and Buckley was also taken off the rules committee, on which he served as well. Alice Germond lost her at-large appointment.

    “I think Tom is putting Keith in a tough spot,” said Claire Sandberg, the digital organizer for Sanders’s 2016 campaign. “He’s been working in good faith to convince grassroots progressives not to give up on the Democratic Party and its institutions. But that will be a much more difficult task now.”

    People close to Ellison say that he is feeling the heat and acutely aware of the difficulty he is in, unsure exactly how to do right by the party faithful. Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for Ellison, declined to comment on the unfolding situation.

    “It’s clear by what he’s not saying right now that he’s trying to play the role he signed up for and work behind the scenes. Keith’s next move comes down to whether Perez fulfills the promises he made,” said Becky Bond, a senior adviser to the 2016 campaign of Bernie Sanders. “Perez is putting Ellison in a really tough spot.”

  2. Silence the science.

    Tell Me What Is ‘Conservative’ About This
    The oceans are not partisan.

    …John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation. Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.’s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday. The move highlights widespread concern that the E.P.A. will silence government scientists from speaking publicly or conducting work on climate change. Scott Pruitt, the agency administrator, has said that he does not believe human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet…

  3. Tim Canova shared Amy Hunter’s post.
    3 hrs ·
    Here’s the DNC standing for incremental change, another way of saying it supports the status quo. Super-Delegates are as anti-democracy as you can get. They should be abolished, or be required to vote in line with the people. Too many of them are actually corporate lobbyists. The voters should always decide the nominee – not establishment insiders who double as special interest lobbyists.

  4. Chuck Fager
    12 hrs
    Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo: “I can think of no period in our nation’s history in which there was a growing authoritarian political movement in the United States and it was led by the incumbent President. Talking about a rising authoritarian movement doesn’t just mean Trump, his backers and what we see unfolding in front of us. It predates Trump. There is pretty hard political science data not only demonstrating the rise of authoritarian thinking but more specifically, the sorting of people who think in authoritarian terms. Authoritarians used to be more evenly distributed between the two political parties. In recent decades they’ve been migrating into the Republican party and vice versa. (If you’re interested in more on this look at the work of Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler. Here’s their book and their work has been written up in many news articles.)

    What has occurred to me with growing intensity in recent months is that we do not have a public language and sense of political identity tied to civic freedom. This may sound odd since invocations of liberty and freedom are ubiquitous in American political discourse. . . . Similarly there are many basic values and assumptions I think as Americans we barely know and have seldom needed to state support for explicitly because they have been so assumed. We can’t assume those things any more.

    Of course, we know this in a general sense. Many people were aghast to see the White House Press Secretary last week say it’s “highly inappropriate” to question a four star general. Lots of people can see that norms and values that seldom had to be stated in the past are now trampled on routinely. But that’s not quite the same as identifying what it is that is being trampled on – not just in the individual and specific cases but the larger vision of government and values.

    It may sound like this is just semantics or an issue of naming. But that’s not true. Political values don’t long subsist if they’re not embedded in a deeper sense of identity and an articulated set of precepts, a language and even group of verbal and visual signifiers. When you see the people around Trump lining to floridly praise and thank him in the language of a cult of personality, what is that? It doesn’t feel like us. But what is it and what is the other thing that we identify with and fear is being abandoned?”

    Read the whole piece:
    Toward an Identity and Vocabulary of Civic Freedom for The Trump Era
    As much as we’d like to believe otherwise, authoritarianism and illiberalism are not new to…

  5. Trump’s Tax Plan, Twitter Insults and Rambling Fox News Interview: A Closer Look with Seth Meyers.

    Seth covers a lot of how Trump acts and what he says and how much he doesn’t know in this segment.


    ‘Death tax’ that Republicans want to repeal is paid by only 2 of 1,000 people who die?

    …Trump himself claimed ending the tax would “protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer.” But PolitiFact National’s rating was Pants on Fire: Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, with only 80 being small businesses or farms…

    …In 2016, the year cited in Pocan’s claim, an unmarried individual’s estate was potentially taxable only if the estate’s value exceeded $5.45 million. (The value had to exceed $10.9 million to be taxable, if there was a surviving spouse.) After deductions, such estates generally are taxed at 40 percent.

    IRS figures show there were 12,411 estate tax returns filed in 2016 — but a tax was owed on only 5,219 of them. That smaller figure aligns with what PolitiFact National found. And the non-profit Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center makes a similar estimate for 2017: 5,460 estates owing a tax.)

    In 2016, those 5,219 estates paid a total estate tax of $18.3 billion.

    Since annual estate tax filings include deaths that occur in previous years, the Tax Policy Center says that each year, there are roughly 5,000 estates that pay the federal estate tax out of roughly 2.6 million deaths each year.

    That comes to 2 of every 1,000…

    Politifact goes on to quote Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. He makes it clear that avoiding the estate tax is commonplace. Edwards also states that the estate tax encourages profligate spending, on exotic cars and boats for instance, which he claims is counterproductive to the economy.

    I have several questions directed at Edwards’ claims. How is the economy harmed when cash is circulated by purchases of exotic cars and boats (or on any other consumer purchase, for that matter)? Are the exotic purchases somehow removed from the total value of the estate because, if not, they still have substantial taxable value after depreciation (unlike, say, money spent on travel). Edwards seems to be implying that the purchase of a yacht can bring the value of an estate down below the threshold of the estate tax. It might happen. Maybe. Rarely.

    As for most wealthy estates escaping the estate tax by clever estate (and business) planning well in advance; gee, did anyone not already know or suspect that? I doubt that the clever planning involves purchases of exotic cars and boats.

  7. The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    Published on Oct 27, 2017

    In this Majority Report clip, we talk to blogger Heather Digby Parton about the bizarre (or totally normal) week in the Republican party. With that said, do what do you think of Senator Jeff Flake’s denouncement of Donald Trump this week? Let us know in the comments!

  8. The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    Published on Oct 26, 2017

    In this Majority Report clip, we watch Donald Trump’s latest interview with Lou Dobbs. And yet again, we have no clue what our president is talking about.

  9. The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    Published on Oct 28, 2017

    In this Majority Report clip, Sam Seder breaks down Sinclair’s coverage of the Hillary Uranium “scandal.”

  10. The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    Published on Oct 29, 2017

    In this Majority Report clip, Sam Seder discusses why the right wing’s sinister motive behind voter ID laws.


Leave a Reply

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