Trump, May 2017: 100 days of [unintelligible]

frelinghuysen? jesus christ being on that losing henry clay ticket seems to have some long fucking coattails

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20170501/Upton%20Amendment.pdf

Nate Silver is why Clinton lost the election

It's gonna pass this time. Stupidity and evil can only be constrained for so long.

yeah banking on the senate to stop this is like relying on the voters to stop trump

Calling Curbelo tomorrow, but he's leaning no.

My rep is a Dem.

But Upton wants to get to yes. He hates Obamacare.

After the 2010 elections thrust Republicans into the majority, Upton overcame concerns with his moderate nature to win the coveted Energy and Commerce Committee gavel.

His presentation to leadership consisted of him pulling out the game Jenga, stacking up the series of blocks into a high pile, as the bemused lawmakers wondered what he was doing.

damn america sonned in a jenga beef

"Concerns with his moderate nature"

gotta bad feeling abt this. no matter how shitty AHCA is, it will be the "win" (in the short term) that they've all been salivating over

What's the win -- passing in the House? It means nothing if it doesn't clear the Senate. If it does, then I'll worry

Once it passes the House (which it will), something will pass the Senate. Something fucked and evil. If not quite as fucked and evil as this, then something maybe 2% less fucked and evil.

^yeah kinda my thinking

health insurance will become hereditary

The vibe as such from the Senate appears to be "Thanks for nothing if you DO pass this, you jerks."

Yeah Senate math is quite different.

Bernie, Warren and the rest of the Senate w/ some bullshit

Strong and tough line of questioning from @Dena. Pathetic and dismal answers from Sanders on every question. https://t.co/6mQ6h72Ynl

— Hussain (@Chemzes) May 3, 2017

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/senators-un-letter-israel-palestine-sanders-warren

Is $8 billion a lot of money?

Well, one thing not answered in the article is the time period over which this $8 billion would be spent. Is this a one year number? Is it a ten year total? The article doesn't give an answer to this basic question.

To get some idea of the need, the average cost of treating the 10 percent least healthy people is more than $50,000 a year per person. This means that on an annual basis the cost of treating the 30 million least healthy people in the country would be over $1.5 trillion. Many of these people are getting Medicare, Medicaid, or employer provided insurance, but if one-third of them showed up in the high risk pools, then their costs would be over $500 billion a year.

In this case, if the $8 billion is a one-year figure, it will cover 1.6 percent of the cost of treating this population. On the other hand, if it is a ten-year figure it will cover 0.16 percent of the cost of treating the less healthy people who show up in high risk pools. Either way, it is a tiny fraction of the cost, but it would still be nice to know which one it us.

from dean baker obv

People with the highest percentage of preexisting conditions live in states won by Trump, according to Steve Rattner.

he walks on, doesn't look back - he pretends he can't hear her. starts to whistle as he crosses the street - seems embarrassed to be there

he says 'would you respect me- If I didn't have this gun? Cause without it, I don't get it, and that's why I carry one'

And I said, "What about Breakfast at Tiffany's?" She said, "I think I remember the film, and as I recall, I think we both kinda liked it" And I said, "Well, that's the one thing we've got."

If you like Piña Coladas and getting caught in the rain, If you're not into yoga, if you have half a brain

Too fuckin late, George Will: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-a-dangerous-disability/2017/05/03/56ca6118-2f6b-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.9cf02576c613#comments

so when are they voting on this

The first line of that George Will column is pretty good though

Rumblings on the purported religious liberty EO to come today are that the religious right are let down if not deeply pissed off.

Supposedly a sprightly 40 min of debate on the bill today! We can all be dead by dinner

don't care what they think or care about xp

If you like Piña Coladas and getting caught in the rain, If you're not into yoga, if you have half a brain

― The Adventures Of Whiteman (Bananaman Begins), Thursday, 4 May 2017 12:01 (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pm'd u a dick pic, let's make this happen

im kind of worried about this bill passing

it's going to pass

yeah it's gonna pass

Rumblings on the purported religious liberty EO to come today are that the religious right are let down if not deeply pissed off.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, May 4, 2017 8:39 AM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if the religious right doesn't even like it, why even issue the order at all? Just seems like a recipe for more protests and another court defeat

then again, why anything is a fairly futile question at this point.

the issue is the senate right?

Saw one story that claims the EO is all about making it easier for Trump to fundraise in churches.

acc to NPR this morning the Johnson Rule is hardly ever enforced vs churches

Basic breakdown of what happens next re AHCA

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/republicans-health-care-donald-trump/index.html

Point 5 seems like the key one:

5. The Senate changes it drastically: Senate Republicans have already expressed concern with the end of Medicaid expansion by 2020 -- which is in the House bill -- and it's hard for me to imagine some of the more moderate elements in the chamber will be happy about the pre-existing condition provisions. If the Senate radically alters the bill, which I think is more likely than not, it will have to a) go to a conference committee, and if that committee can report out a deal, then it has to b) be re-voted on by the House. If the bill is moved to the center by Senate Republicans, is there any certainty that the conservative Freedom Caucus will go along with it?

if Trump is personally able to grift a bunch of mega-churches that would be sort of funny i guess

i mean, more so than he already has

Comments from figures like Ryan Anderson, Vander Plaats, et al are saying things like 'fig leaf,' 'weak,' 'symbolic' -- commentators like Douthat are saying the Johnson Amendment's never been a priority among religious leaders he's interviewed over the years, etc. In combination with the optics of AHCA as it stands, Trump will win the conversation of the day but please absolutely nobody.

Would anyone care to offer a quick elucidatory summary of how the House was suddenly able to get their shit together re: taking a tire iron to ACA's kneecaps?

iirc

Paul Ryan rn: Let's just do it and be legends, man

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) May 4, 2017

bitter lol

I mean, per the Senate point above -- there's a sense here that they clearly had to deliver something no matter what, and that by shifting it off to the Senate they can pretty much go 'Not our problem! You figure it out' while still going 'See, we did a thing.' I assume Ryan's two main motivations were simple -- get the ground laid for his beloved tax cuts, demonstrate to his caucus and Trump that he can 'deliver.' Everything else is secondary. Combine that with leadership pressure functioning as it always does in a situation like this and there ya go.

I mean I can already tell ya that Portman in the Senate -- a close Kasich ally and all -- is going to look at the Medicaid changes and go 'yeah right.' Add in Collins and a few more and per the CNN paragraph, a revised bill is a certainty, and that gets punted back to the House eventually.

now it's personal

Andy Slavitt‏
@ASlavitt
ALERT: If you get your benefits at work, Trumpcare bill being voted on today snuck in something to allow them to be gutted & capped.

Under the House bill, large employers could choose the benefit requirements from any state—including those that are allowed to lower their benchmarks under a waiver, health analysts said. By choosing a waiver state, employers looking to lower their costs could impose lifetime limits and eliminate the out-of-pocket cost cap from their plans under the GOP legislation.

A company wouldn’t have to do business in a state to choose that state’s benefits level, analysts said. The company could just choose a state to match no matter where it is based.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/little-noted-provision-of-gop-health-bill-could-alter-employer-plans-1493890203

fun

Some more about what happens in the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/if-house-passes-gop-health-care-bill-a-steeper-climb-awaits-in-the-senate/2017/05/04/26a901da-30bd-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?utm_term=.98b2695c37ca

The House measure’s original version, introduced in March by Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), already contained elements at risk of being struck out in the Senate under budget reconciliation rules that allow tax and spending changes but not broader policy changes.

That original proposal initially left many of the ACA’s insurance regulations alone — with the goal of ensuring it would pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan officer of the Senate who decides on what may go in a reconciliation bill — but not all of them.

The version of the bill the House plans to vote on Thursday would undercut the ACA’s insurance regulations even more, by giving states a path to opt out of federal requirements for insurers to cover certain “essential” health benefits — and to allow them to charge sick people the same premiums as healthy people.

The GOP bill would allow insurers to charge older Americans five times what they charge younger people, as opposed to three times as much under current law. And it would enable insurers to hike premiums by 30 percent for people who don’t remain continuously covered. Health policy experts, including conservative ones, have noted that the parliamentarian may decide those provisions need to be stripped out.

Additionally, members of the House will vote on their bill before they receive a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which would measure how much the legislation would cost and how many people stand to lose coverage under it. Senate budget rules require a CBO score that proves the legislation will not increase the deficit after 10 years. The Senate parliamentarian can’t even start reviewing the AHCA without a score from the CBO, and getting that is expected to take several weeks.

So it's not like Trump's signing anything tomorrow after a sudden Senate vote. And right now I'm willing to bet we're actually seeing the high point of this overall effort.