United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans are tethered to Trump politically and need to act accordingly"

Quote

As President Trump passes the 100-day mark of his administration, House Republicans should be starting to worry about next year’s midterm elections.

The midterms are a referendum on the presidency, and preliminary signs point to problems for the party in power unless things change.

Trump’s approval ratings, which started low, haven’t budged. He’s in negative territory, with an approval rating of just 43 percent and a disapproval rating of 52 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics average. That’s a zone of negativity that, if history holds, could put the GOP’s current House majority in jeopardy in 2018.

Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all had approval ratings in the low-to-mid 40s at the time of the first midterm elections of their presidencies. Their parties all suffered substantial losses. Reagan was at 42 percent in 1982, and Republicans lost 26 seats. Clinton was at 46 percent in 1994, and his party lost 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in four decades. Obama was at 45 percent, and Democrats lost 63 seats and, again, control of the House.

...

What’s particularly worrisome for Republicans is another pattern about presidential approval: Most presidents who have governed in the modern era have seen their approval ratings slide between the 100-day mark and the subsequent midterm election 18 months later.

...

Trump’s troubles aside, House Republicans, themselves, have done little to demonstrate they are ready and able to be a successful governing party. The rolling mess with attempts to replace the Affordable Care Act has been more sitcom than serious governing. One attempt to get a vote on the bill failed badly. Last week, White House officials pushed and pushed for a vote ahead of the 100-day marker. House leaders, rightly wary of another failure in prime time, resisted.

That situation could change: The House could find a compromise measure that brings enough consensus to pass a health-care bill. But the absence of an agreement after weeks of negotiations suggests that enough Republicans fear the political consequences of supporting a measure that likely will result in millions of fewer Americans having insurance and less coverage for some who do.

Nor are there other apparent easy victories ahead. Trump’s budget calls for substantial increases in defense spending, offset by big cuts in many domestic programs and parts of the State Department. The president likely will get his money for defense, but even many Republicans are rebelling at cutting some of those domestic programs.

...

This is perhaps a glass-half-empty look at the state of things for the Republicans, and it is by no means the only scenario that could unfold. The president and his party have months to overcome the limitations and setbacks of the first months of this year.

They could pass health-care revisions. They could pass a big tax bill. Their scorecard could look substantially better ahead of the midterms than it does now.

The president could also defy conventional metrics, as he did during the campaign. He is, after all, anything but a typical politician. On Election Day, 6 in 10 Americans said he was not qualified to be president. More than 6 in 10 said he did not have the temperament to serve as president. Yet enough of them voted for him to make him the winner over Hillary Clinton.

Working to the Republicans’ advantage are the structural realities in a divided America.

The Cook Political Report’s latest assessment of House races lists just six in the toss-up category, three Republican seats and three Democratic seats. Another 10 Republican-held seats are considered soft, along with seven Democratic-held seats. All that can change with events, but the starting point is a reminder of the degree to which competitive districts have continued to disappear.

Earlier this month, the Cook report’s David Wasserman and Ally Flinn produced the latest index of partisanship of all 435 congressional districts. This is a biennial report that dates back two decades. The most striking finding, well highlighted by others, is the staggering decline in swing districts. In 1997, there were 164 swing districts. In the new analysis, there are just 72.

...

Democrats have done little affirmatively this year to help their cause. They are banking on Trump to keep their base energized. If he settles into his office and becomes more disciplined in style and conventional in policy, that could change the equation. For now, Republicans should assume they are tethered to the president’s political standing. They and he should act accordingly.

This is scary -- how many districts have become so partisan.

[AmericanRose]

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

More than 6 in 10 said he did not have the temperament to serve as president. Yet enough of them voted for him to make him the winner over Hillary Clinton.

Am I the only one who, whenever they read something like that, wishes to add -- Yes, enough of them voted for him in the right states. If we didn't have the Electoral College...

[GreyhoundFan]

"Congress reaches deal to keep government open through September"

Quote

Congressional negotiators reached an agreement late Sunday on a broad spending package to fund the government through the end of September, alleviating fears of a government shutdown later this week, several congressional aides said.

Congress is expected to vote on the package early this week. The bipartisan agreement includes $12.5 billion in new military spending and $1.5 billion more for border security, a major priority for Republican leaders in Congress.

The agreement follows weeks of tense negotiations between Democrats and GOP leaders after President Trump insisted that the deal include funding to begin building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump eventually dropped that demand, leaving Congress to resolve lingering issues over several unrelated policy measures.

The new border security money comes with strict limitations that the Trump administration use it only for technology investments and repairs to existing fencing and infrastructure, the aides said.

The agreement also includes several policy victories for Democrats, including $295 million to help Puerto Rico continue making payments to Medicaid, $100 million to combat opioid addiction, and increases in energy and science funding that Trump had proposed cutting. If passed, the legislation will ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive federal funding through September.

The package includes $61 million to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for the cost of protecting Trump when he travels to his residences in Florida and New York, a major priority for the two New York Democrats involved in the spending talks, Rep. Nita M. Lowey and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer.

House Republicans have struggled in recent weeks to keep their members focused on spending as White House officials and conservatives pressed leaders to revive plans for a vote on health-care legislation. The health-care fight became tangled last week in spending talks as leaders worried that forcing a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act risked angering Democrats whose votes are necessary to avoid a government shutdown.

...

 

I am happy the government isn't going to shut down this week. However, who knows if they will get their act together to get us past September.

[sawasdee]

Good news that Planned Parenthood is safe at least until September.

[GreyhoundFan]

This scares me: "GOP faces make-or-break moment on Obamacare repeal"

Quote

House Republican leaders and White House officials are increasingly confident about passing their long-stalled Obamacare replacement bill: More lawmakers than ever are committed to voting “yes," they say, and GOP insiders insist they’re within striking distance of a majority.

But the window of opportunity for Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team is closing fast. The House is scheduled to leave town for a one-week recess on Thursday, and some senior Republicans worry that failing to get it done by then would fritter away critical momentum. Skittish Republicans would return home to face a barrage of pressure from Democrats and progressive outside groups.

Some senior Republicans and White House officials are advising Ryan (R-Wis.) and his top lieutenants to cancel the recess if needed, and to keep the House in session until they have the votes.

"I think they could have voted on Friday," President Donald Trump said in a Sunday interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" to discuss his first 100 days in office. "I said, 'Just relax. Don't worry about this phony 100 day thing. Just relax. Take it easy. Take your time. Get the good vote and make it perfect.'"

"I think health care reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare is just around the corner,” Vice President Mike Pence added on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think we’re close.”

While Trump and the White House have been overly optimistic before about repealing Obamacare, senior House Republicans agree with them this time.

“We’re very close," Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

At a Republican Party event in Texas on Saturday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California hinted strongly that a vote is imminent.

"Stay tuned — watch next week — and you will see the repeal and replace of Obamacare," McCarthy told the crowd, according to social media reports.

House GOP leaders say publicly that they have until around the end of May to pass a health care reform bill. The reason has to do with arcane but critical parliamentary rules and the sequencing of big-ticket GOP agenda items.

The short version is this: Republicans need a new budget in order to pass a tax cut or tax reform package. But once they pass a new spending blueprint, they lose their authority provided by the current budget to approve health care reform using the majority-vote tool called reconciliation. That means it would take 60 votes in the Senate, rather than 51, to pass a bill — an impossible hurdle given Democratic opposition.

In other words, it looks like now or never.

“This is it,” said an administration official closely following the repeal effort. “We get it done now, or we don’t get it done ever.”

...

While leaders scrounge for votes on their new spending deal, Ryan and his team still have to nail down about 20 undecided Republicans on health care. More than 15 lawmakers — mostly moderates — have said publicly they will not vote for the current bill. So GOP leaders, who can only lose 22 votes, are scrambling to persuade those who haven’t made up their minds.

On Friday, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a staunch ally of leadership, said he’s “not comfortable” with the health care compromise. Upton's position is especially notable because he has helped craft dozens of GOP Obamacare repeal bills in the past.

Likewise, Rep. Don Young of Alaska emerged from a one-on-one meeting with Ryan on Friday saying he still hadn’t made up his mind. Ryan called GOP holdouts to his office that day to discuss their outstanding concerns.

House Republicans are under enormous pressure from all sides. Democrats are determined to make health care a driving issue of next year's midterm elections regardless of whether Obamacare is ultimately overturned, but Republicans from competitive districts who back the repeal measure will have an extra-large target on their backs. If the GOP falls short, however, Republicans could face primary challengers from the right.

Ryan's reputation as speaker and his standing with Trump are also on the line. After the embarrassing collapse of the first Republican stab at passing a bill in late March, the speaker needs to show Trump he can deliver.

Trump will not be endlessly patient, and if Hill Republicans fail, the president is sure to shift the blame to someone other than himself.

The president's finger-pointing was on full display at a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Saturday night. After promising that “we’re going to give Americans the freedom to purchase the health care plans they want, not the health care forced on them by the government,” Trump singled out two House Republicans in the crowd.

“I’ll be so angry at Congressman [Mike] Kelly and Congressman [Tom] Marino and all of our congressmen in this room if we don’t get that damn thing passed quickly,” Trump said of two of his earliest and most loyal supporters.

After a pause and loud cheers, Trump added, “They’ll get it done. We know them. They’ll get it done.”

On Sunday morning, Trump tweeted that a “New healthcare plan is on its way” that will "have much lower premiums & deductibles while at the same time taking care of pre-existing conditions.”

If GOP leaders don’t hold the vote soon, they’re bound to face internal pressures as well. Meadows told reporters Friday that while he hopes the current version passes, he’s readying a Plan B “backup” repeal bill if the legislation fails.

“I don’t think [the bill] has to be voted on next week, [but] I certainly would be extremely disappointed if it weren’t,” Meadows said, later adding: “We’re going to vote on something.”

I'm really worried that some of the moderate Repubs will be strong-armed into voting for the deathcare bill. That will spell doom for many of us.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is interesting -- maybe we can turn another seat blue! "Miami GOP seeks unicorn candidate to save Dem-trending Ros-Lehtinen seat"

Quote

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s surprise announcement that she’s quitting Congress has left the GOP with a needle-in-the-haystack problem: finding a socially moderate Republican in a party where they’re in short supply.

And even if Republicans find the right candidate for Ros-Lehtinen’s seat next year, there’s no guarantee he or she will run.

Because Florida’s 27th Congressional District is now such a deep shade of Democratic blue — Hillary Clinton carried it by nearly 20 percentage points last year — many Republican donors and conservative groups won’t be keen on financing what could be a hopeless mission to keep the seat in GOP hands, with the 2018 House map set to include numerous other districts where the party's chances are better. The 27th District was considered relatively defensible for Republicans as long as Ros-Lehtinen, an icon in Miami politics who beat her Democratic challenger last year by about 10 points, stayed.

In the hours after Ros-Lehtinen announced her retirement Sunday, the list of potential candidates grew, especially among energized Democrats. On the Republican side, few generated buzz among GOP insiders like former Miami-Dade school board member Raquel Regalado, a social moderate like the retiring congresswoman. She’s also the well-known daughter of Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado, a Republican who refused to vote for President Donald Trump last year because of his inflammatory comments about immigration. (Ros-Lehtinen, too, has had little good to say about the president.)

Raquel Regalado, who wouldn’t say whether she voted for Trump, said she’s strongly considering a bid for Ros-Lehtinen’s seat after getting deluged with calls. A self-proclaimed moderate who supports comprehensive immigration reform and abortion rights, she said she wants to know more about the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks.

“Will the Republican Party at a national level stand behind a moderate? That’s the question,” Regalado asked. “Will we continue to move to the right? Or is this an opportunity for the Republican Party at a national level to consider moderates as an option?”

Many of the other big name Miami Republicans considering a bid — Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, state Rep. Jeanette Núñez and state Sen. Anitere Flores — are more conservative than Regalado. And they all sound slightly less enthusiastic than she when it comes musing about a potential bid so early. Núñez, Flores and other state legislators say they’ll come to a decision about the race after the Florida lawmaking session ends Friday.

Because Democrats’ odds of winning the seat are higher, the list of potential candidates from their party is growing far longer. On Sunday, Florida Democratic insiders quickly began talking up the chances of state Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez, who has a record of winning tough races. Sixty percent of his current legislative district is also inside Florida’s 27th. He said he’ll decide after the legislative session.

Before Ros-Lehtinen announced she was quitting, three Democrats had already lined up to challenge her: Miami Beach Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez — who had been courted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and met with its political director recently in Miami — as well as University of Miami academic adviser Michael A. Hepburn and businessman Scott Fuhrman, who lost to Ros-Lehtinen last year.

Ros-Lehtinen told her hometown newspaper, The Miami Herald, that she was quitting congress because it was time to move on — not because she was vulnerable or because of her clashes with fellow Trump and GOP leaders over Obamacare and transgender rights.

“There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I would not only win in this election, but I would win by a greater percentage,” Ros-Lehtinen told the paper.

Regardless of her motivations, her decision has further energized Democrats in Miami-Dade County, Florida’s most-populous and a bastion of opposition to President Trump.

“Almost any Democrat in Miami will want to run for this seat. They’re celebrating,” said Miami political consultant David Custin. “But never underestimate Democrats' ability to screw up a two-car funeral.”

Custin said he believed Lopez-Cantera will be tempted to run because he’ll leave his current office in 2018, is well-known in Miami-Dade County and might like to mount another campaign to continue public service. Lopez-Cantera briefly ran for U.S. Senate in 2016 before his close friend, Sen. Marco Rubio, reversed course after his failed presidential campaign and ran for reelection in 2016. Even in his successful reelection, Rubio still lost the 27th District in his home county by a percentage point.

Lopez-Cantera was noncommittal about running for Congress and instead praised Ros-Lehtinen. One of his occasional advisers, Anthony Bustamante, said he hadn’t spoken to the lieutenant governor about the race and acknowledged that the odds for any Republican were long: The more conservative candidates will have a tougher time in the district, which includes Democrat-heavy Miami Beach.

“You need someone to fit the mold, someone similar to Ileana,” Bustamante said. “It’s possible Raquel fits the mold best. She’s a woman, middle of the road. She’s not an ideologue. On the local level, she ran for [Miami-Dade] county mayor, so she has good name ID. And if she runs for this, she’ll get support locally. But the NRCC has to make a calculated decision, whether to spend millions of dollars on a race that might not be winnable.”

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans about 37 percent to 34 percent. Almost 29 percent of the voters registered as third- or no-party-affiliation voters. The district is almost 58 percent Hispanic, 31 percent white and 4.4 percent black.

Democrats, hoping Donald Trump’s party suffers at the polls during his midterm, have to win 24 U.S. House seats to take control of the chamber. And former Florida Rep. David Jolly, a Republican who lost his swing seat in the St. Petersburg area to former Gov. Charlie Crist last year, said Ros-Lehtinen’s seat is lost.

“Put a point on the board for the Democrats,” Jolly said. “This is not a district that Republicans win in an open seat in 2018. I can’t speak for the NRCC, but they won’t spend a dime in that district. They’re worried right now about traditional seats, like [Miami Rep. Carlos] Curbelo.”

Like Ros-Lehtinen, Curbelo is more of a centrist Republican who was reelected even though Clinton won his district. He was targeted by Democrats in 2016, though he ended up winning comfortably, and had been considered a bigger target than Ros-Lehtinen heading into 2018, before his congressional neighbor retired.

Curbelo’s adviser, David “DJ” Johnson, said the Ros-Lehtinen “seat is difficult for Republicans in the classic sense. It’s an Ileana Republican-type seat, someone who has been there for decades. And that’s not a lot of people … Just look at all the maps Democrats are tweeting out right now. Every day, the district becomes more blue."

 

[fraurosena]

On 2017-4-30 at 1:04 AM, GreyhoundFan said:

"Republicans are tethered to Trump politically and need to act accordingly"

This is scary -- how many districts have become so partisan.

Could this be a by-product of gerrymandering though? 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, fraurosena said:

Could this be a by-product of gerrymandering though? 

Oh, it most certainly is a by-product of gerrymandering. Sadly, it's not likely to get better.

[fraurosena]

Just now, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, it most certainly is a by-product of gerrymandering. Sadly, it's not likely to get better.

You know, I cannot fathom how gerrymandering is considered to be democratic.

In my opinion, it is the very possibility of gerrymandering that lies at the heart of what is so wrong with America right now. If things are to change in the future, this should be one of the first things that needs to be obliterated from the governing process. 

[onekidanddone]

6 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

You know, I cannot fathom how gerrymandering is considered to be democratic.

In my opinion, it is the very possibility of gerrymandering that lies at the heart of what is so wrong with America right now. If things are to change in the future, this should be one of the first things that needs to be obliterated from the governing process. 

I don't think it is democratic in any sense.  It won't get fixed while Republicans are in control where it exists. 

[fraurosena]

Congress Budgets $120 Million to Pay Security Costs for President Trump's Family

Quote

Congress is looking to budget more than $120 million to cover the cost of security for President Donald Trump and his family through a bipartisan spending agreement.

The agreement appears likely to pass this week, according to the New York Times.

Approximately half of the money would be allocated to the Secret Service and most of the those funds will go toward protection of President Donald Trump while traveling, along with security for Trump Tower in New York City.

Another $60 million will be used to reimburse places like New York City and Palm Beach County in Florida, which have been using local law enforcement to protect Trump's residences, according to the Times.

This funding allocation comes after both areas have claimed the travel from Trump administration has driven up costs.

The Palm Beach County Sheriffs Department estimated it spends $60,000 daily on overtime pay to protect the president when he travels to Mar-a-Lago, which has been referred to as the the "Winter White House."

Reuters reported that New York City spends more than $100,000 each day to protect Trump's family, and up to $300,000 when the president is in town.

A couple of comments:

1. Do you think that would be enough though to cover all the costs of his weekly golfing expeditions?  >end sarcasm<

2. Apparently it's also meant to cover 'security for Trump Tower in New York City'. So I guess Melania's move to DC is out then. 

3. Let me see, so NYC will spend at least $365,000 this year to protect the toddler's family. 

4. One wonders when the base will realize that these unnecessary costs are coming out of their pockets. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is interesting: "How preexisting conditions could derail House Republicans’ health-care bill, explained"

Quote

Health-care policy is incredibly, unbelievably complicated. (Who knew, right?) But if you only learn about one issue, let it be this: whether insurers should charge people with preexisting conditions more because taking care of those people's medical expenses costs more.

It's the perennial sticking point in almost any health-care-reform bill, and House conservatives and President Trump might be at an impasse about it now.

"I want it to be good for sick people. It’s not in its final form right now," Trump told Bloomberg News on Monday of House Republicans' health-care bill.

In an interview with CBS's “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday, Trump promised to “beautifully” protect people who have preexisting medical conditions: “Preexisting conditions are in the bill — and I mandate it.”

Except, what Trump is promising is the opposite of what House Republicans are considering doing.

They are considering a bill that would allow states to allow insurers to charge sick people as much as they want for health insurance. Technically, health insurers couldn't refuse sick people insurance (like they could pre-Obamacare). But practically, sick people probably will be priced out of insurance under this legislation, since insurers could charge whatever they want, said Gary Claxton, a health-care policy expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

“What the president says he wants is not what the amendment does,” Claxton said. “[Trump] wants people with preexisting conditions to have insurance. … But they could charge sick people five times the premium, and they won't get any sick people.”

Which means Republicans in Congress and Trump may soon have to make a decision between two fundamentally polar approaches to legislating health coverage: Do you make it cheaper, likely at the expense of sick people? Or do you insure more people, likely making health insurance more expensive?

Here's why more coverage and cheaper coverage are like oil and water: If you want more people to be insured for more benefits — including sick people — then insurance is going to cost more money, because sick people's insurance bills are more expensive.

Before Obamacare, insurance premiums were 20 to 30 percent cheaper. After Obamacare, they got more expensive, but 20 million more people got health insurance, in part because insurance companies had to accept sick people and charge them the same as healthy people.

...

Over the weekend, Vice President Pence suggested a way around dropping sick people in the name of cheaper coverage for healthy people: high-risk pools. That's where you group together sick people and then give those people some money to offset their much more expensive insurance rates. But, Claxton said, if you let insurers charge as much as they want (like House Republicans are considering), then it'd take a huge subsidy to make these high-risk pools affordable.

Republicans' main grief with Obamacare is that it costs too much. So, the obvious answer to bringing the costs down is to limit benefits. (Right before Republicans' first attempt at revising Obamacare imploded in March, House conservatives were trying to insert an amendment that would slash the essential benefits Obamacare requires insurance cover — things like doctor visits, ambulance rides and maternity care.)

Trump didn't object to undoing those essential benefits. But he doesn't seem to want to cut sick people out of the market — or at least he doesn't want to acknowledge that this bill would essentially cut many of them off.

That makes sense. Requiring that insurance companies cover people is really popular, even today.

...

And also, cutting these people out of the insurance would significantly lower the insurance rates. “I don't think he wants to be known as the president where 14 million people lost insurance,” Claxton said, referring to an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office of how many people would lose insurance under Republicans' first bill.

To get a health-care bill through the House of Representatives, Trump may have to come to terms with the fact that it will likely cause people to lose health insurance. Or he'll have to find a way to get Republicans on board with a health-care bill that doesn't lower the cost of insurance.

Yeah, that's the crux of the problem. You can't get more (or even equal benefits) for all without raising the cost for all.

[onekidanddone]

30 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is interesting: "How preexisting conditions could derail House Republicans’ health-care bill, explained"

Yeah, that's the crux of the problem. You can't get more (or even equal benefits) for all without raising the cost for all.

I read this and the NYT article on how the bill might pass before the end of the week.  I don't know where to put my emotions. Up down up down.  I need to go take another train trip in northern North Dakota. No internet access on my phone.

[GreyhoundFan]

Argh: "House Republicans continue health-care push, may leave changes to Senate"

Quote

The aim has become very simple for House Republicans stumbling closer to passing a bill to revise the Affordable Care Act: just get it off their plates and over to the Senate.

In the messy effort to rally their often unruly party around a measure to replace big parts of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, House leaders have been forced to leave other objectives by the wayside and focus on one simple, political goal: pass a bill they can say repeals Obamacare — even if it has no hope of survival in the Senate — to shield their members in next year’s elections.

“I would hope it gets changed over there,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) told Bloomberg News, echoing other center-right members who explicitly said they were willing to pass the new revision in hopes that the Senate would strip out the harsher provisions.

Even that goal, however, is proving elusive. By late Monday, House leaders had collected more votes than ever but still appeared to be shy of the 216 Republicans they need to pass the measure. They’re stuck between conservatives and moderates, both keenly aware of how they can be attacked on the issue next year.

“If you’re in the House, what you should be thinking now is that if it doesn’t survive, it all comes back to you,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “I think what they should be focused on is getting the process moving and, frankly, passing the obligation over to the Senate.”

...

Even some members who won their seats partially on promises to repeal the ACA are blinking, citing changes to the proposed replacement that would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to patients with preexisting conditions if their state got permission from the federal government.

In 2010, Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) campaigned for a safe Republican seat in Congress by pledging to fight “government-run health care.” Every two years, he won easy victories while telling voters he was “fighting to repeal Obamacare.”

On Monday, Long came out against the American Health Care Act with a few kind words about the law it was designed to replace. During unrelated votes Monday night, Long could be seen in a lengthy conversation with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

“I have always stated that one of the few good things about Obamacare is that people with preexisting conditions would be covered,” Long said in a statement. “The MacArthur amendment strips away any guarantee that preexisting conditions would be covered and affordable.”

Over the weekend, President Trump hadn’t helped. In an interview on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Trump said the latest bill would “beautifully” protect those with preexisting medical conditions — which is not fully true.

As Republicans have struggled to find a health-care bill on which they can reach a consensus, Ryan agreed to support an amendment that would allow insurance providers in some states to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions or costly health problems, as long as that state set up “high-risk pools” that could help cover the cost of care.

Proponents have said this would lower premiums for healthy individuals, but critics have argued that it would dramatically drive up costs for those who are seriously ill. Proponents also noted that states can choose to leave current mandates in place.

Conspicuously absent from the House Republican effort to get to 216 is much talk about what happens in the Senate. There, Republicans will run up against the Senate parliamentarian, who must rule on whether some provisions are allowable in a budget reconciliation bill — the vehicle they’re using to repeal the health-care law to avoid a Senate rule requiring a 60-vote win that would require Democratic votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is likely to introduce a substitute version removing those provisions, just as he did back in 2015, when Congress passed a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act that Obama then vetoed.

“All of the policy considerations and policy constructs assembled by the House over the past couple of months may become moot,” said Chris Jacobs, who advised the House Republican Conference on health policy while the 2010 health-care law was being passed.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said the House should move “quickly” on passing its bill. “I’m not going to tell them what to do, but I am going to say that if they don’t move pretty quickly, we ought to see what we can do in the United States Senate,” Grassley said.

But Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), the one Republican who opposed a Senate test vote on repeal in January — arguing that it did not go far enough — warned that even the new version of the AHCA fell short of his standard.

“It still could be improved a great deal, but it’s an open question of whether the Senate would fix it or make it worse,” said Paul. “I’m not excited about having taxpayer money going to insurance companies. That was a big part of Obamacare, and it’s a big part of this.”

There’s also no talk of getting a score from the Congressional Budget Office on how the changes would affect the cost of the bill or how many Americans it would cover, even though Republicans came under heavy fire in March for advancing their original measure without an estimate from Congress’s official scorekeeper.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) dismissed concerns that the GOP bill will have to undergo major revisions in the Senate — or that Republicans won’t even be able to pass it in the House.

“Legislating takes time,” he said. “It’s worth remembering it took Obama 14 months to pass Obamacare,” he said. “The House repeal bill was on the floor for 14 days. That’s not nearly long enough to draft legislation as consequential as this.”

Despite the resistance from some members, House Republicans can’t get around the fact that for seven years, they have promised to repeal the Democrats’ health-care law. As the pressure mounts, they’re striving to just get the bill passed and let the Senate worry about how it could actually become law.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) noted that reality in a Monday interview with CNN. He said that the House bill remains a “work in progress” and that some of it would be scrapped in negotiations.

“The House has to pass a bill,” said Cassidy, who has written a replacement bill that retains much of the Affordable Care Act. “It’ll go to conference committee. I’m sure the administration will be involved. There will be two other times when what the White House is advocating can be addressed.”

Cassidy was skeptical of the modified AHCA, which creates high-risk pools for people with preexisting conditions.

“I suspect the advocates for the bill will say that’s their guarantee,” he said. “I will insist that the president’s pledges be met. And the president pledged that he would take care of people with preexisting conditions.”

I am so angry at how they are playing games with our health. I've called my Rep's office twice in the last week. I need to call again tomorrow. He's a Democrat, who is very opposed to the crap being shoveled by the Repubs, but I need to do something.

[candygirl200413]

GOP Rep.: Insurance Will Cost More For Sick People Who Don’t Lead ‘Good Lives’

Quote

A Republican congressman said Monday that an amendment to the GOP’s American Health Care Act would require sicker people to pay more in insurance costs than people “who lead good lives.”

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Monday, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was asked about an amendment he supports to Republicans’ health care effort that would allow states to opt out of health- and age-based pricing protections required by Obamacare, if they established high-risk pools or other equivalent measures in their place.

Opponents of the amendment say it would lead to higher costs for sicker, older people. Brooks granted that.

“My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, you know, they are doing the things to keep their bodies healthy,” he said. “And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

A spokesperson for Brooks did not immediately respond to TPM’s questions about the remark.

“Now in fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help,” Brooks continued. “The challenge though is that it’s a tough balancing act between the higher cost of these mandates which denies people coverage because they can’t afford the health insurance policies anymore on the one and and having enough coverage to help those people who are truly in need, and it’s a very complicated question, and I’m sure over the years there will be different permutations of it, both in the past as we go forward.”

I really fucking cannot with these shitty ass people.

[Bethella]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

3. Let me see, so NYC will spend at least $365,000 this year to protect the toddler's family. 

You forgot a couple of zeros. NYC will spend at least $36.5 million  to protect them this year

[47of74]

12 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

GOP Rep.: Insurance Will Cost More For Sick People Who Don’t Lead ‘Good Lives’

I really fucking cannot with these shitty ass people.

Hey, Mo Brooks you fornicating douche nozzle.   You might want to see what your hero Jesus has to say about blaming people for their health problems;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 9

Quote

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.  His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him." (John 9:1-3)

And He then pretty much told the Pharisees off when they got mad at the man Jesus healed

Quote

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:39-41)

Fornicate you, Mo Brooks.

[AmericanRose]

15 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

“Now in fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help,” Brooks continued.

So... are they now going to have panels that investigate your lifestyle to make sure you "live a good life", didn't cause your illness, and thus deserve help with health insurance?

[Childless]

2 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

So... are they now going to have panels that investigate your lifestyle to make sure you "live a good life", didn't cause your illness, and thus deserve help with health insurance?

Considering the shit storm that happened at my place of employment when our insurance company decided to increase the weekly contribution of employees or their family members who smoke, I doubt this would go over well.  Although, these fellow co-workers of mine also voted Republican, so I have little sympathy for them.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Childless said:

Considering the shit storm that happened at my place of employment when our insurance company decided to increase the weekly contribution of employees or their family members who smoke, I doubt this would go over well.  Although, these fellow co-workers of mine also voted Republican, so I have little sympathy for them.

My company, a large multinational, instituted a $100 per month surcharge for each person on our insurance (includes spouses and adult children) for tobacco users and required us to agree to random testing if you declare you don't use tobacco. There was quite a bit of hair-pulling when that happened.

 

 

[47of74]

Another GOP fuckhead thinks people should move to other states if they have preexisting conditions;

talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-goper-move-to-another-state-if-you-have-a-pre-existing-condition

Quote

“People can go to the state that they want to live in,” Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) told reporters Tuesday morning when asked if people with pre-existing conditions could be charged much more under the American Health Care Act.

“States have all kinds of different policies and there are disparities among states for many things: driving restrictions, alcohol, whatever,” he continued. “We’re putting choices back in the hands of the states. That’s what Jeffersonian democracy provides for.”

Pittenger acknowledged that under an amendment to the bill rolled out in April to win over the support of hardline conservatives, states can apply for waivers to Obamacare’s community rating rule, which limits how much insurance companies can charge people with pre-existing conditions. With no limit set in the bill for what insurers could charge, many patient advocacy groups say they’re afraid millions of people could be priced out of health insurance entirely.

Fuck you Pittenger.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How did Ryan’s Faustian bargain with Trump work out?"

Quote

During the spring of 2016, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) publicly struggled over the decision to endorse then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. In a June 2 op-ed in his local paper that he began by describing a “bold agenda” (which would be entitled “A Better Way,” including the outline of the health-care bill that so far has failed to win a majority of Republicans), he then explained:

It’s a bold agenda but one that can bring together all wings of the Republican Party as well as appeal to most Americans.

One person who we know won’t support it is Hillary Clinton. A Clinton White House would mean four more years of liberal cronyism and a government more out for itself than the people it serves. Quite simply, she represents all that our agenda aims to fix.

To enact these ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That’s why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for Donald Trump before discussing policies and basic principles.

As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas.

He insisted that in his talks with Trump, “the House policy agenda has been the main focus of our dialogue. We’ve talked about the common ground this agenda can represent. We’ve discussed how the House can be a driver of policy ideas. We’ve talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we’ve talked about how, by focusing on issues that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary.” He concluded that Trump “would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.”

After 100 days we can see clearly the many false assumptions baked into that rationale.

...

I think Ryan's "plan" should have been called "A Worse Way".

 

Quote

...First, I don’t know what kind of policy discussion he had, but we’ve seen Trump is entirely incapable of grasping and discussing particulars. Trump was either humoring Ryan (“Yes, Paul, that’s exactly the kind of thing we would do!”) or Ryan was kidding himself that Trump, lacking any real policy views, would sign whatever the Congress passed. He should have listened more critically and figured out that Trump doesn’t stand by anything and would be entirely incapable of advocating for policies Ryan wanted. In fact, Trump has never bought into Ryan’s small government, restraint-of-executive party brand of conservatism. And worse, Trump’s ineptitude and lack of self-discipline has widened the divide within the House GOP and paralyzed members from fear that Trump would let them twist in the wind over an controversial vote.

...

The idea of sitting down for a policy discussion with the tangerine toddler is laughable.

 

Quote

...

Second, in all likelihood Ryan never expected Trump to win. He was as shocked as anyone when Trump did. Endorsing Trump in June 2016 might have seemed like a “safe” bet. He’d support most of his conference, be a good team player, not get blamed for Trump’s loss and then go on from there. Instead, he was a critical player in normalizing Trump and getting the GOP to fall into line behind an unqualified, unstable and unprincipled narcissist. Had he understood one should not defend the indefensible, he wouldn’t have gambled his reputation and the country’s future on Trump.

...

I so agree with this. I think Ryan was as shocked as the rest of us in November.

 

Quote

Third, entirely absent from Ryan’s endorsement and from his rationale for supporting Trump was any recognition that character, intellect and temperament are the predicate for any acceptable, let alone successful, president. “Sure he’s erratic, but he’ll stick with our position on health care” is the sort of unsound thinking that leads one to endorse someone manifestly unfit to govern. If he is erratic, Mr. Speaker, he’s going to undermine your efforts on health care. And he did.

...

Well, recognition of those matters is quite obviously way beyond Ryan's capacity.

 

Quote

Ignoring Trump’s fondness for Vladimir Putin, Ryan bought into a man whose affection for strongmen is so contrary to American values and interest that he makes President Barack Obama seem Reaganesque. Instead of Clinton, we have a commander in chief who cheers for Marine Le Pen, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Xi Jinping and Rodrigo Duterte — and compliments Kim Jong Un. We have a president who has gotten into fights with Canada, Mexico and Australia — and has shaken European leaders to their core. Ryan should have paid attention to Trump’s inferior judgment, knowledge and capacity to learn.

How did things work out for Ryan? He has signed onto a spending bill that Clinton would have liked (Planned Parenthood funding, no wall, domestic spending restored, a little bit — but not enough — defense spending). He has not gotten health-care reform. His chances of obtaining tax reform are slim. Other than a Supreme Court justice and some deregulation, virtually nothing on Ryan’s agenda — one Trump was supposed to share — seems likely to come about.

By ignoring fundamental questions of competency and character, Ryan vouched for a man who echoed Russian agitprop and encouraged Russian cyber-mischief during the campaign and who continues to deny the existence of mounds of evidence proving Russian efforts to meddle with our election. Ryan enabled an administration that has a bevy of ties to Russian officials, originally hired as national security adviser a man acting as an agent for foreign governments and still employs an aide (Sebastian Gorka) with ties to Hungarian fascists. Surely Clinton, for all her faults, wouldn’t have done all that.

As for the cause of clean government, Ryan supported Trump with no assurance he wouldn’t defy the Constitution by receiving foreign monies, maintain ownership in companies creating massive conflicts of interest, hire relatives who have their own conflicts and refuse to release his taxes ever. Ryan thought Clinton would bring corruption to the White House?

In sum, Ryan’s Faustian bargain was ill-conceived and ultimately a disaster for the country. If Ryan loses his majority and speakership in 2018, it will be political karma for failing to have put country above party and decency above political calculation.

Amen - Ryan thought Clinton would bring corruption to the White House??

[Childless]

24 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

My company, a large multinational, instituted a $100 per month surcharge for each person on our insurance (includes spouses and adult children) for tobacco users and required us to agree to random testing if you declare you don't use tobacco. There was quite a bit of hair-pulling when that happened.

 

 

Hey, Americans (especially conservative ones) are adamant about preserving our private healthcare.  The price of a for profit system is accepting cost cutting measures by insurance companies.  Don't like it?  Start stumping for universal healthcare.  Otherwise, quit bitching.

[GreyhoundFan]

31 minutes ago, Childless said:

Hey, Americans (especially conservative ones) are adamant about preserving our private healthcare.  The price of a for profit system is accepting cost cutting measures by insurance companies.  Don't like it?  Start stumping for universal healthcare.  Otherwise, quit bitching.

Exactly -- that's what I told the biggest whiners. Of course, they are all teabaggers who don't "get" that it is more than a wee bit hypocritical to get upset about this surcharge, yet demand surcharges or no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Because tobacco isn't a "health issue" in their eyes. They whine about the gubmint being all up in their business, but get mad when for-profit health insurance companies want to make a buck off them.

[47of74]

I see former Congress idiot Joe Walsh is being a douche cannon fuck nozzle out loud once again;

occupydemocrats.com/2017/05/02/republican-just-gave-disgusting-response-jimmy-kimmels-sons-heart-disease/

Quote

Last night, Jimmy Kimmel aired a heartfelt and moving anecdote about a complication in the health of his newborn son, ultimately praising Obamacare for making healthcare affordable for people of all economic backgrounds with conditions similar to that of his baby. Joe Walsh retorted with a very characteristic reply;

Aside from giving a cold, callous, heartless comment, Walsh does not seem to understand the basic underlying principles of insurance. Nobody wants to pay for health insurance when we don’t need it, but everyone expects to benefit from it when we do. We pay into the system with the expectation that if and when we do happen to need medical care, insurance will cover it. Until you actually use your health insurance, the funds are used to “pay for somebody else’s health care.”

This is especially hypocritical coming from Walsh in that he has repeatedly come under fire for allegedly failing to pay $117,000 in child support. There seems to be a trend of Walsh failing to pay that to which he is legally bound.

 

Fuck you Joe.