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

[Matty]

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?

My view is simple:

We will never see long term, tangible, widespread positive trends in our healthcare system unless two things change

1) The AMA's power is reduced: it's hard to imagine a more stupid setup where we restrict dramatically the supply of a good or service when the exorbitant price of that good or service is the issue. There are countries in europe that have TWICE the amount fo doctors as we do, the netherlands for example. The AMA is a cartel.

2) Employers have to pay payroll taxes on healthcare premiums they pay for employees. A huge reason why the pre-exixting condition exists in the first place is because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance.

The AHCA and the ACA do not address either.

I want to see a dramatic increase in the supply of health services in this country. Econ101: when the supply curve shifts right, what happens to price?

I want more doctors being accepted and I want more medical schools built.

I met a lady at my chiropractor the other day who was a dentist in peru for 4 years and was NOT ALLOWED to practice it in America when she moved here. How is that possible?

[Virginiá]

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

I guess because, at least in theory, Republicans technically have the numbers to make it work, if leadership could strong-arm their caucus into doing it anyhow. That alone is pretty scary, but like you said, in reality this has little chance of passing. It's why it perplexes me why the House GOP is trying to so hard to pass a bill that will only put their members on record as voting for a bill the country hates. It's political suicide, yet somehow they've convinced themselves it's not.

Without some sort of miracle, this will never get past the Senate, at least with it's current makeup. They are smart enough to understand the blowback they will receive from kicking millions off Medicaid + other insurance plans.

[Indy Texas]

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?

My view is simple:

We will never see long term, tangible, widespread positive trends in our healthcare system unless two things change

1) The AMA's power is reduced: it's hard to imagine a more stupid setup where we restrict dramatically the supply of a good or service when the exorbitant price of that good or service is the issue. There are countries in europe that have TWICE the amount fo doctors as we do, the netherlands for example. The AMA is a cartel.

2) Employers have to pay payroll taxes on healthcare premiums they pay for employees. A huge reason why the pre-exixting condition exists in the first place is because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance.

The AHCA and the ACA do not address either.

I want to see a dramatic increase in the supply of health services in this country. Econ101: when the supply curve shifts right, what happens to price?

I want more doctors being accepted and I want more medical schools built.

I met a lady at my chiropractor the other day who was a dentist in peru for 4 years and was NOT ALLOWED to practice it in America when she moved here. How is that possible?

Maybe doctors would be willing to accept lower, European-level salaries if they didn't have to go into $200K+ of student debt to complete their education.

[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.

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.

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.

...Oh geez, I completely misremembered how Obamacare was passed.  The reconciliation bill made only minor budgetary changes.

[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.

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.

I have no clue yet per se. It depends on the final product making its way out of the Senate and reconciliation. The way I understand it, the Upton amendment allows one state to opt out of pre-existing conditions and then every other insurer can follow the standards of that state.

But that's really very tentative knowledge and as I said the Senate hasn't taken it up yet.

I'd recommend reading a number of policy articles IF a law is passed at all and working from there. As it stands it sounds like the Senate will -- if it even passes -- drastically change it.

[Confused Democrat]

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

I guess because, at least in theory, Republicans technically have the numbers to make it work, if leadership could strong-arm their caucus into doing it anyhow. That alone is pretty scary, but like you said, in reality this has little chance of passing. It's why it perplexes me why the House GOP is trying to so hard to pass a bill that will only put their members on record as voting for a bill the country hates. It's political suicide, yet somehow they've convinced themselves it's not.

Without some sort of miracle, this will never get past the Senate, at least with it's current makeup. They are smart enough to understand the blowback they will receive from kicking millions off Medicaid + other insurance plans.

There could be multiple reasons why:

A. Paul Ryan wants a "win" on healthcare under his belt  and wants to hand this problem off to McConnell where he knows it will die in the Senate.

B. They're more afraid of the backlash from the right than they are from the left.

C. Paul Ryan wants his tax cuts and truly believes in the bill

D. Pressure from the White House

[Matty]

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?

My view is simple:

We will never see long term, tangible, widespread positive trends in our healthcare system unless two things change

1) The AMA's power is reduced: it's hard to imagine a more stupid setup where we restrict dramatically the supply of a good or service when the exorbitant price of that good or service is the issue. There are countries in europe that have TWICE the amount fo doctors as we do, the netherlands for example. The AMA is a cartel.

2) Employers have to pay payroll taxes on healthcare premiums they pay for employees. A huge reason why the pre-exixting condition exists in the first place is because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance.

The AHCA and the ACA do not address either.

I want to see a dramatic increase in the supply of health services in this country. Econ101: when the supply curve shifts right, what happens to price?

I want more doctors being accepted and I want more medical schools built.

I met a lady at my chiropractor the other day who was a dentist in peru for 4 years and was NOT ALLOWED to practice it in America when she moved here. How is that possible?

Maybe doctors would be willing to accept lower, European-level salaries if they didn't have to go into $200K+ of student debt to complete their education.

This, again, can be traced back to the past when many medical schools were shut down en masse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Barnes]

...Oh geez, I completely misremembered how Obamacare was passed.  The reconciliation bill made only minor budgetary changes.

No problem! It was seven years ago! Geez...

[Indy Texas]

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?

My view is simple:

We will never see long term, tangible, widespread positive trends in our healthcare system unless two things change

1) The AMA's power is reduced: it's hard to imagine a more stupid setup where we restrict dramatically the supply of a good or service when the exorbitant price of that good or service is the issue. There are countries in europe that have TWICE the amount fo doctors as we do, the netherlands for example. The AMA is a cartel.

2) Employers have to pay payroll taxes on healthcare premiums they pay for employees. A huge reason why the pre-exixting condition exists in the first place is because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance.

The AHCA and the ACA do not address either.

I want to see a dramatic increase in the supply of health services in this country. Econ101: when the supply curve shifts right, what happens to price?

I want more doctors being accepted and I want more medical schools built.

I met a lady at my chiropractor the other day who was a dentist in peru for 4 years and was NOT ALLOWED to practice it in America when she moved here. How is that possible?

Maybe doctors would be willing to accept lower, European-level salaries if they didn't have to go into $200K+ of student debt to complete their education.

This, again, can be traced back to the past when many medical schools were shut down en masse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of those schools were the period equivalent of diploma mill jokes.

Medicine shouldn't be like law school where any moron who's willing to borrow the money can get a degree from a third-tier failure factory.

[Matty]

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?

My view is simple:

We will never see long term, tangible, widespread positive trends in our healthcare system unless two things change

1) The AMA's power is reduced: it's hard to imagine a more stupid setup where we restrict dramatically the supply of a good or service when the exorbitant price of that good or service is the issue. There are countries in europe that have TWICE the amount fo doctors as we do, the netherlands for example. The AMA is a cartel.

2) Employers have to pay payroll taxes on healthcare premiums they pay for employees. A huge reason why the pre-exixting condition exists in the first place is because people lose their jobs and thus their insurance.

The AHCA and the ACA do not address either.

I want to see a dramatic increase in the supply of health services in this country. Econ101: when the supply curve shifts right, what happens to price?

I want more doctors being accepted and I want more medical schools built.

I met a lady at my chiropractor the other day who was a dentist in peru for 4 years and was NOT ALLOWED to practice it in America when she moved here. How is that possible?

Maybe doctors would be willing to accept lower, European-level salaries if they didn't have to go into $200K+ of student debt to complete their education.

This, again, can be traced back to the past when many medical schools were shut down en masse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of those schools were the period equivalent of diploma mill jokes.

Medicine shouldn't be like law school where any moron who's willing to borrow the money can get a degree from a third-tier failure factory.

I don't think so either, but reform isn't an unreasonable request. The Obama admin last year even sent out policy recommendations to explore the effects of higher admissions rates to medical school.

There's a tradeoff between only allowing the best to be doctors, and lower healthcare costs.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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

Around 90%.

I'm very, very skeptical that it will pass the Senate even if McConnell nukes the filibuster, and even if he does, any possible reconciled version will have a hard time passing either house.

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

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

Around 90%.

I'm very, very skeptical that it will pass the Senate even if McConnell nukes the filibuster, and even if he does, any possible reconciled version will have a hard time passing either house.

The filibuster doesn't apply here. It will be passed through reconciliation, which has never been subject to the filibuster.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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

Around 90%.

I'm very, very skeptical that it will pass the Senate even if McConnell nukes the filibuster, and even if he does, any possible reconciled version will have a hard time passing either house.

The filibuster doesn't apply here. It will be passed through reconciliation, which has never been subject to the filibuster.

See my second point, which is actually the more important one here. Getting the moderates on board (Murkowski & Collins) while keeping the hardliners (Cruz, Lee, Paul on this issue, etc.) will be the hard part.

[Klartext89]

Maybe you should change the name of the thread? :-D

There's still 20 votes against it. It may or may not pass the House but the Senate will almost certainly kill it.

Out of curiosity do you grasp what the ACA and the repeal law does and do you understand the insurance markets in America? Somehow I think your nuance here is severely lacking and is reducible to “BAD DEMS.”

EDIT: Here, do your homework. Look up reconciliation. I'm fairly sure you have never ever grasped the concept of reconciliation before in a Congressional bill, let alone heard of it before.

Sorry mate, but I'm very well informed in the US legislative process and of course I'm aware of the Reconciliation process that's why I'm very sure that it will pass both chambers. I'm pretty sure that it'll will go one of the two reasonable ways:

1. House Bill agreed to in the Senate by 51 or 52 Votes without changes.
2. Senate amends the bill, passes it and it gets back to the House where the same Reps who voted for the first version will back it again.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A few questions for any people supporting this bill: if a report comes out showing that thousands of people will die annually if this bill is made law, would you still support it?  Are we really at the point where we're willing to cause people's deaths for the sake of scoring political points or trophies?  And if you are, do you ever feel the slightest amount of guilt that you are willing to see loss of human lives so that your party can feel good about itself?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you should change the name of the thread? :-D

There's still 20 votes against it. It may or may not pass the House but the Senate will almost certainly kill it.

Out of curiosity do you grasp what the ACA and the repeal law does and do you understand the insurance markets in America? Somehow I think your nuance here is severely lacking and is reducible to “BAD DEMS.”

EDIT: Here, do your homework. Look up reconciliation. I'm fairly sure you have never ever grasped the concept of reconciliation before in a Congressional bill, let alone heard of it before.

Sorry mate, but I'm very well informed in the US legislative process and of course I'm aware of the Reconciliation process that's why I'm very sure that it will pass both chambers. I'm pretty sure that it'll will go one of the two reasonable ways:

1. House Bill agreed to in the Senate by 51 or 52 Votes without changes.
2. Senate amends the bill, passes it and it gets back to the House where the same Reps who voted for the first version will back it again.

The first is essentially impossible. Extreme outside chance of 50 and Pence, but even the GOP manages to get that many Senators willing to pass this steaming pile of sausage makings, there's going to be some who will insist on adding their own seasoning to the mix.

And after another week back home getting an earful from voters, then there will be those who voted for it who will use the Senate changes as the fig leaf needed to vote against it. Either that or the Senate changes end up losing the support of the House Freedom to Die Caucus.

[Tintrlvr]

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

It is more or less a prerequisite to passing tax cuts without support from the Democrats. So it is definitely a benefit to the people who will benefit from Trumpian tax cuts.

[Mehmentum]

This bill allows companies to gut their employee insurance plans, bring back lifetime limits.

[GlobeSoc]

This bill allows companies to gut their employee insurance plans, bring back lifetime limits.

So I guess this affects most americans. Basically every form of insurance is going to be worse.

[Dr. Arch]

This bill allows companies to gut their employee insurance plans, bring back lifetime limits.

So I guess this affects most americans. Basically every form of insurance is going to be worse.

They somehow manage to make their bills worse and worse.

[SoLongAtlas]

The House vote is planned for today https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-plan-health-care-vote-on-thursday-capping-weeks-of-fits-and-starts/2017/05/03/e7dd7c28-306d-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html?utm_term=.e0e8c7a472d9

[7,052,770]

This bill allows companies to gut their employee insurance plans, bring back lifetime limits.

Bringing back lifetime limits barely affects premiums and essentially forces people with catastrophic medical bills into bankruptcy.

WTF are they thinking? Who wanted this?

[Dr. Arch]

This bill allows companies to gut their employee insurance plans, bring back lifetime limits.

Bringing back lifetime limits barely affects premiums and essentially forces people with catastrophic medical bills into bankruptcy.

WTF are they thinking? Who wanted this?

Like I said before, all they want to do is kill or make it nearly impossible to live. What other aims could there be? Certainly, if they had their constituents in mind, they wouldn't be pushing such an abomination.

[The_Doctor]

Maybe you should change the name of the thread? :-D

There's still 20 votes against it. It may or may not pass the House but the Senate will almost certainly kill it.

Out of curiosity do you grasp what the ACA and the repeal law does and do you understand the insurance markets in America? Somehow I think your nuance here is severely lacking and is reducible to “BAD DEMS.”

EDIT: Here, do your homework. Look up reconciliation. I'm fairly sure you have never ever grasped the concept of reconciliation before in a Congressional bill, let alone heard of it before.

Sorry mate, but I'm very well informed in the US legislative process and of course I'm aware of the Reconciliation process that's why I'm very sure that it will pass both chambers. I'm pretty sure that it'll will go one of the two reasonable ways:

1. House Bill agreed to in the Senate by 51 or 52 Votes without changes.
2. Senate amends the bill, passes it and it gets back to the House where the same Reps who voted for the first version will back it again.

Unsurprisingly you didn't answer the first part of the question.

[Gass3268]

Maybe you should change the name of the thread? :-D

There's still 20 votes against it. It may or may not pass the House but the Senate will almost certainly kill it.

Out of curiosity do you grasp what the ACA and the repeal law does and do you understand the insurance markets in America? Somehow I think your nuance here is severely lacking and is reducible to “BAD DEMS.”

EDIT: Here, do your homework. Look up reconciliation. I'm fairly sure you have never ever grasped the concept of reconciliation before in a Congressional bill, let alone heard of it before.

Sorry mate, but I'm very well informed in the US legislative process and of course I'm aware of the Reconciliation process that's why I'm very sure that it will pass both chambers. I'm pretty sure that it'll will go one of the two reasonable ways:

1. House Bill agreed to in the Senate by 51 or 52 Votes without changes.
2. Senate amends the bill, passes it and it gets back to the House where the same Reps who voted for the first version will back it again.

Unsurprisingly you didn't answer the first part of the question.

Yeah, without a CBO score we won't know if this clears the Byrd Rule, which is law.