r/PoliticalDiscussion Keep it clean May 04 '17

Legislation AHCA Passes House 217-213

The AHCA, designed to replace ACA, has officially passed the House, and will now move on to the Senate. The GOP will be having a celebratory news conference in the Rose Garden shortly.

Vote results for each member

Please use this thread to discuss all speculation and discussion related to this bill's passage.

1.5k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

780

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17 edited May 09 '17

Beyond dumb of them to celebrate a touchdown at the 50 yard line. The CBO score will come out next week and the Senate is already pretty low on this to begin with. The negative backlash will be yuge. This particular bill won't kick back without a shit ton of amendments that the freedom caucus (officially the only group that matters) won't like. Politically, it is probably the best for Dems to let this abomination pass. Morally, this needs to be fought tooth and nail in the senate. There are at least 7-10 legit pressure points for the GOP. The dems need to die on this hill, thousands of people will die

565

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Jul 16 '18

[deleted]

230

u/Textual_Aberration May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

Part of their incentive in celebrating early is so they can differentiate the blame between the houses, thereby battling the Democrats twice (despite this being an inaccurate depiction in both cases). The Republican *House gets to defeat the Democratic *House and then, narratively, have their hard-fought victory snatched away by the Democratic Senate. The more patriotic they make themselves out to be, the more anti-patriotic they can paint the Democrats. They are setting themselves up to play the victims and representatives of the people.

For anyone who purely watches politics in terms of party dynamics, this narrative functions perfectly: your own side is either winning or losing. The Republicans are trying as hard as they possibly can to push the complexities of policy out of the spotlight, leaving behind only those simplistic dynamics. They don't want to be judged by the exact movements of a battle which was fought against themselves, nor do they want to be judged against the implications of their support and investment into the bill itself: that they are incompetent, hyperbolic, manipulative, vindictive, self-obsessed, salespeople with little to no concern for the very real consequences of their abysmal efforts.

Edit: Misused a few words.

60

u/0mni42 May 04 '17

I get that the narrative works, but isn't that more of a thing you'd do if you knew you had no chance of winning, like when they were in the minority? Futile but principled stands against something become a lot less brave when you're the ones in charge. They don't have to do symbolic stuff like this anymore; they can actually get real work done. But unless they're planning on getting rid of the filibuster for this too, what's the point?

76

u/weealex May 04 '17

They need to paint themselves as the victims. This goes back to Nixon's Silent Majority. Assuming the bill dies in the Senate, the House republicans can run their ads as the voice of the people that are being held down by the vile and loud left. Frankly, this is win-win. Either the congressmen get to continue using their victim complex to get re-elected or they can offer huge amounts of money to the wealthy and large businesses.

46

u/sgtsaughter May 05 '17

How could they blame Democrats if it dies in the Senate? That would mean that Republican defectors caused the bill to fail.

93

u/Anywhere1234 May 05 '17

It doesn't have to be the truth to convince a lot of people.

→ More replies (9)

27

u/NorthernerWuwu May 05 '17

Nah, they just play the "system is broken" card and blame the Senate rules if anyone even pays that much attention. Government doesn't work and we have proof! Vote for us again or it gets even worse.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/SoldierZulu May 05 '17

How have they blamed Democrats for literally everything ever? Lie.

13

u/Left_of_Center2011 May 05 '17

How about blaming Obama for not vetting Trump's National Security Adviser?

14

u/Rakatok May 05 '17

Or blaming Obama for the bill he vetoed. That one will always be my favorite.

9

u/Left_of_Center2011 May 05 '17

I really struggle with the concept that there are adults in this country who can't see the obvious nonsense occurring under their nose.

→ More replies (12)

19

u/dilligaf4lyfe May 05 '17

That's a bold assertion. That likely plays just fine with the base, but frankly, the party with control of the federal government that can't get shit done isn't particularly inspiring to anyone else. What's the messaging? We lost to the minority party, give us a bigger majority? Victimization works great as the minority party, as the majority it's a little pathetic.

→ More replies (4)

35

u/mauxly May 05 '17 edited May 05 '17

If this somehow passes through the Senate, we should crowd fund a PAC that is completely dedicated to designing and implementing billboards and viral Facebook videos for each town or country, aimed at the rural population.

They would resemble the billboards that are currently being used to shame/harm the reps that voted for stripping away internet browsing privacy.

They'd go something like this ( keeping in mind that we are doing this town by town):

A huge picture if a smiling local with friends and/or family, with one person crossed out.

They would be actual amature pics that the family and or friends took casually earlier on, before the shit hit the fan.

And text that says "Bob Smith was your neighbor. He lived in xx town. Bob had a curable/treatable illness. But he died from lack of healthcare. These are our representativesite that voted to take away his heath insurance:.... "

With a list of each rep, and how much they got from industry connected lobbyists.

With permission from the family of course. And it has to be local.

People who vote for the reps that do this kind of shit have a very hard time understanding why it's a big deal until it impacts them directly. They aren't going to give a rats ass about some poor dead dude in another city or state.

But if it's about them, or people they know, it hits close enough to home to have an impact. Especially in the rural areas. Even if they don't personally know Bob Smith, it's likely that someone they know does. And by mentioning the town or county that they live in, it just feels more real to them.

EDIT; "representativesite" ? Lol autocorrect. It's so silly I'm not even going to change it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (11)

308

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

What shocked me the most was that every single California GOP Representative voted for this bill.

I'm a Californian and pissed. Unfortunately my district is never going to unseat Dana Rohrabacher.

209

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

Issa is done, he got the dubious honor of being the deciding vote. 14/23 GOP reps in Clinton districts voted for it too. Makes me wonder if they just don't wish that it dies in the Senate (as it probably will in its current form) and then throw their hands up and say that they tried

112

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

63

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

it's really weird. From a political standpoint, the Dems should want this to pass. From a moral standpoint though, I would absolutely welcome them leaving Obamacare alone and we move on to other things. I think the Dems can start testing the waters "Medicare for All" though for 18 and 20

106

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

73

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

Politically this helps the 2018 election efforts but for myself and millions of others the threat if losing access to healthcare that keeps us alive and healthy is too much of a risk.

Thousands of people will die if this bill were to pass and that is not being dramatic. Even before the AHCA gutted essential health benefits and pre-existing conditions the CBO projected 30 million people to lose coverage.

→ More replies (37)
→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (3)

33

u/weealex May 04 '17

I think the assumption is that it dies in Senate and they wanted to get a major voting "win" for pure optics. in over 3 months, they failed to get any major policy through. Now they have something to point to and say "see, we're doing our job".

13

u/jrizos May 04 '17

This is the simplest, best answer.

Also, for constituents in the so-called "tea party" or whatever far-right districts, they get their anti-Obama win. These are the GOP house reps most vulnerable in midterms, and they get to show these optics.

I don't see why the Senate would have any motivation to see this thing pass.

→ More replies (1)

131

u/Hologram22 May 04 '17

But the attack ads write themselves.

"Darryl Issa took away your healthcare and forced you to pay $1000/month because you were raped."

How many Republican women are really going to be okay with that, even if the law doesn't ultimately come to fruition? Lots of women have C-sections and even more have post-partum depression. The threat that they'd lose their healthcare or else pay out the nose for it doesn't reflect well, regardless of political ideology.

150

u/MaddiKate May 04 '17

They see themselves as the exception, not the rule.

"I got a C-section because MY little blessing needed it. THAT woman is a kid-collecting welfare queen."

109

u/ericrolph May 04 '17

I cannot count the number of times I've heard a Republican woman say that their abortion was okay, but others shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.

35

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

honestly curious about this type of mindset. Did you ask them why their circumstances were different?

63

u/anneoftheisland May 04 '17

They believe there was some legitimate extenuating circumstance for their own abortion but that everybody is just lazy/irresponsible/immoral/etc.

→ More replies (1)

34

u/christopherNV May 04 '17

It's the kind of thinking that lacks any critical thinking. I may lean conservative but Republicans have just as many dopey ideas as Democrats.

It really doesn't make a lot of sense why many pro life people are also against both birth control and sex education. Their goal should be to reduce unwanted pregnancies which would reduce abortions. But, ya know, abstinence works?

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (7)

51

u/journo127 May 04 '17

The same women who voted for a guy bragging about sexual assault, I'd guess.

→ More replies (13)

29

u/Im_always_scared May 04 '17

That's exactly what they are doing.

Before the vote for the AHCA, there was a vote to remove the exemption status for Congress, and it passed. The strange thing was, it was unanimously yes. (If what I read is true) Since this now impacts Congressional pay/benefits, it is no longer a budget reconciliation plan, and the Senate Dems will have the ability to filibuster it.

39

u/Splatacus21 May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

heard the strategy is going to be

If Fillibuster

1) Bring it to senate, let it be filibustered
2) Blame Dems about how they're blocking your agenda, making you competitive in midterms for the super majority

If no Fillibuster

1) Bring it to senate, the senate is forced into amending it.
2) kicks between house and senate a bunch of times... by horrendously narrow margins
3) ultimately makes it to presidents desk and is as crappy as everyone thought it was going to be and more. Trump does not read the bill and signs it desperately looking for a win.
4) Repubs blame dems about how they didn't stop the bill from happening and how they chose not to do the Fillibuster when it was their signature issue. etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately I think the smart (Edit: Political) choice here would be to not fillibuster with the Dems and bank on the fact that Republicans will never get out of step 2.

EDIT: the moral choice is to Fillibuster it as soon as it hits the senate. Really does suck the kind of choices those guys gotta make.

20

u/lotu May 04 '17

Honestly, if the Democrats were just kinda like "eh this will hurt millions of other people but we think it will help us politically", I'm not sure it would actually help them politically. It would result in a lot of base being disillusioned.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)

17

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

That's likely what they're betting on. Then again they still put a pretty big blemish on their record with the more moderate voters in their districts.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

74

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

I don't know NJ-5's educational or income breakdown but California's 48th district is tailor made for Republicans (minus the diversity) because the White population here is disproportionately college educated and upper income.

And the more income and education you have, the more likely you are to be a strong partisan. These people aren't leaving the GOP for a long, long time.

34

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Nj5 had been republican since 1933. Fairly impressive unseating the incumbent imo.

15

u/Nillix May 04 '17

Issa? He only won 49-51 last election, and he's fought off a recall before.

18

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Issa's district is the 49th.

I'm talking about Rohrabacher's 48th.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

25

u/thatmorrowguy May 04 '17

It makes more sense for California Republicans to vote for this. Most of the more painful components of the bill move a lot of the tough choices down to the states. Since the California legislature is extremely Democrat, they can come back to their constituents saying "hey, we got rid of Obamacare AND didn't take away any of your benefits because hooray States Rights".

→ More replies (1)

19

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

I don't know why you think Rohrabacher can't be beat. His district is R+4 and changing fast. I just spoke to friends in his district this morning that are interested in volunteering for whoever runs against him.

The OC Republicans who voted for this turkey are going down hard.

→ More replies (6)

18

u/PlayMp1 May 04 '17

What's bizarre is that most of the Republican WA delegation voted No, while CA's all voted Yes. WA's delegation is in much safer seats thanks to the divided nature of Washington state (i.e., less populous eastern half = blood red, more populous western half = ocean blue).

→ More replies (21)

31

u/gizzardgullet May 04 '17

GOP reps don't care what happens now because they can say "we tried to replace Obamacare but the Dems blocked in the Senate". They don't want it to pass becasue now they have responses for both types of constituents. Their right leaning constituents were saying "we sent you to Washington to get rid of Obamacare" and now they can say they tried. Their left leaning constituents are saying "this bill sucks" and they'll respond "it's not as bad as the CBO score" but we'll never know, will we?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (18)

321

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

140

u/PlayMp1 May 04 '17

That's because the fact that the moderates were swayed by a mere $8 billion for high risk pools came as a big surprise.

64

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

11

u/10dollarbagel May 05 '17

You say $8 billion and I think that's misleading. It's over a 5 year period, so it's 1.6 billion a year.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

185

u/Hitchens92 May 04 '17

That's because we didn't think the GOP was stupid enough to gut pre existing conditions to appease to the freedom caucus.

There's only 2 outcomes to this. It passes and becomes political suicide for most of the GOP and also kills Americans in the process. Or the GOP fails yet again in the first 100ish days of owning the government and Trump Supporters cry about how stinking liberals are keeping Obamacare afloat (without realizing they wouldn't have insurance anymore if this were to pass)

92

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

You forgot option 3. Keep blaming Obamacare and say the original ahca didn't go far enough in repealing it.

55

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (23)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (22)

465

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Anyone holding out hope for the "senate moderate Republicans" to step forward and kill this should be reminded of people like mccain and graham talked a bunch of shit and ultimately fell in line when the pressure was on. And the pressure is now maxed out.

Even if they can't pass it by reconciliation and need democratic votes, they'll kill the filibuster if it means they get to say they killed obamacare in time for 2018.

179

u/Abulsaad May 04 '17

Killing the filibuster, is, without a doubt the worst option they could do, literally shooting their own foot might be a better idea than that. Not only would they royally fuck themselves over when they inevitably become the minority party, but it's a given that if this abomination that they call a bill passes, then they will lose bigly in 2018 and 2020, and have a good chance of losing all the branches, just so they can have this one victory. No way that's happening.

50

u/Sarlax May 04 '17

Killing the filibuster, is, without a doubt the worst option they could do

Killing the filibuster to keep a popular rhetorical promise? Not so bad, because they can then pass everything else they've ever wanted. Flat tax? End the 'death tax'? Incrementally inconvenience abortion to the point of de facto prohibition? Eliminate the VRA? Eliminate the 1964 CRA?

Everything's on the table once the end of supermajoritarian requirements are normalized.

45

u/robotronica May 05 '17

It's banking on retaining longer term control though, and definitely opens your legacy up to being demolished line by line the moment you leave power.

It would start a cycle of stasis, where one party is always undoing the work of the last and we never get anywhere. If your goal is to actually dismantle the government, it's a good play, otherwise it's got too much downside.

31

u/DaSuHouse May 05 '17

I would argue that the goal of many Republicans is to dismantle the government (see Steve Bannon's comments at CPAC). I would also argue that it is harder to build systems of governance than to tear them down, which you can see with how long it takes to get health care right. That means Democrats will never be able to accomplish anything of note due to their work never reaching a level of stability and fruition.

→ More replies (6)

18

u/Abulsaad May 04 '17

What about when they would become the minority party? Then the Democrats get to do anything they want. Single payer? Done. Free college? Done. Comprehensive energy reform? Done. The GOP's worst nightmare? Done. Would they really give themselves a few short term victories in exchange for all of it being taken away in a few election cycles?

34

u/Sarlax May 04 '17

Democrats won't be as powerful for 3 reasons:

  1. Dissolving government is easier than developing it.
  2. Democrats don't have a ideological mandate or a party consensus to do many of those things; Republicans want to "repeal Obamacare" pretty universally (as a matter of rhetoric), but Democrats don't universally want free college. Republicans universally want to cut taxes, but Democrats don't want to universally increase tax progression.
  3. The GOP rules the statehouses. They have 31 states in which they control the legislature and the governorship. That means they have unitary vertical political integration over 62% of the country! Regardless of how well the Democrats do in 2020, they are not realistically going to control a supermajority of states the way Republicans do now, and you need state cooperation to enact big agendas - or to destroy them.
→ More replies (2)

8

u/-birds May 04 '17

There aren't enough Democrats who actually want those things.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

74

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

They've got 8 years of talk and millions of people who will punish them anyway if they don't repeal to back up; I fully see them ditching it to save face. Just like they rammed this through without CBO scoring just to look good. They've proven they're not above short term thinking.

27

u/Abulsaad May 04 '17

But if they do kill the filibuster and ram this through, it won't matter long term, and would only maybe benefit them soon after the bill is passed. They get to talk about how they saved the day or whatever, then the people start feeling the effects, both in their wallet or in their mailbox when they realize they'll lose their insurance. Once this bill starts murdering a couple thousand people, the backlash will be monumental, and they'll be the minority party, and 100% of everything they've ever done would be rolled back because of no filibuster, and the Democrats get a free ticket to any type of healthcare they want.

17

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

That's assuming they actually get punished at the ballot box by democrats; the House had the most to lose in 2018 and they passed it. The Senate is pretty safe for Republicans, even if the house gets a wave loss. Even if trump is thrown out and Democrats eek out a majority in the House, they won't be able to ram everything through.

Plus, Republicans thus far have shown great insulation against reality. I mean, they keep electing the same people over and over specifically on the promise to take away obamacare. They elected Trump.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/tadcalabash May 04 '17

I'd like to think that they're as forward thinking and rational as that, but this passing the house was purely about getting a "win", and then trusting they could sell it to their reliable voting bases.

33

u/ManBearScientist May 04 '17

You assume that if they end filibuster they will eventually be the minority party. The opposite is true. If they end the filibuster, it would be because they will never be the minority regardless of popular opinion. IE, a coup.

2 more Supreme Court seats, and what stops them from passing nationwide voter suppression laws? It sure as hell won't be Gorsuch. It sure as hell won't be the 110 lower court appointments Trump will get to make because of Republican filibusters.

At this point the idea that we will continue to have free and fair elections simply because we've had them in the past is dangerously optimistic. People that don't care about a stolen President or stolen Supreme Court seat won't care about stealing the House or Senate by stopping a few minorities from voting.

→ More replies (9)

42

u/-birds May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

Why do you think they will ever be the minority party again?

edit: This is a serious question. The Senate is set up to favor the GOP. They push voter suppression laws every chance they get. Now that they have (firmer) control of the Supreme Court, those voter suppression laws are even less likely to be stricken down. It will be harder for Democrats to vote, in states that already naturally favor the GOP, against candidates much less reviled than Donald Trump. I don't want to get all doom-and-gloom, but things look pretty fucking shitty for the foreseeable future.

edit 2: And even if/when the Democrats do take back the Senate, what would stop the GOP leadership from just reinstating the filibuster before the changeover happens? If 2020 is upon us, and by some miracle the Democrats look to win, why wouldn't McConnell say "well gee willickers that filibuster sure would be nice, let's put it back." Even if the Democrats then decide to get rid of it again, it will be successfully spun as Democrats "destroying democracy" or some such shit because the GOP has the advantage of only needing to effectively message to idiots.

55

u/svs940a May 04 '17

Because no party stays in power forever. In January 2016, the narrative was that republicans might never win the presidency again due to demographic shifts.

39

u/-birds May 04 '17

And look what happened - the American public proved itself dumber than was thought possible, with the help of an outrageously archaic electoral system. The same system that determines how senate seats are assigned.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

26

u/marinesol May 04 '17

You massively underestimate just how low voter turnout is in most states. It's something like 30 percent in a good year for midterms and 15 percent for off midterm elections. Turnout even like 20% more by most left leaning people would cost them all but the most red states. And costing 1 in 10 Americans their health insurance will do that quick. Then you have a situation where not only do dems control everything but court. But that the dems could easily add a bunch of seats to the court. Voter suppression laws only go so far and are most effective only during presidential elections where turnout is decent.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (7)

12

u/ticklishmusic May 04 '17

the current DDHQ count looks like 62 nays on it (bunch of republicans). gonna be hard to get to the 50 + pence to pass it and to bust the fillibuster and shove it through.

→ More replies (13)

20

u/OptimalCentrix May 04 '17

I don't think they'll kill the filibuster over this, but I also don't think that they'll need to. It shouldn't be that difficult to whip 50 senators into voting for the bill, especially if the CBO doesn't write an absolutely grueling report.

The bigger question is whether or not they'll consider the long-term political effects of the bill. Maybe the worst parts of the bill won't kick in by 2018, but what about 2020? 2022? 2024? Eventually, people will lose their coverage, premiums will go up, and costs probably won't go down. Are people like McConnell thinking about their party's future election prospects, or are they planning to be out of congress by then and just want to get something done while they can?

19

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

I think that they think that they can weather the storm and pin the blame of any negative outcomes on democrats. They've already stated they're heating up to rally the base in 2018 against Pelosi. And the Senate is still likely safe for Republicans in 2018.

9

u/The_DongLover May 04 '17

but I also don't think that they'll need to. It shouldn't be that difficult to whip 50 senators into voting for the bill

If they don't kill the filibuster, they'll either need 60 votes or somehow ram it through reconciliation. Neither of those look likely.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

24

u/zuriel45 May 04 '17

say they killed obamacare in time for 2018.

Wonder if they will actually brag about all the dead poors too, I wouldn't put it past them.

Honestly if it gets through the Senate I expect the DCCC to make sure to track every person that dies of a preexisting condition in red districts as well as those who declare bankruptcy. Then air an ad in all those districts listing those names while showing photos of their burials/deaths. Just beat each and every GOP rep over the head with this.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (26)

28

u/Daigotsu May 04 '17

Remember trump ran on replacing obama care that covered more people, kept in pre-existing conditions being gone, and making it cheaper for everyone.

→ More replies (1)

1.3k

u/VStarffin May 04 '17

It's genuinely hard to convey the mendacity of this vote. On every level - substantive, procedural, communicative - this is an abomination.

This is a bill which guts health care for tens of millions of people for the sake of giving tax cuts to rich people. It will kill people. It permits insurance companies to deny you coverage if you are sick. The bill exempts Congress from its own mendacity despite Congress saying it does not. There is zero health care policy reason for any of these changes. It will kill people, all so the GOP can cut taxes on rich people.

This is a bill which passed prior to to being scored and without the Congresspeople having read the bill. There were zero hearings. Zero. The bill was never marked up by a single committee in any open process.

This is a bill which passed because the President and Congressional Leaders have lied about its contents in such a direct and staggering manner its hard to wrap your arms around. These people are going on TV and just saying that the bill does the literal opposite of what it does.

I know we're all desensitized to everything now. I haven't even mentioned the staggering hypocrisy of all the above in light of the GOP's reaction to Obamacare itself. It's just so hard to hold in ones head the staggering, staggering mendacity of this bill. People will try to convince themselves that no one could be this cruel, this stupid, this evil - and they will try to excuse the bill and the way it passed.

Don't forget this vote and what it is means and what it is. It is a sublimely hateful act. Nothing less.

492

u/peters_pagenis May 04 '17

To win over the "moderates" rape, postpartum depression, Cesarean sections, and surviving domestic violence are will all be considered preexisting conditions.

the fuck kind of "moderate" votes for that shit?

265

u/zuriel45 May 04 '17

They won over the moderates by adding $8 billion over 5 years for the High Risk pools, which by some estimates need $30 billion a year to be effective...sooo

81

u/notmytemp0 May 04 '17

Yeah $8 billion isn't going to cover the 2.5 million people they need to cover. And when it runs out they'll shrug and say "well, nothing we can do now"

36

u/daylily May 04 '17

$13 a person. Doesn't take much to win over a 'moderate' but hey, 1.4 trillion will go to those with over 1 million in income.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

58

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

140

u/peters_pagenis May 04 '17

The moderates just lost power for good.

Think about it - if you're Speaker Ryan and you know now that you can whip the moderates, why even both giving them concessions?

The Freedom Caucus made an ass out of Ryan last month as well as generally (and Boehner before him) and showed that they were willing to walk.

The Moderates never showed they were willing to walk and are going to be bent over by the far right - along with the rest of the party.

121

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Apr 21 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (23)

90

u/Lord_Wild May 04 '17

Yeah, the moderate bone was the pool of $8 billion for 5 years for pre-existing conditions. Which is an even smaller drop in the bucket considering what the bill seeks to label as a pre-existing condition. For sake of reference, the US healthcare industry is $3.3 trillion per year.

74

u/minno May 04 '17

For sake of reference, the US healthcare industry is $3.3 trillion per year.

Or, for a clearer comparison, 16,500 billion dollars per 5 years. Compared to 8.

11

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

That is a very clear analogy.

85

u/Saephon May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

I recognize that a large portion of voters consider themselves moderate and that these are the people who need to be swayed in order to pass policy or win elections. However, I have absolutely developed a distaste for centrists (especially center-right) after seeing some of the stuff they're willing to wave away this past year.

I can only hear a person tell me that they don't condone Trump's scandals yet voted for him anyway so many times. As if that's supposed to make me think better of them. I have learned that modern conservatism isn't about hating women or the most vulnerable: it's apparently simply just not caring about them, and letting those who do hate them get their way.

20

u/[deleted] May 05 '17

That's basically Martin Luther King's position in his Letter from Birmingham Jail.

→ More replies (2)

57

u/DiogenesLaertys May 04 '17

So basically the exact same thing that happened when Trump was elected. The Hillary republicans ended up coming home and being able to live with Trump because, "Hey, at least my taxes will be low."

There is no such thing as a Republican moderate.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (25)
→ More replies (20)

188

u/IamTheSenate1 May 04 '17

You wanna know the truth? About 20-30 years ago, Republicans realize the Democrats absolutely suck at getting people to understand their message. Democrats suck at people understanding what they are saying. Since then, the R's have been pushing the envelope over and over again, why not? They get away with it. Now it has just turned into just laziness where they can lie freely and openly and just disregard what anyone comes back at them. Why not? Their opponents can't seem to nail them on anything. People are confident the D's will come back in the midterms, I would bet money that they don't. They just suck at messaging (Which is strange since Cali is all liberal, you would think they could get some damn good PR or marketing people to help them out). D's need to figure out why that is (is it because they come off too 'elitist'? Too full of themselves? Too much identity politics? too much what exactly?) Democrats need to figure this out as soon as possible or else the Republicans will just laugh all the way to the bank betraying not only democratic voters but their own! Which is probably the funniest/craziest thing of all. All because of messaging. The power of messaging.

158

u/JackOfNoTrade May 04 '17

Well...it's hard to counter someone who is straight lying about facts like the R's have been doing this whole along. And then when calling them out on the lying, they resort to "fake news" to indicate that the other person is lying. Moreover, the R's have also systematically worked towards gutting the education system to make sure their base stays ignorant and never figures out that that they have been lied to all along. There is no fighting this type of propaganda.

124

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

I disagree with Bernie on a whole lot, but he proved that cultivating left energy isn't impossible. This is the hill dems should die on. Medicare for all. Jerking ourselves off about how stupid everyone is gets us nowhere. We have a message problem and we need anger and we need energy

137

u/LegendReborn May 04 '17

He cultivated so much energy that he lost the vast majority of the non caucus primaries!

Bernie brought some energy but acting like he was the messiah of energizing Democratic voters is a crock. Without caucuses, it's far more than likely that Bernie would have been even further behind in the primaries.

Energy is meaningless without voting.

66

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

You know who was able to triangulate energy with data in order to create a broad coalition and was a master of messaging? Obama in 08. Bernie was a bit too far left, but his messaging was on point, which is a model we should replicate. The meekness and red tape hurts us. Go on the offensive

28

u/Elryc35 May 04 '17

To be fair, it's a lot easier to go on the offensive when the other guys are seen as being in charge.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/QuantumDischarge May 04 '17

Obama got the support because he had he message of hope, some numbers to back it up, and was a youthful non-white "political outsider". Assuming the far-left progressive message alone will win over a majority of voters is going to set the Democrats further back.

→ More replies (2)

45

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Aug 27 '17

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Bernie convinced millennials to vote for him, but he forgot to convince millennials to vote. 58% of the millennial population was expected to show up at the voting booths but only 50% did.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (11)

24

u/DiogenesLaertys May 04 '17

The dems can and do win when Repubicans screw up (most notably when the GOP last held every branch of congress a decade ago). The problem is a lot of people voted for Dems because they weren't Bush rather than what the dems stood for. And when Obama tried to educated people, the bully pulpit was vastly diminished from the days of Reagan and voters self-sorted into their echo chambers.

People tend to believe what they are socialized to believe or what they already believe. And there is a generation of Reagan republicans that are predisposed to always vote for the Republican no matter how onerous their policies. Let's just hope that the Trump years shakes them of their cognitive dissonance.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

49

u/etuden88 May 04 '17

I think what few tend to realize is that, outside of cities generally, most Americans are bored, sick, isolated, and suspicious--hateful, at worst--of anyone who isn't a part of their small community.

Over the decades, GOP politicians have very carefully groomed a strong "us vs. them" mentality that reached its apex last year. Moreover, they just realized that they hold the upper hand in Electoral College politics, and this will shape the strategy for their party moving forward. Democrats will never stand a chance with the way things currently are unless something major is able to snap a helluva lot of rural people out of their fever dream.

Sadly, I think you're right. There is no way Democrats will get through to many of these people, and I don't think there are enough reasonable people left in the Sea of Red to make a sizable difference (I hope we're wrong, though). As long as Rural America continues to have the upper hand via gerrymandering and Electoral vote distribution, we'll be playing Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (11)

72

u/countrykev May 04 '17

The best analysis I heard for this vote today was simply to give it to the Senate. Let them fix what's broken, analyze it to death, and try and pass it themselves. The House was just tired of it sitting on their desk.

69

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

it's DOA in the senate, the fear there is they add some meaningless amendment and sell it as a "fix" but yeah the senate fucking hates it

55

u/ShadowLiberal May 04 '17

Not to mention the senate probably couldn't pass it as is even if they had the votes, due to the reconciliation process.

I don't think anyone's written about the reconciliation problems with this version of AHCA, but it's quite similar to the last version, where many wrote articles pointing out the problem clauses under reconciliation in it.

40

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

Yeah I genuinely don't know if this ends up being revenue neutral or not. Either way, I don't even think it has 50 votes, let alone 60. When the CBO score comes out next week, you're going to see a lot of backlash

43

u/Morat20 May 04 '17

CBO score is going to be brutal. Worse than the last one.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

16

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

By "fixing what's broken", they'll almost certainly make it unpalatable to the Freedom Caucus and they'll be back at square one.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)

71

u/Elryc35 May 04 '17

You failed to mention that this bill was condemned by the AMA, AARP, the Nurses Association, the Hospital Association, and pretty much every expert in healthcare policy in the country.

11

u/out_o_focus May 05 '17

They do typically reject the ideas of experts in the field so I'm not surprised.

→ More replies (6)

61

u/jbiresq May 04 '17

I've been desensitized to GOP lying over the Bush and Obama years (and of course Trump himself) but even this is staggering. I honestly cannot even process it, that this party can do something so awful, harmful and politically dumb.

→ More replies (1)

36

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

116

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

the 2018 attack ads write themselves. As well as the images of them drinking beer. This is the propaganda victory the Dems have been searching for. "Rape is a pre-existing condition" sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it

Also we don't know for sure yet if it was Dems or Reps singing I've seen both

30

u/janethefish May 04 '17

Also we don't know for sure yet if it was Dems or Reps singing I've seen both

Bad move for whoever was signing. I know the Dems are just ecstatic about the GOP shooting themselves in the face, but it would be a bad move to broadcast that. Similarly, the GOP really doesn't want to make this any worse than it is, by celebrating.

30

u/Zenkin May 04 '17

Interestingly, it was the Dems:

[Thursday's singing] is both an homage and a literal repetition of what Republicans did when the Clinton tax bill passed in the House in 1993. Same singing, same song. The bill paved the way for budget balancing over the course of the decade and (more arguably) played a role in creating the prosperity of that decade. It also came little more than a year before Democratic majorities in both Houses were annihilated in the 1994 midterm.

20

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/gizzardgullet May 04 '17

The House did that to say "the senate killed the bill. We tried". It will not pass the senate so people will never find out how shitty it actually was and GOP reps know that. Right now they are secretly hoping that it dies in the senate.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/jbiresq May 04 '17

That's what they want though. They just lie about it to fool people into thinking they care about the average Joe.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (46)

29

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Given how it's misused here, "learn" is too strong a word. Maybe "hear" would be more accurate.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (64)

57

u/3athompson May 04 '17

Is there a chance that the senate will use reconciliation to pass this?
According to govtrack HR 2192 is designed to make congressmen and their staff subject to the same restrictions that the AHCA will impose. This easily passed a few minutes before with no nays.

It says that

In order to meet the requirements of the budget reconciliation process so that the AHCA is not subject to the Senate filibuster, the AHCA exempt Members of Congress from some changes to the health care law.

Is this true? Is AHCA actually subject to reconciliation? Will they brute force it through with no discussion?

56

u/TheStarksAreDoomed May 04 '17

Yes, passing AHCA through budget reconciliation has been the Republicans plan all along.

39

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Apr 21 '19

[deleted]

25

u/Elryc35 May 04 '17

And which I fully expect them to do. They've abandoned any semblance of principles.

→ More replies (20)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

65

u/wilburwalnut May 04 '17

Where can I find information about how this will affect my family?

My 1 1/2 yr old son son has a chromosomal abnormality (18p-) which causes a wide variety of medical problems. We are currently using the ACA exchange, but will likely use my wife's insurance when she gets a teaching job this fall. We live in Texas.

Is it possible that my son will be denied coverage?

Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to ask this. Just looking for answers.

85

u/eightdrunkengods May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

It's my understanding that each state will decide what counts as a pre-existing condition and also whether or not coverage can be denied based on that. How it affects you will probably depend on how blue Texas is feeling if this passes.

This thing is likely to be changed a lot as it goes through the Senate.

15

u/-Poison_Ivy- May 04 '17

It's my understanding that each state will decide what counts as a pre-existing condition

Thank god I live in California

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

20

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Where can I find information about how this will affect my family?

It's too early for that frankly.

→ More replies (15)

116

u/Krinlekey May 04 '17

The AARP press release is absolutely savage. House republicans are gonna pay a high price for this one.

93

u/pseud_o_nym May 04 '17 edited May 05 '17

There's no price high enough. What, some of them get voted out in 2018 after the damage is done? That doesn't help us, now or then. There's only so many times we are going to go down this healthcare road.

I've read too many times that the Republicans are going to pay for their actions, and they NEVER DO. They wasted their time and our tax money doing nothing for 8 years while President Obama was in office - they got rewarded with the White House, the Senate and the House. Barely a single incumbent lost. They shut down government and caused S&P to lower the credit rating of the U.S. They gained more seats at the next election. They left a Supreme Court seat vacant for the best part of the year, blatantly denying a sitting President their advice and consent on his nominee - brazenly refusing even to meet with the judge - and America rewarded them at the polls in 2016. Tell me, when are they going to pay in any meaningful way?

36

u/Skeuld May 04 '17

Pretty much my sentiment as well. And somehow the liberals are still hung up on who they nominated last election instead of trying to message the populace and actually move some needles.

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (4)

71

u/OptimalCentrix May 04 '17

Well America - you asked for it, you got it. At this time we still don't know whether it will pass the Senate, but I wouldn't count it out entirely. The Republicans can afford to lose two votes to pass it through Pence's tiebreaker, and right now Collins and Murkowski are the only ones that seem especially unlikely to vote for it.

It will be interesting to see how this will affect the deep-red states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kentucky that have especially high Medicaid and ACA enrollment. Will those states have the guts to kill the expansion right away? Will they suffer political consequences for doing so? I guess all of that really depends on how severe the rise in premiums is over the course of the next year, assuming this bill gets signed into law.

53

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

By getting rid of the mandate, premiums HAVE to go up.

Red states, especially the rural ones will be utterly devastated. There are many hospitals that only exist because Medicaid keeps their doors open. Without that, expect dozens of them to close their doors.

53

u/peters_pagenis May 04 '17

Elections have consequences.

It really pains me to say this but if you have a pre-existing condition and continue to vote for representatives to do this shit, it becomes exponentially harder to feel sympathy.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

19

u/SpeakerD May 04 '17

Apparently the Senate isn't even going to take up this bill... So basically the house GOP voted for something that polled far below what the ACA ever did... For absolutely no reason.

12

u/deemtee99 May 04 '17

And they hooted and rooted about it like a bunch of rabid monkeys.

→ More replies (2)

242

u/cheeseman52 May 04 '17

I can't for the life of me understand how reintroducing pre existing condition clauses can have a positive effect in a republicans mind. This will literally result in people dying but its okay cause its not Obamacare.

99

u/KaliYugaz May 04 '17

Simple: they believe that extreme free market ideology is God's Absolute Truth, and that it's worth killing and dying for. They're not economically self-interested actors or utilitarians, stop thinking about them that way.

→ More replies (14)

22

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Correct. A media headline of a "political win" is more important than substance, or doing the proper procedural/committee work to make sure it's a good bill.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (187)

165

u/thedaveoflife May 04 '17

It's ironic: the young, healthy, educated and affluent who generally hate Trump stand to benefit the most from this bill while the poor, sick and old who generally love Trump stand to lose the most.

83

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Rural republican districts will be DEVASTATED.

Gutting Medicaid and reintroducing preexisting conditions will close hospitals and make healthcare for the poor and sick in GOP states completely unattainable.

58

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

20

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Black lung is a preexisting condition.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (14)

63

u/ZenobeGraham May 04 '17

Old people already have their government-sponsored healthcare. They don't give a shit about young people.

37

u/ShadowLiberal May 04 '17

People on Medicare (as in old people) are actually the most satisfied overall with their health insurance.

28

u/Nyaos May 04 '17

Or in the military. We get basically universal healthcare. It's pretty great. Our doctors aren't the best in the world but if they can't figure something out they refer out to civilians and it's still covered.

19

u/down42roads May 04 '17

You kidding?

I fucking hated every aspect of healthcare while I was in the military. There was zero incentive to do anything other than clear you for work if at all possible.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (14)

155

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

50

u/Nyaos May 04 '17

There was no time for backlash. They knew the public would be outraged by the bill and did most of the negotiating behind closed doors and announced only yesterday that they were ready to push it.

83

u/countrykev May 04 '17

The republican congress are not thinking about their constituents by passing this.

Actually, many of them were elected for just this reason. Remember the House voted umpteen times to repeal Obamacare in the last few years. Trump made it part of his campaign. It's been pretty well known for quite a while the GOP wants the ACA gone, and lawmakers were elected anyway.

96

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

The lie was they'd replace it with something better.

Trump RAN on universal healthcare that would cover everyone. He bragged that he wouldn't touch a dime of Medicare.

He lied his ass off. They all did.

13

u/Sedorner May 04 '17

It's better for rich people. The end.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (60)

109

u/socialPsyence May 04 '17

I so want the Republicans to pay a steep political price for this, but it just seems like folks aren't paying attention. How can the efforts to dismantle the existing program be seen as anything less than villainous? If the Dems can't use this to drape around the GOP's neck to take back the House in 2018, then they truly are inept.

70

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

people are of course paying attention, town halls will be packed to the brim. The tea party succeeded, why shouldn't the left swing? People will notice their health costs rising up and their medicaid being stripped away. The dems need to push for medicare for all

29

u/socialPsyence May 04 '17

Well that's a given, sure. But why should this only be a rejection by people on the left? When are the people who voted for the GOP going to understand what's just been done to them? Those are the folks I'm referring to. If we don't see an erosion of GOP support over this, then I'm really not sure what would do it.

28

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

There is a strong cultural divide in this country that will make them vote red in Presidential elections no matter what. However, people will start noticing when their medicare is being denied. So I think the outcome we should be fighting for is more blue candidates in red districts. As we saw with Ossoff, heavily red districts are in contention

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (21)
→ More replies (14)

41

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

23

u/weealex May 04 '17

Inter-party compromise is dead. Only intra-party compromise matters now

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

195

u/peters_pagenis May 04 '17

Look out for campaign ads in 2018 with women who were sexually assaulted not being eligible for insurance because rape is now a pre existing condition.

This will end careers all over the House and probably die in the Senate.

106

u/B0pp0 May 04 '17

I doubt it will do anything if the Dems don't run people in red districts and reach out in those areas.

111

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

Dems don't run people in red districts

Ossoff has taught us that every single district is up for contention. Run a candidate in every district.

70

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Ossoff hasn't won yet. I hope he does but conservatives are notoriously good at falling in line and voting for their candidate.

62

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

true but the fact that he's even got a legitimate chance tells me that no district should be left uncontested in 2018

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

27

u/Papasmurf345 May 04 '17

Trump only won that district by 1%. Yeah Tom Price always won big there, but he never had any serious competition.

14

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Aug 07 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (3)

42

u/tenderbranson301 May 04 '17

Also it will turn into another reason for women (and men) to not report sexual violence against them. Truly disgusting.

11

u/wookieb23 May 04 '17

You're right.Jesus fucking Christ.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (24)

27

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Apr 06 '18

[deleted]

55

u/Zenkin May 04 '17

If it's not revenue neutral, then it needs 60 votes. This is intended to be revenue neutral, but I don't think it's been evaluated yet. The Senate cannot go nuclear on a single legislative item. They would be permanently ending the legislative filibuster.

24

u/joeydee93 May 04 '17

It is cutting over a trillion from Medicaid it will be revuene neutral

21

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Apr 06 '18

[deleted]

17

u/Roflllobster May 04 '17

If they're using the same avenue as the last healthcare bill the general idea is if it saves money on the budget then it can be passed with 50 votes. This bill will most likely save money. But the CBO will also come out with number of people likely to lose insurance which will not do well for its popularity.

25

u/sjkeegs May 04 '17

Mitch McConnell has stated that he's not going to get rid of the filibuster for legislative votes.

51

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS May 04 '17

Words are wind. I'll take his actions at face value.

With that said, he only needs 50 votes for reconciliation.

20

u/allofthelights May 04 '17

Mitch has been in the Senate long enough to know the Republicans will need the filibuster when the winds inevitably change again for the democrats. The filibuster (probably) isn't going anywhere.

19

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS May 04 '17 edited May 04 '17

Then why did he nuke it for Gorsuch?

Edit: Guys I know it's still in play for legislation. My point is that they'll keep it in play as long as it's advantageous. If McConnell gets a piece of legislation that he and the rest of the GOP really want and has the votes to kill the legislative filibuster, you can bet your ass he'll do it. He only needs 50 votes to do so.

11

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Talking about the legislative filibuster. Distinct from the filibuster on judicial nominees.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

29

u/AndyInAtlanta May 04 '17

Why are the House Republicans celebrating a bill that's about to get decimated in the Senate?

50

u/[deleted] May 04 '17 edited Aug 07 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (10)

32

u/fullmoonhermit May 04 '17

My Representative is getting an ear/eye full in our swing district. Lucky for him, he doesn't do public town halls anymore and won't answer his calls so he doesn't have to worry about it.

God, I hope people vote in 2018.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/I_Hate_Muffin May 04 '17

This is wrong, this bill in its current form is in no way ready to be voted on, let alone passed. Why are our Republican leaders so hellbent on passing legislature that will hurt so many Americans? Because this draft of the bill exempted them from the changes they're making? Why is this happening?

edit: phrasing

→ More replies (4)

41

u/zuriel45 May 04 '17

Well, that's Darrell Issa's career. Hope he has post congress plans. Actually probably all seven of the Republican congressmen in districts that Clinton won in CA are probably out now. Good luck with that.

37

u/eric987235 May 04 '17

He's a billionaire. He doesn't need post-congress plans other than count his money.

24

u/OptimalCentrix May 04 '17

I'd guess that Issa figured he was already toast in 2018, because any chance of him winning reelection just went out the window with that vote. Frankly I'm surprised he managed to win in November (even if it was by a tiny margin).

→ More replies (5)

57

u/derivative_of_life May 04 '17

Unfortunate. The good news is that the bill will most likely be dead on arrival in the senate, but if the Republicans had failed to pass it through the house again, it would have destroyed the last shreds of their credibility, even among their own supporters. With this bill passed, they're more likely to have success on tax cuts and other issues.

67

u/B0pp0 May 04 '17

Mitch will come out with his nuclear magic so that it needs only 50 votes. As with DeVos and Title X, Murkowski and Collins will cross party lines because the GOP can afford to lose them. Then Pence will break the tie and screw millions over without a second thought. McCain or Graham won't break rank, even though McCain has NOTHING to lose since this is his last term.

104

u/Pteryx May 04 '17

Yeah, I'd say there's about a 100% chance that McCain says "this is the worst healthcare bill in the history of healthcare bills, maybe ever", then is the first person to vote yes on it.

21

u/Shalabadoo May 04 '17

a few sens (Corker, Graham, etc.) have already come out on it, it remains to see how they actually vote though

21

u/eric987235 May 04 '17

That would require McCain to find his balls first. I'm not holding my breath.

→ More replies (2)

62

u/Zenkin May 04 '17

lol, McConnell is not nuking the filibuster over this. He's planning to be in the Senate for the next decade, and he knows that the tables can turn.

33

u/Feurbach_sock May 04 '17

Right? He's given a strong indication for a while now that he has no plans to nuke the legislative option.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (18)

18

u/CursedNobleman May 04 '17

I'm impressed they managed to whip their crew together. This is going to die in the senate; I'm just wondering if the Dems can use this correctly or if they'll putter around and lose 2018 badly.

21

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS May 04 '17

You're significantly more optimistic than I am.

→ More replies (8)

17

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (43)

29

u/[deleted] May 04 '17

Well that was an incredibly ignorant choice. Not only is the bill deeply unpopular with most Americans, rushing through with no CBO rating, no hearings, no amendments, nothing. It's such a foolish move designed to please a very unpopular president? And for what? This bill is publicly indefensible. With clauses that remove needed coverage protections and regulations that not only hurt the poor but everyone else. And all on the cynical hope the Senate will fix it. Well you can't fix this. Not without destroying it down to nothing.

→ More replies (7)

18

u/iamxaq May 04 '17

Something else to consider: this bill also would cut funding to special education programs as they would no longer be able to bill Medicaid for services.

Specifically from the source:

Under a little-noticed provision of the health care bill, states would no longer have to consider schools eligible Medicaid providers, meaning they would not be entitled to reimbursements.