United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[GreyhoundFan]

"Most Republicans still say they support Trump. Who’s most likely to break ranks and speak out against him?"

Spoiler

What would it take for Republicans to break ranks en masse and start to publicly question the direction of the party and President Trump’s leadership?

On Monday night, the Senate bill to repeal and replace Obamacare died before it hit the Senate floor, making it look like a key part of Trump’s legislative agenda may fail. New questions keep arising about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia. The federal courts regularly rebuke key aspects of his immigration orders. Most Americans believe his use of Twitter is “unpresidential.” The president has unusually — even historically — low public approval.

And yet the president remains popular with Republican voters. In the most recent Gallup tracking poll, 87 percent of self-identified Republicans said they approved of the job he’s doing. What might change that?

To answer this question, it helps to look into the social psychology of group loyalty. Consider politics today as populated by two tribes: Democrats and Republicans. A growing literature suggests that partisanship has become a social identity akin to tribal affiliations, inspiring strong loyalty.

But people can and do, on occasion, dare to voice opinions out of line with their party’s stance on an issue. What pushes them to break ranks?

Here’s how we did our research

We have published data that provide some clues. In 2013, we asked 214 self-identified Republicans on Amazon’s MTurk (a crowdsourcing platform used by social scientists to conduct surveys and experiments) how willing they would be to publicly express views that diverged from the Republican Party’s position on Obamacare — by speaking out to a group of Republicans, posting on a blog, even calling into conservative talk radio. In 2014, a second sample of 303 self-identified Republicans on MTurk rated how willing they would be to express views that diverged from the Republican Party’s position on military intervention in Syria.

In the Obamacare study, we asked respondents whether they privately disagreed with the Republican Party’s position. We also measured how much they felt a sense of connection to the Republican Party. And we asked how concerned they were that their party’s stance on the issue would undermine its ability to win elections. All three mattered.

The three measures combined to predict how willing a respondent said he or she would be to publicly disagree with the GOP’s position on the Affordable Care Act. First, people had to actually disagree with the Republican Party’s position. Although most of our participants were aligned with their tribe, a sizable minority had qualms.

But disagreement by itself did not translate into willingness to publicly express apostate views. Individuals also had to identify strongly with the Republican Party. People who don’t feel particularly connected to their party can easily tune out, disengage and keep their concerns to themselves. But strongly identified party members feel an obligation to the group, a sense that even when dissent is personally risky, they cannot give up on the party.

And so in our survey, Republicans who felt strongly connected to their party reported greater willingness to speak out against their party’s position.

Counterintuitively, the strongest partisans are most likely to criticize the party’s positions

This might sound counterintuitive, since the people with the strongest partisan loyalties are also most likely to adopt party leaders’ positions on issues. But here’s what makes the difference: People who felt connected to the party were willing to express opposition only if they felt that their party’s position threatened the future of the Republican Party and its ability to win elections.

In other words, strongly connected Republicans were willing to speak out when they worried that their tribe’s future was in jeopardy.

Social psychologists call these sorts of concerns “collective angst.” Republicans are not alone in feeling collective angst. Members of many groups — including French Canadians, Israelis and Americans — experience collective angst. And for good reason. In the political context, parties rise and fall, come and go. When was the last time anyone voted for a Whig or Know-Nothing?

We observed similar effects in our second study, which focused on the Republican position that the United States should intervene militarily in Syria. We experimentally manipulated feelings of angst by highlighting poll data that would induce either concern or confidence about how the Republican Party’s position would influence its ability to win the next presidential election.

And indeed, we found evidence that collective angst can prompt political dissent. Individuals who identified strongly with the party were more willing to speak out only if they received the troubling polling data.

To be sure, Trump already has some prominent Republican critics: Sens. Lindsay O. Graham (S.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine) and The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, among others. But so far, overall, there’s not very much open intraparty dissent among party elites — and few Republican voters are abandoning their loyalty.

That could change. As political scientist John Aldrich has argued, when parties no longer serve the interests of ambitious politicians, elites and then voters will abandon them.

Full-scale breaking of ranks will depend on growing angst about party interests and the long-term viability of the Republican brand.

I think most Repugs have become soulless, so I think they'll continue to back Agent Orange.

[Audrey2]

@GreyhoundFan, of course the Republicans are angry at the four senators who had the courage to vocally break rank and speak out against this healthcare disaster. While I'm not fond of many Republicans, these four raised my esteem of them. I hope independents in their states take notice. They are willing to put the needs of their constituents above party. I respect them for that. They are Statesmen (and women) in the truest sense of the word.

[GreyhoundFan]

A good opinion piece: "Why Obamacare won and Trump lost"

Spoiler

The collapse of the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act is a monumental political defeat wrought by a party and a president that never took health-care policy or the need to bring coverage to millions of Americans seriously. But their bungling also demonstrates that the intense attention to Obamacare over the past six months has fundamentally altered our nation’s health-care debate.

Supporters of the 2010 law cannot rest easy as long as the current Congress remains in office and as long as Donald Trump occupies the White House. On Wednesday, the president demanded that the Senate keep at the work of repeal, and, in any event, Congress could undermine the act through sharp Medicaid cuts in the budget process and other measures. And Trump, placing his own self-esteem and political standing over the health and security of millions of Americans, has threatened to wreck the system.

“We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us,” Trump said after it became obvious that the Senate could not pass a bill. But if Obamacare does implode, it will not be under its own weight but because Trump and his team are taking specific administrative and legal steps to prevent it from working.

“I’m not going to own it,” Trump insisted. But he will. And if Trump does go down the path of policy nihilism, it will be the task of journalists to show that it is the president doing everything in his power to choke off this lifeline for the sick and the needy.

As long as “repeal Obamacare” was simply a slogan, what the law actually did was largely obscured behind attitudes toward the former president. But the Affordable Care Act’s core provisions were always broadly popular, particularly its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and the big increase in the number of insured it achieved. The prospect of losing these benefits moved many of the previously indifferent to resist its repeal. And the name doesn’t matter so much with Obama out of office.

To the surprise of some on both sides, the debate brought home the popularity of Medicaid, which for the first time received the sort of broad public defense usually reserved for Medicare and Social Security. The big cuts Republicans proposed to the program paradoxically highlighted how it assisted many parts of the population.

This creates an opening for a new push to expand Medicaid under the ACA in the 19 states that have resisted it, which would add 4 million to 5 million to the ranks of the insured.

Republicans also found, as they did during the budget battles of the 1990s, that when they tie their big tax cuts for the wealthy to substantial reductions in benefits for a much broader group of Americans, a large majority will turn on them and their tax proposals. For critics of the GOP’s tax-cutting obsession, said Jacob Leibenluft of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this episode underscores “the importance of making clear the trade-offs of Republican fiscal policy.” To win on tax cuts, the GOP has to disguise their effects — or pump up the deficit.

One Democratic senator told me early on that Republicans would be hurt by their lack of accumulated expertise on health care, since they largely avoided sweating the details in the original Obamacare debate after deciding early to oppose it. This showed. They had seven years after the law was passed and could not come up with a more palatable blueprint.

The popular mobilization against repeal mattered, too. With Republican senators discovering opposition to their party’s ideas in surprising places, pro-ACA activists drove two wedges into the Republican coalition.

One was between ideologues and pragmatic conservatives (Republican governors as well as senators) who worried about the impact of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s designs on their states.

The other divide was within Trump’s own constituency, a large share of which truly believed his pledge to make the system better. They were horrified to learn that they could be much worse off under the GOP proposal. A Post-ABC News poll this month found that 50 percent of Americans preferred Obamacare and only 24 percent picked the Republican bill. Trump’s approval ratings are dismal, but the GOP plan’s were even worse. Defectors in the Trump base may have been the silent killers of this flawed scheme.

And that is why a scorched-earth approach from the president would be both cruel and self-defeating. Americans now broadly support the basic principles of Obamacare. Republicans, including Trump, would do well to accommodate themselves to this reality.

Sadly, it seems like McTurtle and Trumplethinskin aren't giving up.

[fraurosena]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A good opinion piece: "Why Obamacare won and Trump lost"

  Hide contents

The collapse of the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act is a monumental political defeat wrought by a party and a president that never took health-care policy or the need to bring coverage to millions of Americans seriously. But their bungling also demonstrates that the intense attention to Obamacare over the past six months has fundamentally altered our nation’s health-care debate.

Supporters of the 2010 law cannot rest easy as long as the current Congress remains in office and as long as Donald Trump occupies the White House. On Wednesday, the president demanded that the Senate keep at the work of repeal, and, in any event, Congress could undermine the act through sharp Medicaid cuts in the budget process and other measures. And Trump, placing his own self-esteem and political standing over the health and security of millions of Americans, has threatened to wreck the system.

“We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us,” Trump said after it became obvious that the Senate could not pass a bill. But if Obamacare does implode, it will not be under its own weight but because Trump and his team are taking specific administrative and legal steps to prevent it from working.

“I’m not going to own it,” Trump insisted. But he will. And if Trump does go down the path of policy nihilism, it will be the task of journalists to show that it is the president doing everything in his power to choke off this lifeline for the sick and the needy.

As long as “repeal Obamacare” was simply a slogan, what the law actually did was largely obscured behind attitudes toward the former president. But the Affordable Care Act’s core provisions were always broadly popular, particularly its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and the big increase in the number of insured it achieved. The prospect of losing these benefits moved many of the previously indifferent to resist its repeal. And the name doesn’t matter so much with Obama out of office.

To the surprise of some on both sides, the debate brought home the popularity of Medicaid, which for the first time received the sort of broad public defense usually reserved for Medicare and Social Security. The big cuts Republicans proposed to the program paradoxically highlighted how it assisted many parts of the population.

This creates an opening for a new push to expand Medicaid under the ACA in the 19 states that have resisted it, which would add 4 million to 5 million to the ranks of the insured.

Republicans also found, as they did during the budget battles of the 1990s, that when they tie their big tax cuts for the wealthy to substantial reductions in benefits for a much broader group of Americans, a large majority will turn on them and their tax proposals. For critics of the GOP’s tax-cutting obsession, said Jacob Leibenluft of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this episode underscores “the importance of making clear the trade-offs of Republican fiscal policy.” To win on tax cuts, the GOP has to disguise their effects — or pump up the deficit.

One Democratic senator told me early on that Republicans would be hurt by their lack of accumulated expertise on health care, since they largely avoided sweating the details in the original Obamacare debate after deciding early to oppose it. This showed. They had seven years after the law was passed and could not come up with a more palatable blueprint.

The popular mobilization against repeal mattered, too. With Republican senators discovering opposition to their party’s ideas in surprising places, pro-ACA activists drove two wedges into the Republican coalition.

One was between ideologues and pragmatic conservatives (Republican governors as well as senators) who worried about the impact of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s designs on their states.

The other divide was within Trump’s own constituency, a large share of which truly believed his pledge to make the system better. They were horrified to learn that they could be much worse off under the GOP proposal. A Post-ABC News poll this month found that 50 percent of Americans preferred Obamacare and only 24 percent picked the Republican bill. Trump’s approval ratings are dismal, but the GOP plan’s were even worse. Defectors in the Trump base may have been the silent killers of this flawed scheme.

And that is why a scorched-earth approach from the president would be both cruel and self-defeating. Americans now broadly support the basic principles of Obamacare. Republicans, including Trump, would do well to accommodate themselves to this reality.

Sadly, it seems like McTurtle and Trumplethinskin aren't giving up.

Their persistence is going to be the undoing of the Repugliklans. Let's just hope that they don't do too much irreparable damage in the meantime. 

[nvmbr02]

8 hours ago, AuntK said:

  That said, I am sorry for his diagnosis; I'm not a doctor, but I had a friend who had the same diagnosis and she lived 6 months.

 

Yes, the prognosis for this type of cancer isn't generally good. I think I read most survive 12-18 months with treatment. There are some outliers of course, but it doesn't look very good for Sen. McCain with those types of statistics. 

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. We are coming up on the one year anniversary of my friend's sons death. Cancer just sucks. 

[ColeJo]

First, I would like to applaud you all for the appropriate response to McCain's cancer diagnosis. I know not everyone are the monsters that call this karma. Even in the midst of disagreement, humanity still exists.

Now for remarks about healthcare:

There are aspects of the ACA that I agree with. For example, being able to stay on my parents' policy. My health insurance also has prescription coverage, which is a godsend because I need medication for my depression.

However, this now dead bill was a giant heaping pile of fecal matter. With the state of our healthcare system, I just want to burn it all down. The ACA was not a patient center bill, it largely benefitted insurance companies because of the mandate. The Republican one wasn't any better.

I have seen people screwed by insurance companies and people not getting the care they need because of the up front cost of seeing a provider. My grandpa would have died much earlier than he did if he took the medications the VA prescribed for him even though the interactions were deadly. The e-prescriber system even said so.

[onekidanddone]

21 hours ago, nvmbr02 said:

I first became aware of the limits when my friend's son reached the limit at the age of 3, about 16 months after being diagnosed with a rare brain cancer. 

Reached the life time limit at three years old. I measure a society on how well it looks out for the most vulnerable. By that measure the Ruthugs are a complete failure.

[AuntK]

I never really thought much about Medicaid. (Unlike the presidunce, I do know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.) I was fortunate to have insurance through work, as did the rest of my family. My mother was on Medicare and had a great supplemental BCBS policy from my late father's job as a federal employee. The insurance was so good, she never even had a copay. 

Then, 7 years ago, my mom had a stroke. She seemed to recover, but her cognitive skills weren't great, so she moved in with me. She could take care of herself, dress herself, bathe, etc., she just was losing her vision, could no longer drive, and her memory was starting to fail. Slowly she began the decline, she was diagnosed with dementia, she could no longer take care of herself, and I needed help!  I never wanted to put my mother in a nursing home, but she could no longer walk to the bathroom, She would fall out of her bed, and I could not lift her!  I began looking at options, only to find her Medicare and insurance would pay very little toward her care, and the monthly charges in my area for a nice Assisted Living Facility were $8,000 -$10,000 per month!! My mother did not have that kind of income, nor did I.  That's when I discovered that many people who reach their mid 80s, like my mom, who have been financially comfortable and saved for retirement, paid insurance premiums for 60+ years are forced to turn to Medicaid, because they have outlived their savings and their insurance will not pay the astronomical cost of their care! What kind of a system is this? 

And to get ON Medicaid, there are innumerable hoops you must go through. However, unfortunately for my mom and me, she went into the hospital in October 2013 where she passed away.  While I still grieve over her loss, a part of me is grateful that I did not have to deal with the task of putting her in the facility.  Although I know it was necessary, it would have broken my heart. 

But, my point is. . . you never know when Medicaid may be your lifeline.  We can't accept these actions of a bunch of millionaires who have healthcare and cannot understand what it means to face a situation where you need assistance and cannot get it.  For many it is a life or death issue!

[GreyhoundFan]

Too bad it doesn't swallow them all up and deposit them on the uncharted desert island we discuss: "Republicans lament an agenda in 'quicksand'"

Spoiler

Sen. David Perdue persuaded Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week to scrap two weeks of August recess to advance President Donald Trump's agenda. But since then, the GOP’s Obamacare repeal effort has almost entirely collapsed — and the Republican to-do list remains just as long.

“We haven’t started the debt ceiling; we have to fund the government; we have to do the budget,” the Georgia Republican said. “I’m the one counting the days. I’m very nervous."

Republicans are plainly struggling to follow through on long-held campaign promises, with the plan to repeal and replace Obamacare the most prominent piece of the GOP's stalled agenda.

A long-delayed GOP budget is on the rocks in the House because of internal divisions — a disagreement that threatens to derail tax reform. House GOP leaders have also scaled back a sweeping spending plan full of red meat for the base, infuriating rank-and-file members who wanted something bigger to take home to constituents. And the House and Senate are nowhere near a plan to avoid a federal default.

“We’re in some quicksand right now. We just can’t seem to free ourselves,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.).

Trump, meanwhile, is starting to get angry, berating GOP senators for failing to repeal the 2010 health care law and demanding they stay in session until Obamacare is repealed. But some lawmakers are even starting to blame Trump for his handling of the Russia probe, Twitter feuds and attacks on the media.

"I don't even pay any attention to what is going on with the administration because I don't care. They're a distraction. The family is a distraction, the president is a distraction," complained Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "At first, it was 'Well yeah, this is the guy we elected. He'll learn, he'll learn.' And you just don't see that happening."

With their legislative achievement list short, some GOP lawmakers are making a last-ditch effort to put some points on the board before summer break. On Wednesday, for instance, Republican senators called an emergency meeting to try to save their health care bill. In the House, conservatives have started talking about a repeal-only vote of their own, hoping to go on record on the issue before they head back to their districts.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker said the conservative group’s Wednesday meeting “was basically a vent session, with a new level of frustration: health care, budget, thinking we could do all these appropriations and now finding out we’re going to do a security ‘mini-bus’” instead.

“If I was a constituent, I would be pressing for a whole lot more,” the North Carolina Republican said.

Some senators are also re-evaluating their tactics to ease the passage of tax reform and some are mulling a bipartisan fix on health care. Others are just praying that the House spending package set for floor consideration next week — which would fund Trump’s border wall with Mexico and give the Pentagon a spending increase — will keep the grass roots, and the president, at bay, even if it never passes the Senate.

But the crux of the problem is pretty clear six months into Trump’s presidency: Unified Republican control of government is a picture of complete disunity.

“We’ve got many rebellions in the party right now,” said Orrin Hatch of Utah, the most senior GOP senator. “Which is not unusual.”

Conservatives are angry at moderates for getting squeamish on Obamacare repeal, and other Republicans are livid at conservatives for pushing repeal without a replacement. House appropriators are mad at their leaders for scaling back their spending bill. And House leadership is ticked at conservatives for holding up the budget.

The GOP’s big-ticket agenda was always planned to be a one-two punch of party-line votes to repeal Obamacare and rewrite the tax code. The tax savings from Obamacare would ease tax reform, and the party’s use of budget reconciliation would allow the GOP to pass this agenda with simple majorities in both chambers.

But now those savings may be gone and the GOP’s momentum from a sweeping electoral win has faded.

“Health care is the high-profile issue. And right now we’re stalled out on that. I suppose people can get impressions about, at least at this point, our inability to complete that part of the agenda,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Republican in the chamber. “I don’t think it puts [us at] risk or in jeopardy in other elements of the agenda.”

In the House, Republicans are more demoralized about their own intra-conference wars. They don’t have 218 votes to pass a budget because conservatives want to move the blueprint further to the right while moderates want to move to the center.

House appropriators were particularly irked Wednesday after GOP leaders decided not to pursue an idea from Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) to pass a conservative spending plan that lays out Republican funding priorities before the recess. Leaders did a whip check for support on Monday and found a record amount of “undecided” votes — not enough for passage.

GOP leaders, worried about the optics of the government funding package failing on the floor, canned the idea and replaced it with the smaller version. But appropriators seethed that leaders pulled the plug too soon and didn’t give them enough time to muster up support.

“We worked really hard on these bills,” said appropriator Tom Rooney (R-Fla.). “The whole purpose of whipping is to be able to make your case so the fact that we did all this work and it’s not going anywhere is really frustrating.”

Now Republicans are thinking of changing their tactics to get tax reform done, hopeful that reform will bring their party together and increase the GOP’s popularity heading into the 2018 midterms.

Republican senators are hoping that Hatch and McConnell don’t go down the same road that produced a deadlocked GOP over health care. Republicans avoided public committee hearings and markups, fearful that the narrowly divided Senate panels might tank their effort entirely.

On tax reform, Thune and Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine all said they are hoping for a different process than on health care.

“Whether it's health care, tax reform or infrastructure, we ought to at least make a sincere effort to have open hearings, witnesses that will vet a variety of proposals and incorporate ideas on both sides,” Collins said.

“Tax reform is tough," Flake said. "But it’s not health care. Health care affects people in a different way. It’s the toughest. Tax reform is going to be a heavy lift. Nothing easy. Nothing easy. But that’s why they pay us the big bucks.”

But while they mull the big-picture agenda, the day-to-day governance is piling up. The debt ceiling must be lifted by the fall, and government funding runs out on Sept. 30, as does the flood insurance program and authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA bill, like almost everything these days, has been mired in the House amid GOP infighting. Leadership had to pull the legislation from the calendar, and even the White House — including Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn — has been unable to help it reach 218.

Asked whether additional recess days might need to be canceled for Republicans to get on the same page and make progress on their agenda, Perdue gave an unequivocal “Hell yeah.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Don’t get distracted: The GOP’s cruel health-care plan isn’t dead yet"

Spoiler

Focus, America, focus. The most urgent task right now is to make sure a stake is driven through the heart of the Republican effort to gut Medicaid and balloon the ranks of the uninsured.

I know that the Russia investigations are charging ahead, with Capitol Hill appearances by members of President Trump’s inner circle scheduled for next week. I know that Trump gave an unhinged interview to the New York Times on Wednesday, bizarrely undermining his own attorney general. I know that one of the few remaining giants in Washington, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has received a tough medical diagnosis.

There will be time to digest all of that. At present, however, health care is still the main event.

Keep in mind that this isn’t the first time the GOP’s gratuitously cruel effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act has looked dead. Back in March, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) called off a showdown vote and glumly declared, “We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.” But he managed to get a revised bill passed in May, prompting Trump to hold a sophomoric victory rally at the White House.

That bill would have caused 23 million people to lose health insurance over a decade and slashed Medicaid spending by more than $800 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The action then shifted to the Senate, which came up with legislation that would grow the numbers of uninsured by 22 million and cut Medicaid by $772 billion. Experts who tried to parse the details gave differing opinions on which version was more heartless.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s attempt to ram through his monstrosity collapsed in a heap this week, as both the far-right and moderate wings of the GOP caucus balked. In desperation, McConnell (R-Ky.) then proposed an approach that Trump once ruled out but now eagerly embraces: repeal the Affordable Care Act now and worry about replacing it later.

According to the CBO, taking the repeal-only route would mean 17 million more uninsured within a year and 32 million more in a decade. Insurance premiums would soar, and in more than half of the nation’s counties, there would be no insurers willing to service the individual market. Appalling.

McConnell’s gambit appeared to fail Tuesday when three GOP moderates — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) — announced they would vote no. Their stance means McConnell lacks the votes even to open debate on repeal-only, let alone pass it. That should be the end of the story.

But it would be a mistake to take anything for granted. Senate naysayers are under tremendous pressure to give in, and the reason has nothing to do with health care. It’s pure politics.

For seven long years, since the day the Affordable Care Act was passed, Republicans have been vowing to eradicate it “root and branch,” as McConnell likes to say. And for seven long years, the GOP has reaped political benefit from that categorical promise — while giving no serious thought to what a replacement system would look like.

Obamacare, you will recall, was once Romneycare; it was fashioned after a system that Mitt Romney successfully implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts. It is based on ideas originally developed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, ideas the Republican Party once liked — until President Barack Obama embraced them.

While Obama was in office, Republicans in Congress could blithely pass repeal bills knowing that the president would never sign them. Now that Trump sits in the Oval Office with pen in hand, however, repeal becomes a real possibility — as do the awful consequences.

McConnell says he will bring the bill up for a vote next week anyway. In effect, he threatens to call the opponents’ bluff. Fortunately, they do not appear to be bluffing. There is no indication that a lunch Wednesday for GOP senators at the White House — at which Trump basically threatened revenge against anyone who votes no — or a smaller gathering of senators that evening changed any minds.

But the right-wing message machine will continue to loudly accuse “no” voters of committing political treason. So it is more important than ever to remind senators that the repeal-and-replace bill is monumentally unpopular — a recent poll shows the approval rating at 13 percent — and that the legislation’s cost would be paid in human suffering. We would return to the days when medical expenses were the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

Keep the pressure on. The war is not yet won.

I'll definitely be making more calls tomorrow.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans are working to keep you from your day in court"

Spoiler

Normally, Republicans are in favor of giving consumers more choices.

Normally, Republicans are all about law and order.

And normally, Republicans claim to be strong defenders of the Constitution.

For some reason, though, the idea of giving consumers the choice to participate in a court of law — a right enshrined in the Seventh Amendment — leaves some GOP legislators quaking in their loafers.

That’s the implication of a resolution introduced in both the Senate and House on Thursday. While you were busy pondering President Trump’s views of Napoleon, members of Congress were working to keep you from your day in court.

Here’s the context.

When you get a new bank account, credit card, payday loan or auto lease, there’s a lot of fine print. Often, the fine print says that if the company harms you — say, charges you a questionable hidden fee, blocks your ability to access your own money or opens a sham account in your name without your knowledge — you can’t sue it in court.

Instead, you have to resolve the dispute outside the court system, bound by a decision made by a private individual rather than a judge or jury. Sometimes this private individual, called an arbitrator, is selected and paid by the very company that you believe ripped you off. 

Which does not exactly suggest they’re a neutral party.

Another consequence of this fine print — called a “forced arbitration clause” — is that it prevents you from bringing or joining a class-action suit against the company that harmed you. That’s true no matter how many other people were victimized by the exact same company, even if they were victimized in the exact same way.

Wells Fargo, for example, opened millions of fake accounts in the names of unsuspecting customers. But because these consumers had other accounts that included forced-arbitration clauses, Wells Fargo repeatedly tried to use this fine print to  block class-action suits over those bogus accounts.

The Wells Fargo case is perhaps the most notorious recent example, but there are lots of others. Tens of millions of Americans are bound by these forced-arbitration clauses, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The vast majority don’t realize they’ve signed away their rights until something goes wrong.

Removing the ability to join a class-action suit is a big deal. Joining others who have been harmed is often the only sensible strategy if the harms are small but widespread.

As federal Judge Richard Posner once wrote, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

Once upon a time, Congress recognized that the proliferation of mandatory-arbitration clauses was a problem.

As part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, Congress gave the newly created CFPB the authority to ban or limit forced arbitration in connection with consumer financial products or services, though the law said the agency had to do a study first.

Since then, the CFPB has conducted two studies examining the prevalence of these clauses, and their effects on consumers and the financial system. After an extended comment period, the agency issued a final rule this month saying such clauses can no longer be used to block class-action suits.

Consumers can still go through arbitration if they wish. But they also now have the option of banding together with other consumers if a lot of people have been hurt similarly.

In other words, the CFPB gave consumers more choices. 

Which, again, sounds like something Republicans should support.

Instead, on Thursday, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) announced legislation to kill the CFPB rule using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to nullify executive-branch regulations by a simple majority vote, so long as they act within 60 legislative days.

The Trump administration also appears to be developing a Plan B, should Congress not act in time.

A Trump appointee, the acting comptroller of the currency, has suggested he might try to obstruct the rule through a regulatory route, based on the absurd argument that the rule could threaten the stability of the financial system.

Note that the CFPB’s rule only applies to financial products and services, since those are what falls under the agency’s jurisdiction. The Trump administration has meanwhile also begun to repeal or reexamine other Obama-era regulations designed to curb forced arbitration for disputes involving nursing homes and for-profit schools.

So much for the president’s pledge to look out for the little guy.

And the fun continues.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

So much for the president’s pledge to look out for the little guy.

Aww, did they think he was actually talking about people? Of course not. He's the narcissistic toddler after all.

He was referring to a certain part of his anatomy.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Health 202: Republicans can run from health care debate, but they can't hide"

Spoiler

As much as Republicans might like to move past the toxicity of Washington's health-care debate for a bit, they just can’t – not with big, outstanding questions about Obamacare’s future still staring them in the face.

Senate Republicans will still cast some form of health-care vote next week, GOP leadership says, although we're not exactly sure on what. The aim could still be to bring to the floor a bill replacing big parts of the Affordable Care Act. Or, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) might substitute in a bill repealing the law. Either way, the vote is expected to fail the way things stand right now. Too many conservatives and moderates are still too uncomfortable with the whole thing. But if and when McConnell's attempt fails, that doesn't mean Republicans are rid of their health-care problems.

Enrollment in the state-based marketplaces – where about 11 million Americans buy insurance – starts in just three months, and hundreds of counties will have just one or no plan options under present conditions. They'll be looking at the first full sign-up season with Republicans holding both the White House and Congress, putting them under heavy pressure to ensure Americans have insurance options – or otherwise bear the blame if they don’t.

Then there’s the question of who will actually sign up. How Republicans approach enforcing the individual mandate and funding extra cost-sharing subsidies will have significant influence on the resiliency of the marketplaces – that is, who enrolls and whether insurers are able to start breaking even.

Right after enrollment season ends, there's another ACA element that will be implemented under the law -- a tax on health insurers is set to start up again in January after Congress suspended it for 2017. Bombarded by opposition from the insurance industry, which argues the tax will force it to hike premiums, it’s up to Republicans to either delay the levy again, repeal it or let it take effect.

Regardless of President Trump's insistence that he won't be blamed for problems with a system he is charged with implementing, polling suggests otherwise. Sixty-one percent of respondents to an April Kaiser Family Foundation poll said Republicans are responsible for any ACA problems going forward compared to 31 percent who said such issues would still be Democrats' fault.

The bottom line is this: Ignoring health care after the party’s embarrassing meltdown on an Obamacare replacement isn’t an option for the GOP. Here’s a quick run-down of their decision list:

1. Whether to fund cost-sharing subsidies

Depending on how a court case plays out, congressional Republicans will likely have to decide whether marketplace insurers will continue receiving an extra bucket of payments to cover cost-sharing discounts they’re required to give the lowest-income enrollees.

Called cost-sharing reductions, or CSR’s, these payments represent about 18 percent of the total subsidy payments marketplace insurers get from the federal government in order to lower costs for poorer Americans.

The problem is that while the premium subsidies are funded by the ACA, the CSRs require an appropriation from Congress, a federal judge has ruled. The Trump administration has been making the payments month-to-month for now, but if the ruling stands, Congress would have to shell out.

The CSR’s are a hefty chunk of change, so if insurers don’t get certainty about the payments, more are likely to withdraw from the marketplaces next year and beyond, worsening the situation for millions of Americans shopping there.

“I think everyone involved in this -- state regulators and insurers and consumer groups and provider groups – agree they need to do something about the cost-sharing reduction payments,” Tim Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University, told me. “That’s the single threat by far to the individual market.”

And the marketplace situation is already tenuous in parts of the country. Unless more insurers join last-minute (they have until Sept. 27 to submit final plans to the feds), 40 counties will have no plan options and some 1,300 counties will have only one option in 2018, according to data released Wednesday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

2. Whether to enforce the individual mandate

Insurers have warned Congress that healthy people must have incentives to buy coverage if the marketplace are going to work as intended. The IRS still accepted tax returns this year that failed to indicate whether a person had health coverage – but it hasn’t indicated whether it will crack down for next year.

How strictly the federal government enforces the mandate and other rules around when people can enroll all plays into the overall environment of the marketplaces and insurers’ calculations. Several major insurers have already withdrawn entirely, and more are warning they’ll exit too if the marketplaces don’t eventually become self-sustaining.

“Clarity around the rule set,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told me in an interview last week, when asked what his company is seeking from policy-makers. Cigna sold plans in seven states this year, but hasn’t yet announced its plans for 2018.

Cordani said that encompasses a range of policies – from the individual mandate to CSR's to how enrollment will be handled.

“The marketplace is a basket of rules and a basket of standards and a basket of approaches,” Cordani said. “How that basket gets refreshed, changed or solidified is what’s most important.”

3. Whether to repeal – or keep – Obamacare’s sales tax on insurance plans

Dubbed the “HIT” by the insurance industry, plans are arguing that the tax will force them to hike premiums and undermine the overall goal of bringing down health-care costs. America’s Health Insurance Plans cites a study by Oliver Wyman that found the tax would cause employers to pay $210 more per employee and families to pay $530 more per year on average.

This argument has gained traction with Democrats and Republicans alike, who agreed to suspend the tax for one year in a budget bill they passed at the end of 2015. Insurers are pressing for Congress to either suspend the tax again or repeal it entirely. They paid $11.3 billion in 2016, but that’s expected to be 26 percent higher – around $14.3 billion – next year. If Republicans allow the tax to go into effect under their watch, they could suffer industry backlash.

UnitedHealth Group CEO Steve Hemsley raised the issue on an earnings call on Tuesday, saying it would hurt marketplace stability.

“The return of the tax…would further destabilize the market, which is already fragile,” Hemsley said. “And make that market less affordable.”

...

I've called my senators' offices to say how important it is to continue to push for the ACA and not let the Repugs continue to play games. The staffers told me that they are still getting flooded with calls. We have to keep pushing.

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The Health 202: Republicans can run from health care debate, but they can't hide"

  Hide contents

As much as Republicans might like to move past the toxicity of Washington's health-care debate for a bit, they just can’t – not with big, outstanding questions about Obamacare’s future still staring them in the face.

Senate Republicans will still cast some form of health-care vote next week, GOP leadership says, although we're not exactly sure on what. The aim could still be to bring to the floor a bill replacing big parts of the Affordable Care Act. Or, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) might substitute in a bill repealing the law. Either way, the vote is expected to fail the way things stand right now. Too many conservatives and moderates are still too uncomfortable with the whole thing. But if and when McConnell's attempt fails, that doesn't mean Republicans are rid of their health-care problems.

Enrollment in the state-based marketplaces – where about 11 million Americans buy insurance – starts in just three months, and hundreds of counties will have just one or no plan options under present conditions. They'll be looking at the first full sign-up season with Republicans holding both the White House and Congress, putting them under heavy pressure to ensure Americans have insurance options – or otherwise bear the blame if they don’t.

Then there’s the question of who will actually sign up. How Republicans approach enforcing the individual mandate and funding extra cost-sharing subsidies will have significant influence on the resiliency of the marketplaces – that is, who enrolls and whether insurers are able to start breaking even.

Right after enrollment season ends, there's another ACA element that will be implemented under the law -- a tax on health insurers is set to start up again in January after Congress suspended it for 2017. Bombarded by opposition from the insurance industry, which argues the tax will force it to hike premiums, it’s up to Republicans to either delay the levy again, repeal it or let it take effect.

Regardless of President Trump's insistence that he won't be blamed for problems with a system he is charged with implementing, polling suggests otherwise. Sixty-one percent of respondents to an April Kaiser Family Foundation poll said Republicans are responsible for any ACA problems going forward compared to 31 percent who said such issues would still be Democrats' fault.

The bottom line is this: Ignoring health care after the party’s embarrassing meltdown on an Obamacare replacement isn’t an option for the GOP. Here’s a quick run-down of their decision list:

1. Whether to fund cost-sharing subsidies

Depending on how a court case plays out, congressional Republicans will likely have to decide whether marketplace insurers will continue receiving an extra bucket of payments to cover cost-sharing discounts they’re required to give the lowest-income enrollees.

Called cost-sharing reductions, or CSR’s, these payments represent about 18 percent of the total subsidy payments marketplace insurers get from the federal government in order to lower costs for poorer Americans.

The problem is that while the premium subsidies are funded by the ACA, the CSRs require an appropriation from Congress, a federal judge has ruled. The Trump administration has been making the payments month-to-month for now, but if the ruling stands, Congress would have to shell out.

The CSR’s are a hefty chunk of change, so if insurers don’t get certainty about the payments, more are likely to withdraw from the marketplaces next year and beyond, worsening the situation for millions of Americans shopping there.

“I think everyone involved in this -- state regulators and insurers and consumer groups and provider groups – agree they need to do something about the cost-sharing reduction payments,” Tim Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University, told me. “That’s the single threat by far to the individual market.”

And the marketplace situation is already tenuous in parts of the country. Unless more insurers join last-minute (they have until Sept. 27 to submit final plans to the feds), 40 counties will have no plan options and some 1,300 counties will have only one option in 2018, according to data released Wednesday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

2. Whether to enforce the individual mandate

Insurers have warned Congress that healthy people must have incentives to buy coverage if the marketplace are going to work as intended. The IRS still accepted tax returns this year that failed to indicate whether a person had health coverage – but it hasn’t indicated whether it will crack down for next year.

How strictly the federal government enforces the mandate and other rules around when people can enroll all plays into the overall environment of the marketplaces and insurers’ calculations. Several major insurers have already withdrawn entirely, and more are warning they’ll exit too if the marketplaces don’t eventually become self-sustaining.

“Clarity around the rule set,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told me in an interview last week, when asked what his company is seeking from policy-makers. Cigna sold plans in seven states this year, but hasn’t yet announced its plans for 2018.

Cordani said that encompasses a range of policies – from the individual mandate to CSR's to how enrollment will be handled.

“The marketplace is a basket of rules and a basket of standards and a basket of approaches,” Cordani said. “How that basket gets refreshed, changed or solidified is what’s most important.”

3. Whether to repeal – or keep – Obamacare’s sales tax on insurance plans

Dubbed the “HIT” by the insurance industry, plans are arguing that the tax will force them to hike premiums and undermine the overall goal of bringing down health-care costs. America’s Health Insurance Plans cites a study by Oliver Wyman that found the tax would cause employers to pay $210 more per employee and families to pay $530 more per year on average.

This argument has gained traction with Democrats and Republicans alike, who agreed to suspend the tax for one year in a budget bill they passed at the end of 2015. Insurers are pressing for Congress to either suspend the tax again or repeal it entirely. They paid $11.3 billion in 2016, but that’s expected to be 26 percent higher – around $14.3 billion – next year. If Republicans allow the tax to go into effect under their watch, they could suffer industry backlash.

UnitedHealth Group CEO Steve Hemsley raised the issue on an earnings call on Tuesday, saying it would hurt marketplace stability.

“The return of the tax…would further destabilize the market, which is already fragile,” Hemsley said. “And make that market less affordable.”

...

I've called my senators' offices to say how important it is to continue to push for the ACA and not let the Repugs continue to play games. The staffers told me that they are still getting flooded with calls. We have to keep pushing.

Another example of how sneaky McTurtle is. With everyone's attention on Manafort's, Jared's and Junior's testimonies next week, he's probably betting he can pull a fast one without anyone noticing.

[fraurosena]

 --- er, what a sorry ass bunch of cretins.

JOHN MCCAIN CANCER IS ‘GODLY JUSTICE’ FOR CHALLENGING TRUMP, ALT-RIGHT CLAIMS

Spoiler

Most Americans met Wednesday night’s news that Arizona Senator John McCain was facing a dire diagnosis of brain cancer with shows of respect for the elder statesman and former prisoner of war. But to some on the extreme right, the longtime Republican is a traitor worthy of scorn, presumably because of his willingness to work with Democrats, as well as his criticism of President Donald Trump.

The attack on McCain--a war hero who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison—is faintly reminiscent of the early days of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a family values summit in Iowa in the summer of 2015, just a month after he’d announced his seemingly quixotic bid for the White House, Trump lashed out at McCain: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” 

At the time, Trump was angry because McCain had complained that Trump "fired up the crazies" during an anti-immigration rally in Phoenix.

Trump has in no way endorsed or encouraged the alt-right’s attacks on McCain, which have thus far been limited to the fringes of digital discourse. Trump sent a statement of support for McCain on Wednesday. "Senator John McCain has always been a fighter. Melania and I send our thoughts and prayers to Senator McCain, Cindy, and their entire family. Get well soon," that statement said.

The attacks came regardless.

“The last president for McCain will be Trump. There’s some godly justice right there,” wrote one user on the “Politically Incorrect” message board of social media network 4chan, a hothouse of right-wing memes.

“I’m pretty sure that God is punishing him,” wrote another 4chan user. “God made it pretty clear that he supports New Right now.”

"John McCain = a war mongering, never Trumper whom I dislike," wrote a user on Gab, another social media network popular with the alt-right.

The attacks, for the most part, focused on McCain’s willingness to work with Democrats during his three decades in the Senate. Those attacks, some of which are too tasteless to mention here, speak to the utter debasement of civic discourse, particularly on the internet.

On Twitter, some called McCain a cuck.

Cuck is short for cuckservative, a portmanteau that combines cuckold and conservative. As the Southern Poverty Law Center explained, the imprecation “aims to depict conservatives who don’t kowtow to ultra-right political views as inept traitors to the conservative base that elected them.”

“Any death of a genuine eternal cuck should be celebrated. John McCain's passing, assuming he passes, will do our race a lot of good and that's what matters,” wrote a user on Reddit.

The vitriol against McCain seems especially striking given his record of military service, as well as his leadership of the Republican Party. The attackers, it would seem, have more fealty to alt-right mascot Pepe the Frog than to the GOP’s iconic elephant.

Mike Cernovich, among the most vociferous members of the alt-right, implicitly defended such attacks on McCain with a tweet:

“He’s a traitor and a psychopath,” one responder said. “His interests are of the globalists. They all need to die, faster the better. Then we straighten things out.”

 

 How very Christian of them to wish for the death of someone just because they don't agree with you. 

[GrumpyGran]

16 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

 --- er, what a sorry ass bunch of cretins.

JOHN MCCAIN CANCER IS ‘GODLY JUSTICE’ FOR CHALLENGING TRUMP, ALT-RIGHT CLAIMS

  Hide contents

Most Americans met Wednesday night’s news that Arizona Senator John McCain was facing a dire diagnosis of brain cancer with shows of respect for the elder statesman and former prisoner of war. But to some on the extreme right, the longtime Republican is a traitor worthy of scorn, presumably because of his willingness to work with Democrats, as well as his criticism of President Donald Trump.

The attack on McCain--a war hero who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison—is faintly reminiscent of the early days of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a family values summit in Iowa in the summer of 2015, just a month after he’d announced his seemingly quixotic bid for the White House, Trump lashed out at McCain: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” 

At the time, Trump was angry because McCain had complained that Trump "fired up the crazies" during an anti-immigration rally in Phoenix.

Trump has in no way endorsed or encouraged the alt-right’s attacks on McCain, which have thus far been limited to the fringes of digital discourse. Trump sent a statement of support for McCain on Wednesday. "Senator John McCain has always been a fighter. Melania and I send our thoughts and prayers to Senator McCain, Cindy, and their entire family. Get well soon," that statement said.

The attacks came regardless.

“The last president for McCain will be Trump. There’s some godly justice right there,” wrote one user on the “Politically Incorrect” message board of social media network 4chan, a hothouse of right-wing memes.

“I’m pretty sure that God is punishing him,” wrote another 4chan user. “God made it pretty clear that he supports New Right now.”

"John McCain = a war mongering, never Trumper whom I dislike," wrote a user on Gab, another social media network popular with the alt-right.

The attacks, for the most part, focused on McCain’s willingness to work with Democrats during his three decades in the Senate. Those attacks, some of which are too tasteless to mention here, speak to the utter debasement of civic discourse, particularly on the internet.

On Twitter, some called McCain a cuck.

Cuck is short for cuckservative, a portmanteau that combines cuckold and conservative. As the Southern Poverty Law Center explained, the imprecation “aims to depict conservatives who don’t kowtow to ultra-right political views as inept traitors to the conservative base that elected them.”

“Any death of a genuine eternal cuck should be celebrated. John McCain's passing, assuming he passes, will do our race a lot of good and that's what matters,” wrote a user on Reddit.

The vitriol against McCain seems especially striking given his record of military service, as well as his leadership of the Republican Party. The attackers, it would seem, have more fealty to alt-right mascot Pepe the Frog than to the GOP’s iconic elephant.

Mike Cernovich, among the most vociferous members of the alt-right, implicitly defended such attacks on McCain with a tweet:

“He’s a traitor and a psychopath,” one responder said. “His interests are of the globalists. They all need to die, faster the better. Then we straighten things out.”

 

 How very Christian of them to wish for the death of someone just because they don't agree with you. 

Never doubt the existence of pure evil. This is the Trump base, people(?) who believe they are superior, entitled and infallible. When expressing hatred and a hope of suffering for another human excites you, there is something seriously wrong with you. You are a danger to everyone around you and you are incapable of making rational decisions.

[fraurosena]

30 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Never doubt the existence of pure evil. This is the Trump base, people(?) who believe they are superior, entitled and infallible. When expressing hatred and a hope of suffering for another human excites you, there is something seriously wrong with you. You are a danger to everyone around you and you are incapable of making rational decisions.

And this is why it should be their votes that are suppressed.

[GreyhoundFan]

Cue the tweetstorm: "Parliamentarian deals setback to GOP repeal bill"

Spoiler

Major portions of the Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare will require 60 votes, according to the Senate parliamentarian, meaning they are unlikely to survive on the floor.

The parliamentarian has advised senators that several parts of the bill could be stripped out, according to a document released Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. (Read the guidance here.)

The provisions that would likely be removed include polices important to conservatives, such as restrictions on tax credits being used for insurance plans that cover abortion.

Language in the bill defunding Planned Parenthood for a year also violates budget rules, according to the parliamentarian. That guidance is sure to anger anti-abortion groups who backed the bill specifically because of those provisions.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said it was "obvious" that the defunding provision would be a violation of the reconciliation rules.

"No amount of legislative sleight of hand will change the fact that the primary motivation here is to pursue a social agenda by targeting Planned Parenthood," the group said.

The parliamentarian has also not yet ruled on a controversial amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would allow insurers to sell plans that do not meet ObamaCare regulations. If that provision were struck, conservative support for the bill would be in doubt.

Republicans are trying to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their healthcare bill with only a simple majority. The provisions deemed impermissible under that process can be stripped if a senator on the floor raises an objection.

Democrats would be virtually certain to deny Republicans the 60 votes they would need to keep portions of the bill intact.

The result is that the arcane rules of the Senate could end up making the bill harder for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass.

A spokesman for McConnell was quick to point out that the parliamentarian only provides guidance on the legislation to help inform subsequent drafts. The bill will have to change before it gets to the floor if Republicans want to salvage any of provisions in question. 

GOP leaders have said they want to vote on a procedural motion to begin debate on ObamaCare repeal legislation early next week. However, it's still not clear if they have the votes, or which legislation they will be voting on; the replacement bill, or repeal-only legislation. 

Some conservatives were already questioning Friday why the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, would rule against Planned Parenthood defunding, when that provision was allowed under reconciliation in 2015. 

A spokesman for Sanders said the guidance has changed because it is now clear that Planned Parenthood would be the only organization affected by the defunding language.

"It passed last time because there was at least a question that other entities could be affected by the language," the spokesman said. "In the interim, Republicans have not been able to show that any entity other than Planned Parenthood is affected, and the new [Congressional Budget Office] score confirms that."

In a blow to the insurance industry, the parliamentarian has advised that two key market stabilization provisions in the bill would be against the rules. First, the legislation can't appropriate the cost-sharing reduction subsidies insurers rely on to keep premiums and deductibles low; it can only repeal them. 

Additionally, a "lockout" provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance also violates the rules, according to the guidance.

The provision was added to the bill to address concerns that people would only sign up for health insurance when they're sick, if insurers are still prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The parliamentarian also advised that a specific provision dealing with New York State's Medicaid program would be a violation of the rules. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seized on that decision.

"The parliamentarian made clear that state-specific provisions" violate the rules, Schumer said. "This will greatly tie the majority leader’s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions. We will challenge every one of them.”

A little bit of hope that the zombie McTurtlecare plan will finally die.

[fraurosena]

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[candygirl200413]

Lol he is so funny! Cause so many people in congress give no fucks about their constituents and need to past their horrible legislation.

[fraurosena]

Now how will the toddler react to this then?

Congress Reaches Deal on Russia Sanctions, Creating Tough Choice for Trump

Spoiler

Congressional leaders have reached an agreement on sweeping sanctions legislation to punish Russia for its election meddling and aggression toward its neighbors, they said Saturday, defying the White House’s argument that President Trump needs flexibility to adjust the sanctions to fit his diplomatic initiatives with Moscow.

The new legislation sharply limits the president’s ability to suspend or terminate the sanctions — a remarkable handcuffing by a Republican-led Congress six months into Mr. Trump’s tenure. It is also the latest Russia-tinged turn for a presidency consumed by investigations into the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian officials last year.

Mr. Trump could soon face a decision: veto the bill — a move that would fuel accusations that he is doing the bidding of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — or sign legislation imposing sanctions his administration abhors.

“A nearly united Congress is poised to send President Putin a clear message on behalf of the American people and our allies, and we need President Trump to help us deliver that message,” said Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The White House has not publicly spoken about the compromise legislation. But two senior administration officials said they could not imagine Mr. Trump vetoing the legislation in the current political atmosphere, even if he regards it as interfering with his executive authority to conduct foreign policy. But as ever, Mr. Trump retains the capacity to surprise, and this would be his first decision about whether to veto a significant bill.

Congress has complicated his choice because the legislation also encompasses new sanctions against Iran and North Korea, two countries the administration has been eager to punish for its activities.

A sanctions package had stalled in the Republican-led House for weeks after winning near-unanimous support in the Senate last month. Democrats accused Republicans of delaying quick action on the bill at the behest of the Trump administration, which had asked for more flexibility in its relationship with Russia and took up the cause of energy companies, defense contractors and other financial players who suggested that certain provisions could harm American businesses.

The House version of the bill includes a small number of changes, technical and substantive, from the Senate legislation, including some made in response to concerns raised by oil and gas companies.

But for the most part, the Republican leadership appears to have rejected most of the White House’s objections. The bill aims to punish Russia not only for interference in the election but also for its annexation of Crimea, continuing military activity in eastern Ukraine and human rights abuses. Proponents of the measure seek to impose sanctions on people involved in human rights abuses, suppliers of weapons to the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and those undermining cybersecurity, among others.

Paired with the sanctions against Iran and North Korea, the House version of the bill was set for a vote on Tuesday, according to the office of Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the chamber’s majority leader.

For months, lawmakers have agreed on the need to punish Russia, separating the issue from others, such as immigration and health care, that have been subject to partisan wheel-spinning. The unity has placed Republicans in the unusual position of undercutting their own president on a particularly sensitive subject.

Yet politically, the collaboration delivers benefits to members of both parties. Democrats have sought to make Russia pay for its interference in the 2016 election, which many of them believe contributed to Mr. Trump’s triumph over Hillary Clinton. And Republicans, who have long placed an aggressive stance toward Russia at the center of their foreign policy, can quiet critics who have suggested they are shielding the president from scrutiny by failing to embrace the sanctions.

There are still hurdles to clear. Neither Speaker Paul D. Ryan nor Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, immediately issued statements on Saturday to give the agreements their blessing.

Mr. Cardin said that though he would have preferred full adoption of the Senate version, “I welcome the House bill, which was the product of intense negotiations.”

He said the legislation would “express solidarity with our closest allies in countering Russian aggression and holding the Kremlin accountable for their destabilizing activities.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said he expected this “strong” bill to reach the president’s desk promptly “on a broad bipartisan basis.”

In the House, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the minority whip, praised the agreement’s stipulation that “the majority and minority are able to exercise our oversight role over the administration’s implementation of sanctions.”

But Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, struck a notably different tone. In a statement, she said she was “concerned by changes insisted upon by Republicans” that would empower Republican leadership only to “originate actions in the House to prevent the Trump administration from rolling back sanctions.”

She also registered concerns about adding sanctions against North Korea to the package, questioning whether it would prompt delays in the Senate. Mr. Schumer and Mr. Cardin expressed no such concerns.

The delays in the House became a source of deep frustration among some Russia hawks, including Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, before he left Washington for medical treatment for a brain tumor.

“Pass it, for Christ’s sake,” he said to his House colleagues, as the measure languished last week over technical concerns raised mostly by Republicans.

As House Republican leaders like Mr. Ryan chafed at the suggestion that they were doing the White House’s bidding by not taking up the measure immediately, the administration sought to pressure members by insisting that the legislation would unduly hamstring the president.

Officials argued that Mr. Trump would be sharply constrained — deprived of the power to ease or lift the sanctions as he saw fit. The White House pushed to remove language giving Congress the ability to block such actions.

What a difficult choice. Will he give in to his love of signing bills and accompanying photo-op? Or will he use his veto power and save his bestie, just to show us all how mighty and powerful and presiduncial he is? 

[GreyhoundFan]

McTurtle won't give up: "McConnell's last-ditch Obamacare strategy"

Spoiler

Talking is no longer working. It's time to vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking the rare step of forcing his members to take a tough vote on an Obamacare repeal bill, H.R. 1628 (115), that is on track to fail, making them own their votes.

Senior Senate Republicans believe the high-profile vote expected Tuesday — followed by conservative backlash over the GOP's failure to fulfill its seven-year campaign pledge — might provoke enough heat from the base to bring senators back to the negotiating table.

It seems like a long shot. But McConnell may be playing the long game — making his members walk the plank not as an act of desperation but as part of a strategy that just might work. He’s used it before to get what he wants.

If the vote fails, “I don’t think it’s over,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate leadership. "We’re going to need a little longer runway to get to 50 votes on something.“

"Even if we fail on the procedural vote next week," Thune added," all that really does is say 'OK, we’ll regroup and then take another run at this.'”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been demanding McConnell hold a vote on a repeal-only bill, agrees. “We can do this for quite a while,” he said.

McConnell has used this approach before. In May 2015 he forced multiple votes that ultimately granted then-President Barack Obama fast-track trade powers during negotiation of a massive Pacific Rim trade deal.

This time, the vote comes after months of discussion on repeal legislation that hasn't garnered support from 50 senators.

If the strategy doesn't bring senators back to the table, the vote could demarcate a decisive end to at least the public Obamacare repeal debate for some time. That would allow the Senate, which has already spent two months trying to dismantle and replace the health law, to move on and notch some legislative wins. Many are more than ready to turn to other priorities, like tax reform.

Still, holding a doomed vote is unusual for McConnell, who typically goes to great lengths to protect his members from politically difficult votes.

“Everybody has to be held personally accountable,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who has been furiously whipping the repeal effort. “Everybody is a good enough politician that if they’ve got a reason to justify their vote, they’ll be able to sell that.”

The vote Tuesday will be to start debate on Obamacare repeal. But it is unclear as of now which bill would serve as the actual policy — an extremely unusual move. McConnell said earlier this week the Senate would vote on a repeat of a 2015 bill that repealed much of the health care law. Since then, senators have floated the idea of voting on multiple options, including repeal, the Senate’s repeal-and-replace measure or a combination of these and other policies.

That would be moot if the Senate doesn't even vote to start debate.

With at least two senators having announced they would oppose proceeding to the bill — and the expected absence of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was diagnosed with a brain tumor — the vote is likely to fail without major last minute changes. Leaders have opened the door to the idea that if the margin is narrow, they could vote again when McCain could return to Washington. Given his diagnosis, it's not clear when that could happen.

Senate Republicans have other reasons to stop the political bleeding over repeal. They want to move on to tax reform but they also have health care bills that must pass in the coming months, including renewing the Children’s Health Insurance Program and a pivotal FDA funding program. The Obamacare debacle could affect those other bills.

The decision to hold a vote — versus just pulling the bill from the floor without forcing members to go on the record — will be more difficult for some senators than others.

It could be the biggest liability for Republicans who supported a 2015 repeal bill — which Obama vetoed — and now won’t support the same measure. All Republicans currently in office besides Sen. Susan Collins of Maine supported it.

“We’re going to find out if there’s hypocrisy in the United States Senate in the next few days,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “I don’t believe in situational ethics. So if you thought it was a good idea to repeal when we had a president that probably would not have accepted it, what’s wrong with repealing it now when we have a president who would sign it into law?”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who is not up for reelection until 2020 in a conservative state, argued that "circumstances have changed” since she voted to repeal the law in 2015 and that she “would hope” voters understand her argument. For instance, expanded Medicaid has played a big role in combating the opioid epidemic in her state.

“People’s minds change and circumstances change,” Capito said. “And as time goes on, that’s what’s happened and you know, I gotta do what I think is the right thing to do.” She doesn't want to vote on a repeal until she sees a replacement measure for the Affordable Care Act.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who may face a competitive reelection bid next year, dismissed suggestions that voting for a straight repeal of the 2010 health care law could hurt his prospects.

“I’ve already voted on it. I’m fine with it,” Flake said in an interview. “All I can say is, if it comes up, I’ll vote for it. There have been so many votes on this over the years that if your opponents want to paint you one way or another, there’s lots of fodder they can use.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow, this woman is a Repug through and through. "McCain’s primary rival urges him to step aside after diagnosis — and suggests she could replace him"

Spoiler

A day after news came out about Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) brain cancer diagnosis, his onetime political opponent urged the ailing senator to think about his political future sooner rather than later — and expressed interest in the possibility of her taking over his Senate seat.

“I hope Sen. McCain is going to look long and hard at this, that his family and his advisers are going to look at this, and they’re going to advise him to step away as quickly as possible, so that the business of the country and the business of Arizona being represented at the federal level can move forward,” Kelli Ward, who lost to McCain in last year’s Republican primary and is now running to unseat U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), said Thursday during an interview with an Indiana radio station.

In a statement posted later on her website, Ward said McCain’s cancer is “both devastating and debilitating” and he “owes it to the people of Arizona to step aside” when he’s no longer able to perform his duties.

McCain’s office announced Wednesday that he’d been diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer. The diagnosis, which followed a surgery to remove a blood clot above the left eye, raised questions about when and if he will go back to the Senate.

McCain isn’t up for reelection until 2022. He also had not indicated that he will relinquish his seat because of his health, even assuring in a recent tweet that he’ll be “back soon.”

Still, the possibility of him leaving was raised in Ward’s interview. Host Pat Miller asked Ward, a family physician and a former Arizona state senator, about whether she believes McCain will be able to return to Washington.

“I would never presume to say what someone’s prognosis is without having examined them. As a Christian, I know there can always be miracles. But the likelihood that John McCain is going to be able to come back to the Senate and be at full force for the people of our state and the people of the United States is low,” said Ward.

Ward went on to talk about what Arizona law requires in the event that McCain does leave office. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) will have to appoint someone from the same party to fill the vacancy until the 2018 general election.

Asked if her name is getting “thrown in the hat” as a possible replacement, Ward said: “Well, you know, I certainly hope so. Because, you know, I have a proven track record from years in the state Senate of being extremely effective and of listening to the voice of the people that I represent.”

Ward added that she proved to be a worthy challenger against McCain last year. (She came in second, with 39.2 percent of the primary vote.)

“We can’t wait until the 2018 election waiting around to accomplish the Trump agenda, to secure the border and stop illegal immigration and repeal Obamacare and fix the economy and fix the veterans administration,” she said. “All those things need to be done, and we can’t be at a standstill while we wait for John McCain to determine what he’s going to do.”

Ward was immediately slammed by critics, who viewed her comments as insensitive, self-serving and opportunistic. She dismissed the criticisms as fake news perpetuated by liberals.

In a combative interview Friday with Arizona radio hosts Mac Watson and Larry Gaydos, Ward maintained that should McCain become debilitated, “of course he should step aside.”

“I got to tell you, Dr. Ward. Have you no shame? I mean, I think this is low class. I think you’re kicking the man when he’s down, the week he’s diagnosed with brain cancer, with really what I believe is a despicable comment,” one of the hosts told Ward.

One of the hosts said Ward is already “dancing” on McCain’s grave, called her a “vulture” and told her she’s “desperate for attention.”

Ward shot back, saying the hosts are putting words in her mouth and unfairly attacking her character.

“I am a caring, compassionate physician. I am a competent, qualified political candidate, and I look forward to getting to Washington, D.C. You all have made this about John McCain and Kelli Ward,” she said, adding that she’s “laser-focused” on her race against Flake.

Ward’s supporters have rallied behind her in comments to her Facebook post about McCain. Some wrote that while they sympathize with McCain’s illness, they agree with Ward’s statements.

Ward’s recent interviews aren’t the first time she urged McCain to leave public office.

She caused a stir last year when she suggested in a Politico interview that McCain, who was then 79, is too old and is likely to die while in office.

“I’m a doctor. The life expectancy of the American male is not 86. It’s less,” Ward said in the August 2016 interview, adding later: “He’s become pretty sour. A pretty sour old guy.”

In another interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that same day, Ward suggested that McCain should retire and said she knows “what happens to the body and the mind at the end of life.”

Taken aback, Todd asked Ward whether she feels comfortable diagnosing McCain without personally examining him.

“Diagnosing him as an 80-year-old man, yes, I do,” she said.

McCain has been recovering in his Arizona home. His daughter, Meghan, tweeted Saturday that she and her father went on a hike.

...

What a lovely woman. (note extreme sarcasm)

[onekidanddone]

46 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Wow, this woman is a Repug through and through. "McCain’s primary rival urges him to step aside after diagnosis — and suggests she could replace him

Was just coming here to post this. There really is no low to the Rethugs depravity. I have't seen TT's response to McCain's illness.  I'm almost afraid to even look.  

[apple1]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Wow, this woman is a Repug through and through. "McCain’s primary rival urges him to step aside after diagnosis — and suggests she could replace him"

  Reveal hidden contents

A day after news came out about Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) brain cancer diagnosis, his onetime political opponent urged the ailing senator to think about his political future sooner rather than later — and expressed interest in the possibility of her taking over his Senate seat.

“I hope Sen. McCain is going to look long and hard at this, that his family and his advisers are going to look at this, and they’re going to advise him to step away as quickly as possible, so that the business of the country and the business of Arizona being represented at the federal level can move forward,” Kelli Ward, who lost to McCain in last year’s Republican primary and is now running to unseat U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), said Thursday during an interview with an Indiana radio station.

In a statement posted later on her website, Ward said McCain’s cancer is “both devastating and debilitating” and he “owes it to the people of Arizona to step aside” when he’s no longer able to perform his duties.

McCain’s office announced Wednesday that he’d been diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer. The diagnosis, which followed a surgery to remove a blood clot above the left eye, raised questions about when and if he will go back to the Senate.

McCain isn’t up for reelection until 2022. He also had not indicated that he will relinquish his seat because of his health, even assuring in a recent tweet that he’ll be “back soon.”

Still, the possibility of him leaving was raised in Ward’s interview. Host Pat Miller asked Ward, a family physician and a former Arizona state senator, about whether she believes McCain will be able to return to Washington.

“I would never presume to say what someone’s prognosis is without having examined them. As a Christian, I know there can always be miracles. But the likelihood that John McCain is going to be able to come back to the Senate and be at full force for the people of our state and the people of the United States is low,” said Ward.

Ward went on to talk about what Arizona law requires in the event that McCain does leave office. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) will have to appoint someone from the same party to fill the vacancy until the 2018 general election.

Asked if her name is getting “thrown in the hat” as a possible replacement, Ward said: “Well, you know, I certainly hope so. Because, you know, I have a proven track record from years in the state Senate of being extremely effective and of listening to the voice of the people that I represent.”

Ward added that she proved to be a worthy challenger against McCain last year. (She came in second, with 39.2 percent of the primary vote.)

“We can’t wait until the 2018 election waiting around to accomplish the Trump agenda, to secure the border and stop illegal immigration and repeal Obamacare and fix the economy and fix the veterans administration,” she said. “All those things need to be done, and we can’t be at a standstill while we wait for John McCain to determine what he’s going to do.”

Ward was immediately slammed by critics, who viewed her comments as insensitive, self-serving and opportunistic. She dismissed the criticisms as fake news perpetuated by liberals.

In a combative interview Friday with Arizona radio hosts Mac Watson and Larry Gaydos, Ward maintained that should McCain become debilitated, “of course he should step aside.”

“I got to tell you, Dr. Ward. Have you no shame? I mean, I think this is low class. I think you’re kicking the man when he’s down, the week he’s diagnosed with brain cancer, with really what I believe is a despicable comment,” one of the hosts told Ward.

One of the hosts said Ward is already “dancing” on McCain’s grave, called her a “vulture” and told her she’s “desperate for attention.”

Ward shot back, saying the hosts are putting words in her mouth and unfairly attacking her character.

“I am a caring, compassionate physician. I am a competent, qualified political candidate, and I look forward to getting to Washington, D.C. You all have made this about John McCain and Kelli Ward,” she said, adding that she’s “laser-focused” on her race against Flake.

Ward’s supporters have rallied behind her in comments to her Facebook post about McCain. Some wrote that while they sympathize with McCain’s illness, they agree with Ward’s statements.

Ward’s recent interviews aren’t the first time she urged McCain to leave public office.

She caused a stir last year when she suggested in a Politico interview that McCain, who was then 79, is too old and is likely to die while in office.

“I’m a doctor. The life expectancy of the American male is not 86. It’s less,” Ward said in the August 2016 interview, adding later: “He’s become pretty sour. A pretty sour old guy.”

In another interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that same day, Ward suggested that McCain should retire and said she knows “what happens to the body and the mind at the end of life.”

Taken aback, Todd asked Ward whether she feels comfortable diagnosing McCain without personally examining him.

“Diagnosing him as an 80-year-old man, yes, I do,” she said.

McCain has been recovering in his Arizona home. His daughter, Meghan, tweeted Saturday that she and her father went on a hike.

...

What a lovely woman. (note extreme sarcasm)

Completely disgusting.