Trumpcare Megathread: It's dead (for now)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Actually it just came out:

"Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017"
-32 million more uninsured over 10 years
-Premiums doubled over 10 years

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

Does this include the Cruz amendment?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Half is the country's population would live in a place with no individual insurers by 2020.

They'd better go get jobs, then!

Getting a job with a decent insurance plan is not as simple as you might think, especially in a no employer mandate environment (which ObamaCare repeal would create). In reality, at least 75% of that 32 million would literally die on the street.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Half is the country's population would live in a place with no individual insurers by 2020.

They'd better go get jobs, then!

Getting a job with a decent insurance plan is not as simple as you might think, especially in a no employer mandate environment (which ObamaCare repeal would create). In reality, at least 75% of that 32 million would literally die on the street.

It would basically just create an environment of mass poverty?

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Most people who have coverage because of ObamaCare fall into the "sick" category.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

All that maxing out floor debate time does (if that's what you're referring to) is forcing an immediate vote on the pending legislation.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would create an environment where insurance companies can deny or outprice whoever they like, and thus lead to mass death from lack of access to health care and insurance.

How exactly is someone dying on the street of benefit to an insurance company?

They prefer to cover as few sick people as possible.

You said 75%. Sounds like a pretty loose definition of sick to me.

Anyone who is reasonably certain to see a doctor for non-preventative care more than a couple a times a year.


Ultimate consequence:
If you don't get insurance through work or are not expected to work, you will not have insurance.

This either ends in Single Payer or just not having a healthcare system.

If this gets proceded, this is the hill for Democrats to die on. I would demand a hearing on every procedure or boycott the process and deny quorum.

Quorum is reached as long as a majority of senators are present. So if democrats don't show up, republicans can just shrug and vote anyways, since dems are in the miniority.

They can do what they were going to do about Gorsucg, right?

Not sure what you're talking about. As long as they don't go outside the bounds of reconciliation, republicans can't be stopped by the legislative filibuster. As we saw with a couple of the cabinet nominations, not showing up to committee votes doesn't stop them from happening.

but you can hold hearings on every motion...

Not sure how the Dems can demand hearings if Reps don't want them. Hearings for presidential nominations are so traditional that no one would touch them with a 10 foot pole, but that's not exactly the case for legislation. And yes, Schumer can ask for an up or down vote on any motion he likes, but all that does is delay the inevitable unless republicans are feeling rebellious.

Aren't there time constraints?

All that maxing out floor debate time does (if that's what you're referring to) is forcing an immediate vote on the pending legislation.

So, they can just vote whenever they want?

Dems have every right to use every last hour of debate time, but a vote still happens at the end of that time.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

As it will be on a bill that falls within reconciliation, 50.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

As it will be on a bill that falls within reconciliation, 50.

I was under the impression that full repeal didn't fall within the rules of reconciliation, as some aspects of Obamacare didn't have to do with budget. I'm confused as hell about what this motion to proceed is even regarding.

Well, full and clean repeal wouldn't. But the bill they passed in 2015 wasn't full repeal, it was "repeal as much as we can under reconcillation", and it seems like they are voting on that.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

With McCain's long-term absence, it only takes 2 GOP nos to kill the bill, right?

Yes

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What is the whip count for even starting debate at this point?  Do they even have a bill with 50 votes?

They said they don't know the whip count

So, they are just voting to open up debate with no bill in mind, just to say "We want something to be done".

At this point McConnell just wants to hold a vote. If it passes, great. If it fails, it brings closure to the issue and allows the senate to move on.

Basically, just a vote on whether or not to continue negotiations or give up?

Yes

So does this vote require 60 or 50?

As it will be on a bill that falls within reconciliation, 50.

I was under the impression that full repeal didn't fall within the rules of reconciliation, as some aspects of Obamacare didn't have to do with budget. I'm confused as hell about what this motion to proceed is even regarding.

Well, full and clean repeal wouldn't. But the bill they passed in 2015 wasn't full repeal, it was "repeal as much as we can under reconcillation", and it seems like they are voting on that.

Which makes it worse than if we had done nothing in the first place!

Well technically it will be a MTP to that bill, so there will be opportunity for amendment, etc. afterward if it passes.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Whether or not McCain comes back next week is a huge deal. If he cannot return this week, then the GOP bill will have to be delayed yet again, and the longer this ordeal goes on, the worse it is for the bill's chances because it means we'll have time for a big drawn-out debate over whether or not the Senate should override the Byrd Rule (or pass a post-Byrded Senate bill that will be untenable in the House due to funding Planned Parenthood and government money for abortion).

McConnell has been clear that he is holding the vote on Tuesday regardless of who shows up. (They are confirming the deputy interior secretary on Monday)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Assuming McCain would vote yes but can't make it there to actually do it, is there any chance he resigns and allows the AZ gov to send a replacement? If/when McCain is ready to come back, the replacement could resign and the governor could appoint McCain back to the seat.

And/or is there any chance Republican leaders are pushing for this behind the scenes?

If it was a Democratic senator in this situation and the state had a D gov, I would be demanding this to happen.

If that happened, then McCain's status changes from elected senator to appointed senator, requiring him into run in a 2018 special election to keep the seat.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Assuming McCain would vote yes but can't make it there to actually do it, is there any chance he resigns and allows the AZ gov to send a replacement? If/when McCain is ready to come back, the replacement could resign and the governor could appoint McCain back to the seat.

And/or is there any chance Republican leaders are pushing for this behind the scenes?

If it was a Democratic senator in this situation and the state had a D gov, I would be demanding this to happen.

If that happened, then McCain's status changes from elected senator to appointed senator, requiring him into run in a 2018 special election to keep the seat.

So?

If 2018 is a D wave, McCain could lose reelection, which Rs obviously don't want.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Rumors of Murkowski being a no vote.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/889598565600952320

Some rumors they are. That link leads to a page that doesn't exist.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

CSPAN 2 is saying that McConnell will be asking to begin debate on the AHCA (house version).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Breaking: McCain WILL be returning to the Senate tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/889652134655950849

McCain has not really been considered to be a definite yes vote. Imagine McConnell's anger if he returns, only to vote no.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The senate convenes at noon tomorrow, but it's unclear if the vote will happen immediately or not.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

About half an hour to go.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Senate gaveling back into session. Leader remarks first.