United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[GreyhoundFan]

"The reason Republican health-care plans are doomed to fail"

Spoiler

Sometimes, in some weird markets, too much consumer choice can be a bad thing.

Unfortunately for Republicans, health insurance happens to be one of those weird markets.

Republicans believe the problem with the health-care system is that Americans are forced to buy too much insurance, in plans that are too prescribed. Their solution is to give consumers more choices for what kinds of plans (including no plan at all) they can buy.

The Consumer Freedom Option, recently proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), is emblematic of this: It would allow insurers to sell plans that don’t comply with Obamacare regulations (such as protections for preexisting conditions), so long as they also sell at least one plan that does.

“We’re guaranteeing them exactly what they have now but giving them more options,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said Sunday. “Options that would inevitably unleash free-market forces, that would in turn bring down the price of health care.”

And who doesn’t like options?

Choice is as American as apple pie, a core perk of living in a capitalist society. We are free to choose whatever car or yogurt we want, from an enormous menu of colors, features, flavors and prices, and economists (generally) believe we’re happier for it.

But the health insurance market has some distinctive properties that mean too many choices can lead the whole market to unravel. This would leave nearly everyone — consumers, insurers and health-care providers — much worse off.

Why? The answer is somewhat counterintuitive. So counterintuitive, in fact, that the economists who figured it out won Nobel Prizes for the insight. Let’s take it step by step.

At its core, offering greater “choice” in health plans means eliminating both standardization and basic quality minimums.

Eliminating standardization — for example, Obamacare’s rules for what benefits are covered, coverage tiers and out-of-pocket maximums — would make it much harder for consumers to comparison-shop.

Shopping for health insurance is already super-complicated and timeconsuming, and lots of people make objectively bad choices. You have to comb through fine print and in-network doctor lists. You have to sort out which deductibles and premiums match your family’s likely needs and risk tolerance. Imagine how much more complicated this would become if insurers could offer many more plan configurations with more hidden exceptions and fewer quality controls.

Maybe one plan covers breast cancer but not throat cancer. Another covers statins, but only if you’ve never been diagnosed with heart disease, or maybe just one month’s supply. With so many variables, and so much opportunity for obfuscation, apples-to-apples comparisons become impossible.

Consumers might also end up buying “mini-med” insurance that turns out to cover virtually nothing. This happened a lot pre-Obamacare.

There’s a larger problem than consumer confusion, though. It’s that the entire individual market would fall apart under Cruz’s plan because of adverse selection — the idea that people with higher health costs will self-select into more generous coverage.

The cost to a supermarket of selling you a yogurt is basically the same as the cost of selling me a yogurt. That’s not true for health insurance, where I might turn out to be a much more expensive customer than you are.

In a world where patients know more about their health status (e.g., a bum knee) or future health spending (e.g., pregnancy, long-delayed surgery) than insurers do, insurers try to attract only the cheapest, healthiest enrollees by offering the cheapest, stingiest plans. Cruz would eliminate quality minimums, remember.

When consumers have a choice of many plans, and insurers can tweak those plans to attract the healthiest patients, you get a death spiral.

In Cruz’s health insurance market, sick people would end up in the relatively generous, Obamacare-compliant plans, which couldn’t turn away patients — and healthy people would get siphoned off into the mini-med plans, which could. Or these healthy people would drop their insurance altogether, since there would no longer be a mandate.

With only sick people in the Obamacare-compliant plans, the plans would become very expensive, causing slightly less sick people to drop out, causing the pool to get even sicker (and costlier), causing even more people to drop out. And so on.

Cruz says the government would kick in money to subsidize coverage in these plans, but we’ve already seen how limited Republicans’ appetite is for adequately funding high-risk pools (which Obamacare-compliant plans would essentially become).

In the end, we’d have what we had on the individual market pre-ACA: healthy people buying razor-thin coverage, and few good answers for everyone else. All because Republicans gave consumers, and insurers, that beloved freedom to choose. 

I agree with this analysis.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The reason Republican health-care plans are doomed to fail"

  Hide contents

Sometimes, in some weird markets, too much consumer choice can be a bad thing.

Unfortunately for Republicans, health insurance happens to be one of those weird markets.

Republicans believe the problem with the health-care system is that Americans are forced to buy too much insurance, in plans that are too prescribed. Their solution is to give consumers more choices for what kinds of plans (including no plan at all) they can buy.

The Consumer Freedom Option, recently proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), is emblematic of this: It would allow insurers to sell plans that don’t comply with Obamacare regulations (such as protections for preexisting conditions), so long as they also sell at least one plan that does.

“We’re guaranteeing them exactly what they have now but giving them more options,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said Sunday. “Options that would inevitably unleash free-market forces, that would in turn bring down the price of health care.”

And who doesn’t like options?

Choice is as American as apple pie, a core perk of living in a capitalist society. We are free to choose whatever car or yogurt we want, from an enormous menu of colors, features, flavors and prices, and economists (generally) believe we’re happier for it.

But the health insurance market has some distinctive properties that mean too many choices can lead the whole market to unravel. This would leave nearly everyone — consumers, insurers and health-care providers — much worse off.

Why? The answer is somewhat counterintuitive. So counterintuitive, in fact, that the economists who figured it out won Nobel Prizes for the insight. Let’s take it step by step.

At its core, offering greater “choice” in health plans means eliminating both standardization and basic quality minimums.

Eliminating standardization — for example, Obamacare’s rules for what benefits are covered, coverage tiers and out-of-pocket maximums — would make it much harder for consumers to comparison-shop.

Shopping for health insurance is already super-complicated and timeconsuming, and lots of people make objectively bad choices. You have to comb through fine print and in-network doctor lists. You have to sort out which deductibles and premiums match your family’s likely needs and risk tolerance. Imagine how much more complicated this would become if insurers could offer many more plan configurations with more hidden exceptions and fewer quality controls.

Maybe one plan covers breast cancer but not throat cancer. Another covers statins, but only if you’ve never been diagnosed with heart disease, or maybe just one month’s supply. With so many variables, and so much opportunity for obfuscation, apples-to-apples comparisons become impossible.

Consumers might also end up buying “mini-med” insurance that turns out to cover virtually nothing. This happened a lot pre-Obamacare.

There’s a larger problem than consumer confusion, though. It’s that the entire individual market would fall apart under Cruz’s plan because of adverse selection — the idea that people with higher health costs will self-select into more generous coverage.

The cost to a supermarket of selling you a yogurt is basically the same as the cost of selling me a yogurt. That’s not true for health insurance, where I might turn out to be a much more expensive customer than you are.

In a world where patients know more about their health status (e.g., a bum knee) or future health spending (e.g., pregnancy, long-delayed surgery) than insurers do, insurers try to attract only the cheapest, healthiest enrollees by offering the cheapest, stingiest plans. Cruz would eliminate quality minimums, remember.

When consumers have a choice of many plans, and insurers can tweak those plans to attract the healthiest patients, you get a death spiral.

In Cruz’s health insurance market, sick people would end up in the relatively generous, Obamacare-compliant plans, which couldn’t turn away patients — and healthy people would get siphoned off into the mini-med plans, which could. Or these healthy people would drop their insurance altogether, since there would no longer be a mandate.

With only sick people in the Obamacare-compliant plans, the plans would become very expensive, causing slightly less sick people to drop out, causing the pool to get even sicker (and costlier), causing even more people to drop out. And so on.

Cruz says the government would kick in money to subsidize coverage in these plans, but we’ve already seen how limited Republicans’ appetite is for adequately funding high-risk pools (which Obamacare-compliant plans would essentially become).

In the end, we’d have what we had on the individual market pre-ACA: healthy people buying razor-thin coverage, and few good answers for everyone else. All because Republicans gave consumers, and insurers, that beloved freedom to choose. 

I agree with this analysis.

And heaven forbid that we regulate health care insurers or pharma companies. CEOs of the largest health care companies in the USA have annual compensation of between 15 and 20 million dollars. And I'm ask to feel bad for them because they have to insure some sick people.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Ted Cruz faced off with a ‘dirty’ liberal and other health-care opponents this week"

Spoiler

AUSTIN — During a week most Republican senators spent in the political equivalent of the witness protection program, Sen. Ted Cruz willingly stood trial before his constituents all across this sprawling state over his push to repeal much of the Affordable Care Act.

He debated a self-described “dirty liberal progressive.” He met a psychologist who told him that he and his colleagues were “scaring the living daylights” out of her. He encountered protesters in a border town, a conservative Dallas suburb and this liberal stronghold.

Some who attended his events took the opposite view — that not shredding the law known as Obamacare would be the real misdeed. But Cruz’s main offense, in the view of the most vocal and most frustrated attendees, has been to participate in GOP efforts to undo key parts of, and possibly repeal, the Affordable Care Act.

Cruz is grappling with a state that, much like the rest of the country, has been deeply divided and firmly gripped by the months-long GOP effort to fulfill its signature campaign promise. Virtually everywhere he traveled this week, no matter where the conversation started, it inevitably veered to health care. That may help explain why so many of his colleagues kept a low profile over the week-long Fourth of July recess.

But Cruz, who built a national reputation on strident conservatism and has fiercely criticized the ACA for years, seemed to relish debating health care with vocal liberal critics. In a red state where he holds little crossover appeal, Cruz sees his best path to a second term, which he will seek next year, in rallying his conservative base to turn out for him. Even as he alienates a growing number of voters concerned about the fate of the ACA, doing his part to push for a full or even partial repeal is one key way his allies believe he can make that happen.

Whether such legislation can pass, as Congress returns to work Monday for one more push on the issue before the August recess, is increasingly uncertain — to both Cruz and Senate GOP leadership. “I believe we can get to yes,” said Cruz this week. “I don’t know if we will.”

A willingness to engage with opponents

Cruz spent Thursday evening in a hotel ballroom here at a town hall hosted by Concerned Veterans for America, a group backed by the billionaire conservative Koch brothers. The organization held two events for Cruz over the past week, with one more coming Saturday, with the aim of offering a more controlled environment than typical town hall meetings.

To attend, people were required to register in advance. The group’s policy director, Dan Caldwell, moderated the discussions, keeping them mostly focused on veterans’ issues and selecting a handful of audience questions submitted in advance.

The first half of Thursday’s event here so closely resembled Wednesday night’s version in suburban Dallas that Cruz even cracked the same joke about banishing bureaucrats to Iceland — and received similarly limited laughter.

But the predictability ended when Gary Marsh and others jumped in without being called on by Caldwell and engaged Cruz in a tense back and forth over health care.

“Can I please request that you refer to it as the Affordable Care Act,” Marsh told Cruz at one point. Cruz declined, drawing some applause. The senator said he did not believe in “deceptive speech” — prompting outraged laughter from his critics.

Cruz, dressed in a dark blazer, khaki pants and brown cowboy boots, then launched into a detailed defense of his opposition to Obamacare and the imperative to roll it back.

Caldwell tried to redirect the conversation to the questioner he had originally called on. But Cruz overruled him, allowing Marsh a chance to respond. Marsh, a 67-year-old retiree, said he knew he could not change Cruz’s mind, but he hoped to sway others in the room.

“Repealing Obamacare was the single biggest factor producing a Republican House, a Republican Senate and I think ultimately a Republican president,” Cruz said. He said the “central focus” of Republicans now should be to lower premiums.

Marsh proudly called himself a “dirty liberal progressive” in a conversation with reporters after the event. John Walker, 69, walked over to confront him. The self-described conservative wasn’t pleased.

“You monopolized the meeting. That’s the problem I have with you and everybody else that does that,” Walker told him. In an interview, Walker, who is retired and on Medicare, said he favors replacing Obamacare with “something better” that would make coverage affordable for his adult children, who can’t afford premiums. He said he is not yet convinced the Senate GOP bill would accomplish that.

A similar flash of discord appeared Wednesday in McKinney, the Dallas suburb. After Cruz finished speaking, Buddy Luce was not happy with what he heard from the Texas Republican senator about overhauling Obamacare.

“I’m not impressed with a plan that takes away —” the 65-year-old attorney started explaining to a reporter. Before he could finish his thought, Ivette Lozano had rushed over to argue with him.

“I’m a family practitioner,” she told him. “Obamacare is putting me out of business.”

“Don’t you think health care is a human right?” he asked her.

“No, I think it’s personal responsibility to take care of you,” she responded.

“If you don’t think health care is a human right, then we’re just on a different wavelength,” Luce retorted.

Obamacare is a ‘manifest disaster’

For 47 minutes, the McKinney town hall was free of controversy. As Cruz spoke to Caldwell about veterans’ matters, the audience listened quietly. But then came a query from a far corner of the hotel ballroom. And the mood quickly shifted.

“You all on the Hill are scaring the living daylights out of us with the health-care nonsense that you’re doing,” said Misty Hook, who described herself as an “overflow” psychologist who works with veterans unable to obtain services through the Department of Veterans Affairs. She worried about the GOP push to allow insurers in some states to opt out of certain coverage requirements.

“What are you going to do to help make sure that mental-health-care services are reimbursed at a proper rate so that we can continue to provide services for veterans?” asked Hook, the urgency apparent in her voice.

Cruz, leaning forward in his armchair, offered an extended defense of the effort to undo key parts of Obamacare. He called it a “manifest disaster,” prompting some to shake their heads in disagreement.

“You didn’t answer her question about how mental health is going to be covered,” one woman interjected.

“Well, I am answering it right now,” Cruz replied. But before he could continue, Luce abruptly jumped into the conversation from the other side of the room. He continued breaking in, eventually drawing a warning from the senator: “Sir, I’m happy to answer your questions, but I’m not going to engage in a yelling back-and-forth.”

Outside the event, a few dozen protesters held up signs emblazoned with such messages as “GOP Care Treats the Rich Kills the Weak” and “Yea! ACA fix it don’t nix it.” Cruz had encountered similar protests when he visited McAllen on the U.S.-Mexico border earlier in the week.

After the event, Cruz called the health-care back-and-forth a “good and productive exchange.”

“This is an issue that inspires passion and quite understandably. People care about their health care,” said Cruz.

A push for a more aggressive rollback of the ACA

Many close observers believe Cruz is likely to vote yes on the final version of the bill, even though he does not support the initial version Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) released last month. Although many other Republican senators believe the first draft would go too far and push too many Americans off insurance rolls, Cruz is pressing for a more aggressive undoing of the ACA’s regulations.

The Texan’s top priority is his amendment to let insurers sell plans that don’t comply with ACA coverage requirements so long as they also offer plans that do. He is casting the amendment as a move to give consumers more, less expensive choices in purchasing insurance.

But critics including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) worry that such an approach would “dissolve the risk pool” established by the ACA that brings together healthy and sick individuals — and could result in higher costs for less healthy Americans.

The Cruz amendment has become a rallying cry among those on the right pushing for a more aggressive bill, with figures such as House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and a constellation of conservative activist groups endorsing it. It has also drawn support from White House legislative affairs director Marc Short.

McConnell’s plans to vote on the bill before July 4 fell apart amid GOP discord. Now as he works to change the bill — and as a handful of key senators have faced a drumbeat of opposition to the proposal during the recess — it remains as uncertain as ever whether he will ever have enough Republican support to pass.

Cruz, like President Trump, thinks that if they fall short, the Senate ought to vote on a narrower bill to repeal the law — what he calls a “clean repeal” — and focus on replacing it afterward. But McConnell has embraced a very different kind of backup plan: Working with Democrats on a more modest bill to stabilize insurance markets.

Broad disagreements over how to structure the nation’s health-care system are sharpening the contrasting way lawmakers such Cruz are viewed at home.

As she stood in line with her husband to talk to Cruz after the Wednesday town hall, Jennifer Beauford, 42, said she wants a “full repeal and I don’t want a replacement.”

“Health care is not constitutional right. It’s a privilege,” said Beauford, who identified as a conservative Cruz supporter.

Outside among the protesters stood Kerry Green, 46, a history teacher who wore a shirt printed with the Declaration of Independence. A self-identified Democrat, Green held up sign urging health care “for the 21st Century” rather than the 20th. She sharply criticized the GOP bill.

As for Cruz? “He needs to go,” she said.

Amen to that last sentence.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

As she stood in line with her husband to talk to Cruz after the Wednesday town hall, Jennifer Beauford, 42, said she wants a “full repeal and I don’t want a replacement.”

Don't these ultra-rich people have better things to do? It's not like she has to convince Ted Cruz. She doesn't have a huge beach house on Padre Island to hide in? Because she's either very wealthy-and even then she better hope she's lucky, too-or she's too stupid to see what the future has in store for her.

[GreyhoundFan]

Aw, little snowflake Ryan couldn't take tough or live questions: "Questions linger even after Paul Ryan holds town hall meeting"

Spoiler

RACINE, Wis. -- With Congress in recess, many members are back home -- including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Ryan has been criticized for not being accessible to his constituents in Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. Some voters have even held mock town halls without him. In February, they their posed questions to an empty chair.

But Ryan's schedule Thursday included what was billed as employee town halls. And at WPC Technologies in Oak Creek, that meant most questions were selected in advance by a company official.

This was the first one from the audience: "If you had to make a decision between attending an October regular season Packers game or a Brewers World Series game, which one?"

For the record, Ryan said probably the Brewers.

But there were no questions about Russia, and no questions about President Trump or his tweets, which Ryan has criticized. There were also no questions about the investigations of the Trump administration -- none of those questions here or at a second stop in Racine.

There was one about the office of the presidency, though.

"I just wanted to ask if you had any plans for running for the presidency in the future?" one woman asked.

"No, not at all," Ryan said. "That was an easy one to answer."

Also easy to answer was the one question about the effects of the House health care reform on the workers here. Since all of them are covered by their employers, there's no effect.

"Fifty million people get their insurance from their job like everybody here does so it doesn't affect that market," Ryan said.

And thus, no real need for Ryan to defend what polls say is an unpopular piece of legislation.

CBS News wanted to ask the Speaker if he thought tightly-controlled events like these were really a true test of his accessibility.

But we didn't get very far, as Ryan ducked behind a curtain saying, "Gotta go!"

Speaker Ryan may be more forthcoming Friday, because that's when he's scheduled to hold a press conference in Madison, the state's capital.

He couldn't be more wrong about his ridiculous plan not affecting people who get insurance through employers. If they gut the ACA requirements, many companies will go back to crappy plans that cover little and have yearly and lifetime maximums. What a freaking tool.

[GrumpyGran]

45 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Aw, little snowflake Ryan couldn't take tough or live questions: "Questions linger even after Paul Ryan holds town hall meeting"

  Hide contents

RACINE, Wis. -- With Congress in recess, many members are back home -- including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Ryan has been criticized for not being accessible to his constituents in Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. Some voters have even held mock town halls without him. In February, they their posed questions to an empty chair.

But Ryan's schedule Thursday included what was billed as employee town halls. And at WPC Technologies in Oak Creek, that meant most questions were selected in advance by a company official.

This was the first one from the audience: "If you had to make a decision between attending an October regular season Packers game or a Brewers World Series game, which one?"

For the record, Ryan said probably the Brewers.

But there were no questions about Russia, and no questions about President Trump or his tweets, which Ryan has criticized. There were also no questions about the investigations of the Trump administration -- none of those questions here or at a second stop in Racine.

There was one about the office of the presidency, though.

"I just wanted to ask if you had any plans for running for the presidency in the future?" one woman asked.

"No, not at all," Ryan said. "That was an easy one to answer."

Also easy to answer was the one question about the effects of the House health care reform on the workers here. Since all of them are covered by their employers, there's no effect.

"Fifty million people get their insurance from their job like everybody here does so it doesn't affect that market," Ryan said.

And thus, no real need for Ryan to defend what polls say is an unpopular piece of legislation.

CBS News wanted to ask the Speaker if he thought tightly-controlled events like these were really a true test of his accessibility.

But we didn't get very far, as Ryan ducked behind a curtain saying, "Gotta go!"

Speaker Ryan may be more forthcoming Friday, because that's when he's scheduled to hold a press conference in Madison, the state's capital.

He couldn't be more wrong about his ridiculous plan not affecting people who get insurance through employers. If they gut the ACA requirements, many companies will go back to crappy plans that cover little and have yearly and lifetime maximums. What a freaking tool.

I saw this on the news. The real news. Good grief, they might as well have been throwing candy at him! Why was he even there, other than a poor attempt at claiming he spoke to constituents while on break? Nice try, douche bag, but you don't exactly fly under the radar, you're the Speaker of the House. I'd say "Do better" but...yeah, that won't happen.

[GreyhoundFan]

Politico published an informative listing of several 2018 senate races that are having trouble attracting Repug candidates.

Spoiler

Republicans have a huge opportunity to gain seats in the Senate in 2018. They just need to find the candidates.

Rep. Ann Wagner’s decision not to challenge Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, a matchup Missouri political observers had anticipated for years, is the latest in a string of thanks-but-no-thanks moves from candidates Washington Republicans thought were locks to run for Senate next year. It’s an unwelcome sign for the GOP despite staring down a tantalizing Senate map, with 10 Democrats up for reelection in states President Donald Trump carried last year and an opportunity to win eight states and a filibuster-proof majority.

First there was Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who jumped from the House to Trump’s Cabinet instead of running in Montana as expected. Republicans thought they had a replacement to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in state Attorney General Tim Fox — until Fox surprisingly counted himself out. In Wisconsin, GOP Rep. Sean Duffy went on a statewide tour early in 2017 before deciding he wouldn’t challenge Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Democrats say the situation is clear: Republicans are afraid of a political environment poisoned by an unpredictable president and a widely disliked GOP health care plan.

“They have an unpopular president and they are pushing unpopular policies, which makes for difficulty recruiting,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “The map is favorable for the GOP, but they are trying to sell the public something it really doesn't want, and the public is rejecting it.”

But the red-tinged Senate map means there are few races where Republicans believe they need a single exceptional, heaven-and-earth-moving recruit to win in 2018. And some GOP strategists say there’s plenty of time to get things set up for next year’s Senate elections, citing National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Cory Gardner’s decision to begin his 2014 Colorado Senate run in February of that year.

“All of the hand-wringing and consternation about recruiting is largely manufactured,” said Kevin McLaughlin, a former deputy executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I can’t think of a reason right now, like literally any, for someone to get in at this stage.”

Yet top Republican strategists privately admit they are intensely focused on two people: Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, as an alternative challenger to McCaskill whom many Republicans now insist they prefer, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who could self-fund an expensive campaign against Sen. Bill Nelson. If those two men pass, Republicans concede their 2018 recruiting class could quickly go from solid to disappointing.

Here’s the current state of play in nine top Senate races Republicans want to flip in 2018:

FLORIDA (Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson)

Like Missouri, the GOP recruiting efforts here are focused on one man: Gov. Rick Scott. Scott is seen as the only Republican with the name identification and fundraising prowess (or, really, self-funding prowess — Scott is a billionaire) to compete in the nation’s largest swing state. If Scott passes, the GOP could turn to Rep. Francis Rooney, a wealthy former ambassador, or Rep. Ron DeSantis. For his part, Scott has told national Republicans he’ll make a decision on his own timeline, which, Scott has suggested, will stretch into next year. Read more →

INDIANA (Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly)

GOP Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita are very similar members of Congress, and that similarity is breeding contempt. Neither has officially declared a Senate campaign, but the two have already begun attacking each other. Messer has assembled an impressive fundraising apparatus highlighted by Greg Pence, the vice president’s brother. But Rokita has already won statewide, having served two terms as secretary of state. Even with Messer and Rokita in, some Republican strategists still pine for Rep. Susan Brooks, who said "no" earlier this year. Other strategists see room for a third candidate, perhaps Attorney General Curtis Hill or an outsider-style businessman. Read more →

MISSOURI (Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill)

Wagner’s shock decision to pass — she had hired a campaign manager and lined up a communications director for a Senate run — has put all eyes on Hawley, the state’s 37-year-old attorney general, who was elected last year. Republican elders and donors in the state have been pushing Hawley to run for months, arguing he had outside credentials Wagner lacked. But Hawley has ducked direct questions on the Senate, and Democrats are already prepared to attack him as an overambitious young man on the make. Rep. Vicky Hartzler also announced she was still considering a bid. Read more →

MONTANA (Democratic Sen. Jon Tester)

First, Zinke took a job as Trump’s interior secretary rather than challenge Tester. Then, Fox decided not to run, eyeing a 2020 gubernatorial bid that looked like a better option after Rep. Greg Gianforte, who had been expected to run for governor again in three years, assaulted a reporter. There are already three Republican candidates in the race, but national Republicans are now eyeing state Treasurer Matt Rosendale as a possible standard bearer. Read more →

NORTH DAKOTA (Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp)

Republicans still don’t have a candidate in this Trump-friendly state, and Trump failed to lure Heitkamp into his administration to open the seat. National Republicans are lukewarm on Rep. Kevin Cramer, a Trump-like lawmaker — unscripted or out of control, depending on your perspective — who made national news earlier this year for criticizing female Democrats’ clothes. State Sen. Tom Campbell could run for either the Senate or Cramer’s seat, but Cramer is keeping everyone guessing and said in an interview that jumping in early “may even harm me” politically. “I don’t feel an urgency to get in,” Cramer said. “Getting in the race in September or October or November handicaps me the same as if I got in it in May.” Read more →

OHIO (Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown)

Treasurer Josh Mandel came within 5 percentage points of beating Brown in 2012. But not all Republicans wanted to see a rematch between vocal Trump supporter Mandel and Brown, though that’s what they are likely going to get. The more centrist Rep. Pat Tiberi bowed out this spring and cleared the path for Mandel, who has now accrued endorsements from the likes of GOP Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida. Investment banker Michael Gibbons, a longtime Republican donor, has also jumped into the contest and is looking to offer a political-outsider contrast to Mandel. Read more →

PENNSYLVANIA (Democratic Sen. Bob Casey)

GOP Rep. Pat Meehan has long been tipped for statewide office, but he took a pass on challenging Casey, who has become an increasingly strident liberal during the Trump era. Meehan is battle-tested and easily won reelection in a Hillary Clinton district after bailing on Trump late last year and voting for Mike Pence. Reps. Mike Kelly or Lou Barletta, both early Trump backers, could change the race by getting in, though a national Democratic official said they are “tainted by the House health care vote.” If they don’t run, the national GOP may have to let the crowded primary sort itself out. The field lacks a front-runner and is a mix of people like businessman Jeff Bartos and state Reps. Jim Christiana or Rick Saccone. Read more →

WEST VIRGINIA (Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin)

GOP Rep. Evan Jenkins, a former Democrat, is disciplined and has battleground-race experience. But Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is considering running a GOP primary campaign to Jenkins’ right. Republicans don’t want a messy fight, but one might already be underway, with negative stories surfacing about Morrisey’s wife and Jenkins warning Morrisey not to run. Trump didn’t help the GOP cause by courting Manchin for his Cabinet — but not selecting him. Manchin is the last Democrat left in the state’s congressional delegation as it has swung right. Read more →

WISCONSIN (Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin)

Rep. Sean Duffy bowed out early, and Republicans haven’t had a clear candidate to take on Baldwin since. Nicole Schneider, a former social worker who also happened to be the heiress to a major trucking company, attracted the attention of the NRSC due to her ability to self-fund, but she’s also decided not to run. Businessman and Iraq War veteran Kevin Nicholson has an attractive résumé, though he was a past president of the College Democrats of America. Businessman Eric Hovde, who finished second in the 2012 GOP primary, is still considering a bid, as is state Sen. Leah Vukmir. Read more →

 

[GrumpyGran]

15 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Politico published an informative listing of several 2018 senate races that are having trouble attracting Repug candidates.

  Hide contents

Republicans have a huge opportunity to gain seats in the Senate in 2018. They just need to find the candidates.

Rep. Ann Wagner’s decision not to challenge Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, a matchup Missouri political observers had anticipated for years, is the latest in a string of thanks-but-no-thanks moves from candidates Washington Republicans thought were locks to run for Senate next year. It’s an unwelcome sign for the GOP despite staring down a tantalizing Senate map, with 10 Democrats up for reelection in states President Donald Trump carried last year and an opportunity to win eight states and a filibuster-proof majority.

First there was Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who jumped from the House to Trump’s Cabinet instead of running in Montana as expected. Republicans thought they had a replacement to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in state Attorney General Tim Fox — until Fox surprisingly counted himself out. In Wisconsin, GOP Rep. Sean Duffy went on a statewide tour early in 2017 before deciding he wouldn’t challenge Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Democrats say the situation is clear: Republicans are afraid of a political environment poisoned by an unpredictable president and a widely disliked GOP health care plan.

“They have an unpopular president and they are pushing unpopular policies, which makes for difficulty recruiting,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “The map is favorable for the GOP, but they are trying to sell the public something it really doesn't want, and the public is rejecting it.”

But the red-tinged Senate map means there are few races where Republicans believe they need a single exceptional, heaven-and-earth-moving recruit to win in 2018. And some GOP strategists say there’s plenty of time to get things set up for next year’s Senate elections, citing National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Cory Gardner’s decision to begin his 2014 Colorado Senate run in February of that year.

“All of the hand-wringing and consternation about recruiting is largely manufactured,” said Kevin McLaughlin, a former deputy executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I can’t think of a reason right now, like literally any, for someone to get in at this stage.”

Yet top Republican strategists privately admit they are intensely focused on two people: Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, as an alternative challenger to McCaskill whom many Republicans now insist they prefer, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who could self-fund an expensive campaign against Sen. Bill Nelson. If those two men pass, Republicans concede their 2018 recruiting class could quickly go from solid to disappointing.

Here’s the current state of play in nine top Senate races Republicans want to flip in 2018:

FLORIDA (Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson)

Like Missouri, the GOP recruiting efforts here are focused on one man: Gov. Rick Scott. Scott is seen as the only Republican with the name identification and fundraising prowess (or, really, self-funding prowess — Scott is a billionaire) to compete in the nation’s largest swing state. If Scott passes, the GOP could turn to Rep. Francis Rooney, a wealthy former ambassador, or Rep. Ron DeSantis. For his part, Scott has told national Republicans he’ll make a decision on his own timeline, which, Scott has suggested, will stretch into next year. Read more →

INDIANA (Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly)

GOP Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita are very similar members of Congress, and that similarity is breeding contempt. Neither has officially declared a Senate campaign, but the two have already begun attacking each other. Messer has assembled an impressive fundraising apparatus highlighted by Greg Pence, the vice president’s brother. But Rokita has already won statewide, having served two terms as secretary of state. Even with Messer and Rokita in, some Republican strategists still pine for Rep. Susan Brooks, who said "no" earlier this year. Other strategists see room for a third candidate, perhaps Attorney General Curtis Hill or an outsider-style businessman. Read more →

MISSOURI (Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill)

Wagner’s shock decision to pass — she had hired a campaign manager and lined up a communications director for a Senate run — has put all eyes on Hawley, the state’s 37-year-old attorney general, who was elected last year. Republican elders and donors in the state have been pushing Hawley to run for months, arguing he had outside credentials Wagner lacked. But Hawley has ducked direct questions on the Senate, and Democrats are already prepared to attack him as an overambitious young man on the make. Rep. Vicky Hartzler also announced she was still considering a bid. Read more →

MONTANA (Democratic Sen. Jon Tester)

First, Zinke took a job as Trump’s interior secretary rather than challenge Tester. Then, Fox decided not to run, eyeing a 2020 gubernatorial bid that looked like a better option after Rep. Greg Gianforte, who had been expected to run for governor again in three years, assaulted a reporter. There are already three Republican candidates in the race, but national Republicans are now eyeing state Treasurer Matt Rosendale as a possible standard bearer. Read more →

NORTH DAKOTA (Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp)

Republicans still don’t have a candidate in this Trump-friendly state, and Trump failed to lure Heitkamp into his administration to open the seat. National Republicans are lukewarm on Rep. Kevin Cramer, a Trump-like lawmaker — unscripted or out of control, depending on your perspective — who made national news earlier this year for criticizing female Democrats’ clothes. State Sen. Tom Campbell could run for either the Senate or Cramer’s seat, but Cramer is keeping everyone guessing and said in an interview that jumping in early “may even harm me” politically. “I don’t feel an urgency to get in,” Cramer said. “Getting in the race in September or October or November handicaps me the same as if I got in it in May.” Read more →

OHIO (Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown)

Treasurer Josh Mandel came within 5 percentage points of beating Brown in 2012. But not all Republicans wanted to see a rematch between vocal Trump supporter Mandel and Brown, though that’s what they are likely going to get. The more centrist Rep. Pat Tiberi bowed out this spring and cleared the path for Mandel, who has now accrued endorsements from the likes of GOP Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida. Investment banker Michael Gibbons, a longtime Republican donor, has also jumped into the contest and is looking to offer a political-outsider contrast to Mandel. Read more →

PENNSYLVANIA (Democratic Sen. Bob Casey)

GOP Rep. Pat Meehan has long been tipped for statewide office, but he took a pass on challenging Casey, who has become an increasingly strident liberal during the Trump era. Meehan is battle-tested and easily won reelection in a Hillary Clinton district after bailing on Trump late last year and voting for Mike Pence. Reps. Mike Kelly or Lou Barletta, both early Trump backers, could change the race by getting in, though a national Democratic official said they are “tainted by the House health care vote.” If they don’t run, the national GOP may have to let the crowded primary sort itself out. The field lacks a front-runner and is a mix of people like businessman Jeff Bartos and state Reps. Jim Christiana or Rick Saccone. Read more →

WEST VIRGINIA (Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin)

GOP Rep. Evan Jenkins, a former Democrat, is disciplined and has battleground-race experience. But Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is considering running a GOP primary campaign to Jenkins’ right. Republicans don’t want a messy fight, but one might already be underway, with negative stories surfacing about Morrisey’s wife and Jenkins warning Morrisey not to run. Trump didn’t help the GOP cause by courting Manchin for his Cabinet — but not selecting him. Manchin is the last Democrat left in the state’s congressional delegation as it has swung right. Read more →

WISCONSIN (Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin)

Rep. Sean Duffy bowed out early, and Republicans haven’t had a clear candidate to take on Baldwin since. Nicole Schneider, a former social worker who also happened to be the heiress to a major trucking company, attracted the attention of the NRSC due to her ability to self-fund, but she’s also decided not to run. Businessman and Iraq War veteran Kevin Nicholson has an attractive résumé, though he was a past president of the College Democrats of America. Businessman Eric Hovde, who finished second in the 2012 GOP primary, is still considering a bid, as is state Sen. Leah Vukmir. Read more →

 

Let's hope it gets worse for them. And we need some impressive Democratic candidates to challenge some of the Republican seats that will be up for re-election. I refuse to accept the DNC's attitude that we can't turn any Republican Senate seats. If we can't do it now, we will never be able to.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans thought they could force 2018 Democrats to cut deals, but Trump keeps sliding in polls"

Spoiler

Senate Republicans began this year thinking that they had leverage over some Democrats, particularly the 10 up for reelection next year in states that President Trump won last fall.

Those Democrats, some GOP strategists believed, would want to work with the president to appeal to enough Trump voters to win their states in November 2018.

That didn’t happen. Instead, Trump’s standing has slipped in many of these states. The president has faced legislative gridlock and a deepening investigation of his campaign’s connections to Russia. His focus, in public appearances and on social media, has regularly drifted away from the policy agenda on Capitol Hill.

That’s left Senate Democrats feeling stronger than they expected to be eight months after their highly disappointing showing in 2016, which left them in the minority and heading into 2018 defending 25 seats compared to the Republicans’ eight.

If Trump had spent his first six months increasing or even maintaining his popularity in these states, he might have struck enough political fear in these 2018 Democrats to compel them to support some of his initiatives.

That’s looking more and more like the sort of negotiation that will happen only if Democrats can command a good deal in return.

The dynamic is sure to test Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the months ahead, particularly if Republicans fail to muster the votes solely from their side of the aisle to repeal chunks of the Affordable Care Act. McConnell has warned that such an outcome will force him to work with Democrats to shore up imploding insurance markets.

“No action is not an alternative,” McConnell said Thursday while in Kentucky.

Beyond the health-care fight, McConnell has also made clear that there are many other agenda items that will require the traditional 60-vote threshold to choke off filibusters, meaning he needs at least eight Democrats to move legislation such as annual government funding bills and an increase in the government’s borrowing authority.

But the bargaining table is different now.

Take Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), whose state delivered a critical victory for Trump, the first by a GOP presidential nominee since 1984.

A staunch liberal, Baldwin began the year expecting her reelection bid in 2018 to be a 50-50 prospect. Her state had voted Republican three straight times for governor and in two of the last three Senate races.

Trump has used the presidential bully pulpit to focus on the Badger State, making three trips there since November. But his visits have done little to boost his standing.

Just 41 percent of Wisconsin voters approved of Trump’s job performance in late June, while 51 percent disapproved, according to the Marquette Law School Poll.

On basic popularity, Trump is easily the most disliked politician among Wisconsin voters, with 54 percent holding an unfavorable view of him and 40 percent a favorable one.

Baldwin’s image is not great, but it is far better in Wisconsin’s eyes than Trump: 38 percent have a favorable view and 38 percent unfavorable.

It’s the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, both states Trump narrowly won. In Michigan, just 35 percent of voters approved of his job performance in a late May poll conducted by EPIC-MRA, with 61 percent disapproving. In Pennsylvania, 37 percent supported his job performance while 49 percent did not, according to a May poll by Franklin & Marshall University.

The good news for Trump is that his image in Pennsylvania improved a little from earlier in the year. The bad news is that his image in Michigan got a bit worse. The really bad news is that Trump’s image is battered enough that neither Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) nor Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) are feeling much pressure to work with Trump in the run-up to their 2018 reelection bids, unless it’s on their terms on a critical issue for their state.

“For senators who hail from states where he is completely underwater, there is no political reason to work with him unless it’s on an issue where they have something to gain,” said Matthew Miller, a former aide to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

It’s not just Trump who is unpopular; so is his party’s health-care proposal.

Late last month, two liberal super PACs, Priorities USA and Senate Majority PAC, released a poll of the 10 states Trump won where Democrats face reelection next year. It showed that 60 percent of voters in those key battlegrounds want the Senate to start over on a health-care plan, while only 25 percent support its passage.

The super PACs did not release Trump-specific data, but several sources familiar with the poll said that the Democratic groups also privately tested the president’s standing with voters in those 10 states. Only in the most conservative of those states, such as West Virginia and North Dakota, did Trump have a net positive approval rating, but even there his approval was only a handful of points higher than his disapproval.

Trump won West Virginia and North Dakota by 42 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Under normal political circumstances, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) should be trying at every turn to work with Trump — much like Southern Democrats supported Ronald Reagan’s early agenda when the Republican icon swept that region in 1980.

After initial meetings with Trump during the transition, in which their names were floated as potential Cabinet members, Manchin and Heitkamp have kept a respectful distance from the president on most issues. Unless Trump can regain his strong popularity in these conservative states, they are unlikely to feel the pressure to support the president, particularly when he’s pushing very conservative agenda items.

“You have to demonstrate that you respect the office and are willing to work with him, but hold firm to your principles on core issues,” Miller said, describing the Manchin-Heitkamp approach.

During the spring negotiations over 2017 government funding, Democrats held firm against most of Trump’s priorities, including money for a Mexican border wall. Republicans got very few conservative wins.

If Trump isn’t careful, this dynamic might start repeating itself for the foreseeable future.

I hope this is true and the Dems come on strong in 2018.

[fraurosena]

There seems to be a cycle going on. 

1. Democrat in office, Repugliklans complain and moan, point out how bad Democrat rule is
    
2. Repugliklan wins the election, makes a big mess of things because he has no idea how to rule
    
3. Democrat wins the election, needs to clean up mess Repugliklans made, Repugliklans complain and moan, point out how bad Democrat rule is
    
4. Repugliklan wins the election, makes a big mess of things because he has no idea how to rule

Rinse, lather, repeat...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I hope they don't get the 50 votes they need to screw the American public: "Senate GOP and White House plan final, urgent blitz to pass health-care law"

Spoiler

The White House and Senate Republican leaders are planning a final, urgent blitz to pressure reluctant GOP senators to pass an overhaul of the Affordable Care Act before their month-long August recess.

Aware that the next 14 days probably represent their last chance to salvage their flagging endeavor, President Trump, Vice President Pence and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) intend to single out individual senators and escalate a broad defense of the evolving proposal, according to Republicans familiar with their plans.

When Trump returns from Europe, he plans to counter the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the legislation — which shows that 22 million fewer people would have insurance coverage by 2026 than under the current law — with figures and analyses from conservative groups and Republicans that show more benefits and less disruption, should the bill pass, according to a White House official familiar with the strategy.

Pence, meanwhile, is being asked to help bring along skeptical GOP senators, including Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.), to whom he has already reached out personally.

McConnell is expected to place greater responsibility on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to pitch his controversial amendment that would allow insurers to offer plans that don’t meet ACA requirements — provided they also offer some that do. McConnell could ask Cruz to speak to Republican senators as soon as Tuesday, according to a person familiar with his strategy. Cruz has often talked about his amendment in the senators’ regular Tuesday lunches, but the burden of building support for the bill could be left to the firebrand conservative.

The plans, which the Republicans described on the condition of anonymity, reflect the immense pressure GOP leaders feel as they aim to bring their bill to a vote on the Senate floor the week after next.

It is far from clear that the strategy will work. Even as Trump has sought to complement McConnell’s efforts with his own, he has also complicated the majority leader’s life — most notably urging a vote on strictly repealing the law if the current effort is unsuccessful. McConnell has floated a different backup plan: working with Democrats to stabilize the insurance markets.

The biggest challenge the leaders face is the widespread disagreement among Republican senators about how the nation’s health-care laws should be structured, as well as frustration about the secretive process McConnell used to craft his bill. It was that anger and discord that spoiled McConnell’s plan to vote on the bill before the Fourth of July recess and forced him to rewrite his draft.

“It may be that there is another discussion draft. If there is, I can’t tell you what’s in it. That’s what happens when you don’t have an open process,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Friday at an event with constituents in Homer, Alaska.

Murkowski is one of several key moderate senators whom McConnell desperately needs to win over with his next draft, the details of which could be released as soon as early next week. He can afford to lose only two of the 52 Republican senators if he hopes to pass the bill. No Democrats plan to vote for the measure, but Pence is ready to cast a tiebreaking vote if needed.

McConnell must also woo recalcitrant conservatives who came out against the initial draft the day it was released. They include Cruz, who has been pushing his amendment as a means of winning his own vote as well as those of his conservative allies.

“It adds additional choices so that people who can’t afford insurance now will be able to purchase some form of insurance that they want, that they desire, that helps meet their needs,” Cruz said Thursday at a town hall in Austin hosted by Concerned Veterans for America, a group backed by the billionaire conservative Koch brothers.

But Cruz’s amendment has drawn concern from critics who worry that it would destabilize the risk pool that brings together healthy and sick individuals, and that it could mean higher coverage costs for less-healthy people.

“There’s a real feeling that that’s subterfuge to get around preexisting conditions,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), according to Iowa Public Radio. “If it is subterfuge and it has the effect of annihilating the preexisting-condition requirement that we have in the existing bill, then obviously I would object to that.”

It’s not yet clear whether Cruz’s proposal would be allowed under arcane Senate rules that Republicans are using to pass their bill with a simple majority rather than the supermajority required of most legislation. It’s also unclear what the impact would be on coverage levels or the deficit. The CBO is reviewing it along with other proposed changes, according to Republicans familiar with the situation. To some in McConnell’s orbit, Cruz is taking a risk by waging such a public campaign for his measure before those aspects are determined.

Cruz stands to be left responsible for the success or failure of a conservative amendment that could alienate other Republicans or undermine the special protections allowing the bill to pass along GOP party lines.

A Cruz spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

GOP leaders are also trying to win the support of Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), two Cruz allies who also opposed the draft legislation.

Inside the West Wing, Trump associates are working closely with McConnell’s legislative aides to track Republican senators. White House legislative director Marc Short speaks regularly with McConnell chief of staff Sharon Soderstrom and with GOP Senate leaders to hear their concerns, according to two Republicans involved in the discussions.

But while the relationship between the White House and McConnell’s operation has been tight, it is far from the only nexus driving the process.

Other influential White House figures, such as chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, have their own networks of friendly lawmakers and aides on Capitol Hill, at times vexing the McConnell orbit as it tries to hold together the Senate Republican conference. Bannon, for instance, has built a strong rapport with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, who is known for telling the White House what could or could not pass muster among his colleagues in the House even as the Senate leadership toils over the bill.

McConnell’s proposal to work with Democrats if things fall apart could be an equally stiff challenge, given the intense partisanship that has gripped lawmakers in recent years. Nevertheless, some Republicans are hopeful.

Murkowski said she has personally contacted Democrats to see whether they might be more willing partners in fixing the health-care system in a way that fits the needs of her state. She is one of a number of rank-and-file Republicans who are warming to the idea of abandoning plans for repeal and working with Democrats to fix the existing system.

This week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another critic of the GOP bill, said she had also been in contact with Democrats who say they are waiting for McConnell to abandon repeal so they can move on to work with moderate Republicans on bipartisan health-care legislation.

“I had one Democratic senator call me last Thursday morning at 6:54 a.m. and say to me, ‘I really want to negotiate, but until this bill fails I’m prohibited from doing so,’ ” Collins said in an interview.

McConnell’s troubles have spread in recent weeks from the roughly half-dozen early GOP skeptics on either ideological flank. Even reliable leadership allies such as Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have raised questions about the bill. Moran was the only Republican senator to face constituents at an unregulated town hall meeting this week, and he found himself flooded with voters demanding that he not support the Senate bill.

“I think there are many senators — more senators than are having town hall meetings — more senators out there who have genuine concerns with this legislation,” Moran told reporters after the meeting.

 

[GrumpyGran]

54 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

There seems to be a cycle going on. 

1. Democrat in office, Repugliklans complain and moan, point out how bad Democrat rule is
    
2. Repugliklan wins the election, makes a big mess of things because he has no idea how to rule
    
3. Democrat wins the election, needs to clean up mess Repugliklans made, Repugliklans complain and moan, point out how bad Democrat rule is
    
4. Repugliklan wins the election, makes a big mess of things because he has no idea how to rule

Rinse, lather, repeat...

 

Yep, that's pretty much the way it goes here, @fraurosena. It's been that way since Nixon. Like a terrifying roller coaster. Or taking care of you teeth by going to the dentist. Democrats in control=I just got my teeth cleaned, they feel so good! Republicans in control=crap, I haven't been to the dentist in a year and I have a tooth-ache. Root canal coming.

[fraurosena]

Awwww, Lyin' Ryan has a yellow belly...

Paul Ryan: No more public town hall meetings

Quote

To avoid situations involving protesters coming in from other districts, House Speaker Paul Ryan says he will no longer hold public town halls.

The announcement came after CBS News asked when the next open town hall would take place.

"I don't want to have a situation where we just have a screaming fest, a shouting fest, where people are being bused in from out of the district to get on TV because they're yelling at somebody," he said.

Instead, Ryan said he would use "new and creative" methods of having a civil dialogue with constituents.

He suggested planned tours, telephone town halls, office hours and employee town halls as alternatives.

Republican rallies have been filled with protesters since President Trump took office, with footage from many going viral online.

He's scared shitless of his own constituents. 

And wtf are 'office hours and employee town halls' anyway? Will he only speak with his own employees during office hours and call it a town hall? 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

And wtf are 'office hours and employee town halls' anyway? Will he only speak with his own employees during office hours and call it a town hall? 

I still love John Oliver's comment that Ryan is evidence that you can live without a spine.

Employee town halls are when a politician has a "town hall" at an employer's work site, say a Carrier factory. The idea is that the participants will stay in line and not ask anything tough because multiple levels of management are standing there, watching. Office hours are like college professors, they'll be in their office from x time to y time on selected days and students can just come by without an appointment. However, knowing Ryan, his office hours will be from 9AM until 9:05AM on days that don't end in a 'y'.

[GrumpyGran]

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I still love John Oliver's comment that Ryan is evidence that you can live without a spine.

Employee town halls are when a politician has a "town hall" at an employer's work site, say a Carrier factory. The idea is that the participants will stay in line and not ask anything tough because multiple levels of management are standing there, watching. Office hours are like college professors, they'll be in their office from x time to y time on selected days and students can just come by without an appointment. However, knowing Ryan, his office hours will be from 9AM until 9:05AM on days that don't end in a 'y'.

I think at this point you'd have a better chance of getting an audience with the Queen-any Queen-than having a conversation with a Republican lawmaker. The Pope might be easier, too.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

I think at this point you'd have a better chance of getting an audience with the Queen-any Queen-than having a conversation with a Republican lawmaker.

I think you'd have a better chance of getting an audience with Freddie Mercury (of Queen) in his current state, than with snowflake Ryan.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Marco Rubio Is Tweeting the Most Republican Part of the Bible"

Spoiler

Marco Rubio had a message for his nearly 3 million Twitter followers on the morning of June 26: “As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly. Proverbs 26:11.”

That one might have been his most head-snapping, but Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, had been tweeting verses like that one since May 16. He has tweeted a biblical verse almost every day since then. Almost all of them come from the Old Testament, and specifically the book of Proverbs.

Proverbs is notable in that is presents a fairly consistent view of the world: The righteous are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. In the understanding of Proverbs, everyone gets what is coming to them; behavior is directly linked to reward or punishment. This worldview has social consequences: Those who succeed in life must be more righteous than those who struggle.

Some of the statements in Proverbs look strikingly similar to those made by modern-day conservative policymakers. Take, for example, Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who, arguing that poorer people should pay more for health care, recently said, “Those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy.” It’s not quite a direct quote from Proverbs, but it’s not too far from these: “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry” (Prov 10:3) and “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich” (Prov 10:4). In short: Proverbs is probably the most Republican book of the entire Bible.

Proverbs is really a collection—or, more accurately, a collection of collections. Some of these sayings have very ancient origins, including one section that is clearly dependent on an Egyptian wisdom treatise from the second millennium BCE. Overall, though, the book was put together rather late—and not, as tradition holds, by King Solomon—and generally deals with questions of how to live a righteous life.

For example: Just this past July 5, Rubio tweeted, “They will die from lack of discipline, lost because of their great follow Proverbs 5:23.” Of course it’s not all diligence and righteousness—in Proverbs, faith in God, too, will keep you away from things like poverty and failure. Back on June 16, Rubio tweeted, “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.”

Other Republicans appear to have a thing for Proverbs, too. Ben Carson, during the last presidential campaign, compared himself favorably to the blustery style of then-candidate Trump by quoting Proverbs 22:4: “By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life.” Gerald Ford’s favorite Bible passage was Proverbs 3:5-6: “Trust wholeheartedly in Yahweh [the Lord], put no faith in your own perception; in every course you take, have him in mind: He will see that your paths are smooth.” Ford repeated this when he served in the Navy during World War II, throughout his presidency and in his swearing-in.

Trump likes the idea of Proverbs, even if he doesn’t know much about the text itself. Back in September 2015, Trump claimed, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, that among the biblical verses he most appreciated was “Proverbs, the chapter ‘never bend to envy.’ I’ve had that thing all my life, where people are bending to envy.” This would have been a more effective citation if there were such a line anywhere in the book of Proverbs. (His interviewer later told the Washington Post, not entirely persuasively, that Trump was referring to Proverbs 24:1-2: “Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief.”)

Proverbs, of course, is also just pithy and instructive and so has some appeal for Democrats, too. Bill Clinton employed Proverbs 29:18 when accepting the nomination in 1992: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” But do a quick look at the Bible passages quoted past inauguration speeches, and you’ll see that Republicans, from Ford to Herbert Hoover all the way back to William McKinley, have a clear preference for the section relative to Democrats.

It’s not just the Book of Proverbs that politicians have quoted to justify a worldview or political philosophy, however much squinting was required to make a connection. In April 2016, Trump referred (loosely) to Leviticus 24:19-21 when asked what his favorite Bible verse was. “So many,” he told the AM radio host. “And some people—look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that.” He went on to explain why: “But you know, if you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean … And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.” It didn’t take very long for Trump to segue back into his talking points about the need for more American muscle: Other countries “laugh at our face, and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking the health of our country.”

There is surely nothing wrong with a politician turning to the Bible for spiritual, ethical and moral guidance. The Bible is the foundational text of Western civilization, after all. But concentrating exclusively on the parts of it that affirm one’s own perspective is a form of confirmation bias. One might advise Rubio to read, and tweet, more widely: from Ecclesiastes, perhaps, or from prophets such as Amos: “Because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of stone—but you shall not live in them” (Amos 5:11). Maybe Leviticus: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself” (Lev 19:33–34). Or even the gospels of the New Testament: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24/Mark 10:25/Luke 18:25).

As for Trump’s favorite Bible verse, we should remember that Jesus later repudiated it in the New Testament, when he said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38-42).

Nor does Proverbs represent the sole biblical perspective on such issues of reward and punishment. Indeed, the entire book of Ecclesiastes is nothing less than a direct rebuke to the harsh, almost social Darwinist worldview of Proverbs: “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate the time of disaster” (Eccl 9:11–12).

It’s always nice to know that whatever your ideological persuasion, there’s a verse in the Bible just waiting to be appropriated. Or, as Ecclesiastes put it, “For every thing, there is a season.”

 

[GrumpyGran]

18 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sigh: "Marco Rubio Is Tweeting the Most Republican Part of the Bible"

  Hide contents

Marco Rubio had a message for his nearly 3 million Twitter followers on the morning of June 26: “As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly. Proverbs 26:11.”

That one might have been his most head-snapping, but Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, had been tweeting verses like that one since May 16. He has tweeted a biblical verse almost every day since then. Almost all of them come from the Old Testament, and specifically the book of Proverbs.

Proverbs is notable in that is presents a fairly consistent view of the world: The righteous are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. In the understanding of Proverbs, everyone gets what is coming to them; behavior is directly linked to reward or punishment. This worldview has social consequences: Those who succeed in life must be more righteous than those who struggle.

Some of the statements in Proverbs look strikingly similar to those made by modern-day conservative policymakers. Take, for example, Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who, arguing that poorer people should pay more for health care, recently said, “Those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy.” It’s not quite a direct quote from Proverbs, but it’s not too far from these: “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry” (Prov 10:3) and “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich” (Prov 10:4). In short: Proverbs is probably the most Republican book of the entire Bible.

Proverbs is really a collection—or, more accurately, a collection of collections. Some of these sayings have very ancient origins, including one section that is clearly dependent on an Egyptian wisdom treatise from the second millennium BCE. Overall, though, the book was put together rather late—and not, as tradition holds, by King Solomon—and generally deals with questions of how to live a righteous life.

For example: Just this past July 5, Rubio tweeted, “They will die from lack of discipline, lost because of their great follow Proverbs 5:23.” Of course it’s not all diligence and righteousness—in Proverbs, faith in God, too, will keep you away from things like poverty and failure. Back on June 16, Rubio tweeted, “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.”

Other Republicans appear to have a thing for Proverbs, too. Ben Carson, during the last presidential campaign, compared himself favorably to the blustery style of then-candidate Trump by quoting Proverbs 22:4: “By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life.” Gerald Ford’s favorite Bible passage was Proverbs 3:5-6: “Trust wholeheartedly in Yahweh [the Lord], put no faith in your own perception; in every course you take, have him in mind: He will see that your paths are smooth.” Ford repeated this when he served in the Navy during World War II, throughout his presidency and in his swearing-in.

Trump likes the idea of Proverbs, even if he doesn’t know much about the text itself. Back in September 2015, Trump claimed, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, that among the biblical verses he most appreciated was “Proverbs, the chapter ‘never bend to envy.’ I’ve had that thing all my life, where people are bending to envy.” This would have been a more effective citation if there were such a line anywhere in the book of Proverbs. (His interviewer later told the Washington Post, not entirely persuasively, that Trump was referring to Proverbs 24:1-2: “Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief.”)

Proverbs, of course, is also just pithy and instructive and so has some appeal for Democrats, too. Bill Clinton employed Proverbs 29:18 when accepting the nomination in 1992: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” But do a quick look at the Bible passages quoted past inauguration speeches, and you’ll see that Republicans, from Ford to Herbert Hoover all the way back to William McKinley, have a clear preference for the section relative to Democrats.

It’s not just the Book of Proverbs that politicians have quoted to justify a worldview or political philosophy, however much squinting was required to make a connection. In April 2016, Trump referred (loosely) to Leviticus 24:19-21 when asked what his favorite Bible verse was. “So many,” he told the AM radio host. “And some people—look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that.” He went on to explain why: “But you know, if you look at what’s happening to our country, I mean … And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you.” It didn’t take very long for Trump to segue back into his talking points about the need for more American muscle: Other countries “laugh at our face, and they’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re taking the health of our country.”

There is surely nothing wrong with a politician turning to the Bible for spiritual, ethical and moral guidance. The Bible is the foundational text of Western civilization, after all. But concentrating exclusively on the parts of it that affirm one’s own perspective is a form of confirmation bias. One might advise Rubio to read, and tweet, more widely: from Ecclesiastes, perhaps, or from prophets such as Amos: “Because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of stone—but you shall not live in them” (Amos 5:11). Maybe Leviticus: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself” (Lev 19:33–34). Or even the gospels of the New Testament: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24/Mark 10:25/Luke 18:25).

As for Trump’s favorite Bible verse, we should remember that Jesus later repudiated it in the New Testament, when he said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38-42).

Nor does Proverbs represent the sole biblical perspective on such issues of reward and punishment. Indeed, the entire book of Ecclesiastes is nothing less than a direct rebuke to the harsh, almost social Darwinist worldview of Proverbs: “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate the time of disaster” (Eccl 9:11–12).

It’s always nice to know that whatever your ideological persuasion, there’s a verse in the Bible just waiting to be appropriated. Or, as Ecclesiastes put it, “For every thing, there is a season.”

 

These shits, seriously, quoting the Bible. Yep, a book you can use to justify pretty much anything. And yet they never seem to quote Jesus, who they claim is the head of the religion they say they follow. Because Jesus' words are just too inconvenient.

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow: "The Health 202: Cruz picks government health care subsidies as lesser of two evils"

Spoiler

Even conservatives acknowledge that the sickest Americans need help in paying their own steep insurance costs. In an ironic twist, some would rather have the government make up the difference rather than spreading expenses among the healthy.

Health insurance markets are so complicated, and the policy around them is so complex and intertwined, that politicians don’t always land ideologically on the issue where you’d think. Just look at how GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is trying to change the Obamacare overhaul that Senate Republicans will try to pass in the next three weeks before August recess. The former presidential candidate last week touted his ideas and on the Sunday shows yesterday, my colleague Sean Sullivan reports.

Cruz’s so-called “Consumer Freedom Amendment” -- which conservatives have been rallying around as the revision they most want -- would essentially free the healthiest Americans from covering the costs of the sickest Americans. But the sick would be even more heavily reliant on federal assistance as a result.

Cruz is one of the biggest skeptics in Congress of federal spending. But even he has acknowledged this increased need for government help under his proposal.

“You would likely see some market segmentation” Cruz told Vox last month. “But the exchanges have very significant federal subsidies, whether under the tax credits or under the stabilization funds.”

The Cruz amendment, which is being scored by the Congressional Budget Office as one of several potential changes to the Senate health-care bill, would result in segmenting the individual insurance market into two groups, experts say. Under it, insurers could sell cheaper, stripped-down plans free of Obamacare coverage requirements like essential health benefits or even a guarantee of coverage. These sparser plans would appeal to the healthiest Americans, who would gladly exchange fewer benefits for lower monthly premiums.

But insurers would also have to sell one ACA-compliant plan. The sickest patients would flock to these more expansive and expensive plans because they need more care and medications covered on a day-to-day basis. As a result, premiums for people with expensive and serious medical conditions like diabetes or cancer would skyrocket because all those with such serious conditions would be pooled together.

“The question is, would there be a premium spiral on the ACA-complaint market?” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries. “Can they ever price those premiums adequately if it’s just going to be the sickest people in there?”

It's true that government subsidies -- which under the Senate plan would be available to those earning up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level -- would be even more crucial in order for these sicker Americans to afford the cost of their coverage, as would an extra infusion of federal “stabilization” money for states to cover their steep expenses.

Cruz hasn’t laid out all the details of how his amendment would work, nor is it even certain Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will accept it as part of his health-care bill. But should it be adopted, and the Senate bill ultimately made law, the Cruz amendment would significantly shift how the individual insurance market operates.

But in Cruz’s mind, it would solve one of the biggest problems with Obamacare: that it robs the healthy to pay for the sick. He's spent the last week pitching it as the legislative solution for passing the Senate bill.

“I think really the consumer freedom option is the key to bringing Republicans together and getting this repeal passed,” Cruz said on ABC yesterday. 

Of course, everyone paying into the system for those who most need care is the way insurance is fundamentally supposed to work. The ACA requires insurers to offer a wider ranger of benefits in plans sold to everyone regardless of their health status. But to Cruz and his compatriots, requiring healthier people to buy cushier plans than they want or need is an abridgment of personal freedom and oversteps federal regulatory authority. So they’re more worried at the moment about rolling back more ACA regulations and less worried about federal spending.

“I think for conservatives it’s become a question of picking their poison,” Larry Levitt, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “Is it government spending, or regulation? It’s almost like with this amendment, Sen. Cruz is acknowledging the need for a government entitlement program.”

Conservative groups that want a much fuller Obamacare repeal than the Senate bill provides have been jumping on the Cruz bandwagon, including Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots.

...

On the flip side, the Cruz amendment could help kill the Senate health-care bill in the end because it's prompting fears among moderates (whose votes are also needed to pass the legislation) that patients with preexisting conditions could be harmed. 

“I think that reopens an issue that I can’t support, that it would make it too difficult for people with preexisting conditions to get coverage,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Cruz has said the Senate bill's $100 billion stabilization fund for states could help cover costs for the resulting pricier coverage for those with preexisting conditions under his amendment. And to parry concerns about the increased federal spending, which to some is more than ironic coming from Cruz? The  talking point Capitol Hill aides and conservative wonks are adopting: Directly subsidizing costs for those with preexisting conditions is a more “honest” approach by the government than forcing healthy people to indirectly pay for their care by buying comprehensive coverage.

“If you’re going to have a subsidy, have it come directly from the taxpayer and call it a subsidy rather than try to dragoon people to do the government’s work,” said Chris Jacobs, a former GOP Hill staffer and founder of Juniper Research Group.

“It’s more honest and fair to have the government than to have healthy, middle-class families pay for it,” Conn Carrol, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said.

A co-sponsor of Cruz's amendment, Lee is insisting it be added to the Senate bill before he’ll vote for it. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have sent similar signals. And remember -- if more than two Republicans defect, the measure would be sunk in the Senate and the GOP effort to repeal-and-replace Obamacare would most likely meet a bitter end.

...

Keep pushing, Teddy, hopefully your ideas will blow it for the Repugs.

[fraurosena]

29 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Wow: "The Health 202: Cruz picks government health care subsidies as lesser of two evils"

  Hide contents

Even conservatives acknowledge that the sickest Americans need help in paying their own steep insurance costs. In an ironic twist, some would rather have the government make up the difference rather than spreading expenses among the healthy.

Health insurance markets are so complicated, and the policy around them is so complex and intertwined, that politicians don’t always land ideologically on the issue where you’d think. Just look at how GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is trying to change the Obamacare overhaul that Senate Republicans will try to pass in the next three weeks before August recess. The former presidential candidate last week touted his ideas and on the Sunday shows yesterday, my colleague Sean Sullivan reports.

Cruz’s so-called “Consumer Freedom Amendment” -- which conservatives have been rallying around as the revision they most want -- would essentially free the healthiest Americans from covering the costs of the sickest Americans. But the sick would be even more heavily reliant on federal assistance as a result.

Cruz is one of the biggest skeptics in Congress of federal spending. But even he has acknowledged this increased need for government help under his proposal.

“You would likely see some market segmentation” Cruz told Vox last month. “But the exchanges have very significant federal subsidies, whether under the tax credits or under the stabilization funds.”

The Cruz amendment, which is being scored by the Congressional Budget Office as one of several potential changes to the Senate health-care bill, would result in segmenting the individual insurance market into two groups, experts say. Under it, insurers could sell cheaper, stripped-down plans free of Obamacare coverage requirements like essential health benefits or even a guarantee of coverage. These sparser plans would appeal to the healthiest Americans, who would gladly exchange fewer benefits for lower monthly premiums.

But insurers would also have to sell one ACA-compliant plan. The sickest patients would flock to these more expansive and expensive plans because they need more care and medications covered on a day-to-day basis. As a result, premiums for people with expensive and serious medical conditions like diabetes or cancer would skyrocket because all those with such serious conditions would be pooled together.

“The question is, would there be a premium spiral on the ACA-complaint market?” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries. “Can they ever price those premiums adequately if it’s just going to be the sickest people in there?”

It's true that government subsidies -- which under the Senate plan would be available to those earning up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level -- would be even more crucial in order for these sicker Americans to afford the cost of their coverage, as would an extra infusion of federal “stabilization” money for states to cover their steep expenses.

Cruz hasn’t laid out all the details of how his amendment would work, nor is it even certain Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will accept it as part of his health-care bill. But should it be adopted, and the Senate bill ultimately made law, the Cruz amendment would significantly shift how the individual insurance market operates.

But in Cruz’s mind, it would solve one of the biggest problems with Obamacare: that it robs the healthy to pay for the sick. He's spent the last week pitching it as the legislative solution for passing the Senate bill.

“I think really the consumer freedom option is the key to bringing Republicans together and getting this repeal passed,” Cruz said on ABC yesterday. 

Of course, everyone paying into the system for those who most need care is the way insurance is fundamentally supposed to work. The ACA requires insurers to offer a wider ranger of benefits in plans sold to everyone regardless of their health status. But to Cruz and his compatriots, requiring healthier people to buy cushier plans than they want or need is an abridgment of personal freedom and oversteps federal regulatory authority. So they’re more worried at the moment about rolling back more ACA regulations and less worried about federal spending.

“I think for conservatives it’s become a question of picking their poison,” Larry Levitt, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “Is it government spending, or regulation? It’s almost like with this amendment, Sen. Cruz is acknowledging the need for a government entitlement program.”

Conservative groups that want a much fuller Obamacare repeal than the Senate bill provides have been jumping on the Cruz bandwagon, including Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots.

...

On the flip side, the Cruz amendment could help kill the Senate health-care bill in the end because it's prompting fears among moderates (whose votes are also needed to pass the legislation) that patients with preexisting conditions could be harmed. 

“I think that reopens an issue that I can’t support, that it would make it too difficult for people with preexisting conditions to get coverage,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Cruz has said the Senate bill's $100 billion stabilization fund for states could help cover costs for the resulting pricier coverage for those with preexisting conditions under his amendment. And to parry concerns about the increased federal spending, which to some is more than ironic coming from Cruz? The  talking point Capitol Hill aides and conservative wonks are adopting: Directly subsidizing costs for those with preexisting conditions is a more “honest” approach by the government than forcing healthy people to indirectly pay for their care by buying comprehensive coverage.

“If you’re going to have a subsidy, have it come directly from the taxpayer and call it a subsidy rather than try to dragoon people to do the government’s work,” said Chris Jacobs, a former GOP Hill staffer and founder of Juniper Research Group.

“It’s more honest and fair to have the government than to have healthy, middle-class families pay for it,” Conn Carrol, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said.

A co-sponsor of Cruz's amendment, Lee is insisting it be added to the Senate bill before he’ll vote for it. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have sent similar signals. And remember -- if more than two Republicans defect, the measure would be sunk in the Senate and the GOP effort to repeal-and-replace Obamacare would most likely meet a bitter end.

...

Keep pushing, Teddy, hopefully your ideas will blow it for the Repugs.

Uhm, maybe I'm a bit dense here, but... this idea seems rather like something we Dutch call 'pants-pocket, vest-pocket' financing. In essence it means that the financing is coming from the same source, just via an alternate flow. Maybe the healthy aren't paying for healthcare for the sickest directly via their insurance premiums, but where do they think the government gets its money from?

Smoke and mirrors, that's all this idea represents. So yeah, @GreyhoundFan, let's hope this will make things blow up in the faces of the repugliklans.

[GrumpyGran]

29 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Uhm, maybe I'm a bit dense here, but... this idea seems rather like something we Dutch call 'pants-pocket, vest-pocket' financing. In essence it means that the financing is coming from the same source, just via an alternate flow. Maybe the healthy aren't paying for healthcare for the sickest directly via their insurance premiums, but where do they think the government gets its money from?

Smoke and mirrors, that's all this idea represents. So yeah, @GreyhoundFan, let's hope this will make things blow up in the faces of the repugliklans.

What I find really disgusting about this is that Eddie Munster Cruz is pushing a notion that healthy people don't need insurance! Yeah, so I'm 25, fit, no chronic conditions, see I don't need insurance. Then I go hiking on a mountain, slip... Who's going to pay for that treatment for broken bones, brain injury(oops, that will always be a pre-existing condition in the future!), physical therapy? Not your crappy "basic" insurance. 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Uhm, maybe I'm a bit dense here, but... this idea seems rather like something we Dutch call 'pants-pocket, vest-pocket' financing. In essence it means that the financing is coming from the same source, just via an alternate flow. Maybe the healthy aren't paying for healthcare for the sickest directly via their insurance premiums, but where do they think the government gets its money from?

You are not dense at all. Cruz and company are the same folks who cry in their respective beers over the size of government and having to pay taxes, and now Cruz and his idiot friends are gonna pretend that taxpayers aren't the source of funding for our government to try and get this turkey of a bill passed.

It drives me insane how they are all "the healthy shouldn't have to pay for sick people" knowing that a good segment of the population is so pig ignorant that they don't realize THAT'S HOW INSURANCE WORKS! You may not have any health issues at the moment, so your premiums are helping to pay for Jane's cancer treatment, but odds are, you will have a health issue at some point, and then the other people will be helping to pay for your medical treatment.

It's the same basic principle as Scamaritan, only the participants don't know about each other's health issues, so they can't gossip and pass judgement on you for being ungodly enough to suffer from condition XYZ pray about your medical needs, and the risk pool is much larger.

[candygirl200413]

We still haven't figured out why repugs aren't offended about everyone having auto insurance but throwing a fit about health insurance? These people kill me.

[Childless]

49 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

We still haven't figured out why repugs aren't offended about everyone having auto insurance but throwing a fit about health insurance? These people kill me.

Because you not having health insurance doesn't directly affect them (it does, but it's just not obvious).  You not having auto insurance does affect them, especially if you rear end their fancy ass car.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Three Legs Good, No Legs Bad"

Spoiler

Will 50 Republican senators be willing to inflict grievous harm on their constituents in the name of party loyalty? I have no idea.

But this seems like a good moment to review why Republicans can’t come up with a non-disastrous alternative to Obamacare. It’s not because they’re stupid (although they have become stunningly anti-intellectual). It’s because you can’t change any major element of the Affordable Care Act without destroying the whole thing.

Suppose you want to make health coverage available to everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. Most of the health economists I know would love to see single-payer — Medicare for all. Realistically, however, that’s too heavy a lift for the time being.

For one thing, the insurance industry would not take kindly to being eliminated, and has a lot of clout. Also, a switch to single-payer would require a large tax increase. Most people would gain more from the elimination of insurance premiums than they would lose from the tax hike, but that would be a hard case to make in an election campaign.

Beyond that, most Americans under 65 are covered by their employers, and are reasonably happy with that coverage. They would understandably be nervous about any proposal to replace that coverage with something else, no matter how truthfully you assured them that the replacement would be better.

So the Affordable Care Act went for incrementalism — the so-called three-legged stool.

It starts by requiring that insurers offer the same plans, at the same prices, to everyone, regardless of medical history. This deals with the problem of pre-existing conditions. On its own, however, this would lead to a “death spiral”: healthy people would wait until they got sick to sign up, so those who did sign up would be relatively unhealthy, driving up premiums, which would in turn drive out more healthy people, and so on.

So insurance regulation has to be accompanied by the individual mandate, a requirement that people sign up for insurance, even if they’re currently healthy. And the insurance must meet minimum standards: Buying a cheap policy that barely covers anything is functionally the same as not buying insurance at all.

But what if people can’t afford insurance? The third leg of the stool is subsidies that limit the cost for those with lower incomes. For those with the lowest incomes, the subsidy is 100 percent, and takes the form of an expansion of Medicaid.

The key point is that all three legs of this stool are necessary. Take away any one of them, and the program can’t work.

But does it work even with all three legs? Yes.

To understand what’s happened with the A.C.A. so far, you need to realize that as written (and interpreted by the Supreme Court), the law’s functioning depends a lot on cooperation from state governments. And where states have in fact cooperated, expanding Medicaid, operating their own insurance exchanges, and promoting both enrollment and competition among insurers, it has worked pretty darn well.

Compare, for example, the experience of Kentucky and its neighbor Tennessee. In 2013, before full implementation of the A.C.A., Tennessee had slightly fewer uninsured, 13 percent versus 14 percent. But by 2015 Kentucky, which implemented the law in full, had cut its uninsured rate to just 6 percent, while Tennessee was at 11.

Or consider the problem of counties with only one (or no) insurer, meaning no competition. As one recent study points out, this is almost entirely a red-state problem. In states with G.O.P. governors, 21 percent of the population lives in such counties; in Democratic-governor states, less than 2 percent.

So Obamacare is, though nobody will believe it, a well-thought-out law that works where states want it to work. It could and should be made to work better, but Republicans show no interest in making that happen. Instead, all their ideas involve sawing off one or more legs of that three-legged stool.

First, they’re dead set on repealing the individual mandate, which is unpopular with healthy people but essential to making the system work for those who need it.

Second, they’re determined to slash subsidies — including making savage cuts to Medicaid — in order to free up money that they can use to cut taxes on the wealthy. The result would be a drastic rise in net premiums for most families.

Finally, we’re now hearing a lot about the Cruz amendment, which would let insurers offer bare-bones plans with minimal coverage and high deductibles. These would be useless to people with pre-existing conditions, who would find themselves segregated into a high-cost market — effectively sawing off the third leg of the stool.

So which parts of their plan would Republicans have to abandon to avoid a huge rise in the number of uninsured? The answer is, all of them.

After all these years of denouncing Obamacare, then, Republicans have no idea how to do better. Or, actually, they have no ideas at all.

Those last two sentences say it all.