United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[apple1]

18 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

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.

EXACTLY. People who can't understand this - one of my pet peeves.

NOBODY thinks they (or their spouse, or child, or even mother) will be the one with cancer (or the terrible car crash...)

 

When the day comes that they are the ones listening to, "You have cancer" - that's when they will finally get it. Nobody expects to hear those words - until it happens. Been there, done that.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "McConnell delays August recess to complete work on health-care bill, other issues"

Spoiler

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday he would cut the chamber’s August recess in half, saying the GOP needed more time to achieve their legislative goals given the protracted negotiations over health-care legislation and continued opposition from Democrats on several fronts.

“To provide more time to complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends across the aisle, the Senate will delay the start of the August recess until the third week of August,” McConnell said.

In addition to health care and appointments, the Senate will also devote time to passing a defense authorization bill “and other important issues,” McConnell said. The Senate will now remain at work through the week of Aug. 7.

Work on the Senate’s health-care bill, meanwhile, remained uncertain Tuesday. Senate leaders still planned to release a revised bill by the end of this week and hold votes beginning next week, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. McConnell’s announcement appeared designed to give Republicans time to move on to other matters after that.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) planned to make the case to fellow Republicans that they should embrace a radical change to the Affordable Care Act that would allow companies to offer minimalist plans on the private insurance market that don’t meet current coverage requirements.

The presentation, which Senate GOP aides said Cruz planned to make behind closed doors at the caucus’s weekly luncheon Tuesday, highlights the party’s ongoing struggle to devise a health care plan that can satisfy a broad enough swath of lawmakers.

Cruz and other conservatives are trying to steer the bill to the right even as GOP leaders are eyeing changes — such as preserving a tax on wealthy Americans’ investment income for several years — aimed at enlisting the support of centrists.

The Cruz proposal would let insurers offer plans that don’t meet current market requirements under the Affordable Care Act, such as providing benefits ranging from preventive care to mental health and substance abuse treatment. While this would lower premiums for some Americans, health experts say it would also siphon off younger, healthier consumers and could destabilize the market for more generous plans.

Tuesday’s lunch will offer Senate Republicans the first chance to convene as a group since they left for a week-long holiday recess, where many constituents and industry groups attacked their leaders’ plan to rewrite the 2010 law known as Obamacare.

In an interview with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Vice President Pence endorsed both the Cruz amendment and the idea that lawmakers should repeal the ACA outright if they cannot devise an immediate substitute. However, Senate GOP leaders are trying to narrow the number of options among from which their members can choose.

One person familiar with leadership strategy said Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is expected to present GOP senators with a “binary choice” in Tuesday’s lunch between getting a deal done among them or having to work with Democrats, which is a less palatable option.

The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said another main purpose of the meeting will be for Cruz to have the chance to pitch his controversial amendment, particularly to skeptical moderates.

Asked about his plans, Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said the senator has made his case “numerous times” and stands ready to do so again.

McConnell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senate leaders have serious concerns that the Cruz amendment might violate a set of budget rules that the health-care measure must meet to pass with 51 votes rather than the 60 votes needed for most other legislation. The overall bill needs to save at least $133 billion to comply with those rules.

Leaders are still waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to produce an analysis determining the budgetary and coverage impact of the Cruz amendment, but some aides said they worry the outcome could be devastating to the overall savings in the bill.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director, said it appears that Cruz’s amendment would send all of the young, healthy people who are cheaper to cover into one insurance pool — and leave sicker, older people “in a glorified high-risk pool.”

“It would be expensive and possibly not particularly stable,” Holtz-Eakin said in an interview. “If the public-policy goal is to give people access to affordable insurance options, there’s a set of people who would just not have access to that.”

Holtz-Eakin said he would expect insurers to flee the exchanges even faster than they are under current policy, driving up premiums and forcing the federal government to increase subsidies to keep up with the skyrocketing rates.

The concern over how the change could create two separate pools of consumers, paying very different insurance rates, has prompted a group of more moderate rank-and-file senators to pitch a plan that they say would curb the risk of that sort of segmentation. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he spoke with McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) Monday night in a private conversation on the Senate floor.

Rounds said he wants to create a fixed ratio between the least expensive plan and the most expensive plan that each company offers in a given state, though he did not offer details on how this goal would be achieved.

“Once you establish that, based on an actuarial determination, that ratio wouldn’t change,” Rounds said.

Rounds said he also asked McConnell to consider keeping a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually and couples earning more than $250,000 for six more years. Several individuals familiar with GOP leaders’ thinking, who asked for anonymity because no final decision has been made, said this idea is under active consideration.

The tax is among several proposed for elimination in the current Senate proposal.

By keeping it in place for anywhere between five and seven years, Rounds and others said, the federal government could steer more money to a stabilization fund that could to help offset consumers’ health care costs while the new GOP plan goes into effect. Some conservatives have said they could support that plan, provided that Cruz’s amendment is also included in the GOP’s base bill.

McTurtle just won't rest until he screws the American people.

[GrumpyGran]

Just a general thought on where we sit now, I'm surprised that Congress isn't simply getting rid of Trump now. I think they have the ammunition and it seems to me that every day we creep closer to mid-terms, he becomes more of a liability. I think they initially thought he would be a good distraction but they underestimated what kind of distraction he would be and also how divided their own party is on big issues.

They need to rip the band aid off now so they have time to heal before November 2018. Trumpanzees will get over it but they'll need a while for that and Repubs up or re-election can claim that they saved "everybody" from an unstable leader.

The only reason I can think of for them to continue down this disastrous road is that they're more frightened of Pence than they are of Trump.

[AnywhereButHere]

@GrumpyGran I agree that they thought they could use Caligula as an easily managed rodeo clown while they got their agenda through. Man, did they misjudge that one! Of course they also misjudged their ability to actually legislate. Go figure...

Pence seems to be their (not to be gross) wet dream though. He's a calm, decent looking (well, I think he looks doofy, like Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun - but whatever floats their GOP presidential boats) bible belter. I don't know what they're waiting for. 

Either of them terrify me. I'd love to be able to thread the needle between leaving Caligula where he is long enough to disrupt the 2018 (and after that presidential) elections, while not leaving him long enough to get us into a war with N. Korea (or hell - Australia for that matter).

[fraurosena]

I believe that the whole top of the Repugliklan party is also implicated and involved in the Russians collusion. And that's why they aren't doing anything of substance to get rid of the presidunce. When he Goes down, so will they...

[GrumpyGran]

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I believe that the whole top of the Repugliklan party is also implicated and involved in the Russians collusion. And that's why they aren't doing anything of substance to get rid of the presidunce. When he Goes down, so will they...

It is quite possible that he has dirt on some of them and they know if they try to take him out, he'll reveal what he has and they'll go down too. It would explain the obsequious ass-kissing that continues to go one. They're more terrified of what he'll do to them personally than what he's doing to the country. Cowards.

[GreyhoundFan]

I despise Gowdy, so I'm surprised he is saying even slightly tough things about the administration: "Gowdy fumes at Trump administration over latest Russia controversy"

Spoiler

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy lashed out at the Trump administration Tuesday over the “drip, drip” in the ongoing Russia controversy, sarcastically suggesting that officials get checked for amnesia about any contacts with Russia.

The South Carolina Republican first appeared on Fox News on Tuesday night expressing concerns about email traffic showing that Donald Trump Jr. was not only aware that the Russian government was gathering intelligence on Hillary Clinton to help his father’s election, but that he also knowingly met with a Kremlin-backed lawyer claiming to want to share incriminating documents with the Trump campaign.

“If you had a contact with Russia, tell the special counsel about it! Don’t wait until The New York Times figures it out!” an exasperated Gowdy said in a brief interview outside the Capitol on Tuesday.

Gowdy said the “somebody needs to sit everybody down” to find out what happened.

"Someone needs to get everyone in a room and say, from the time you saw 'Dr. Zhivago' until the moment you drank vodka with a guy named Boris, you list every single contact with Russia," Gowdy said, referring to the 1965 movie.

Gowdy, however, maintained his long-held argument that it’s Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller’s job — not his — to probe the matter. The chairman has said he and his Oversight panel will not interfere or overlap with Mueller in any way.

“Congress is not the place to litigate legal issues,” he said Tuesday.

Gowdy, his frustration evident, suggested the Russia matter has become a distraction for Hill Republicans.

“I don’t want to talk about it at all,” he conceded.

“There is a political component to it, which is: Here you are in mid-July asking me about Russia, and it’s not your fault that you’re doing it, but that’s how another week is starting here, so that’s a political concern,” he said. “You’re not here to ask me about infrastructure or tax reform or anything about that.”

Gowdy said he couldn’t tell whether the email traffic is proof that something illegal had occurred, such as collusion. He said all the facts needed to be gathered and “you’ve got to interview the witnesses” first.

“There is no way to make that conclusion … on the face of that email,” he said.

Gowdy is helping lead the House Intelligence Committee’s probe of Russia’s interference in the election and whether there was any collusion between Moscow and Trump aides. But he said he’d never seen the email.

Of course, we all know if Hillary had won the electoral college, he would have had her in front of a congressional hearing 10 seconds after the slightest allegation, special counsel or no.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The lights go out on the Republican Party"

Spoiler

Let the record reflect that on July 12, 2017, at a few minutes after 10 a.m. Eastern daylight time, the lights went out on the Republican Party.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan and fellow House Republican leaders had just finished their caucus meeting and were beginning a news conference. The House Republican Conference chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), was announcing new legislation to combat human trafficking. “We made a promise — ” she said. And then the room went dark.

“Whoops! Did I step on it?” she asked, looking at her feet for an electrical cord. Presently, the lighting rekindled. “Now, if we could pay the light bills,” she resumed.

The metaphor alert level has just been raised to red.

The latest revelation in the Putin palooza — that Donald Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, eagerly met last year with a person promising dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government — brings the sprawling scandal to a new level. Surely Republican leaders will move with dispatch to disavow Team Trump’s behavior?

But each time President Trump hits a new low — a racist outburst, a vulgar tweet, shabby treatment of women — commentators invariably state that this one will be the tipping point, the time when Republicans bail on the man who is undermining their party, and conservatism, and American values. Each time, such expectations meet the same fate: Wrong!

And this time, sure enough, the Silence of the Republicans has been profound.

On the House’s first morning back from the July 4 recess, five GOP leaders took turns making statements before the microphones, and there wasn’t a single mention of Trump, or of the Russian monster devouring their legislative agenda. Ryan (Wis.) waited to be asked the question, by CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, and provided a prepared non-answer.

Ryan, omitting mention of Trump Jr.’s Russia meeting, said he would leave it to the “professionals” investigating the matter to “do their jobs.”

NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Ryan if he would accept a meeting with a representative of a foreign adversary offering dirt on an opponent.

“I’m not going to go into hypotheticals,” the speaker replied, repeating his mantra about professionals doing their jobs.

But Ryan is a professional — he’s the most senior Republican in Congress — and he isn’t doing his job. At least he isn’t if his job is to protect his party (hurt by association with Trump), his policy agenda (bottled up because of Trump’s troubles) or the institutions of the government he represents.

No doubt Republican leaders and backbenchers alike are afraid — not of Trump but of the 25 percent or so of Americans who support Trump strongly and who also happen to be many of the people who dominate Republican primaries and show up to vote in midterm election. By the time these voters peel away from Trump, it may be too late to rescue the party, or the country.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was no braver. On Tuesday, McConnell (R-Ky.) was pressed four times about his confidence in Trump and his thoughts on Trump Jr. Four times, he responded with a variation of the same answer: “What I have a lot of confidence in is the Intelligence Committee handling this whole investigation.”

In the Senate, only a few Republicans have criticized Trump, among them Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who observed to the Weekly Standard that “another shoe drops from the centipede every few days.” In the House, there have been even fewer (although Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York labeled Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian “a big no-no”).

Republicans abandoning Trump tend to be those who don’t answer to voters. Congressman-cum-MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told Stephen Colbert on Tuesday that he was quitting the GOP over officials’ refusal to disown Trump. “What have you heard from Republican leaders today?” Scarborough asked. “Nothing. There’s always silence.”

Alas, Scarborough didn’t object to Trump when it could have done the most good, in the early months of the campaign. His show, “Morning Joe,” boosted Trump’s candidacy with chummy coverage and free airtime in the form of friendly call-in interviews. My colleague Erik Wemple wrote at the time that the show veered from “journalism into the friendly confines of a morning social club.” After Trump won the New Hampshire primary, the candidate thanked Scarborough and his colleagues, calling them “supporters,” then “believers.”

Democratic leaders remarked Wednesday on the silent majority. If the situation were reversed, Rep. Linda T. Sánchez (Calif.) said, “they’d be screaming to the rafters about the need for prosecutions.”

“Firing squads,” added Rep. Joseph Crowley, the House Democratic Caucus chairman from New York. “All we’re hearing right now is crickets.”

Crickets — and a centipede that keeps dropping shoes.

Yup, spineless to the core.

[GreyhoundFan]

"From hospitals, doctors and patients, a last gasp of opposition to the Senate health-care bill"

Spoiler

Just four days after Senate GOP leaders revealed their health-care bill this summer, Tucson Medical Center hosted a town hall thousands of miles away drawing roughly 700 people in person and 1,900 online. In its aftermath, hospital employees, doctors and members of the public sent nearly 2,900 emails to the state’s two Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, urging them to reject any legislation that would jeopardize patient health care.

The move was like nothing the hospital had done before, said Julia Strange, the center’s vice president for community benefit. While they had sponsored educational sessions on issues such as cardiac arrest and opioid abuse, “this was clearly different,” she said — and when triple the number of expected attendees showed up, “We had to order extra cookies.”

Most corners of the U.S. health-care industry have stood steadfastly opposed for months to Republican efforts to revise the Affordable Care Act. Patient advocate groups and Democratic organizers have crowded town halls since February to grill lawmakers. But in recent weeks, a last gasp of advocacy has come from an even wider range of groups and individuals trying to block the Senate health-care bill. Community hospitals have held information sessions. Pediatricians have starred in videos. Patient associations have flown in hundreds of Americans with chronic illnesses to meet with lawmakers and their aides.

These events, in turn, have generated tremendous public pressure on the senators who will decide over the next week whether their health-care bill will succeed or fail. The measure remained in trouble this week, with conservatives angling for a more dramatic repeal of the ACA and centrists saying the bill jeopardized coverage for too many Americans. President Trump even weighed in publicly Wednesday, telling senators he will be “very angry” if they do not pass a bill.

“It does make a big impact,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said of the advocacy across the country. Capito is weighing whether she can accept phasing out Medicaid coverage for nearly 180,000 West Virginians, along with other changes. Last year, nearly 18 percent of those Medicaid dollars paid for substance-abuse treatment; in recent days Capito has met with state officials as well as leaders of community centers and nursing homes who have warned about the impact of limiting Medicaid funding.

The push has touched other senators, too. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said in a statement that he has met with health-care leaders and particularly officials with rural hospitals, who “stressed the importance of stabilizing the health insurance market and also ensuring that low-income individuals have access to health-care coverage either through Medicaid or refundable tax credits.” Hoeven said over the July Fourth recess that he opposes the bill in its current form.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has spent days reworking portions of the legislation, diverting money from a planned tax cut to insurance premium subsidies and exploring whether to let insurers offer bare-bones plans on the ACA market. But he has done little to alter the proposed cuts to Medicaid or other provisions that have alarmed health-care providers and people with costly medical conditions. The new draft’s details are expected to emerge Thursday when leaders disclose a revamped package.

The plan to phase out Medicaid expansion programs that were added under the ACA in 31 states and the District of Columbia — and to restrict government spending for the program starting in 2025 — has prompted pushback not just from liberal activists but virtually every influential player in the health-care industry, along with several Republican governors including Doug Ducey of Arizona.

“We’re a Medicaid expansion state,” McCain told reporters Wednesday, adding that the bill would have to change to earn his vote. “I’m happy with the way it is in Arizona.”

Several Senate Republicans said in interviews this week that they were committed to pressing ahead with their plan to revise the 2010 law known as Obamacare because they want to curb entitlement spending and address the needs of Americans whose premiums have soared since the law’s enactment.

“It’s a guaranteed financial crisis if we don’t do something about our entitlement programs,” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who has pushed for indexing Medicaid to a lower inflation rate. “It’s not a question of whether that happens, it’s just a question of when, and how devastating that is.”

John Thune (S.D.), the Senate’s third-ranking Republican, said Wednesday that when it comes to the bevy of interest groups weighing in, “Everybody’s kind of getting numb to it.”

But the opposition inside and outside the Senate remained formidable.

Hospitals who gave up some federal payments under the ACA in exchange for the promise of more insured patients have made a particularly impassioned case against the measure. Strange noted that Arizona froze Medicaid enrollment in 2009 and expanded the program at the end of 2013. The hospital’s bill for bad debt and charity care dropped from $25.9 million in 2014 to $8 million in 2016: even though it paid $11.1 million to help pay for Medicaid expansion last year, it still ended up ahead.

Meanwhile, Valley Health CEO Mark Merrill, who runs two hospitals in West Virginia and another two in Virginia, just sent his third memo to employees Tuesday on how congressional Republicans’ plans to rewrite the health-care law could hurt both their patients and their business.

Twenty-five percent of his 5,500 employees live in West Virginia; he urged “those who are so inclined” to contact Capito and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) “to advise them of your concerns and your objections to the BCRA,” or the Better Care Reconciliation Act.

“I wanted them to act armed with facts, so they could understand what this really means,” Merrill said in an interview.

Still, these arguments have not swayed all the Republican holdouts: Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) said in an interview that now that he has had more time to analyze the bill he is open to bringing it to the floor for a vote.

The idea that funding for Medicaid could be curtailed in the future is not a problem for him, he said: “It’s really Medicaid expansion states that will have a problem,” he said.

Capito, for her part, said her most influential conversations have been with parents who have lost children to drug overdoses who did not gain access to treatment. While she appreciates the fact that the revised bill will give more federal funding for opioids treatment, she noted that having a new facility will not matter if someone loses their health coverage.

“You’re not going to access it,” she said.

In contrast to the original fight to pass the ACA, the coalition of organizations pushing to preserve the law are broader than they were in the past. “Protect Patients First” encompasses most of the nation’s most influential provider and disease advocacy groups: AARP, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Federation of American Hospitals, March of Dimes and American Nurses Association.

The coalition has already sponsored events in Ohio, Nevada and Colorado and has another set for Thursday at a cancer-treatment center in Charleston, W.Va. AARP has launched a seven-figure ad campaign, with new radio and television ads targeting GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Capito this week.

The American Academy of Pediatrics held a call last month with more than 220 pediatricians, kicking off two days of action on June 15 and June 22 in which hundreds of doctors called their members of Congress to urge against passing the health-care bill. Nearly 100 doctors have posted videos on social media opposing the Senate bill and urging lawmakers to protect Medicaid. And more than 30 pediatricians wrote op-eds and letters to the editor that have been published in newspapers across the country.

Sue Nelson, vice president for federal advocacy at the American Heart Association, said the fact that more Americans are insured now has added an urgency to groups’ efforts compared with the pre-ACA days.

“We also have so much more to lose now,” Nelson said, citing a recent finding that the incidence of cardiac arrest significantly declined among middle-aged adults who got covered after the law’s passage.

The country’s biggest doctor groups, for their part, started plotting strategy just days after Donald Trump was elected president, when it was clear the ACA could be repealed. At a November AMA meeting, the presidents of four groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Physicians — asked their staff to devise a legislative strategy. The American Osteopathic Association and the American Psychiatric Association joined them as well.

On Wednesday, leaders from the six groups shuffled from Senate office to Senate office, meeting with nine Republicans they hope could be influenced to vote against the Senate health-care bill.

They did not meet with McConnell or his leadership team. Nor did they receive any solid promises from the rank and file to oppose the bill. But the senators generally listened and indicated they at least understood the concerns, said Jack Ende, president of the American College of Physicians.

“They didn’t all say we’re definitely voting no, but I think they listened and realized we have real concerns,” Ende said. “I don’t think we convinced everybody we talked to, but hopefully they know it will not be an easy vote.”

Many of these advocates have been shut out from the start of the process. President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats spent much of 2009 seeking to cut deals with different segments of the health-care industry — to deflect the kind of attacks that torpedoed the party’s health-reform effort in 1994 and may do the same this year.

While McConnell had been pressing for a vote on the measure before the end of June, the delay gave opponents more time to marshal their arguments and make their case to lawmakers. This final lobbying push represents opponents’ best chance of derailing McConnell’s final drive to passage, which continues to look uncertain.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Congressman Sherman Introduces Article of Impeachment: Obstruction of Justice"

Spoiler

Co-Sponsored by Congressman Al Green

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), joined by Congressman Al Green (D-TX), introduced an Article of Impeachment (H. Res. 438) against President Donald J. Trump for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  The Article is based on Article 1, dealing with “Obstruction of Justice,” which was passed by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote on July 27, 1974, regarding Richard M. Nixon.  Sherman circulated a draft Article on June 12, 2017, and has been conferring with colleagues and legal experts from around the country since then.

Click HERE to see Congressmen Al Green and Brad Sherman’s press conference on Impeachment on June 7, 2017.

Statement of Congressman Brad Sherman

I am pleased that Congressman Al Green (D-TX) has joined me in filing Articles of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump.  We now begin the effort to force the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Obstruction of Justice and Russian interference in our election.

Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia.  It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russian probe.  I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.

Every day Democrats, Republicans, and the entire world are shocked by the latest example of America’s amateur President.  Ignorance accompanied by a refusal to learn.  Lack of impulse control, accompanied by a refusal to have his staff control his impulses.  We’re no longer surprised by any action, no matter how far below the dignity of the office—and no matter how dangerous to the country.

But the Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President for impulsive, ignorant incompetence.  It does provide for the removal of a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

As the investigations move forward, additional evidence supporting additional Articles of Impeachment may emerge.  However, as to Obstruction of Justice, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(3), the evidence we have is sufficient to move forward now.  And the national interest requires that we do so.

Introducing Articles of Impeachment will have two possible outcomes.  First, I have slight hope it will inspire an ‘intervention’ in the White House.  If Impeachment is real, if they actually see Articles, perhaps we will see incompetency replaced by care.  Perhaps uncontrollable impulses will be controlled. And perhaps the danger our nation faces will be ameliorated.

Second, and more likely, filing Articles of Impeachment is the first step on a very long road.  But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually—many, many months from now—Republicans will join the impeachment effort.

I author Articles of Impeachment not to change our national policy.  I served with Mike Pence in Congress for twelve years and I disagree with him on just about everything.  I never dreamed I would author a measure that would put him in the White House.  I am introducing Articles of Impeachment to begin a long process to protect our country from abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and impulsive, ignorant incompetence.”

I'm sure the TT will whine that this is fake news.

[GreyhoundFan]

The updated Trump/McTurtle "health care" plan has been released. Here's a summary of the major changes. I am praying that three Repugs have a conscience and don't vote for this travesty. They included the Cruz idea to basically blow up everything by letting insurance companies sell "basic" plans, which will create a de-facto high risk pool for sick people, which will cause premiums to skyrocket.

[EowynW]

This scares the crap out of me. Mr. EW are in the "doing too well for aide but not well enough to comfortably get by" category. He has severe asthma. He has to have his meds. We would like to have a kid or two in the future. 

Currently we have insurance through his work which is not too bad, but I worry if this will affect it. 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, EowynW said:

Currently we have insurance through his work which is not too bad, but I worry if this will affect it. 

Yes, it very well could. If this passes, plans offered by employers won't be required to cover as many conditions. Also, they can re-institute the horrible yearly and lifetime maximums. A two million dollar maximum is nothing if you have cancer or a chronic condition. And, they can charge more for older people.

I have been calling my senators' offices weekly. Mine are both Dems who are strong no votes, but I want them to be able to say they are getting feedback.

[Childless]

20 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The updated Trump/McTurtle "health care" plan has been released. Here's a summary of the major changes. I am praying that three Repugs have a conscience and don't vote for this travesty. They included the Cruz idea to basically blow up everything by letting insurance companies sell "basic" plans, which will create a de-facto high risk pool for sick people, which will cause premiums to skyrocket.

So, you'll have people buying basic plans until they need more comprehensive plans (i.e. they get married and want to start a family and need maternity coverage).  That's going to make the cost of non-basic plans sky rocket as only those who intend on using them will purchase them.  This is a horrible idea.  Figures Cruz would come up with it.  I never did think that man was strong in the brains department.

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, Childless said:

So, you'll have people buying basic plans until they need more comprehensive plans (i.e. they get married and want to start a family and need maternity coverage).  That's going to make the cost of non-basic plans sky rocket as only those who intend on using them will purchase them.  This is a horrible idea.  Figures Cruz would come up with it.  I never did think that man was strong in the brains department.

Oh, he's got brains alright. They were just transplanted from Jack The Ripper. But don't start thinking you're going to get a transplant. Uh Uh, no. No coverage for that. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yeah, neither do we: "Senate Republicans don't trust leaders' Obamacare repeal process"

Spoiler

A lack of confidence in the legislative process is complicating Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to corral enough Republican votes to open the floor debate on repealing Obamacare.

The freewheeling procedure for debating Republican legislation to overhaul healthcare in the Senate calls for hundreds of proposed amendments to receive a floor vote, providing both parties ample opportunity to alter the bill.

But with Democrats unanimously opposed to the Better Care Reconciliation Act, a handful of Republicans — more than enough to kill BCRA — are hesitant to vote to begin this process, which is known as "reconciliation."

Along with many Senate Republicans who do plan to vote for the "motion to proceed" with the debate, they fear that the bill is cooked and that McConnell and his leadership team will block any attempt at substantial change.

"We're concerned about that, yeah," Sen. Jeff Flake said Thursday.

The Arizona Republican said he was undecided on the procedural vote to open debate, explaining that he first wanted to explore whether amendments he might propose would get a vote and what threshold they would be subject to, 51 votes or, because of certain parliamentary hurdles, 60.

Sen. Ron Johnson plans to vote to open debate on BCRA and is encouraging his colleagues to join him.

But the Wisconsin Republican, a critic of the leadership-driven approach to crafting the bill that excluded the policy committees, has low expectations for a robust amendment process, which is commonly referred to as a "vote-a-rama."

"By and large that's been the reality of the situation, so, if you just kind of look at past vote-a-ramas, unless it's, ‘we support the troops,' or ‘mom and apple pie,'" it's hard to get amendments passed that significantly adjust the shape of the bill as introduced. "But, the process is what it is."

Under Senate rules, debate on legislation cannot begin until members approve a "motion to proceed." Bills considered under reconciliation, like the healthcare bill, require only 51 votes to open the floor debate; 60 votes are needed for all other legislation.

In past generations, senators would routinely vote for the motion to proceed, regardless of their position on the underlying bill. That would come into play on the up-or-down, simple majority vote on final passage.

But over the years, this procedural vote has come to be equated with voting for or against the legislation in question.

Political activists have honed in on it as another line of defense against bill they oppose. Members, worried they won't be able to amend the bill to their liking during the debate, have found more leverage in negotiating changes in exchange for supporting the motion to proceed.

A veteran Republican lobbyist with Senate ties blamed leadership for resorting to a more controlled, closed process for writing bills.

This operative said that a byproduct of this approach has been senators losing faith in the legislative process, although this individual also chastised the rank-and-file for resisting the inherent compromise that comes with successful lawmaking.

"They believe they should be able to define the final product before they vote," the GOP lobbyist said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. "We're in a weird environment where every member thinks they can control the outcome with their vote."

The revised version of the Senate healthcare bill to partially repeal Obamacare, introduced Thursday, still lacks enough Republican votes to pass. Democrats are unanimously opposed, and Republicans can lose only two votes, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie. Pence and President Trump are urging them to move swiftly to approve the bill.

Some undecided Republicans have committed to vote for the motion to proceed to begin the floor debate, which is scheduled for next week. But other undecided Republicans and GOP opponents, at present more than two, are declining to support this key procedural vote.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican Conference chairman and third-ranking party leader, conceded that suspicion about what can be accomplished during the vote-a-rama is challenging leadership's ability to whip enough votes to begin debate.

Still, Thune's sympathy only went so far. He noted that the amendment process under reconciliation was among the most open in the Congress and that it's up to individual members to persuade their colleagues to support their proposals.

Thune also dismissed complaints about the closed process. "If we keep talking about this, we've talked this to death. At some point you've got to start making decisions," he said.

The senator said that most Republicans agreed that running BCRA through committee would have only empowered Democrats to slow it down and emphasized that all members consulted during the drafting process overseen by McConnell.

"This is not final; it's not final until we vote on it at the end of the process, not the beginning of the process," Thune said. "Our members are going to have to decide whether we want to go down a different path than what we have with Obamacare."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

More info about Cruz' amendment:

[GreyhoundFan]

Excellent op-ed from the NYT: "The Cruelty and Fraudulence of Mitch McConnell’s Health Bill"

Spoiler

A few days ago the tweeter in chief demanded that Congress enact “a beautiful new HealthCare bill” before it goes into recess. But now we’ve seen Mitch McConnell’s latest version of health “reform,” and “beautiful” is hardly the word for it. In fact, it’s surpassingly ugly, intellectually and morally. Previous iterations of Trumpcare were terrible, but this one is, incredibly, even worse.

Before I get to what makes it worse, let’s talk about the one piece of the new bill that may sound like a step in the right direction, and why it’s largely a scam.

The original Senate bill got a lot of justified bad press for slashing Medicaid while offering big tax cuts for the rich. So this version rolls back some though by no means all of those tax cuts, which sounds like a concession to moderates.

At the same time, however, the bill would allow people to use tax-favored health savings accounts to pay insurance premiums. This effectively creates a big new tax shelter that mostly helps people with high incomes who (a) can afford to put a lot of money into such accounts and (b) face high marginal tax rates, and hence get big tax savings.

So this is still a bill that takes from the poor to give to the rich; it just does so with extra stealth.

Still, this tax shuffle does give McConnell a bit more money to play with. So how does he address the two big problems with the original bill — savage cuts to Medicaid and soaring premiums for older, less affluent workers? He doesn’t.

Aside from a few tweaks, those brutal Medicaid cuts are still part of the plan — and yes, they are cuts, despite desperate Republican attempts to pretend that they aren’t. The subsidy cuts that would send premiums soaring for millions are also still there.

The good stuff, such as it is, involves some new money for the opioid crisis, some (but not nearly enough) money for patients at especially high risk, and some additional aid for insurers — you know, the same thing Republicans denounced as outrageous corporate welfare when Democrats did it.

The most important change in the bill, however, is the way it would effectively gut protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions. The Affordable Care Act put minimum standards on the kinds of policies insurers were allowed to offer; the new Senate bill gives in to demands by Ted Cruz that insurers be allowed to offer skimpy plans that cover very little, with very high deductibles that would make them useless to most people.

The effects of this change would be disastrous. Don’t take my word for it: It’s what the insurers themselves say. In a special memo, AHIP, the insurance industry trade group, warned against adopting the Cruz proposal, which would “fracture and segment insurance markets into separate risk pools,” leading to “unstable health insurance markets” in which people with pre-existing conditions would lose coverage or have plans that were “far more expensive” than under Obamacare.

Or to put it another way, this bill would send insurance markets into a classic death spiral. Republicans have been predicting such a spiral for years, but keep being wrong: All indications are that Obamacare, despite having some real problems, is stabilizing, and doing pretty well in states that support it. But this bill would effectively sabotage all that progress.

And let’s be clear: Many of the victims of this sabotage would be members of the white working class, people who voted for Donald Trump in the belief that he really meant it when he promised that there would be no cuts to Medicaid and that everyone would get better, cheaper insurance. So why are Republican leaders pushing this? Why is there even a chance that it might become law?

The main answer, I’d argue, is that what would happen if this bill passes — a big decline in the number of Americans with health insurance, a sharp reduction in the quality of coverage for those who keep it — is what Republicans have wanted all along.

During the eight-year jihad against the Affordable Care Act, of course, the G.O.P. pretended otherwise: denouncing Obamacare for failing to cover everyone, attacking the high out-of-pocket expenses associated with many of its policies, and so on. But conservative ideology always denied the proposition that people are entitled to health care; the Republican elite considered and still considers people on Medicaid, in particular, “takers” who are effectively stealing from the deserving rich.

And the conservative view has always been that Americans have health insurance that is too good, that they should pay more in deductibles and co-pays, giving them “skin in the game,” and thus an incentive to control costs.

So what we’re seeing here is supposed to be the last act in a long con, the moment when the fraudsters cash in, and their victims discover how completely they’ve been fooled. The only question is whether they’ll really get away with it. We’ll find out very soon.

This is so true. I'm so concerned that McTurtle will twist arms until they fall off and there won't be three Repugs with a conscience.

[candygirl200413]

So I just watched a clip on nightly news where they were saying turtleface basically has a amendment for the three republicans he needs to vote on this like damn this man is desperate.

Also with Cruz, he knows like he is the most hated (okay maybe turtleface has him beat so let's say the 2nd worst senator?) so is this amendment because he doesn't care he'll be even more hated?

[Cleopatra7]

On 7/13/2017 at 1:15 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Yes, it very well could. If this passes, plans offered by employers won't be required to cover as many conditions. Also, they can re-institute the horrible yearly and lifetime maximums. A two million dollar maximum is nothing if you have cancer or a chronic condition. And, they can charge more for older people.

Only in the US could a health plan that promises poorer healthcare for more people be considered a success by so many.

[GreyhoundFan]

38 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Only in the US could a health plan that promises poorer healthcare for more people be considered a success by so many.

I know, right? And it's driving me crazy that so many people don't understand that this isn't just about people on the individual markets or on Medicaid, this will impact the huge number of Americans who get insurance through their employer. All this so billionaires can have a tax break and women can't be covered for women-specific care. Of course, there is an exception in McTurtle's plan for members of congress. Big flipping surprise. Oh, and I'm sure erectile dysfunction drugs will be covered at 100% on all plans. Because of course.

[Penny]

I say every one in the House and Senate have to make their own plan and pay for it themselves. I don't want to pay for their healthcare, they don't want to help others. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"If — if — the Senate passes a health bill, get ready for lightning round in the House"

Spoiler

By most measures, Republicans face a nearly impossible task of finding enough votes to pass their long-promised repeal of the Affordable Care Act through a Senate that seems irreconcilably divided.

A core group of moderates and mainstream conservatives remains resistant to the Republican proposal that slashes Medicaid funding, while a small but critical bloc of conservatives keeps pushing to move the bill further in their direction.

Yet by one measure, Republicans have never been closer to repealing large chunks of what they dismiss as “Obamacare.” Within two short weeks, the GOP will probably either be reveling in its unexpected victory or mired in deep infighting over the party’s failure to live up to a pledge it has made over the past seven years.

Some Republicans remain optimistic — and Democrats fearful — that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can pull off the negotiating tricks necessary, but he still faces an uphill fight in winning the votes to pass the Better Care Reconciliation Act by his tentative deadline of Friday.

If McConnell can make it happen, House Republicans seem ready to quickly pass the Senate version of the legislation and send it to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

At least that’s the assessment of two key House negotiators, one from the conservative and one from the moderate flank.

“I have no doubt in my mind that if it passes the Senate — in something close to what it’s like now — that it will pass the House,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), a moderate who negotiated portions of the bill that passed the House in early May.

His conservative counterpart, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), called the latest Senate version “a step in the right direction” and suggested it would “have to be a big move” away from the current draft to sink the bill in the House. Either way, he said, conservatives will not object if House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) takes the Senate bill and places it on the House floor in a take-it-or-leave-it moment.

“I realize the reality is, we’re not going to change it when it comes back here,” said Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, the most conservative group in Congress.

Ryan has gone out of his way to avoid comment on specifics of the Senate version of legislation. But Ryan has informed the House to expect immediate consideration if the Senate can find the votes. “If Senate is going to give us a health-care bill, we’re going to stay and finish the health-care bill,” he told reporters Thursday.

This is a reversal of the standard operating procedure of the last 6½ years of the GOP majority in the House. Time and again, House Republicans pulled a legislative face plant and relied on McConnell to clean up their mess. In 2011, the then-Senate minority leader had to step in after House Speaker John A. Boehner’s failed talks with President Barack Obama left the nation on the brink of default, and in 2013, Boehner’s House GOP drove the strategy into a federal government shutdown, which ended only through McConnell’s dealmaking. But this time, the negotiating failure could be on McConnell.

If McConnell works his magic, there’s no guarantee Ryan can ram the Senate bill through the House, where the original bill passed in May by a slim margin, 217 to 213. Some House conservatives are balking at the Senate’s refusal to repeal all of the taxes that were included by Democrats when they passed the 2010 law, and some moderates are wary of a provision Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) won that would allow insurers to sell low-cost plans in addition to those that meet higher standards imposed by the ACA.

But MacArthur and Meadows believe that in its current form, the Senate bill can probably pass the House — and if it does happen, it will pass quickly.

For several weeks they have provided a feedback loop to key Senate negotiators over what they think their allies in the House would accept without too much debate.

After votes ended Friday, Meadows stuck around Washington rather than making his usual eight-hour drive to western North Carolina. He had a call with Cruz, a key ally to the Freedom Caucus, and his schedule called for a White House meeting this weekend with people he would only identify as “senior administration officials” to discuss the Senate legislation.

MacArthur’s role negotiating with Meadows cost him his leadership role in the Tuesday Group, particularly because of their provision that would eliminate guaranteed coverage for some preexisting conditions. The moderate caucus of House Republicans split ranks on the House vote, and shortly thereafter MacArthur stepped down as co-chairman of the Tuesday Group.

But he has remained in talks with the moderates who did support the House bill, and in recent weeks he has had extended talks with a half-dozen Senate Republicans. MacArthur was particularly pleased that McConnell added a $45 billion fund to fight the opioid epidemic.

Overall, MacArthur thinks the emerging Senate bill is pretty similar to what the House already supported. The Cruz amendment is not that different from what he and Meadows were trying to do on the preexisting condition issue.

“Their bill is on the framework that we sent them; they didn’t start from scratch. And so they’re making adjustments around the edges, but directionality, they’re doing the same things we did,” he said.

Meadows’s biggest worry is that McConnell will yield to the Republicans from Medicaid-expansion states who believe the Senate version goes too far in cutting the entitlement program, even after adding about $115 billion to help with premium costs and fight opioids. “If it shifts hard to the left, it doesn’t get out of the Senate, and even if it does, it’s dead here,” he said.

MacArthur, who now has drawn several Democratic challengers for next year, has told colleagues that there is no political gain from switching their yes vote to a no vote. “If you voted the bill out of committee, if you voted for it on the floor, the ads are already written against you. And to try to change now, I think, gets you nothing. You know, it’s all the calories and half the flavor,” he said.

As he left the Capitol on Friday, Meadows had to temper his optimism about the bill’s chances in the House — because he knows that McConnell still hasn’t locked down its passage in the Senate.

“We’re still not there, though; we’re still several senators short,” he said.

I'll be calling again on Monday. We really can't have this travesty pass.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent analysis of the issues that are likely to crop up if Drumpfcare passes: "In Clash Over Health Bill, a Growing Fear of ‘Junk Insurance’"

Spoiler

Julie Arkison remembers what it was like to buy health insurance before the Affordable Care Act created standards for coverage. The policy she had was from the same insurer that covers her now, but it did not pay for doctor visits, except for a yearly checkup and gynecological exam.

“I couldn’t even go to my regular doctor when was I sick,” said Ms. Arkison, 53, a self-employed horseback-riding teacher in Saline, Mich.

The plan did not cover her exams before and after hip surgery, her physical therapy after her operation, the crutches she needed while she recovered, or any of her medications. She estimates that she spent $20,000 on medical care in the seven years before she could buy a plan through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.

As Senate Republican leaders struggle to secure enough votes to repeal and replace the health law, the centerpiece of their effort to win conservative support is a provision that would allow insurers to sell such bare-bones plans again. The new version of the bill released on Thursday incorporates an idea from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas that would permit insurers to market all types of plans as long as they offer ones that comply with Affordable Care Act standards. The measure would also allow companies to take into account people’s health status in determining whether to insure them and at what price.

State insurance regulators say the proposal harks back to the days when insurance companies, even household names like Aetna and Blue Cross, sold policies so skimpy they could hardly be called coverage at all. Derided as “junk insurance,” the plans had very low premiums but often came with five-figure deductibles. Many failed to pay for medical care that is now deemed essential.

One Aetna plan, for example, defined hospitalization coverage as mainly for room and board. It capped coverage at $10,000 for “other hospital services,” a category that included such routine care as medication and operating room expenses.

The Affordable Care Act drastically changed the health insurance landscape by requiring insurers to offer a set of comprehensive benefits — including hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs, maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment — in order to formally qualify as insurance. “The new bill opens the door to junk insurance,” said Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner.

Ned Scott, 34, who lives in Tucson, said the health plan he had before the Affordable Care Act left him with $40,000 to $50,000 in unpaid medical bills after he learned he had testicular cancer when he was in his late 20s.

“I thought it would cover things,” Mr. Scott said. But once he needed it, he learned the plan limited what it paid for outpatient care to $2,000 a year, and all of his treatment, from chemotherapy to CT scans, seemed to fall in that category.

Many Republicans, including President Trump, say giving insurers the leeway to offer less-comprehensive plans will give people greater choice and cheaper options. The Senate bill “ensures consumers have the freedom to choose among more affordable plans that are tailored to their individual health care needs,” Mr. Cruz said.

Proponents of the bill argue that it would allow people to buy insurance they could not otherwise afford. Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said he supported the idea of allowing insurers to sell plans that do not comply with the rules under the Affordable Care Act. The current proposal, Mr. Flake told The Arizona Republic in a recent interview, would allow “183,000 Arizonans who can’t afford insurance because it’s just too expensive to buy a product that meets their needs.”

But both consumer advocates and insurers — forces that are not often allied — are wary. They predict that healthy, younger people would most likely gravitate to the cheaper policies, believing they do not need the more comprehensive and expensive coverage, while older people with health conditions would see their premiums soar for more comprehensive plans.

On Friday evening, the insurance industry’s two main trade associations, America’s Health Insurance Plans and BlueCross BlueShield Association, sent a letter to the Senate voicing adamant opposition to the plan, which they say would create two distinct markets. The proposal “is simply unworkable in any form and would undermine protections for those with pre-existing medical conditions, increase premiums and lead to widespread terminations of coverage for people currently enrolled in the individual market,” the groups wrote.

Plans with much lower premiums are certain to be attractive to many people. But Elizabeth Imholz, a health policy expert for Consumers Union, warned, “The reality for consumers is that they can be stuck with huge, unexpected out-of-pocket costs.”

The Republican proposal also encourages the sale to small businesses of cheaper, less-comprehensive plans modeled after so-called association health plans that were in vogue decades ago, allowing associations or groups of like businesses to come together to buy insurance. The Republican bill would allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to buy plans that would be largely exempt from the current Affordable Care Act rules as well as state oversight.

That, too, has drawn concern. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents state regulators, wrote a letter to the Senate contending that the provision “appears to block the ability of states to preserve important consumer protections, effectively oversee the plans, or ensure a level playing field.”

Association plans, which had been virtually unregulated because they were not under the purview of any state rules, have had a mixed history. Some plans failed because they did not have the money to pay for their customers’ medical bills, while some insurance companies were accused of misleading people about what they would cover.

These plans are “just the classic example of insurance that disappears exactly when you need it,” said Jay Angoff, a former state insurance official in Missouri and New Jersey, who also worked in the Obama administration overseeing the insurance marketplace.

Antony Stuart, a lawyer who lives in California, has brought more than a dozen lawsuits accusing insurance companies of misleading consumers by selling them policies that provided much less coverage than they realized.

Mr. Stuart recalled one case involving a man, Doug Christensen, who bought a policy from Mega Life and Health Insurance, which was the subject of numerous lawsuits and state regulatory actions. Mr. Christensen, who previously had bone cancer, was assured by the insurance agent selling the policy that he would have adequate coverage if the cancer returned. But the plan limited payments toward chemotherapy to just $1,000 a day of treatment when the actual cost was sometimes 10 times that amount. Mr. Christensen was left with nearly $500,000 in unpaid medical bills.

“These plans lacked the necessary transparency that would give consumers an idea of what they were actually purchasing,” said Ashley Blackburn, a senior policy analyst with Community Catalyst, a consumer advocacy group. People buying plans now benefit not only from the standards the federal law sets but also from the fact that policies are clearly divided into categories with set levels of coverage. “We’re really moving back to a market where people are going to have a hard time reading through their plan options.”

The association plans, in particular, would make small businesses and self-employed individuals more vulnerable to policies that would leave them unprotected. State regulators cracked down after some of these plans became insolvent. Four associations in the early 2000s left their customers with nearly $50 million in unpaid medical bills, according to researchers in an overview of the plans’ history published in the journal Health Affairs.

Many states adopted a more aggressive stance as a result, but the Senate proposal would make plans largely exempt from state oversight. “There are a lot of consumer protection laws that states have passed that would have to be overruled or ignored,” said Rebecca Owen, a health research actuary with the Society of Actuaries.

A few weeks ago, Ms. Arkison came down with a bad cough. Her doctor prescribed antibiotics, steroids and an inhaler. She is thankful that her current insurance lets her see the doctor when she becomes ill. Under her old plan, she said, “I could not have gone in.”

 

[candygirl200413]

McConnell delays health care vote while McCain recovers from surgery

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Saturday that the Senate will delay consideration of the Republican health care bill while Sen. John McCain recovers from surgery for a blood clot.

McConnell tweeted that the Senate will work on other legislative issues and nominations next week and "will defer consideration of the Better Care Act" while McCain is recovering. McCain's absence would have imperiled the bill, which needs the support of 50 of 52 GOP senators to advance.

Two Republican senators -- Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- have already said they will not support a motion to proceed to floor debate on the legislation.

McCain is in Arizona after having a blood clot removed from above his left eye. His office said the clot was discovered during an annual physical and removed Friday at the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix.

"Thanks to @MayoClinic for its excellent care -- I appreciate your support & look forward to getting back to work!" McCain's verified account tweeted Saturday.

Senate Republicans unveiled a revised version of their health care bill Thursday, and GOP leaders had planned a vote, or at least to take the procedural steps toward a vote, in the upcoming week.

That procedural vote could have come as early as Tuesday.

McCain has expressed reservations about the bill.

"The revised Senate health care bill released today does not include the measures I have been advocating for on behalf of the people of Arizona," he said in a statement Thursday. McCain said that he would file amendments that would address concerns of leaders from his state about how the bill would affect Medicaid.

 

His office released a statement saying McCain, 80, is resting at his home.

"His Mayo Clinic doctors report that the surgery went 'very well' and he is in good spirits," his office said. "Once the pathology information is available, further care will be discussed between doctors and the family."

Doctors ordered a week of rest, the statement from McCain's office said.

The other Republican senator from Arizona praised McCain.

"I have never known a man more tenacious and resilient than John McCain," Jeff Flake said. "I look forward to seeing him back at work soon. In the meantime, Cheryl and I extend our best wishes to John, Cindy and the entire McCain family and pray for his speedy recovery."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, tweeted: "Praying for a speedy recovery for my friend @SenJohnMcCain."

Literally this man won't quit it.