US President Donald Trump acknowledged that a lack of support from four Senate Republicans leaves the party's healthcare overhaul on a "very, very narrow path" to win passage, but signalled a willingness to work with them to make changes.

"It's not that they're opposed. They'd like to get certain changes. And we'll see if we can take care of that," Trump said in an interview with Fox News that aired on Friday, calling the group of conservative lawmakers "four very good people."

Trump earlier indicated changes may be in store for the proposal unveiled by Senate Republicans on Thursday to replace former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law. The plan would scale back aid to the poor and kill a tax on the wealthy.

"I am very supportive of the Senate #Healthcarebill. Look forward to making it really special!" Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday.



I am very supportive of the Senate #HealthcareBill. Look forward to making it really special! Remember, ObamaCare is dead.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017



The Republican bill aims to deliver on one of Trump's central campaign promises to "repeal and replace" the 2010 law passed under Obama that expanded coverage to millions of Americans. Its fate remained uncertain after the four lawmakers refused to back the current Senate plan, leaving Republicans short of the votes needed for passage.

Democrats are united in opposition to the proposal, which was worked out in secret by a group led Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republicans view Obama's Affordable Care Act as a costly government intrusion into the private marketplace.

The four Republican holdouts, among the Senate's most conservative members, said the plan did not go far enough in scaling back the federal government's role, highlighting Republicans' struggle to craft legislation to revamp a sector that accounts for one-sixth of the world's largest economy.

Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has rejected the plan along with fellow Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said fundamental problems still remain that would leave taxpayers subsidizing health insurance companies.

"I want the bill to look more than a repeal bill," Paul told MSNBC on Friday.

The Senate measure maintains much of the structure of a House bill passed in May but differs in several key ways. If it passes, it would have to reconciled with the House version before Trump could sign it into law.

While Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, the party's efforts to unwind Obamacare has been dogged by internal conflicts between moderate and hard-line members of the party.

Trump publicly celebrated the House bill's passage, only to criticize it in private as "mean." This week he called for a health plan "with heart."

Democrats have sharply criticized both versions as a giveaway to the wealthy that would leave millions without health insurance.

On Thursday, Obama weighed in on Facebook, writing: "If there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm."

The Senate bill's real-world impact is not yet known, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to provide an estimate early next week.

The CBO had found that the House bill would kick 23 million Americans off their health plans, making it unpopular with the public. Fewer than one in three Americans supports it, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

ReportWorldReuters

· United States
· Donald Trump
· Healthcare Bill
· Barack Obama

Fri, 23 Jun 2017-06:30pm
Date updated: 
Friday, 23 June 2017 - 6:20pm
Article Images: 
Reuters
Short URL: 
dnai.in/eILC
Embargo: 
Syndicate: 
Hide lead image: 
Page views: 
1
Related Articles: 
EXCLUSIVE-U.S. Senate's McConnell sees tough path for passing healthcare bill
From Print Edition:  Reported by DNA 6 hours ago.

Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen to Americans with whom we disagree, that’s what we need to do today.

I recognize that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has become a core tenet of the Republican Party. Still, I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.

We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.

Nor did we fight for it alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, including Republicans, threw themselves into that collective effort, not for political reasons, but for intensely personal ones – a sick child, a parent lost to cancer, the memory of medical bills that threatened to derail their dreams.

And you made a difference. For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.

We did these things together. So many of you made that change possible.

At the same time, I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts – and that if Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it.

That remains true. So I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.

But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite. It would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it. That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analyses, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that 23 million Americans would lose insurance, to America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals on the front lines of our health care system.

The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.

Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.

I hope our Senators ask themselves – what will happen to the Americans grappling with opioid addiction who suddenly lose their coverage? What will happen to pregnant mothers, children with disabilities, poor adults and seniors who need long-term care once they can no longer count on Medicaid? What will happen if you have a medical emergency when insurance companies are once again allowed to exclude the benefits you need, send you unlimited bills, or set unaffordable deductibles? What impossible choices will working parents be forced to make if their child’s cancer treatment costs them more than their life savings?

To put the American people through that pain – while giving billionaires and corporations a massive tax cut in return – that’s tough to fathom. But it’s what’s at stake right now. So it remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.

That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible – if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family.

After all, this debate has always been about something bigger than politics. It’s about the character of our country – who we are, and who we aspire to be. And that’s always worth fighting for.

ReportWorldDNA Web TeamDNA webdesk

· Affordable Care Act
· Barack Obama
· Healthcare
· Obamacare
· Donald Trump

Fri, 23 Jun 2017-06:40pm
Date updated: 
Friday, 23 June 2017 - 6:40pm
Article Images: 
Short URL: 
dnai.in/eILQ
Embargo: 
Syndicate: 
Hide lead image: 
Page views: 
3
Related Articles: 
Healthcare bill: Donald Trump willing to work with Republicans to make passage a reality
From Print Edition:  Reported by DNA 6 hours ago.

After weeks of secrecy surrounding the Senate GOP's healthcare bill, a draft was finally released Thursday. As predicted, it makes cuts to Medicaid, gets rid of essential health benefits, and eliminates the mandate that every American have health insurance.

On Thursday's Late Night, host Seth Meyers drew parallels between President Donald Trump's Wednesday speech in Iowa — in which he said he didn't want a "poor person" working on the economy in his cabinet — and the GOP healthcare bill. Read more...

More about Watercooler, Entertainment, Tv, Politics, and Culture Reported by Mashable 6 hours ago.

WASHINGTON – The Senate Republican plan to replace Obamacare was quickly attacked by Democrats and kept at arm’s length by Arizona’s Republican senators, who seemed less than eager to comment on a bill few had seen before its release Thursday. The 142-page “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” would cut deeply into Medicaid funding and do away with the current mandate for coverage, but would also preserve some subsidies to help taxpayers afford health insurance. Critics said the Senate… Reported by bizjournals 5 hours ago.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) slammed Senate Republicans’ bill to repeal Obamacare as a “barbaric” plan that means thousands will die so the wealthy can get billions of dollars in tax breaks.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Sanders about his statement Thursday that the Republican health care plan is the “most harmful piece of legislation” he’s seen in his lifetime.

“It is an extraordinary statement because this is an extraordinary piece of legislation,” Sanders replied. “If you throw 23 million people off of health insurance, if you cut Medicaid by over $800 billion dollars, there is no question but that thousands of Americans will die.”

Sanders added, “The purpose of this whole legislation — of raising premiums for older workers, of defunding Planned Parenthood ...  is to provide $500 billion in tax breaks for the top 2 percent, for the insurance companies, for the drug companies and other major corporations.”

“This is barbaric,” he said. “Frankly, this is what oligarchy is all about. It’s the wealthy and powerful saying, ‘We need even more tax breaks’ — despite the fact that they’re doing phenomenally well — and if it means people in America dying ... ‘Hey, that’s not our problem.’”

Sanders acknowledged that premiums, deductibles and copays are currently “too high” under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. (The Senate’s Trumpcare proposal isn’t expected to lower deductibles.) But he added that prices are rising because the Trump administration is “sabotaging” Obamacare, and the system will not be improved by ejecting millions who rely on it, including children.

“I don’t care what your political view is,” Sanders said. “I don’t think there are many Americans who think that we give unbelievably large tax breaks to billionaires, and then tell disabled kids or people who are in nursing homes today ... that we’re going to punish them to give tax breaks to billionaires. Man, that is not what this country is supposed to be about.”

To hear more from Sanders, watch the video above.type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=59398ad3e4b0c5a35c9d4c9c,594c1f52e4b05c37bb753c04

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) - As of April, there were 74,531,002 people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program as of April,

-- Reported by CNSNews.com 3 hours ago.

After a secretive drafting process, Senate Republican leadership released a draft of its healthcare legislation Thursday, setting off a scramble to secure enough commitments for a vote Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to hold next week.

Democrats blasted the bill, while most Republicans took a more measured approach and left their intentions unknown.

Four GOP members — Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson — announced they would not support the bill in its current form just a few hours after its release, but they all remained open to negotiation.

Many moderate members said they were taking time to read the bill and analyze its impact.

The uncertainty and the opposition currently puts the bill short of the 50 votes needed to pass — only two Republicans can defect, since Democrats plan to universally oppose it. That puts the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) in a dicey position from the start.

Greg Valliere, the chief strategist and a long-time political analyst at Horizon Investments, said in a note to clients Friday that the conservative members, besides Paul, are likely to relent since failure to pass the bill "would mean Obamacare wins."

In addition to Paul, Valliere said, the other likely "no" vote from the GOP is Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who is up for reelection in 2018 and facing an uphill battle in a state trending Democratic.

That leaves the deciding votes to moderates like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

"Susan Collins's popularity in Maine would surge if she votes no, and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska in on the fence," Valliere wrote. "Throw in a handful of other shaky moderates like Rob Portman of Ohio, and McConnell is in trouble, with zero margin for error."

Much of the outcome could hinge on the BCRA's cuts to the Medicaid program. Portman, Murkowski, Heller, and other key GOP senators represent states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. They have expressed concerns over the changes to the program that provides low-income Americans with financial support to access health insurance.

As it stands, the BCRA rolls back the Medicaid expansion and includes deep cuts to the rest of the program, which could be a deal-breaker for those lawmakers.

Valliere pointed to public reaction that has been heavily against the GOP's healthcare overhaul. The House version of the legislation, the American Health Care Act, has the lowest support in polls of any major piece of legislation dating back to 1990.

"Polls support the opponents – and Barack Obama, still popular, will lead the charge. There are other wild cards: the CBO 'score' early next week; strong opposition from the AARP, whose members vote; potential parliamentary objections; Planned Parenthood funding; and a lack of enthusiasm among House Republicans, who stuck out their necks only to have Trump call their bill 'mean'," Valliere said.

*SEE ALSO: Here's what the Senate healthcare bill means for all types of Americans*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Do you even understand what you're asking?': Putin and Megyn Kelly have a heated exchange over Trump-Russia ties Reported by Business Insider 3 hours ago.

There’s a ticking time bomb built right into the Senate Republican health care bill. 

The legislation unveiled Thursday, which Republicans dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act, aims to preserve the Affordable Care Act’s popular rule forbidding health insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. But the bill also would repeal that law’s unpopular individual mandate that most Americans obtain health coverage or face tax penalties and would significantly scale back financial assistance that helps make health insurance premiums affordable.

The problem is, those things work hand in hand, and are often referred to as the “three-legged stool” that keeps the health insurance system steady. Take out one or two of those legs, and the whole thing probably will fall down.

Keeping protections for pre-existing conditions means sicker people have access to health coverage and medical care, which is good for them but increases costs for everyone else in the insurance pool.

The mandate exists to nudge healthier people to get coverage even if they don’t have an immediate need for medical treatment; they pay into the system so it’s there when they inevitably get sick or injured.

And the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits for low- and middle-income people boost enrollment from a mix of sick and healthy people; a larger risk pool tends to be better than a smaller one.

In their attempt to appease public sentiment by keeping a widely liked thing, getting rid of a widely loathed thing and scaling back a poorly understood thing, Senate Republicans may have set up their own system to fail.

Under the Senate GOP bill, there isn’t much of an incentive for people to buy health insurance unless they know they’re going to use it. And if the bulk of the customers are people with costly medical needs, that’s going to lead to higher premiums for all consumers. Those higher prices will drive out more customers who either don’t believe they need coverage or can’t afford it because the legislation’s tax credits aren’t generous enough and the insurance policies they can buy are so skimpy as to be unappealing.

This is what’s known in the insurance business as a “death spiral”: more and more expensive customers with fewer and fewer healthy ones in any given year to cover the costs. Republicans are fond of falsely saying the Obamacare markets are in this state ― and, however troubled they are, there’s no death spiral ― but their bill is designed to create the exact conditions that cause one.

The Senate reportedly considered provisions that might have helped, such as automatically enrolling everyone who doesn’t already have insurance in a basic, high-deductible insurance plan, but the version of the legislation released Thursday includes nothing of the sort. Like the House bill, the Senate measure does provide funding to states that’s intended to offset the high costs of sick patients. But there’s reason to doubt the money would be adequate to offset the costs of treating them.

The House-passed American Health Care Act would discourage healthy people from going without insurance by letting insurers levy a surcharge of up to 30 percent on anyone who had a gap in coverage longer than two months. But even that could be problematic if a consumer who gets sick decides paying that surcharge will be cheaper than paying out-of-pocket for all their care.

There is a way to avoid a death spiral under the Senate bill, but it’s bad for those sick people who need coverage the most.

The legislation permits states to relax insurance regulations that dictate a minimum set of basic benefits be included in all policies, such as hospitalizations, prescription drugs and maternity care.

States that do so could “fix” the death spiral problem by allowing insurers to design policies that simply don’t cover things sick people need ― think HIV and AIDs medicines or insulin for diabetics. That would make the insurance all but useless to people with costly pre-existing conditions, which will discourage many people from buying it. And those who get coverage anyway would have to pay the full costs out of their own pockets for the treatments they require.

The Obamacare markets have had enough trouble maintaining the right balance under a law that accounts for these issues and attempts to address them. If you think that’s been messy, wait until you see what the Senate GOP bill would do.Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Washington D.C., Jun 23, 2017 / 11:10 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. bishops' conference has warned that the proposed Senate health care bill will put serious burdens on poor families and is “unacceptable as written.”

After the draft of a Senate health care bill was finally released on Thursday, Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, chair of the U.S. bishops’ domestic justice and human development committee, stated that “this proposal retains many of the fundamental defects of the House of Representatives-passed health care legislation, and even further compounds them.”

He had previously explained, in a March letter to members of Congress, how the House bill was problematic for vulnerable populations such as the poor, the seriously ill, and the elderly.

After the Senate draft, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act, was released June 22, he reiterated that “it is precisely the detrimental impact on the poor and vulnerable that makes the Senate draft unacceptable as written.”

After the House narrowly voted May 2 to pass its own version of a health care reform bill, the US bishops wrote to Senators urging them to reject the “grave deficiencies” of the American Health Care Act.

The bishops had asked the Senate to reject major changes to Medicaid, to retain protections for human life, to increase tax assistance for those with low-income and the elderly, to retain a cap on health care plan costs for the elderly, to protect immigrants, and to add health care protections.

Senate Republicans released the draft version of their bill after weeks of anticipation and controversy that the draft was being worked on behind closed doors. The bill would repeal much of the Affordable Care Act.

A major sticking point for pro-life groups and the U.S. bishops was Hyde Amendment-language protecting taxpayer subsidies from being used to pay for abortions.

However, pro-life leaders are concerned – or are even certain – that the pro-life language will be removed by the Senate Parliamentarian before the bill reaches the Senate floor.

This could happen because the language might be determined to be not pertaining to the rules of budget reconciliation. Since the bill may be passed through the budget reconciliation process – thus requiring a simple majority vote, rather than the normal 60 votes needed to bring it to the floor for a vote – its measures would need to be ruled as pertaining to the budget.

Senate Republicans can also afford no more than two members of their party voting against the bill, as no Democrats are expected to support it. Several moderate Republicans in the chamber have voiced concern about the bill, and four conservatives have said the draft does not go far enough in repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The draft also strips Planned Parenthood of taxpayer funding and redirects that funding to community health centers which do not provide abortions.

Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, approved of the Planned Parenthood language but added that “the reality is that necessary pro-life protections in this bill will be stripped by the Senate Parliamentarian, as we have now publicly heard from two Senators.”

The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday that Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) both admitted that the Senate Parliamentarian would not approve of the pro-life language being used in a bill passed by reconciliation.

“If this happens, one of the most egregious aspects of Obamacare – tax credits for plans covering abortion – will continue under this Administration and Congress,” Mancini continued.

Pro-life groups have insisted that the Affordable Care Act ushered in a massive expansion of abortion funding through tax credits paying for abortions and federally-subsidized plans offering abortion coverage, without sufficient guarantees that the subsidies were not being used themselves to pay for the abortion coverage.

While President Obama issued an executive order forbidding taxpayer dollars from funding abortions under the health care law, many – including then-president of the U.S. bishops, the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago – insisted that would not offer sufficient guarantee against taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

A 2014 GAO report found that in five states, all the taxpayer-subsidized plans offered on the health exchanges covered abortions, thus leaving no choices for those who wanted a health plan on the exchanges which did not include abortion coverage.

Furthermore, the report found that 15 insurance issuers and one state exchange were not billing abortion coverage separately from other coverage in federally-subsidized plans, thus leaving open the possibility that federal dollars were going to fund abortion coverage.

“The expectations of the pro-life movement have been very clear: The health care bill must not indefinitely subsidize abortion and must re-direct abortion giant Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding to community health centers,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said in a joint statement released Friday.

“The Senate discussion draft includes these pro-life priorities, but we remain very concerned that either of these priorities could be removed from the bill for procedural or political reasons,” they added.

“We are working closely with our pro-life allies in the Senate to prevent this from happening as it could result in our opposition.”

Bishop Dewane echoed those concerns that the pro-life language could be stripped from the bill. He insisted as well that “full Hyde protections are essential and must be included in the final bill.”

Moreover, there are other serious problems with the Senate draft legislation that carry over from the House bill, he maintained.

Changes to Medicaid could cut vital coverage for low-income families; conscience protections for everyone in the health care system are lacking; and access for immigrants to health care would not be furthered, he said, which the bishops pointed out as one of the problems in the Affordable Care Act when it was passed in 2010.

The “per-capita cap” on Medicaid dollars to states would limit Medicaid funding based on the populations of the states themselves, “and then connects yearly increases to formulas that would provide even less to those in need than the House bill,” the bishop stated.

“These changes will wreak havoc on low-income families and struggling communities, and must not be supported,” he stated.

While efforts to assist people “living at an above the poverty line” are laudable, he continued, the proposed bill “stands to cause disturbing damage to the human beings served by the social safety net.”

The bill would phase out the expansion of Medicaid more gradually than did the House's version, but the program would see larger cuts in the long run under the Senate's plan.

Bread for the World, a social welfare organization of Christians that advocates for the ending of hunger the US and abroad, was also critical of the Senate bill's changes to Medicaid, saying it will increase hunger and poverty domestically.

“Rolling back the Medicaid expansion at a slower rate still means that millions of vulnerable Americans will lose their health care coverage,” said David Beckmann, Bread for the World's president. “Without health insurance, people must often choose between putting food on the table and receiving the medical care they need.”

He charged that “any senator who supports this bill will be voting to take away health insurance from the elderly, people with disabilities, and children.”

Bishop Dewane also said the bill “fails, as well, to put in place conscience protections for all those involved in the health care system, protections which are needed more than ever in our country's health policy,” he stated.

For instance, the bill could set up conscience protections for religious organizations that refuse to comply with previous mandates that coverage for sterilizations and contraceptives be provided in their employee health plans, the bishop noted. Or doctors who conscientiously refuse to perform abortions or gender-transition procedures could be protected against federal or state mandates that they do so.

“The Senate should now act to make changes to the draft that will protect those persons on the peripheries of our health care system,” Bishop Dewane stated. Reported by CNA 1 hour ago.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst is suggesting Iowans would not be losing Medicaid coverage even as the Senate GOP health care bill would phase out financing to expand the low-income insurance program. The GOP-controlled Senate bill introduced Thursday would phase out federal money to states which opted to expand the low-income health insurance program. Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller says he opposes the GOP bill scuttling much of the Obama health care law, complicating the effort by party leaders to guide the measure through the Senate. Facing unanimous Democratic opposition, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must get yes votes from 50 of the 52 GOP senators to avoid a defeat that would be a major embarrassment to President Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party. Reported by SeattlePI.com 22 hours ago.

Low-income LGBT people and people living with HIV benefited greatly from the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion and these cuts would hit them especially hard

BOSTON, MA (PRWEB) June 23, 2017

Yesterday, U.S. Senate Republicans revealed details of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), their proposed healthcare bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Like the bill narrowly passed by the House in May, the Senate bill would make significant cuts to Medicaid, a public health insurance program for low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The ACA gave states the option to expand Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults who do not have other qualifying factors such as a disability or primary care responsibility for a child. This provision greatly benefitted low-income LGBT adults as well as people living with HIV.

“The rates of uninsurance among LGBT people and people living with HIV dropped dramatically after the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion was implemented,” said Sean Cahill, Director of Health Policy Research at The Fenway Institute of Fenway Health. “While this bill would delay the dismantling of the Medicaid expansion, we don’t see anything that would preserve those gains.”

The Senate bill would end the expansion of Medicaid permitted under the ACA and make additional cuts to the program. The BCRA would offer states a lump sum of funding for use in covering health insurance costs based on the state’s eligible population. This per capita funding would be tied to the growth rate of standard inflation, which is a slower rate of growth than medical inflation. This would result in a deeper cut to funding for Medicaid than in the House version of the bill. These cuts to Medicaid funding would inevitably lead states to cut enrollment and benefits from their Medicaid plans.

The Senate bill would reduce the number of individuals eligible for federal insurance subsidies to purchase private health insurance plans, and prohibit federal reimbursement for services performed at Planned Parenthood health clinics for at least a year. Additionally, the Senate bill would allow states to opt out of many of the ACA’s health insurance requirements, including rules for what constitutes a qualified health plan and what health benefits must be covered. The ACA currently requires coverage of essential health benefits, including HIV/STI screening and behavioral health care.

“These benefits are especially important for LGBT people, people who are living with HIV, and other vulnerable populations that are disproportionately burdened by health disparities and experience barriers to accessing healthcare,” Cahill added. “This bill, if passed, would inevitably result in fewer people being insured compared to the Affordable Care Act, and reduce the health benefits of those who are able to retain their insurance coverage. Both of these changes would disproportionately harm LGBT people, PLWH, and people with other chronic diseases.”

Since 1971, Fenway Health has been working to make life healthier for the people in our neighborhood, the LGBT community, people living with HIV/AIDS and the broader population. The Fenway Institute at Fenway Health is an interdisciplinary center for research, training, education and policy development focusing on national and international health issues. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Authored by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Think of the ObamaCare reform debate now playing in the US Senate as the* final gurglings of polity that knows it is whirling around the drain*. They’re pretending to attempt to fix a racket that* comprises eight percent of the American economy*. Yikes! How did that happen? *At the beginning of the 20^th century it was one-quarter of one percent (.25 percent) of the economy*.

Source: USGovernmentSpending.com

*The standard explanation is that, first, Medicare jacked up overall healthcare activity in the 1960s, hauling in a customer-base of old folks who previously received no special treatment *and were, generally, less well than non-old folk. Secondarily, technological innovation opened up so many new methods of disease control for everybody, young and old, that we’re able to treat more sickness in more complicated ways — and that drove costs up way further.

*The greater part of the story remains neatly concealed within the matrix of rackets erected around the money-flows since the big cost bump-up in the 1960s,* and these involve insurance companies, Big Pharma, corporatized doctors’ practices, hospital monopolies, and, of course, politicians on-the-take dividing amongst each other a colossal pool of grift that exists mainly for one simple reason: the cost of everything is hidden from public view.

*Nobody has any idea what anything costs.* Certainly not the patients, sometimes called “customers” or “consumers” — but really hostages. If you go into the hospital for a stent in the left descending coronary artery, nobody will tell you what it costs, starting with the doctors who have performed the procedure a thousand times. They can’t even estimate the cost (or won’t), though they could probably give you a pretty good ballpark number for the cost-and-installation of a new fuel pump on their BMW-28i.

*Charges for medical care are never discussed* with the patient. *Doctors especially pretend to regard such a proposition as beneath the dignity of their profession*, rather like British aristocrats regarded all questions pertaining to money in the Downton Abby scheme of things — a filthy business better left to the servants, like disposing of the table-scraps. Of course the “servants” in the hospital scheme of things are a fantastic hierarchy of dangerously overfed clerks overwhelmed by the anomie of spending countless hours typing fictitious numbers into their work stations. A more pointless life can hardly be conceived. *If you ask the ones who “interface” with you at the check-out counter how your bill was toted up exactly, you will receive nothing more than a pitiless stare of contempt* — which is actually aimed inward at their own existential quandaries, a pathological dynamic that perhaps deserves attention from the research funding troughs.

*The cost of everything medical is worked out in a private rain-dance between the aforementioned manifold concerned parties on the basis of what they think they can get away with in any particular case.* In hospitals, this is enabled by the notorious ChargeMaster system which, to put it as simply as possible, allows hospitals to just make shit up.

Any bill in congress that affects to reform the gross financial malfeasance in healthcare ought to start with the absolute requirement to publicly post the cost of everything that doctors and hospitals do, and enable the “service providers” to get paid only those publicly posted costs — obviating the lucrative rain-dance for dividing up the ransoms paid by hostage-patients who come to the “providers,” after all, in extremis. *Notice that this crucial feature of the crisis is missing not only from the political debate but also from the supposedly public-interest-minded pages of The New York Times and other organs of the news media.* Perhaps this facet of the problem never entered the editors’ minds — in which case you really have to ask: how dumb are they?

(The funniest claim about ObamaCare in today’s New York Times is the statement that 20 million citizens got access to health care under the so-called Affordable Care Act. Really? You mean they got health insurance policies with $8000-deductables, when they don’t even have $500 in savings to pay for car repairs? What planet do The New York Times editorial writers live on?)

The corollary questions about deconstructing the insurance armature of the health care racket, and assigning its “duties” to a “single-payer” government agency is, of course, a higher level of debate. I’m not saying it would work, even if it was modeled on one of the systems currently working elsewhere, say in France. But Americans have acquired an allergy to even thinking about that, or at least they’ve been conditioned to imagine they’re allergic by self-interested politicians. *So, the current product of debate in the US Senate is just a scheme for pretending to reapportion the colossal flow of grift among the grifters.*

*Spare yourself the angst* of even worrying about the outcome of the current healthcare debate. *It’s not going to get “fixed.” *

*The medical system as we know it is going to blow up, and soon, just like the pension systems across the country, and the treasuries of the fifty states themselves, and the rest of the Potemkin US economy.* Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.

Not only would the GOP legislation scale back coverage through the insurance markets and phase out the Medicaid expansion, it would also make fundamental changes to the broader Medicaid program. The federal-state program covers low-income people, from newborns to elderly nursing home residents, from special-needs kids to young adults caught in the opioid epidemic. The GOP's biggest Medicaid change involves limiting future federal financing. Since its inception, Medicaid has been an open-ended entitlement, with Washington matching a share of what each state spends. [...] the GOP would phase out added financing that Obama's law provided as an incentive for states to expand the program and cover more low-income adults. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $834 billion over 10 years, and the program would cover about 14 million fewer people by 2026, a 17 percent reduction. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a longtime GOP adviser, says the Republican approach is "180 degrees different in its economic and budgetary philosophy," from the course steered by Obama. [...] the uninsured rate may start climbing again, because both the House and Senate bills cut federal financing and repeal an unpopular requirement to carry health insurance. [...] doctors see a health insurance card as a ticket into the system, so patients can be screened for chronic conditions that can ultimately lead to serious illnesses. Reported by SeattlePI.com 19 hours ago.

CNN brought in a courtroom sketch artist to illustrate Sean Spicer’s camera-free briefing — the press secretary will let the illustrator’s craftsmanship speak for itself. Joe Biden called activist investor Bill Ackman an “asshole,” so you can pretty much expect Carl Icahn to bankroll his 2020 presidential campaign. And Donald Trump can’t stop incriminating himself. We swear, if you gave the guy a Cessna with a skywriting smoke dispenser attached to it, vacationers on the Eastern Shore would soon know that he is trying to obstruct a federal investigation. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, June 23rd, 2017:


CNN sent Bill Hennessy, the network's regular Supreme Court sketch artist, to the White House briefing today. https://t.co/c0yvofNinq pic.twitter.com/issRqyl9i8

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 23, 2017

*DEAN HELLER HAS NOTHING NICE TO SAY ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL - *He sounded like he’s been reading HuffPost’s health care coverage, tbh. Jeffrey Young: “Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) on Friday offered a harsh assessment of Senate Republicans’ health care bill and vowed to withhold his support for it unless it is altered significantly…. Speaking at a joint press conference with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) in Las Vegas, Heller said the Senate bill must protect states, like his, that expanded Medicaid and preserve gains in coverage that resulted from the Affordable Care Act. *‘In this form, I will not support it,’ Heller said. ‘It’s going to be very difficult to get me to a yes. They have a lot of work to do.’*″ [HuffPost]

*PRO-TRUMP GROUP TARGETING HELLER - *Matthew Nussbaum: “America First Policies, a group started by some of President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers,* is set to launch an advertising blitz against Nevada’s Republican Sen. Dean Heller, who on Friday came out against the Senate’s Obamacare repeal bill *without significant changes. Heller is up for re-election in 2018 and is seen as one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans in that cycle. The ad blitz is backed by more than a million dollars, according to a source familiar with the planning, and the digital component is set to launch this weekend. The television and radio component will launch next week. Heller, according to the official, has also indicated privately to the White House that he is unlikely to get to ‘yes’ on the current Senate version of the bill.” [Politico]

*INSIDE THE OBAMA ADMIN’S ATTEMPTS TO PUNISH RUSSIA -* Instead, it turned into a pseudo-apology tour. Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous: “Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried ‘eyes only’ instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides…. *Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow*. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.” [WaPo]

 *The health care bill is bad, Part I.* “You’ve heard consumers say this about their health insurance policies, particularly in the last few years since Obamacare became law. And if you’ve been paying attention to politics, then you’ve heard Republicans promise to bring those deductibles down…. If the GOP proposal becomes law, then it’s likely out-of-pocket costs for people buying coverage through healthcare.gov or one of the state exchanges would tend to be higher, not lower ― unless these people were able and willing to pay even more in premiums.” [HuffPost’s Jonathan Cohn]

*The health care bill is bad, Part II.* “The legislation unveiled Thursday, which Republicans dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act, aims to preserve the Affordable Care Act’s popular rule forbidding health insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. But the bill also would repeal that law’s unpopular individual mandate that most Americans obtain health coverage or face tax penalties and would significantly scale back financial assistance that helps make health insurance premiums affordable…. In their attempt to appease public sentiment by keeping a widely liked thing, getting rid of a widely loathed thing and scaling back a poorly understood thing, Senate Republicans may have set up their own system to fail.” [HuffPost’s Jeffrey Young]

*Like what you read below? **Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL** and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! *

*Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book*, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to eliot@huffpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*DONALD TRUMP IS THE LEBRON JAMES OF SELF-INCRIMINATION - *It’s like he has Fifth Amendment Tourette’s. Willa Frej: “President Donald Trump admitted this week that he did not tape his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey despite his earlier tweets suggesting he had. When asked why he did this in an interview that aired Friday, he offered the following perplexing explanation: ′*When he found out that there may be tapes out there, whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else, I think his story may have changed,*′ Trump said in an interview alongside first lady Melania. ‘I mean, you’ll have to take a look at that, because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events.’ While we didn’t exactly follow his logic, ‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt ate it up. ‘It was a smart way to make sure [Comey] stayed honest in those hearings,’ she said. ‘It wasn’t stupid, I can tell you that,’ he replied, adding, ‘You never know what’s out there but I didn’t tape and I don’t have any tapes.’” [HuffPost]

*TRUMP NOT SAVING YOUR JERB -* Dominique Mosbergen: “President Donald Trump proclaimed while visiting a Boeing plant in South Carolina in February that he was there ‘to celebrate jobs.’ Jobs is one of the primary reasons I’m standing here today as your president and I will never, ever disappoint you” he told the crowd in North Charleston that day. *‘Believe me, I will not disappoint you.’ On Thursday, Boeing confirmed that it would be laying off workers at the very plant where Trump had spoken so reassuringly five months ago.* The aerospace company told CNNMoney that about 200 jobs at its facilities in South Carolina would be cut.” [HuffPost]

*WHAT IS REALITY, ANYWAY?** KELLYANNE CONWAY REFLECTS -* The White House advisor definitely playing into the commander-in-chief’s strong belief that he is living in a simulation. Sam Levine: “Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, *attempted to spin a question about Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying people who questioned whether Trump could win had actually meddled with the campaign.* ‘The president has said previously, and he stands by that, particularly as president-elect, that he would be concerned about anyone interfering in our democracy,’ she told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Friday. ‘We saw a lot of people interfering with our democracy by saying he couldn’t win here at home.’” [HuffPost]

*TRUMP A GIFT TO INTELLIGENCE -* Not the kind you’re thinking about, though. Nada Bakos: ”*Trump’s Twitter feed is a gold mine for every foreign intelligence agency.* Usually, intelligence officers’ efforts to collect information on world leaders are methodical, painstaking and often covert. CIA operatives have risked their lives to learn about foreign leaders so the United States could devise strategies to counter our adversaries. With Trump, though, secret operations are not necessary to understand what’s on his mind: The president’s unfiltered thoughts are available night and day, broadcast to his 32.7 million Twitter followers immediately and without much obvious mediation by diplomats, strategists or handlers.” [WaPo]

*JUDGES FINES KOBACH* *-* Sam Levine: “A federal magistrate judge fined Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) $1,000 on Friday for misrepresenting the content of documents he was photographed holding while meeting with President Donald Trump, but will allow Kobach to continue to shield the documents from the public. The ruling came in connection with a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union over a Kansas law requiring people to prove their citizenship when they register to vote. As part of the lawsuit, the ACLU sought documents Kobach was photographed holding when he met with Trump in November that contained proposed changes to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. Kobach argued the documents were not relevant to the lawsuit, but the ACLU argued they were because Kobach’s proposal of amendments to federal voter registration law signaled he did not have the authority to implement a proof of citizenship requirement.” [HuffPost]

*BILL ACKMAN’S BAD BET ON VERBAL-STRIFE -* Bill Ackman is definitely the guy who responds to “a-dollar-a-day” charity infomercials by wondering why the children don’t just invest in a solid emerging market fund. Charlie Gasparino and Brian Schwartz: “Some say former Vice President Joe Biden is too old to run for president in 2020, but he still knows how to throw a verbal punch — just ask financier Bill Ackman…. [D]uring a private VIP dinner...the question of why Biden didn’t run for president in 2016 was raised once again…. Biden explained that part of the decision stemmed from the death of his son Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in 2015. *The room grew quiet as Biden became emotional, and said: ‘I’m sorry…I’ve said enough.’ That’s when Ackman blurted out ‘Why? That’s never stopped you before.’* The formal, and understated dinner conversation suddenly turned tense, according three people who were present and confirmed both the substance and the wording of Biden’s responses. *Biden, these people say, turned to someone seated near him, and asked, ‘who is this asshole?,’* a reference to Ackman.” [Fox Business]

Joe Scarborough has a new music video. Please don’t ask us why.

*BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR -* Here’s a gorilla splashing about in a tub of water.

*COMFORT FOOD*

- A trip inside a World War Two B-17 Flying Fortress.

- The richest person in each state.

- Acquaint yourself with Justin Trudeau’s socks.

*TWITTERAMA*


People who complain about Texas summers, DC right now is like being inside of sweaty wool sock. With worse air conditioning.

— Emily Ramshaw (@eramshaw) June 23, 2017


If Jon Ossoff had rented a condo in Sandy Springs six months ago, would we be reading “Dem comeback begins” stories this week?

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) June 23, 2017


*shoves through two enormous double doors and runs into the room panting heavily* more like WEALTHCARE bill

— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) June 22, 2017

Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffpost.com)

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.

More than half of Democrats believe that health insurance should be provided through a national, government-run insurance system, according to a new Pew Research survey. This represents a significant jump from past surveys.

Fifty-two percent of Americans who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party now favor a single-payer system, up from 33 percent in 2014 and 43 percent as recently as this January.

Younger Democrats are especially enthusiastic: Two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners under age 30 say they’d like to see a single-payer system.

Support remains lower outside the party, with just 12 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners, and one-third of the public as a whole, favoring the idea.The poll also finds a larger shift on Americans’ views about the government’s role in the health care system.

During former President Barack Obama’s tenure, a significant share of the public renounced the idea that the government should ensure all Americans have health coverage. As his signature health care law was facing a troubled launch in 2013, just 42 percent said the government had that responsibility.

But after President Donald Trump, who has pledged to repeal the current health care law, came into office, views seesawed back. Sixty percent of Americans now say the government does have a responsibility to ensure universal health coverage.*OTHER NUMBERS ON THE CURRENT DEBATE OVER HEALTH CARE:*

A new *Kaiser Family Foundation *poll finds that just 38 percent of Americans know that the House GOP’s bill to repeal Obamacare would involve major reductions to Medicaid. Medicaid itself is broadly popular with the public, nearly three-quarters of whom view it favorably. The survey also finds majority support for Obamacare for the first time in Kaiser’s polling since the law passed seven years ago.

An *NBC/Wall Street Journal* survey finds that just 16 percent of Americans think the health care bill passed by the House is a good idea, while 48 percent consider it to be a bad idea. The public is closely divided on what Congress and the president should do next, according to the poll, with 38 percent saying they should continue attempting to repeal Obamacare, and 39 percent that they should not. 

A *HuffPost/YouGov* survey finds that although few Republicans are enthusiastic about the GOP health bill, 68 percent say they’d rather see it pass than to have no repeal at all. The public overall would like to see the current health care law kept in place, according to the survey.

-*MORE OF THE LATEST POLLING NEWS:*-

*FEW BELIEVE AMERICA IS MAKING PROGRESS ON GUN VIOLENCE *― HuffPollster: “America’s most recent bout with high-profile gun violence has done little to shake people’s attitudes about guns, which remain both complex and deeply polarized, according to two newly released surveys. *Just 12 percent of the public thinks American society has gotten better at preventing gun violence since the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, **a new HuffPost/YouGov survey** finds*….A new, wide-ranging Pew Research report, also released Thursday, sheds some light on the attitudes underlying Americans’ opinions about firearms….Nearly three-quarters of gun owners say they can’t see themselves ever giving up gun ownership, and that they consider the right to own guns essential to their own sense of freedom. But a sizable share of the public has also had harmful experiences with firearms. Forty-four percent say they know someone who has been shot, whether accidentally or on purpose, and nearly a quarter say they or someone in their family have been threatened or intimidated by a gun.” [HuffPost, more from Pew] 

*SUPPORT FOR GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS CONTINUES TO GROW *―- Antonia Blumberg: ”[A]ccording to a new report by the Public Religion Research Institute, support for religiously based service refusals is quickly declining. PRRI’s report, based on a survey of roughly 40,000 interviews, found that more than six in ten Americans oppose allowing small business owners in their state to refuse to provide goods and services to gay or lesbian people on religious grounds….*‘For the first time in a PRRI poll of this size, no major religious group reports majority support for religiously based service refusals of gay and lesbian Americans,’ *said PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones in a statement.” [HuffPost, more from PRRI]

*HILLARY CLINTON’S IMAGE HASN’T SEEN A POST-ELECTION BOUNCE* ― Justin McCarthy: “Americans are no more likely to view Hillary Clinton favorably than they were before last year’s presidential election. Forty-one percent have a favorable view of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, within the 41% to 43% range Gallup has recorded since November….*Clinton’s current favorable rating is just a few percentage points higher than her all-time low ― 38%, last recorded in late August/early September 2016*….Over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election ― some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed….November’s election was unlike any other before it, with both major party candidates having some of the lowest favorable ratings of any candidates in Gallup’s history. This situation has had unique consequences for the losing candidate as well as the winner.” [Gallup] 

*‘OUTLIERS’* ― Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

- An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gives Democrats an 8-point edge over Republicans on the generic House ballot. [NBC]

- CBS finds Americans are unhappy with congressional Republicans, but  not persuaded that Democrats would be better. [CBS]

- Quinnipiac’s latest look at the Virginia gubernatorial race gives Democrat Ralph Northam an 8-point edge over Republican Ed Gillespie. [Quinnipiac]

- Steven Shepard reports that pollsters were surprised by high turnout in the special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. [Politico]

- Nate Silver takes a look ahead to Democrats’ 2018 midterm chances. [538]

- Andrew Dugan notes that health care costs top Americans’ list of financial concerns. [Gallup]

- Kaeli Subberwal writes on a study finding Republicans are more concerned about “climate change” than “global warming.” [HuffPost]

- Alvin Chang delves into the divide between Americans who leave their hometowns and those who stay. [Vox] 

- Sean Trende offers some thoughts on media coverage of polls. [@SeanTrende]

- Elisa Shearer finds few mode effects in polling on Americans’ news consumption. [Pew]

Want to get more stories like this? Sign up for emails here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 21 hours ago.

As Congress spends the next week and a half, if everything goes well, wrestling over how they can screw up healthcare in America even more, perhaps they should take notice of a new study from HealthView Services which highlights the fact that the real source of the healthcare crisis in this country is rising costs.

As Bloomberg notes, healthcare cost inflation is expected eclipse overall inflation and Social Security COLAs over the next decade.



*U.S. retiree health-care costs are likely to increase at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent over the next decade. *That's nearly triple the 1.9 percent average annual inflation rate in the U.S. from 2012 to 2016 and more than double the projected cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) on Social Security benefits.

 

The premiums on supplemental insurance, also known as Medigap, that many people buy to cover costs that Medicare doesn't, such as co-payments; on Medicare Part B, which covers payments for doctors, tests, and other medical services; and on Part D, prescription drug coverage. Here's how your Social Security benefits are likely to stack up against some of those costs.



 

Shockingly, the reality is that *a couple retiring today can expect to pay nearly a half million dollars in just insurance premiums over the course of the remainder of their lives.*



For a healthy 65-year-old couple retiring this year with a future adjusted gross annual income of less than $170,000 after adding in any tax-exempt income, *projected lifetime health-care premiums add up to $321,994 in today's dollars.*

 

Take a moment to appreciate that figure. It includes premium payments for Medicare Parts B and D, supplemental insurance premiums, and dental premiums. (The supplemental premium figure used is a national average, and premiums can vary greatly from state to state.)

 

Sadly, and shockingly, that doesn't reflect the full range of likely expenses. *Add in deductibles, co-pays, and costs for hearing, vision, and dental care, and the total rises to $404,253 in today's dollars.*



And, given the shocking inflation of healthcare costs in this country, the *situation only looks worse for younger people.*

 

Of course, *excessively rising costs*, for our legislators who may not be so good with the math, is *usually the result of demand outstripping supply and/or perverse regulations that serve to distort free market forces.*  In the case of Obamacare, we have both. 

As an example, before Obamacare many healthy young people, who we'll refer to collectively as John Doe, chose not to even carry health insurance because it was a truly wasteful expense for them.  As it turns out, millennials can actually do some basic math and figured out that they didn't need to spend $5,000 a year for an insurance plan when the odds are that they'll get a cold one time, pay $150 to visit a doctor and $40 to buy some antibiotics.

But then Obamacare came along and forced John Doe to, not only purchase insurance, but to purchase a 'souped up,' expensive plan with all sorts of bells and whistles. 

*Now, Democrats knew that that 'souped up' healthcare plan was really just a thinly veiled tax on John Doe...he wasn't supposed to actually use it.  *

But John Doe, didn't see it that way.  From his perspective, if he's paying for a service, he might as well use it...and hence the demand issue.

Moreover,* that simple example says nothing about the adverse selection bias created by Obama's subsidies and exchanges* where people with absolutely no "skin in the game" can get 'free healthcare,' courtesy of the millionaire, billionaire, private jet owners in the country, and consume as much healthcare as they want basically free of charge. 

To make a long story longer, the net effect of Obamacare was that it added a ton of demand to an already undersupplied healthcare market which is why healthcare premiums are soaring.  *Perhaps, just maybe, basic economic principles actually work and more 'skin in the game,' rather than less, and more people making their own decisions, rather than less, are actually good things?*  Just a hunch but we hear that a lot of work has been done on the topic.

Of course, we highly doubt that any of this will stop our politicians from turning the healthcare debate into a fued between young and old and the rich and poor...afterall sowing division is how elections are won...and lost. Reported by Zero Hedge 19 hours ago.

Hopes of single payer supporters across the country were dashed Friday night when the Democratic Speaker of the California legislature killed a single payer health insurance reform bill by written by California Democrats. California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon announced Friday afternoon that he ... Reported by Raw Story 18 hours ago.

Every so often, we have a certain reaction to a bit of political news. We then fully expect at least a few other political commentators to have the same reaction, only to be surprised when it seems that nobody else read things the way we did. This is precisely where we find ourselves over President Donald Trump’s recent tweets, where he supposedly put the issue to rest of whether secret audio recordings were ever made in his White House. Everybody seems to be buying his spin, and nobody questioned the obvious loophole he left himself. Because if you read what he wrote and take it at face value (not reading more into it than he actually says), Trump still has not answered the question of whether such tapes exist or not. Not even close.

Here are the two Trump tweets in question:

With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea... ...whether there are “tapes” or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.

Trump not only makes the loophole obvious, he actually rubs our faces in it ― “I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings.” Got that? There might be tapes, but Trump “has no idea” if they even exist or not. His final declaration carefully uses the word “I” to avoid any statement pertaining to anyone else at the White House: “I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.”

This, as any parent of a teenager knows, is technically called “getting cute” with the facts. Trump’s tweets were reportedly vetted by several lawyers before he was allowed to release them, which isn’t really surprising at this point. Even without lawyers, Trump is a master at “getting cute” with how he says things. The tweet which got him into all this trouble is a prime example: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations” ― since all Trump is really saying is that Comey “better hope” that any such tapes don’t exist.

In Trump’s recent tweets, all he is really saying is that he personally “did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.” Trump didn’t push the “Record” button himself. Trump has no such tapes concealed upon his person. That’s it. That’s all Trump is admitting to. He’s not saying that anyone else in the White House didn’t make such tapes, or now has such tapes. Indeed, Trump even goes out of his way to state this explicitly: “I have no idea” whether any such tapes exist, or ever existed. No idea!

There is a world of difference between what Trump said and a real across-the-board denial, such as: “Such recordings do not and have never existed in my White House,” or: “No tapes were ever made, period.”

But, it seems, nobody else parsed Trump’s statement in such a literal way. All the news stories so far blithely read into Trump’s statement a lot more than is actually there. The assumption of: “Well, Trump has now fully addressed the issue ― there are no tapes” is utterly false, and yet the entire punditocracy seems to be happily pulling the wool over their own eyes. Now, we haven’t read everything everyone’s written, so if there are others who have noticed this wide discrepancy between what Trump seems to be saying and what he actually said, we apologize for not noticing. But it still strikes us as odd that so many are going along with what seems to be a pretty obvious ruse.

We sincerely hope that some congressional Democrats will bring this discrepancy up during some future hearing into the Trump White House, and also that Robert Mueller is paying attention to what Trump didn’t say more than the extremely narrow admission that he actually did make. Because we don’t think anyone really ever thought that Trump himself secretly pushed “Record” on his smartphone and then casually laid it on a table during Oval Office conversations. We don’t think anyone ever thought that such recordings, if they do exist, would only exist on Trump’s personal phone, either. Trump admitting that neither of these is the case certainly does not lay to rest the question of whether such tapes were ever made by anyone ― not by a long shot.

But we’ve got plenty of other things to get to, so we’ll just leave it at that for the time being. Has it really gotten to the point where Trump uses blatant weasel words and nobody even notices? We sincerely hope not.

The week’s political news was dominated by two events. The first was a special House election in Georgia, and the second was Mitch McConnell finally releasing the Senate’s healthcare reform bill. We’ll get to the Senate bill in the talking points, but we have to draw back a bit from the Democratic defeat in the Georgia election and take a bigger-picture look at what’s going on. Because by week’s end, there was almost an open revolt by some Democrats against Nancy Pelosi continuing to stay in her House leadership role.

We wrote about the Pelosi controversy yesterday, without taking a pro or con position. Pelosi’s problem is her wide name recognition, and her negative numbers. A recent poll put her at 30 percent approval nationwide, and 50 percent disapproval. Independents disapprove of her to the tune of 58 percent. Even among Democrats, Pelosi has 19 percent disapproval. In order to win back the House, Democrats are going to have to compete in swing districts. In these districts, Pelosi’s numbers are probably worse. And Karen Handel just showed every Republican House candidate how to successfully demonize Pelosi in their ads.

It’s not just Pelosi, however. The party faces a much bigger problem. Divisions within the ranks continue, and nobody at the top of the party even seems willing to address the growing schism. When Republicans lost in 2012, they put together a post-mortem document recommending changes in the party by March of the next year. Democrats have yet to do anything similar. We wrote about this back in April, in an article that ended:

Convene a group to identify what Democrats have been doing wrong and what they’ve been doing right. Create a document which lays out strategies for future success, and then (unlike the Republicans) actually pay some attention to it. Create a list of priorities for the party and tactical advice for individual Democratic candidates. It is time to begin moving forward, and part of that should be examining what has been going so wrong over the past few years. People need to get beyond their 2016 primary election choice and start working together once again, or this sort of flareup is just going to happen over and over again. And nobody really wants to see that.

And yet, here we are, in the midst of yet another flareup, still with no plans to even identify what has gone so wrong for the party in the past few elections. The progressives are still upset with the establishment Democrats, and vice-versa. A whole lot of energy is spent on bickering that should really be spent on opposing Republicans.

The best argument for fixing what’s wrong that we saw this week came from Billy Michael Honor at HuffPost. He lives in the Georgia Sixth District where Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Handel. Here’s what he had to say about the race, after personally experiencing it from within the district:

This, however, was not the only reason Ossoff lost the 6th. More than brand saturation the primary problem was messaging. Whether they admit it or not, the Democratic Party thought Ossoff could ride the wave of Trump hate into Washington DC. This is why Ossoff’s campaign platform was pretty much a conglomeration of cherry picked issues that appealed to various 6th district interest groups topped with the ever motivating “help us stand up to Trump” message. The problem with this message is it lacked any compelling progressive vision for the future. It also lacked anyway to substantively convince the average politically uninterested citizen why they should give a damn about the Democratic Party. The message simply says, “vote for us, we won’t be as bad as the other group.” This is how Hilary Clinton lost the general presidential election, this is how Jon Ossoff lost last night and this is how Democrats will continue to lose if they don’t get the message right.

Hello? Tom Perez? Are you paying attention? Democrats have got to figure this out, and soon. How many political corpses does it take before you order an autopsy?

Of course, as always, there was plenty of other things going on in the political universe, so we’re going to have to just run quickly through some stories you may have missed.

A contractor for the Republican National Committee left a massive database of almost every American voter (200 million of them) unsecured on the internet this week. It’s impossible to say whether anyone else downloaded this information or not.

Sean Spicer is slowly fading into the background, but the Trump White House seems to be having problems replacing him. As CNN snarkily put it: “So far, all that search has revealed is that the people the White House wants aren’t interested in the job and the people who are interested in the job aren’t wanted by the White House.” Not surprising ― who in their right mind would want Spicer’s job, at this point?

Jobs ― two factories (Carrier and Boeing) that Trump hailed as “saving American jobs” are now either outsourcing the jobs or just laying people off. Winning!

Trump appointed William C. Bradford to a job dealing with Native Americans, even though he’s had some eye-raising comments in the past about other minorities, including actually defending the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II by saying “it was necessary.” Nothing like minority outreach from Republicans, folks!

Donald Trump called the notion that Russians meddled in the 2016 election a “big Dem HOAX” and then went on to ― bizarrely ― state that Obama didn’t do enough to stop it. It either exists or it doesn’t, Donny... you can’t have it both ways.

Trump now starts his day with a call with all his lawyers about the mounting Russia scandal. The idea is to allow him to “compartmentalize” this so it doesn’t get in the way of the rest of his day. How’s that going?

By the time the president arrives for work in the Oval Office, the thinking goes, he will no longer be consumed by the Russia probe that he complains hangs over his presidency like a darkening cloud. It rarely works, however. Asked whether the tactic was effective, one top White House adviser paused for several seconds and then just laughed.

And we’ll close today with a few blasts from the past, mostly because they didn’t fit into the Talking Points section at the end. Here is Mitch McConnell, from February of 2010, on the process Democrats were using to pass healthcare reform.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are working behind the scenes on a plan aimed at jamming this massive health spending bill through Congress against the clear wishes of an unsuspecting public. What they have in mind is a last-ditch legislative sleight-of-hand called reconciliation that would enable them to impose government-run health care for all on the American people, whether Americans want it or not.

Boy, those were the days, eh? Here’s one more to keep handy, since there will quite likely be a few last-minute deals struck by McConnell over the course of the next week. From December of 2009:

Americans are right to be stunned ― because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line. Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that’s about their health care.

We have two *Honorable Mention* awards this week, the first for Rhode Island’s teacher of the year, Nikos Giannopoulis, who photobombed Donald Trump more successfully than anyone else has yet managed to do. Check out the photo to see why HuffPost wrote the headline: “Bold, Gay Teacher Of The Year Photo Bombs Donald Trump With Fan.” Priceless!

The second *Honorable Mention* goes to all the disabled protesters who locked down Mitch McConnell’s office yesterday, providing the evening news with film of cops trying to deal with protesters in wheelchairs. Visually, this was the perfect protest, really, and they are to be commended for their commitment and their impeccable timing.

But the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for the speech she gave against the Republican healthcare bill. She does not, to put it mildly, mince words. Read the whole speech, it’s a doozy (and it’s not that long). Here are just a few highlights from it:

Today, we finally got a look at the monstrosity of a bill that Republicans have been hiding behind closed doors for weeks. Yes, it is finally clear how the Republicans were spending their time, locked in those back rooms. Now we know the truth ― Senate Republicans weren’t making the House bill better. Nope, not one bit. Instead, they were sitting around a conference room table, dreaming up even meaner ways to kick dirt in the face of the American people and take away their health insurance. . . . The Senate bill is crammed full with just as many tax cuts as the House bill. Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts for wealthy investors, tax cuts for giant companies. But all those tax cuts don’t come cheap. They start to add up after a while. So Senate Republicans had to make a choice. How to pay for all these juicy tax cuts for their rich buddies? I’ll tell you how: blood money. Senate Republicans wrung some extra dollars out of kicking people off tax credits that help them afford health insurance. They raked in extra cash by letting states drop even more protections and benefits, like maternity care or prescription drug coverage or mental health treatment. And then they got to the real piggy bank: Medicaid. And here they just went wild. Senate Republicans went after Medicaid with even deeper cuts than the House version. The Medicaid expansion? Gone ― ripped up and flushed down the toilet. And the rest of the Medicaid program? For Senate Republicans, it wasn’t enough that the House bill was going to toss grandparents out of nursing homes or slash funding for people with disabilities or pull the plug on health care for babies born too soon. No. Senate Republicans wanted to go bigger. . . . Medicaid is the program in this country that provides health insurance to one in five Americans. To 30 million kids. To nearly two out of every three people in a nursing home. These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let’s be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives. . . . Senate Republicans know exactly what they are doing with this health care bill. Their values are on full display. If they want to trade the health insurance of millions of Americans for tax cuts for the rich, they’d better be ready for a fight. Because now that this shameful bill is out in the open, that’s exactly what they’re going to get.

Well said! While Democrats everywhere are denouncing the meanness of the Republican bill, this is clearly the best framing of the issue to date. Because make no mistake about it, it is blood money ― and Democrats should forcefully point this out.

Because Elizabeth Warren showed them the best way to do so, within hours of the bill’s release, she is easily our *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* this week. Tell it like it is, Liz!

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

We have two *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* awards to hand out, one literal and one visceral.

Jon Ossoff certainly disappointed more Democrats than anyone else this week, by running the most-expensive House race in American history and losing. He lost by almost four points, which was much worse than expected. Democrats would be riding a wave of enthusiasm right now if he had pulled out a victory, but since he didn’t they are pretty despondent instead.

Ossoff reportedly started out his campaign strongly against Donald Trump, but later decided to dial all of that back and run as a guy who could reach across the aisle and get stuff done. This, to state the obvious, didn’t work with the voters. Whether his campaign was mostly at fault for his loss or not will be endlessly debated in the coming months by Democrats. But what cannot be debated is the sheer volume of disappointment Ossoff’s loss just caused. By literal interpretation, Jon Ossoff was indeed the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week*.

But before we get to the second award, we have two minor awards to hand out as well. Both Michael Bloomberg and Johnny Depp deserve at least an *(Dis-)Honorable Mention* this week, for idiocy. In Bloomberg’s case, it was for telling Democrats to just get behind Trump for the better of the country. Um, OK, Mike... sure.

Depp’s case was a little more serious, since he made a joke about assassinating presidents. This is always to be condemned as strongly as possible, but since he’s not a Democratic politician we didn’t feel it rose to the level of the *MDDOTW* award.

Especially since there was an even-bigger example of inhumane political comments this week. Which is why the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* goes to Phil Montag, who used to be “the volunteer co-chair of the technology committee” for Nebraska Democrats. Used to be, because he just got fired, for saying the following about Republican Steve Scalise, who was shot at a baseball field recently: “I’m glad he got shot. I’m not going to fucking say that in public.” When then asked why he was saying it anyway, Montag responded: “I wish he was fucking dead.”

The response was swift, from Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb:

“As soon as I heard it, I sent it to the (party) officers and then sent an email to Phil Montag informing him I am removing him from his appointed position as Co-Chair of the Technology Committee,” Kleeb told the [Omaha] World-Herald. “Wishing a Member of Congress or any individual dead is disgusting and has no place in our party.” Kleeb reported the conversation to law enforcement out of concern it was a genuine threat, she told the paper.

That is entirely the right response, we have to say. Nobody who would say something that odious belongs in the party leadership in any way, shape, or form. Period.

On his way out the door, we have to throw into that box of personal possessions a brand-new *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award.

[Both Jon Ossoff and Phil Montag are now nothing more than private citizens, and it is our blanket policy not to provide contact information for such persons, sorry. Besides, Ossoff is probably already getting an earful from plenty of other Democrats right about now.]

*Volume 442* (6/23/17)

Before we get to the awfulness of the Senate healthcare bill, we have to begin with two very funny tweets. Both transcend mere talking points and enter into the realm of downright laughable political humor. Apparently there was some strict interpretation of the dress code for women being enforced in Paul Ryan’s office. Erica Werner tweeted her response:

Ladies of the House: there is a crackdown today on going sleeveless into the Speakers Lobby. Forewarned is forearmed as it were

Heh. That’s pretty funny. But this effort was outdone by the response from Haley Byrd, which knocked it out of the park:

I thought @SpeakerRyan supported the right to bare arms

Well done! We doff our hats in salute to such excellent political humor.

One more amusing tweet deserves mention as well, as Matthew Yglesias beautifully bridged the gap between two Trump subjects this week:

Interestingly there ARE tapes of Donald Trump promising to cover everyone, cut deductibles, and lower premiums.

OK, all kidding aside, we’re dedicating our whole Talking Points section to the Senate “take no prisoners” healthcare bill. We feel this is necessary, because if Mitch McConnell is to be believed, by this time next week the bill will already have been voted on. That’s not much time to mount a resistance, which is (of course) the whole point of such an absurdly short schedule.

Some weeks we struggle to put together seven talking points. Not this week ― we had too many to choose from, in fact. AARP had a good talking point about how seniors’ health costs would skyrocket (calling it an “age tax”) but there were too many others to even include it this week. Democrats only have days to fight back against the GOP steamroller, so they’d better get busy, that’s all we can say.

* The difference between the two bills*

The Washington Post had a helpful column pointing out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

But in reality, the Senate bill will be at least as bad as the House bill over time. What we’re really seeing here is an elaborate shell game: The Senate bill moves money around in a largely superficial way that enables Senate Republicans to vote for the same fundamental underlying policy priorities embedded in the House bill, while pretending not to. Here’s the gist: 1. The House GOP bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people. 2. The Senate bill gives the wealthy an enormous tax cut, financed (relative to current law) largely by hundreds of billions in cuts to health-care spending on poor people.

* Dancing merrily*

Alexandra Petri, also at the Post, was even snarkier. She wrote an entire article as a tongue-in-cheek plea to remember who the bill helps, and the dire circumstances for them if the bill were not to pass. We strongly recommend reading the entire article, because it is downright hilarious, in a gallows-humor sort of way.

Frankly, I think we are being unfair to the Senate version of the health-care bill. Too much time has already been spent on all the problems it creates ― for the indigent, the pregnant, the elderly, those who depend on Medicaid. But what about the problems it solves? We are taking those too lightly, I feel. The Affordable Care Act placed a great burden on a great many people, and the Senate bill seeks to relieve their sacrifice. Think of the families teetering at the steep pinnacle of the income distribution, wondering whether their finances will stretch to cover a lifesaving surgery for their purebred dressage horse. Thanks to the tax breaks this bill offers, they can rest assured that Dick Whittington Lord Mare Of London will get a replacement knee and continue to dance merrily over the course. This is not just a tax break for the wealthy. It may well be the difference between life and death for countless sports cars and golf tourneys across America. Before, their money was wasted on dialysis for strangers who might possibly not even understand the finer points of badminton. Now that money is being restored, and it will go where it is most needed.

* $33 billion for 400 families*

The credit for this statistic goes to Brandon DeBot at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“An analysis of the Republican healthcare plan exposed a jaw-dropping fact. The 400 richest families in the entire country will get a tax break to the tune of $33 billion. This is exactly the same amount that Republicans are cutting in Medicaid funds from four entire states. Anyone who doubts that this bill is nothing short of taking money from the sick and the poor in order to hand over to those who least need it, just think about that statistic. $33 billion could give big tax cuts to 400 families, or pay for medical care for four United States. Republicans certainly aren’t trying to hide their real priorities in life, are they? I guess those vaunted Republican ‘family values’ only applies to the top-earning families in America, eh?”

* More than just politics*

The American people have weighed in already.

“Of course, we don’t have public polling on the Senate bill, and we likely won’t before the Senate votes on it. But the public’s view of the House bill is getting worse as time goes by. Only 16 percent of all Americans think the House bill is ‘a good deal.’ A full 48 percent think it is ‘a bad deal.’ Even among Republicans, only 34 percent think the House bill is a good deal. Now, if Democrats didn’t care about the disastrous effect this bill is going to have on millions upon millions of families, and if they only cared about how it would help them politically, they’d be cheering Republicans on. ‘Go ahead, pass your bill,’ they’d be telling Republicans, ‘it’s only going to make it that much easier to defeat you in the next election.’ Mitch McConnell is only scheduling 20 hours of debate for the bill in the Senate, while the final Senate debate over Obamacare took 25 days. So Democrats spent more days in open debate than Republicans are going to spend hours. That’s pretty stunning, but the American people have already weighed in. The Republican plan is massively unpopular, and it will only continue to get more unpopular as the public learns more and more about what is in it. No wonder they want to move so fast.”

* Obama trolls Trump’s meanness*

President Obama weighed in this week as well, and he didn’t mince words. He also showed how Democrats everywhere should use the word “mean” or “meanness” as much as possible in the coming debate, just to get under Donald Trump’s skin.

Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family ― this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.

* Five, and counting...*

Already, it looks like the bill may be in trouble within Republican ranks.

“Within hours of the Senate bill being released, four Republican senators went on the record as being against the bill. Since Mitch McConnell can only afford to lose two votes, this could be a problem. Or maybe not ― other than Rand Paul, it’s hard to believe the other three will actually vote against the bill at the end of the day. The four state that the reason they can’t support it is because they want the bill to be even meaner than it already is. So it’s probably just posturing. But McConnell should be worried about the fifth Republican senator’s stated reason for opposing the bill. Dean Heller of Nevada ― who is up for re-election next year ― voiced his concerns in a way that doesn’t give him any wiggle room to change his mind later. On the drastic and deep cuts to Medicaid, Heller said: ‘I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans.’ That’s pretty unequivocal, and it is impossible to fix by merely tweaking the bill next week. So if Heller and Paul are both solid ‘no’ votes, that means only one more Republican defection will kill the bill.”

* Boehner put it best*

We devoted a large portion of our FTP [429] column to what John Boehner (inaccurately) claimed Democrats were doing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, back in the day. His words bear repeating once again, because they are so accurate when describing what Republicans are now doing. Boehner was visibly angry during this speech, screaming some of it at the top of his voice on the House floor.

No, today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves, and we fail our country. . . . [L]ook at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can’t! Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment? Hell, no, you haven’t! . . . But what [Americans] see today frightens them. They’re frightened because they don’t know what comes next. They’re disgusted because what they see is one political party closing out the other from what should be a national solution. And they’re angry. They’re angry that no matter how they engage in this debate, this body moves forward against their will. Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Bad enough that the Republican Senate bill would repeal much of the Affordable Care Act.

Even worse, it unravels the Medicaid Act of 1965 – which, even before Obamacare, provided health insurance to millions of poor households and elderly.

It’s done with a sleight-of-hand intended to elude not only the public but also the Congressional Budget Office.

Here’s how the Senate Republican bill does it. The bill sets a per-person cap on Medicaid spending in each state. That cap looks innocent enough because it rises every year with inflation.

But there’s a catch. Starting 8 years from now, in 2025, the Senate bill switches its measure of inflation – from how rapidly medical costs are rising, to how rapidly overall costs in the economy are rising.

Yet medical costs are rising faster than overall costs. They’ll almost surely continue to do so – as America’s elderly population grows, and as new medical devices, technologies, and drugs prolong life.

Which means that after 2025, Medicaid will cover less and less of the costs of health care for the poor and elderly.

Over time, that gap becomes huge. The nonpartisan Urban Institute estimates that just between 2025 and 2035, about $467 billion less will be spent on Medicaid than would be spent than if Medicaid funding were to keep up with the expected rise in medical costs.

So millions of Americans will lose the Medicaid coverage they would have received under the 1965 Medicaid act. Over the long term, Medicaid will unravel.

Will anyone in future years know Medicaid’s unraveling began with this Senate Republican bill ostensibly designed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act? Probably not. The unraveling will occur gradually.

Will future voters hold Republicans responsible? Again, unlikely. The effects of the unraveling won’t become noticeable until most current Republican senators are long past reelection.

Does anyone now know this time bomb is buried in this bill?

It doesn’t seem so. McConnell won’t even hold hearings on it.

Next week the Congressional Budget Office will publish its analysis of the bill. CBO reports on major bills like this are widely disseminated in the media. The CBO’s belated conclusion that the House’s bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act would cause 23 million Americans to lose their health care prompted even Donald Trump to call it “mean, mean, mean.”

But because the CBO’s estimates of the consequences of bills are typically limited to 10 years (in this case, 2018 to 2028), the CBO’s analysis of the Senate Republican bill will dramatically underestimate how many people will be knocked off Medicaid over the long term.

Which is exactly what Mitch McConnell has planned. This way, the public won’t be tipped off to the Medicaid unraveling hidden inside the bill.

For years, Republicans have been looking for ways to undermine America’s three core social insurance programs – Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. The three constitute the major legacies of the Democrats, of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. All continue to be immensely popular.

Now, McConnell and his Senate Republican colleagues think they’ve found a way to unravel Medicaid without anyone noticing.

Don’t be fooled. Spread the word. Reported by Eurasia Review 16 hours ago.

Bad enough that the Republican Senate bill would repeal much of the Affordable Care Act. Even worse, it unravels the Medicaid Act of 1965 – which, even before Obamacare, provided health insurance to millions of poor households and elderly. It’s done with a sleight-of-hand intended to elude not only ... Reported by Raw Story 9 hours ago.