Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill

[truth_seeker]

Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill

By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT

The House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday announced it will back the GOP's healthcare plan now that an amendment allowing states to opt out of key ObamaCare rules is included.

The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives held out for weeks, scuttling a planned House vote on the bill last month after it became clear there was't enough Republican support to pass it.

The group said it sees the new amendment, brokered by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and centrist Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), as the best option short of fully repealing the 2010 law.

"While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs," the Freedom Caucus said in a statement.

"We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare."

The MacArthur-Meadows amendment lets states apply for waivers from ObamaCare provisions that ban insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandate minimum insurance coverage requirements, as long as the state offers high-risk pools as an alternative.

Moderate Republicans are facing a difficult decision on the bill now that the Freedom Caucus has backed it, bringing the legislation close to the 216 House votes needed for passage.

Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330681-freedom-caucus-endorses-revised-obamacare-repeal-bill

[starstruck]

Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill

By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT

The House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday announced it will back the GOP's healthcare plan now that an amendment allowing states to opt out of key ObamaCare rules is included.

The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives held out for weeks, scuttling a planned House vote on the bill last month after it became clear there was't enough Republican support to pass it.

The group said it sees the new amendment, brokered by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and centrist Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), as the best option short of fully repealing the 2010 law.

"While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs," the Freedom Caucus said in a statement.

"We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare."

The MacArthur-Meadows amendment lets states apply for waivers from ObamaCare provisions that ban insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandate minimum insurance coverage requirements, as long as the state offers high-risk pools as an alternative.

Moderate Republicans are facing a difficult decision on the bill now that the Freedom Caucus has backed it, bringing the legislation close to the 216 House votes needed for passage.

Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330681-freedom-caucus-endorses-revised-obamacare-repeal-bill

The pre-existing condition coverage should be a limited time only offer. You shouldn't be allowed to go for years without coverage and get sick and then get insurance. Minors should also be allowed into the coverage when they come of age.

[SirLinksALot]

GOP health amendment would exempt members of Congress from losing Obamacare protections

See here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080

[geronl]

ObamaCare will now live forever.

[SirLinksALot]

From the above article in the NY Daily News:

(Excerpt)

.... buried in his eight-page amendment is a provision that congresspeople and their staffs — who, under Obamacare, are required to buy insurance on the individual market — wouldn’t be affected.

“Members of Congress are not going to lose essential health benefits or be subject to health status underwriting,” wrote health law professor Tim Jost, who initially noted the exemption.

[SirLinksALot]

ObamaCare will now live forever.

[libertybele]

ObamaCare will now live forever.

Exactly. Except for a select few the GOP deserves to lose their seats. Idiots!

[SirLinksALot]

Fact Check: Does Amended GOP Healthcare Bill Exempt Congress From Controversial Changes?

SOURCE: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/26/does-amended-gop-healthcare-bill-exempt-congress-from-controversial-changes-n2318609

(EXCERPT)

....  under the new amendment, Congress (and other entities such as the few remaining, failing Obamacare co-ops) are not subject to any coverage waivers and exemptions that states might secure. Why? A well-placed source with deep institutional knowledge of the US Senate says this was purely a function of reconciliation requirements, and that structuring the language differently would have fatally disqualified the entire bill under those rules.  I've been told that this flaw is a deep-in-the-weeds issue pertaining to the committee of referral. The source added that the likelihood of uber-liberal Washington, DC asking for coverage waivers is extremely remote -- thus rendering members of Congress unaffected anyway -- and that the best course of action would be to pass a simple companion bill under regular order making plain that Congress shall receive no special treatment whatsoever under a new law. This would negate any bad optics on the issue, and would almost certainly pass easily because even Senate Democrats wouldn't be foolish enough to filibuster the companion bill, thanks to the same dynamics that forced them to reverse their previous abandoned attempts to insulate Congress from healthcare policy.

Bottom line: The controversial item in the bill does not represent a desire from House Republicans to inoculate themselves against the consequences of their own law; it's nothing more than a procedurally-necessary technicality that gives the appearance of unfairness. A senior House GOP leadership source confirmed these details to Townhall this afternoon: "The language in question was added by the Senate Budget Committee to meet the rules for a budget reconciliation bill. Separate legislation will be introduced to fix it."  Once this PR problem is rectified, the larger questions become whether or not the new bargain will attract a bare majority in the House, when a vote might occur, and then -- if those boxes are checked -- where do things go in the Senate?

[Emjay]

GOP health amendment would exempt members of Congress from losing Obamacare protections

See here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080

Obviously, it's a first step but I hope they pass it.  The next step would be that members of Congress have to live with the same health care they force on us.

[libertybele]

Obviously, it's a first step but I hope they pass it.  The next step would be that members of Congress have to live with the same health care they force on us.

I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.

[corbe]

    Looks like all those Briefers that were arguing we Conservatives were to Rigid, that a half loaf is better than no loaf at all and assorted other crap, will get their wish-the Half loaf, good luck folks.

[Sanguine]

Bookmark.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Good news.  Thanks for posting @truth_seeker

[truth_seeker]

Good news.  Thanks for posting @truth_seeker

Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A well-placed source with deep institutional knowledge of the US Senate says this was purely a function of reconciliation requirements, and that structuring the language differently would have fatally disqualified the entire bill under those rules.  I've been told that this flaw is a deep-in-the-weeds issue pertaining to the committee of referral. The source added that the likelihood of uber-liberal Washington, DC asking for coverage waivers is extremely remote -- thus rendering members of Congress unaffected anyway -- and that the best course of action would be to pass a simple companion bill under regular order making plain that Congress shall receive no special treatment whatsoever under a new law. This would negate any bad optics on the issue, and would almost certainly pass easily because even Senate Democrats wouldn't be foolish enough to filibuster the companion bill, thanks to the same dynamics that forced them to reverse their previous abandoned attempts to insulate Congress from healthcare policy.

Bottom line: The controversial item in the bill does not represent a desire from House Republicans to inoculate themselves against the consequences of their own law; it's nothing more than a procedurally-necessary technicality that gives the appearance of unfairness. A senior House GOP leadership source confirmed these details to Townhall this afternoon: "The language in question was added by the Senate Budget Committee to meet the rules for a budget reconciliation bill. Separate legislation will be introduced to fix it."  Once this PR problem is rectified, the larger questions become whether or not the new bargain will attract a bare majority in the House, when a vote might occur, and then -- if those boxes are checked -- where do things go in the Senate?

Well, that sounds like an entirely logical, reasonable, and necessary part of the bill if it is to pass.  So I expect the usual folks to have a conniption about it.....

[Maj. Bill Martin]

    Looks like all those Briefers that were arguing we Conservatives were too rigid, that a half loaf is better than no loaf at all ....will get their wish-the Half loaf, good luck folks.

Well, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.  The reality is that the votes for full repeal simply are not there, else the Freedom Caucus would have held out for that.  They can count.

I'd also say that this is the point where they should hold firm. If the Tuesday Group wouldn't go along with this, then threaten to let the whole unamended Affordable Care Act come crashing down, and see if they can sell that to their moderate constituents.

[corbe]

Republicans refuse to fund ObamaCare subsidies
By Marisa Schultz
April 26, 2017 | 2:09pm | Updated 

WASHINGTON — Republicans drew battle lines Wednesday over the spending bill that would keep the government running by refusing to fund ObamaCare subsidies.

“We’re not doing that,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus.

Declining to include payments to insurers in the April must-pass spending bill increases the drama for a possible government shutdown at midnight Friday.

Pulling the money that helps low-income Americans afford insurance would create “monumental” instability in the individual marketplace, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) warned Wednesday.

“I don’t think my Republican colleagues want to see this go unfunded. The instability they would create in the markets would be monumental to themselves and their states,” Crowley said.

The government will shut down Saturday — President Trump’s 100th day — if Congress fails to pass the new spending bill.

Ryan said lawmakers are very close to agreeing on spending priorities. He said the ObamaCare payments should be addressed separately by the Trump administration and not be a bargaining chip in the spending bill.

“That is not an appropriation bill. That’s something separate that the administration does,” Ryan said.

Trump has previously signaled a willingness to use his administrative authority to end the payments, which would mean ObamaCare “dies.”

The cost-sharing payments — amounting to about $7 billion a year — go to insurance companies so they can lower patient deductibles and co-pays for low-income patients.

<..snip..>

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/republicans-refuse-to-fund-obamacare-subsidies/

[Emjay]

I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.

You know what?  You may be right.  I trust Cruz's replacement plan much more than I trust this one.  I'm just wondering if passing something might be better than the status quo.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.

If there were the votes for Cruz' or Paul's plan to pass, don't you think the Freedom Caucus would have held out for them?  Because as of right now, it appears that all or almost all of the Freedom Caucus supports this bill.   And I'd suggest that if folks have reached the conclusion that the entire Freedom Caucus is worthless, that you might as well roll up the sidewalks and not bother with anything anymore, because they're the best we've got.

 

[Emjay]

Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.

Yep!  But post an article on sexual choices and the place explodes.

[Sanguine]

Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.

Have you not seen all of the other threads and responses on this topic? 

[geronl]

You know what?  You may be right.  I trust Cruz's replacement plan much more than I trust this one.  I'm just wondering if passing something might be better than the status quo.

often times, passing nothing is better than passing "something"

[Hondo69]

Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill

By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT

OK Cristina, I'm embarrassed for you to have to do this translation, but it is required.  Try harder next time.

The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives = Conservatives

Moderate Republicans = RINOs

Members of the centrist Tuesday Group = Fascists

It is important to write clearly and concisely Cristina.  Some readers will not understand that you mean well but are simply uneducated.

[geronl]

It was the Tuesday Group that doomed the first proposal

[Right_in_Virginia]

The pre-existing condition coverage should be a limited time only offer. You shouldn't be allowed to go for years without coverage and get sick and then get insurance.

The standard in group insurance in past years had been to penalize--not deny--a pre-existing condition usually through a waiting period for the one condition (typically 90 days).  But this practice was phased out a few years ago.

The standard for individual insurance in the past has also been to penalize a pre-existing condition, but not deny a policy.  In this market there was greater discretion in attaching premiums to the individual, so those with pre-existing conditions standardly paid a higher premium.  The application of a waiting period for the condition was also common.

Flat out denial of an insurance policy due to pre-existing conditions is draconian ... and unnecessary.