John Cassidy’s review in The New Yorker appears to be typical of the genre.
Rushing the bill through this way is about the only way it could pass. Several previous Republican bills were doomed by the Congressional Budget Office, which issued analyses detailing how the plans would cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their health-insurance coverage. By waiting until last week to finalize their bill, Graham and Cassidy didn’t leave the C.B.O. enough time to do a proper scoring before a vote is taken. (On Monday, the C.B.O. said that it would try to produce a limited analysis by early next week.)
An end run around the CBO, for a bill that covers one-sixth of the American economy. How, um, conservative.
Despite this cynical maneuver, there is no ambiguity about the terms of the Graham-Cassidy bill. It would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which has enabled about fourteen million Americans to obtain health-care coverage. Then it would subject the rest of Medicaid to substantial cuts by converting it to a block-grant program. By targeting the low-paid, the sick, and the infirm, the legislation would create hundreds of billions of dollars in budget savings; these could then be applied to Republican tax cuts aimed primarily at rich households and corporations.
The bill isn’t just a smash-and-grab raid on the poor and nearly poor, though. It would also undermine the insurance exchanges set up under the A.C.A., by stripping away the subsidies for the purchase of policies, abolishing the employer and individual mandates, getting rid of the lifetime caps on health-care outlays, and allowing insurers to force people with preëxisting conditions to pay more.
They even tried to bribe the GOP caucus.
In a blatantly political move, the Graham-Cassidy bill would redirect some of the A.C.A. money to the nineteen Republican-run states that didn’t expand Medicaid, such as Florida, North Carolina, and Texas.
I’d say this was designed to fail, but I worry that Graham and Cassidy (who both don’t have to run for re-election until 2020) might be pursuing a “Rip the Band-Aid” strategy. In other words, the longer Obamacare is around, the harder it gets to repeal, so do it now and take the hit.
Any other thoughts?
AARP Report on Graham – Cassidy :
Total Increase in Health Care Costs ( Premiums & Out-of-Pocket ) for 60-year-olds with Income of $25,000 under G-C in 2020 :
State Max. Premium > Max. > in OOP Costs Total > in Premiums & OOP Costs
MA $4,495 $6,072 $10,567
ME $10,404 $6,033 $16,437
WV $12,610 $5,852 $18,462
National $10,572 $5,602 $16,174
Under G-C, we would regress back to massive numbers of uninsured which is just what repukes want to cull Americans from protection so they can just hurry up and die.
Trump intends to sign the bill (as of now).
As a cancer survivor with a pre-existing condition, G-C increased premium surcharges would, in effect, drive me into medical bankruptcy :
metastic cancer > $ 142,650
lung, brain & other cancers > $ 17,320
pregnancy > $4,340
asthma > $4,340
drug dependence > $ 20,450
I guess there’s chatter that the Chuck and Nancy deal may have cleared enough of the Congressional calendar to allow this to proceed. It looks like Murkowski is still on the fence.
I’m concerned Collins and McCain may defect, especially since McCains governor is on board and this bill is similar to one Collins drafted with Cassidy last fall.
McCain didn’t defect and Collins is leaning NO !
Again…..Democrats need to tell the American people that the market based health care system brought forward by the Republicans is failing because markets are failing to deliver as promised and the Republican solution of more markets is not the answer.
Medicare for all.
Except that that “market based health care system” we have is called OBAMAcare, and was passed the Democrats regardless of where it originated. For the past nine years, the GOP has attacked it and we Democrats have defended it.
As CMD pointed out upthread, there are serious flaws with the Medicare-for-all proposal currently on the table. You yourself agreed (on another post) that the bill doesn’t matter, because it isn’t intended as a serious proposal.
There is no viable proposal for a single-payer government-sponsored health care system on the table. There is no legislation for that even proposed.
If we do what you say, the ACA will still be killed. The best we could do is land where the GOP landed when they unexpectedly won the White House in 2016 — years of propaganda, and absolutely NOTHING to act on.
The most immediate thing Democrats need to do is save the ACA from the current attack. If Graham-Cassidy passes, it will be an unmitigated disaster for MILLIONS of working class families.
It’s the ACA. It’s an old Republican/conservative idea. Republicans attacked it only because they know that certain Democrats will cave or compromise so as not to jeopardize key Wall Street connections (hey, the money has to come from somewhere, right?).
One wonders why…….
So?
What happened to the life boat and rafts after the survivors of the Titanic were rescued by the Carpathia?
You seem to think that out of principle, they should have saved in those lifeboats.
That will take an election to retake the house, maybe the senate, and that, in my always humble working class opinion, will only happen when the Democratic Party shed its neoliberal Wall Street/professional class agenda, grow a backbone and become the party of the working class.
Typical bullshit:
The ACA/Obamacare is NOT the Titanic. Once again you repeat Trumpist/GOP lies.
The ACA/Obama is working FAR MORE effectively than the chaos it replaced, that is why:
1. The GOP is working so hard kill it, and
2. Americans so overwhelmingly reject those efforts.
Your commentary really is a piece of work. The ACA/Obamacare is literally saving the lives of tens of millions of American working class families.
You join the Donald Trump and the GOP in attacking it, while claiming to support the working class. Your commentary is dangerously delusional.
The ACA is a REPUBLICAN bill. Read its history and open your mind. The ACA is working better than not having the ACA but not as good as having a public option and eventual universal single payer.
And literally more could be saved if we abandoned the private market approach and adopted a single payer system similar to any one of the developed nations of the world.
Sure. Let’s all clap our hands together, because if we clap hard enough single payer will happen.
I prefer to wait until there is at least a proposal on the table before nuking ACA/Obamacare.
You are, literally, embracing the dogma that Donald Trump and the GOP have been pushing for nine years.
Absolutely. It’s incredibly annoying to hear Dems saying that Sanders is trying to scuttle the ACA and only cares about single payer. Everything he has said over the last year has been a vigorous defense of the ACA and he also mentions that it is something we need to build on to move to single payer. He never talks about scrapping ACA for a new plan, but many Dems (you’re not saying this but Dems are) claim that he does. He knows it ain’t over and is fighting against this bill and for the ACA.
I wanted to mention this because the path to single payer is through the ACA not against it. There is no plan to make an effective switch to single payer right now, but setting it as a goal is a good idea. One can fight to save the ACA and also support another goal. I don’t buy they arguments that Sanders is throwing a crazy wrench into the system with his bill or his signing up for the CNN debate (again, it’s interesting to see no one criticize Klobuchar for her agreement).
Sanders and Klobuchar are going to debate Graham and Cassidy on CNN on Monday. Establishment Dems on Twitter seem to think this is a very bad idea and that Sanders will be in it for personal gain and just pushing his single payer plan (they don’t mention Klobuchar at all).
I think this type of debate is much more dangerous for Graham and Cassidy. They are tasked with supporting a very bad and already very unpopular bill, and making a moral case for federalism. Sanders and Klobuchar can talk about the importance of Medicaid and the general morality of providing health care. On single payer, I’ve no doubt that Sanders will discuss it, but he will discuss it like he always has, including in CNN town halls like the one with Cruz – it’s about moving FROM the ACA to single payer, not scrapping the ACA and starting over.
Having the most popular Senator, who is great at energizing crowds and landing social media shareable sound bites, and the very smart and talented Senator from Minnesota debate on the side of health care seems like a very good gamble to me.
Generally, this debate is a great one for dems to have- but the issue here is the timing in the ultra-short term. Until Sept 30 the gop only needs 50 votes to pass a repeal, after they need 60. By far the audience that matters most till the 30th is the 2-3 gop Senators whose votes are unknown and maybe their constituents.. Lindsey Graham is positively gleeful about the debate right now. The Senate is an inherently conservative (small and big C) institution and this debate helps him shift the debate of the moment from status quo vs. Graham’s radical change to Bernie’s radical change vs. Graham’s radical change.
I agree generally that that’s why Graham is happy, but if that’s the case he’s overestimating himself, and underestimating Sanders.
Also, the status quo will be on stage as well, even if there’s no Senator speaking for it.
I think Graham has the heavier lift in that situation. He needs to make it about their plan v. single payer (which Klobuchar is not on board for and Sanders can shift to the moral case about general coverage). Sanders and Klobuchar can make the debate about health care as a right v. block grants and the end of Medicaid. Also, Sanders has been very good defending the merits and the potential promise of the ACA. Graham will have to say socialism a lot and I’m not sure that the experience of the last 18 months is that that is very effective these days.
It is those 5-6 senators that matter and apparently they are receiving a lot less in terms of call volume this time than last time. Animating people to call can happen with this debate, so I think there is a lot of upside there – I mean, just look at what Jimmy Kimmel’s focus on it has done in terms of public discussion and social sharing over the past week. High profile coverage of the bill seems to be bad for the GOP. To shift the pressure on these 5-6 Senators in the direction of the GOP I think is a much less likely scenario than no change in the status quo or an increase in pressure on these Senators on this bill. I hope I’m not wrong.
It looks like the moderator wants to avoid a single payer v. Graham-Cassidy debate.
Put another way: we (the electorate) are less delicate than some Dems like to think. Senators are delicate and change easily because they’re looking for the path of least resistance. If Sanders totally blows this and Graham “wins,” there’s really no harm done with the public. Conversely Sanders could wipe up the floor with Graham, and that wouldn’t move votes either.
In the end, it’s whatever they decide in private. Even if they say the optics matter, it’s not true.
I tend to think that this is a great idea, regardless of whether it kills GC or not. Long term, liberals have to sell their position, and being afraid to do so is a bad way to lead. If Bernie can sell it, that’s a long-term win, regardless of whether Sen Mukowski is bought or not next week.
McCain is a now, according to multiple sources.
Confusing. But, worth noting, the bill can pass without McCain.
See, we need the edit function back. Now a no, you mean.
Rand Paul sure has been strident about being a “no” because the bill is “Obamacare Lite” but you can’t really trust him. Maybe McCain gives some cover to Murkowski to kill it, again.
Back? 🙂
No not now.
A Democratic Senator just dropped a 100 amendment bomb on the plot to kill Obamacare.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) warned the con-pukes that if they try to bring up G-C for a vote, he has 100 amendments ready to go that will keep the debate going until the reconciliation language expires on September 30.
KEEP FIGHTING ! Our champion, Sen. Murphy tweeted : ” Don’t believe the hype. Don’t rest. I’ve got 100 amendments ready to keep debate going if they call it up (not kidding). What will you do ? ”
Call Congress @ 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote NO on G-C. Ask for Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL).
It is weird that the procedural trick is not discussed more. If the GOP somehow gets the 50 votes (Murkowski says Yes and Paul flips – which does not seem crazy at all), the Democrats NEED TO do the vote-a-rama. There is absolutely no good reason not to do it.