It was their healthcare plan to begin with anyways.
That's why it's so clever! If it was single-payer, we wouldn't have any conservative opposition at all to repeal. But because it's
already the free-market solution, the only more right-wing solution they have requires gutting everything, and that's just too far for moderates in districts which Clinton won. They can't lose more than 22 votes, Freedom Caucus has around 30, and there are more than a dozen moderate Republicans going against it; not to mention that there's a lot of 'maybe' and 'leaning' floating about. If they go right to appease the Freedom Caucus, they'll just lose further moderates. But even if they had every moderate, they couldn't pass it without the Freedom Caucus. And even if it passes by armtwisting conservatives, it's DOA in the Senate. Worse yet, there's a chance that even if it gets to the Senate, it'll just be instantly crushed by the Senate Parliamentarian due to running afoul of the rules that allow them to not need 60 votes in the Senate (which, obviously, kills the bill); but the problem is the offending language in question is the language defunding abortions and such. Remove that to appease the Parliamentarian, and you lose literally the last major outside group supporting the bill (anti-abortion groups), and the bill is still dead in the water (fortunately for Republicans, the Parliamentarian won't rule unless the bill actually reaches the Senate, which is increasingly unlikely).
It's a perfect storm. Of course, for tomorrow the real test will be the Up/Down vote. There is a chance that members will break for the bill, just based on Trump's hardball tactics (this will be a significant test to see if the
Art of the Deal applies to Congress). If it passes, the Freedom Caucus will be hugely diminished. If it fails, they will be immensely strengthened, but at the cost of the ire of Trump (as well as cracking the Republican coalition like an egg).
EDIT:
The CBO has published a new estimate of the bill, plus the various amendments added to appease conservatives. (That's a link to the actual CBO report) Their conclusion covers no new people, but has cut the deficit savings from $337 billion to $151 billion.
On March, 13, 2017, CBO and JCT estimated that enacting the reconciliation recommendations of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (which were combined into H.R. 1628) would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would save $186 billion less over that period.
...
Compared with the previous version of the legislation, H.R. 1628, with the proposed amendments, would have similar effects on health insurance coverage: Estimates differ by no more than half a million people in any category in any year over the next decade. (Some differences may appear larger because of rounding.) For example, the decline in Medicaid coverage after 2020 would be smaller than in the previous estimate, mainly because of states’ responses to the faster growth in the per capita allotments for aged, blind, and disabled enrollees—but other changes in Medicaid would offset some of those effects.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4228607 times)