Moderates holding back support for new Senate bill

[smilesammich 10,727]

Quote

 

It's unclear whether Senate Republicans have the votes to win on a key procedural motion that would allow them to debate the new healthcare bill they released on Thursday.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) both said they would oppose the motion, meaning Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cannot afford another defection on the vote.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said his position had not changed, but he did not give a clear answer on whether he'd back his party on the procedural vote.

Asked whether he would vote for the motion to proceed, Portman said, “No.”

But he added: “I'm the same position I've been in. I'm looking at the language.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who has been an ally of Portman's during the healthcare talks, said she doesn’t know whether she’ll vote to proceed to the bill after hearing a presentation from Senate Republican leaders at the Capitol.

“We have another meeting this afternoon on the Medicaid cuts,” she told reporters. “I need to really look at it, look at the score, I still have concerns.”

Asked if she would vote for the motion to proceed next week, she said, “Wait and see.”

Capito also said she did not know whether her concerns could be addressed through the amendment process.

“I’m going to hold comment on that.” 

GOP moderates are planning to meet later Thursday afternoon to discuss their concerns with the bill, which would phase out federal funding for expended Medicaid enrollment and impose a stricter formula for indexing the program to inflation.

Portman, Capito and two other moderates, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), were spotted walking into McConnell’s office shortly after lunchtime.

Heller said he’s on the fence over how to vote on beginning the debate next week. 

“No decisions have been made yet so we’ll continue the conversation,” Heller told reporters. 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341895-moderates-holding-back-support-for-new-senate-bill-over-medicaid-fight

[smilesammich 10,727]

detailed info on the new bill..

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/13/537037194/whos-in-whos-left-out-with-the-latest-senate-health-care-bill

[CaliCat 3,957]

Are you surprised? It's a piece of "crepe"!

Edited July 16, 2017 by CaliCat

[Boiler 46,621]

Politicians bought and paid for by vested interests, we saw it with OCare, we are seeing it now.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

9 hours ago, Boiler said:

Politicians bought and paid for by vested interests, we saw it with OCare, we are seeing it now.

This bill is much worse

[smilesammich 10,727]

until we go single payer, and stop allowing insurance/pharmaceutical lobbyists to dictate what's covered and who's covered, it's going to be all bad. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

11 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

This bill is much worse

 

The so-called president believes the country can afford some 23 million Americans uninsured. What does he care? 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Brit Hume off Faux News sums up the Republican party mantra when it comes to health insurance. Something they've stood beside for decades.

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

7 hours ago, smilesammich said:

until we go single payer, and stop allowing insurance/pharmaceutical lobbyists to dictate what's covered and who's covered, it's going to be all bad. 

Mr Buffet is in agreement

 

[OriZ 3,157]

5 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

Brit Hume off Faux News sums up the Republican party mantra when it comes to health insurance. Something they've stood beside for decades.

 

I never understood why anybody would say it defeats the idea of insurance, personally. As long as said people did not just wait to get sick before getting an insurance plan(and there are ways to prevent that besides the mandate) they can still make money because they will always have more healthy people than sick people. The expectation to make money off of every single insured person sounds absurd to me. You have a pool of people, some of them you'll lose on, but the others make up for it. I know BCBS will NEVER make money off of us, not even close, but you know what? That's OK, because they have plenty of other insured people they will.

Edited July 17, 2017 by OriZ

[Boiler 46,621]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

I never understood why anybody would say it defeats the idea of insurance, personally. As long as said people did not just wait to get sick before getting an insurance plan(and there are ways to prevent that besides the mandate) they can still make money because they will always have more healthy people than sick people. The expectation to make money off of every single insured person sounds absurd to me. You have a pool of people, some of them you'll lose on, but the others make up for it. I know BCBS will NEVER make money off of us, not even close, but you know what? That's OK, because they have plenty of other insured people they will.

Basics of Insurance is that every contributes a premium in accordance to the risk that they contribute to the pool.

 

Let us say you are twice as likely to have a given accident in a car, you pay twice the premium.

 

The risk of your building burning down is twice the risk of my building burning down, say I have better fire protection, you pay twice the premium.

 

Hope that helps

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

I never understood why anybody would say it defeats the idea of insurance, personally. As long as said people did not just wait to get sick before getting an insurance plan(and there are ways to prevent that besides the mandate) they can still make money because they will always have more healthy people than sick people. The expectation to make money off of every single insured person sounds absurd to me. You have a pool of people, some of them you'll lose on, but the others make up for it. I know BCBS will NEVER make money off of us, not even close, but you know what? That's OK, because they have plenty of other insured people they will.

the real question tho, will they be able to retain the mvps of the insurance realm? these folks have standards of living to maintain.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Basics of Insurance is that every contributes a premium in accordance to the risk that they contribute to the pool.

 

Let us say you are twice as likely to have a given accident in a car, you pay twice the premium.

 

The risk of your building burning down is twice the risk of my building burning down, say I have better fire protection, you pay twice the premium.

 

Hope that helps

distractions to the point never help.

 

 

[Boiler 46,621]

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

distractions to the point never help.

 

 

Exactly

 

[OriZ 3,157]

54 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Basics of Insurance is that every contributes a premium in accordance to the risk that they contribute to the pool.

 

Let us say you are twice as likely to have a given accident in a car, you pay twice the premium.

 

The risk of your building burning down is twice the risk of my building burning down, say I have better fire protection, you pay twice the premium.

 

Hope that helps

Not exactly the same thing. As long as your house isn't burning down, you don't have any other related expenses. As long as you aren't in an accident, it's not like your insurance covers the maintenance you do to your car. Healthcare works vastly different. Because of the extremely high cost of care, insurance companies are the ones paying for most of it. Most people can't afford to pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands if not millions to get the care they need without insurance. So you can't compare premiums in one to premiums in the other. You can't make someone pay ALOT more money for things they have to do for their health. You can make someone pay more money when as long as they don't get into an accident there's nothing else they need to do.