I am on the same page as you on most things, and healthy genuine debate is a good thing. I, for one, am not giving McCain any credit or praise beyond the vote, he and others of his ilk could easily start a coup, and put this a$$hole in his place, but they refuse to do it, and even when or if they decide to do it, too little too late. I don't agree with the whole premise that liberals are complacent or enabling of this, i think that certain compromises need to made on both sides of the aisle, but with this president there are is no strategy, it's all strongman and ham hands.
Senate Healthcare Bill Thread - UPDATE: 9/26 Graham-Cassidy Bill is Offically DEAD! Free Daps/Reps!
- Thread starter Black Panther
- Start date
Guys, there is no bipartisan solution. The ACA IS the bipartisanship solution, which means the only bipartisan solution available is allowing the bill to do what it was intended to do.
Restoring cost-sharing subsidies that Trump threatens to withhold every month, which CAUSES instability in the market, which CAUSES an increase in premiums due to the added risk taken on by insurers, IS NOT A BIPARTISANSHIP SOLUTION:
- Donald Trump Hints at Ending Subsidy That Gives Health Care to the Poor
- Even Talking About Weakening Obamacare Provisions Weakens The Exchanges
Restoring cost-sharing subsidies that Marco Rubio and Republicans in the House and Senate took away IS NOT A BIPARTISANSHIP SOLUTION:
- Marco Rubio: We 'wiped out' Obamacare 'bailout fund' for insurance companies
- 3 Ways Republicans Have Already Sabotaged Obamacare – Mother Jones
This is a republican demand to get around the individual mandate. You cannot exempt businesses - especially those who are the least likely to provide healthcare to their employees.
This is a republican demand combined with a Minnesota outcry: Paulsen takes aim at medical device tax again and is ready for success
You cannot expand medicaid and provide tax subsidies and cost-sharing reductions without this tax.
This is a republican demand. No democratic state is bytching about state waivers because the state waivers they're applying for don't involve throwing people into risk corridors (high cost markets for sick people that never receives enough money to fund). Greater flexibility means circumventing the rules and working around consumer protections.
You want a waiver. Follow the fukkn rules like everyone else. There are dozens upon dozens of waiver programs being conducted right now: State Waivers List | Medicaid.gov
This shyt is a fukkn sham and liberals are sopping this shyt up like straight up bytches. They killed your funding. They helped increase premiums. They helped push insurers out of markets. But you finna stand next to em and say they're helping you with a bipartisan solution? MUHfukkA THE ONLY IDEAS THAT WORK ARE YOURS. How you sharing credit and they're not shouldering any of the blame? What the hell y'all think finna happen in 2018 when they're up for re-election?
Edit: OOOOOOOOOOOOOH shyt
JOHN fukkN MCCAIN CO-SPONSORED BOTH OF MARCO RUBIO'S RISK CORRIDOR BILLS:- Cosponsors - S.1726 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Obamacare Taxpayer Bailout Prevention Act
- Cosponsors - S.123 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Obamacare Taxpayer Bailout Prevention Act
I'm sorry. I'm out. The delusion being displayed by the Democratic party is astonishing. When the .pdf of this stabilization drops, I'll make one last post, but I can't be in here anymore........
@tru_m.a.c
oh no, i dont find any of this to be some super "bipartisanship"
if anything i like to call out where we are as far as how far off the deep end
the R party has become that now moderate=just doing your job.
Not obstructing is the new compromise. I wont help you but i wont purposely burn
everything down this time. see how reasonable i am?
oh no, i dont find any of this to be some super "bipartisanship"
if anything i like to call out where we are as far as how far off the deep end
the R party has become that now moderate=just doing your job.
Not obstructing is the new compromise. I wont help you but i wont purposely burn
everything down this time. see how reasonable i am?
Cassidy-Graham: The last GOP health plan left standing, explained
Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com Sep 13, 2017, 2:47pm EDT
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55993667/headshots_1501599023848.0.jpg)
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC, left) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) teamed up to write a health bill that has been the subject of White House meetings.
Getty News Images
Senate Republicans rejected four different Obamacare repeal plans this summer.
Now just one remains — and in many ways, it’s the most radical one yet.
Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page.
The last health care plan standing, at least for now, is one released Wednesday morning by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV) Ron Johnson (R-WI), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).
Work on Cassidy-Graham began in the midst of the the chaotic Obamacare repeal effort in July. Today’s plan is the most detailed version of a proposal that Republican senators have mapped out elsewhere in op-eds and one-page summaries. President Trump offered restrained support for the plan Wednesday, saying he “applauds the Senate for continuing to work toward a solution to relieve the disasterous Obamacare burden” and that he “sincerely hopes that Senators Graham and Cassidy have found a way to address the Obamacare crisis.”
The senators are selling this idea as a compromise plan and say it is a way to return power to states, giving local governments more control over how they spend federal dollars.
“Instead of a Washington-knows-best approach like Obamacare, our legislation empowers those closest to the health care needs of their communities to provide solutions,” Graham said in a statement. “Our bill takes money and power out of Washington and gives it back to patients and states.
But the plan does much more than that. The proposal would eliminate the health care law’s subsidies for private insurance and end the Medicaid expansion. States could allow for waivers that let insurers charge sick patients higher premiums and stop covering certain benefits required under the Affordable Care Act, like maternity care or prescription drugs. The health insurance marketplaces would no longer exist as they are envisioned to continue under other Republican proposals.
The federal government would convert some (but not all) of that spending into a lump-sum payment to states. States could choose to spend this money on providing insurance — or they could use it to fund high-risk pools, or do other activities to pay the bills of patients with high medical needs. States wouldn’t get this money for free: They’d be required to kick in a small percentage themselves.
The plan hasn’t been scored by the Congressional Budget Office yet, but analysts who have studied Cassidy-Graham estimate it would cut deeply into federal funding for the health law programs, likely resulting in millions losing coverage.
Cassidy-Graham would arguably be more disruptive, not less, to the current health care system than the plans that came before it. It would let money currently spent on health insurance go toward other programs, providing no guarantee that the Affordable Care Act programs individuals rely on today would continue into the future.
“It would substitute a block grant for the funding that now provides states with resources for Medicaid expansion, premium tax credits, and cost-sharing reduction subsidies,” says Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “People don’t have a guarantee of meaningful coverage. It’s totally different.”
Cassidy-Graham spends less on health care, gives states more leeway in how to spend the money
Cassidy-Graham was released on Sept. 13 as a 141-page legislative plan for repealing the Affordable Care Act, and replacing it with a less generous health system.
Cassidy-Graham would repeal the health care law’s tax credits for middle-income Americans, the cost-sharing reduction subsides for low-income Americans, and the Medicaid expansion in 2020. This makes it a bit more radical than other Republican plans, which leave a (less generous) version of the tax credits in place.
It replaces all those programs with a market-based health care grant program, which would send states a lump sum of money to put toward health care–related purposes.
Under Obamacare, this money has to be spent on providing health insurance. Under Cassidy-Graham, it can be spent on other things. The options include:
- Establishing a program to “help high risk individuals in the purchase of health benefits coverage”
- “Stabilizing premiums and promoting state health insurance market participation”
- Pay health providers for “the provision of health care services”
- Create a fund to cover “out-of-pocket costs such as co-payments, coinsurance, and deductibles of individuals enrolled in the individual market”
- Create programs “to help individuals purchase health benefits coverage”
Cassidy-Graham would create a $146 billion fund in 2020, financed by keeping in place some Obamacare taxes. Through a complex funding formula — it includes things like population density, percentage of population in poverty, and other factors — it would divvy up this money between the states, which would then decide how to put it to work.
The $146 billion fund would be $20 billions less than the Affordable Care Act currently spends on expanding coverage, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That report compares the Cassidy-Graham health fund with the Affordable Care Act’s spending on marketplace subsidies, cost-sharing reduction subsidies, and the Medicaid expansion.
The disparity between Obamacare funding and Cassidy-Graham funding gets bigger over time, as Cassidy-Graham sets a slower growth rate than the expected rise in costs under the ACA. The CBPP estimates that by 2026, Cassidy-Graham would spend $83 billion less than the ACA is expected to on coverage, which amounts to a 34 percent cut.
In order to get this money, states would be expected to kick in some of their own funds too. Cassidy-Graham expects states to match 3 percent of their grant in 2020 and have the amount rise to 5 percent by 2026. This is similar to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for matching funds in order to participate in Medicaid expansion, which has turned off some states from signing up.
Cassidy-Graham would make it much more expensive for states to continue Obamacare if they like it
This new proposal is the second one Cassidy has put forward. He had an earlier plan with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that appears to have fizzled out at this point, which would have included a track where states that like the health care law could keep it in place.
Cassidy has set himself apart from other Republicans in this debate by conceding that some states actually like the Affordable Care Act and find that it works well for their constituents.
“California and New York, you like Obamacare, you should keep it,” Cassidy said at a February press conference on his bill with Collins. “It’s not for us to dictate.”
But this new bill would not allow a state like California to keep the Affordable Care Act in place unless it wanted to kick in significantly more money.
Here’s why: The complex funding formula used to divvy up the big pot of money would tilt more funding toward sparsely populated states. It advantages rural states that have fewer people per square mile than those with denser, more urban populations.
Cassidy-Graham would also take the current Medicaid expansion spending from the 30 states that participate in the program and divvy it up among all 50 states. For a place like Texas, which has not expanded Medicaid, this would be a windfall — it might see its overall health funding rise under Cassidy-Graham. But a state like California would be dramatically disadvantaged, as it would see some of its Medicaid expansion funds sent elsewhere.
The individual market would become more expensive for the sick under Cassidy-Graham
Cassidy-Graham would allow states to waive out of two key Obamacare policies that protect sick Americans: a ban on underwriting and requirement to cover all essential health benefits.
The Affordable Care Act outlaws a practice called underwriting, where insurance plans tether their premiums to the expected health costs of a specific patient. Health plans would charge low premiums to healthy, young individuals but higher ones to those who are sicker or older.
Obamacare barred healths plans from varying premiums by health status; it required everyone to be charged the same. Cassidy-Graham would allow states a waiver out of any Obamacare provision that “restricts the criteria which a health insurance issuer may use to vary premium rates...except that a health insurance issuer may not vary premiums rates based on an individual’s sex.”
In other words: Cassidy-Graham doesn’t allow insurance plans to charge women more, but it does open the door to sick people once again facing higher premiums.
Cassidy-Graham also allows insurance plans to cover a smaller set of benefits. It lets states waive out of any Obamacare provision that “requires a health insurance issuer offering a coverage plan in the individual or small group market to ensure that certain benefits are included in such coverage.”
This means that states could significantly pare back their insurance coverage to cover less expensive benefits, things like maternity care or expensive prescription drugs.
The result would be a market that looks a lot like the market that existed before the Affordable Care Act. States would get more funding to help provide insurance coverage but there is no guarantee that they would reach the low-income, sicker population that needs that type of assistance the most.
McCain will vote for it.
Paul, Collins, Murkowski, Capito and Lee are the ones that may be swayed to or are already at NO (esp Paul and Collins)
Mantis Toboggan M.D.
Drink wolf cola
This shyt sounds as bad as trumpcare if not worse
And they have the audacity to call this a compromise plan
CBO didnt score yet right?
this is gonna be trash just like all the others
these sick fukks just keep taking more and more away to give their sponsors a tax break
and call it "more" or "better"
this is gonna be trash just like all the others
these sick fukks just keep taking more and more away to give their sponsors a tax break
and call it "more" or "better"
levitate
I love you, you know.
fukk type of bill is this.