The Shrine

It looks like TrumpCare/RyanCare/GOPCare is going down in flames. Very unpopular with the public.

Looking at the actual bill, it appears that it's just a crappier/less generous version of ObamaCare (ACA). Basics:

• Gets rid of mandate that large employers provide coverage
• Cap & Cut Medicaid with a complicated formula
• Reduce regulation of individual marketplace coverage
• Eliminate most (all?) new taxes enacted to fund the ACA
• Individual market: Allow insurers to charge 5 times more for the oldest customers (as opposed to 3 times more with ACA)
• Individual market: Replace income-based subsidies with age-based subsidies (up to twice as high for oldest)
• Replaces the individual mandate with a "continuous coverage requirement" that still penalizes you if you drop insurance.

The Democrats are united against any changes to ObamaCare unless it's very minor or moves to the left (more public insurance). Because of this the Republicans need to be united as well. The problem is that they are definitely not. The Tea Party folks want total repeal with no replace (and preferably to cut even more). The moderates more or less like ObamaCare and might support the bill but are lukewarn.

It's hardly surprising that an amateurishly incompetent government can't get anything done.

They lack the skills and education required for governing; which is why only hillbillies, chuckleheads, and other sorts of incest-spawn voted for them.

In 4-8 years when the republicans put the economy back in the trash, the higher IQ stupids will come crawling back to the Democrats to fix the mess.

I saw Trump blaming the Democrats for the bill failing because they didn't vote for it. I mean, seriously?

The moderates and the conservatives have conflicting agenda and by trying to satisfy both it just ends up alienating both.

The Republican party has changed in the last 8 years, they have majority in House & Senate and even the White House, but there's a portion of the guys who have joined in the last 8 years aren't exactly on the same page as the rest of the GOP.

It's actually shocking they control all 3 portions of government and failed. The last time Dems had control of all 3 Obamacare happened, and it happened with assistance from a few Republicans who crossed the isle.

I think you're both onto it. The GOP really did change during the Obama years. It's essentially two parties, first you have the traditional Republicans: conservatives & moderates then added to that in around 2010 you have the Tea Party. The Tea Party (now branded the "Freedom Caucus") are further to the right than much the rest of the party but the main difference is that they are a revolutionary/insurrectionist group and refuse to make the compromise necessary for change in the US national political system. They hate the current leadership and want ideological purity.

The party has almost split several times since 2010 with both Boehner & Eric Cantor getting unseated by the Tea Party. The Tea Party folks should probably split off into a separate party but under our two party system they'd lose too much doing that. Instead they've made it their goal to "take over" the Republican party.

Trump/Ryan's AHCA was far too much compromise for them. In their ideology they are full libertarian when it comes to social services: minimal to no public assistance to the poor. The AHCA was too far left for them and left too much of ObamaCare/ACA in place. They wanted TOTAL repeal with minimal to no replacement. The problem is that their right-libertarian vision of market-based, very-high-deductible, discriminating against the sick, no-assistance-for-the-poor healthcare system is very unpopular with the American public and unsellable politically. In fact I'd say that the ACA/ObamaCare is unpopular to the extent that it embraces these ideas with the very high-deductible/limited network plans available on the "exchanges".

These plans are so undesirable that the mandate to purchase them was required. I myself have one of these plans for my family I pay >$12,000 a year premium with a $7,000/$10,000 deductible for myself/family. I pay the full premium because I make too much to qualify for subsidies. It's also narrow-network mostly limited to the local university hospital system. It's basically worthless unless I or one of the members of my family get REALLY sick or injured. I've had to pay the full cost of every doctor visit as I've never hit the deductible (thankfully) yet.

Saw a guy quitting the Freedom Caucus and he says if they're voting for The Ten Commandments some of the Tea Party guys will still vote no.

Should I mock Seeker's stupidity....? nah *successfully resists*

I already said the republicans, as a party, were actually broken via the last election (not as a result of Trump, but it was what made Trump possible [shame Ron Paul couldn't capitalize]). The dems are also broken (see Sanders). I don't think either party actually realize what the last election meant... In my view, both parties were sent a pretty clear message -- time to change or become irrelevant.

If the GOP fails to gets shit done AND redefine their party, during Trump, they will face significant backlash during the mid terms and, possibly, in 2020. Then the dems will misinterpret that as public approval for their platform and go through the same script...which would mean *at least* 8 years of bad governance until they all finally understand. That would be a shame.

It's 50/50 the above happens. I think enough republicans understand they have a relatively brief opportunity to get shit done, before the public lashes out. I don't see just a repeal happening. It will be repeal and replace...but will simply end up tweaking what is there now.

ManaMan wrote:These plans are so undesirable that the mandate to purchase them was required. I myself have one of these plans for my family I pay >$12,000 a year premium with a $7,000/$10,000 deductible for myself/family. I pay the full premium because I make too much to qualify for subsidies. It's also narrow-network mostly limited to the local university hospital system. It's basically worthless unless I or one of the members of my family get REALLY sick or injured. I've had to pay the full cost of every doctor visit as I've never hit the deductible (thankfully) yet.

That's all pretty fucked up. It caused me to look up the plans/monthly costs of the ACA, and look at the increases in 2017 over 2016 (which are pretty insane). Places like Texas and Colorado seem to benefit, comparatively, from higher competition....so at the very least, that needs to be a goal. The ACA as is looks completely unsustainable....assuming the data I am looking at is correct.

kali o. wrote:Should I mock Seeker's stupidity....? nah *successfully resists*

By wearing a Donald Trump shirt through the streets of Vancouver while everyone jeers at you, and then complaining about on the internet, you've demonstrated that you're much more adept at making a mockery of your own stupidity.

Trump (probably spurred on by Bannon) burning his bridges with the Freedom Caucus. These are ~30 votes he needs. The deeper he goes the more resistance he's going to meet in his own party. The only thing he can really do without the Freedom Caucus is move things in a way that Democrats will vote his way.

I don't see a chance in hell of that happening. Trump can say it all he wants, that he wants to unify the partisan divide, but if he wanted to be a unity president he wouldn't have stated his presidency off with so much controversial shit. The cabinet nominations that are so anti-establishment and/or anti-Democrat that they almost seem sarcastic. The wall. The immigration ban attempt(s). The clear rise of enforcement of deporting illegals. Etc. etc. There's so much bipartisan work to be done out there that he could have started with that I don't see any hope of him reaching across the aisle on healthcare or really any other issue.

Just another party before country Republican president. At this point there's really no evidence to suggest otherwise. Actually more accurately it's probably himself over his party, though lol

Donald J. Trump‏
@realDonaldTrump
The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!

Whelp, that bridge is burned.

The Freedom Caucus probably shouldn't be catered to but if he's not cooperating with Democrats there isn't enough votes for him to get anything done.

If he isn't going to wrangle them lashing out against them isn't going to help either. When people talk about Republican-owned and gerrymandered Congressional seats they're largely talking about the Freedom Caucus. Trump is talking as if all the Republicans have to do is run someone else against them and those seats will just fly to other people. The idea that the Koch brothers and other far right money interests couldn't buoy them along with the fact that they're incumbents, makes the idea of unseating all (or even most of the) thirty while Trump is still in office (even if he wins another term) a pure fantasy.

This is where him being so in with Bannon is probably going to hurt him the most - Bannon seems all up for trying to unseat the Freedom Caucus.

https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/

Also, Rachel Maddow is pretty much required viewing on a daily basis at this point. There is so much shit going on, and journalism is back into full investigative mode now.

Oh, we're talking about the "healthcare plan". Yeah, that's what happens when you focus so much on dismantling shit, and forget that you need to actually create something to replace it with. The only replacement that would work is some form of single payer.

Round 2 on healthcare vote today!

No Congressional Budget Score
No reading of bill
No public comment
Healthcare affects 1/6 of economy
Exemptions for Congress

Eric wrote:Round 2 on healthcare vote today!

No Congressional Budget Score
No reading of bill
No public comment
Healthcare affects 1/6 of economy
Exemptions for Congress

Zombie Trumpcare. Extremely unpopular with the public (even makes the hot turd that is Obamacare popular by comparison). Republicans congressmen don't even seem to want this... they just don't want to be the one who killed it. CBO estimated that 14 million(!) people would lose their insurance by 2018 (an election year!) with the previous version. The GOP is trapped by their years of saying they'd "repeal and replace" Obamacare but they never could agree on an alternative. They're now stuck with this thing that Paul Ryan shat into their laps.

The pre-existing cartoon is a cartoon but it says something important that I've found: most people view children as independent human beings deserving of human rights but there seems to be a belief on the right that children are someone less than full humans, that they can be treated like property or pets of their parents.

Looks like the House just passed it. Wonder how far this will go in the Senate or how it will change?

The Senate actually has to wait for the CBO score, which might just kill it there. Then again they may just pull the nuclear option again and just pass it with their 52 votes or let it tie so pence can cast the deciding vote.

ManaMan wrote:The pre-existing cartoon is a cartoon but it says something important that I've found: most people view children as independent human beings deserving of human rights but there seems to be a belief on the right that children are someone less than full humans, that they can be treated like property or pets of their parents.

My wife and I have never wanted children, which is why I got a vasectomy 2 months ago. She made a great point the other day that it only stops me from having a kid with her, and she still has to fear the GOP and the changes they're trying to shove through. Because Rape is a pre-existing condition if they have their way.

ManaMan wrote:The pre-existing cartoon is a cartoon but it says something important that I've found: most people view children as independent human beings deserving of human rights but there seems to be a belief on the right that children are someone less than full humans, that they can be treated like property or pets of their parents.

Can you articulate this silliness in any meaningful way? Of course children are "under the care" of an adult, parent or guardian -- and in some cases, sadly to often poor effect, that guardian is the government. But how in any way does that completely LOGICAL reality imply, in your words, that children are less than full human.

I am praying you misspoke...or I misunderstand. Or you admit that was hyperbole and stupid to say in order to mischaracterize "the right".

Anarky wrote:My wife and I have never wanted children, which is why I got a vasectomy 2 months ago. She made a great point the other day that it only stops me from having a kid with her, and she still has to fear the GOP and the changes they're trying to shove through. Because Rape is a pre-existing condition if they have their way.

You sure she made a good point? Hard to tell, since even in the best light, there is half a point in this statement. If someone shoots you, is that a "pre-existing condition"? No. Same thing as a rape, but now we are discussing the practical reality of the after effects. The choice to carry to term if pregnant after a rape is choice -- and we should not absolve women of agency and responsibility if they choose to do so. The cost to chemically abort / preventative is negligible. The discussion of the after effects of rape (counselling, etc) is no different, practically, from all other victim services -- so beyond being consistent for victims of all crimes, if covered or not, I don't really care (and note victim compensation programs exist both federally and locally and remain highly under utilised).

A nuanced discussion of rape is valid. Pretending there is or will be an epidemic of women being raped too stupid or too poor to morning after pill is fucking retarded and we shouldn't do that.

kali o. wrote:You sure she made a good point? Hard to tell, since even in the best light, there is half a point in this statement. If someone shoots you, is that a "pre-existing condition"? No. Same thing as a rape, but now we are discussing the practical reality of the after effects. The choice to carry to term if pregnant after a rape is choice -- and we should not absolve women of agency and responsibility if they choose to do so. The cost to chemically abort / preventative is negligible. The discussion of the after effects of rape (counselling, etc) is no different, practically, from all other victim services -- so beyond being consistent for victims of all crimes, if covered or not, I don't really care (and note victim compensation programs exist both federally and locally and remain highly under utilised).

A nuanced discussion of rape is valid. Pretending there is or will be an epidemic of women being raped too stupid or too poor to morning after pill is fucking retarded and we shouldn't do that.

You're far too optimistic about the GOP and insurance companies.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/health/pr ... insurance/

My prediction is it dies in the Senate, at least as it is. The amount of political capital they would have to expend to get it through the Senate in its current form is hard to fathom. More likely, the Senate revises the bill in a way that the Freedom Caucus once again finds the bill unacceptable. It's hard to believe the 8 billion dollars set aside to support those of us doomed with pre-existing conditions will stand up to Senate scrutiny and it's equally difficult to believe the Freedom Caucus will accept the 20-30 billion that is estimated to be actually needed.

My comment on children was poorly worded. I was going to edit it but Anarky already quoted it. Will clarify when I have more time.

Oh it looks likely the Senate has been working on their own bill for weeks and won't even be bothering to vote on the House bill.

That's some costly political theater for the House that apparently got them nothing.

Anarky wrote:
You're far too optimistic about the GOP and insurance companies.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/health/pr ... insurance/

That article actually clarifies things, somewhat, but you have to look pretty hard. And it doesn't support what I believe you implied?

With respect to the domestic violence (as referenced in the article): She had head trauma. She took a narcotic for a period of at least six months. I would say those are legitimate and valid reasons to screen someone...I guess we can disagree, but if that is NOT a valid physical health reason to screen -- what is?

With respect to rape, it didn't appear to have anything to do with pregnancy -- what it dealt with is preventative or maintained HIV/STD/Counselling treatment stemming from a *previous* pre-insured rape incident. I think that's a valid and supportable position for the would-be new insurance company.

Everyone should be insurable, for a price... And insurance companies are always going to screen to the lowest acceptable risk for their plans/pricing - and be utter dicks (I hate insurance companies). But this argument is being framed highly improperly and it needs to be called out.

A pre-existing condition is any health concern that exists prior to coverage from the new insurer. I think all of us understand why these factors need to be considered from an economical point of view....but even a fairness aspect. It is not discriminatory when they look at my driving history or car value when deciding my premiums and costs for car insurance. We say things like "Rape should not be a pre-existing condition" when what we are actually saying is "Pre-existing HIV/STD issues should be covered!!". Those two statements are not interchangeable and when you use the former, it is a deceptive way to frame the argument to *trick* people.

If we will instead argue the latter -- that's a fair difference of opinion....assuming we disagree, I'd simply ask... "what makes rape special?". Or I'd ask "do you understand how insurance works, because it sounds like what you really want is free healthcare?".

It seems like the plan is for the House to vote for it just to say they voted for it and when Senate that actually has to fix it up does their thing the guys voted for it can say it wasn't their fault because they voted for it but the Senate screwed it up.

In the Senate they're going to do majority (50 + Pence's tiebreaker) but to do that the bill cannot increase the deficit. Now originally the health bill will indeed not increase deficit because axing coverage on a lot of people does save you a lot of money, but it's less certain now which is probably why they pushed the vote in the house before CBO and other groups can even come out with a report of the expected cost/benefit analysis. But even getting a simple majority would be hard because of the same problems in the House version, where if you try to appease the conservatives you end up offending the moderates and vice versa. I don't think the newer version really addressed those issues and they're just kicking the can down to the Senate so that the Republicans can declare some kind of victory.

kali o. wrote: Or I'd ask "do you understand how insurance works, because it sounds like what you really want is free healthcare?".

You're right. I am mixing healthcare with health insurance because they've become so intertwined in America. The system as it stands in America now is one of the leading causes of bankruptcies.

I want healthcare for all because this debate about insurance is already fucked, and I'm fine with paying higher taxes to provide that healthcare. Or can we just pull some fucking money from our military already?

Anarky wrote:

kali o. wrote: Or I'd ask "do you understand how insurance works, because it sounds like what you really want is free healthcare?".

You're right. I am mixing healthcare with health insurance because they've become so intertwined in America. The system as it stands in America now is one of the leading causes of bankruptcies.

I want healthcare for all because this debate about insurance is already fucked, and I'm fine with paying higher taxes to provide that healthcare. Or can we just pull some fucking money from our military already?

I think a large and growing portion of the population shares your way of thinking -- it's just important to frame the debate honestly.

And if that's the debate at hand, I disagree (as someone with access to Canadian Healthcare)...there are *plenty* of downsides you can read about and there is no question it is a significant burden on the coffers. I'm a practical person -- you say "take the money from military", I point out your military spending is directly correlated to the prosperity of the USA. Have you imagined what the geopolitical landscape could look like if US military spending was fractional?

People (crazy people) can complain about US abuses of power worldwide, but considering the alternatives to Western values and interests, I think that power has been wielded with reasonable restraint and to the greater good. Yes, that's from a biased westerner, but if we are going to debate the supportable merits of western values vs theocracy, dictatorships, communism, etc...I'd say that would be a one sided argument if based on facts.

Again...being practical...if its "Free Healthcare" vs " Military Spending", I think the latter has some far more tangible benefits you ought to strongly think about before giving it up in favor for some possible benefit to a small portion of the population otherwise dealt a poor hand in life.

It's not really an either or thing. Trump is attempting to get a $54 billion increase in military spending into the budget. Half of that increase (hell, a sixth one time a year for a few years) put into whatever pool the House's bill set up would more than satisfy issues with pre-existing conditions until they can come up with something better.

But that pool is probably not even going to be in what the Senate puts out so should be interesting.

All that matters is that the GOP passes something and they know it. If it was just a repeal, the party would be unified...instead they are stuck tweaking something they dont want.

Yeah I think the health care spending vs military spending is a false dichotomy. It's popular on the anti-war left to say this but it's not a either or. The US government alone already spends as much per person as other nations with fully universal health care (free or nearly free at point of use). Let's look at US vs UK spending for a back-of-the-napkin comparison:

US federal spending on health care
$980b (Medicare & Medicaid, etc) + $260b (tax "expenditures": credits & deductions)
= $1.24t total (not counting state spending which is substantial).

Per capita:
US Population: 321.4m
$1.24t / 321.4m = $3,858.12 per person

UK national health care budget
total public health spending: £146.4b
To USD (according to google): $190.07b

Per capita:
UK Population: 64.14m
$190.07b / 64.14m = $2,963.36 per person

This is definitely not a perfect analogy, the US is FAR larger geographically and most of the nation is still sparsely populated (& fatter). BUT STILL. Here's an example of a nation covering EVERYBODY free at point of care for 4/5ths the cost we spend to only cover the poor and the old with the rest of us still paying for it privately. They do it with extensive price controls, planning, removing profits, streamlining administration, & yes, rationing.

My point being that there is a lot of waste & government sponsored price gouging in the US health care system. There is AMPLE fat to cut that can go towards expanding care without increasing spending a cent. I looked at only federal spending above but combine that with state spending & private spending and we're already spending enough per person to have literally the best health care system in the world with virtually no out of pocket spending & far less rationing than the U.K. system.

The problem is that those profiting on the waste & gouging are incredibly well connected politically and will fight to the death. Also the public is easily scared of price controls & especially rationing. Remember "death panels"? They were the right's version of "rape is a preexisting condition" scare a few years ago that almost tanked Obamacare.

See, assuming the above is correct, isn't it more important to ask "Why is the existing system so wasteful" and then fix that...as opposed to "let's introduce a more expensive system on top of the already wasteful system".....?

Or is that my practical nature interfering again?

If your complaints (politically entrenched for-profit representatives/lobbyists) are honest....maybe support/help Trump drain the swamp...no?

Draining the swamp seems to translate to bills that remove restrictions on businesses, keeping an unprecedented amount of jobs in his administration empty, nepotism, replacing scientific experts in places like the EPA with people acting in the best interests of corporations, massive tax cuts to the rich, healthcare bills that will likely get people killed but will certainly net result to people losing coverage... I could go on but it hardly seems like something to support. In fact I'm hard pressed to think of anything he's done that has remotely countered for-profit representatives and lobbyists. His measures are largely pro-business. Which is literally what lobbyists lobby for.

It's still obviously early, but he hasn't gotten any of the wheels turning for the things he said he would do in regards to draining the swamp, specifically stronger rules on "revolving doors" (he proposed introducing a rule that government officials can't quit and immediately lobby former colleagues), an outright 5 year lobbying ban on Senators and specific other officials (currently 1-2 year bans), and closing a loophole that lets lobbyists avoid registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

kali o. wrote:See, assuming the above is correct, isn't it more important to ask "Why is the existing system so wasteful" and then fix that...as opposed to "let's introduce a more expensive system on top of the already wasteful system".....?

Or is that my practical nature interfering again?

Fair enough. Obamacare only tinkered around the edges as far as eliminating waste & controlling costs. They did a bit and growth in healthcare spending has slowed (though not decreased by any means). Costs aren't the ONLY problem with the US healthcare, there are many. The two main ones that Obamacare tried to fix were 1) too many people (mostly lower income) are uninsured & 2) some people weren't able to purchase insurance on the individual market due preexisting conditions. The Dems focused on these two issues over others because they were the least contentious and least likely to bring industry resistance. Industry resistance sunk Clinton's much broader health care reform effort in the early 90s and they remembered that well.

kali o. wrote:If your complaints (politically entrenched for-profit representatives/lobbyists) are honest....maybe support/help Trump drain the swamp...no?

Whenever Trump starts draining that swamp, just let me know and I'll offer my support! But yeah... what Shrin said.

Trump signals that he'd be open to nationalized healthcare and cost controls. He's praised the Canadian & UK healthcare systems. Just the other day he told the Aussie PM that Australia's national health care plan was better than the US. Prior to that he threw out the idea that Medicare should negotiate drug prices. I think he's been around the world to know that what other first world nations do isn't some crazy communist scheme and generally works (and works better than what we do in the US). However, once he says these things he gets all kinds of heat from the GOP and he quickly walks the statements back. Saying things like "Oh, Canada's healthcare system work great for them but wouldn't ever work in the US" or declaring that actually, Medicare negotiating drug prices is a horrible idea.

re: Drain the swamp

He knows he needs support (at least learning) -- he has threatened to work with democrats instead after repubs initially botched the healthcare plan. He remains a populist and, if he had bi-partisan support from the people, you might see him lead the charge to a single payer system.

You have a limited time with a non-politician populist president with nearly zero political affiliation or accountability (he's practically an independent). You can either get major things/changes done, or you can obstruct and end up with a wall, stricter immigration enforcement and a half assed ACA variant.

At the very least, when he pushes to expand his lobbying ban, I hope people call out the inevitable lack of support and hold politicians accountable on both sides.

Why hasn't anyone come out and insisted the "care" part be removed from the naming convention of any bill the GOP passes?

Given what he has actually done all he cares about is the repeal at this point. There's no working with the Democrats. That was an empty threat. I'd happily say I'm wrong if there was any actual indication of him reaching across the aisle on this matter. He doubled down on the Freedom Caucus rather than work with the Democrats. That alone says a lot. If he'd worked with the moderate Republicans he could have gotten something the Democrats may have voted for. There's no evidence of his willingness to work with Democrats but there are multiple instances where he has refused to work with them with basically the only exclusion that comes to mind being the budget.

He said he'd be a unifier but he literally went after the most divisive things in his first week in office - abortion, immigration, and talked about Obamacare repeal. There are so many bi-partisan things to go after that the fact that he chose his first week to be mired in such polarized topics really says it all. His cabinet is about as vindictive to any cause but the right, another very telling choice. He's just another Republican. He hasn't actually done anything to show otherwise.

I fail to see how obstruction has kept him from being the president that you seem to still think he's capable of being. Based on his actions this is a situation of his own making. So far all of the "major things" he has wanted to get done are appalling. Is your suggestion then for us to just let him do all this appalling stuff to us so he can get started on these great things you seem to think he's capable of?

It's too early to needle everything Trump campaigned on and call him out for not getting to things yet, but he has had ample time to take his administration and go after specific things of his choice to set a precedent for the direction he is going to go in. We aren't talking about education and infrastructure reform here. The only bipartisan thing he's gone after is healthcare and what both bills tell me is - he wants to give huge tax cuts to the rich while stripping coverage from 10s of millions of people. Yeah going to take a hard pass on being disappointed in the Democrats for obstructing that.

Shrinweck wrote:I fail to see how obstruction has kept him from being the president that you seem to still think he's capable of being. Based on his actions this is a situation of his own making. So far all of the "major things" he has wanted to get done are appalling. Is your suggestion then for us to just let him do all this appalling stuff to us so he can get started on these great things you seem to think he's capable of?

Well, hold on, "terrible things"? These are the items he campaigned on and was elected to do. So yes, you don't obstruct, you aim for concessions to get other things you (the minority) also want. That's how proper governance works.

Kali, only 26% of the population voted for Trump. He don't represent the majority of nothing

Zeus wrote:Kali, only 26% of the population voted for Trump. He don't represent the majority of nothing

I know you are Canadian, but thats no excuse for you to either not know the current majority in the government or miss the context of our discussion (which was based on that government).

But to entertain your misunderstanding...

You dont vote, you dont have a voice. Of voters, its 50/50 more or less. So guess which side gets most of what they want when their party controls all levels of government?

Looks like the Senate Republicans finally released a draft of their secret bill to the public. Again, it just looks like a crappier, stingier version of Obamacare. Cuts & caps Medicaid, cuts to subsidies to buy private insurance, & cuts the taxes raised to pay for Obamacare in the first place. I'm still reading about it but I don't see anything so far which will prevent the "death spiral" we're seeing in many rural markets for individual coverage. If anything, cutting subsidies & Medicaid will only exacerbate the problem.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33 ... epeal-bill
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media ... THCARE.pdf

Pretty much dedz. Turtleman said he was waiting for July 4th recess, which is code for "this shit is dead".

Only 5 GOP senators actually committed to vote Yea on this hot garbage. Five. Total. Mitch didn't want to show a vote that goddamn low.

Maybe maybe not. Everyone declared the House bill dead a little while ago and it rose from the grave. The GOP have essentially put a gun to their own head with this bill. They've made most of their other agenda (tax cuts) contingent on passing the health care bill.

Looks like McCain is back from his brain surgery to vote to allow a vote.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... le/534861/

They are BOUND AND DETERMINED to pass this flaming turd into law.

That just means they're going to talk about it.

So now Senate wants to vote for 'skinny repeal' if the House can reassure them that they won't actually pass it. What's next, they pass it and then House guys said when they said they won't pass it, their actually had their fingers crossed? I know they're just trying to get something passed so that it looks like they're getting something done without taking the responsibility of actually having to do something, but this sounds like one of those dumb plans that you hope it'll work because everyone else is dumber than you and won't figure it out. Yes it's true the average voter don't have a long memory, but people do tend to remember things that screwed them directly.

Dead again for tonight. It really seemed like they had the votes. Pence was even there for a while to do his tie-breaking thing.

They only had the votes on the premise that this is a placeholder so in theory the guys voted for it can have an excuse when it doesn't work out. This is a lot like voting for sequestration which is something nobody wanted but people thought it's not going to actually stay the way it is due to reasons, except it did.

Trump had the Secretary of the Interior going after the Alaskan senator who voted no. I feel like leveraging that you're going to away economic support for a state only works when it isn't common knowledge? In any case, if Murkowski can win an election as a write-in candidate she's probably going to be fine. The NY Times seemed to be under the impression that Murkowski's position in the Senate actually lets her hurt the Interior more than the Interior can hurt her state. Interesting stuff as far as political drama goes.

Good for McCain for voting no but Murkowski & Collins are the brave ones. They've been against this for weeks (months?). They've had consistent principled opposition. Didn't hear much from McCain. McCain is (usually) a good guy but why did it take him so long to come to this sane conclusion?

Or maybe McCain is a genius
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ ... nt/dku2gyq
Anyone know if this is true?