Tax reform bill is out...and it may have the votes it needs

[WOT?*]

So far seeing it on Fox and Buzzfeed so I'm posting Buzzfeed.

www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/republicans-final-tax-legislation-is-out-and-it-looks-like?utm_term=.nw0zNAX5A#.rlN3vDyZD

On Thursday, Sens. Marco Rubio and Mike Lee said there were respectively opposed or undecided on the bill if it didn't include a more generous child tax credit for low earning parents.

To address those concerns, the new bill includes the original Senate bill's boost of the tax credit per child up to $2,000, but it makes $1,400 of that "refundable," meaning it gets paid to parents even if they have no income tax liability. The original Senate bill made only $1,100 of the credit refundable.

Rubio, in response, declared his support for the bill Friday, and Lee's spokesman said that the senator would "hopefully" support the bill and was encouraged by the work done in the conference to beef up the child tax credit.

Another key senator, Bob Corker, the only Republican to oppose the original Senate bill, also said Friday he would vote for the compromise version. Corker voted against the original bill because he was concerned over how much it would add to the deficit, and he did not say if the new bill specifically changed to address those concerns.

Sens. Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, who both supported the first bill in the Senate, have not yet said how they will vote on the combined bill. They could both oppose it however, and the bill could still pass with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote.

[seeyalater52]

The media is vastly overstating this. They definitely have the votes to pass it.

Everyone should call and complain loudly because it’s still a dumpster fire, but be prepared for it to pass pretty easily early next week.

[Tacocat]

I’m surprised they didn’t mention the daycare FSA in this article. Does anyone know what happened with that?

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 18:23:04 GMT -5 Tacocat said:

I’m surprised they didn’t mention the daycare FSA in this article. Does anyone know what happened with that?

I haven’t read the new bill yet but I doubt that there are any changes to the dependent care FSA. That got left out of the original Senate bill and this looks like most of that bill retained with some changes being made in conference and I have a pretty decent list of those changes and don’t see the FSA on there. But it’s a little speculative on my part.

[seeyalater52]

I hope people don’t lose the forest for the trees here. Just because this bill (barely) increased the refundable dependent child credit or didn’t hack up tuition benefits or touch dependent care FSAs doesn’t make it a “better” bill. It’s a shit bill and I hope everyone makes that really clear to their elected officials no matter how unwilling they are to hear it. It’s unfair that they get to have a “win” in public perception for loosening up on these tiny little handouts while the core of the bill remains so harmful to this country and to working families.

[erbear]

I've been reading a lot about the tuition remission clause, but I still don't 100% understand it (I get the gist and it's going to fuck me). Is that in this bill?

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 18:45:25 GMT -5 erbear said:

I've been reading a lot about the tuition remission clause, but I still don't 100% understand it (I get the gist and it's going to fuck me). Is that in this bill?

No.

[annieblah]

The biggest is individual mandate is gone. And, so goeth preexisting conditions protections.

[annieblah]

Republican party--you are a shit stain on the American landscape. You are not profamily and not prolife.

[miniroller]

Aw seeyalater52: YOU NEED TO HEAL!!! I don’t mean to lecture, but I hope, hope, hope you’re posting from your couch or your bed with some pj’s on! (That’s an order- if not!😋)

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 18:49:24 GMT -5 annieblah said:

The biggest is individual mandate is gone. And, so goeth preexisting conditions protections.

The individual mandate being repealed wont actually change protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It does have a downstream impact, which is that over time if healthy people who don’t need it (people without pre-existing conditions) don’t buy insurance, it will push premiums up by changing the risk pool of people in the marketplace. For people with subsidies this doesn’t do much except unnecessarily cost the federal government more money, since rising premiums means rising subsidies that will offset them. For people without subsidies at 400% FPL or above it is not good news at all. However, it isn’t going to happen this year and depending on how many people stay enrolled in coverage despite the mandate it doesn’t have to happen at all.

Also, individual states could pass their own mandates like Massachusetts did prior to the ACA, which would help to stabilize risk pools in those marketplaces.

It is absolutely not what we would have hoped for, but I think it’s also important to be realistic and accurate about the impacts. This isn’t nearly as bad as what would have happened if ACA repeal or any of the other health care bills proposed this year had passed. We really don’t want people to panic before they need to. Be angry and replace this Congress so we can fix it before it gets too dire.

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 18:52:59 GMT -5 miniroller said:

Aw seeyalater52: YOU NEED TO HEAL!!! I don’t mean to lecture, but I hope, hope, hope you’re posting from your couch or your bed with some pj’s on! (That’s an order- if not!😋)

Don’t worry, I’m posting from bed! I’ve been off work for an unprecedented 3 whole days and finally feeling a little better now that the anyiciotics have kicked in.

[SallyJ]

It's all awful. So awful it's hard to distill into an elevator pitch of awful. Which makes it hard for everyone to continue being riled up.

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 19:01:54 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

It's all awful. So awful it's hard to distill into an elevator pitch of awful. Which makes it hard for everyone to continue being riled up.

This is so true. I am horrified at a meta level, but every time tealblue starts posting things about the tax code details it’s so far over my head I just feel sort of stupid. And I’ve spent the past month lobbying on this bill and teaching other people how to lobby on it. Hopefully the BAD message makes it through somehow and people remember to go yell at their representatives and Senators over the recess.

[annieblah]

Dec 15, 2017 18:57:31 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Dec 15, 2017 18:49:24 GMT -5 annieblah said:

The biggest is individual mandate is gone. And, so goeth preexisting conditions protections.

The individual mandate being repealed wont actually change protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It does have a downstream impact, which is that over time if healthy people who don’t need it (people without pre-existing conditions) don’t buy insurance, it will push premiums up by changing the risk pool of people in the marketplace. For people with subsidies this doesn’t do much except unnecessarily cost the federal government more money, since rising premiums means rising subsidies that will offset them. For people without subsidies at 400% FPL or above it is not good news at all. However, it isn’t going to happen this year and depending on how many people stay enrolled in coverage despite the mandate it doesn’t have to happen at all.

Also, individual states could pass their own mandates like Massachusetts did prior to the ACA, which would help to stabilize risk pools in those marketplaces.

It is absolutely not what we would have hoped for, but I think it’s also important to be realistic and accurate about the impacts. This isn’t nearly as bad as what would have happened if ACA repeal or any of the other health care bills proposed this year had passed. We really don’t want people to panic before they need to. Be angry and replace this Congress so we can fix it before it gets too dire.

The protections- Good to hear. the cost, though, yes, will likely put it out of reach for those that need it most. at least based on things I've read.
"As insurance rolls decrease, premiums will rise an average of 10 percent," Brown said. "Paying more for health insurance will be a heavy weight to carry if you have a pre-existing condition like heart disease or stroke. We fervently believe this provision should be rejected and removed from the final legislation.”

[annieblah]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/amp/repeal-health-insurance-mandate-gop-tax-bill-could-have-big-n826441

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 19:04:47 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Dec 15, 2017 18:57:31 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

The individual mandate being repealed wont actually change protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It does have a downstream impact, which is that over time if healthy people who don’t need it (people without pre-existing conditions) don’t buy insurance, it will push premiums up by changing the risk pool of people in the marketplace. For people with subsidies this doesn’t do much except unnecessarily cost the federal government more money, since rising premiums means rising subsidies that will offset them. For people without subsidies at 400% FPL or above it is not good news at all. However, it isn’t going to happen this year and depending on how many people stay enrolled in coverage despite the mandate it doesn’t have to happen at all.

Also, individual states could pass their own mandates like Massachusetts did prior to the ACA, which would help to stabilize risk pools in those marketplaces.

It is absolutely not what we would have hoped for, but I think it’s also important to be realistic and accurate about the impacts. This isn’t nearly as bad as what would have happened if ACA repeal or any of the other health care bills proposed this year had passed. We really don’t want people to panic before they need to. Be angry and replace this Congress so we can fix it before it gets too dire.

The protections- Good to hear. the cost, though, yes, will likely put it out of reach for those that need it most. at least based on things I've read.
"As insurance rolls decrease, premiums will rise an average of 10 percent," Brown said. "Paying more for health insurance will be a heavy weight to carry if you have a pre-existing condition like heart disease or stroke. We fervently believe this provision should be rejected and removed from the final legislation.”

Yes - but remember the vast majority of people will receive subsidies that offset the increased premium. Most people with pre-existing conditions qualify for subsidies. We are talking about 13 million people losing coverage, which is awful for those 13 million, but also far fewer than the 22 million that were at risk before and far fewer of the 13 million are people with pre-existing conditions. The majority who will lose coverage are healthy adults who don’t utilize insurance except for preventative care and in emergencies. And since they’re not getting kicked out of coverage directly like they would if pre-existing conditions lost their protections there are policy solutions that can be leveraged to stop this all from happening. It’s a much better position to be in overall.

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 19:05:07 GMT -5 annieblah said:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/amp/repeal-health-insurance-mandate-gop-tax-bill-could-have-big-n826441

Look - I’m not saying it’s not bad. I’ve spent well over 400 hours in the past month working to prevent this from being passed precisely to stop the IM repeal. But overstating the impact doesn’t do anything except scare people unnecessarily.

ETA Core point: it doesn’t change protections for people with pre-existing conditions and it doesn’t change anything at all until 2019.

[annieblah]

Dec 15, 2017 19:12:01 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Dec 15, 2017 19:05:07 GMT -5 annieblah said:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/amp/repeal-health-insurance-mandate-gop-tax-bill-could-have-big-n826441

Look - I’m not saying it’s not bad. I’ve spent well over 400 hours in the past month working to prevent this from being passed precisely to stop the IM repeal. But overstating the impact doesn’t do anything except scare people unnecessarily.

the link was my source. I'm trying to understand how this doesn't scare people? rising costs is a huge concern, isn't it? I'm not arguing, but I feel this is the most harmful part. I'm glad it sounds I am wrong, but I worry for people on this the most.

[tealblue]

Dec 15, 2017 19:04:30 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Dec 15, 2017 19:01:54 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

It's all awful. So awful it's hard to distill into an elevator pitch of awful. Which makes it hard for everyone to continue being riled up.

This is so true. I am horrified at a meta level, but every time tealblue starts posting things about the tax code details it’s so far over my head I just feel sort of stupid. And I’ve spent the past month lobbying on this bill and teaching other people how to lobby on it. Hopefully the BAD message makes it through somehow and people remember to go yell at their representatives and Senators over the recess.

Oh gosh! I felt the same way when you post about healthcare. All I know is it’s bad because I read it from you and I don’t know what any of it means!!!

I think the BAD message is out there. My webinar today was for accountants and tax professionals. Like 2/3 of the people responded “I don’t know” or “it will hurt me” about how this will impact them personally. So even amongst professionals we know it’s bad... and even if it’s beneficial for us, it’s not enough good to outweigh the bad. Hopefully the rest of America are getting that message too!

[isabel]

Lol that $300 makes Rubio feel like this fixes problems for low-income families. I hate these people.

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 19:18:16 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Dec 15, 2017 19:12:01 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Look - I’m not saying it’s not bad. I’ve spent well over 400 hours in the past month working to prevent this from being passed precisely to stop the IM repeal. But overstating the impact doesn’t do anything except scare people unnecessarily.

the link was my source. I'm trying to understand how this doesn't scare people? rising costs is a huge concern, isn't it? I'm not arguing, but I feel this is the most harmful part. I'm glad it sounds I am wrong, but I worry for people on this the most.

Oh it should absolutely scare people. Everyone should be pissed. But I think it’s important to know who should be scared so everyone with pre-ex doesn’t panic. Most of those people won’t be affected. Remember the 13 million number is over 10 years. We are talking about an effect that builds over time not something that is immediate. The premium “death spiral” will be worse in some states than others, and it will depend on lots of factors, including projected enrollment (and after 2019, actual enrollment) despite the mandate. It will depend on the calculations of insurers and individuals and it’s not something that is easily measured (even in the CBO score, which honestly we don’t put a ton of stock in because making projections is hard). And we are doing everything we can to make sure that these factors are mitigated and there are things all of us can do now instead of just freaking out.

Arguably it’s the worst part of the bill, although personally I think the ballooning deficit that will set the stage for cuts to Medicaid and Medicare is much worse and will hurt hundreds of millions more people than this ever would, people who can afford it much less. In health policy world the individual mandate is a small piece of the puzzle and honestly it’s relieving they didn’t take more of the ACA with them than this.

It was hard-won for it to be “only” this bad so I’m trying to put it into perspective.

[seeyalater52]

We are seeing some early indications that more people
will keep their health care despite the mandate repeal due to the growing popularity of the ACA and the fact that most people actually like having health coverage. Many more people won’t relaize they don’t have to have health insurance anymore and will sign up anyways. These are trends we have an impact on. We can work with the DOIs in as many states as possible to try to mitigate rate increases from insurers and urge any willing state legislature to pass a state coverage mandate. We are working this on all fronts - it is far from over.

[seeyalater52]

Don’t get me wrong, I will cry real tears when it passes. It’s sad and horrible and unfair. But let’s face it I’m overinvested. Even my private insurance colleagues are breathing a sigh of relief over this after the year we’ve had.

[downtoearth]

Shit bill to end a pretty shit year.

[scout8]

Dec 15, 2017 19:18:16 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Dec 15, 2017 19:12:01 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Look - I’m not saying it’s not bad. I’ve spent well over 400 hours in the past month working to prevent this from being passed precisely to stop the IM repeal. But overstating the impact doesn’t do anything except scare people unnecessarily.

the link was my source. I'm trying to understand how this doesn't scare people? rising costs is a huge concern, isn't it? I'm not arguing, but I feel this is the most harmful part. I'm glad it sounds I am wrong, but I worry for people on this the most.

Not sure if it is helpful, but I will give you my own take on it as someone with a pre-existing condition who does not qualify for subsidies. Pre-ACA, the only way that I could manage to get insurance was to work for specific real estate brokerages that had some sort of group plan. It was incredibly expensive because the only people that would go in those plans had a pre-existing condition and were expensive to insure. For example, my H would go into a regular individual plan because he could and it was much, much cheaper.

So, the ACA allowed me to get insurance on the open market. The costs went down significantly which was an added benefit, but the most important part to me was that they had to take me. I no longer had to worry about what brokerage I was at and whether they would decide to get rid of their plan. Such a relief.

I hate the idea of having costs rise with the loss of the mandate, but the fact that I will still be able to get insurance is what is most important to me personally. 

[seeyalater52]

Dec 15, 2017 20:06:34 GMT -5 scout8 said:

Dec 15, 2017 19:18:16 GMT -5 annieblah said:

the link was my source. I'm trying to understand how this doesn't scare people? rising costs is a huge concern, isn't it? I'm not arguing, but I feel this is the most harmful part. I'm glad it sounds I am wrong, but I worry for people on this the most.

Not sure if it is helpful, but I will give you my own take on it as someone with a pre-existing condition who does not qualify for subsidies. Pre-ACA, the only way that I could manage to get insurance was to work for specific real estate brokerages that had some sort of group plan. It was incredibly expensive because the only people that would go in those plans had a pre-existing condition and were expensive to insure. For example, my H would go into a regular individual plan because he could and it was much, much cheaper.

So, the ACA allowed me to get insurance on the open market. The costs went down significantly which was an added benefit, but the most important part to me was that they had to take me. I no longer had to worry about what brokerage I was at and whether they would decide to get rid of their plan. Such a relief.

I hate the idea of having costs rise with the loss of the mandate, but the fact that I will still be able to get insurance is what is most important to me personally. 

<3 I thought of you as I was replying above because I know you’re in that small segment of people. I hate that you’re personally affected by this. I will say your state is one that is on the short list for where it could be possible to pass a state level individual mandate. I’m hoping that becomes a major priority for at least a few states this year because it would make a huge difference.

[scout8]

Dec 15, 2017 20:09:54 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Dec 15, 2017 20:06:34 GMT -5 scout8 said:

Not sure if it is helpful, but I will give you my own take on it as someone with a pre-existing condition who does not qualify for subsidies. Pre-ACA, the only way that I could manage to get insurance was to work for specific real estate brokerages that had some sort of group plan. It was incredibly expensive because the only people that would go in those plans had a pre-existing condition and were expensive to insure. For example, my H would go into a regular individual plan because he could and it was much, much cheaper.

So, the ACA allowed me to get insurance on the open market. The costs went down significantly which was an added benefit, but the most important part to me was that they had to take me. I no longer had to worry about what brokerage I was at and whether they would decide to get rid of their plan. Such a relief.

I hate the idea of having costs rise with the loss of the mandate, but the fact that I will still be able to get insurance is what is most important to me personally. 

<3 I thought of you as I was replying above. I hate that you’re personally affected by this. I will say your state is one that is on the short list for where it could be possible to pass a state level individual mandate. I’m hoping that becomes a major priority for at least a few states this year because it would make a huge difference.

Oh, that's good to know! Thanks for the info!!

[cville]

They're just so horrible. No one wants this or likes this and it will fuck up the economy, the budget, and people's lives. They're doing this solely because they're in the motherfucking pocket of big business donors. Fuck them, forever.

[sofamonkey]

Will the CBO score come out before a vote? Like the FULL scoring, not one little fucking part of it.