Trumpcare Megathread: It's dead (for now)

[Person Man]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

[ProudModerate2]

Actually it just came out:

"Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017"
-32 million more uninsured over 10 years
-Premiums doubled over 10 years

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

Those are huge numbers !
I cant see how the GOP can move forward with their idea, with these estimates disclosed by the CBO.

[BudgieForce]

Actually it just came out:

"Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017"
-32 million more uninsured over 10 years
-Premiums doubled over 10 years

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

Those are huge numbers !
I cant see how the GOP can move forward with their idea, with these estimates disclosed by the CBO.

We'll see what happens tonight. While I like Murkowski and Capito, I dont think they're above being bribed for support.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

[Person Man]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

[Person Man]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

All that maxing out floor debate time does (if that's what you're referring to) is forcing an immediate vote on the pending legislation.

[Person Man]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

All that maxing out floor debate time does (if that's what you're referring to) is forcing an immediate vote on the pending legislation.

So, they can just vote whenever they want?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

All that maxing out floor debate time does (if that's what you're referring to) is forcing an immediate vote on the pending legislation.

So, they can just vote whenever they want?

Dems have every right to use every last hour of debate time, but a vote still happens at the end of that time.

[ProudModerate2]

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) says there likely isn't enough Republican support to repeal Obamacare .... "Not even 40 votes to repeal."

Watch video here : http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/07/19/lamar-alexander-not-even-40-votes-to-repeal-obamacare-sot.cnn

[Higgins]

When is the vote on this inhuman piece of crap scheduled for?

[The Other Castro]

CBO score on updated BCRA is coming later, unclear if it includes the Cruz amendment.

[GeorgiaModerate]

CBO score on updated BCRA is coming later, unclear if it includes the Cruz amendment.

Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Foundation says it does not include the amendment.  https://twitter.com/larry_levitt/status/888045578143244288

[Badger]

Of course this is dead, folks. This is simply a chance for so-called moderates to cast a meaningless no vote so you can tell the people back home how they stood up for their Medicare Dash Dash when the chips were not down, but still Dash Dash and for the True Believer faction to similarly vote Yes so they can avoid a primary Challenge from even crazier and meaner people.

Now, we move on to efforts at baking the tax structure even more regressive. Oh yay

Just wanted to reiterate this in light of all the ongoing handwringing......

[The Other Castro]

The new CBO score is out for the updated BCRA, but without the Cruz amendment:
-22 million more uninsured over 10 years
-$420 billion 10 year deficit reduction

[GeorgiaModerate]

New AP/NORC poll: https://apnews.com/658e976fca5e40fe8260cbcc4ae1e865/AP-NORC-Poll:-Most-say-feds-should-ensure-health-coverage

62% say it’s the federal government’s responsibility to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage, while 37% say it's not.  In March, the same poll had it at 52/47.  Other bits:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Person Man]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

[Person Man]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

[Person Man]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

As it will be on a bill that falls within reconciliation, 50.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

As it will be on a bill that falls within reconciliation, 50.

I was under the impression that full repeal didn't fall within the rules of reconciliation, as some aspects of Obamacare didn't have to do with budget. I'm confused as hell about what this motion to proceed is even regarding.