McCain, Murkowski and Collins kill the Senate Healthcare Bill

[AUDub 11,148]

Quote

The Senate's health care bill is dead, and Sen. John McCain cast the deciding vote to kill it. Shortly after midnight, McCain — along with Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins — voted not to adopt the"skinny repeal" bill that had become Republicans' last ditch effort to keep hopes of repealing at least part of the Affordable Care Act alive. The bill ultimately failed 49-51.

https://www.axios.com/mccain-kills-senate-health-care-bill-2466449616.html

Voted for in the dead of night, rushed to the floor and there was no debate as some R chucklef*** filibustered to prevent any. But, hey, McCain coming through in the 11th hour, casting the deciding vote to save his former opponent's prime achievement when he himself has brain cancer? Some story book sounding stuff right there. Could be the climax to a season long plot on The West Wing, it's so dramatic. What a crazy night.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm still sitting here in stunned amazement that the party that has railed against Obamacare for 6-7 years now gets to the place where they have the congressional majority and the WH backing them, and they have no comprehensive plan to replace it.  Just half-assed bills and weak "skinny repeals" to look like they're doing something.  How do you not have a comprehensive plan that addresses the shortcomings of Obamacare and can replace it in full after all this bitching?

Kudos to McCain and the others.  This was bull**** the way this has been handled.  This is not how you govern.

[alexava 6,973]

Gop voted 60 times to repeal when they knew Obama would veto. Now they have to actually think about it. Or they just have no balls. Like the idiot POTUS said ' nobody knew how complicated healthcare is'.

[AUDub 11,148]

A better video

For those curious as to why Schumer was waving like that, it was to silence his party.

[AUDub 11,148]

Mitch McConnell quote of the night, "And democrats holding up proceedings by wanting to read the bill."

The ******* hypocrisy of this man. How he has the balls to repeatedly drop snide little baiting remarks at the Democrats ("I'm interested to see what they have in mind going forward"), when it's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that not a single Republican had any actual idea how their own plan was going to work, is miles beyond me.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

22 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Mitch McConnell quote of the night, "And democrats holding up proceedings by wanting to read the bill."

The ******* hypocrisy of this man. How he has the balls to repeatedly drop snide little baiting remarks at the Democrats ("I'm interested to see what they have in mind going forward"), when it's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that not a single Republican had any actual idea how their own plan was going to work, is miles beyond me.

Seriously.

One of the chief things the GOP used to rail against the ACA was that idiotic statement by Pelosi that you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.  Whether you believe the context mitigated the statement or not, it was still a resounding soundbite that the GOP used to great effect in casting doubt on the process that gave us the ACA.  The bill was pilloried by Republicans as being rammed through by a Democratic majority with no Republican votes, and that the Dems didn't even know what was in it.

Then McConnell has the huevos to bitch that he couldn't rush a bill through because some people wanted to actually read the damn thing?  That kind of irony ought to be physically painful.

[DKW 86 7,425]

Now they need to fix whats broke...Or Medicare for all.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

Mitch McConnell quote of the night, "And democrats holding up proceedings by wanting to read the bill."

The ******* hypocrisy of this man. How he has the balls to repeatedly drop snide little baiting remarks at the Democrats ("I'm interested to see what they have in mind going forward"), when it's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that not a single Republican had any actual idea how their own plan was going to work, is miles beyond me.

I watched the vote and the following speeches by McConnell and Schumer live last night.  Was riveted to the drama of it all.  What was striking is exactly what you said regarding McConnell's hypocrisy.

In the early parts of his speech, he railed against Democrats for not working in a bipartisan manner with regards to this bill, then at the end of his speech said that he was curious to see what Democrats now had to offer.  News flash genius: you don't get it both ways.  Maybe, just maybe, if they were allowed to offer their thoughts earlier in the process, you could have gotten bipartisan support.  There are enough vulnerable democrats this cycle that would have gladly worked on a repair bill with Republican lawmakers if a viable option was on the table.

Side note:  I'm no way excusing the Dems for ramming through Obamacare in 2011 without bipartisan support.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.  But I certainly don't remember them complaining about the lack of Republican help during the process and lamenting it for the delay in it's passage (remember, it took Obamacare about 18 months from start to finish to finally be ready to pass).

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

35 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Now they need to fix whats broke...Or Medicare for all.

This may be the single biggest issue in the 2020 presidential campaign, particularly after last night.

[AUDub 11,148]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I watched the vote and the following speeches by McConnell and Schumer live last night.  Was riveted to the drama of it all.  What was striking is exactly what you said regarding McConnell's hypocrisy.

In the early parts of his speech, he railed against Democrats for not working in a bipartisan manner with regards to this bill, then at the end of his speech said that he was curious to see what Democrats now had to offer.  News flash genius: you don't get it both ways.  Maybe, just maybe, if they were allowed to offer their thoughts earlier in the process, you could have gotten bipartisan support.  There are enough vulnerable democrats this cycle that would have gladly worked on a repair bill with Republican lawmakers if a viable option was on the table.

Side note:  I'm no way excusing the Dems for ramming through Obamacare in 2011 without bipartisan support.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.  But I certainly don't remember them complaining about the lack of Republican help during the process and lamenting it for the delay in it's passage (remember, it took Obamacare about 18 months from start to finish to finally be ready to pass).

They weren't going to get bipartisan support. McConnell, who IMHO is the worst thing to happen to the senate in decades, made that absolutely clear.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

Did Obama Jam Through the Affordable Care Act Without Consulting Republicans or Working With Them to Find Bipartisan Cooperation? 

The Obama White House took a number of lessons from the Clinton experience with healthcare policy. First, do not rely on your own, detailed White House plan as the starting point for negotiations in Congress; let Congress work out the structure and details from your  goals. Second, try from an early point to get buy-in from the major actors in the health world, including insurers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other providers, to at least defuse or minimize their opposition. Third, recognize that the House and Senate are very different institutions, and let each work through its own ideas and plan before finding ways to merge the two into a single bill. Obama and his White House executed those lessons brilliantly.

There was a fourth lesson: Try in the Senate to find Republican support at an early stage, instead of waiting until the political dynamic shifts toward implacable opposition. The failure to engage John Chafee, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and their colleagues at an early point in 1993, when they crafted their own plan and were willing to negotiate and cut a deal, proved deeply damaging, if not deadly in 1994. As the midterms loomed and Democrats were on the defensive, Chafee and his colleagues were told by then-Republican Leader Bob Dole that there would be no deal, period.

In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. There, Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal. The talks, nonetheless, continued into September, and the emerging plan was at least accepted in its first major test by the third Republican Gang member, Olympia Snowe (even if she later joined every one of her colleagues to vote against the plan on the floor of the Senate.)

Obama could have moved earlier to blow the whistle on the faux negotiations; he did not, as he held out hope that a plan that was fundamentally built on Republican ideas would still, in the end, garner at least some Republican support. He and Senate Democratic leaders held their fire even as Grassley and Enzi, in the negotiations, fought for some serious changes in a plan that neither would ever consider supporting in the end. If Obama had, as conventional wisdom holds, jammed health reform through at the earliest opportunity, there would have been votes in the Senate Finance Committee in June or July of 2009, as there were in the House. Instead, the votes came significantly later.

To be sure, the extended negotiations via the Gang of Six made a big difference in the ultimate success of the reform, but for other reasons. When Republicans like Hatch and Grassley began to write op-eds and trash the individual mandate, which they had earlier championed, as unconstitutional and abominable, it convinced conservative Democrats in the Senate that every honest effort to engage Republicans in the reform effort had been tried and cynically rebuffed. So when the crucial votes came in the Senate, in late December 2009, Harry Reid succeeded in the near-impossible feat of getting all 60 Democrats, from Socialist Bernie Sanders and liberal Barbara Boxer to conservatives Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln, to vote for cloture, to end the Republican filibuster, and to pass their version of the bill. All sixty were needed because every single Republican in the Senate voted against cloture and against the bill. Was this simply a matter of principle? The answer to that question was provided at a later point by Mitch McConnell, who made clear that the unified opposition was a ruthlessly pragmatic political tactic. He said, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”

The delays engendered in large part by the extended negotiations with Republicans in the Gang of Six, meant in the end that the normal legislative process—in which separate bills passed by House and Senate would be reconciled in a conference committee—was not going to work in this case. When the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy was filled via a January 2010 special election by Republican Scott Brown, Democrats lost their 60th vote—and the McConnell strategy meant that there was no way, no matter what changes Democrats were willing to make in the final package, that there would be a single Republican vote to get them past the filibuster hurdle. Hence, the fallback to using reconciliation to bypass the filibuster in the Senate, and the inability to smooth out the rough edges and awkward language in the final bill that was enacted.

McConnell’s hardball strategy certainly worked as a political weapon. The narrative of Obama steamrollering over Republicans and enacting an unconstitutional bill that brought America much closer to socialism worked like a charm to stimulate conservative and Republican anger. The 2010 midterm elections resulted in huge Republican gains across the country, a Republican majority in the House, and a much narrower Democratic majority in the Senate. But the strategy also prevented Republicans from having a much bigger impact on the healthcare reform bill—some level of cooperation would have meant more sweeping malpractice reform and reductions in defensive medicine, and more market-oriented approaches to many areas of health delivery. It also meant that the standard technical corrections bill that every major policy change requires was unavailable in this case, creating its own challenges for implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

At the same time, the overheated rhetoric, reinforced by conservative talk radio, cable television, blogs, and social media, has created a visceral backlash. It has kept every Republican presidential candidate calling for “root and branch” repeal of every element of Obamacare, prevented many states from expanding insurance to millions of people who need it via Medicaid, and erased any hope for the foreseeable future of bipartisan efforts to revise or tweak the law to make it more effective.

Interestingly, even Obama has said that Obamacare was drawn from Romneycare, the Massachusetts plan championed by then-Governor Mitt Romney. But Romneycare was itself derived from the Chafee / Grassley / Durenberger / Hatch Republican alternative to the Clinton plan. The essence of Obamacare is a structure devised in 1993-94 by those Republican senators, then rejected and renounced in apocalyptic terms by Grassley and Hatch. (Durenberger, retired from the Senate and a genuine expert on health policy and reform, took a very different tack from outside the body.)

Thanks in part to the overheated rhetoric demonizing the plan, guerrilla efforts to undermine its implementation and disrupt the delivery of its services continue apace. Perhaps they will end as it becomes clear, in the aftermath of King v. Burwell, that the law in its fundamentals is not going away. It may help a bit if more Americans, including prominent commentators, stop repeating a false political narrative about the genesis of Obamacare.

[Grumps 3,704]

This is further proof that there is really only one party--the one that wants to expand the role of government and is for sale to the highest bidder. Obamacare was not an attempt to fix healthcare. It was to reward insurance companies and hospitals. The republicans are also on the take. They want the same thing that the democrats want. Do you really think that they didn't know how the vote would turn out?

The funny thing is, if Trump had said from the outset, "we don't need to repeal Obamacare, we just need to fix it" then both sides could have worked together to avoid the inevitable collapse that we will see in our lifetimes. They are not stupid, they are that corrupt.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, Grumps said:

This is further proof that there is really only one party--the one that wants to expand the role of government and is for sale to the highest bidder. Obamacare was not an attempt to fix healthcare. It was to reward insurance companies and hospitals. The republicans are also on the take. They want the same thing that the democrats want. Do you really think that they didn't know how the vote would turn out?

The funny thing is, if Trump had said from the outset, "we don't need to repeal Obamacare, we just need to fix it" then both sides could have worked together to avoid the inevitable collapse that we will see in our lifetimes. They are not stupid, they are that corrupt.

I actually don't lay this at the feet of Trump.  The Republican caucus has been sounding the "repeal and replace" horn for seven years and had to try and deliver that in order appease the base that put them in office.  That's a lot longer than Trump has been relevant in the political cycle.

But with this failure, we now have an actual opportunity to see both sides work together to fix it.  I firmly believe McCain voted no last night to force regular order and compromise.  Now whether or not leadership *cough* McConnell *cough* wants to go that route is another story.

[homersapien 11,374]

19 hours ago, Grumps said:

This is further proof that there is really only one party--the one that wants to expand the role of government and is for sale to the highest bidder. Obamacare was not an attempt to fix healthcare. It was to reward insurance companies and hospitals. The republicans are also on the take. They want the same thing that the democrats want. Do you really think that they didn't know how the vote would turn out?

The funny thing is, if Trump had said from the outset, "we don't need to repeal Obamacare, we just need to fix it" then both sides could have worked together to avoid the inevitable collapse that we will see in our lifetimes. They are not stupid, they are that corrupt.

Populism requires an enemy.

Trump and McConnell understand this, at least.

[AUDub 11,148]

Seeing a lot of "F*** McCain" on my FB feed. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I actually don't lay this at the feet of Trump.  The Republican caucus has been sounding the "repeal and replace" horn for seven years and had to try and deliver that in order appease the base that put them in office.  That's a lot longer than Trump has been relevant in the political cycle.

But with this failure, we now have an actual opportunity to see both sides work together to fix it.  I firmly believe McCain voted no last night to force regular order and compromise.  Now whether or not leadership *cough* McConnell *cough* wants to go that route is another story.

 

While I rarely agree with the positions of the modern Republican Party, I have never doubted McCain's desire to serve the people in what he thinks is the best way possible.

[MDM4AU 332]

20 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Now they need to fix whats broke...Or Medicare for all.

With Rx being one of the biggest drivers of healthcare costs these days, how about we change Medicare so drug prices can be negatiated before we discuss moving everyone to it. 

[homersapien 11,374]

23 hours ago, alexava said:

Gop voted 60 times to repeal when they knew Obama would veto. Now they have to actually think about it. Or they just have no balls. Like the idiot POTUS said ' nobody knew how complicated healthcare is'.

The politics of obstruction are easy.  Those of governing, not so much.  Republicans have become too radical to govern.

 

[homersapien 11,374]

1 hour ago, MDM4AU said:

With Rx being one of the biggest drivers of healthcare costs these days, how about we change Medicare so drug prices can be negatiated before we discuss moving everyone to it. 

That addresses cost (a good thing) but it doesn't address coverage.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

On 7/28/2017 at 1:14 PM, Brad_ATX said:

I watched the vote and the following speeches by McConnell and Schumer live last night.  Was riveted to the drama of it all.  What was striking is exactly what you said regarding McConnell's hypocrisy.

In the early parts of his speech, he railed against Democrats for not working in a bipartisan manner with regards to this bill, then at the end of his speech said that he was curious to see what Democrats now had to offer.  News flash genius: you don't get it both ways.  Maybe, just maybe, if they were allowed to offer their thoughts earlier in the process, you could have gotten bipartisan support.  There are enough vulnerable democrats this cycle that would have gladly worked on a repair bill with Republican lawmakers if a viable option was on the table.

Side note:  I'm no way excusing the Dems for ramming through Obamacare in 2011 without bipartisan support.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.  But I certainly don't remember them complaining about the lack of Republican help during the process and lamenting it for the delay in it's passage (remember, it took Obamacare about 18 months from start to finish to finally be ready to pass).

18 months thru a standard process of hearings and amendments is not ramming it thru. No republican votes had much more to do with their recalcitrance than the process. Their involvement was sought. They turned out to be totally disingenuous.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:54 PM, Bigbens42 said:

Seeing a lot of "F*** McCain" on my FB feed. 

They can't grasp actual principle.

[Grumps 3,704]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:57 AM, homersapien said:

That addresses cost (a good thing) but it doesn't address coverage.

But if you cut costs then access automatically improves.

They are not even trying to do the obvious things to make healthcare more affordable. They don't want to fix it.