Republicans do not want the country to know what is in their health care bill.

[GMDino]

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/15/15807986/obamacare-lies-obstruction

Quote:This has become more evident each day, as the Senate plots out a secretive path toward Obamacare repeal — and top White House officials (including the president) consistently lie about what the House bill actually does.


There was even a brief moment Tuesday where Senate Republicans flirted with the idea of banning on-camera interviews in congressional hallways, a plan quickly reversed after outcry from the press.

“The extreme secrecy is a situation without precedent, at least in creating health care law,” writes Julie Rovner, who has covered health care politics since 1986 and is arguably the dean of the DC health care press corps.

I don’t have quite as long a tenure as Rovner, but I have been covering health care politics since Democrats began debating the Affordable Care Act in 2009. It’s become obvious to me, particularly this week, that Republicans plan to move more quickly and less deliberatively than Democrats did in drafting the Affordable Care Act. They intend to do this despite repeatedly and angrily criticizing the Affordable Care Act for being moved too quickly and with too little deliberation.

My biggest concern isn’t the hypocrisy; there is plenty of that in Washington. It’s that the process will lead to devastating results for millions of Americans who won’t know to speak up until after the damage is done. So far, the few details that have leaked out paint a picture of a bill sure to cover millions fewer people and raise costs on those with preexisting conditions.

The plan is expected to be far-reaching, potentially bringing lifetime limits back to employer-sponsored coverage, which could mean a death sentence for some chronically ill patients who exhaust their insurance benefits.

Senate Republicans do not appear to be focused on carefully crafting policy that reflects a more conservative, free market attempt at achieving President Donald Trump’s goals of covering every American at lower cost. They’re focused on passing something, by whatever means necessary. That may come back to haunt them electorally, but not until millions suffer the consequences.

Congress is hiding the health care bill

My professional life in 2009 and 2010 was an endless string of Affordable Care Act hearings aired on C-SPAN. I lived in New York at the time. It became a regular ritual to sit down in my cubicle, plug my headphones into my laptop, and listen to an entire day of Senate debate.

“There were hundreds of hearings and markups that lasted days — or in the case of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, months,” Rovner recalls in her piece.

Senators wanted to talk about the Affordable Care Act and why they believed they needed to pass it. They gave floor speech and after floor speech defending its provisions. Patients had months to lobby their legislators on particular issues that they thought were important. A few months ago I interviewed one woman, for example, who successfully lobbied former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) to add a ban on lifetime limits in health insurance.

I remember Christmas Eve 2009 in particular, when I lived in New York and my roommate’s family came to visit for the holiday. They opened presents in our living room. I was holed up in my bedroom watching the Senate vote on the ACA, the culmination of a 25-day floor debate.

There isn’t much C-SPAN to watch these days because the Senate is running a remarkably closed process. There are no committee hearings. There are no floor speeches defending the policy provisions of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell instead has assembled an ad hoc working group to hash out the details of Obamacare repeal in private meetings.

The biggest priority seems to be just passing a bill, regardless of what the bill actually looks like. Tierney Sneed, a reporter for Talking Points Memo, recently asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, whether it was important to get the bill out a few days before the vote, so the public could review its provisions.


His response was telling. “Well, I think we’re not worried so much about that as we are getting it together so we can get a majority to vote for it,” he said.

The White House is lying about the health care bill

Vice President Mike Pence visited the Health and Human Services Department on Tuesday and delivered a speech to the agency’s employees.

“Now, I know this room is filled with men and women who care deeply about bringing high-quality health care to every American,” Pence said. “Rest assured, Donald Trump wants the exact same thing.”

Trump is not acting that way, though. He held a Rose Garden ceremony last month to laud a bill that would cause 23 million Americans to lose coverage — a bill he praised as “incredibly well-crafted.”

This is now a consistent pattern from top Trump officials, who have decided that their strategy to hide the Republican health care plan will be to not tell the truth about what it actually does.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has appeared on national television and claimed that Americans will “absolutely not” lose Medicaid coverage under the House-passed bill. Two separate, independent analyses of the AHCA find this isn’t true. Millions of Medicaid enrollees would lose coverage under that bill.

Trump himself gave an interview to CBS in April where he said that people with preexisting conditions would be protected under the AHCA. They won’t be: At the time he gave that interview, the bill had been amended to allow states to opt out of the requirement to charge people with preexisting conditions the same prices as healthy enrollees, a move that will almost certainly price some patients out of coverage.

Trump said that deductibles will go down under the Republican plan. Nonpartisan analysis expects deductibles will go up.

The White House has decided to deal with an unpopular bill by refusing to acknowledge the parts of it that the public doesn’t like. When asked in interviews about the expected loss in coverage or cuts to Medicaid, administration officials simply act as if they don’t exist.

This will all catch up to them — after the damage is done

At some point, of course, this strategy will catch up with Republicans. Promises that “every American” will receive “high-quality health care” will ring false when millions lose their health insurance. Once a law passes, it’s awfully hard to hide the consequences.

Republicans might lose elections if they pass the American Health Care Act. But that will only happen after people suffer the consequences of a rushed bill considered quickly with little public debate.

These are people like 62-year-old Cliff Hoskins, a retired coal miner who lives in rural Kentucky. He used to be on Medicaid expansion — he described it as the best insurance he ever had — and now has coverage through the ACA marketplace.

His out-of-pocket premium would likely triple under key Republican health care provisions.

“It’s going to at least take half, if not all, of my Social Security,” Hoskins says. “If I had to pay the full amount, that would not be good. That would put you back in poverty.”

These are people like 6-year-old Timmy Morrison, who lives in a city halfway between Washington and Baltimore. He was born premature with a rare genetic condition and has racked up $3 million in medical bills during his short life. If the Senate follows the House’s path, it would pass a bill allowing companies to once again place lifetime limits on health benefits — which would mean Timmy could run out of care.

His parents don’t know what they would do if that happens. “We don’t really know what to do right now,” his mother, Michelle Morrison, told me in February. “Should we start pressuring his doctors to do a surgery now so he can get it in time? That doesn’t feel right. Insurance is supposed to cover things that you can’t anticipate — and for us, this is one of them.”

Voters can oust Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections if they don’t like the health care plan. But for people like Cliff and Timmy, the damage will already be done. The election is secondary to their ability to get health insurance coverage.
This is the most damaging part of the lack of public discourse around the Republican repeal efforts: There are millions of real lives at stake that could be hurt. These people would suffer the consequences that will happen much faster and matter much more than any election.

[GMDino]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/16/15810524/senate-ahca-explain-please

Quote:We asked 8 Senate Republicans to explain what their health bill is trying to do



Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Senate Republicans can't answer simple and critical questions about the health care bill they're crafting in secret.

Some still can't say what it's trying to do — other than garner enough votes to pass the Senate — or how they believe it will improve the American health care system.

With the bill’s text still not released for public view, Vox asked GOP senators to explain their hopes for it. Who will benefit from the legislation? What problems is this bill trying to solve?
“All of them,” Sen. John McCain said in an interview, not an uncharacteristic response of his Republican Senate colleagues.

Over the course of the past week, Vox asked eight Republican senators to explain the affirmative case for the bill. They rarely answered directly, at least not on the bill’s policy merits.

Sometimes a senator could identify a desired outcome, like “lowering premiums” or “stabilizing marketplaces.” But they rarely could explain the mechanism through which they planned on achieving that outcome.
How will Republicans lower premiums? “It’s working together and coming up with a bill that does do that,” Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said. What tool will bring stability to Obamacare’s volatile exchanges? “By bringing certainty to the insurance market,” Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said. What new policy will lead tax cuts to lower premiums? “It’s teetering because the exchanges are failing,” Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi explained.

Read for yourself. Here are the transcripts of our eight interviews with Republican senators.

I don't even have the heart to copy and paste their answers.

All they care about is getting 51 votes.  Doesn't really matter what the bill does for citizens.

They know it will do more for less money...how it will happen is all magical fairy dust stuff that voters don't need to know about.  

[Nebuchadnezzar]

It's the new normal, there is no more back and forth from House to Senate to make a great bill. The new normal is to "Pass the bill to find out what's in it".

[SunsetBengal]

I guess it's not so funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

[GMDino]

(06-18-2017, 10:00 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess it's not so funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

It's not funny because the Democrats had open sessions...and the new bill is designed just to get rid of the old one.  Doesn't matter if if its good or not.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-18-2017, 10:00 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess it's not so funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

Will aphorisms be a pre existing condition?

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2017, 10:00 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess it's not so funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

Yeah, the tons of sessions on the ACA, the hundreds of GOP amendments, and the 25 days the bill was open for debate on the floor (second longest of any legislation in history in our country) was just as secretive as this.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-18-2017, 12:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, the tons of sessions on the ACA, the hundreds of GOP amendments, and the 25 days the bill was open for debate on the floor (second longest of any legislation in history in our country) was just as secretive as this.

So, the ACA was open for debate for 25 days.  It still has not prevented it from failing, or even remotely living up to any of the expectations that were used to sell it to the American people.  One by one, providers of individual policies for purchase on the open markets are vanishing, from State to State.  What is the option for those people, under the ACA?  Are they back to where they were before the ACA, on Medicare?

[GMDino]

(06-18-2017, 10:00 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess it's not so funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

(06-18-2017, 03:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, the ACA was open for debate for 25 days.  It still has not prevented it from failing, or even remotely living up to any of the expectations that were used to sell it to the American people.  One by one, providers of individual policies for purchase on the open markets are vanishing, from State to State.  What is the option for those people, under the ACA?  Are they back to where they were before the ACA, on Medicare?

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2017, 03:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, the ACA was open for debate for 25 days.  It still has not prevented it from failing, or even remotely living up to any of the expectations that were used to sell it to the American people.  One by one, providers of individual policies for purchase on the open markets are vanishing, from State to State.  What is the option for those people, under the ACA?  Are they back to where they were before the ACA, on Medicare?

This thread is, from what I can tell from the OP, about the secrecy under which the GOP is operating on this bill, not the effectiveness of the ACA. I assume from your pivot that you are unable to defend the GOP officials on these hypocritical actions and do not intend to criticize them for activities that go beyond those that the Democrats were criticized for during the ACA process.

[Vas Deferens]

They are obviously discussions single payer and don't want to take questions about it from their constituents at town halls. God knows these people are always looking out for the best interests of those they 'serve'.

[Dill]

(06-18-2017, 03:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, the ACA was open for debate for 25 days.  It still has not prevented it from failing, or even remotely living up to any of the expectations that were used to sell it to the American people.  One by one, providers of individual policies for purchase on the open markets are vanishing, from State to State.  What is the option for those people, under the ACA?  Are they back to where they were before the ACA, on Medicare?

Let's go with the pivot for a moment.

1) Apparently a lot of Americans DO think the ACA is living up to expectations--especially people formerly penalized for pre-existing conditions. Why the resistance to the Republican health care bills, the rage at the town hall meetings, etc.?

2) Why do you suppose providers are leaving some states? What are the reasons that they give?

[BengalHawk62]

(06-18-2017, 09:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's go with the pivot for a moment.

1) Apparently a lot of Americans DO think the ACA is living up to expectations--especially people formerly penalized for pre-existing conditions. Why the resistance to the Republican health care bills, the rage at the town hall meetings, etc.?

2) Why do you suppose providers are leaving some states? What are the reasons that they give?

That is a good question.  Why are they leaving?  Iowa currently has one provider left in the entire state.  After they leave, then what? 


http://www.kcci.com/article/last-statewide-insurer-left-in-iowa-will-stay-if-subsidies-remain/10042044

DES MOINES, Iowa —
A spokesman for health care insurer Medica says it plans to sell insurance in Iowa next year and expects to make an announcement soon.

Medica spokesman Larry Bussey confirmed Monday the company has preliminary plans to remain in Iowa but the company seeks clarity on how the Affordable Care Act exchange market in Iowa is going to function.

Iowa last week applied for a federal waiver to allow federal subsidies designed to lower costs for low-income and older participants to be used to entice younger people to buy insurance in hopes of keeping Medica and perhaps attracting others back to Iowa.

Medica is the only statewide insurer left in Iowa. State insurance officials feared the Minnesota-based company might also leave, causing 72,000 people to have no choice next year.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2017, 03:04 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: That is a good question.  Why are they leaving?  Iowa currently has one provider left in the entire state.  After they leave, then what? 


http://www.kcci.com/article/last-statewide-insurer-left-in-iowa-will-stay-if-subsidies-remain/10042044

DES MOINES, Iowa —
A spokesman for health care insurer Medica says it plans to sell insurance in Iowa next year and expects to make an announcement soon.

Medica spokesman Larry Bussey confirmed Monday the company has preliminary plans to remain in Iowa but the company seeks clarity on how the Affordable Care Act exchange market in Iowa is going to function.

Iowa last week applied for a federal waiver to allow federal subsidies designed to lower costs for low-income and older participants to be used to entice younger people to buy insurance in hopes of keeping Medica and perhaps attracting others back to Iowa.

Medica is the only statewide insurer left in Iowa. State insurance officials feared the Minnesota-based company might also leave, causing 72,000 people to have no choice next year.

Why are they leaving? Money. If they can't make money, they aren't going to participate. Part of that is fueled by the fear the government will stop the subsidies. That is an issue even Trump has actively tried to foment by threatening to stop the subsidies. Plus there is the AHCA plan currently being ironed out in the Senate. Companies literally don't know which system will be in place next year.

What happens after they leave? It will be the same as before Obamacare. The working poor can still purchase an individual or family health insurance policy on the open market which they most likely can't afford and won't purchase just like before Obamacare.

From what I've read so far the AHCA doesn't control the cost of insurance and healthcare any more than the ACA did (which was one of the few valid criticisms of the ACA.) However, abolishing the pre-existing condition clause was something of benefit to most Americans even if they didn't have an Obamacare policy. Allowing states to opt out of that will hurt everyone, but the very wealthy. They're actually trying to get rid of one of the beneficial parts of Obamacare.

[Benton]

(06-18-2017, 08:44 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: They are obviously discussions single payer and don't want to take questions about it from their constituents at town halls.   God knows these people are always looking out for the best interests of those they 'serve'.

I've been covering some of the town halls for Kentucky's Congress members. They have been more pleasant than many of the other Republican held states, but Bluegrass GOP members willing to hear from constituents are still getting an earful, mostly from the elderly who feel hoodwinked (love that word). The tried and true GOP voters are upset because — from what I'm hearing — they feel like they were supposed to get spared from cuts for their loyalty; everyone else is upset because they supported the GOP candidates in the effort to get rid of evil Obamacare without realizing it meant their insurance was likely disappearing or becoming more expensive.

Out of the five I've attended, I haven't heard one member of the public speak out in support of healthcare changes that have been proposed.

[GMDino]

(06-19-2017, 03:58 PM)Benton Wrote: I've been covering some of the town halls for Kentucky's Congress members. They have been more pleasant than many of the other Republican held states, but Bluegrass GOP members willing to hear from constituents are still getting an earful, mostly from the elderly who feel hoodwinked (love that word). The tried and true GOP voters are upset because — from what I'm hearing — they feel like they were supposed to get spared from cuts for their loyalty; everyone else is upset because they supported the GOP candidates in the effort to get rid of evil Obamacare without realizing it meant their insurance was likely disappearing or becoming more expensive.

Out of the five I've attended, I haven't heard one member of the public speak out in support of healthcare changes that have been proposed.

Of course not.  People who still want the ACA gone didn't understand it.  They just knew Obama was behind it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-19-2017, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Of course not.  People who still want the ACA gone didn't understand it.  They just knew Obama was behind it.

No they understand it, but they also understand that you can't just now rip it away and replace it with a plan drawn up in a couple of weeks.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2017, 04:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they understand it, but they also understand that you can't just now rip it away and replace it with a plan drawn up in a couple of weeks.

I think that's what has a lot of people irritated about this. For 6 years we have heard nothing but repeal, or repeal and replace. They haven't just had a couple of weeks, the GOP has had 6 years to come up with a unifying policy alternative for their party. Instead, they are acting like the dog that caught the car.

[GMDino]

(06-19-2017, 04:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they understand it, but they also understand that you can't just now rip it away and replace it with a plan drawn up in a couple of weeks.

If the voters who wanted it repealed understood they wouldn't be complaining about possibly losing their coverage when it's repealed.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-19-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that's what has a lot of people irritated about this. For 6 years we have heard nothing but repeal, or repeal and replace. They haven't just had a couple of weeks, the GOP has had 6 years to come up with a unifying policy alternative for their party. Instead, they are acting like the dog that caught the car.

Oh they've had more than a couple of weeks, I just think that's how long they took to write it a month ago or whatever.