Trump's Full Court Press on healthcare

[Remus West]

Their bosses are the ones who keep them in office. Sometimes that's the American public, but not often enough it seems.

Too true.

[LordMortis]

https://news.avclub.com/paul-ryan-takes ... 1798261618

[Defiant]

WATCH LIVE: Senate committee holds hearing on Graham-Cassidy health care bill

I watched a little bit of it. Cassidy stated that he was assured that there would be a bipartisan push after the repeal failed the last time, but that it went nowhere. HA! it's gone nowhere because the Republican congressional leadership put a stop to the two attempts. (He also claimed that he was the one working on it, with Collins. Uh, Collins is Republican not Democrat, and of the two attempts, he wasn't the Republican involved (it was Susan Collins in one and Lamar Alexander in another, from what I understand).

He also said there was broad bipartisan agreement - that fifteen Democrats agree with Republicans that Obamacare was failing, when they signed up for a single payer plan. Gee, who would have predicted that?

[Zaxxon]

Collins just came out as a firm no, likely killing this iteration.

[El Guapo]

I'm not going to feel comfortable until Murkowski comes out as a firm no.

Though on the plus side Cruz is saying that he and Lee are probably nos at this point, though I really doubt that they will remain "no" if it matters.

[Kraken]

I suppose we should be thankful that at least three out of 52 GOP senators have some integrity (although I don't know if you can count Paul among them since his beef was that the bill wasn't radical enough). If they still haven't rammed something through by Thanksgiving, that's what I'll be thankful for this year.

This latest version reportedly contained some serious bribes for AK and ME. A senator's first allegiance is to her state, so it takes some special moxie to reject gifts like that for the greater good.

[Unagi]

I suppose we should be thankful that at least three out of 52 GOP senators have some integrity (although I don't know if you can count Paul among them since his beef was that the bill wasn't radical enough). If they still haven't rammed something through by Thanksgiving, that's what I'll be thankful for this year.

This latest version reportedly contained some serious bribes for AK and ME. A senator's first allegiance is to her state, so it takes some special moxie to reject gifts like that for the greater good.

+1

[Grundbegriff]

This is a great pun: https://twitter.com/petridishes/status/ ... 9928032257

[Unagi]

wow - great! , just love it! (non-sarcastic)

[El Guapo]

I suppose we should be thankful that at least three out of 52 GOP senators have some integrity (although I don't know if you can count Paul among them since his beef was that the bill wasn't radical enough). If they still haven't rammed something through by Thanksgiving, that's what I'll be thankful for this year.

This latest version reportedly contained some serious bribes for AK and ME. A senator's first allegiance is to her state, so it takes some special moxie to reject gifts like that for the greater good.

+1

Well, a couple caveats on that are that as I understand it the bill would give the HHS secretary unilateral authority to alter the block grant formula, so it may be possible to withdraw those bribes later. Also this bill (like variants before it) are dramatically unpopular, so I'm not sure whether the state benefits would have outweighed the political costs of supporting the bill.

[Kraken]

I suppose we should be thankful that at least three out of 52 GOP senators have some integrity (although I don't know if you can count Paul among them since his beef was that the bill wasn't radical enough). If they still haven't rammed something through by Thanksgiving, that's what I'll be thankful for this year.

This latest version reportedly contained some serious bribes for AK and ME. A senator's first allegiance is to her state, so it takes some special moxie to reject gifts like that for the greater good.

+1

Well, a couple caveats on that are that as I understand it the bill would give the HHS secretary unilateral authority to alter the block grant formula, so it may be possible to withdraw those bribes later. Also this bill (like variants before it) are dramatically unpopular, so I'm not sure whether the state benefits would have outweighed the political costs of supporting the bill.

I'd rather think that the senators recognize that their sweeteners turn bitter when the healthcare sector collapses and drags the economy down with it.

[Daehawk]

To me is shocking and sad and scary that out of the whole of the Republicans in DC that only 3 have common sense or a sliver of compassion.

[Chaz]

I'm glad that it looks like this thing's going to fail, but I'm not fully relieved for a few reasons:

1) Until Murkowski gives a firm no, we're relying on Paul not to give in and flip, which he's been known to do before.
2) Of the three no votes currently likely, only one is a no because the bill is terrible and will do terrible things. One is a no because he doesn't like the process that got the bill here, and the other is a no because it doesn't get rid of enough of the existing health care law. Theoretically, if the Republicans managed to draft a bill that cut even more, but held at least a few hearings on it, they'd get both Paul and McCain in the yes column, and that gets this through even with Collins and Mukowski voting against.
3) The GOP has made it really obvious that they want health care dead dead dead. If this fails, they'll either try again, or figure out ways to undermine the existing law. It's basically a crusade for them at this point. They're essentially legislative suicide bombers with the goal of dismantling the ACA, and they don't care about collateral damage. I don't know how you fight that.

[malchior]

[Smoove_B]

I don't know how you fight that.

You hope that they continue to remain legislatively impotent on the issue (like the last 7 years) and then hope even harder that people actually vote during the next election cycle. When you have elected officials crusading for what they personally think is important in contrast to what the voting public wants? It's mind-boggling. To be clear, there are going to be times when elected officials need to make unpopular decisions, but taking away healthcare? F all these guys (and gals) that are entertaining it. They're beyond disgusting.

[El Guapo]

I'm glad that it looks like this thing's going to fail, but I'm not fully relieved for a few reasons:

1) Until Murkowski gives a firm no, we're relying on Paul not to give in and flip, which he's been known to do before.
2) Of the three no votes currently likely, only one is a no because the bill is terrible and will do terrible things. One is a no because he doesn't like the process that got the bill here, and the other is a no because it doesn't get rid of enough of the existing health care law. Theoretically, if the Republicans managed to draft a bill that cut even more, but held at least a few hearings on it, they'd get both Paul and McCain in the yes column, and that gets this through even with Collins and Mukowski voting against.
3) The GOP has made it really obvious that they want health care dead dead dead. If this fails, they'll either try again, or figure out ways to undermine the existing law. It's basically a crusade for them at this point. They're essentially legislative suicide bombers with the goal of dismantling the ACA, and they don't care about collateral damage. I don't know how you fight that.

Yeah, I agree. Collins is the only GOP senator that I am reasonably confident is a "no" on pretty much any plausible type of GOP bill.

There are a couple plus sides, though. While McCain's objection is procedure based (bill must go through regular procedure, allow both sides to amend, etc.), it's a procedure that would require democratic inputs and democratic vote. There is no possible GOP repeal bill that could pass via regular order. So as long as McCain sticks to his procedural objection (no idea how likely that is), the ACA won't be repealed.

Also, my hope for Paul is that he really is cynical and self-interested. He is from Kentucky, so can't be seen to be supporting Obamacare. But on the other hand he's smart enough to know that the repeal bills are all awful and will also be politically catastrophic. Hence "denounce and preserve" - denounce any bill that's near final passage as insufficiently conservative, with the ultimate effect of preserving Obamacare.

[El Guapo]

Murkowski was asked where she was on Graham-Cassidy, and she said, "I don't think that we're going to have a vote."

[Chaz]

Yeah, getting a Dem majority is probably the only way you stem the current tide of trying to kill it legislatively.

The other (bigger?) worry is Trump sabotaging it in place. So much of the execution and implementation of the existing law falls on the executive that one determined guy, and Trump is nothing if not determined to stick it to libs in general and Obama in particular, can undermine a lot of it on his own. We're already seeing this with the administration redirecting funding intended to advertise for the ACA enrollment toward "educating" the public about how bad it is, shortening the open enrollment period, and suddenly needing weekly 12 hour maintenance periods on healthcare.gov during the weekend for open enrollment. Add to that him adding uncertainty around ongoing premium assistance payments that are directly causing premiums to go up, and you've got Trump implementing the death spiral himself.

Short of electing not-Trump in 2020, there's very little we can do against that kind of assault. Unless I'm missing something.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, getting a Dem majority is probably the only way you stem the current tide of trying to kill it legislatively.

The other (bigger?) worry is Trump sabotaging it in place. So much of the execution and implementation of the existing law falls on the executive that one determined guy, and Trump is nothing if not determined to stick it to libs in general and Obama in particular, can undermine a lot of it on his own. We're already seeing this with the administration redirecting funding intended to advertise for the ACA enrollment toward "educating" the public about how bad it is, shortening the open enrollment period, and suddenly needing weekly 12 hour maintenance periods on healthcare.gov during the weekend for open enrollment. Add to that him adding uncertainty around ongoing premium assistance payments that are directly causing premiums to go up, and you've got Trump implementing the death spiral himself.

Short of electing not-Trump in 2020, there's very little we can do against that kind of assault. Unless I'm missing something.

If repeal can be stalled long enough, I figure that most Republicans are not going to want to be discussing hugely unpopular repeal efforts during the 2018 election cycle. Also to some degree this is being driven by GOP donors, and (while this is a little speculative) I wonder if as the 2018 cycle approaches they might be sobered up (into donating to GOP candidates regardless of repeal) by the prospect of losing one or both houses of Congress to democrats.

As for sabotage...that's harder. One possibility (both an 'out' on repeal for the GOP and a fix for sabotage) is a bipartisan fix bill that limits the president's ability to sabotage the ACA. The GOP might ultimately agree to go along with that if they / Trump can call it 'repeal and replace', and as long as they get some kind of concession that they can wave around.

The other upshot to sabotage is that it's more easily fixed once Democrats regain power.

[El Guapo]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

[coopasonic]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

Dude, you are not helping.

[Kraken]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

McCain called his prognosis "very, very serious," saying that some cite a 3% chance of survival, some say 14%. Either way, he's very likely dying, and odds are that he'll be replaced by someone terrible. One hopes that he can hold on until next November.

[El Guapo]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

Dude, you are not helping.

This makes me feel better on the Menendez thing. The key part:

Even a bribery conviction would not automatically force Mr. Menendez from office, under the Senate rules. He would either have to voluntarily resign his seat, or two-thirds of his Senate colleagues — including at least 15 Democrats — would have to vote to expel him.

It would be politically awkward, but there is no chance that 15 democrats effectively agree to give Trump another senate seat, especially when they will just have to wait a couple months post-conviction until January, when Christie's (very very likely) democratic successor will take office.

[El Guapo]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

McCain called his prognosis "very, very serious," saying that some cite a 3% chance of survival, some say 14%. Either way, he's very likely dying, and odds are that he'll be replaced by someone terrible. One hopes that he can hold on until next November.

Does anyone know much about Gov. Ducey? Is he a tea party type, or someone relatively sensible?

[stessier]

Does anyone know much about Gov. Ducey?

All I know is he's not a #1 guy.

[ImLawBoy]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

McCain called his prognosis "very, very serious," saying that some cite a 3% chance of survival, some say 14%. Either way, he's very likely dying, and odds are that he'll be replaced by someone terrible. One hopes that he can hold on until next November.

Does anyone know much about Gov. Ducey? Is he a tea party type, or someone relatively sensible?

He came out in support of the latest repeal and replace, but other than that I don't know.

[Defiant]

After 10/1, when's the next time the Republicans can pull their 50 vote reconciliation trick?

[El Guapo]

After 10/1, when's the next time the Republicans can pull their 50 vote reconciliation trick?

I doubt it would be very long. IIRC early this year they passed a reconciliation bill to basically make all the future reconciliation shenanigans possible. I assume that they would have to pass a new reconciliation bill after 10/1, though I doubt that would take very long. Also bear in mind that McConnell is both good at his job and pretty ruthless, so he would be open to a lot of different options.

In short I have seen a lot that suggest that the 9/30 deadline is semi-artificial. However, the caveat is that since they only get one a year, if they don't do it by 9/30 then they would have to do health care and taxes together (or not do one), neither of which would be super appealing.

[Defiant]

After 10/1, when's the next time the Republicans can pull their 50 vote reconciliation trick?

I doubt it would be very long. IIRC early this year they passed a reconciliation bill to basically make all the future reconciliation shenanigans possible. I assume that they would have to pass a new reconciliation bill after 10/1, though I doubt that would take very long. Also bear in mind that McConnell is both good at his job and pretty ruthless, so he would be open to a lot of different options.

In short I have seen a lot that suggest that the 9/30 deadline is semi-artificial. However, the caveat is that since they only get one a year, if they don't do it by 9/30 then they would have to do health care and taxes together (or not do one), neither of which would be super appealing.

Would the Democrats be able to filibuster/slow down the new reconciliation bill?

[El Guapo]

After 10/1, when's the next time the Republicans can pull their 50 vote reconciliation trick?

I doubt it would be very long. IIRC early this year they passed a reconciliation bill to basically make all the future reconciliation shenanigans possible. I assume that they would have to pass a new reconciliation bill after 10/1, though I doubt that would take very long. Also bear in mind that McConnell is both good at his job and pretty ruthless, so he would be open to a lot of different options.

In short I have seen a lot that suggest that the 9/30 deadline is semi-artificial. However, the caveat is that since they only get one a year, if they don't do it by 9/30 then they would have to do health care and taxes together (or not do one), neither of which would be super appealing.

Would the Democrats be able to filibuster/slow down the new reconciliation bill?

They couldn't filibuster the new reconciliation bill (if they could, they would have done that the first time). There are various ways to slow things down, although it's not possible to slow things down enough to prevent repeal before the next Congress is sworn in. Although once the 2018 election season gets heated up, I doubt that a majority senators and representatives are going to be wanting to be in the middle of wildly unpopular repeal efforts.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

Dude, you are not helping.

This makes me feel better on the Menendez thing. The key part:

Even a bribery conviction would not automatically force Mr. Menendez from office, under the Senate rules. He would either have to voluntarily resign his seat, or two-thirds of his Senate colleagues — including at least 15 Democrats — would have to vote to expel him.

It would be politically awkward, but there is no chance that 15 democrats effectively agree to give Trump another senate seat, especially when they will just have to wait a couple months post-conviction until January, when Christie's (very very likely) democratic successor will take office.

It would suck for the Dems to lose a Senate seat, but if the dude is convicted of fraud/bribery (I know nothing about the case), then they should vote him out.

[El Guapo]

The other wildcard is with McCain's brain cancer, there's at least some chance that he could have to leave the Senate before 2018, in which case his replacement would be nominated by the Republican governor of AZ.

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

Dude, you are not helping.

This makes me feel better on the Menendez thing. The key part:

Even a bribery conviction would not automatically force Mr. Menendez from office, under the Senate rules. He would either have to voluntarily resign his seat, or two-thirds of his Senate colleagues — including at least 15 Democrats — would have to vote to expel him.

It would be politically awkward, but there is no chance that 15 democrats effectively agree to give Trump another senate seat, especially when they will just have to wait a couple months post-conviction until January, when Christie's (very very likely) democratic successor will take office.

It would suck for the Dems to lose a Senate seat, but if the dude is convicted of fraud/bribery (I know nothing about the case), then they should vote him out.

If waiting a couple months to expel him would save the health insurance of 15 - 30 million people (say), would you?

It gets thornier if the Democratic candidate loses the NJ governor's race, though thanks to Mr. Christie the democrat is a heavy, heavy favorite at the moment.

[GreenGoo]

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

How awful is a situation where you have to hope your corrupt politician STAYS in power long enough for the greater good. I mean, geezus.

[El Guapo]

Also an outside chance that Menendez (D-NJ) gets convicted of corruption felony charges before 2018, in which case he could be forced out, in which case Chris Christie would pick his (temporary) replacement.

How awful is a situation where you have to hope your corrupt politician STAYS in power long enough for the greater good. I mean, geezus.

To be fair, Menendez pled not guilty and is fighting the charges. I know almost nothing about the underlying facts of the case, so it's at least possible that he's not actually corrupt (or at least, not corrupt in the way that he was charged).

But if he is guilty - yeah, it's less than ideal. And do you factor in that Christie (who could replace him) is himself super corrupt?

[El Guapo]

Word is that Republican leadership has decided against holding a vote on Graham-Cassidy.

[LawBeefaroni]

Word is that Republican leadership has decided against holding a vote on Graham-Cassidy.

It's dead.


For this month at least. Fucking zombie bills.

[malchior]

STATES' RIGHTS!

[Kraken]

STATES' RIGHTS!

As long as ACA coverage mandates remain in effect, that should have little-to-no effect. If they repeal those mandates, the groundwork is laid for a quick race to the bottom.

[El Guapo]

Also "insurance sales across state lines" has been a conservative thing for years, I think going back to pre-Obama days. I would hazard a guess that if the legal case for doing that via executive action was strong, Bush would have done it.

[Moliere]

Also "insurance sales across state lines" has been a conservative thing for years, I think going back to pre-Obama days. I would hazard a guess that if the legal case for doing that via executive action was strong, Bush would have done it.

I don't understand why people are against insurance across state lines. Why can't I buy my health insurance from a company in Texas if I live in CA? What is the origin of this restriction? Doesn't it just force companies like Blue Shield to setup 50 entities that all do the same thing for each state?