Trumpcare Megathread: It's dead (for now)

[ProudModerate2]

Update per CNN ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

At least he's not on board with just a flat-out repeal.

But they should move to tax reform now.

I'm going to preface this for the next several months. Please don't refer that to this reform. There's nothing reform-oriented about what is being proposed. This is tax cuts pure and simple, and and across the board to benefit the wealthy. Again, there's nothing remotely approaching reform about this. That is a marketing tool. Thank you.

[ProudModerate2]

At least he's not on board with just a flat-out repeal.
But they should move to tax reform now.

Are you sure "he's not on board with just a flat-out repeal" ?
Didn't he say just last week that we should just repeal now, and worry about replace later ?
He flip-flops so much, zombie trumpists are so confused they don't know what policy position to support, because they cant say anything that contradicts their Fuhrer.

[Badger]

At least he's not on board with just a flat-out repeal.
But they should move to tax reform now.

Are you sure "he's not on board with just a flat-out repeal" ?
Didn't he say just last week that we should just repeal now, and worry about replace later ?
He flip-flops so much, zombie trumpists are so confused they don't know what policy position to support, because they cant say anything that contradicts their Fuhrer.

Sigh. Pretty much. All they knows it ain't Hillary and Liberals are bothered so it must be good.

[Blair]

According to politico 'Senators who opposed the bill are meeting to come up with an alternative plan' this could just be Mike Lee, but as we've seen this bill is very hard to kill

[Ebsy]

The bill is dead until someone shows me 50 votes on a motion to proceed.

[Person Man]

The bill is dead until someone shows me 50 votes on a motion to proceed.

Or a new plan. Maybe there is new life for something less ambitious?

[The Other Castro]

Subject line seems inaccurate and partisan.

Technically it was a bipartisan effort that killed it.

Also, the CBO will be releasing a score for the repeal bill today.

[The Other Castro]

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

[Gass3268]

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

[Santander]

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

They'd better go get jobs, then!

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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?

[BudgieForce]

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

They'd better go get jobs, then!

I know your probably trolling but I've worked countless full time jobs that had no benefits. And these were decent paying jobs too, not a minimum wage service position.

[Person Man]

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?

This is if you repealed everything.

[Ichabod]

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

And don't forget, among "insured" people, there would be millions of people with plans as good as garbage

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's not a Republican goal to expand coverage or ensure access to healthcare as a right; those are Democratic goals.

And if this difference between the parties continues, it can only help Democrats in the long run.  The American electorate is increasingly moving toward the position that coverage is a right.  The Russia stuff is important, but in the long run it's a one-off incident specific to the Trump administration.  Health care is a winning issue for the next generation.

[Person Man]

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?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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.

[Santander]

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?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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.

[Santander]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former 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.