* Press release…
Today, House Republicans will vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with the American Health Care Act. This dangerous plan would be a disaster for millions of Americans across the country and here in Illinois.
JB Pritzker released the following statement in response:
“It’s unbelievable that Republicans, who are supposed to represent our families, will vote to take away health care from nearly 24 million Americans today,” said JB Pritzker. “This is exactly what we don’t need, tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires on the backs of Illinois’ working families and those with preexisting conditions. It’s time for Bruce Rauner to break his silence and stand up for the more than one million Illinoisans who will lose their health care. As governor, I will stand up against the Trump-Rauner agenda and fight for all Illinoisans to have access to health care.”
* Greg Hinz asked around yesterday…
Gov. Bruce Rauner’s office has said nothing for months about the Washington debate, but insiders say the governor remains concerned about big cuts in Medicaid spending included in the Ryan bill.
* And I’m kinda surprised that nobody has picked up on this Illinois Working Together press release yet…
President Donald Trump’s proposed replacement of the Affordable Care Act would save Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner millions of dollars each year by eliminating a tax provision that funds health insurance for working people under Obamacare.
In 2015, Gov. Rauner paid $6.6 million in the Net Investment Income Tax, a provision created by the Affordable Care Act that applies only to the wealthiest individuals and is a critically important source of funding for the ACA’s health insurance premium subsidies. See here for Gov. Rauner’s 2015 tax return; Net Investment Income Tax is listed on line 62.
The American Health Care Act — TrumpCare — would eliminate the Net Investment Income Tax, simultaneously gutting ACA funding and funneling money to rich individuals like Rauner.
Gov. Rauner also paid $1.8 million in the Net Investment Income Tax in 2014 and $1.9 million in 2013, running his three-year savings to $10.3 million. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, repealing the Net Investment Income Tax would cost the U.S. Treasury $158 billion over 10 years.
If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, 1.2 million Illinoisans would lose health coverage according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To date, Rauner has refused to take a position on the Trump-GOP effort to repeal the ACA.
“After supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential campaign, Gov. Bruce Rauner now stands to save millions if Trump guts health coverage while slashing taxes for the rich,” said Jake Lewis, Campaign Director for Illinois Working Together. “The people of Illinois deserve to know where Gov. Rauner stands: Will he defend the 1.2 million Illinoisans who will lose care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, or would he rather pocket millions of dollars while hard-working people lose their health care?”
*** UPDATE *** The governor says he’s “concerned”…
Governor Bruce Rauner has released the following statement regarding the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of the American Healthcare Act:
“The bill that passed in the U.S. House today continues to be of deep concern to our administration. Recent changes did not address fundamental concerns about the bill’s impact on the 650,000 individuals that are part of our Medicaid expansion population, nor have those changes eased the concerns of the 350,000 people in the individual market who are dealing with skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices. We will continue to voice our concerns as the law moves to the Senate.
“The Affordable Care Act is a seriously flawed law that should be changed. Difficult as the task has proven, we are hopeful that our federal lawmakers will continue to work hard to get this right for the people of Illinois and our nation.”
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:02 pm:
Demanding Rauner respond to the bill passing the US house before it gets completely gutted and rewritten by the US senate, is like demanding that US weather service tell us how much hurricane damage is going to cost us next year based upon Bill Nye’s global warming model.
It exposes Democrats as the kind of people who prepare for a flood the moment they hear thunder.
Cool your jets JB!
- Perrid - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:05 pm:
VanillaMan, I don’t think asking the Governor to take a stand one way or another on a political issue is ridiculous. Yes, the final bill (if it happens) will look different, but if you wait until it’s law to give an opinion then that will be nothing but a waste of your breath.
- red rider - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:12 pm:
its going to be Golden just ask Rod Davis.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:12 pm:
It’s an obvious political move that voters see right through. What non-Democratic voter is going to break away from Rauner over political speculation, when they’re probably Trump voters who are delighted in the death of Obamacare?
Too cute by half.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:15 pm:
It’s only a plausible argument when our state comptroller brings it up. JB isn’t impacted by any of this, obviously.
Rauner loses when he loses his 2014 coalition. This issue won’t do that.
- JoeMaddon - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:17 pm:
**Demanding Rauner respond to the bill passing the US house before it gets completely gutted and rewritten by the US senate**
Yea, Rauner absolutely should say something. You don’t think that Roskam, Davis, et al would be influenced by Rauner taking a public position against the bill?
- Norseman - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
Rauner is staying mum or whispering because he doesn’t want to alienate the extreme right that want the ACA gone at all costs. Costs that will harm Illinois finances and thousands of Illinois residents. Rauner is not going to get the left and is in tons of hurt with the center so he needs the right to come out big for him.
A leader who is only concerned about impact on Illinois would be screaming out his/her concerns. Trumpcare will have massive adverse effect on a budget that is already in shambles.
- Rocky Rosi - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:21 pm:
Great move by JB. Tie BVR to Trump but the only issue is that BVR doesn’t need resources from GOP.
- Passive Agressive - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:34 pm:
Funny, Rauner had no issue letting his position be known on the Women’s Rights bill before it had passed the House and Senate.
- Arsenal - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:36 pm:
==Demanding Rauner respond to the bill passing the US house before it gets completely gutted and rewritten by the US senate==
Governors, especially Republican ones, can influence *how* it gets rewritten.
- Sue - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:46 pm:
All of the critics crying over the Republican effort fail to mention that Obamacare has been less then successful in terms of premium costs and accessibility since many people can’t afford the copay sand deductibles. Moving folks with significant health issues into the high risk pools and out of the general insurance population will lower premiums. The mistake with the ACA was it transferred the high cost associated with preexisting conditions onto the healthy population who don’t receive subsidies. The folks screaming about the proposed Republican proposal are totally mistating what the changes represent and overselling the benefits of the ACA
- Responsa - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
I would say that the influence BVR holds over DJT and especially over the U.S Senate is close to nil. But carry on 2018 candidates if you think that is the red meat you need to seal the deal for you!
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
Over a million Illinoisans are going to be thrown into financial ruin through healthcare bills
Rauner is silent because it can only be blamed on HIS party.
It can’t be blamed on Madigan
Restaurant quality team Pritzker
local 150 chose wisely
But the governor doesn’t have to say anything
Social media will say it all
Flooded with AHCA horror stories
All pushed by………oh snap, those pesky unions
You wanna know where we’ve workin’ Bruce
social media baby
We’re gonna clean your clock
- Truthteller - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:50 pm:
Certainly a guy who can pour $50 million into his reelection campaign can afford $6 million to help provide health care for millions of Americans.
Perhaps Rauner sees this as an opportunity for the public to finance his campaign
- GraduatedCollegeStudent - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:53 pm:
===Moving folks with significant health issues into the high risk pools and out of the general insurance population will lower premiums.===
And you or someone you know/support will never, ever develop a significant health issue, right?
The money that is being used to subsidize those high risk pools is a drop in the bucket compared to what would probably actually be needed, so it is indeed going to hurt a lot of people.
- Responsa - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 12:59 pm:
==Social media will say it all
Flooded with AHCA horror stories==
==Over a million Illinoisans are going to be thrown into financial ruin through healthcare bills==
I’d ask you to support that bold claim but why even bother. It’s the narrative that matters, right?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:10 pm:
===What non-Democratic voter is going to break away from Rauner===
He’s currently running in a Democratic primary, so your point misses the mark. Plus, it’s May 4th.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:11 pm:
Responsa- well because its flooding social media as we speak. Pull up your social media feed. Tell me there aren’t people totally freaking out about it. I’ve personally share stories half a dozen times today. People in hardship because of ACA repeal are compelling stories. Everyone will probably know someone….the privileged won’t. I guess there is the problem isn’t it? The privileged don’t feel it, hear it or see it. But the majority do. Trump and Ryan just bet the House
- Sue - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:11 pm:
Graduated- the cost for insuring the high risk population once the govt decided to mandate guaranteed issue should have been on taxpayers not the individual insurance market. How was it fair to quadruple premiums of non- subsidy participants- what did they do to deserve premiums for family coverage to go from around 8 to 10 K to 30 to 40k. If giving people with preexisting conditions was to become national policy- that expense should be paid by the treasury and not the 8 to 10 million people who buy their own coverages
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:15 pm:
Good on Pritzker and great on the unions. Rauner was against Medicaid expansion. Use his own words in ads and press releases.
I’m sorry but the GOP yes votes in the U.S. House mean a lot–no matter what happens in the Senate. They are huge statements and tell Americans that they support a massive wealth transfer to Rauner types while imperiling the sickest and poorest. And many of these people and their supporters call themselves Chisitans and want to force their religion into government and people’s lives.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:21 pm:
Sue- you want to make a bet about premiums? I wager that they are going to go through the roof for everyone. I think you drank Ryan’s coolaid
- blue dog dem - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:23 pm:
I just watched the US house vote. Utter childish. This country, so polarized in partisonship, is in big trouble. God help us.
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:34 pm:
- Sue - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:11 pm:
You are spot on. Love all the state workers on this blog who have never had to pay for ALL of their own insurance and how they argue for the ACA. Get real, there is a world outside of Illinois and Capital Fax.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:36 pm:
Sue. Excellent stuff.
- GraduatedCollegeStudent - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:39 pm:
===Graduated- the cost for insuring the high risk population once the govt decided to mandate guaranteed issue should have been on taxpayers not the individual insurance market. How was it fair to quadruple premiums of non- subsidy participants- what did they do to deserve premiums for family coverage to go from around 8 to 10 K to 30 to 40k. If giving people with preexisting conditions was to become national policy- that expense should be paid by the treasury and not the 8 to 10 million people who buy their own coverages===
Last I checked non-subsidy participants were just as liable to develop cancer/other pre-existing conditions as subsidy participants. Anyway, funny you should mention family premiums because it sounds like pregnancy just got classified as a pre-existing condition under the new law.
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
I run a small business. Prior to the ACA, my premiums for myself and my family (2 kids) ran about $1500 per month for pretty decent coverage in the private market. After the ACA my premiums for the same insurance went up to $3975 per month this year after 3 years of steady increases. Yea, no thank you on the ACA. I will give at the office….
- Responsa - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:44 pm:
== just got classified as a pre-existing condition under the new law.==
There is no new “law”. You do understand that, right?
- Anon - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 1:44 pm:
Sue is exactly correct. My premium went from $395 to $1595 before I dropped it and went with a medical sharing plan. Oh and I have always had a $10k deductible. I am sick of reading these state employees comment that we do not know what we are talking about when we are living the experience.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:06 pm:
The schadenfreude will be delicious in just a few months. You think it was bad under ACA. You guys have no idea. You all are going to feel so betrayed. You all wanted this and you’re going to get it. We’ll never let you forget it. Those whose loved ones died or were financially ruined by AHCA will neither forgive or forget. ACA didn’t force anyone into bankruptcy to pay healthcare costs. It prevented that.
- Sue - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:09 pm:
Graduated- that was another Obama lie- insurance companies didn’t drop people in the individual markets if they got sick nor did they raise your rates. Once you were in you were in unless you failed to pay your premiums
- Graduated College Student - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
Sue-
And surely you can pay your premiums every month on the month even if you are in a poverty-level situation pre-medicaid expansion.
/sarcasm
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:23 pm:
Honeybear @ 2:06 PM
If my premiums stay at or below $3975 as they are under the ACA, then I will be happy to enjoy that schadenfreude. With a cherry on top.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
None of it will work unless we figure out how to restrain the cost of health care. And poor folks have this funny idea that their life is a valuable as a politician’s, an industrialist’s or anyone else that has good coverage. And when they get less health for more dough and see the disparity on media, they will vote accordingly. Trump and Rauner are only the beginning of the angst vote.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
Obamacare wasn’t wanted by the 80% of Americans who already had coverage. It was forced upon us through legislative chicanery. It was never accepted by a majority of voters. Then it bombed.
So the hurtle for this replacement is pretty low. Voters recognize that it replaces a disasterous mess. Trumpcare will be better than Obamacare, because of what we’ve seen during the first attempt. Trumpcare will be an evolution of Obamacare. The focus will be on fiscal sustainability and individual costs.
So, don’t expect a spectacular failure. Don’t expect a Trump University style disaster. Voters will show patience.
Shooting off against this right now may make Democrats giggle in the primary, but it is too soon to use it as a Rauner who has easily shown as much dislike for the President as say, some Red state Democrats running for reelection.
- Pundent - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:41 pm:
= Trumpcare will be better than Obamacare, because of what we’ve seen during the first attempt.=
Don’t bet on it. The “unpopular” aspects of Obamacare (i.e., individual mandate) support the “popular” features (no exclusion for pre-existing conditions). Trump has promised that we can keep the popular provisions while eliminating the unpopular. That’s unsustainable. If the goal is to provide insurance to a larger pool of people you’ll always have a level of dissatisfaction. Healthy people will be paying for the sick. Younger people will have less of a need for healthcare, older people will need more. That’s the way insurance works.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
Wait sue are you talking insurance companies before ACA didn’t drop people or raise rates? That happened to my family . Family member became afflicted by peripheral neuropathy. UIC medical couldn’t figure out what was causing it. Bam! We lost our insurance coverage. Nobody would insure us for three years. We had to go on sCHIP. Paid thousands more for it.
Happily it did have a good ending. Turns out the PN was caused by a subluxated spine. Two weeks with a chiropractor and loved one was off the meds. That was 12 years ago. But yeah Sue family has had a run in with insurance companies.
- Crispy - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:03 pm:
VMan, with respect, I think you’re mistaken on this one. Recent polls show a majority of voters favor the ACA, and only 17 percent approved of the replacement–and that was the kinder, gentler, earlier version, not the draconian bill passed in the House today. Check out the rage currently being directed at Rodney Davis and Pete Roskam on social media for a sense of public opinion. Pritzker’s smart to tie Rauner to this act of political suicide by the House GOP.
- Anon221 - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
To the Update- “We will continue to voice our concerns as the law moves to the Senate.”
Care to share those concerns with rest of the State??? Seems like Rauner and Company has a bad case of laryngitis.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:11 pm:
Raccoon you know I was being a putz. I apologize. I don’t want to see anyone’s insurance go up. I was wrong to say that. I’m actually super afraid of what the new changes will bring. The consequences are horrendous. I obviously don’t want to pay more either. But I need to not say that I would enjoy the schadenfreude. I know what it means to get cut off by an insurance company. I know what it means to go without so that we could afford insurance for our kids. It still took 2 years to pay off daughters broken elbow surgery with full coverage. We couldn’t take our share which was 5k. Had to do payments.
Forgive my passion around this issue.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:19 pm:
===We will continue to voice our concerns as the law moves to the Senate.===
All seven Illinois Republicans voted to take away health insurance from 24 million Americans to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Does anyone believe that they would have all voted this way if Governor Rauner didn’t allow them to? They are just as afraid of him as Illinois House and Senate Republicans, some moreso.
I think they heard Governor Rauner loud and clear and voted accordingly.
- Anon221 - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
Honeybear- You have nothing to apologize for. Your passion on this subject is to be applauded.
- Hieronymus - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:31 pm:
Sorry to burst your bubble, Sue. When I was in the individual market, my premiums more than quadrupled during the ten years up to 2006, and that was with no new “conditions”.
Today, the total, unsubsidized value of my _group_ insurance is about 50% less than I was paying 11 years ago, for roughly equivalent coverage.
- Mittuns - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:33 pm:
ACA slowed health insurance cost growth, period. It has flaws that need corrected, but use the scalpel instead of the hatchet.
Either way, you’re going to pay. When a working class family is forced to go to the ER for routine care. You will pay for it through increased premiums. The insurance companies love this. They can price gouge here and there while pointing the finger at that dastardly Obamacare.
You know what would lower costs 20-30% and have better outcomes? Medicare for All.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
Medicare for all would solve the problem. We’re all Americans, and we’re all in this together.
- Norseman - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
My response to the Rauner response:
Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy!
- @misterjayem - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:47 pm:
“Obamacare wasn’t wanted by the 80% of Americans who already had coverage.”
Prior to Obamacare, my preexisting conditions were not covered by my insurance. After Obamacare, my preexisting conditions were covered by my insurance. If the American Health Care Act becomes law, my preexisting conditions will no longer be covered by my insurance.
In addition, if the American Health Care Act becomes law, I will be subject to a lifetime cap on health insurance spending. If during my lifetime I reach that cap, payment will be suspended and I will be allowed to die.
This is all true despite the fact that I am, and have always been, ‘covered’ by insurance.
“It was forced upon us through legislative chicanery.”
Obamacare had 79 House committee hearings/markups.
By contrast, with the American Health Care Act there have been zero hearings, zero studies, and no Congressional Budget Office analysis — the text of a bill didn’t even circulate until the day before the vote.
– MrJM
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:47 pm:
Honeybear, no ned to apologize. Opinions are good a respected. My experience as a small business owner - I am a one man shop - has been terrible under the ACA. I am not a rich guy, just a small business owner who is self insured. The rise to my premiums have just been unsubstantial. I have a heart, I am charitable, but I have to take care of my own.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
==there is a world==
I get so sick and tired of that comment. It seems that some of you think if other people are paying a lower rate for health insurance then they don’t live in the “real world.” You use your own experience as the “rule” rather than an anecdote. You can pick 10 people off the street and every one of them will have a different experience with health insurance. I’ve got friends in the private sector that have excellent health insurance. I know people who are self-employed who buy their own insurance. Guess what? We all live in the “real world.”
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
The Governor is right to be concerned. Some of the changes are going to result in a higher cost for Illinois Medicaid program which is something the state obviously cannot afford at this time. So, it’s more than appropriate to ask him to comment on it regardless of whether or not the legislative process is complete. To say that we shouldn’t expect commentary from him until it works it’s way through the entire process is just silly.
- Hieronymus - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
I should have said that my 2006 premiums were 50% higher than today’s total group premium. And I should not have said “unsubsidized”, as the value of the premium not actually deducted, is still considered compensation.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
Like Social Security benefits, Medicare/Medicaid face huge(maybe insurmountable) hurdles in a few years. We are just living soooo long. Kinda like guaranteed pensions. Maybe its time to start thinking outside the box. Maybe insurance health benefits stop at a certain age(ok, how about my age,72). My mother, god bless, 93, went and had a mammogram last week. I know these are pretty radical ideas. But 30 years ago we were only living to 70..whats it going to be in another 30. I know one thing, whatever position either political party takes, the other will be opposed to.
- Norseman - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
=== All seven Illinois Republicans voted to take away health insurance … Does anyone believe that they would have all voted this way if Governor Rauner didn’t allow them to? ===
47, I’d put it in another way, i.e. Rauner just rolled over. If he did more than send a letter and let a lower level DHFS staff person make a call, I would be surprised. Rauner needs the strong help of the right next year. He doesn’t want to rock the boat.
Besides, the real Medicaid explosion will come in several years after the federal $$$ phase-out period. Rauner will probably not be thinking about a 3rd term (god forbid).
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:05 pm:
===Like Social Security benefits, Medicare/Medicaid face huge(maybe insurmountable) hurdles in a few years.===
That’s kind of vague, bdd. Care to supply, and specifics?
===We are just living soooo long.===
Specifics like this, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/18/the-government-is-spending-more-to-help-rich-seniors-than-poor-ones/?utm_term=.0dc7a1b8279c
===Maybe insurance health benefits stop at a certain age===
Soylent Green foodbanks for the poor maybe, huh bdd? Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. No pun intended. Eyeshadow!
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
Note: Yeesh! Autocorrects apparently to eyeshadow …
- anon. - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
VMan, allknowing and Sue; you all leave out the insurance companies in your coverage equation blaming ACA. Those premiums were rising decade before ACA and will go ten fold higher under the Republican tax plan not health plan.Read the stories about Aetna in court and the m & a’s its all about greed not health care.
- sal-says - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:25 pm:
== allknowingmasterofracoondom If my premiums stay at or below $3975 as they are under the ACA, then I will be happy to enjoy that schadenfreude. With a cherry on top. ==
Guessing you think coverage will be exactly the same. Lol. This is intended to improve the wealth of the 1%’ers. Didja see the bene to Raunner?
- Chicago 20 - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:39 pm:
The poor and sick won’t be able to purchase insurance. Hospitals and doctors won’t get paid by the sick and the poor and will pass these costs to the insured, whose premiums will then skyrocket making insurance unaffordable for most.
Logically a single payer health system make complete sense but it will block profiteering. Without the profiteers, there will be few lobbyists and much less campaign donations.
If only there was a way to profit from the sick and the elderly and remove their burden on our society.
Soylent green can’t be too far away.
- Ron - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:46 pm:
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
Medicare for all would solve the problem. We’re all Americans, and we’re all in this together.
This is the best solution.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:59 pm:
Heard the Governor will consider supporting the ACA repeal if it includes term limits, redistricting and workers comp reforms and a property tax freeze.
- Pundent - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 5:01 pm:
=Maybe insurance health benefits stop at a certain age(ok, how about my age,72). My mother, god bless, 93, went and had a mammogram last week.=
Sounds an awful lot like those “death panels” I once heard of. Wasn’t that supposed to be one of the big problems with Obamacare that we needed to repeal?
- Chicago 20 - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 5:07 pm:
Rauner will write an oversized check for a few hundred grand in a media event and laugh all the way to the bank with the rest.
Rauner will care about people only when they turn green.
- Hieronymus - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 5:08 pm:
Sounds like blue dog dem has been “running”, these last 42 years. Sorry to those who don’t get the reference.
- Hieronymus - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 5:20 pm:
To PublicServant’s & Ron’s comment - IIRC, Medicare has about a 5% overhead vs. 20% allowed to insurance companies under ACA. There’s a free 15% savings to premium/taxpayers right there.
- Norseman - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 5:53 pm:
To all the reporter folks who monitor this post, ask your local congressman if he heard from Rauner or his administration over Trumpcare. Inquiring minds want to know.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 6:08 pm:
Ron,
I have to say I’m surprised at, and appreciate your support of Medicare for all. It shows that, as Walker points out, people aren’t easily pigeonholed. Unless, that is you’re a different Ron. The ACA was flawed, but far from fatally, it needed a public option in low participation states. That was easily fixed, but not with a Republican congress. I have to learn to better understand where people are coming from in their opinions. I need to control my emotions to better participate in this blog. I’ll keep trying. Bare with me until I become more completative.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 6:10 pm:
P.S. Not sure how likely that is to happen by the way.
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 6:16 pm:
“GA Watcher - Thursday, May 4, 17 @ 4:59 pm:
Heard the Governor will consider supporting the ACA repeal if it includes term limits, redistricting and workers comp reforms and a property tax freeze.”
GA Watcher wins the internet for the day!!
- Honeybear - Friday, May 5, 17 @ 9:01 am:
Public servant. Excellent epiphany. I agree. It’s best that we strive to be fellow Illinoisans. It gets heated here. Thanks for the reminder.
- Melanie Letran - Friday, May 12, 17 @ 6:24 am:
In these days of austerity in addition to relative anxiousness about taking on debt, most people balk contrary to the idea of using a credit card to make acquisition of merchandise or pay for a vacation, preferring, instead to rely on a tried plus trusted means of making repayment - hard cash. However, if you’ve got the cash on hand to make the purchase fully, then, paradoxically, this is the best time just to be able to use the credit cards for several good reasons.