Daily Kos

The GOP's worst-case scenario on Graham-Cassidy is still totally possible

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 11:31 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 11:31

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 19: U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (L) speaks as Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (R) listens during a news briefing after the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon at the Capitol September 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senate Republican held a weekly policy luncheon to discuss GOP agenda. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) — Mitch McConnell is not amused.

Want to know what the wild card is in the GOP's dead-sprint to a vote is? The P-word. Yep, the parliamentarian, who's sort of a like a congressional referee, still has to rule on which parts of the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill are valid based on the whether they are directly related to the budget. It was the Senate parliamentarian, for instance, that told Republicans they only had until September 30 to repeal health care with a simple majority.

But now the parliamentarian will be weighing in on the Graham-Cassidy bill's most critical element: whether states can waive the Obamacare provision that requires insurers to cover certain essential health benefits (EHBs) and prevents them from jacking up prices for people who have pre-existing conditions. It's the bill's entire reason for being. When Sen. Lindsey Graham says they are trying to give "flexibility" back to the states, what he means is the federal government would give states the power to allow insurers to limit their coverage and price gouge people with pre-existing conditions in order to make overall coverage cheaper. But guess what? That provision might not even be allowable, which would completely upend the nature of the bill. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent writes:

Some health policy analysts think there’s a decent chance that the parliamentarian will strike those deregulatory features under the Byrd Rule, because they don’t have a direct budgetary component. Daniel Hemel of the University of Chicago, for instance, points out that a very similar feature was struck from a previous GOP repeal bill and thinks it should — and very well may — happen again. [...]

I asked Hemel what the consequences of this would be, and he emailed:

“Without the waiver provision, Graham-Cassidy is a totally different bill. It doesn’t provide states with flexibility, but it still takes away a lot of money. This would change the terms of the debate entirely — and would do so just a few days before the senators cast their final votes.” [...]

Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan agrees and adds that this would mean that a primary selling point for the bill would vanish: It would no longer meaningfully offer the states “flexibility” and would no longer constitute the “federalism” that supporters have extolled.

If this were to happen, the bill would become a virtual monster in the eyes of Republicans—keeping all of Obamacare's protections in place while simultaneously failing to lower costs and yet still sucking billions of federal dollars away from the states. Honestly, it's hard to imagine who would vote for that and there's a good chance we would never know because it's equally as hard to imagine Mitch McConnell bringing it to the floor.

Republican healthcare bill is a recipe for chaos times fifty

By Laura Clawson

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 11:01 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 11:01

People protest Trump administration policies that threaten the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid, near the Wilshire Federal Building on January 25, 2017 in Los Angeles,Â California. / AFP / DAVID MCNEW (Photo credit should read DAVID MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images)

If it’s put into place smoothly and with no delays or problems, the healthcare repeal bill Republicans are trying to force through the Senate would cut funding and weaken protections for tens of millions of people. And that’s the best-case scenario, because “if it’s put into place smoothly” is a helluva big if. When Massachusetts chose to pass its own healthcare law back in 2003, it took four years to get it running. Graham-Cassidy would give states about two years:

“The answer is absolutely no,” said Jon Kingsdale, who ran Massachusetts Connector, the system that matched Massachusetts residents with health insurance, and is now a public health professor and a consultant. “That’s not enough time for most states to figure it out.” [...]

“In some ways, a clean slate is much more complicated than very discrete decisions,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health research group. Mr. Levitt described the challenges facing states under this legislation as “formidable.”

In contrast with an earlier bill from Mr. Cassidy, which offered a default option for uncertain states, there is no backup plan in the bill. The Obamacare coverage programs would disappear everywhere in 2020, and any state unable to make a plan and submit an application would be ineligible for the new grant funding. If a state succeeds in obtaining the funding but doesn’t have a functioning new system on Jan. 1, 2020, consumers and markets would be thrown into chaos.

Even the insurance companies don’t want it:

“The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions,’’ said Scott P. Serota, the president and chief executive of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. “The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans was even more pointed. The legislation could hurt patients by “further destabilizing the individual market” and could potentially allow “government-controlled single payer health care to grow,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, the president and chief executive of the association. Without controls, some states could simply eliminate private insurance, she warned.

Another Obamacare repeal bill?! It’s time to jam the congressional phone lines again. Call your senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote NO on any repeal bill. (After you call, please tell us how it went.)

Trump's reckless, dishonest, myopic blustering on Iran agreement weakens U.S. national security

By Meteor Blades

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 10:30 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 10:30

With a blast of bombast, Donald Trump made clear once again this week that he wants to dump or renegotiate the Iran nuclear agreement—known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—which he calls “an embarrassment to the United States.” He also says he has already made up his mind about what to do, but he’s not telling anybody what he has decided. And he seems to mean not anybody.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters that UK Prime Minister Theresa May asked Trump if he would tell her what he had decided, but he wouldn’t. Hardly surprising since Tillerson himself hasn’t been told, saying: "He has not shared that with anyone externally." He said that Trump will announce his decision "when he thinks it is useful to let you know." White House chief of staff John Kelly, who reflected the feelings of lots of Americans when he publicly face-palmed during Trump’s grotesque speech to the United Nations Tuesday, seems to know. But while he is signaling his feelings regarding his boss’s oratory in other ways, he’s not talking about what may be coming on Iran.

The twisted reality we now live in has spurred the nation’s chief diplomat to consider himself “external” when it comes to major matters of U.S. foreign policy.

The response to Trump’s bluster and enigmatism has been highly critical. For instance, Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said all parties to the agreement are in compliance, including Iran, and "There is no need to renegotiate parts of the agreement because the agreement is concerning a nuclear program and as such is delivering." Yukiya Amano, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran is complying with the agreement, noting that that nation “is now subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime.”

What the agreement has done is close off pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon for the immediate future and open the door to improved relations. Since signing, Iran has dismantled two-thirds of its uranium enrichment centrifuges, plugged its plutonium-producing reactor with concrete, exported more than 20,000 pounds of uranium, put a cap on how much uranium can be enriched to the level needed for research reactors, shipped away its spent fuel, and allowed highly intrusive international inspections.

All of this doesn’t matter to the regime squatting in the White House.

Passing Graham-Cassidy could be a disaster for vulnerable House Republicans in swing districts

By Kerry Eleveld

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 10:02 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 10:02

US Representative Darrell Issa arrives for a meeting with US President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower, December 14, 2016 in New York. / AFP / Bryan R. Smith (Photo credit should read BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images) — GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California, which stands to lose $78 billion in healthcare coverage from 2020-2026 under the new repeal bill.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that House Speaker Paul Ryan told him to his face, "If you pass it, we pass it." It's still not clear Senate Republicans will make it to 50, but even if they do, it's no done deal in the House either and, frankly, Ryan hasn't proven to be much of a vote counter. The biggest problem? The version of the GOP healthcare bill that cleared the House earlier this year did so by just four votes, and the Senate's current bill deals a major financial blow to states that house 45 districts represented by Republicans who are either considered vulnerable or being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Washington Post does the math:

That’s a total of 22 GOP-held seats currently rated as vulnerable by Cook Political Report that are in states that would lose billions in federal funding under Graham-Cassidy. Adding in the seats that the DCCC is targeting beyond those, and you get a total of 45 targets in these 11 states.

When the Republicans’ previous Obamacare repeal passed the House in May, 20 Republicans voted no, as the measure passed by just a four-vote margin, 217-213. Thus, if all those Republicans vote no on Cassidy-Graham, it would take only a shift of a handful of Republican yes votes to halt Cassidy-Graham, should it reach the House floor.

And consider this: Fully 16 vulnerable House Republicans voted "yes" on the last GOP bill but may think twice about the cuts Graham-Cassidy inflicts on their states. Check them out below.

Knight (CA)

Issa (CA)

Denham (CA)

Royce (CA)

Walters (CA)

Rohrabacher (CA)

Faso (NY)

Tenney (NY)

McSally (AZ)

Frelinghuysen (NJ)

Roskam (IL)

Bost (IL)

Lewis (MN)

Paulsen (MN)

Curbelo (FL)

Poliquin (ME)

Graham-Cassidy gives Republican 'moderates' a chance to show what their principles are ... or aren't

By Laura Clawson

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 9:31 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 09:31

US Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, walks through the US Capitol in Washington, DC, June 22, 2017, following the release of a draft of the Senate Republican's healthcare bill. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) — Shelley Moore Capito

Talk of Republican moderates typically involves someone being played for a sucker, as the party’s efforts to repeal Obamacare show off. Time after time, we see a Republican senator make what looks like a principled stand against their party … until caving on the final vote, having been bought off by a concession a fraction the size of their original objections. Was the so-called moderate played for a fool by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s arm-twisting and Donald Trump’s attack tweets, or was the media played for a fool by a performance of Reasonable Moderate Standing Up to Their Party that was rigged all along? Whatever the answer, the rush to pass Graham-Cassidy shows off just how fake the whole thing is.

On the past failed Obamacare repeal bills, several Republicans extracted concessions that supposedly justified their yes votes. West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Ohio’s Rob Portman got $45 billion in opioid funding that wasn’t going to make up for the gutting of Medicaid expansion, but they could pretend to have gotten a win. But, Alice Ollstein reports:

This time around, with a bill that includes even deeper cuts to Medicaid and no additional opioid funding, Capito refuses to say how she will vote and Portman has said he is “open” to the proposal.

When asked by TPM whether Portman is attempting to negotiate the same funding boost and whether that will influence his final vote, Portman’s office would only say: “The senator is reviewing the proposal and getting feedback.”

Cynical but safe money is on Capito and Portman voting for Graham-Cassidy without any opioid funding added. Meanwhile, the Republicans who did follow through and stand up to their party last time wanted some stuff going forward—like having bills go through regular order rather than being rammed down their throats. Will John McCain do an about-face and decide regular order isn’t so important to him after all, or will he live up to his own hype? Will Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski continue to stand firm even as the pressure their leadership is putting on them builds? There’s even less in Graham-Cassidy for all these people than there was in previous votes, so if they go along with McConnell and Trump, they’ll be telling us a lot about where principle ranks in relation to partisanship.

There is only one way to stop Trumpcare: Republican senators must pay their political price by having constituents mad at them. We need you now, more than ever to make calls. Call your senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote NO. (After you call, please tell us how it went.)

27 companies publicly support Paris climate accord, but donate millions to GOP group undermining it

By Meteor Blades

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 9:01 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 09:01

A NOAA crew on the R/V Roger Revelle came nose-to-nose with an iceberg floating in the the Southern Ocean near Antarctica in February of 2008. Scientists at the federal agency have helped document impacts of climate change in the world’s polar regions, but some NOAA employees fear such research could be upended under President Donald Trump. — A NOAA crew on the R/V Roger Revelle came nose-to-nose with an iceberg floating in the the Southern Ocean near Antarctica in 2008.

Twenty-seven companies that urged the Trump regime to stick with the Paris Climate Accord also contributed a total of $3.3 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) that has worked assiduously to dump President Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan. That plan was designed specifically to reduce greenhouse emissions from U.S. power plants in 2030 by 32 percent over 2005. It’s the key U.S. government effort to help meet the emissions goals of the nonbinding Paris accord. And it’s in limbo.

companies supporting Republican Attorney Generals Association who also say they support Paris Climate Accord. — This is how the 27 companies that urged the Trump regime not to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord divided their donations to the Republican and Democratic attorney generals associations. The Republican group has been highly active in trying to dump the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan that would cut greenhouse emissions.

The excuse from the companies that responded to investigators from the Center for Public Integrity who revealed the contributions? It’s just politics. They said they had also contributed to the Democratic Attorneys General Association. In other words, all that cash was just pragmatism on their part. Uh-huh.

The center’s Rachel Leven and Jamie Smith Hopkins write:

But campaign finance experts countered that business officials can influence policy without writing a check to decision-makers like attorneys general—advocating their policy positions through lobbyists, for example. Because these businesses have said climate action is a priority, making political contributions that can work against that goal puts their reputations or even revenues at risk, these experts said.

"I don't doubt that their public statements about the Paris climate agreement are sincere but it matters that when it actually comes down to how they spend their money, they're giving to politicians that have almost the exact opposite goal," said Daniel Weiner, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, which advocates for campaign finance reform. "It doesn't mean that they're actually lying, but it does lead one to wonder how strong their commitment to fight global warming actually is.

While RAGA has, of course, engaged in other activity, the center’s reporters note that the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to come up with methods of reducing emissions from fossil-fuel power plants within their boundaries, has gotten “an outsize share of energy” from Republican attorneys general.

Along with a handful of Democratic AGs, the Republicans have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the plan in a case that is slowly winding its way toward the Supreme Court. The court itself ruled 5-4 in early 2016 that the plan should be on hold until a lower court ruling on it is decided. Indeed, on RAGA’s list of achievements on its website: convincing the court "to halt implementation of Obama's signature climate change initiative."

Levin and Hopkins found that only two of the 27 companies had openly challenged the Clean Power Plan. Several others have supported it strongly, with Google and Microsoft going so far as to file legal arguments against the lawsuit the Republican AGs had launched. And yet those two contributed nearly $400,000 to RAGA. Worst of all among the 27 was SolarCity, the nation’s largest provider of residential solar panels. The morning the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan, SolarCity’s stock plummeted. That ought to have delivered a clear message. Yet just three months later, the company contributed $20,000 to RAGA, giving nothing to the Democratic Attorney Generals Association. Perhaps that was just stupidity. But it sure wasn’t evidence of sincerity.

Sean Spicer's notebooks offer another window into Trump for Special Counsel Robert Mueller

By Mark Sumner

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 8:31 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 08:31

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 28: President Donald Trump speaks on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office of the White House, January 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. Also pictured, from left, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer. On Saturday, President Trump is making several phone calls with world leaders from Japan, Germany, Russia, France and Australia. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) — Hey Mike, I'm writing all of this down

Reports this week that Paul Manafort was under surveillance before, during, and after his six months as chair of Donald Trump’s campaign show that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has access to information showing how the relationship between Trump and Russia evolved over an extended period. According to a report at Axios, there’s another potential long-term source of information for Mueller.

Former colleagues of Sean Spicer tell Axios that he filled "notebook after notebook" during meetings at the Republican National Committee, later at the Trump campaign, and then at the White House.

It’s seems unlikely that Spicer jotted down “and then Trump told us all we were working for Putin,” but the notebooks do provide a good check on dates, attendance, and topics of discussion.

One White House official told me: "People are going to wish they'd been nicer to Sean. … He was in a lot of meetings."

Asked by Axios reporter Mike Allen to comment on the story, Spicer had a succinct reply.

"Mike, please stop texting/emailing me unsolicited anymore. … From a legal standpoint I want to be clear: Do not email or text me again. Should you do again I will report to the appropriate authorities."

Sorry, Sen. Cassidy: Experts say it's you, not Jimmy Kimmel, who's wrong about your healthcare bill

By Laura Clawson

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 8:01 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 08:01

Screen_Shot_2017-05-09_at_9.20.30_AM.png

Sen. Bill Cassidy’s response to being called out by Jimmy Kimmel was, as Kimmel put it in his Wednesday night monologue (video below), to “pull the all comedians are dummies card” by smarming “I am sorry he does not understand.” Too bad for Cassidy Kimmel really does know what he’s talking about—and has the benefit of being able to tell the truth.

But experts say that Cassidy and Graham’s bill can't guarantee those protections and that Kimmel’s assessment was basically accurate because of the flexibility the bill gives states to set up their own health care systems. For example, health insurers could hike premiums for patients with pre-existing conditions if their states obtain waivers from Obamacare regulations — as Kimmel said. [...]

"Kimmel did not overstate the impact," [Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families director Joan] Alker said. "If Graham-Cassidy becomes law, there is no guarantee a child born with a congenital heart defect will get the coverage they need. It would depend on where they live, but even states with good intentions would struggle to protect children with the massive cuts to Medicaid included in this bill."

Cassidy insisted that what Kimmel “does not understand” is that Graham-Cassidy would mean “more people will have coverage,” a claim the Washington Post fact checker gave three Pinocchios because “the consensus is that his funding formula makes his claim all but impossible to achieve.”

Cassidy’s response guaranteed that Kimmel would come back at him—along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, Fox & Friends’ Brian Kilmeade, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—but Kimmel also delivered some bad news, in the form of a report that call volume had not gone up in Sen. Susan Collins’ office after Kimmel urged viewers to call their senators. That’s a problem that needs fixing.

Quiet phone lines mean Republicans will think they can get away with this. LIGHT THEM UP. Call your senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to vote “NO” on any repeal bill. (After you call, please tell us how it went.)

Voters hate Republican healthcare bills, but the donors who matter demand repeal

By Laura Clawson

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 7:31 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 07:31

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 19: U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (2nd L) speaks as (L-R) Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) listen during a news briefing after the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon at the Capitol September 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senate Republican held a weekly policy luncheon to discuss GOP agenda. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) — Lindsey Graham holds forth on why Republicans just gotta take your health coverage.

Republican healthcare repeal bills have been massively unpopular. Many of the members of Congress who’ve supported them have hidden out and refused to face constituents, while those who dared hold town halls were angrily confronted. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski was hailed as a hero back home for her vote against repeal. But the Washington Post lets us know what really mattered to the Republican senators who are now, yet again, getting ready to vote for a massively unpopular bill. After they failed at their longtime campaign promise of Obamacare repeal:

... according to GOP senators and aides, Republicans faced an unrelenting barrage of confrontations with some of their closest supporters, donors and friends. The moments occurred in small gatherings that proved even more meaningful than a caustic town hall — at meetings with local business executives, at church, at parks.

They didn’t dare hold town halls open to all their constituents, but boy, they heard it from their donors. The GOP’s repeal bills might have had support under 15 percent in some polls, might have had less than half the support of Obamacare … but the hardcore base, the Republican donors and local bigwigs who your senator actually listens to and cares about? They were all worked up by Donald Trump’s tweets and angry that congressional Republicans had failed. And that’s why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying, again, to ram through a vote on a bill that few people understand but that has an awful lot in common with those earlier bills that voters loathed.

Thought Obamacare was safe? Think again. Republicans have revived their repeal effort and we must stop them. Keep calling your senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them DON’T REPEAL OBAMACARE! (After you call, please tell us how it went.)

Cartoon: White supremacist president offended by being called white supremacist

By RubenBolling

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 7:01 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 07:01

FOLLOW @RubenBolling on the Twitters and a Face Book.

JOIN Tom the Dancing Bug's subscription club, the Proud & Mighty INNER HIVE, for exclusive early access to comics, extra comics, and much more.

GET Ruben Bolling’s new hit book series for kids, The EMU Club Adventures. (”Filled with wild twists and funny dialogue” -Publishers Weekly) Book One here. Book Two here.

'Our island destroyed' by largest storm in 90 years as flash floods continue across Puerto Rico

By Mark Sumner

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 6:31 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 06:31

People walk through a flooded area after the impact of Hurricane Maria, which hit the eastern region of the island, in Humacao, Puerto Rico, Wednesday, September 20, 2017. The strongest hurricane to hit Puerto Rico in more than 80 years destroyed hundreds of homes, knocked out power across the entire island and turned some streets into raging rivers in an onslaught that could plunge the U.S. territory deeper into financial crisis. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)

By any measure, Maria is a monster. It struck Puerto Rico with sustained winds of 155 mph and some areas reported gusts above 200 mph. Damage isn’t extensive, it’s near universal. With electricity out across the entire island, and cell service limited to a few areas, it’s difficult to even determine just how badly Hurricane Maria has pummeled Puerto Rico. But … it’s bad.

"Definitely Puerto Rico — when we can get outside — we will find our island destroyed," Abner Gómez, director of Puerto Rico's emergency management agency, told reporters on Wednesday as the storm engulfed the entire island. "The information we have received is not encouraging. It's a system that has destroyed everything it has had in its path."

Flooding in San Juan is described as “intense” and on Thursday morning, rain is continuing to generate flash floods across the island. In addition to punishing winds and a strong surge along the coast, Maria dropped more than a foot of rain on Puerto Rico in just a few hours. The continuing flash floods represent a deadly threat, with messages like this going out, and many people not in a position to hear.

This is a FLASH FLOOD EMERGENCY for Central Puerto Rico. This is a
PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. SEEK HIGHER GROUND NOW!

Images coming from San Juan have been both terrifying and heartbreaking.

"The San Juan that we knew yesterday is no longer there," Yulín said, adding: "We're looking at four to six months without electricity" in Puerto Rico, home to nearly 3.5 million people.

Some rescue and recovery forces from the continental United States had already deployed to Puerto Rico following the close passage of Hurricane Irma less than two weeks ago. But additional forces will definitely be needed.

Americans came together to support the victims of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma—which was as it should be. But the victims of Hurricane Maria, in both Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, are in far more desperate straits. This is an American tragedy that demands a massive American embrace and support for the affected areas.

Trump claims Republican healthcare bill covers pre-existing conditions. False. Untrue. Fake.

By Laura Clawson

Thursday Sep 21, 2017 · 6:01 AM PDT

2017/09/21 · 06:01

US President Donald Trump makes a statement in the Diplomatic Room at the White House in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2017..US President Donald Trump -- under pressure to explicitly condemn a weekend rally by white supremacists in Virginia that ended in bloodshed -- denounced racism as "evil" Monday, singling out the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis as "repugnant.""Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America," Trump said in nationally televised remarks from the White House, where he travelled early Monday to meet with his top law enforcement aides.. / AFP PHOTO / NICHOLAS KAMM (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Does Donald Trump even know what the latest Republican healthcare bill would do to people with pre-existing conditions, or is he lying about it? It’s like a Schrodinger’s lie—Trump is profoundly ignorant and it’s unlikely he knows what’s in the Graham-Cassidy bill, but he would certainly lie about it without thinking twice (or once, for that matter) if he did know. Either way, this tweet is false:

I would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2017

Here's reality:

The bill wouldn't repeal the Affordable Care Act's rules about pre-existing conditions. But they might end up only existing on paper, the Kaiser Family Foundation's Larry Levitt said.

Graham-Cassidy doesn't let states waive the part of the Affordable Care Act that says insurers have to cover sick people. But it does allow states to opt out of several other ACA rules that can cause people with pre-existing conditions to pay more for their health care. Those provisions include:

The ban on charging sick people higher premiums than healthy people.

It’s the trick Republicans have been trying to play all along—claim that you’re protecting people with pre-existing conditions because insurance companies can’t say directly “we will not insure you,” but let the insurance companies charge people with pre-existing conditions so much that no one could afford coverage. We’re not denying you insurance, we’re just charging you $100,000 a year! Your pre-existing condition is totes covered! What a “great Bill.”

We haven’t won the battle to save health care yet. Republicans are STILL pushing to repeal Obamacare. Call your senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to vote “NO” on any repeal bill. (After you call, please tell us how it went.)

Newer
Older

RSS