So Miller, is the key word ‘links’?
IOW, can I say, “here’s what the page is titled - Google this and it’ll pop right up”?
No, but she’s a cagey one. She didn’t come out against BCRA, et al., until late. Her governor came out strongly against GCHJ bill, and several groups have put out numbers estimating the cuts to Alaska being among the big losers.
It is hard to imagine how one Senator from the majority party can really be a hold-out. Can’t they just decide Alaska is a different kind of healthcare market and build in a mechanism to send them a billion dollars a year or something?
Or is there a problem with including such bribes in reconciliation?
Not as far as I know. The problem is that Alaska is super expensive and expanded Medicaid. So it’s hard, even with a Klondike Kickback, to keep the state’s costs from skyrocketing if you get rid of Medicaid expansion, get rid of the low-income subsidies, and put a per-capita cap on Medicaid. Alaska REALLY benefited from the ACA.
So, they can and will almost certainly try to just dump money into AK or rejigger the formula, but Alaska is very wary, and Murkowski didn’t go for BCRA despite the previous Klondike Kickback.
And they don’t have a lot of time (and changes will only make McCain more likely to jump off), Capito and Portman would like opioid money, and Rand Paul is objecting to the whole shebang. The CBO will only score the savings, which doesn’t look to be very much (and they have to hit the House number or more).
Has anybody written about the Byrd rule problems? Seems like there would be a few of those.
There are likely to be some, maybe a ton. BCRA had a HUGE number of provisions that were were problematic, including Planned Parenthood defunding and abortion restrictions, EHB and other waivers, etc. I expect the list to be fairly extensive. But as far as I know, most analysis is waiting for CBO.
So, “could have risen” is the equivalent of “have risen” in your estimation. Rather hard to claim that the rate of increase has gone down…
John Harwood just tweeted that Rand Paul is a no:
If so, as long as Collins and Murkowski are still no votes, then it’s done. But I won’t feel good about it until the 30 Sep deadline.
But isn’t this the basis of your claim as well? That insurance “could have risen” less (or even gone down?) if not for the ACA? That claim doesn’t even have a historical precedent and flies in the face of historical data.
That’s a real creative way of reading “That rate of increase is actually much lower than the previous five years (up 31% from 2006 to 2011) and the five years before that (up 63% from 2001 to 2006).”
Will someone explain the Sept 30 deadline? I understand it’s the end of the FY and after that they would need 60 votes, but obviously that’s not permanent. When can a reconciliation process start again?
Past September 30, Congress would need to do another budget resolution that includes reconciliation instructions. A resolution just means that both houses need to agree on setting out toward a specific goal, with a specific topic.
The problem is that they want to do a tax cut/reform bill, so it’s widely expected that if they do another reconciliation instruction in this Congress, on the 2018 budget resolution, it will be tax.
Me either. Here is the chance to dismantle Obamacare and a huge entitlement program, and deliver more power and potentially more money to states. I can see every R dutifully voting for it except Sen. Collins.
It was good seeing them faceplant while trying to pass the HCFA though, I hope we see that again.
For more info: Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia
Apparently McConnell’s a go for a vote next week, although he’s left some wiggle room in order to turtle his way out if the votes fall through.
McCain, in the second story I’ve read today, is really coming across as a crusty, angry old coot. At least in print.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Simmer down there, Cap!
For the handful of states that get more money, that’s very temporary.
Why?
Let’s say the vote fails. The parliamentarian says it has until Sept 30 to pass with 51 votes. Suppose McConnell knows on Oct. 10 that he has the 51 votes- can he tell the parliamentarian to go suck eggs? How binding are the parliamentarian’s findings? Can they fire him and hire a stooge?
They can end the filibuster any time they choose. They don’t need a new parliamentarian.
It is important that the correct procedures be followed, especially when you are determined to impose suffering, fear, and sickness upon millions of people.