3 GOP Senators to Oppose Health Care Bill

Cigar · Jun 22, 2017

At least three Republican senators are expected to publicly oppose the Senate's health care proposal Thursday afternoon, a Senate GOP source familiar with their plans told CNN.

Republicans can only lose two members of their 52-senator caucus in order to pass their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The news of three senators opposing the plan was first reported by NBC News. A number of other GOP senators are avoiding outright supporting the new health care bill unveiled by Republican leaders Thursday morning -- saying they need more time to read the fine print before taking a stand

Read more: Source: 3 Republican senators to oppose health care bill - CNNPolitics.com

joG · Jun 22, 2017

Cigar said:
At least three Republican senators are expected to publicly oppose the Senate's health care proposal Thursday afternoon, a Senate GOP source familiar with their plans told CNN.

Republicans can only lose two members of their 52-senator caucus in order to pass their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The news of three senators opposing the plan was first reported by NBC News. A number of other GOP senators are avoiding outright supporting the new health care bill unveiled by Republican leaders Thursday morning -- saying they need more time to read the fine print before taking a stand

Read more: Source: 3 Republican senators to oppose health care bill - CNNPolitics.com

Interesting that we are being informed of the number of abstaining votes just after the briefing but before anyone has read the paper. Cool.

RickJames3000 · Jun 22, 2017

joG said:
Interesting that we are being informed of the number of abstaining votes just after the briefing but before anyone has read the paper. Cool.

I'm sure the three dissenting senators know much more about the proposed plan than you do. :shrug:

SocialD · Jun 22, 2017

Cigar said:
At least three Republican senators are expected to publicly oppose the Senate's health care proposal Thursday afternoon, a Senate GOP source familiar with their plans told CNN.

Republicans can only lose two members of their 52-senator caucus in order to pass their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The news of three senators opposing the plan was first reported by NBC News. A number of other GOP senators are avoiding outright supporting the new health care bill unveiled by Republican leaders Thursday morning -- saying they need more time to read the fine print before taking a stand

Read more: Source: 3 Republican senators to oppose health care bill - CNNPolitics.com

I heard an analyst today describe this as that the House healthcare bill was 'six inches to the right of Obamacare' and that the Senate bill was 'two inches to the left of the house bill' and that certainly if they had problems with gop support before they will definitely have problems with support now.
One of the problematic features is cost. while still cheaper than Obamacare, it is not so by much.

joG · Jun 22, 2017

RickJames3000 said:
I'm sure the three dissenting senators know much more about the proposed plan than you do. :shrug:

Maybe. The article didn't seem to think so, however. They only mentioned that there was unrest, because the Senators would have to vote on it in a week, but had just today received it and the period was a little short to read it.

But even so, you would have expected the law to be discussed more thoroughly than speculating with glee about possible harm to the Republicans. But maybe tomorrow the msm will have something less populist to report.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

Cigar said:
At least three Republican senators are expected to publicly oppose the Senate's health care proposal Thursday afternoon, a Senate GOP source familiar with their plans told CNN.

Republicans can only lose two members of their 52-senator caucus in order to pass their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The news of three senators opposing the plan was first reported by NBC News. A number of other GOP senators are avoiding outright supporting the new health care bill unveiled by Republican leaders Thursday morning -- saying they need more time to read the fine print before taking a stand

Read more: Source: 3 Republican senators to oppose health care bill - CNNPolitics.com

Don't believe it. It's part of the political theater. The Senate will propose some minor "concession" and magically all three will vote to take away lots of benefits to regular Americans so millionaires and billionaires can enjoy tax cuts.

Watch, John McCain will huff and puff but end up voting YES.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
I heard an analyst today describe this as that the House healthcare bill was 'six inches to the right of Obamacare' and that the Senate bill was 'two inches to the left of the house bill' and that certainly if they had problems with gop support before they will definitely have problems with support now.
One of the problematic features is cost. while still cheaper than Obamacare, it is not so by much.

I don't see how any rational person can equate either bill to Obamacare. Obamacare protects people who have preexisting conditions. Neither the House nor Senate bills do.
Obamacare taxes rich people to pay for subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty line. Neither the House nor Senate bills do that -- they eliminate the taxes and subsidies.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid. The House and Senate bills cut Medicaid.

Fletch · Jun 22, 2017

Cnn...

Anagram · Jun 22, 2017

Fletch said:
Cnn...

Not wrong in this case. 4 have actually announced their opposition to the bill in its current form now.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/enough-gop-senators-to-block-obamacare-replacement-will-oppose.html

SocialD · Jun 22, 2017

MTAtech said:
I don't see how any rational person can equate either bill to Obamacare. Obamacare protects people who have preexisting conditions. Neither the House nor Senate bills do.
Obamacare taxes rich people to pay for subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty line. Neither the House nor Senate bills do that -- they eliminate the taxes and subsidies.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid. The House and Senate bills cut Medicaid.

I don't know about the Senate bill as I have not read it yet. But the House bill did ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance.
The House and the Senate bill both do NOT eliminate subsidies they just do it differently. You are totally wrong.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
I don't know about the Senate bill as I have not read it yet. But the House bill did ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance.
The House and the Senate bill both do NOT eliminate subsidies they just do it differently. You are totally wrong.

You can't cut $600 billion a year in taxes designed to pay for subsidies and still provide subsidies, while also meeting the reconciliation requirement. The proposers of the bills will use slight-of-hand to tell you a lot of things that just aren't true.

The bill would create a system of tax credits to subsidize health insurance, instead of direct subsidies that help pay premiums every month as in Obamacare, that cuts credits off at 350 percent of poverty as opposed to the ACA's 400 percent of poverty level. I don't think those tax credits are refundable, so it doesn't do people in the low income level any good. The Senate bill kills Medicaid faster by setting the eligibility for buying insurance on the exchanges (which it also makes optional for states to create) to 0 percent of poverty. Everyone would be "eligible" which means states could eliminate Medicaid and put the poorest people on the exchanges, people for whom tax credits don't do diddly-squat.

SocialD · Jun 22, 2017

MTAtech said:
You can't cut $600 billion a year in taxes designed to pay for subsidies and still provide subsidies, while also meeting the reconciliation requirement. The proposers of the bills will use slight-of-hand to tell you a lot of things that just aren't true.

The bill would create a system of tax credits to subsidize health insurance, instead of direct subsidies that help pay premiums every month as in Obamacare, that cuts credits off at 350 percent of poverty as opposed to the ACA's 400 percent of poverty level. I don't think those tax credits are refundable, so it doesn't do people in the low income level any good. The Senate bill kills Medicaid faster by setting the eligibility for buying insurance on the exchanges (which it also makes optional for states to create) to 0 percent of poverty. Everyone would be "eligible" which means states could eliminate Medicaid and put the poorest people on the exchanges, people for whom tax credits don't do diddly-squat.

the 350% is correct but it also scales up for age. the House bill only based their subsidies on age scaling. the ACA only based subisidies on income ( at 400% as you mentioned )
The age thing does make sense. a persons premiums are higher the older they get. I recall checking them with a coworker , he was 26 and I was 47 and insurance premium for me was 32% higher than his for the exact same plan.
So while 350 or 400% of poverty level income to get subsidies might be great and cover it all if you are young but might fall quite short if you are older.

Fletch · Jun 22, 2017

MTAtech said:
I don't see how any rational person can equate either bill to Obamacare. Obamacare protects people who have preexisting conditions. Neither the House nor Senate bills do.
Obamacare taxes rich people to pay for subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty line. Neither the House nor Senate bills do that -- they eliminate the taxes and subsidies.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid. The House and Senate bills cut Medicaid.

Why should the rich pay for your health care?

iguanaman · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
I don't know about the Senate bill as I have not read it yet. But the House bill did ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance.
The House and the Senate bill both do NOT eliminate subsidies they just do it differently. You are totally wrong.

But he did not get it wrong about the tax cuts for millionaires that they are slashing 800 billion from Medicare to pay for. Nothing like taking from the poor to give to the rich, except that there will not be that much in savings since the poor can still get treatment at emergency rooms that is the most expensive care you can get.

iguanaman · Jun 22, 2017

Fletch said:
Why should the rich pay for your health care?

Because it is not affordable otherwise for many Americans? Why do the wealthy want the poor to suffer when they have so much?

Fletch · Jun 22, 2017

iguanaman said:
Because it is not affordable otherwise for many Americans?

So, because things are expensive, you believe others must be forced to pay for them? What gives you the right to take the property of others for your own use?

Why do the wealthy want the poor to suffer when they have so much?

Who said they want them to suffer? Those that feel bad are free to offer their wealth to assist others. How much do you give?

iguanaman · Jun 22, 2017

Fletch said:
So, because things are expensive, you believe others must be forced to pay for them? What gives you the right to take the property of others for your own use? Who said they want them to suffer? Those that feel bad are free to offer their wealth to assist others. How much do you give?

The right to tax is part of all Government and doing what is right for all our people is the basis for our Republic. Reagan gave all of us the right to treatment and those that benefit most from our economy can certainly afford to help cover the costs.

Fletch · Jun 22, 2017

iguanaman said:
The right to tax is part of all Government and doing what is right for all our people is the basis for our Republic.

Actually, that is not true. The basis for our republic is liberty and individual rights. Like it or not, one of the rights the rich have is to be secure in their property. That is a right you possess as well. The idea that the property of one person can be taken by the state for the sole purpose of providing another person with an unearned benefit in neither in the Constitution nor covered within any rational concept of justice. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbing Peter regardless of the supposed goodness of the cause.

Reagan gave all of us the right to treatment and those that benefit most from our economy can certainly afford to help cover the costs.

But minorities are supposed to be protected from the will of the majority, no? The rich, while wealthy, remain a statistical minority and should be due the same protections as any other minority group. I don't think you can imagine a scenario where blacks are taxed more than whites, or women more than men or gays more than straights or red heads more than blonds. The reason such things would not be tolerated is because it would be rightly viewed as a majority imposing its unjust will upon a minority. The same is true here. The 1% is an obvious numerical minority and has no means of protecting itself against the whims of the mob. That is where the state is supposed to step in. Except in the case of the rich, they don't.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
the 350% is correct but it also scales up for age. the House bill only based their subsidies on age scaling. the ACA only based subisidies on income ( at 400% as you mentioned )
The age thing does make sense. a persons premiums are higher the older they get. I recall checking them with a coworker , he was 26 and I was 47 and insurance premium for me was 32% higher than his for the exact same plan.
So while 350 or 400% of poverty level income to get subsidies might be great and cover it all if you are young but might fall quite short if you are older.

Under the ACA there is 'community ratings' that average the price of premiums in the community. That doesn't exist in the House or Senate bill. That's why the price of insurance for an older person is 5X higher -- a price most older Americans can't afford -- so they'll 'decide' not to have coverage. The GOP's plans screws older Americans and lower income Americans.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

MTAtech said:
I don't see how any rational person can equate either bill to Obamacare. Obamacare protects people who have preexisting conditions. Neither the House nor Senate bills do.
Obamacare taxes rich people to pay for subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty line. Neither the House nor Senate bills do that -- they eliminate the taxes and subsidies.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid. The House and Senate bills cut Medicaid.

Fletch said:

Why should the rich pay for your health care?

Click to expand...

Because we live in a country in which fundamentally we believe that everyone should have health care -- not just the rich or those that get it from their employers. Since health insurance is expensive, we can certainly choose to be selfish bastards and allow 30 million Americans who can't afford coverage or have preexisting conditions, and therefore can't get coverage, to have no medical care and just let the richest Americans enjoy medical care, but that's not who we are. That seems to be the GOP way -- let's be selfish.

Alternatively, we can tax the wealthiest in a way that really doesn't diminish their standard of living, but allows that money to insure those who can't afford it.

Perhaps you think that those who can't afford dialysis should just do without it and die?

LetsGoBrandon · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
I heard an analyst today describe this as that the House healthcare bill was 'six inches to the right of Obamacare' and that the Senate bill was 'two inches to the left of the house bill' and that certainly if they had problems with gop support before they will definitely have problems with support now.
One of the problematic features is cost. while still cheaper than Obamacare, it is not so by much.

I have not read the entire bill. However from what I have seen so far, while it is a vast improvement over Obamacare, just based on the mandates going away and more power to the states, until they actually address the cost of actually providing healthcare, it is still Obamacare-lite. And the only way cost can be addressed is for the government to cut the cord and for the most part, get the hell out of private healthcare and let market forces create competition. I am for holding out until it really looks like Obamacare repeal.

LetsGoBrandon · Jun 22, 2017

MTAtech said:
I don't see how any rational person can equate either bill to Obamacare. Obamacare protects people who have preexisting conditions. Neither the House nor Senate bills do.
Obamacare taxes rich people to pay for subsidies for people under 400% of the poverty line. Neither the House nor Senate bills do that -- they eliminate the taxes and subsidies.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid. The House and Senate bills cut Medicaid.

Obamacare is self destructing. It was an insanely stupid concept to begin with. That pre-existing coverage in Obamacare as well as the insanely stupid one size fits all approach is what is causing the massive increases in the cost of insurance. While I have little use for the insurance carriers, they are in business to make a profit, otherwise, what is the point? Those people who you want to think should be happy to have pre-existing coverage can barely afford to use it if they can at all. As for Medicaid expansion, medicaid is intended for the poor.....not those at 400% of the poverty line.

Greenbeard · Jun 22, 2017

SocialD said:
the 350% is correct but it also scales up for age. the House bill only based their subsidies on age scaling. the ACA only based subisidies on income ( at 400% as you mentioned )
The age thing does make sense. a persons premiums are higher the older they get. I recall checking them with a coworker , he was 26 and I was 47 and insurance premium for me was 32% higher than his for the exact same plan.
So while 350 or 400% of poverty level income to get subsidies might be great and cover it all if you are young but might fall quite short if you are older.

Let's imagine you're 50 and your income is at 300% of the federal poverty level. We'll use a real example: you live in Topeka and want to buy a silver-level plan (the cheapest one available will do).

Right now, you'll pay a premium of $292/month and your federal subsidy of $226/month will pay the rest.

Under the GOP's bill, you'd pay a premium of $384 for that exactly same plan and your federal subsidy of $134/month would pay the rest. Well, that would be the case if the GOP's bill didn't also allow insurers to charge older people even higher premiums. So in reality under the GOP's bill the premium you pay for that same plan would be even higher than $384.

Older folks still lose under this bill.

MTAtech · Jun 22, 2017

ObamacareFail said:
Obamacare is self destructing. It was an insanely stupid concept to begin with. That pre-existing coverage in Obamacare as well as the insanely stupid one size fits all approach is what is causing the massive increases in the cost of insurance. While I have little use for the insurance carriers, they are in business to make a profit, otherwise, what is the point? Those people who you want to think should be happy to have pre-existing coverage can barely afford to use it if they can at all. As for Medicaid expansion, medicaid is intended for the poor.....not those at 400% of the poverty line.

I can't imagine how someone with a handle of "Obamacarefail" wouldn't be as objective as a saint.

A) People with preexisting conditions pay the same premium rates as everyone in their community.
B) Obamacare is self-destructing? That's odd, the CBO said just in March that it was stable. Insurance companies are pulling out in some markets but that's only due to the sabotage by Trump.
C) There was no "massive increase in cost" once subsidies were taken into account.

The A.C.A. is not perfect, and improvements to it would be welcome. But it worked in many respects and would have worked much better had Congress been a faithful guardian of the law.

iguanaman · Jun 23, 2017

Fletch said:
Actually, that is not true. The basis for our republic is liberty and individual rights. Like it or not, one of the rights the rich have is to be secure in their property. That is a right you possess as well. The idea that the property of one person can be taken by the state for the sole purpose of providing another person with an unearned benefit in neither in the Constitution nor covered within any rational concept of justice. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbing Peter regardless of the supposed goodness of the cause.But minorities are supposed to be protected from the will of the majority, no? The rich, while wealthy, remain a statistical minority and should be due the same protections as any other minority group. I don't think you can imagine a scenario where blacks are taxed more than whites, or women more than men or gays more than straights or red heads more than blonds. The reason such things would not be tolerated is because it would be rightly viewed as a majority imposing its unjust will upon a minority. The same is true here. The 1% is an obvious numerical minority and has no means of protecting itself against the whims of the mob. That is where the state is supposed to step in. Except in the case of the rich, they don't.

Are you claiming that the rich are being taxed more than they can afford to pay? Because that is the criteria used to determine progressive tax rates. They are based on what an individual can afford to pay. That rule should be applied to the wealthy as well as the less well off to be truly fair. I say that we are letting the wealthy get away with murder with historically low rates while we run high deficits. This free ride has allowed the top 5% to quintuple their net worth since 1980 to over $40 Trillion. If you wanted to be fair to all you would admit that the rich pay FAR less than they can afford and the rest of us have to take up the slack. At the very least you should be able to see that that kind of lopsided income growth is unsustainable and that it already has slowed GDP growth and enhanced financial instability.