Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

How the Republican Coward Caucus is about to sell out its own constituents in secret – Washington Post (blog)

The fate of the American health-care system now rests with a group of allegedly moderate senators, who are getting ready to approve a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a repeal bill so monumental in its cruelty that they feel they have no choice but to draft it in secret, not let the public know what it does, hold not a single hearing or committee markup, slip it in a brown paper package to the Congressional Budget Office, then push it through to a vote before the July 4th recess before the inevitable backlash gets too loud.

We arent stupid, one GOP Senate aide told Caitlin Owens they know what would happen if they made their bill public. Even Republican senators who arent part of the 13-member working group crafting the bill havent been told exactly whats in it.

Today, we learned that in a break with long-standing precedent, Senate officials are cracking down on media access, informing reporters on Tuesday that they will no longer be allowed to film or record audio of interviews in the Senate side hallways of the Capitol without special permission. Everyone assumes that its so those senators can avoid having to appear on camera being asked uncomfortable questions about a bill that is as likely to be as popular as Ebola. As Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health Newstweetedabout the secrecy with which this bill is being advanced, I have covered every major health bill in Congress since 1986. Have NEVER seen anything like this.

This is how a party acts when it is ashamed of what it is about to do to the American people. Yet all it would take to stop this abomination is for three Republicans to stand up to their partys leaders and say, No I wont do this to my constituents. With only a 52-48 majority in the Senate, that would kill the bill. But right now, its looking as though this Coward Caucus is going to be unable to muster the necessary courage.

The Post's Libby Casey explains how television crews work in the Senate and how the rules are enforced. (Libby Casey,McKenna Ewen / The Washington Post)

To understand the magnitude of what theyre doing, lets focus on Medicaid, because it was supposed to be a sticking point on which some senators wouldnt budge, particularly those whose states accepted the ACAs expansion of the program. But according to various reports, the moderates have already caved.

Take Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a state where more than 175,000 people have gotten insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion. For a while, Capito made noises about she wanted to preserve the expansion to protect her constituents. I mean, we cant just drop them off and wish them good luck, she said. But no more.

Last week The Hill reported that Capito now supports eliminating the expansion after all just doing it over seven years instead of the three years that the House bill required. The Charleston Gazette-Mail in Capitos home state noted that Capito had said she didnt want to drop all those West Virginians off a cliff, but Instead, she would drop them off a cliff on the installment plan around 25,000 per year for seven years.

President Trump on June 13 said Republican efforts to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will result in a "phenomenal bill" and "fantastic" outcome. Trump was hosting several Republican senators at the White House. (The Washington Post)

Or how about Ohio Sen. Rob Portman? In his state, 700,000 people gained insurance as a result of the Medicaid expansion. He drafted a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stating his opposition to the House bill because it didnt protect those who gained insurance from the expansion. Now Portman alsowants to phase out the expansion over seven years.

What about Sen. Susan Collins, supposedly the most moderate Republican in the Senate? While Maine hasnt accepted the expansion due to the resistance of Americas Worst Governor, Paul LePage, Collins has said that she would like to see her state accept the expansion (with some provisions that make it more uncomfortable for recipients, just so those poors dont get the idea that they should accept it without shame). But weve been through this dance with Collins before Democrats hope shell be a vote for moderation; she talks about how she wants to find a compromise; and in the end she votes with the GOP on every important bill.

Its important to know that the Medicaid question isnt just about the millions who would lose coverage if the expansion is eliminated. Paige Winfield Cunningham reports today that Senate Republicans are considering even deeper cuts to Medicaid than the $880 billion the House bill slashed out of the program. Theyd pay for the slower elimination of the expansion by cutting money out of the existing program, so they could get rid of all of the ACAs tax increases which mostly affected the wealthy. In other words, they want to cut Medicaid to give a tax break to rich people.

Just as critical, they want to end Medicaids status as an entitlement, meaning that the program wouldnt cover everyone whos eligible. States would get a chunk of money to spend, and if more people turned out to need coverage, tough luck for them. The states would be offered flexibility, which in practice would mean permission to kick people off the program and cut back on benefits. And dont think this is just about poor people over half of Medicaid dollars go to the elderly and disabled. That means that they arent just undoing the ACA; theyre making things substantially worse for tens of millions of Americas most vulnerable citizens than they were even before the ACA passed.

And theyre hoping they can do all this before anyone realizes what theyre up to, making this an act of both unconscionable heartlessness and epic cowardice. Their efforts to hide what theyre doing show that they are still capable of feeling some measure of shame. But it might not be enough to stop them.

Link:
How the Republican Coward Caucus is about to sell out its own constituents in secret - Washington Post (blog)

The scandalous secrecy surrounding the Republican health care gambit – MSNBC


MSNBC
The scandalous secrecy surrounding the Republican health care gambit
MSNBC
Republican leaders are being so secretive about their health care overhaul that even other GOP senators have no idea what they'll soon be asked to pass. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said yesterday's he's curious ...
BREAKING: CMS actuary predicts 13 million will lose coverage under Republican repeal billModernHealthcare.com

all 66 news articles »

Link:
The scandalous secrecy surrounding the Republican health care gambit - MSNBC

The Republican Health Care Bill Would Actually Raise Insurance Premiums, Says a New Government Report – Slate Magazine (blog)

Bangup job guys.

Getty Images

When the House was busy negotiating its Obamacare repeal bill this spring, conservative Republicans said they had oneand pretty much only onegoal for the legislation: It had to bring down insurance premiums. Period.

Jordan Weissmann is Slates senior business and economics correspondent.

I can tell you that there is one score that the American people will pay attention to, Mark Meadows, chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said in March, after the first draft of the law emerged. And that is, does it really lower their health care costs and their premiums? Thats the only score that really matters. And if this doesnt do it, then we need to make sure that we find something that does do it.

Meadows and the Freedom Caucus of course threw their support behind the American Health Care Act in May, after negotiating a number of concessions they said would lower the cost of insurance. Actually, it drives down premiums," the North Carolina representative said on Morning Joe, adding that, "The first bill that came out actually had an increase in premiums in the short term. In fact, there wasn't any obvious way Meadows could have known what the bill would do at the time, since the Congressional Budget Office hadn't scored it yet. But the CBO's forecast eventually bore out his point: Though some people, particularly older Americans, would see the cost of insurance rise astronomically, the office concluded that by 2026, average premiums would fall across the states.

So, mission accomplished?

Nope. Not at all. It seems the CBO report left out something important: the value of government subsidies. Today, Obamacare provides tax credits to lower- and middle-income families in order to make coverage more affordable. The House bill provides tax credits, too, but they would be less generous for many households, because they're based on age rather than income. Because the CBO only tried to forecast premiums before tax credits in its analysis, it didn't actually tell us whether families would be paying more or less on average for their insurance.

Turns out they might be paying more. On Tuesday, the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its own score of the House bill. It finds that gross premiumsthat is, before tax credits kick inwould fall 13 percent by 2026. Howevernet premiumsthat is, after tax creditswould rise 5 percent, because the law's subsidies would simply be worth less. What's more, average out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays would skyrocket 61 percent, in large part because the law ends the Obamacare rules that limit those expenses for poorer families. Overall, people will simply be paying more for their coverage and care ($162 a month more, on average, to be precise).

Of course, the actuary's estimates rely on a number of assumptions. For instance, it guesses that only a quarter of states will choose to waive Obamacare's insurance market regulations, such as the requirements that insurers cover certain essential medical services, as the American Health Care Act would allow them to. It's very possible that more states would take that opportunity, which could drop premiums lower.

These are also only average effects. In the end, the House bill will mean different things for different Americans. Premiums before subsidies will go down for younger, healthy customers and way up for people in their sixties, because the AHCA increases the amount insurers can charge older enrollees compared to people in their twenties. If states waive the Essential Health Benefits rules, people who need more services (like women who want childbirth coverage) will pay a lot more for them. Some upper-middle-class households that were never eligible for Obamacare's subsidies could come out ahead, meanwhile, because they would qualify for the House bill's tax credits.

Top Comment

I'm proud to announce Michigan Guy Health Insurance - for $100 a month I send you a frozen bag of peas every month to put on wherever it hurts. Take THAT high premiums! More...

Finally, it's very likely that the Senate will change the House bill's subsidy structure, and possibly make it more generousthough that would take more money.

But don't let that obscure the greater point. Conservatives said their bill would bring down the cost of insurance for families. This estimate says it's entirely possible that, overall, it won't. If that's the case, the ACHA fails at its one and only job.

More here:
The Republican Health Care Bill Would Actually Raise Insurance Premiums, Says a New Government Report - Slate Magazine (blog)

Virginia’s aggressive gerrymandering means voters can have Republican rule or nothing – ThinkProgress

Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidates Tom Perriello (front) and Ralph Northam. CREDIT: AP Photo/Steve Helber

This morning, I woke up, showered, walked my dog, then drove to the local high school to vote in Virginias primary election. Hopefully, I will get to vote for the same candidate I voted for today in Novembers general election.

But theres one thing I wont be able to vote for this election cyclea government that is actually capable of implementing policies favored by the Democratic Party. Thanks in large part to aggressive gerrymandering in the Virginia House of Delegates, I will get to choose between total Republican dominance of my home state or gridlock.

Virginia is an increasingly blue state. Hillary Clinton won the state by over five points. President Obama won it twice. The current governor, Terry McAuliffe, is a former chair of the Democratic National Committee. Both Democratic candidates in todays primaryformer Rep. Tom Perriello and Lt. Gov. Ralph Northamare strongly favored over their likely Republican opponent in the general election.

Yet the GOP holds 66 seats in the states 100 seat House of Delegates. In 2013, the same year that Democrats swept all three of Virginias statewide offices, the GOP won 67 seats in the state house.

What this means is that, if a Republican wins this Novembers gubernatorial race, that Republican is highly likely to have a GOP state house and senate that will enact the full Republican agenda. Voter suppression, draconian budgets, pro-discrimination laws dressed up as religious liberty and similar legislation are all likely to follow.

If you want to know what this looks like, take a look at North Carolina. Or Louisiana. Or Kansas. Or Texas.

Meanwhile, if Perriello or Northam win, it will be nearly impossible for Virginias voters to elect a Democratic House of Delegateseven if a majority of those voters cast a ballot for a Democratic candidate. That means that major Democratic priorities like expanding Medicaid, protecting voting rights, reducing gun violence, and environmental protection will almost certainly receive no support from the state legislature.

Republicans can go to the polls dreaming of the kind of state governance that they most desire. Democrats can only hope to ward off an outcome that they hate. That not only gives Republicans a serious advantage in the policy sphere, it also is likely to demoralize Democrats on Election Daypotentially swinging the result.

Of course, that doesnt mean that voting in the Virginia gubernatorial election is futile. At the federal level, the difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration is immense, even if Obama spent most of his time in office with a Republican House of Representatives. The difference between a fully-empowered Republican governor and a weakened Democrat would be equally significant.

The next governor of Virginia, moreover, will sit during the next redistricting cycleso they will have the power to veto a bill that tries to entrench gerrymandering in the House of Delegates even further.

But, barring an utter landslide, theres one thing that isnt on the ballot this Novembera fair choice between Democrats and Republicans.

View post:
Virginia's aggressive gerrymandering means voters can have Republican rule or nothing - ThinkProgress

Montana Republican Greg Gianforte Is Sentenced in Assault on Reporter – New York Times


New York Times
Montana Republican Greg Gianforte Is Sentenced in Assault on Reporter
New York Times
Greg Gianforte, a Montana Republican, was sentenced on Monday to 40 hours of community service and 20 hours of anger management classes for assaulting a reporter the night before he won a seat in the House of Representatives last month. Appearing in ...

and more »

Follow this link:
Montana Republican Greg Gianforte Is Sentenced in Assault on Reporter - New York Times