AP FACT CHECK: Are Trump's health plan protections real?
President Donald Trump promises that the latest Republican health care law will cover people with pre-existing conditions "magnificently". It is not in the bill that was examined.
In a television interview Sunday, a publication at The Washington Post and a Saturday night rally in Pennsylvania, Trump vigorously celebrated a 100-day event that effectively produced little legislative success. His assistants, meanwhile, started a tough sell on his tax system in the last week.
Here are some examples of the assertions of the presidents and its people:
TRUMP: "When I look at some of the news reports, which are so unfair, and they say we do not cover pre-existing conditions, we cover it genially .... The pre-existing conditions are in the bill. 39 said: "Do we need to." - On CBS "Face the Nation."
THE FACTS: Although the bill states that "access" is guaranteed for people with pre-existing conditions, it is silent on a key point, that this access is affordable.
President Barack Obama's health law requires insurers that all claimants, regardless of their medical history, and patients with health problems pay the same premiums as healthy people. But Republican legislation would allow states to exclude the requirement for standard premiums, under certain conditions. If a state maintains protections as a high-risk pool, it allows insurers to use health status as a premium-setting factor for people who have had an interruption in coverage and are attempting to And obtain a new individual policy.
Such complications were in the proposed law being reviewed last week, prompting the American Medical Association to say that the Republican protections "may be illusory" and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network for its 39 Worry that the plan could return the United States to a "patchwork system" that entails insurance costs for the sick.
It is possible that Trump will require stronger protection for sick people in the bill, but he said on Sunday that the legislation was already so good, "they could have voted Friday."
---
TRUMP on the first attempt to repeal and replace Obama's law: "This bill has evolved, and we have not had a failure on the bill.You know, It has been reported as a failure. "
FACTS: The first bill was withdrawn from Congress without a vote being taken, as there is not enough support. The effort has evolved, but the bill has gone down.
---
TREASURY SECRETARY STEVE MNUCHIN, on Trump having "no intention" to publish his own tax returns: "The president has published a lot of information and I think I have given more financial disclosure than anyone else. I think the American people have a lot of information. "
THE FACTS: Trump published less than other presidents in modern times.
In declaring his tax declarations, Trump fell short of the norm followed by the presidents since Richard Nixon began practicing in 1969.
During last year's election campaign, Trump argued that he could not free his taxes because he was the subject of an audit by the government. IRS. This reason did not raise, as the fact of being audited is not a legal bar of a candidate from the publication of tax returns. On Wednesday, Mnuchin seemed to abandon even this explanation.
What Trump has published are financial disclosure forms that list its assets and liabilities in broad ranges, as required by law. But these forms do not disclose precise figures and do not include any income or charitable donations of a person - the data disclosed only in income tax returns.
The few Trump tax benefits that the public saw were not published by him but disclosed by the press briefings. Two pages filtered from his 2005 return that were published in March did not include full details on income and deductions but showed that he would have profited massively from the elimination of the Minimum replacement tax - a characteristic of its fairly defined tax plan. And three pages that surfaced last year showed that he had claimed a loss of $ 916 million for his return in 1995, which could be used to reduce his taxes by offsetting subsequent gains.
---
MNUCHIN: "This will be the biggest tax cut and the biggest tax reform in the history of our country."
THE FACTS: Apparently not. At first blush, the tax cuts proposed last week are smaller than those of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which were the largest ever. This plan reduced federal revenues by nearly 19 percent, according to a Treasury report. In today's dollars, this would mean a tax reduction of more than $ 600 billion a year or more than $ 6 trillion over the next decade.
An anticipated analysis by the non-partisan committee for a responsible federal budget estimates that federal revenues would likely drop $ 5.5 trillion over a decade as part of the trumpy Trump Plan of the Reagan circuit breaker. This assumes that all elements of the plan are approved by Congress, which is unlikely.
The most important claim is also made on the one page plan of the plan. Trump Gary Cohn's economic advisor, more realistic, called him "one of the greatest."
---
MNUCHIN: The tax regime "will pay with its growth", reduces the deductions and the "closing loopholes".
FACTS: Tax experts are skeptical, and they are backed by history.
The sharp decline of Reagan in 1981 contributed to years of deficit, even after being forced to raise taxes in subsequent years to stem red ink. President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were also followed by major deficits.
"No tax reduction has ever been self-funded," said Howard Gleckman, a senior student at the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
In its analysis of the Trump Plan, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated that "no possible amount of economic growth would be able to finance it" and would lead the debt to 111 per cent of gross domestic product by 2027, 77 percent now. The group advocates reducing the deficit as a pillar of economic growth.
Alan Cole, an economist from the Tax Foundation on Law, calculated that reducing the Trump corporate tax alone would reduce federal revenues by $ 2 trillion over 10 years. Growth is expected to accelerate to 2.8 percent per year, from its current pace of about 2 percent, to pay just for this reduction. But Cole predicts that growth would only increase by half that amount, which would result in balloon deficits.
---
COHN: "We will cut taxes for businesses to make them competitive and we will cut taxes for the American people, especially low- and middle-income families"
THE FACTS: There is every reason to believe that the richest people in the United States will receive the biggest cuts under Trump's plan, although many low- and middle-income families would benefit from it also.
The lack of specificities makes it difficult to define precisely the distributions. But the plan is similar to Trump's campaign proposal, which would have given nearly half of its benefits to the richest 1% of Americans, while middle-income households would have barely received 7%. Of the cuts.
The White House also proposes to eliminate the property tax and alternative minimum tax, which mainly affects high income Americans. The AMT is a separate tax calculation designed to ensure that rich people do not avoid paying most of their taxes or all of their taxes by asking for multiple deductions and credits. In 2005, Trump itself paid $ 36.5 million in taxes, mainly due to the AMT. Without that, he would have paid only $ 5.5 million, according to a filtered copy of the return this year.
The biggest opportunity for the rich could come from the Trump scheme to reduce the top tax rate for small business owners to 15 percent 39.6 percent. The actual effect will depend on how the Trump administration defines a small business owner. If the tax reduction applies to all commercial income reported on individual tax returns, this would be a huge benefit to many wealthy families.
Mnuchin said Trump will offer guarantees to prevent the rich from taking advantage of this tax cut, but provided no details on how it would work.
---
TRUMP: By pressing South Korea to help pay for the THAAD anti-missile system of billions of dollars, the United States provide the defense of the country, "This is phenomenal. The most incredible equipment you've ever seen - pulls the missiles directly from the sky, and it protects them and I want to protect them, but they should pay for it, and they understand that. "- Interview Thursday with Reuters.
THE FACTS: The president is clearly in sales mode here, as the High Altitude High Area zone defense system is not as sure as a bet it portrays. It is deployed in South Korea after at least a dozen successful tests, but "things that work well at home in the test range do not proceed as well when they are deployed," said Jonathan McDowell , An astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
A burst of multiple short-range North Korean missiles, for example, could overwhelm THAAD, said David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' global security program. And the system will be deployed about 125 miles (200 kilometers) south of Seoul, out of reach of a large metropolitan area that is home to 25 million people about an hour from the heavily armed border. "It can not engage missiles fired in Seoul, so it does not offer any additional protection to the city," Wright said.
---
TRUMP tweet about the tactics of the two jurisdictions that challenged its order to penalize cities that do not cooperate with US immigration officials: "They called it" judge to shop! Disordered system. "
THE FACTS: It is difficult to argue that this was the judge - shopping. The two California governments that have filed lawsuits to block the order of Trump, San Francisco County and Santa Clara, have regularly filed in court in their neighborhood, which is located on the 9th Circuit of the system federal. And they do not choose a judge; That is allocated by a system that looks more like a lottery.
---
TROMP TIME: The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where three of its commands ran into roadblocks, has "a terrible record of being reversed (nearly 80%)" .
THE FACTS: This is misleading. The nature of the calling system means that most circuits have high rates of reversal. The fact that the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case means that it may overturn it. But other circuits have seen their decisions reversed at a higher rate.
In the most recent full term, the Supreme Court overthrew eight of the 11 cases it heard from the San Francisco Court. But the 11th circuit based in Atlanta was 0 for 3, that is to say that the Supreme Court overturned the three cases where he heard about it. Over the past five years, five federal appeal courts have been toppled at a higher rate than the 9th circuit.
The 9 is by far the largest of the 13 federal courts of appeal, which means that in crude numbers, more cases are heard and reversed from year 9 and year 39 ;year. But as a percentage of cases, the Supreme Court hears, the Liberal development circuit ranks slightly better, according to statistical compilations by the legal website Scotusblog.
---
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Christopher S. Rugaber, Josh Boak, Stephen Ohlemacher, Robert Burns and Mark Sherman in Washington and Foster Klug in Seoul, South Korea contributed to this report.
---
Find all AP information checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd
EDITOR'S NOTE _ A look at the veracity of the claims of politicians
HEALTH COACH -
Comments
Post a Comment