Republicans still short of votes to pass U.S. healthcare overhaul
left
right
2/2
left
right
Chairman of the Freedom Caucus U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who today said that Republicans still lack the votes to pass a reform bill to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, walks in a hallway of the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 2, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Tuesday they were closer to agreeing on a reworked bill to overhaul the nation's healthcare system but still lacked the votes to pass it, as President Donald Trump pressed lawmakers for a vote.
The White House has been pressuring House Republicans to push ahead with legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, after a first effort failed in March in a stunning setback for the Trump administration.
"I think it's time now" for a healthcare vote, Trump said at the White House on Tuesday.
But Republican leaders are struggling to balance the concerns of moderates, who want to protect those with pre-existing medical conditions from being shut out or penalized by insurers, and of conservatives who want to ease what they see as Obamacare's heavy burden on the economy.
Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who heads the staunchly conservative House Freedom Caucus that helped block passage of the first healthcare bill, said Republicans were still "a handful of votes away."
The current bill would allow states to opt out of Obamacare provisions that force insurers to charge sick and healthy people the same rates. That is seen as a concession to the Freedom Caucus, which has endorsed the new measure.
But Trump insisted in an interview this week that the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would remain.
"It's close. It's close. We're getting there," said Representative Tom MacArthur of New Jersey, a moderate Republican who brokered the deal that revived the healthcare legislation.
"I know this is difficult and I know people are worried."
Republicans have long vowed to repeal Democratic former President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare restructuring, arguing that the law, which allowed some 20 million Americans to gain healthcare insurance, was too intrusive and expensive.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump also vowed to get rid of it.
He made its repeal the first major legislative item of his presidency, investing early political capital, only to see the bill he backed torpedoed by his own party.
This time, the White House appears to be taking more of a low-key approach.
"I think it's been quieter. I think it's been more bottom-up-driven from a member's standpoint," said Republican Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina.
OPPOSITION
Republicans, however, remain divided over key aspects of the bill, with some lawmakers worrying about a potential spike in the number of people without coverage, or sharp increases in insurance premiums.
Adding to the pressure is the unified opposition of Democrats, many of whom view the 2010 healthcare law as the defining domestic achievement of Obama's presidency.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the U.S. Congressional Budget Office should be allowed to assess the impact of the healthcare bill before a vote is held.
In March, the CBO, a bipartisan research office, forecast that the first Republican-backed healthcare bill would cause 14 million Americans to lose their insurance by next year and 24 million more than now would be without coverage by 2026.
"Republicans have now made the bill even more costly and cruel to American families, likely resulting in millions more Americans not being able to afford coverage," Pelosi said in a statement.
"The American people have a right to know the full consequences of 'Trumpcare' before their representatives vote on it," Pelosi said.
Patient advocacy groups, including the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association, also oppose the reworked bill, while the American Medical Association and others have expressed concerns over coverage losses and unaffordable insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.
If a plan passes the House, it is expected to face a tough fight in the Senate, where Republicans have a narrower majority and where some party senators have expressed misgivings about the House bill.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that his party did not want to give up on the legislation.
Does anyone even know what they are voting on? You cannot do something of this magnitude without thoroughly discussing it. I know that works for Dems who "pass the bill so you can read the bill" but I want to know the details. Just vote to REPEAL first. Get that done. Then, take the next YEAR and craft a GOOD legislation. We don't need anymore rush, rush hurry up to "get something done".
Yep, get Ryan out of the healthcare bill and craft the new bill methodically and analyzing what repercussions of certain parts will be.
If someone refuses to buy health insurance, I get why. When you don't make a lot of money buying insurance is just not fiscally possible. Comprehensive Ins needs to be brought back; plans that cover non routine care can be very cheap. Even at my poorest, I could afford that. I think anyone whose employer offers health care insurance should have to take it if they are not covered under a spouse's plan. For those whose employers do not offer it should go to clinics that could be established by hospitals or other care givers. Those clinics could be staffed by doctor residents, making it cheaper care. Sure it isn't convenient to sit is a waiting room for hours, but it is a cheap option, just charge a cheap amount. And the issue with ridiculous use of emergency rooms has to be addressed. And Hypochondriacs! The ERs know who the frequent users of their services are and who is a hypochondriac. Flag them and usher them toward the clinic.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
With auto or home, you can pretty much pick and choose what you want covered and at what level.
I think health insurance should be the same.
I also think there shouldn't be a penalty for not having insurance.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
With auto or home, you can pretty much pick and choose what you want covered and at what level.
I think health insurance should be the same.
I also think there shouldn't be a penalty for not having insurance.
But the difference between home/auto and health insurance is if you don't have home/auto the taxpayers don't foot the bill if you have a loss, with health care the taxpayer does because most hospitals can't turn patients away so if they don't pay, we do.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
But more people would be able to afford the more targeted coverage.
A 60 year old doesn't need the same things a 20 year old would and vice versa.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
What a frickin' nightmare. They better have passed that stupid budget with the intent of taking the time to make a really fabulous budget come September.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
But more people would be able to afford the more targeted coverage.
A 60 year old doesn't need the same things a 20 year old would and vice versa.
Well don't forget the States have their mandates too. If you live in a state where BC is mandated, that 60 YO woman has to pay for it. The Fed's should not mandate specific coverage.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
But more people would be able to afford the more targeted coverage.
A 60 year old doesn't need the same things a 20 year old would and vice versa.
Well don't forget the States have their mandates too. If you live in a state where BC is mandated, that 60 YO woman has to pay for it. The Fed's should not mandate specific coverage.
That's what I'm talking about.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Trump is blowing his political capital. Putting forth bad legislation and then having it voted down emboldens the Left to vote down everything. There is no will to change anything in Washington. They are so entrenched in politics as usual and with the long termers of McCain, Graham and with sleazy Paul Ryan at the helm, there is no one who is going to support Trump's agenda.
The problem is the Republican party is so very divided, so they/we can't seem to agree on anything. And if they repealed it without replacing, the few (in comparison) who benefited from O-Care will be screaming to the rooftops, and never mind those of us who are paying for it with higher premiums. No one cares about us. They only care about the few who are benefiting at the detriment of others.
