White House Pushes ‘Implode’ Plan Amid Talk of Bipartisan Health Bill

http://www.rollcall.com/news/white-house-health-care-implode

Image result for building implosion

Amid pleas from Republicans and Democrats for the parties to begin work on a bipartisan health care bill, President Donald Trump and White House officials on Friday doubled down on his call to put off any action until Barack Obama’s 2010 law fails.

Ailing Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain shocked senators from both parties early Friday morning when he voted against a GOP leadership-crafted measure that amounted only to a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Back in Washington after a brain tumor diagnosis, McCain made clear his vote was a shove for the entire Senate to get back to “regular order” — meaning hearings and floor debate — on health care and every other issue.

Following McCain’s dramatic vote on the Senate floor, several senators reported that Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is planning for just that. And Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he saw Alexander and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Patty Murray of Washington, already talking in the wee hours of Friday morning.

“Now Republicans have a choice to make,” Murray said. “They can continue to try to bring Trumpcare back just to score political points and give special interests a massive tax break, or they can engage in the open, transparent, bipartisan process that many Democrats and Republicans agree is the right way to actually make our health care system work better for the people we serve.”

The list of committees that could begin health care-related work also includes the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel. Its chairman, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, at times has been very critical of the Senate GOP leaders’ process — which included no committee work and various bills crafted behind closed doors — despite his vote in favor of the so-called “skinny” repeal amendment.

“In the coming weeks, my committee will hold hearings to lay out the realities of our health care system, and I am committed to working with anyone who is serious about addressing these issues,” Johnson said in a statement that appeared to extend and olive branch to Democrats. “Americans deserve far better than their elected officials have delivered to this point.”

GOP Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin reacted to the party’s failed Senate vote by putting the health care onus on the shoulders of his Senate colleagues, urging them to “continue working toward a real solution that keeps our promise.” The House, he said Friday, having passed a health overhaul measure, will move on to issues like taxes.

But there is no guarantee Senate Republicans and Democrats, long ideologically divided on the details of health care, can find enough common ground to craft a bill — or that Ryan would bring it to a vote.

“I can’t speculate about a bill that doesn’t exist,” a Ryan aide said Friday when asked if the speaker put a Senate-passed bipartisan health bill on the floor.

And the White House, the person whose opinion matters most, Trump, appears just fine with both chambers moving on to crafting a sweeping tax overhaul push.

White House officials initially were uncharacteristically quiet following the Senate failure. There was no paper statement issued signaling the president’s preferred next move on an issue that was central to his 2016 campaign message. But Trump weighed in during the wee hours of Friday morning — and endorsed only one path for addressing health care.

“As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal,” Trump tweeted at 2:25 a.m. Friday. He then ended the tweet with what seemed like a guarantee: “Watch!”

Likely to the chagrin of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, a White House official early Friday afternoon said the president’s tweet represents the administration’s preferred path ahead on health care.

“I’d stick with the tweet,” the White House official told Roll Call, adding a more nuanced description could be coming at some point. (One had not been provided by the time this article was published, however.)

About an hour later, Trump doubled down on his call during remarks in New York state.

“I said from the beginning, ‘Let Obamacare implode and then do it.’ I turned out to be right,” Trump said.

Trump may find some allies on Capitol Hill on the path to a possible implosion.

“I believe it may take Obamacare’s collapse before the parties are willing to work together in a bipartisan manner. The collapse and replace of Obamacare may prove to be the most effective path forward,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in May. On Thursday evening, Graham reiterated that stance, saying he would rather “get out of the way” and let the 2010 law fail rather than pass a flawed GOP replacement.

Over an hour after Trump said he was “right” about his implode-and-repair idea, the White House official sent an emailed statement saying the administration “will continue to fight to repeal and replace the Obamacare disaster and to ensure all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, making good on an unwavering promise to the American people.”

“President Trump and his administration will not rest until he can sign a bill that fulfills the shared promise to repeal and replace Obamacare,” the official added after Trump spoke.

That statement, notably, applies to the implode-and-repair scenario of which the president is so fond.

Pitching a scenario under which GOP lawmakers and the White House would stand by and let the 2010 law to continue sputtering — forcing Democrats to beg him to cut a deal to fix it — has been a steady drumbeat for Trump. And, just like early Friday morning, the president always brings it up without being prompted — suggesting that has been his Plan A even as Senate Republican leaders struggled to find one of their own.

For months, and especially since the Senate took up the health overhaul baton in early May, Trump has bounced from one preferred approach to another. And after McCain sent ripple waves across the political world, the president again pitched allowing Obama’s law to, as he often puts it, “fail.”

The president has more than one way to nudge Obama’s law toward failure: Trump could opt to stop paying subsidies to insurance companies; he can order agencies to cease enforcing its requirement for most Americans to obtain health insurance; and he could undermine its markets by stopping all federally financed advertising urging folks to enroll under the law.

But lawmakers, at least before the smoke cleared and the sun rose Friday morning, seemed willing to try a new approach. The first real action may come in connection with the looming reauthorization of the children’s health insurance program.

While many Republicans were not in a mood to discuss next steps on health care policy as they left the Capitol in the middle of the night, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana was an exception.

Cassidy spoke to reporters outside the Capitol at about 2:30 a.m. Friday, and with Democratic senators and other supporters of the 2010 health law cheering across the lawn, he was already talking about the CHIP legislation as a vehicle for interim changes.

“Insurers will continue to leave markets. People will continue to get quotes they cannot afford, and as folks celebrate in the background, they will be bitter because they will feel like they’ve lost an opportunity for something better,” Cassidy said. “Procedurally, CHIP reauthorization will come up, so perhaps there’s some things that can be done”

Three Docs Weigh in On ACA Repeal Failure

https://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/repeal-and-replace/66962?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2017-07-29&eun=g885344d0r&pos=0

Image result for Three Docs Weigh in On ACA Repeal Failure

Following Republicans’ many attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act this week, culminating in last night’s surprising failure of a “skinny” repeal billMedPage Today asked physicians outside the Beltway how they and their patients have been reacting to the drama.

“I think people sort of feel that the whole system is just an angry mess,” said Fred N. Pelzman, MD, of Weill Cornell Internal Medicine Associates in New York City, and weekly blogger for MedPage Today.

In Manhattan, he sees patients of all kinds.

Throughout this process of “dredging up” different repeal bills, instead of patients being relieved that one or another didn’t pass, “there’s a lot of throwing up their hands,” he told MedPage Today in a phone call.

Even those patient who don’t like the Affordable Care Act felt this wasn’t a good process, Pelzman added.

For his own perspective, Pelzman believes that the ACA was a good start but the country should move towards Medicare-for-all (or “god forbid, socialized medicine,” he joked), but he acknowledged that it may not be realistic right now.

“My hope for the future of the healthcare system in this country is that we figure out what that baseline of access and preventive and chronic care that every member of society should have is, and then if people want some platinum policy and want to pay more for this or that, I think the private insurers would be more than happy to provide that.”

“This country needs a safety net that is a little less exclusive … You should be able to get the care you need and if you want to see the world’s greatest heart surgeon, you figure that out.”

“Why should someone who has a child with leukemia … worry that they’re going to have to give up food or their house in order to get their child treatment?” he asked.

“When you hear people like [Sen. John] McCain standing up and saying it’s time to stop making it all what the Democrats want or what the Republicans want, it’s got to be what the people who sent us to Washington want, I think that’s the right message.”

Self-Described Conservative

Daniel Edney, MD, an internist in Vicksburg, Miss., who characterizes his political views as “left of the Tea Party but to the right of most moderates in Washington,” said he isn’t against repealing the ACA as long it can be replaced with something better.

“In the absence of seeing something better, I personally am in favor of fixing what we have,” he said.

He was disappointed that Mississippi’s governor chose not to expand Medicaid.

“If any state in the union needed Medicaid expansion it was Mississippi,” Edney said, adding that it was “absolutely foolish” to give up $2 billion in funding over a political statement.

However, the governor did say he would accept funding through a block grant, an idea that Edney is not opposed to. “It’s not about ideologies, it’s about doing the right thing to help our folks,” he said.

The ideal is “to make healthcare decisions as local as possible,” Edney said.

He’s not hopeful about the prospects of a bipartisan agreement. However, “currently the leadership in Mississippi has a good relationship with the administration,” he said. “Maybe things will improve for us whether there’s a repeal and replace or not.”

Single-Payer Advocate

“People have healthcare and they need healthcare. To take it away from them, that’s just cruel,” said Pamella Gronemeyer, MD, of SEMC Pathology in Highland, Ill., and co-president of her state’s chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Gronemeyer said she fell asleep watching the debate last night but woke up on time to catch the vote.

“I was glad that John McCain voted no and killed it,” she said. “The majority of people I know supported the ACA and did not want it to be repealed.”

“I realize it was a ‘skinny repeal’ but once you get rid of those mandates, it will help break the system,” Gronemeyer added.

The biggest concern Gronemeyer had with repeal was its impact on the critical access hospitals in her state.

“Without the ACA those hospitals are going to close and the rural areas are going to suffer. It’s going to take people an hour or an hour-and-a-half to get to the hospital,” she said.

She also worried about repeal’s impact on Medicaid, noting that southern Illinois has been struggling economically and many people now rely on Medicaid.

Looking ahead, Gronemeyer said, “I’d like to go to single payer … but they keep telling me its not going to happen.”

So, she’s prepared to compromise for the moment.

“We need to fix the ACA. We need to make the markets more competitive, make the premium more affordable” and ensure that deductibles are within reach.

Ever-courageous John McCain returns to D.C., battling both cancer and malignant politics

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/07/27/ever-courageous-john-mccain-returns-to-d-c-battling-both-cancer-and-malignant-politics/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54757954

Image result for Ever-courageous John McCain returns to D.C., battling both cancer and malignant politics

John McCain returned to Washington, D.C., bravely fighting two tumors. One is the malignancy caused by the glioblastoma cancer in his brain. The other is health-care reform, a political tumor that is crippling the Republican Party.

In a Senate floor speech that will long be remembered, McCain, an Arizona Republican and the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, pleaded with his fellow Republicans to reconsider their strategy. Instead of ramming through an ill-conceived, hastily assembled, and entirely partisan health-care bill with hardly any deliberation, the Senate should let committees hold hearings and work across party lines to craft a balanced reform with support from both sides. You know: legislate.

McCain was right. Moreover, most of his Senate Republican colleagues understand he is right. Most of them know their approach to health care is something akin to group suicide.

They know, for example, that the various Senate bills to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, like the version passed by the House, are unworkable. The bills are masses of contradictions, hopelessly trapped between imperatives to deregulate markets and cut costs while also maintaining coverage and affordability. If adopted, the proposals would crater private insurance markets and drop millions from the insurance rolls. If such poorly designed proposals managed to be enacted into law, Congress would spend the next five or ten years desperately trying to patch them.

McCain’s colleagues also know that reforming a sixth of the economy by scribbling a plan on the back of an envelope, and then rushing it to enactment with barely time to read it, is an absurd way to legislate. Writing devilishly complicated laws without transparency, and without input from most of the affected parties, and without expert testimony, and without the involvement of most members of the Senate cannot possibly produce good results.

Senate Republicans also know that if their hasty reform got enacted, it would kill them politically. The Republican repeal/replace proposals are massively unpopular with the public. If the proposals became law, tens of millions of Americans would lose access to health insurance as markets imploded and options disappeared. Those affected would include millions of working-class voters who provided the Republican swing vote in 2016. Angered, they could easily swing back.

Senate Republicans know, too, that the public is running out of patience with health-care half measures and improvisations. Single-payer insurance is waiting in the wings. Republicans who imagine they can leave Obamacare to implode overlook that the current debate may well be conservatives’ last opportunity to save private health insurance. Failure to make the health system work will cause a backlash toward what Republicans fear most, socialized medicine.Something else Senate Republicans know: President Trump will throw them under the bus. He has already called the House bill, which he ostensibly supported, “mean.” He will encourage the Senate to pass something unpopular, sign it, and then brassily campaign against it. The tweets practically write themselves. “Nasty congressional health plan hurts our working class. Sad! Only I can fix it!”

And guess what? Trump, who has expressed support for single-payer on multiple occasions, would be fine with that. If single-payer looked like a political win, he would gladly sign it.

To avoid multiple disasters, Republicans have only one hope. Exchange “repeal and replace” for “retain and repair.” Do as McCain advises: attempt to write serious, bipartisan legislation.

The political price would be high. If they agreed to negotiate at all, the Democrats would demand explicit repudiation of the “repeal” mantra. They would insist on keeping Medicaid whole and keeping today’s Obamacare population insured. Even if the Senate passed a strong bipartisan bill, the House might kill it. The conservative-entertainment complex, of course, would be rageful and vengeful.

A bitter pill, no doubt. But the alternatives are poison pills. And, lest we forget, there is one other reason to consider McCain’s advice. It could improve the country’s unstable and unsatisfactory health-care system.

Back in the late 2000s, when Obamacare was cobbled together by the Democrats, the country missed an opportunity. In the 2008 presidential campaign, the health-reform proposals of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had complimentary strengths. If only we could have stapled them together, we would have had a pretty darn good system. Regulations would have moved the country toward universal coverage, tax credits would have helped people buy insurance through private markets, and market reforms would have reduced distortions that drive costs up and transparency down.

What was true then is probably still true: bipartisan reform not only would enjoy more durable public support, it might actually work.

So listen, Republicans, to John McCain. “See if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.” His prescription offers the best hope of treating the Republicans’ health-care malignancy.

Republicans learn the limits of reconciliation with failed ACA repeal

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/07/28/limits-of-reconciliation-and-failed-aca-repeal/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54757954

Image result for senate

With late night drama not often seen on the Senate floor, Republicans’ latest attempts to pass a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act failed last night, thanks in part to a divide the party’s congressional leaders, especially in the Senate, could simply not bridge.

In Congress, we expect that the majority party’s choices about what to work on and how to work on it will be guided, in large part, by their desire to maintain and grow their majority in the future. As the process went on over the past several months, it became increasingly clear that, for the current GOP leadership, what they thought was best for the party’s collective fortunes was adopting something that they could credibly claim “repeals Obamacare.” After all, doing so has been one of their central campaign promises since the law was adopted in 2010—and what helped account for some of their electoral success since that time. The content of the narrow bill to which Senate Republicans retreated in an attempt to keep the process moving reflects this priority, in that it contained symbolic provisions that would be easy for voters to understand as “Obamacare repeal” should the bill have ultimately become law. Chief among these provisions was the repeal of the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. This provision is among the law’s best known and the change in the Senate bill would have been easy for voters to understand. Under Obamacare, they were required to do something; under the Republican bill, they would not have been.

At the end of the day, however, individual Senate Republicans concluded that even if leaders had judged that “repealing Obamacare” was in the best interests of the party collectively, they could not support the different proposals drafted to actually get there. This was perhaps most true of Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who opposed beginning debate and all three alternative proposals considered this week. There were also, however, 11 other senators who voted no on at least one of the alternatives offered this week. While some of those votes may have been strategic, as members knew that the proposal would not ultimately be enacted, they do help illustrate the persistent divides within the Republican Party about the best way to proceed on health policy. In an era of high party polarization and a well-sorted electorate, this kind of cross-pressuring, where what’s good for the party is not necessarily good for the individual member, is less common than it once was. But as the experience of the last few months suggests, those situations can still and do arise.

While the choice by Republicans to pursue their collective goal of “repealing Obamacare” through the fast-track budget reconciliation process meant that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only needed to find 50 votes, it also constrained his task in important ways. The rules of the budget process, including the Byrd Rule, place restrictions on the content of reconciliation bills and amendments to them. While it can be difficult to know exactly how these rules shape a particular piece of legislation, one consequence of them is that leadership does not necessarily have as much room to maneuver in terms of deal-making as they might have on other bills. What’s more, by turning to a process that did not require the support of any Democrats to move forward, Republicans could not rely on the opposition of the other party as a useful foil while they sought to build a winning coalition. Instead, all attention was focused on the party’s internal conflicts and inability to reach agreement—a task made harder by the presence of a same-party president without the policy expertise or interest to help broker the necessary deals. Special legislative procedures that prevent filibusters, in sum, can help majority parties get legislative wins, but only if the party agrees internally on the policy particulars of what that win should look like.

As an agenda item, health care generally and Obamacare specifically aren’t going anywhere any time soon. The Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covered about 9 million children in 2016, needs to be reauthorized by the end of September, and uncertainty about the continued payment of certain subsidies for some Obamacare enrollees on the individual marketplace remains. But with a range of other major issues needing action in the coming weeks—including spending bills and the debt ceiling—Republicans appear ready to move on from their legislative pursuit of their biggest collective goal of recent years.

The Health Care Fight Isn’t Over, Despite Democratic Cheering

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/07/28/Health-Care-Fight-Isnt-Over-Despite-Democratic-Cheering

There was an air of finality to things in the Senate early Friday morning when Arizona Sen. John McCain crossed party lines to join Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski in killing a last-ditch attempt by Republican leadership to pass and Affordable Care Act repeal bill.

The headline above New York Times columnist David Leonhardt’s byline Friday morning was, “Phew: The Health Bill Fails.” But as a sleep-deprived Washington crawled out of bed several hours later, reality began to creep back into the picture. The fight over the ACA isn’t over; the battlefield has just changed.

The vote in the early hours of the morning had been on a measure that Republican leadership only made public a couple of hours before they expected to call the roll. Dubbed a “skinny repeal,” it was a mishmash of policies that even some senators who voted for it viewed with disgust. On Thursday afternoon, for example, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham derided the bill as “horrible policy” and “a fraud.”

The bill would have repealed the individual insurance mandate imposed by the ACA, and in a nod to the arcane rules of the process Republicans were using to try to ram it past Democratic objections, it also repealed the employer mandate, but only for eight years. It contained other sops to elements of the GOP base, like a one-year ban on payments to Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, and the delayed implementation (for only three years?!) of a tax on medical devices.

A Congressional Budget Office score had promised that if the bill became law, millions of Americans would lose health insurance and those who were still able to buy it through the individual market would pay much higher premiums. For a considerable number of Republicans who voted for it, the hope was that the bill would never become law, but would force the House of Representatives to sit down in a conference committee and begin crafting a replacement.

For some senators, hope wasn’t enough. Graham, McCain, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, in a press conference Thursday afternoon, said they couldn’t vote for it without express assurances from the House that it wouldn’t simply accept the Senate measure as written and vote to send it to the president.

A vague statement from Ryan released after their remarks was enough for the others, but not for McCain, who scuttled the bill with his “no” vote and a dramatic thumbs-down in the wee hours of Friday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was visibly frustrated with the conclusion of his months-long effort to find a repeal bill that could gather 50 votes in his conference. In remarks afterward, he expressed “regret” that the Senate had failed to achieve its goal, before adjourning until Monday, when he said lawmakers would take up some of the president’s judicial appointments.

But it wasn’t long before a tweet from President Trump reminded everyone that last night’s vote was nothing like the final curtain in the ACA drama.

Trump has long been promising to “let Obamacare implode,” arguing that doing so would strengthen his negotiating position even as it harmed the American people. And the drawn-out struggle over the GOP’s attempt to craft a legislative replacement for the law, or even to just repeal it with a promise to come back and replace it later, has often obscured the fact that he is well-positioned to just that if he chooses to.

The ACA’s original structure has already been partially dismantled, with payments to insurers that were part of the original bill suspended and insurance companies responding with higher premiums and lower deductibles. Other parts of it were never implemented it at all. Some large states, like Texas and Virginia, have refused to take part in the law’s Medicaid expansion, which would have provided millions of Americans with health care that they cannot currently afford.

Given that wobbly foundation, it wouldn’t take much prodding to tip the whole system over, and the president has all the tools he needs to do that.

Trump has already shown an interest in two of them.

First, he could publicly and explicitly direct the Internal Revenue Service to redirect enforcement efforts away from the individual mandate that is a core part of the ACA. By requiring people to carry an insurance policy or face a financial penalty, the mandate helps balance the pool of people insured in the individual market by including both healthy individuals who might only need expensive health care in an emergency, and unhealthy people in need of expensive chronic care.

In a system where insurers are required to issue policies to all applicants, that mix is essential to avoid a “death spiral” of ever-sicker risk pools forcing insurers to charge ever-higher premiums until the market collapses.

Second, Trump could order his administration to cease making Cost Sharing Reduction payments to insurers. The payments are meant to compensate insurance companies for the cost of providing policies to lower-income Americans, but they have been challenged as unconstitutional by the Republican House of Representatives.

The administration has already put the insurance industry on edge by making the payment of the CSRs almost a month-to-month decision. Eliminating them entirely would drive many insurers out of the marketplace and would cause others to raise premiums to unsustainable levels.

In other words, those who think the battles over the ACA are finished are deluding themselves.

McCain Votes No, Derails ‘Skinny Repeal’ In Marathon Session

http://khn.org/news/mccain-votes-no-derails-skinny-repeal-in-marathon-session/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54732817&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–k_RyjnrsV5I3OytT1xGTiBIWnlNlMSYdyr5kwTt0JGgLaodLbaU2ev3Wam6ReA9qmZGmMuhZW58niwFrwiz5mc2divg&_hsmi=54732817

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who interrupted brain cancer treatment to return to Capitol Hill and advance the health law repeal efforts, cast the dramatic and decisive “no” vote in the early morning hours that upended the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The Senate struggled late into the night to craft and then vote on a so-called “skinny repeal” of the health law, but came up empty as the bill was defeated in a 51-49 vote that prompted gasps in the chamber. McCain’s vote was unexpected and ends — for now — the Republican party’s effort to kill Obamacare.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) cast the two other Republican “no” votes in a cliffhanger drama that ended just before 2:00 a.m. Friday.

Earlier, a group of Republican senators trashed the new measure, widely dubbed a “skinny repeal,” saying it would only worsen the health care system, and they demanded unprecedented promises from their House colleagues to change it.

“The skinny bill in the Senate doesn’t even come close to honoring our promises of repealing Obamacare,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). “Virtually nothing we’re doing in any of these bills and proposals are addressing the challenges, the problems, the damage done [by the Affordable Care Act].”

Staff of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) crafted the new bill, which was under discussion all afternoon and posted publicly late Thursday evening.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell goes on and off the Senate floor during an all-night session to consider the Republican healthcare bill. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The slimmed-down version of the Senate bill — The Health Care Freedom Act, which the White House refers to as the “freedom bill” —included an end to key elements of the health law. Among them were rollbacks of the mandates for individuals and employers to buy health insurance, changes to waivers available under Section 1332 of the ACA that would give states more leeway to alter essential benefits in insurance plans, and a repeal of the medical-device tax.

It was not immediately clear how the bill achieved savings similar to $133 billion in the House’s version of repeal legislation. An equal or better level of savings is required under the arcane budgetary process that is being used to advance the bill, known as reconciliation.

Budget reconciliation allows the measure to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote, but requires that all of its provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian as budget-related. The text of the bill posted publicly at 10 p.m. The CBO report on it began circulating on Twitter around midnight and the vote finally closed around 1:45 a.m. Friday.

One provision that had been restored after the parliamentarian initially struck it was an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood for a year. The new provision took in at least one additional abortion provider, and was expected to survive. The funding for Planned Parenthood was to be shifted to community health centers.

Keeping the attack on Planned Parenthood solidified Murkowski and Collins’ opposition to the vote.

This new iteration of the repeal comes after two versions failed to win over the 50 GOP senators needed. But even with all the rewriting and behind-the-scenes negotiation, four senators called a press conference to declare they will not vote for this “skinny repeal” unless House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) promises not to merely pass the measure but send it to a conference committee between the two chambers, where it can be substantively altered.

The four senators slammed the trimmed-down compromise.

“I am not going to vote for a piece of legislation that I believe is not a replacement, that politically would be the dumbest thing in history to throw this out there,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Left to right, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) hold a news conference Thursday to say they would not support the “skinny repeal” legislation unless it was guaranteed to go to conference with the House. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

He said that he, Johnson and McCain and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) would not vote for the skinny repeal until Ryan pledges to “go to conference,” where Graham can include a measure to shift current Obamacare funding into a block-grant program for states.

His fear, Graham said, is that the House might simply take up and pass the skinny repeal in order to be done with it and notch a win in their seven-year battle against Obamacare.

Graham referred to estimates that said the repeal of the ACA mandates would “collapse the individual market” and leave the GOP to “own the problem at a time when Obamacare is collapsing.”

Ryan did release a statement with a conditional promise to take the bill to conference. Initially, it did not satisfy Graham or McCain. Graham and Johnson were persuaded, however, after a phone conversation with Ryan. McCain was not.

For their part, Democrats uniformly panned the GOP’s efforts.

“We’ve had one bad bill after another. There is no bill that is a good bill,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “Every bill takes people off health care. Every bill makes you pay more for less. There’s a race to the bottom, so to speak.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), hammered the entire process: “This is nuclear grade bonkers.”

Senate ObamaCare repeal bill falls in shocking vote

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/344268-senate-defeats-obamacare-repeal-measure

Image result for down in flames

The Senate rejected a scaled-back ObamaCare repeal bill in the early hours of Friday in a shocking vote that marks a major defeat for GOP leaders and the seven-year effort to repeal the health law.

The Senate voted 49-51 against the “skinny” bill, which would have repealed ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates and defunded Planned Parenthood.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) provided the crucial vote against the bill, alongside GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

A succession of Republicans attempted to appeal to McCain, as well as Murkowski, on the Senate floor while the preceding vote was held open long after it usually would have closed.

Vice President Pence, and Sen. Jeff Flake, also of Arizona, were among those who went to talk to McCain.

“We all wanted to try to get to a positive outcome,” Murkowski said after the vote. “It’s very disappointing that we weren’t able to.”

McCain, who returned to the Senate this week after learning he had brain cancer last week, said in a statement after the vote that he wanted to go back and use the committee process, while working with Democrats on healthcare.

“We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of the aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people,” McCain said in the statement.

The so-called “skinny” bill was cast by Republicans as a way to keep their repeal hopes alive and get to negotiations with the House.

Now, it appears that Republican hopes of repealing ObamaCare have been quashed.

In a speech from the Senate floor early Friday morning after the surprise failed vote, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said “it is time to move on.”

“What we tried to accomplish for the American people was the right thing for the country,” McConnell said. “I think the American people are going to regret that we couldn’t find another way forward.”

Moving forward, McConnell invited Democrats to offer their ideas, but he seemed skeptical, saying that “bailing out insurance companies” would not be acceptable.

“Now I think it’s appropriate to ask, what are their ideas?” McConnell said. “It’ll be interesting to see what they suggest as the way forward.”

Democratic requests include providing funding to lower premiums for high-cost enrollees, known as “reinsurance,” and guaranteeing key ObamaCare payments, known as cost-sharing reductions.

President Trump reacted on Twitter, saying the three Republicans and Democrats who all voted against the bill had let the country down.

The president has threatened to cancel the reinsurance payments, and in a separate tweet appeared to do so again. “As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!” Trump tweeted.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pointed to hearings that could be held by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in the health committee.

“We’re not adverse to that, I just don’t have high hopes that we’re really going to get anything that solves the problem that we think exist with ObamaCare,” Thune said.

Ahead of the vote, many GOP senators admitted that the measure was not good policy, but, in a highly unusual situation, said they were voting for it simply to advance the process and set up a negotiation with the House on a new bill, in what is known as a conference committee.

But some Republicans harbored fear that a conference committee could fail, and the House could eventually just take up the scaled-down bill and send it to the president.

Insurers and many healthcare experts warned that by repealing the mandate to have insurance without a replacement, the bill would significantly destabilize health insurance markets and spike premiums.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned of “steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.”

The Congressional Budget Office found that the bill would result in 16 million more uninsured people and roughly 20 percent higher premiums, largely from repealing the mandate to have insurance.

Republicans pointed out many of those people would choose not to buy insurance, without the mandate.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a Republican, warned that if the bill became law it would “collapse the individual market.” But he said he received assurances from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that the House would not just pass the bill and there would be a conference committee.

The process for sending the bill to the floor was highly unusual. GOP leaders released the text of the bill just hours before the final vote, a decision widely denounced by Democrats.

With the bill’s failure, some expressed hope about bipartisanship.

“I hope so,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). “I have tried in the past as has [Collins] to have a dialogue. It hasn’t worked. Maybe this had to happen to begin to have a conversation.”

McCain casts crucial vote to kill ‘skinny’ ObamaCare repeal

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/344270-mccain-votes-to-kill-gops-skinny-backup-obamacare-repeal-plan

Image result for john mccain

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cast the crucial surprise vote that killed the last-resort Senate Republican ObamaCare repeal bill early Friday morning in a shocking moment that at least temporarily ended the GOP’s hopes of eliminating the former president’s signature law.

Voting shortly after midnight, McCain — who returned to the Senate on Tuesday after undergoing emergency surgery related to brain cancer — joined GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) in opposing the measure that would have repealed key parts of ObamaCare.

McCain cast the “no” vote two days after a dramatic return to the Senate floor during which he called on his colleagues to work together on major issues such as healthcare reform, which has long been a Senate tradition until the upsurge of partisanship in recent years.

The vote cements McCain’s status as the Senate’s maverick, a role he relished earlier in his career when President George W. Bush occupied the White House.

McCain, who was defeated in the 2008 presidential election that brought Barack Obama to power, has emerged this year as one of President Trump’s most outspoken critics in Congress.

The two feuded during Trump’s presidential campaign; at one point, Trump mocked McCain for being a prisoner of war, saying he liked war heroes who were not captured.

That history simply added to the drama of Friday morning’s moment.

The bare-bones healthcare proposal, dubbed the “skinny” repeal because it left untouched big sections of ObamaCare, would have resulted in 16 more million people being without insurance in a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO also estimated that it would increase premiums by 20 percent compared to current law.

Given those statistics, there was speculation early in the week about whether McCain would vote with his party given his own health news.

McCain did vote with Republicans to start debate on Tuesday, but warned he was opposed to the current version of their repeal-and-replace legislation.

He warned on Thursday that he did not want the skinny bill to become law, and asked for assurances from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that there would be a conference and that the House would not just pick up the skinny bill and pass it.

Other senators aligned with him appeared reassured by a Ryan statement and backed the skinny bill. But McCain appeared to feel differently with his own vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushed the skinny bill as a backup proposal after Republicans failed to agree on a bigger repeal that repealed and replaced the pillars of ObamaCare or a repeal-only measure that passed both chambers in 2015.

He appeared almost distraught after McCain’s surprise vote and seemed close to choking up on the floor after falling short of his promise to repeal ObamaCare.

“This is clearly a disappointing moment,” he said.

“I regret that our efforts were simply not enough this time. Now, I imagine many of our colleagues on the other side are celebrating. Probably pretty happy about all this. But the American people are hurting, and they need relief.”

Many Republican senators, however, did not support the substance of the so-called skinny legislation. They decided to vote for it as a way to prolong the healthcare negotiation by setting up a conference negotiation with the House.

Still, McCain’s vote surprised many Republicans including Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.), who said he thought the Arizona Republican was in favor of the legislation.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters, “I’m shocked at this.”

Vice President Pence was spotted lobbying McCain on the Senate floor shortly before the crucial vote. He also worked on Collins while other GOP leaders focused on Murkowski.

But those efforts fell short.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said McCain was wrestling with the decision all day but in the end would not budge.

“He had made up his mind and I’m not sure there was much that could have been done about it,” he said.

McCain declined to “go through my thought process” when reporters asked him about his vote.

Whatever he may have thought about, the diagnosis of brain cancer he received from doctors last week hovered over his decision.

None of his colleagues mentioned it explicitly, but many Democrats thought it would be a sad irony if the lawmaker voted for legislation that CBO projected would cause 16 more million people to be without health insurance at a time when he was depending on doctors in his fight against cancer.

In addition, McCain was never a big fan of the Senate healthcare reform effort, which would have cut billions of dollars in Medicaid funding for his home state of Arizona, one of 30 states that expanded enrollment under ObamaCare.

He raised Republican suspicions and Democratic hopes shortly before the historic vote when he declined to tell reporters how he would vote on the latest idea from the GOP leadership, the so-called “skinny” repeal.

One Republican leadership source predicted earlier in the day that it had a “nine out of 10” chance of passing.

But McCain’s defection became apparent when he began huddling with Democrats on the Senate floor.

He complained earlier this month after Senate GOP leaders left out three Medicaid-related amendments that Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) asked to be included in the bill.

McCain joined GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Cassidy at a press conference a few hours before the vote in which they asked for assurances from House GOP leaders that the “skinny” bill would be revised substantially in a conference negotiation with the House.

Ryan tried to provide some assurance by telling senators that he was willing to work with them, but a Ryan spokesperson earlier in the day described a conference negotiation as an “option” but not a certainty.

“If moving forward requires a conference committee, that is something the House is willing to do,” Ryan said in a statement.

But McCain told reporters that pledge did not go far enough.

“I would like to have the kind of assurances he did not provide,” he said.

Parliamentarian issues warning on another GOP healthcare proposal

Parliamentarian issues warning on another GOP healthcare proposal

Image result for parliamentary procedure

The Senate parliamentarian advised senators Thursday that another GOP healthcare proposal will need 60 votes for passage because it violates Senate rules.

The GOP’s repeal and replace plan, which failed on the floor Tuesday, contained a provision that would allow states to waive some ObamaCare requirements, including one that says insurers must cover 10 certain benefits in all of their plans.

But the parliamentarian advised that the language would violate the rules of reconciliation, the fast track budget maneuver Republicans are using that only needs 51 votes and is immune to Democratic filibuster.

Because the state waivers language violates these rules, it would need 60 votes, which is impossible without Democratic support.

The parliamentarian has already saidthat a number of other provisions could be stripped out.

These provisions, which are part of the GOP’s failed repeal and replace bill, could still be added to whatever healthcare bill Congress passes.

Republicans want to push through the Senate a “skinny repeal” bill that eliminates ObamaCare’s insurance mandates and some taxes.

That bill may then go to conference with the House, where more language could be added, including these provisions that are revised to meet Senate rules.

It’s not yet clear how the state waivers could be changed to follow Senate rules.

States Have Already Tried Versions Of ‘Skinny Repeal.’ It Didn’t Go Well

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/27/539588546/states-have-already-tried-versions-of-skinny-repeal-it-didn-t-go-well?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10058

Image result for States Have Already Tried Versions Of 'Skinny Repeal.' It Didn't Go Well

Betting that thin is in — and might be the only way forward — Senate Republicans are eyeing a “skinny repeal” that would roll back an unpopular portion of the federal health law. But health policy analysts warn that the idea has been tried before, and with little success.

Senators are reportedly considering a narrow bill that would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate,” which assesses a tax on Americans who don’t have insurance. The bill would also eliminate the ACA’s penalties for some businesses – those that have 50 or more workers and fail to offer their employees health coverage.

Details aren’t clear, but it appears that — at least initially — much of the rest of the 2010 health law would remain, under this strategy, including the rule that says insurers must cover people who have pre-existing medical problems.

In remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said that “we just heard from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that under such a plan … 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance, and millions more would pay a 20 percent increase in their premiums.” The CBO posted its evaluation of the GOP’s proposed plan Wednesday evening.

Earlier in the day, some Republicans seemed determined to find some way to keep the health care debate alive.

“We need an outcome, and if a so-called skinny repeal is the first step, that’s a good first step,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.

Several Republican senators, including Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona, appear to back this approach, according to published reports. It is, at least for now, being viewed as a step along the way to Republican health reform.

“I think that most people would understand that what you’re really voting on is trying to keep the conversation alive,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “It’s not the policy itself … it’s about trying to create a bigger discussion about repeal between the House and Senate.”

But what if, during these strange legislative times, the skinny repeal were to be passed by the Senate and then go on to become law? States’ experiences with insurance market reforms and rollbacks highlight the possible trouble spots.

Considering the parallels

By the late 1990s, states such as Washington, Kentucky and Massachusetts felt a backlash when some of the coverage requirement rules they’d previously put on the individual market were lifted. “Things went badly,” said Mark Hall, director of the health law and policy program at Wake Forest University.

Premiums rose and insurers fled these states, leaving consumers who buy their own coverage (usually because they don’t get it through their jobs) with fewer choices and higher prices.

That’s because — like the Senate plan — the states generally kept popular parts of their laws, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions. At the same time, they didn’t include mandates that consumers carry coverage.

That goes to a basic concept about any kind insurance: People who don’t file claims in any given year subsidize those who do. Also, those healthy people are less likely to sign up, insurers said, and that leaves insurance companies with only the more costly policyholders.

Bottom line: Insurers end up “less willing to participate in the market,” said Hall.

It’s not an exact comparison, though, he added, because the current federal health law offers something most states did not: significant subsidies to help some people buy coverage. Those subsidies could blunt the effect of not having a mandate.

During the debate that led to passage of the federal ACA, insurers flat-out said the plan would fail without an individual mandate. On Wednesday, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association weighed in again, saying that if there is no longer a coverage requirement, there should be “strong incentives for people to obtain health insurance and keep it year-round.”

Individual mandate is still unpopular in voter polls

About 6.5 million Americans reported owing penalties for not having coverage in 2015.

Polls consistently show, though, that the individual mandate is unpopular with the public. Indeed, when asked about nine provisions in the ACA, registered voters in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said they want the Senate to keep eight, rejecting only the individual mandate.

Even though the mandate’s penalty is often criticized as not strong enough, removing it would still affect the individual market.

“Insurers would react conservatively and increase rates substantially to cover their risk,” said insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski.

That’s what happened after Washington state lawmakers rolled back rules in 1995 legislation. Insurers requested significant rate increases, which were then rejected by the state’s insurance commissioner. By 1998, the state’s largest insurer — Premera Blue Cross — said it was losing so much money that it would stop selling new individual policies, “precipitating a sense of crisis,” according to a study published in 2000 in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

“When one pulled out, the others followed,” said current Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who was then a regional director in the federal department of Health and Human Services.

The state’s individual market was volatile and difficult for years after. Insurers did come back, but won a concession: For a time, the insurance commissioner lost the power to reject rate increases. Kreidler, first elected in 2000, reclaimed that authority.

Predicting the effect of removing the individual mandate is difficult, although Kreidler said he expects the impact would be modest, at least initially. Subsidies that help people purchase insurance coverage — if they remain as they are under current law — could help blunt the impact. But if those subsidies are reduced — or other changes are made that further drive healthy people out of the market — the impact could be greater.

“Few markets can go bad on you as fast as a health insurance market,” said Kreidler.

As for employers, dropping the requirement that those with 50 or more workers must offer health insurance or face a financial penalty could mean some workers would lose coverage. But their jobs might be more secure, said Joseph Antos, a health care economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

That’s because the requirement under the ACA meant that some smaller firms didn’t hire people or give workers more than 30 hours a week — the minimum needed under the ACA to be considered a full-time worker who qualified for health insurance.

The individual mandate, he added, may not be as much of a factor in getting people to enroll in coverage as some think, because the Trump administration has indicated it might not enforce it anyway — and the penalty amount is far less than most people would have to pay for health insurance.

However, the individual market could be roiled by other factors, Antos said.

“The real impact would come if feds stopped promoting enrollment and did other things to make the exchanges [— the state and federal markets through which insurance is offered —] work more poorly.”