The TrumpCare comes back from the dead (...and lives!) thread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's going to be hysterical if this goes to the floor and loses 215-216. 

They'd probably leave the vote open for hours in the middle of night while they bribe and threaten enough members of their party for it to pass like what happened with Medicare Part D.

[riceowl]

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

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

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

Obviously Obamacare supporters like myself and (presumably) you aren't the audience they're trying to appeal to here. They're appealing to Obamacare haters and Obamacare haters only.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Donations to fund Issa's opponet in 2018 just tripled https://mobile.twitter.com/swingleft/status/859944836883001345

[Tartarus Sauce]

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

Obviously Obamacare supporters like myself and (presumably) you aren't the audience they're trying to appeal to here. They're appealing to Obamacare haters and Obamacare haters only.

Which is unwise of them, because the momentum has swung against them on healthcare.

[Hammy]

It's going to be hysterical if this goes to the floor and loses 215-216.  Although I think that would be a better outcome for the Republicans than it passing.

IMO the rank of possible outcomes, from best to worst for the GOP, would be:

1. No House vote.
2. Fails in House.
3. Passes House, fails in Senate.
4. Passes both, Trump vetoes (unlikely).
5. Bill becomes law.

Thoughts?

I think these two are the most likely outcomes, and I'm leaning towards 5--if the House passes it, moderates in the Senate will lock step with the party line and the Dems will be the only ones voting no.

What makes you think so?  First, moderate Republican congressmen will largely vote against the bill, and they represent a much smaller percentage of the house than the senate.  Second, moderate Republican senators expressed deep concern over the bill's previous iteration, and if anything, this one is even more draconian than the last.  Allowing states to avoid covering pre-existing conditions is nothing but a poison pill for anyone other than the safest Republicans.  Not to mention, unlike congressmen, senators represent entire states with diverse populations, making them far more susceptible and accountable to interest groups like the AARP.

If it passes the house, Senate moderates will be emboldened by it, and then can cover themselves by convincing their states to keep preexisting, yet leaving the door open for more conservative states to drop it--the Dems won't be numerous in those states to vote out the ones that do so.

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

Obviously Obamacare supporters like myself and (presumably) you aren't the audience they're trying to appeal to here. They're appealing to Obamacare haters and Obamacare haters only.

Which is unwise of them, because the momentum has swung against them on healthcare.

As if the Republicans actually care to start with? As long as they've forced their will into law, they feel they've won, because everybody will have to deal with the end result no matter how much they oppose it.

[riceowl]

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

Obviously Obamacare supporters like myself and (presumably) you aren't the audience they're trying to appeal to here. They're appealing to Obamacare haters and Obamacare haters only.

Sure, but even so...what is the carrot for Obamacare haters other than It's Not Obamacare?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why are people voting yes for this? Seriously. Has any benefit been publicized that people accept as, well, a benefit? To anyone?

Obviously Obamacare supporters like myself and (presumably) you aren't the audience they're trying to appeal to here. They're appealing to Obamacare haters and Obamacare haters only.

Sure, but even so...what is the carrot for Obamacare haters other than It's Not Obamacare?

Murdering people who vote Democrat.

Even /pol/ is supporting this because they know people are going to die if it passes.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Looks like if it passes it will by only 1 vote https://mobile.twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/859940074607214596

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

They had seven years to come up with a coherent ~conservative health care solution~. SEVEN ING YEARS OF CONSTANTLY RUNNING ON OPPOSING THE ACA. Is this turkey all they're capable of?! Is it all they want to be capable of?! Why the hell didn't they prepare a halfway acceptable bill two, or five, or seven years ago that they could pass when they got a Republican trifecta?! Why didn't they spend any of that seven years coming up with something that wouldn't cause people to die in a heap if passed?

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

^ Moderates either want to revise Obamacare, or secretly support it but can't voice their support for obvious reasons. The freedom caucus wants to return to the pre-09 health care system. Neither group is big enough to vote through their plan on their own, so we end up with this sucky compromise that helps nobody and pleases nobody.

[Matty]

They had seven years to come up with a coherent ~conservative health care solution~. SEVEN ING YEARS OF CONSTANTLY RUNNING ON OPPOSING THE ACA. Is this turkey all they're capable of?! Is it all they want to be capable of?! Why the hell didn't they prepare a halfway acceptable bill two, or five, or seven years ago that they could pass when they got a Republican trifecta?! Why didn't they spend any of that seven years coming up with something that wouldn't cause people to die in a heap if passed?

Any healthcare solution that does not involve more government will be met with accusations of letting people die.

Name me a conservative, sensible plan they could have come up with that wasn't going to be met with scorn from you people?

[The_Doctor]

If ACA can only being replaced with a simple majority....then couldn't you technically replace AHCA with Single payer with just a simple 51 votes in the Senate as well?

There might be some parliamentary issues with it but I don't know per se. The AHCA is on the books for just ten years if it passes because reconciliation is a temporary tool rather than designed to pass major laws. The Bush tax cuts were passed but Obama significantly altered them because of the ten year issue.

I would assume that we might revert to the ACA in ten years actually if these things expire? I don't know how it would work but I do know the entire thing has a sunset I believe.

[The_Doctor]

They had seven years to come up with a coherent ~conservative health care solution~. SEVEN ING YEARS OF CONSTANTLY RUNNING ON OPPOSING THE ACA. Is this turkey all they're capable of?! Is it all they want to be capable of?! Why the hell didn't they prepare a halfway acceptable bill two, or five, or seven years ago that they could pass when they got a Republican trifecta?! Why didn't they spend any of that seven years coming up with something that wouldn't cause people to die in a heap if passed?

Any healthcare solution that does not involve more government will be met with accusations of letting people die.

Name me a conservative, sensible plan they could have come up with that wasn't going to be met with scorn from you people?

Do you have one in mind and can you lay out how it works to cover people, deal with inflation in healthcare, and deals with catastrophic illness? You did ask me for my opinion, what would you do?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If ACA can only being replaced with a simple majority....then couldn't you technically replace AHCA with Single payer with just a simple 51 votes in the Senate as well?

There might be some parliamentary issues with it but I don't know per se. The AHCA is on the books for just ten years if it passes because reconciliation is a temporary tool rather than designed to pass major laws. The Bush tax cuts were passed but Obama significantly altered them because of the ten year issue.

I would assume that we might revert to the ACA in ten years actually if these things expire? I don't know how it would work but I do know the entire thing has a sunset I believe.

No, because the ACA was also passed by reconciliation and would have to be voted on again by Congress, I believe.

[The_Doctor]

If ACA can only being replaced with a simple majority....then couldn't you technically replace AHCA with Single payer with just a simple 51 votes in the Senate as well?

There might be some parliamentary issues with it but I don't know per se. The AHCA is on the books for just ten years if it passes because reconciliation is a temporary tool rather than designed to pass major laws. The Bush tax cuts were passed but Obama significantly altered them because of the ten year issue.

I would assume that we might revert to the ACA in ten years actually if these things expire? I don't know how it would work but I do know the entire thing has a sunset I believe.

No, because the ACA was also passed by reconciliation and would have to be voted on again by Congress, I believe.

No it passed with 60 votes right before Brown was seated as Massachusetts' Senator. It's permanent law while the AHCA isn't. Reconciliation wasn't used to pass it. That's why it has all these regulations the GOP can't repeal.

[Barnes]

Reconciliation doesn't mean that entire acts are repealed after ten years but rather alterations within the tax code enacted by the legislation must expire after ten years in order to meet the Senate's requirements and not be deemed ineligible for the process.

Also, the ACA itself was not passed through reconciliation but rather the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

[tallguy23]

So what are the chances this passes the Senate and is signed by Trump?

[Horus]

So what are the chances this passes the Senate and is signed by Trump?

Around 90%.

[The_Doctor]

10%. The CBO will cause issues and I think the Senate and House will have a hard time reconciling their versions. I don't think it's politically possible to toss people off Medicaid with impunity and not see some political consequences.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Name me a conservative, sensible plan they could have come up with that wasn't going to be met with scorn from you people?

I'm not an expert on health policy, asshole, just a poor body who contemplates suicide multiple times a day even with my thousand-dollar-a-month psychiatric medications. Why doesn't your party put an ounce of effort into this for once if it wants to know what people will think?

[The_Doctor]

Name me a conservative, sensible plan they could have come up with that wasn't going to be met with scorn from you people?

I'm not an expert on health policy, asshole. Why doesn't your party put an ounce of effort into this if it wants to know?

I'm afraid the gentleman you are asking doesn't really know either what he advocates on this subject or can defend anything like it, as far as I can tell. Like a lot of Trumpkins his worldview boils down to “if the liberals scream it must be good!” I advocated a position and I think he ran away from further inquiry or introspection?

For instance if you were to suggest not eating asbestos he and a number of Trunpkins would probably, as a matter of debate and defensiveness, rush out to deplete the stocks of asbestos to consume en masse. That's an example but I think it makes my point well.

[Dr. Arch]

Name me a conservative, sensible plan they could have come up with that wasn't going to be met with scorn from you people?

I'm not an expert on health policy, asshole. Why doesn't your party put an ounce of effort into this if it wants to know?

I'm afraid the gentleman you are asking doesn't really know either what he advocates on this subject or can defend anything like it, as far as I can tell. Like a lot of Trumpkins his worldview boils down to “if the liberals scream it must be good!” I advocated a position and I think he ran away from further inquiry or introspection?

For instance if you were to suggest not eating asbestos he and a number of Trunpkins would probably, as a matter of debate and defensiveness, rush out to deplete the stocks of asbestos to consume en masse.

The dangers of asbestos are FAKE NEWS by FAKE SCIENTISTS with a CONSPIRACY and a hidden agenda.

[tallguy23]

10%. The CBO will cause issues and I think the Senate and House will have a hard time reconciling their versions. I don't think it's politically possible to toss people off Medicaid with impunity and not see some political consequences.

This bill genuinely worries me. I get my insurance through Obamacare (as do many of my friends with pre-existing conditions) and my parents are on Medicaid. How would this bill affect them? All live in CA by the way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Am I missing something? This doesn't look even close to passing to me. Why does everybody suddenly assume it's a done deal?