The ACA replacement bill passes the House
Well, well, well. They herded up enough GOP House cats to pass the first Obamacare replacement bill.
I say “the first” because I believe it likely that the Senate will modify it considerably before it passes there, and that it will be tough sledding in the Senate in general.
Here’s the way the vote went:
After a dramatic week of negotiations, lobbying from Trump and Republican leaders, the vote ended with 217 GOP lawmakers backing the measure. Twenty Republicans opposed it, as did all House Democrats.
It’s like a mirror image of the final passage of the original Obamacare bill in 2010, when all the House Republicans voted against, as did some House Democrats (34).
The votes on these two bills—the original 2010 Obamacare bill and now this one (Trumpcare? Ryancare?) show how evenly split the country was and is, as well as the tenuous nature of the popularity of either bill on passage, even in their own parties. The only bipartisan support for either was the “nay” vote for both.
The Democrats will capitalize on every flaw in the bill—and believe me, all health care reform bills have huge flaws because the problems are so large and the desires of the American public so contradictory (complete and sterling coverage guaranteed by the feds at low cost). The flaws of this bill will be endlessly shouted from the hills by the Democrats with the full cooperation of the MSM, with the hope of it backfiring and hurting the GOP. And the Democrats (who denied the flaws of their own bill) are not shy about saying so:
Democrats were unable to stop the GOP vote aimed at President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement. But after the final vote was cast, they chanted “nah nah nah nah hey hey hey goodbye” to their Republican colleagues, with a few members waving, as they believe the vote will lead to many GOP lawmakers losing their seats in the November 2018 midterms…
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blasted the bill and timing of the vote.
“Do you believe in what is in this bill?” she said Thursday. “Some of you have said … well, they’ll fix it in the Senate. But you have every provision of this bill tattoos on your forehead you will glow in the dark on this one.”
The remark was met with cheers and applause.
“You will glow in the dark,” she repeated.
Like the Democrats did after passing Obamacare.
Ah, but Nancy, Nancy—I thought health care coverage bills were like refrigerators, and you didn’t need to know the provisions, much less have them tattooed on your forehead [emphasis mine]:
[In 2010 Pelosi compared the passage of Obamacare] to the enactment of social security, medicare and the civil rights act.
And while she said it may not be perfect, it’s a bold step in the right direction.
”It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest,” said Pelosi. “All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on. You open this door, you go through a whole different path, in terms of access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.”
Clearly, Pelosi seems fond of those metaphors about lights going on in the dark, both good and bad—refrigerators and/or glowing tattoos like a mark of Cain. And clearly, she hopes the Republicans won’t “fix it in the Senate” and will be hoist on the petard of their own health care reform failures.
I hope they will manage to “fix it,” but I’m not particularly optimistic about that.
The CNN article I linked goes on to explain some of the provisions of the GOP bill, provisions that sound pretty good to me but which I’m pretty sure the author of the article thought readers should think are steps backward. They have the general effect of returning health coverage to a more insurance-like model (not a complete insurance model) compared with Obamacare. They also seem to provide more choices for the consumer and the states.
There are plenty of other articles describing the bill, and over the next few days there will be plenty more, if you care to check out the wires in back of that fridge. I’m not going to write that particular post today, though, because I’m waiting for all sides to check in more fully so I can evaluate as best I can what’s what. When I say “all sides,” it’s because although the bill’s provisions and their predicted effects are probably relatively straightforward, the analysis varies considerably depending on the point of view of the person performing the job.
And so, we’ll…see.
The 12 million or more people who have to buy their medical insurance in the open marketplace could be helped by an entity (much like AARP who sells group rated Medi-gap policies to Medicare recipients) that can be the provider of group rated individual policies to that large group of policy purchasers. This is Ran Paul’s the ideal and I think it’s a good one. But someone has to get it off the ground. Someone with knowledge of the insurance market and with the access to money to get it up and running in a short time. (One year or less.)
I’ve surveyed a few sites comparing the ACA and AHCA. What I see is desirable change, but nothing that is going to lower costs for those individual policy purchasers. That’s why Rand Paul’s idea is a good one. The best part is it doesn’t require Congressional action. Some billionaire tech mogul (Bill Gates, here’s your chance to be a hero and really help people.) could get it up and running.
I think I wrote here back in March after the first failure that it was likely something would have to pass by May/June at the latest. The court case that Obama had pressed to defeat Congress’s refusal to fund part of the payments to the insurers will face a go/no go decision by May, and if it is no go as I expect, the insurers in a lot more states are likely to withdraw from the exchanges.
This: “…and the desires of the American public so contradictory (complete and sterling coverage guaranteed by the feds at low cost).”
I wish that the Republicans/conservatives would do a better job of explaining the basic economics of health care, especially that it WILL be rationed, the only question is how: by access (wait time), quality of care (time with doctor, treatments), and/or price (and the taxpayer should not be expected to write blank checks.)
I’ve read lots of good stuff:
Daniel Mitchell is great
[https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/category/health-reform/]
as is John Goodman
[http://healthblog.ncpa.org/#sthash.jJhUVbeJ.dpbs],
but it’s not getting through…, or it’s not getting the audience that it needs to. Example:
https://www.cato.org/blog/large-majorities-support-key-obamacare-provisions-unless-they-cost-something
So the House finally passed a bill that IMHO is considerably weaker than a complete repeal, but better than RyanCare #1 and Obamacare. Note, the big complainers fomenting the changes to weaken this version were guys like Fred Upton, Billy Long, and Rod Frelinghuysen.
ALL of those guys voted Yea on a complete repeal of Obamacare on Feb. 2015. (Yeah, I understand the reconciliation issue.) But they were no votes on the first interation of RyanCare#2 (which could pass on reconciliation) even though its was less onerous than a complete repeal. So either they were dishonest in their 2015 vote, or they are grandstanding, to some effect, now. Sorry, maybe they “grew” in their understanding of the issues.
And yes, I already saw the video of some smirking junior nobody Republican senator who stated this HR bill is nothing but a starting point for the Senate. I’d put the odds of a complete implosion of the legislation at 90%, though I think Trump’s big Rose Garden ceremony helped avert that outcome a little.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Some will be fooled again. Thousands of pages to learn what’s within them. Deja vu all over again. We have all been here before. Insanity.
ColoComment Says:
May 4th, 2017 at 6:34 pm
This: “…and the desires of the American public so contradictory (complete and sterling coverage guaranteed by the feds at low cost).”
I wish that the Republicans/conservatives would do a better job of explaining the basic economics of health care, especially that it WILL be rationed, the only question is how: by access (wait time), quality of care (time with doctor, treatments), and/or price (and the taxpayer should not be expected to write blank checks.)
I’ve read lots of good stuff:
Daniel Mitchell is great
[https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/category/health-reform/]
as is John Goodman
[http://healthblog.ncpa.org/#sthash.jJhUVbeJ.dpbs],
but it’s not getting through…, or it’s not getting the audience that it needs to. Example:
https://www.cato.org/blog/large-majorities-support-key-obamacare-provisions-unless-they-cost-something
* *
Your link caused me to remember the befuddled Dem on TV back at the beginning of Obamacare who waved his latest premium notice at the camera and stated (apparently with no ironic comprehension) that he supported the Health Care Reform but “never expected I would have to pay for it”..
The only insurance reform I’m interested in has three parts: (1) government does nothing but police fraud and predatory insurers or providers: no minimums, no mandates; (2) any insurance or health-product can be sold anywhere in the US; (3) federal subsidized pools for majorly poor or sick people.
If the government’s thumb wasn’t on the scales, most of the Medicaid and Medicare patients could buy reasonable insurance for most problems; there is really no good way to finance astronomically expensive end-of-life care for seniors or some chronic diseases other than through federal cost-sharing.
BTW, one of the biggest cost-factors for hospitals is care for gang shooters (as well as their victims) who end up in the ER.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160305585086/the-healthcare-confusopoly
“To be fair, I doubt politicians see this situation as a confusopoly. They probably just think some things are complicated by their nature, and this is one of them. They might also think they understand the big points. But that seems unlikely to me. A few politicians, such as Rand Paul, might dig into the details and grasp most of it, but the majority will not.
I’m opposed to any healthcare bill that isn’t easy for the public to understand. If the President wants the public to back a particular plan, he needs to give us something simple. Otherwise, my preference is for no new healthcare bill.”
And no OLD healthcare bill either.
Scrape the barnacles off the hull before the ship sinks- and it’s already 3/4 underwater.
The American people just want it all; and they want someone else to pay for it. This creates a dichotomy that is not reconcilable.
Healthcare can be affordable. During WWII, in Ybor City, Tampa, Fl, there was a wonderful full service clinic/hosipital run by a Dr. Gonzales. My Mother could afford the flat fee even on the $75/month she received from the USN while my Dad was “gone”; it covered the four of us still at home (precursor of HMOs?). Dr. Gonzales did not provide luxurious health care; he provided essential health care, in rather spartan, but clean and adequate facilities. Mother had a hysterectomy; my brother and I had tonsillectomies; my sister had a broken arm set. All for a flat fee.
This level of health care is still possible. Not at the same price, because the technology has advanced, and is expensive. But, at affordable prices, if the non-essential features are ruthlessly pared.
J.J. — unfortunately, present law prevents affinity groups like AARP from offering group health plans. Permitting that was supposed to be included in the “repeal and replace.” Does anybody know if it was?
parker,
I fear it’s all political theater now, on both sides. They passed the bill before getting the CBO analysis back. This is the kind of stuff we severely criticized the Democrats for (even though they actually did get the CBO results first). Why the need to ram this through?
Hussein, the Left’s King and Messiah was expected to shove in Leftist sponge bob bills to hurt and punish conservatives. That somehow happened, no matter whether people here liked it or not.
Now Hero Savior Trum that people expect to be their firewall, is expected to fight against the Left and to shove in bills that will hurt the Left or at least stop them, if only temporarily.
The problem with saying God did this or God is backing that King…. well the problem is you aren’t a prophet, so you have no idea what aO’s Word is and every time people say “I know what the plan” is, it is a human opinion that is debatable.
Does the sheep and the ant really know what the plan of the shepherd is.