That Issa and a few others that were wavering in support ended up voting yes makes me think that the final count really was that close. I’m pretty sure those guys would have voted no if they had any margin at all.
They made some big changes to bring on the Freedom Caucus. Then they made tiny changes to give fig leaves to the moderates.
Given that they voted without an updated CBO score, we’re just guessing. But the original bill had 24 million losing coverage. We have to define “coverage” to have a good conversation, because the GOP will try to define it so that a plan with a 1 million dollar deductible that only covers hangnails is “coverage.”
Millions will lose coverage because of the end of the Medicaid expansion for working age adults (“expansion Medicaid”). Money to other forms of Medicaid will go down, leading to wait lists, changes in eligibilty, etc. Premiums on older adults will go up, and the help from the feds to cover them will go down. States can waive the 5:1 ratio for older to younger insured (the limit is 3:1 now).
All of that was in the original scored bill, I think.
New stuff:
States can waive essential health benefits, meaning plans can be offered that don’t cover anything. States can waive community rating, meaning that while people must be permitted to purchase health insurance from any insurer, the insurer can charge whatever they want. Large employers can choose to allow their insurers to apply lifetime caps.
All of that looks terrible for real coverage. Again, that’s going to make the conversation be about defining “real coverage.”
I’m just saying that quite a few if not all of those 20 would have voted for it if they needed to for passage. They didn’t want to because it’s politically unpopular, but they were forced to by the party. After the first non vote, they started threatening loss of committees to anyone who strayed.
They’re flying to their secluded vacation homes. Otherwise, I’d love to have the Torch & Pitchfork Concession!
I got dibs on the Fresh Fruit and Rotting Vegetable Concession!
GOP Promises Americans Will Be Able To Keep Current Medical Conditions If Obamacare Repealed.
snerk
Worked for the Democrats in 2010 :rolleyes:
I have to give the GOP credit. They must be REALLY confident that everyone will love their health care in 2018 since they own it 100% now and think it’s worth throwing a beer bash over. With the razor thin margin, each person who voted for it gets to be “One of the deciding votes” who celebrated taking insurance away from 20,000,000+ Americans with a beer party.
Senate won’t vote on House-passed healthcare bill
They say they will write their own bill.
I think they know how toxic this one is and that they almost certainly will not be able to get all republicans behind it so the best dodge they have is to write their own bill which can take as long as they need it to take including never.
Yeah, that strikes me as really stupid.
The line between writing their own and modifying the House bill can be really slim.
The Senate can easily pass something really awful. It may tone down some of what the House did, but per-capita caps in Medicaid are possible or likely. Getting rid of the Medicaid expansion but doing it more slowly is possible or likely. Changes to essential health benefits, changing the way tax credits are structured, more emphasis on things that only help wealthier people like extending the limits on HSAs, etc. Collins and Murkowski might not go along with stripping Planned Parenthood, but both are politics, not policy, oriented.
DO NOT COUNT ON THE SENATE to do anything approaching “the right thing” on their own. It will require pressure. As much as can be brought to bear.
I reiterate: given how many lives are on the line, a straight-up lynch mob in, let’s just say Kentucky wouldn’t be out of line.
Stop being stupid.
I am at a loss to understand your faith in the CBO.
For the original Obamacare, the CBO predicted that CBO predicted that in 2016 there would be 23 million covered through the exchanges by 2016.
In fact, it was 10.4 million.
Is it possible that the CBO could be. . .um. . . well, wrong?
It may not be as slim as you think. This is going to the senate as a reconciliation bill which means it cannot be filibustered. Because of that though not all provisions will make it to the floor. It will be up to the Senate parliamentarian (un-elected official) to decide what makes it. He could tear our big chunks.
As you said Collins and Muskowski will oppose blocks to PP funding and more than a few republican senators will not abide cuts to medicare and the cutting pre-existing condition protections is outright toxic.
Remember some of these were sticking points in the House which killed the first pass at this (IIRC the Freedom Caucus held out for cuts to pre-existing conditions). If the senate sends back a hash of the House bill I am not sure the two can reconcile them.
That said I agree the Senate cannot be counted on to be nice about this. I just think they will fight with the House more than many suppose over it.
I imagine that the original CBO didn’t take into account the states that refused to set up exchanges and refused the Medicaid expansion. I bet they didn’t take into account the effects of the massively irresponsible ad campaign aimed at getting young people to go uninsured and the general instability in the insurance markets caused by their constant threats of repeal.
It’s OK to complain that your new car doesn’t perform as well as Consumer Reports lead you to believe it would, but not after you slashed the tires and drilled holes in the gas tank.
Just so we’re clear. You’re not actually saying that this bill is a good thing, or that it will improve lives for Americans in a substantial or meaningful way. You are just throwing a bit of shade on jsgoddess for bringing up the CBO scores?
Tonight, on Its the Mind, we examine the phenomenon of deja verb, that strange feeling you sometimes get that you have typed the same thing before…
The CBO also underestimated the number of people that would be insured under Medicaid. And despite what it got wrong it was closer in its estimates than many other estimators.
There’s also the fact that conditions changed after the original evaluation. And revised estimates were made.