Obama’s flurry of ‘midnight’ actions that GOP is prepared to repeal
President Obama’s agencies are enacting a flurry of actions to preserve his legacy, but Republicans warn they’ll repeal everything they can.
Click here for reuse options!Federal agencies are rushing out a final volley of executive actions in the last two months of Barack Obama’s presidency, despite warnings from Republicans in Congress and the reality that Donald Trump will have the power to erase much of their handiwork after Jan. 20.
Regulations on commodities speculation, air pollution from the oil industry, doctors’ Medicare drug payments and high-skilled immigrant workers are among the rules moving through the pipeline as Obama’s administration grasps at one last chance to cement his legacy. So are regulations tightening states’ oversight of online colleges and protecting funding for Planned Parenthood.
Also moving ahead are negotiations on an investment treaty with China and decisions by the Education Department on whether to offer debt relief to students at defunct for-profit colleges. The Department of Transportation may also go ahead with a ban on cellphone calls on commercial flights and a rule requiring most freight trains have at least two crew members on duty…
Miffed congressional leaders are warning the agencies to halt their work on so-called midnight regulations, specifically objecting to Obama’s call earlier this year for “audacious executive action.” In a letter to agency heads last week, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and every House committee chairman cautioned them “against finalizing pending rules or regulations in the Administration’s last days.”
“Should you ignore this counsel, please be aware that we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions — and, if appropriate, overturns them.”
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
58 responses to Obama’s flurry of ‘midnight’ actions that GOP is prepared to repeal
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Buford2k11 November 27th, 2016 at 10:42
All republicans in our congress suck eggs…they ARE THE problem our nation has…a minority of “small ‘a’ americans” now own the evil of the gop, and trump…
I am recalculating the depth of my bunker…not deep enough for the future of a Trumper Administration…must go deep…must go hardened…must find more sandbags…My doggies are a little concerned for my mental health…I can’t stop barking at the moon https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f129edb890f040169c319b5e4b601aa83a86c11a941b3cad0c22bd36b23aee11.jpg
StoneyCurtisll November 27th, 2016 at 13:15
They are the swamp…
And Trumps keeps putting more alligators in the freakin swamp.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 10:49
Obamacare will implode under its own bureaucratic inefficiency, indecipherable complexity and financial instability.
There is no saving it.
oldfart November 27th, 2016 at 12:14
A real pity the Heritage foundation didn’t mention that before…Huh ?
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:21
I did. Google it.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:34
Here:
http://www.alternet.org/comments/news-amp-politics/koch-brothers-anti-obamacare-ads-backfire
oldfart November 27th, 2016 at 13:06
And what?
So you’re also saying “Romney care” was bad too ?
Where were you when it was enacted and not decrying the end of the world for poor Massachusetts…it’s still there and getting better.
No one, including me thought that the ACA would be enough to cover and provide completely for our country.
It’s far from perfect but it still was a republican idea to begin with.
I am of the opinion and highly doubt that you care one way or the other about this issue as long as you get to complain about it.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 10:49
Government is about half the health insurance market with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. This is why the health insurance market is not functioning like a normal market in any other industry.
Get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible. Limit them to limited regulation and financial support for health insurance to those who need it.
Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.
Keep the federal regulation stating that insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions as long as the person had previous insurance.
Allow people to purchase insurance from any state. Deregulate state health insurance markets. Unhinge medical insurance from employers in the tax code.
Getting government out and increasing competition in this way will lower health insurance costs. It cuts the bureaucracy costs, cuts the fraud costs and improves competition and quality of care.
Why not do financial support for health insurance the same way we do financial support for food?
fahvel November 27th, 2016 at 11:45
wow, that’s a lot of words from a small minded person.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 11:47
Stay ignorant my friend.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 12:14
Yesterday we had another anit-ACA participant in this forum citing Singapore as an excellent economic model offering business opportunities superior to the United States.
He neglected to mention the significant Singapore government involvement in both health care and in mandatory programs requiring citizens to participate financially.
Today you provide your opinion that the key is to get government out of health care. Really easy for ACA opponents to argue both sides citing foreign examples while omitting key facts about government involvement, or suggesting that in America, government is the problem.
Without a mandate to insure there is a pool of younger healthy policy holders, how do you pay for the coverage of pre existing conditions.
In the early 1960’s Ronald Reagan made an audio tape describing a sinister new proposal that would be the first step in transforming America into a soviet-style police state. That sinister new program is what we now call Medicare. Conservatives were always on the wrong side of history when it comes to Medicare. I see little has changed.
If you phase out Medicare, what about seniors on fixed incomes who are not below the poverty line, but cannot afford private sector health insurance?
You insist that the corporate sector is the solution. But the primary objective of the corporate sector is to generate profit, not to maximize the care available to all who need it.
So when admonishing people about ignorance, get your own house in order first. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to health care in this country, conservatives have a 50 year old credibility problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:24
Try reading this sentence again:
“Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.”
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 12:39
I did misread that statement. My apologies. I still think that approach is problematic. It does not change the fact that the primary objective of the private sector is profit, not care.
How much is this yearly amount? How do we insure that it is used to purchase the best available coverage and an impaired 80 year old does not make a bad decision purchasing coverage not suitable for them and their family? The care available to the senior citizen depends on their knowledge of the health insurance market. So instead of just going to the doctor and signing some forms, a physically impaired 80 year old must navigate a complex market every year to make decisions about whether to keep their policy or shop for a new one. I do not think that is the best approach when the goal is to provide the best possible care for everyone, not to maximize corporate profits.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:47
The only way for health insurance companies to secure a profit is to provide something people are willing to pay for. Let the consumer be the judge what the health insurance companies primary objective is. The yearly amount could be set by the market price. People who might need assistance deciding which company to go with can be helped by their family, friends or private sector such as Consumer Reports or others.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 12:55
“”” Let the consumer be the judge what the health insurance companies primary objective is. “”
Your statement makes no sense. Please name just one private sector insurance company whose primary objective is not profit.
And seniors should rely either on family and friends who may be even less knowledgeable than they are, or a private business which will likely be ill equipped to explain the nuanced differences between Cigna’s Collect Flex Bronze Plan and Aetna’s Banner Leap Everyday plan.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:00
The only way to reach their primary objective is to provide something the consumer is willing to pay for.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 13:01
and the only way to guarantee that everyone will receive the care they need is to make sure that providing that care is the top priority, instead of providing it only if it is profitable.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:05
So what about food? Food producers top priority is profit.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 13:13
It never fails. Inevitably, ACA critics attempt to change the subject when it is pointed out that care, not profit must be the top priority of any health insurance program.
What about food? When a grocery store declines to accept food stamps on milk or eggs because it is not profitable to do so, but accepts them on other items then you might have a point.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:16
You are stuck on nonsense.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 13:28
You think my ideas are nonsense. Fine. The feeling is decidedly mutual.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:29
Learn about profit.
Jungle_Bhoy November 29th, 2016 at 18:49
..but more importantly learn that the life and well-being of you, your parents and your children are a danger to the profits of the Health insurance Mafia – pay your premiums and when you get sick – die – and die quickly – that’s the American way.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:17
How to Create a Profitable Business Idea
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/222710
Obewon November 27th, 2016 at 13:22
No. “Food producers top priority is” government subsidy, crime, price fixing, fraud, etc.
ADM busted again: Agribusiness Archer Daniels Midland has settled a lawsuit over claims the company was behind a now-imprisoned grain broker’s scheme that gouged millions from dozens of Missouri farmers.
Dealer stole $27.4 million by failing to pay for corn, legumes
ADM denied wrongdoing, saying it was cleared by government.
The lawsuit centered on ADM’s alleged role in the theft of $27.4 million by dealer Cathy Gieseker from Missouri farmers. Gieseker, now serving a nine-year prison sentence, reneged on paying for corn and soybeans she sold, mainly to ADM. The farmers alleged Gieseker acted as an agent of ADM. “The settlement is confidential and parties have agreed they will not disclose details of the agreement.”-ADM. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/adm-settles-farmers-lawsuit-over-dealer-s-theft-mid-trial
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:08
Hate to beak it to you, everyone’s top priority is making a profit. That is how you stay in business.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 13:08
Hate to break it to you, but your sarcasm simply confirms the point I was making.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:11
Food!
Obewon November 27th, 2016 at 13:28
Busted again! ADM settles lisine price-fixing charges for $400 M!
ADM was accused of fixing prices by colluding with other makers of high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener used instead of sugar in many beverages and foods. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-06-19/business/0406190182_1_lysine-and-citric-acid-mark-whitacre-corn-syrup
StoneyCurtisll November 27th, 2016 at 13:17
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CCOhF37TZLU/V0HL5J-eEqI/AAAAAAACUSo/QUDebSrDwekaweJp7cABHudH_PLy4WwqQCLcB/s1600/trump%2Bmouth.jpg
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:12
Nonsense.
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 13:16
Nonsense is the notion that privatization is always the key to addressing the needs of society.
Maybe you want to live in a world where if you call 911, the first question is what is the nature of your emergency, and the second question is, will that be VISA or MASTERCARD.
I do not…
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:12
Food!
Dwendt44 November 27th, 2016 at 13:02
If we do all that TK says, then government would fund insurance to some degree as he mentioned. BUT that way, it’s also easier to cut that funding as insurance companies gouge the consumer and medical costs continue to rise. “we can’t afford it!” will be heard daily if not hourly in Congress.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 13:02
Who knows what kind of plans would be offered if my idea was in place. And the private sector could easily deal with explaining the plans, Consumer Reports already does it for many things. http://www.consumerreports.org/
Jungle_Bhoy November 27th, 2016 at 12:39
Can someone explain to me why we even need the corrupt crooked insurance companies involved in healthcare. I’d rather have my doctor make life and death decisions than a minimum-wage outsourced call-center representative of the for-profit multi-national health-care mafia.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:51
It is about managing risk.
http://www.thetruthaboutinsurance.com/how-do-insurance-companies-make-money/
arc99 November 27th, 2016 at 12:47
A week in the ICU costs about $100K. A week of groceries for a family of 4 costs about $500.00.
To suggest that government assistance for health care can be managed the same way as government assistance where the benefit is orders of magnitude less, implies that the care, advice and management required for a $100K expenditure is really no different than the care, advice and management required for a $500 expenditure. Does not make sense to me. .
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 12:53
Government assistance for health insurance not health care. The insurance pays for the health care.
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 19:48
Then cut out the middle man – the insurance company. When you remove the “profit” requirement, you’ll get a lot more for your money.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 20:09
Wrong.
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 20:17
Right, not wrong. If all you can offer is a declarative sentence, then I am free to present a declarative sentence to debunk it.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 20:18
If it worked like that, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea would be paradises.
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 21:05
Still not an actual factual response. And I am pretty sure that how they approach healthcare is not the SOLE reason for the success or failure of an entire COUNTRY! Most countries deal regularly with issues OTHER than healthcare.
But if you think the world has but ONE facet, you demonstrate abysmal ignorance of the real world. Countries fail with socialized healthcare? There are more than 30 countries with socialized medicine. All of them should be failures according to your yardstick. Yeah, that Canada and that Switzerland and that Sweden and that Ireland and that Finland and that France and that Denmark have all failed. Hell, Norway has had socialized medicine since 1912. Over the course of a hundred years, shouldn’t it not exist anymore if only healthcare is the arbiter of how a country does?
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 21:15
Government is about half the health insurance market with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. This is why the health insurance market is not functioning like a normal market in any other industry.
Get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible. Limit them to limited regulation and financial support for health insurance to those who need it.
Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.
Keep the federal regulation stating that insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions as long as the person had previous insurance.
Allow people to purchase insurance from any state. Deregulate state health insurance markets. Unhinge medical insurance from employers in the tax code.
Getting government out and increasing competition in this way will lower health insurance costs. It cuts the bureaucracy costs, cuts the fraud costs and improves competition and quality of care.
Why not do financial support for health insurance the same way we do financial support for food?
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 22:54
Saying it all again does NOT make it true.
Facts, figures, details? Got any? You make pronouncements about WHAT is wrong with healthcare, and yet you can’t show HOW it causes the effects you claim. You also claim that the ENTIRE economy somehow is determined by healthcare choices – well, at least that was your response to my suggestion of taking OUT the middleman.
Saying “wrong” and conflating healthcare with the ENTIRE country and then REPEATING those same no-facts-or-data claims does not constitute and does not support your point or refute mine. Show me facts and figures that show that socialized healthcare has WORSE results than an entirely profit-driven model that we suffered under before the ACA.
The WHO lists America’s Healthcare ranking as 31st out of 191 investigated. The US has the HIGHEST healthcare expenditures as a percentage of GDP. We are 43rd in life expectancy. Most countries with socialized medicine have MORE physicians per capita than the US. The majority of countries above the US in acute care beds are believers in socialized medicine. ALL countries studied by the WHO have lower prescription drug prices. Infant mortality is higher than in Socialized Medicine Canada or New Zealand or the UK or Denmark or Germany or Switzerland or Sweden.
By many standards, we have WORSE outcomes based on the pre-ACA American healthcare. Actual data. Define how you determine BETTER healthcare outcomes from profit-driven-only healthcare. Then show actual data that supports the American First trope you espouse.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 21:16
Those countries have removed the middleman everywhere they can. That is the point.
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 22:23
But that was NOT your point. You were saying that is better for HEALTHCARE to be a solely private endeavor. Galloping Goalpost, Batman!
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 22:37
It was a reply to your reply: “Then cut out the middle man – the insurance company. When you remove the “profit” requirement, you’ll get a lot more for your money.”
It does not help in health care or any other service.
Grow up.
bpollen November 27th, 2016 at 23:03
Grow up your damn self.
Disprove, don’t just say “wrong.” You’ve done that twice with not a single scintilla of fact to back it up. And you neglect to show evidence that supports your “doesn’t help” claim, nor do you produce any rational argument to dispute my contention. “Nuh-uh” and “Wrong” and “Grow up” are not anything more than playground responses. If you got data, whip it out. You have an opinion. Presenting facts that support that opinion would indicate that you aren’t just talking nonsense. And since all you have done IS just talk, there is no current reason evident to suggest anything BUT nonsense. Posting the same nonsense in multiple posts really doesn’t provide any more “disputation” or “debunking” or “disproving” that spouting nonsense once.
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 23:05
Government is about half the health insurance market with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. This is why the health insurance market is not functioning like a normal market in any other industry.
Get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible. Limit them to limited regulation and financial support for health insurance to those who need it.
Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.
Keep the federal regulation stating that insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions as long as the person had previous insurance.
Allow people to purchase insurance from any state. Deregulate state health insurance markets. Unhinge medical insurance from employers in the tax code.
Getting government out and increasing competition in this way will lower health insurance costs. It cuts the bureaucracy costs, cuts the fraud costs and improves competition and quality of care.
Why not do financial support for health insurance the same way we do financial support for food?
TKList November 27th, 2016 at 23:07
We have more socialism now than the liberal left’s golden age of the 1950s. We have the FHA, HUD, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Community Reinvestment Act, Social Security, Medicare, Student Loan Programs, Obamacare/ACA, Snap Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Unemployment Insurance Program and more. So the theory is false and the opposite is true. Socialism hurts the middle class. Big government equals more income inequality, smaller government equals less income inequality.
The national debt keeps increasing because of deals, aka compromises, between Democrats (social programs and entitlements) and Republicans (corporate welfare and defense). The middle class pays the heaviest burden for the debt; as it goes up, it further increases the inequality gap by lowering their standard of living. National Debt: $19 trillion costs or is financed by each household, who is ultimately responsible for that debt. This comes out to $154,000 per household if paid for in one lump sum. Financed for 15 years at 5% interest it would take a monthly payment of $1218. Do not be fooled each household pays this one way or another, not the rich; whether you pay it directly in taxes and fees, higher prices or by a lower standard of living than you would otherwise have if the government had not spent that money. That is on top of around $26,000 per household for the yearly federal spending. Which is a another $2166 per month. Total $3400 per month per household. The question is: Is your household getting its money’s worth?
Politicians promise you a fantasy land, that they can make your life golden by decree, raise your pay, give you free education, free health care, paid retirement, cheap housing, easy credit and protect you from the evils of the greedy businessman. In reality they can do nothing of the sort.
To give you anything they have to take something from you, do not be fooled when they say they will take it from the rich, the rich get it from you (increased prices), in the end it always comes from you. Politicians point at the rich guy as they pick your pocket. They are selling you an illusion that does more harm than good, because in the process they disrupt the free flow and balance of the market causing unintended consequences.
Politicians that promise to fix your life by taxing the greedy rich to cover the cost are really the sleaziest of middlemen that are selling you pixie dust while they take their cut, which is power.
bpollen November 28th, 2016 at 00:29
Right… 1.3 TRILLION per year in subsidies to business. $3300 per CITIZEN per year. But it’s the VA that’s the problem…
Do you then decry the US Governments being so deeply involved with say: military defense, arms manufacturing, war fighting, and schooling and roadway production and dam building and stadium funding and light rail and Amtrak (the ONLY one going intercity in the US) and fire departments and border protection and the legal system and vaccination programs and plane safety and responses to epidemics and police and 911 and libraries and the safety of your bank account and auto safety and rights protections and disaster recovery and flood management and food safety and GPS and health standards and trade and hydropower and the invention of the internet and law creation and museums and national parks and preventing terrorist actions and hurricane prediction and prisons and the USPS and intelligence services and printing money and controlling immigration and such?
You talk about how BETTER it would be if the government got out of healthcare and you prove this by talking about the TOTAL US debt. What you DON’T provide is proof that profit-driven healthcare is in any way BETTER or more cost effective or more accessible.
You say that socialized medicine is NOT a good thing. We spent more for worse outcomes than MOST socialized medicine countries. From a healthcare standpoint, US debt is not how we determine QUALITY or EFFECTIVENESS or VIABILITY or customer satisfaction. I gave you actual data about healthcare outcomes that show socialized medicine performs better. I showed how socialized medicine provides MORE doctors to provide that medicine. You complained about the US debt. You know, before the ACA, the biggest absorbers of the cost of unfunded healthcare for the uninsured were the government, medical providers, and philanthropic donations. So we STILL paid for that healthcare for those who can’t afford insurance.
If the US government cut out insurance companies, they would not only not have to pay for “profit,” but would also gain economies of scale, consistency of care, improve patient tracking (it’s handy to know medical history for patient care,) doctor choice and types of care standardized across employers or financial status (portability,) lower costs, reduction in paperwork, reduced prescription prices, COMPLETE COVERAGE FOR ALL CITIZENS… What did we have before the ACA? Millions of people uninsured, insurance policies canceled if you became seriously ill, arbitrary changes in coverage, no coverage for existing conditions (asthma, cancer, pregnancy, diabetes, MD, MS, sinusitis, and even ACNE!) with increasing infant mortality rates and decreasing life expectancy.
amongoose November 28th, 2016 at 14:47
The stockholders investments and premium payments are invested to grow the money to pay claims, it doesn’t just sit in a pile somewhere.
Profit is necessary to obtain the funding needed to operate.
bpollen November 28th, 2016 at 15:29
Then I guess they have NO healthcare unless there is a profit involved? That would mean that all those countries that have socialized medicine haven’t got any healthcare since they need to grow their funding from premiums and shareholder investments. Bet Canadians will be surprised to know that they don’t have any healthcare, just dental cuz that is where they use insurance companies. And our veterans don’t have healthcare because the VA isn’t an insurance company.
amongoose November 28th, 2016 at 17:33
Those are all government run systems, the difference being that the money put into an insurance company type system produces more than is put into it, so more funds are available over time, in a govt. run system there is no growth of the principle.
And as for the VA, that for the many who died waiting for it was healthcare in name only.
The VA problems still exist, no one was held accountable.
bpollen November 29th, 2016 at 02:48
You want to know who is responsible for the problems at the VA? Look no farther than a Republican Congress who love to fight wars but hate to pay the freight… Kinda like a certain WATB set to become the “Leader of the It’s-Gonna-Cost-Ya World.”
StoneyCurtisll November 27th, 2016 at 17:33
January 20th 2017, A day that will live in infamy…