Here Are 5 Backroom Deals Inside The Latest Senate Health-Care Bill

[corbe]

Here Are 5 Backroom Deals Inside The Latest Senate Health-Care Bill
 
Another health-care bill, another pack of senators holding the nation hostage until they get special treatment.

By Christopher Jacobs   
July 14, 2017
 
Buried within the pages of the revised Senate health-care bill are numerous formula tweaks meant to advantage certain states. Call them backroom deals, call them earmarks, call them whatever you like: several provisions were inserted into the bill over the past two weeks with the intent of appealing to certain constituents.

It appears that at least three of these provisions apply to Alaska—home of wavering Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)—and another applies to Louisiana, home of undecided Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). Below please find a summary (not necessarily exhaustive) of these targeted provisions.

The Buy Off Lisa Murkowski Again Fund

Section 106 of the bill includes new language—page 13, lines 4 through 13, and page 18, line 12 through page 19, line 4—dedicating one percent of the new Stability Fund dollars to “each state where the cost of insurance premiums are at least 75 percent higher than the national average.” As a Bloomberg story noted, this provision currently applies only to Alaska, and could result in $1.32 billion in Stability Fund dollars automatically being directed to Alaska.

The Alaskan Pipeline

The revised Section 126 of the bill includes modified language—page 44, lines 9 through 17—changing certain Medicaid payments to hospitals based on a state’s overall uninsured population, not its Medicaid enrollment. As Bloomberg noted, this provision would also benefit Alaska, because Alaska recently expanded its Medicaid program, and therefore would qualify for fewer dollars under the formula in the original base bill.

The Moral Hazard Expansion

The underlying bill determined Medicaid per capita caps based on eight consecutive fiscal quarters—i.e., two years—of Medicaid spending. However, the revised bill includes language beginning on line 6 of page 59 that would allow “late expanding Medicaid states”—defined as those who expanded between and July 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016—to base their spending on only four consecutive quarters. Relevant states who qualify under this definition include Alaska (expanded effective September 1, 2015), Montana (expanded effective January 1, 2016), and Louisiana (expanded effective July 1, 2016).

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/14/5-backroom-deals-inside-latest-senate-health-care-bill/?utm_content=social&utm_medium=@federalists_usa&utm_source=thenewamericana.com&utm_campaign=thefederalistparty.org

[austingirl]

Disgusting GOPe. If they pass this new abomination, they will own Obamacare part 2. We really need a new conservative political party. Why haven't all conservatives gone to the Constitution Party?

[INVAR]

Disgusting GOPe. If they pass this new abomination, they will own Obamacare part 2. We really need a new conservative political party. Why haven't all conservatives gone to the Constitution Party?

Because they are self-identifying Conservatives who LIKE Communism and Socialism as long as it is THEIR PARTY who sponsors and promotes it.

[Axeslinger]

Because they are self-identifying Conservatives who LIKE Communism and Socialism as long as it is THEIR PARTY who sponsors and promotes it.

@INVAR @austingirl
Or as long as it's not their ox being gored...

[Applewood]

Disgusting GOPe. If they pass this new abomination, they will own Obamacare part 2. We really need a new conservative political party. Why haven't all conservatives gone to the Constitution Party?

Perhaps because the party hasn't had a decent candidate, or maybe because third parties don't have the money to really promote their candidates. 

I do believe part of the problem is that most voters are hung up on the two party system.  They think their only choices are Republican or Democrat candidates.  They may not like either one, but they will try to pick the lesser of two evils.

And both parties perpetrate the lie that if you vote third party, you are effectively voting for the "evil" opposition candidate.  I heard that drivel from Trump supporters throughout the campaign last year, but I'm reasonably something similar was told to voters by the Clinton Campaign as to Trump.

Before a third party can break the stranglehold  of the two-party monopoly, voters have to be educated to think outside the box -- look beyond Republican or Democrat.

I think for all but the most fanatic of Trump supporters, those voters who chose Trump did so just because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.  No other reason.  And that is a tragedy.

[austingirl]

Perhaps because the party hasn't had a decent candidate, or maybe because third parties don't have the money to really promote their candidates. 

I do believe part of the problem is that most voters are hung up on the two party system.  They think their only choices are Republican or Democrat candidates.  They may not like either one, but they will try to pick the lesser of two evils.

And both parties perpetrate the lie that if you vote third party, you are effectively voting for the "evil" opposition candidate.  I heard that drivel from Trump supporters throughout the campaign last year, but I'm reasonably something similar was told to voters by the Clinton Campaign as to Trump.

Before a third party can break the stranglehold  of the two-party monopoly, voters have to be educated to think outside the box -- look beyond Republican or Democrat.

I think for all but the most fanatic of Trump supporters, those voters who chose Trump did so just because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.  No other reason.  And that is a tragedy.

Maybe Rand Paul would consider a run as a Constitutionalist.