United States Congress

[formergothardite]

At this point the refusal to look into this is starting to make the Republicans look mighty guilty. If there isn't anything there, then why are they doing their hardest to keep people from looking? The obvious answer is that they know there is something there and they don't want people to see it. 

[RoseWilder]

2 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

At this point the refusal to look into this is starting to make the Republicans look mighty guilty. If there isn't anything there, then why are they doing their hardest to keep people from looking? The obvious answer is that they know there is something there and they don't want people to see it. 

Exactly. What I would love to see happen is for the media to start researching the people who are opposing the Russian investigation. I bet they would find out some really interesting information. This is the only person that seems to be investigating the people blocking the investigations: 

https://twitter.com/funder

So far, he's posted financial records that show that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Marc Rubio and Jason Chaffetz all accepted campaign money from Russia. But I'm sure there's more to be found. I just wish someone in the mainstream media would start digging. 

[Audrey2]

Just saw this and thought it was awesome!

https://www.yahoo.com/style/why-democratic-women-wore-white-to-trumps-address-to-congress-023033400.html

Quote

Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., explained to Yahoo Style that the Democratic women of the House of Representatives’ matching looks were a coordinated ode to the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote and wore white while doing so. “In just his first days, [Trump] and congressional Republicans have made it a priority to attack a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and instilled terror in immigrant mothers, daughters, and wives,” said Chu. “And their plans for ACA repeal threaten a return to the days of health care inequality for women.”

I love to see that the Democratic women wore white and sat together to stand up to Trump. I'm just waiting for his negative tweets in 3…2…1...

[GreyhoundFan]

Two Tweets from George Takei. I agree with both of them!

 

[fraurosena]

I think it is time Americans realized that they are NOT living in a democracy. The more I read about gerry-mandering, the (to my European senses) weird voting system in which the majority of votes DON'T count but instead some convoluted and seriously out-dated institution with so-called electoral votes, the more I am convinced that the GOP has seized power decades ago. It started with the decidedly undemocratic gerry-mandering processes, and was followed up by seriously underminding the availability of places to vote/ time to vote and the ability to register to vote for large parts of the eligible voters. Anything you can think of has been done by the GOP in order to influence the outcome of elections. If election results are already established before a single vote has been cast, then elections are a sham. The majority has no say. The very definition of democracy is the majority of people rule. They do not in America. Therefore, America is not a democracy.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

SCOTUS had a split ruling on districting here in Virginia, ruling that one district was legal, but sending the other 11 in question back to the lower court. The districts in question were gerrymandered at least partially based on race, but mostly to ensure the Repubs have the upper hand. I hope that the end result is redistricting in a fair manner, which will impact our representation in Congress.

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court sent parts of a race-based challenge to Virginia’s state House districts back to a lower court for further review Wednesday, while upholding the lower court panel’s findings that one majority black district was legally drawn.

In an 8-0 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court found a three-judge District Court panel followed an incorrect legal standard in its analysis of 11 of the 12 districts challenged in the case. The lower court had required those challenging the districts to show an actual conflict between the plan that was adopted following the 2010 census and one that could be drawn using traditional political redistricting principles without regard for race.

The high Court finds that the state must show race was not an unlawful consideration in drawing the lines, regardless of what explanations lawmakers may be able to come up with later.

“A legislature could construct a plethora of potential maps that look consistent with traditional, race-neutral principles, but if race is the overriding reason for choosing one map over others, race still may predominate,” a court summary of the ruling says.

The Supreme Court says the special District Court panel must now reconsider, under the proper standard, whether race directed the shape of the 11 remaining districts, and, if so, whether the consideration of race met a legal standard known as “strict scrutiny.” That means, essentially, that lawmakers must have had a good reason to believe that considering race was required to comply with the Voting Rights Act as it was in effect at the time.

The court found the lower court opinion was correct in upholding the lines for District 75, which had a 55 percent black voting age population based on a belief that the number was required to maintain the influence of black voters.

Democratic redistricting lawyer Marc Elias described the overall decision as a major victory.

Separate challenges to Virginia redistricting procedures are moving through other courts. A state judge in Richmond ruled Tuesday that a challenge to whether the districts meet state constitutional requirements to be “compact” can move forward.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy: "Protesters have succeeded in kicking Sen. Marco Rubio out of his office. Literally."

Quote

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and his staff have been booted out of his office in Tampa because of continued weekly protests outside the building.

The owner of the Bridgeport Center, which has been renting the space to Rubio since 2014, has decided to not renew the lease because rallies have cost the company money and have become too disruptive for other tenants, Jude Williams, president of America’s Capital Partners, told the Tampa Bay Times.

Williams said he understands the protesters’ cause, but the demonstrations have become a security concern. He did not return a call from The Washington Post on Wednesday.

“It’s not political,” Williams told the Times. “It’s for no other reason than good office management. Our duty is to keep a good peaceful office building environment for our tenants and that’s not what they bargained for.”

The office needs to be emptied by Thursday, and it appears the senator has yet to find new headquarters in Tampa.

“We are actively looking for new office space, and our goal is to remain accessible and continue to provide prompt and efficient service to all Floridians,” Christina Mandreucci, Rubio’s spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Until then, constituents in need of assistance can call 866-630-7106 to reach a representative, Mandreucci said.

...

Specifically mentioning the “Indivisible Guide,” he said protesters were instructed to show up and occupy the front rows.

“They spread themselves out. They ask questions. They all cheer when questions are asked. They are instructed to boo no matter what answer I give,” he told the CBS affiliate. “They are instructed to interrupt me if I go too long and start chanting things. Then, at the end, they are also told not to give up their microphone when they ask questions.”

Rubio, who tweeted in 2009 about the importance of anger at town halls, didn’t show up at a recent South Miami-Dade County event attended by more than 200 people, according to the Miami New Times. His seat was replaced with an empty suit.

...

I love how, after that last part, they show a Tweet from the twit, dated 2009, telling "the establishment" that angry folks at healthcare townhalls are real and their views are shared by a growing majority. Uh hunh. The Internet is forever, baby. I guess it hurts himses feewings to have people ask questions and boo him.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans already think Obamacare repeal is a nightmare. It’s about to get worse.". The article is quite lengthy, but here is the beginning:

Quote

President Trump’s hilariously candid revelation that “nobody knew that health care could be so complicated” may be remembered as the most succinct summary of the Republicans’ dilemma as they try to fulfill their endlessly repeated promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And now that things are about to get specific, what had been a dangerous situation for them is about to turn into a nightmare.

Republicans are set to enter a new phase, in which actual bills are written, debated and possibly even voted on. It’s going to be the equivalent of sticking their heads up out the foxhole so that the other side has something to fix their sights on. If they thought this issue was hard before, they haven’t seen anything yet.

Let’s start with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who apparently has a plan, one that’s going to go over so well that he’s terrified that anyone might get a look at it:

House Republican leaders have a new version of their major Obamacare repeal and replacement bill. They just don’t want you to see it.

The document is being treated a bit like a top-secret surveillance intercept. It is expected to be available to members and staffers on the House Energy and Commerce panel starting Thursday, but only in a dedicated reading room, one Republican lawmaker and a committee aide said. Nobody will be given copies to take with them.

That’s not the mark of a party confident that what it’s about to propose will be well received. Republicans are facing two problems at the moment, one external and one internal.

The external problem is the public, which has grown increasingly wary of repeal as the possibility has become more real and attention has focused on what would actually be lost if the ACA disappears. Watch an interview with a Republican, and you’ll notice that a few common questions make them squirm. Here are some of them, including the real answers:

• Can you promise that no one who has coverage now will lose it? (No.)
• Can you promise that out-of-pocket costs aren’t going to increase? (Those costs will increase, by design.)
• What does your plan do for people who are on the Medicaid expansion now, many for the first time? (Some might remain on it, at least in the short term, but there are no guarantees how many.)
• What happens to people who still can’t afford coverage after the tax credits you’re proposing? (They’re screwed.)
• Doesn’t your plan make things a lot more complicated for people with preexisting conditions? (Yes.)
• Doesn’t your plan constitute a giveaway to the rich? (Yes.)

Ryan can’t keep his plan secret forever. Once it’s unveiled, we’re going to have a lengthy and detailed debate about it, and those kinds of questions are going to be asked again and again. At some point the Congressional Budget Office will score the bill, and we’ll get a nonpartisan judgment of the wreckage it will cause. That will be a very bad day for Republicans.

...

 

[Childless]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Republicans already think Obamacare repeal is a nightmare. It’s about to get worse.". The article is quite lengthy, but here is the beginning:

 

There is nothing better than the ACA short of universal healthcare and we know the Repubs won't go for that.  So, should they succeed in this repeal, get ready to be screwed.

[GreyhoundFan]

Great op-ed piece: "Paul Ryan’s Misguided Sense of Freedom"

Quote

...

For his part, Mr. Ryan has been diligently tweeting pledges to the American people that the law is on its way out. Republicans haven’t landed on a replacement plan yet. But Mr. Ryan is sure they will come up with something because they know, as he said in a recent tweet, “Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need.”

He went on to argue that Obamacare abridges this freedom by telling you what to buy. But his first thought offers a meaningful and powerful definition of freedom. Conservatives are typically proponents of negative liberty: the freedom from constraints and impediments. Mr. Ryan formulated a positive liberty: freedom derived from having what it takes to fulfill one’s needs and therefore to direct one’s own life.

In so doing, Mr. Ryan inadvertently revived an idea that desperately needs to be resuscitated — the idea that freedom requires not just a lack of barriers, but also the conditions that allow people to live their lives fully. Deprivation, then, is a constraint on Americans’ freedom.

This conception harks back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. In his third term, Roosevelt delivered a State of the Union address that outlined four core principles, freedom from want among them. He later built on that idea and proposed a second Bill of Rights for every citizen. “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence,” he declared. “ ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ ”

Among the rights he laid out were to a job and an education, to earn enough to buy the necessities, to live in a “decent home,” and to medical care and good health.

That last right, of course, is what Mr. Ryan was threatening in his tweet. The Affordable Care Act’s extension of health care coverage, coupled with the individual mandate to buy it, has brought the uninsured rate to an all-time low. Some studies have found that this has had a positive impact on low-income Americans’ health, freeing them from constant worrying about injury and illness.

It’s also making them economically freer. Medical debt has long been one of the biggest drags on Americans’ finances. But gaining health insurance through the A.C.A.’s Medicaid expansion, for example, saved enrollees money on their health care. They then used that money to pay down debts.

Separating health insurance from employment has also freed people to pursue the work they want to be doing. Health care expansions can decrease “job lock,” the phenomenon of people staying in jobs because they can’t afford to strike out on their own and lose their insurance. Preliminary research indicates this may be happening for Americans who can fall back on the A.C.A. Nearly one and a half million self-employed people and small-business owners got coverage through its exchanges in 2014.

Republicans promise to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better, although they haven’t agreed on what that will be. What they can say is that it will be teeming with freedom. With the exception of Mr. Ryan, theirs is a negative freedom: a drop in the insurance rate would be a positive sign of the “personal liberty” of not being subject to the individual mandate, for example. Their plan will be built on “freedom and individual responsibility.” A constraint would be lifted. Who cares if uninsured people suffer because they can’t get medical care?

...

Even though Mr. Ryan says he believes that freedom is “the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need,” he doesn’t want the government to do anything to help people experience that freedom. If he got his way on spending, the programs that allow the poor and struggling to buy food, housing and the other things they need would be utterly debilitated. The rich are the only ones who could be truly free in his vision of the country.

But he has reintroduced a potent definition of freedom. We need to reclaim it.

That last bolded statement is the crux of the Republican party -- the rich (preferably white rich people) are the only ones who really matter to them.

 

[candygirl200413]

All of this! I just saw the headline but didn't get to finish it but Ran Paul was basically trying to stake out of the office to get anything in relations to this healthcare repeal.

What if it's just like manila folders with blank pages like outside of Trump's press conference that one time?

[47of74]

On 2/28/2017 at 10:58 PM, Audrey2 said:

Just saw this and thought it was awesome!

https://www.yahoo.com/style/why-democratic-women-wore-white-to-trumps-address-to-congress-023033400.html

I love to see that the Democratic women wore white and sat together to stand up to Trump. I'm just waiting for his negative tweets in 3…2…1...

I saw someone whining on either my Twitter or Facebook that the women weren't wearing flag pins.

I wanted to say to them really?  If it was a bunch of Republican males in white sheets wearing swastika armbands the same people whining would not have said a word.

[onekidanddone]

4 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I saw someone whining on either my Twitter or Facebook that the women weren't wearing flag pins.

I wanted to say to them really?  If it was a bunch of Republican males in white sheets wearing swastika armbands the same people whining would not have said a word.

Yea, but the same people who complained about the women not wearing the flag pins were waving the Russian flag.  

 

 

[RoseWilder]

It's time for another edition of Republicans-Are-Hypocrites: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/now-you-know-how-it-feels-women-crush-gop-rep-for-saying-obamacare-has-taken-over-his-body/

Quote

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a staunch opponent of abortion rights, complained on Tuesday that the federal government had “taken over” his body by enacting health care reforms.

Speaking to CNN’s Chris Cuomo, King insisted that a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act was the only acceptable way to move forward.

“You know the central thing for me on this,” the Republican congressman opined. “The federal government has taken over the management of our health, our skin and everything inside it. Free people, the recipients of God-given liberty — and that is a foundation for American vigor — have had our health taken over the federal government.”

“That steps on American liberty,” he added. “And it just diminishes the vitality of our country. I want people to have their own responsibilities.”

Women on Twitter were quick to compare King’s remarks to Republican efforts to control their reproductive rights.

 

[RoseWilder]

DC residents are trying to get rid of Rep. Jason Chaffetz: 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/dc-residents-against-jason-chaffetz/index.html?sr=twpol022417dc-residents-against-jason-chaffetz1115PMVODtopLink&linkId=34870034

Quote

Washington, DC residents, upset that a Utah congressman is meddling in their local politics, are using their voices and money -- and setting up a PAC -- to try and help oust him.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz represents the 3rd Congressional District in Utah, but residents in the District have a bone to pick with him. He serves as the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which under the Constitution has the right to block legislation passed by DC's council.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

DC residents are trying to get rid of Rep. Jason Chaffetz: 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/dc-residents-against-jason-chaffetz/index.html?sr=twpol022417dc-residents-against-jason-chaffetz1115PMVODtopLink&linkId=34870034

 

I live just outside of DC and many of DC's residents are very unhappy with Chapass. I hope they can make a difference. Another one of the smug hypocrites who should go.

 

 

[onekidanddone]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I live just outside of DC and many of DC's residents are very unhappy with Chapass. I hope they can make a difference. Another one of the smug hypocrites who should go.

 

 

Isn't there some compound he could be living on in  Utah?

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

Isn't there some compound he could be living on in  Utah?

Preferably one several feet underground, with no way to contact the outside world. He can go be his miserable self and leave our country alone.

[GreyhoundFan]

"A Party Not Ready to Govern"

Quote

According to Politico, a Trump confidante says that the man in the Oval Office — or more often at Mar-a-Lago — is “tired of everyone thinking his presidency is screwed up.” Pro tip: The best way to combat perceptions that you’re screwing up is, you know, to stop screwing up.

But he can’t, of course. And it’s not just a personal problem.

It goes without saying that Donald Trump is the least qualified individual, temperamentally or intellectually, ever installed in the White House. As he veers from wild accusations against President Obama to snide remarks about Arnold Schwarzenegger, he’s doing a very good imitation of someone experiencing a personal breakdown — even though he has yet to confront a crisis not of his own making. Thanks, Comey.

But the broader Republican quagmire — the party’s failure so far to make significant progress toward any of its policy promises — isn’t just about Mr. Trump’s inadequacies. The whole party, it turns out, has been faking it for years. Its leaders’ rhetoric was empty; they have no idea how to turn their slogans into actual legislation, because they’ve never bothered to understand how anything important works.

Take the two lead items in the congressional G.O.P.’s agenda: undoing the Affordable Care Act and reforming corporate taxes. In each case Republicans seem utterly shocked to find themselves facing reality.

The story of Obamacare repeal would be funny if the health care — and, in many cases, the lives — of millions of Americans weren’t at stake.

First we had seven — seven! — years during which Republicans kept promising to offer an alternative to Obamacare any day now, but never did. Then came the months after the election, with more promises of details just around the corner.

Now there’s apparently a plan hidden somewhere in the Capitol basement. Why the secrecy? Because the Republicans have belatedly discovered what some of us tried to tell them all along: The only way to maintain coverage for the 20 million people who gained insurance thanks to Obamacare is with a plan that, surprise, looks a lot like Obamacare.

Sure enough, the new plan reportedly does look like a sort of half-baked version of the Affordable Care Act. Politically, it seems to embody the worst of both worlds: It’s enough like Obamacare to infuriate hard-line conservatives, but it weakens key aspects of the law enough to deprive millions of Americans — many of them white working-class voters who backed Donald Trump — of essential health care.

The idea, apparently, is to deal with these problems by passing the plan before anyone gets a chance to really see or think about what’s in it. Good luck with that.

...

Does this mean that nothing substantive will happen on the policy front? Not necessarily. Republicans may decide to ram through a health plan that causes mass suffering, and hope to blame it on Mr. Obama. They may give up on anything resembling a principled tax reform, and just throw a few trillion dollars at rich people instead.

But whatever the eventual outcome, what we’re witnessing is what happens when a party that gave up hard thinking in favor of empty sloganeering ends up in charge of actual policy. And it’s not a pretty sight

The article also goes into detail about the screwed up Paul Ryan tax reform ideas.

[clueliss]

Well, this one's a bit interesting.  It looks like the Koch brothers are not amused at the GOP repeal of Obamacare 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article136651813.html

 

granted they are ticked that it hasn't been fully repealed and pressure is on by real constituents to not repeal it at all.   This means we have to keep up the pressure on all fronts.  

[fraurosena]

These articles highlights the sticking points for the Repubs on the replacement part of the ACA:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/republicans-public-obamacare-plan/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/upshot/the-obamacare-sticking-points-behind-closed-doors.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

From the first article:

Quote

It's taken years and five different congressional committees working in consultation to repeal Obamacare, but House Republicans are expected to take up legislation in committee for mark-up as early as Wednesday, according to aides and committee members. Since it's the first time most lawmakers and the public will actually see the bill, it's also the most significant test to see that the legislation can at the very least survive early flogging from all sides. [...]

But schisms over how to overhaul Medicaid, how to structure refundable tax credits, and whether to cap the tax exclusion on employer-based health insurance to pay for a replacement, which some have charged is no different than the unpopular Cadillac tax, won't be solved anytime soon.

Republican leaders have worked aggressively to forge consensus with their members in listening sessions and meetings behind closed doors in recent weeks, but the divides between conservatives and moderates, and those between moderates and lawmakers from states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare are not going away.

"There is not a consensus at this point," Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Sunday [...]

The second article starts off like this:

Quote

The debate over the future of Obamacare is taking place in secret meetings among Republican lawmakers. President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have promised to bring forward a bill to modify the law soon. But before they do, they have to work out disagreements among their colleagues on the best way to proceed.

There are, of course, many small issues that are likely to be discussed in committee hearings or in other open forums. But several disagreements are so fundamental that they probably need to be resolved behind closed doors before a bill can even be introduced. Here’s a guide to the major sticking points that are holding up Republicans’ quest to replace the Affordable Care Act.

And then goes into details on 1) what to do with Medicaid, 2) the Tax Credits, and 3) the role of Employer Plans.

[fraurosena]

Well, I'm double posting again. But this NYT article on the new Muslim Ban - because no matter what they call it, that's what it is - is too good not to share. It details the differences from the first version, then brutally lays out why it's still illegal.

 

Quote

President Trump’s executive order barring immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries experienced nearly universal defeat in the federal courts. On Monday, he issued a revised version of that order, but it still suffers from a fundamental, and fatal, flaw: It constitutes unlawful religious discrimination.

On the surface, this revised order looks different from the first version. It explicitly exempts Iraq from the travel ban, thus reducing the number of affected countries to six, as well as lawful permanent residents (that is, green card holders) and people who have visas. It no longer categorically bars Syrian refugees or includes a religious test to determine which refugees may enter the country. And in a marked departure from the earlier order, it goes into effect in 10 days, so that the chaos that unfolded in airports around the world when the January order became effective presumably won’t happen again.

These changes are, no doubt, intended to address the due process concerns that led the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm a lower-court ruling that put a hold on part of the original order. But while these changes are important, they do not fix the core problem with the executive order: The administration is waging an all-out assault on Islam and Muslims.

That’s because anti-Muslim bias and bigotry that characterized the original travel ban remain in this revised version. [...]

The revised order also continues to traffic in bigoted and largely false perceptions: By requiring the government to compile occurrences of “honor killings” by immigrants, it gives official recognition to an inflammatory and misleading trope of Islam that is perpetuated by anti-Muslim hate groups.[...]

American Muslims will suffer a particular harm from this executive order: Those who have ties to the banned countries won’t be able to see their family members and close friends. American Muslims will also be deprived of the instruction from the leading Islamic scholars who are from those countries.

Thousands of Muslim men and women serve in the armed forces; many have given their lives defending our nation and our ideals. They contribute to the diversity that has always been our nation’s pride and strength. President George W. Bush paid tribute to this in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks when he said, “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”

President Trump and his top advisers would be wise to listen to President Bush. The Muslim ban and President Trump’s relentless attacks on Islam are not just an assault on thousands of patriotic, innocent Americans — they violate our Constitution and our most fundamental American values and beliefs.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Four key Republicans say they will oppose Obamacare repeal if leaves millions uninsured". The article is lengthy, but goes into detail about many of the sticking points, especially the whole tax credits issue.

Quote

Four key Republican senators say they will oppose new plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act set to be released as early as Monday evening by House Republicans, if those plans leave millions of Americans uninsured.

Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (R. W.Va.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said they would vote against any reform bill that fails to protect Americans who became eligible for coverage under the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, the government-run health program for the poor and disabled.

All four senators represent states that opted to expand their Medicaid program under the ACA.

“We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” they wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“Reform should not come at the cost of disruption in access to health care for our country’s most vulnerable and sickest individuals. Any changes made to how Medicaid is financed through the state and federal governments should be coupled with significant new flexibility so they can efficiently and effectively manage their Medicaid programs to best meet their own needs,” the letter said.

With 52 Republicans, McConnell would not have enough votes to pass repeal without the support of at least two of those senators.

The sternly worded letter was sent as House leaders were scrambling to put finishing touches on plans to dismantle the ACA — and became the latest sign that the challenge may be even greater than Hill Republicans and President Trump had realized.

...

Multiple people familiar with GOP plans say that the text is on track to be released as early as Monday evening, setting up Wednesday votes by the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has focused primarily on changes to Medicaid and other aspects of the law.

As of Monday afternoon, nonpartisan congressional budget scorekeepers were still evaluating the GOP bills, and it was not clear when they would finish.

At a closed-door GOP conference meeting last week, several House Republicans expressed concerns that the committees might start to work on the legislation without a complete fiscal assessment. To be eligible for special budget rules known as “reconciliation” — allowing bills to pass in the Senate by a simple majority — the legislation cannot incur a net cost after its first 10 years in effect.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Double posting -- breaking news: "House Republicans release long-awaited plan to repeal and replace Obamacare"

Quote

House Republicans on Monday released long-anticipated legislation to supplant the Affordable Care Act with a more conservative vision for the nation’s health care system, sketching out a system of individual tax credits and state grants to replace the current law.

But GOP leaders did not issue cost or coverage estimates for their plan, which is still being reviewed by nonpartisan congressional budgetary scorekeepers, and there were signs Monday that fellow Republicans could balk if the legislation leaves swaths of the country without insurance coverage.

...

 

The article continues with text from the last article I posted, about the four Republican Senators who have signaled they won't sign off on a plan that cuts insurance from millions.

[fraurosena]

No, it's not racist, ya'll!

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-citizen-manpreet-kooner-denied-entry-to-united-states

Quote

A Montrealer who is a Canadian citizen by birth says she was barred from entering the United States and told to get a valid visa if she ever wants to cross the border.

Manpreet Kooner said she was turned away at a crossing along the Quebec-Vermont border on Sunday after a six-hour wait where she was fingerprinted, photographed and questioned before being refused.

She said she was told she was an immigrant without a valid U.S. visa.

Kooner, 30, is of Indian descent and was born in Montreal to parents who came to Canada from India in the 1960s and have lived in the same LaSalle district duplex for decades. [...]

Kooner claims the border agent told her, “I know you might feel like you’re being Trumped,” in reference to U.S. President Donald Trump — a statement she found odd.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman said Monday the department can’t comment on individual admissibility inspections, but noted that possession of a valid travel document does not guarantee entry to the United States. [...]

Kooner went to the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, as suggested at the border, and was told the situation was “odd” and that a visa isn’t necessary for Canadians.

“Maybe there is no valid reason, maybe this is something that I can’t shake because I’m born like this,” Kooner said of her skin colour. [...] “I’ve never had issues before, that’s the part that kills me.”