Obamacare

"Republicans’ vote to repeal Obamacare just blew up in their faces
TOPICS:FeaturedHealthcareHouseObamacareRepealSenate

POSTED BY: KATELYN KIVEL MAY 4, 2017

New reports confirm that the Senate is refusing to even hold a vote on the Obamacare repeal bill the House just passed, killing it within hours of its passage.

Bloomberg is reporting that Senate Republicans will snub the U.S. House of Representatives’ version of the American Health Care Act, instead opting to write its own version with a 12-member working group. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is considered one of the more moderate Republicans in the chamber, said she’s looking forward to writing up a completely different healthcare reform bill with “a clean slate.”


Because the Senate only has 52 Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) can’t afford to have even three defections. Both Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ confirmation earlier this year, proving that the Republican majority in the Senate is tenuous at best.

The fact that the Senate is refusing to even take up the bill was likely no surprise to members of the House GOP. Even Republicans laughed at Paul Ryan when he said the Senate was eager to get to work on healthcare, according to CBS’ Mark Knoller.

View image on Twitter


Follow
Mark Knoller

✔@markknoller
House GOP members laugh when @SpeakerRyan says friends in the Senate eager to get to work" on the healthcare bill. "They are," he insists.

1:30 PM - 4 May 2017


“The safest thing to say is there will be a Senate bill, but it will look at what the House has done and see how much of that we can incorporate in a product that works for us in reconciliation,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) in an interview with the Washington Examiner.


A Senate proposal is being developed by a 12-member working group with no specific deadline and using the House-passed bill as a springboard, not as a framework.


Follow
Anna Edney

✔@annaedney
Senate Republicans are planning to write their own Obamacare repeal. So ... yeah https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-04/senate-gop-plans-own-obamacare-repeal-bill-after-house-action … by @StevenTDennis @LauraLitvan

1:41 PM - 4 May 2017


“We are just working toward getting 51 votes,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “There is no timeline. When we get 51 senators, we’ll vote.”

Normally, a bill requires 60 votes for cloture, which is necessary to allow an up-or-down majority vote on a given piece of legislation. However, Republicans are likely aware they won’t meet the 60-vote threshold, and are instead attempting to pass the bill through the budget reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes.


Hospital groups ranging from American Medical Association, American Hospital Association to the AARP are opposed to the replacement for Obamacare, especially with the last-minute amendments that further erode protections for the sick and elderly.

“We cannot pull the rug out from under states like Nevada that expanded Medicaid and we need assurances that people with pre-existing conditions will be protected,” said a statement from Dean Heller (R-Nev.), one of the Senate’s most vulnerable Republicans.

“I’ve already made clear that I don’t support the House bill as currently constructed,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement, “because I continue to have concerns that this bill does not do enough to protect Ohio’s Medicaid expansion population, especially those who are receiving treatment for heroin and prescription drug abuse.”

With the incredibly narrow 217-213 margin in the House, it is unclear if a Senate version could possibly pass in the House, especially considering preexisting conditions and Medicaid expansion were points of heated contention in the House bill.

More than a few Republican Senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are deeply skeptical of the House’s bill.


Follow
Lindsey Graham

✔@LindseyGrahamSC
A bill -- finalized yesterday, has not been scored, amendments not allowed, and 3 hours final debate -- should be viewed with caution.

10:02 AM - 4 May 2017


Meanwhile, some in the House seem equally skeptical of the Senate’s depictions of themselves as the ‘clean-up crew’ for the House bill.

“They tell us they’re so smart and they’re so good at this stuff and we’re so incapable that they need to work on it — and I agree with them,” said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas). “They need to work on it. I want them to. I’m anxious to see what they’re going to do with finishing the job that we started.”

Health insurers have faced months of uncertainty as to the future shape of coverage in America due to the protracted debate over the repeal of Obamacare and what form Trumpcare might take already, and with the Senate drafting it’s own bill instead of voting on the House version, those months of uncertainty are set to continue."

http://resistancereport.com/politics/republicans-obamacare-blew-up/

 

^^^ why is rape and the others being considered pre-existing considered a bad thing? Means any help they need won't be denied.

I feel like Dems would've complained if it wasn't under pre-existing too.

 

I don't get it. A woman gets raped. Goes to the doctor for help with any injuries and maybe some counseling. What do you mean by premiums? A copay? Or are you saying the rates go up?

 

This is going to sound crass and insensitive, but in legalese how would you term it?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

Obama plan fined people for not having insurance. That fine is increasing yearly.

Woman goes in with no insurance. Who's fault is that? She needs help. Doctor should do it for free? Me and you should pay the bill for her? Or she should pay? No matter what, a bill has to be paid, despite the horrible situation she's in.

 

The US has numerous examples of how we all pay into a necessary universal service just for the security of knowing it will be there for us if we need it... like the police department and fire department for example.

How is paying into medical any different?

 

We pay taxes (police, roads, fireman, public schools, libraries). IMO, we pay too much in taxes, but that's another thread. The difference is, we're not all playing by the same rules when it comes to insurance. Some have X insurance through a job, some have Y insurance they pay for out of pocket, some have Z insurance because they can't afford anything. ObamaCare forced all of us to purchase something that the majority didn't need (they had insurance X or Y). But some did (insurance Z). But we're all forced to have insurance now. That was never the case. HealthCare is not a right, yet the government is forcing me, you, and everyone else to pay into it to fund those who can't afford it. In comparison, owning a gun is a right. Again, healthcare is not. I have a gun. My wife doesn't. Who is going to buy her one? it's her Right. The government should issue her one. Let's tax everyone so my wife can have one. Sounds crazy, I know. That's how I view healthcare, higher education, women's contraception, etc, etc, etc.

 

I think I've been viewing the "pre-existing condition" differently. I've been thinking "can't be denied", which I've always commended ObamaCare having this is a great thing.

And I view ObamaCare rates as being based on income. So if you are perfectly healthy or have cancer, the rates are contingent on annual income and not condition or prior history. I could definitely be wrong on this, but that's been my thought process. So someone gets raped or had cancer 10 years ago and now wants insurance, I'm thinking, "cool, they have a pre-existing condition and won't be denied because Trump kept the best part of ObamaCare in there."

Also, I see all kinds of memes on FB and people complaining, but like Barns posted above, the Senate is about to change 50 - 75% of this new law. How it will play out is anyone's guess, but I feel like the Left is going crazy to do what they do -- tarnish anything and everything about Trumps presidency.

 

Should a government program be "for profit" ??? Police departments aren't trying to turn a profit. Neither are fire departments. Libraries aren't. HealthCare is. Why? Let the free market dictate the price.

Also, Trump wanted the free market to drive down prices and said he'd make getting insurance across state lines available. I haven't heard if this is part of the semi-final plan. If it is and hasn't been announced, that's the Left / media hiding a great thing. If he didn't get that included, I question why and feel he missed a great opportunity.

 

That doesn't follow IMO. Crime protection from the police is not a right. Fire and emergency rescue isn't a right. But we all benefit from having them whether we pay the same taxes or not, or any taxes at all. We all have the same level of protection from crime, and emergency. We pay into it not because were told to by the constitution, but because our society works better when everybody can reasonably expect a certain level of safety from crime or emergency. Medical health is no different.

If people only got a certain level of support from the police or fire department depending on their tax contribution, it would be chaos. "Sorry Mam, your taxation level only entitles you to one emergency call per year. Please upgrade to our Premium Fire Department package to enjoy unlimited year around service". That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But that's exactly what we're doing with insurance and medical coverage. The only difference is that we are use to police and fire protection being evenly distributed. We are use to everybody having access to the same roads our taxes pay for, whether we ever drive them at all. In the same manner, we could just as easily get rid of all the different insurance companies and have universal medical care (state based) and it could work just as well as Police or Fire Department protection.

We have government retirement protection in the form of Social Security, and people can still get a Pension or 401K if they like, or their employer has it available. It works, minus the government waste and corruption. Social Security is just a safety net for when you retire. You may never need it, but you also may never need the Fire Department... but isn't it nice to know if you ever did need the Fire Department, it will be there for you?

I understand the argument that we're taxed to much. Totally true. But these services are not the problem IMO. Government offices literally losing billions of dollars, over spending on BS like even more on the military, government subsidies, etc. are the problem. Not making sure our fellow citizens are healthy.

 

This is a first. I've never once heard someone complain about how the Fire Department works.

If that works in Germany. Awesome. But what we're doing works too. Of all the tax paid programs, the Fire Department might be the best example of one that works very well.

Private security only guard the people and places the're paid to guard. That's the first reason you need the Police and why private security isn't equivalent. You, as a private citizen walking down the street get robbed, you're not calling any security firm. You'd call the police.

Individuals and companies can hire private security firms as extra support, above and beyond the police, to insure their safety, but that supports my point because it mirrors all the other examples I gave. You can support Social Security with a 401k if the Social Security wouldn't be enough. You can pay a private fire emergency team if the local Fire Department isn't enough... And similarly, if we enact Universal Health Care, you could purchase private Insurance if the Universal Health Care isn't enough.

Of all people I would think you would be all for this Rev, because if there's true Universal Health Care, employers wouldn't be required to provide it to their employees, therefore lowering costs to each business, but the business could offer private health care if they wanted to entice better employees.

As I said, I'm for State based Universal care, where there might be some stipulations from the federal government, but otherwise the details would be up to each state to work out.

 

Federal fire departments are very wasteful for the tax payer. My wife's family has a long line of firemen and they waste a lot of time and resources.

I'm all for whatever costs me less. Federal government (and state government here in California) doesn't need any more of my money.