|
The full text of the letter from Portman, Murkowski, Gardner, and Capito was a little hard to google among the news stories. Here's a link, in case it saves someone some time: http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=C6D96A68-A891-4BA1-8AD2-1CE166E0F8EBLeon Trotsky 2012 posted:There is no CBO score out yet for an "official" estimate. Will that be happening? I thought the ACA bill was specifically exempted from them looking at it.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
eviltastic posted:I thought the ACA bill was specifically exempted from them looking at it. If anyone else was thinking the same thing, here is a politifact page explaining why this is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:"The new plan allows up to 5x higher premiums for age and 2x higher cap for pre-existing conditions." The age thing is on page 65. I'm not sure what the bit about a cap for pre-existing conditions is about, I don't see where it alters the language barring premium increases for pre-existing conditions (42 USC §300gg(A)(1)(B) and 300gg–4(b)). eviltastic fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
I've been looking and have not seen an explanation: why isn't the selling across state lines thing in the bill? Were there House members pushing back against that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:It would require statutory changes and reconciliation can't do that. Derp, yeah, makes sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Speaking of the Senate: https://twitter.com/costareports/status/839242378435313665 https://twitter.com/costareports/status/839242744539283456
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
The Hill has a list of House and Senate members who are or might be opposed. Annoyingly, there's no "yes" section; I doubt Ryan's position is that much in doubt. If anyone's got a better source counting noses, please post. As I was typing this up: https://twitter.com/PeterSullivan4/status/839514149961011201
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Ted Cruz, noted student of Senate parliamentary rules, would like to play Calvinball with Mike Pence.The Hill posted:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), emerging as a key player in negotiations to repeal and replace ObamaCare, says Vice President Pence should exert his power over the Senate to significantly expand the scope of the House healthcare reform bill.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
To expand a bit on what evilweasel said, there are disparate interests here that are making it really hard for the GOP to maintain party discipline. Some of the Republicans really want the ACA totally gone, or gone but keeping the spending cuts it implemented. Some are aware of just how badly their states need things like the Medicaid expansion, and don't want to lose that. Some would like to see it gone, but understand just how ugly the consequences of the bill could be and don't want to be holding the bag. There's just no way to satisfy them all, but the GOP margins are slim enough (and the Dems are so far from breaking ranks) that they need every vote they can get. This is why the Republicans haven't had any actual ACA replacement proposal until now and the conservatives are in an uproar, they ran on 'repeal and replace' with the understanding they wouldn't ever have to actually agree to a replacement. Compounding this is the political gamesmanship. Nobody wants to be blamed for the bill failing, but House members also don't want to cast an unpopular vote that will be held against them for a bill they don't believe will clear the Senate. Conservatives are incentivized to break party discipline and dig in their heels, because running against something that still looks kinda like Obamacare is easier. And moderates, particularly those in the Senate, can hem and haw about how this is going too fast or needs changes they know won't fly with the House, making it ever more likely that it dies in the other chamber and Ryan or Trump takes the blame. Ryan's scrambling for leverage because none of the conservatives are going to be called a RINO for voting against this, and moderates are terrified of the price they'll pay if it actually does pass and they, not Obama, have to own all the voter frustration with an unpopular system that will get significantly worse. edit: A competent presidential administration could be a real asset in whipping the votes. Ryan doesn't have that. Trump still doesn't really have a grasp on how the levers of power actually work, and that's crippling his ability to be the dealmaker he thinks that he is. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Right, but if they were dumb enough to force a floor vote on it without knowing 100% that they had the votes and it failed, they couldn't use reconciliation again until next year? That's an interesting question. I'm dumb about this stuff but I think it works like this: Reconciliation begins with a budget measure passing directing committees in each chamber to come up with spending changes and submit them to their budget committee, by some date. That happened, the deadline was Jan 27, but was non binding. Neither chamber came up with anything. The House committees have since generated legislation and kicked it up to the House Budget Committee. Today, that Committee okayed the measure to go to the floor for a vote. Presumably it's that floor vote that we're talking about failing. Supposing it had succeeded, the Senate Committees would presumably suggest measures to adopt the something like the House bill to the Senate Budget Committee, which would kick it out to the Senate for a vote. I think (big grain of salt here) that it is that recommendation of the Senate Budget Committee involving spending/debt limit/revenues which is privileged and not subject to usual cloture debate, and limited to being taken up for consideration once per year. It's those requirements we're concerned with. So no, I don't think the House vote would completely kill things if it failed, as a technical matter, because the Senate could still act. As a practical matter, this thing doesn't get out of the House, it's dead, because the Senate will let it stay that way and let someone else take the blame. If it was the Senate vote we're talking about failing, I think (again, big grain of salt) they've blown their shot for the year. All that said, it would be fantastic political theater, but I'd be stunned if either chamber hosed up the whip count and let it go to a failed floor vote. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Shot This article from The Hill explains what he's talking about and confirms that Politico Thursday date. e: eh, bit much to quote there. They're looking at tinkering with work requirements, block grants, and tax credits. Work stuff to appease the loons, tax credit alterations because some realize totally loving over young-olds is not good politics. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
The Hill's whip count thing has been updated with 'yes' votes. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322903-the-hills-whip-list-where-republicans-stand-on-obamacare-repeal-plan
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
New Costa/Weigel piece in WaPo that has too much to quote. Lot of tea leaves (har har) to read. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...m=.b1cf30ac6f7e In short, it's looking like evilweasel was right, and the plan was to leave the Freedom Caucus loons out on their own, and both sides are still presenting themselves as having enough votes. Meanwhile Trump is trying to bluster and threaten while having just come back from a campaign rally in...Kentucky, presumably targeting Rand Paul and Rep. Tom Massie, two of the least likely people involved to feel any heat from that. It doesn't sound like Ryan is ready to offer much in the way of further concessions to the crazies, and is confident of his support among the moderates. The Hill's whip count, which appears to have been updated to reflect the comments in that story, still has 18 House members at a 'no' and 9 at a likely no vote. Gonna be hilarious if I was wrong and Ryan pushes this to a floor vote that manages to fail.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
More potential hints at who is or isn't up for grabs:quote:The Club for Growth is encouraged by changes in the bill that have been proposed by the Trump Administration, but House leadership has not gone far enough with those changes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844282098575966208 https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844282420472037376 ...parsing that, it's gonna be very close either way. "at least 20-25 hard 'no' votes" means they aren't certain they've got enough votes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
The Hill's "no" count (as in, not including leaners) is up to 22. That said, the leadership seems to have at least some idea of who to target at the last minute to flip.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Pete Sessions was saying earlier today that a new CBO score would drop tonight. That's been confirmed by Kevin Brady, the chair of the House Ways and Means committee. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/324861-new-cbo-score-coming-before-obamacare-vote-chairman-says
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Here is the Brookings institute discussing what they expect from the CBO:Brookings posted:On net, CBO is likely to put the reduction in insurance coverage under the amended version of the AHCA at level similar to or even somewhat higher than its prior estimate that 24 million people would lose insurance coverage in 2026. HappyHippo posted:What changes did they make? -$75 billion handed to the Senate to figure out how to spend on young-olds, who really get screwed by this bill (not actually in there, but people are talking about it) -State option to block grant medicaid instead of a per capita cap -Imposing work requirements on medicaid -faster repeal of ACA taxes -expanded medical expense deduction (this may be a placeholder for the Senate deal) -increased growth rate (+1%) for medicaid caps for elderly and disabled -the tweak that New York fence-sitters wanted to reimbursement of funds raised by county governments -states blocked from expanding medicaid before the caps hit -"Cadillac tax" further delayed -excess refundable credits can't go into HSAs, because maybe a federal dollar somehow pays for an abortion -one billion appropriated for a fund created to implement the changes edit: The $75 billion thing is not actually in there, so can't be scored by the CBO. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I dug up the press release on that $75 billion thing, and this is pretty funny:Energy & Commerce press release posted:To further ensure older Americans have the help they need to access the care that’s right for them, the amendment to AHCA would provide the financing for additional support for those with high health care costs before the bill goes to the Senate. Under current law, Americans can deduct from their taxes the cost of medical expenses that exceed 10 percent of their income. Our proposed amendment reduces this threshold to 5.8 percent of income. Pretty apparent what happened here, when they saw the impact to young-olds the not-crazy and vulnerable members poo poo a brick, but Ryan had no time to draft a fix that would gain them more votes than it lost. This way, moderates get to say they voted for it because of some deal that the Senate would fix costs for that group. Crazies don't have to explain being on board with an even bigger expansion of Obamacare-lite or whatever. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Might not have threaded the needle here. https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/844705010927767552 https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/844706367982223360 e:per NBC: quote:House Speaker Paul Ryan is spending a large portion of his evening meeting with undecided members or those who leadership think are persuadable. He's focusing on the more moderate members of the House and leaving the conservatives to the White House. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Might not have threaded the needle here. quote:The leader of a centrist group of House Republicans said late Wednesday that he will oppose the GOP healthcare legislation. Looks like they may have offered the conservatives too much. The other co-chair of that bunch is a yes (Tom MacArthur), so this isn't a big moderate revolt. But Ryan badly needs every vote. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Prediction: the bill will pass the house tomorrow. Looking quite possible. The plan seems to be to bend over for the loons and scramble to get the deal done before the moderate support can evaporate. On the other hand, CNN is reporting as of twenty minutes ago that they still don't have enough votes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:What's the logic here? Is he taking a harder position knowing full well it won't be met just as cover to vote down what's being offered? Might just be being loony, Yoho was one of the guys talking about how great a default on the national debt would be. But right now both sides are still posturing to pressure the other. Compare https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844932889313759232 https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844933109493776385 with this https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/844929646613401602
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Any chance of reporting of the meeting while its in progress or at least some leaks? It's not the meeting, but there's some reporting on the people who aren't in the meeting: https://twitter.com/LisaMascaro/status/844951862386343937
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
shots fired https://twitter.com/AP/status/844964519847841793
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
lol, chaos reignsevilweasel posted:i would pay good money to watch this meeting: Interesting. Pearce was leaning 'no'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Ryan must have also badly miscalculated how far he can push moderates, then. e: Or, they're getting enough cover from the effort to blame the Freedom Caucus that they're feeling more safe than before in defying Ryan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
re: Mulvaney https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/845060562539237376 https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/845060998851706881 sounds like 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
In a twist that will surprise no one, the Ways & Means chair has confirmed there will be no CBO score on the final bill.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:House leadership is trying to cut side deals so the whole "negotiations are over" thing is not exactly true. Still possible they can get this. Got a link?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
yup, still trying to twist arms at an individual level https://twitter.com/CNN/status/845080709870075904 Ain't over until it's over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:So Trump is playing hardball and threatening that this will be last opportunity he gives to repeal ACA. Freakout causes yes votes. I wonder if this will work. https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/845089540708687872 https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/845090040128684033 Guess we find out tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Well I was wrong last night, but I bet it'll pass tomorrow. Always expect the worst thing to happen. Either way, this wasn't the worst thing. That would've been strongarming enough of the loons into going along with something the Senate started to make positive noises about. Top notch political theater regardless, plenty of own goals and exposed fault lines that will make the upcoming tax/budget fight entertaining in addition to horrifying. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
The schedule: https://twitter.com/davecatanese/status/845266698806661121
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I feel relatively confident Meadows is folding, along with part of the HFC: Interesting. I wonder if the meeting last night they had was about divvying up who they thought they could afford to lose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Kinda weakens the likely threats about shakeups in appointments and committee seats if the dang appropriations chair is ready to go against.
eviltastic fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Dave Brat is my congressman so calling him is pointless. He's a Freedom Caucus no vote. That's the group where everyone is speculating about people folding. Calling him is totally not pointless. I mean, yeah, he's a markets-fix-everything guy who is not going to actually care about your situation, but talking about costs and huge deductibles and how this bill does nothing to fix them is what he's been basing his opposition on. edit: Brat is also one of the set that's been feeling a lot of heat at town hall meetings. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If Brat thinks his voters are all with him on "Full repeal" then he will act less cautiously than if he gets the impression there's a lot of people who are going to be rioting outside his office if it gets completely repealed. He probably already has that impression, fwiw.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also useful: these are the "definitely hard no" HFC members (voted against even having the bill voted on today):
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Quorum posted:The Vulnerable Caucus. Eh....those two won their districts with over 70% of the vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:52
|
|