Posted on 06/12/2017 10:08:53 PM PDT by blueplum
Members of the Senate’s GOP working group to develop a new health care law are planning to huddle with President Trump on Tuesday as they race to meet a July 4 deadline made by majority leader Mitch McConnell to vote on a bill, the FOX Business Network has learned.
{snip}
Senate sources tell FOX Business that aides to McConnell and other key members of the group plan on completing their draft legislation by Monday night. The president is scheduled to give a major health care speech Tuesday afternoon in Milwaukee, and sources say he will likely be briefed by McConnell and the working group before his speech.
If Trump’s schedule changes, the meeting could be delayed.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
I wonder what could be in this that doesn’t need the HOUSE ?
Doubtful I’ll ever get back the decent plan our family had before the jackass and Democrats thugs ripped it away from us.
from the bits and pieces I’m reading here and there, it’s not that different
The Houses’s bill was going to be DOA by the senate.
The Senate was “supposedly” going to do it from scratch.
If they did do it from scratch, they can’t send it to the president if it contains taxes\money matters.
It has to start in the House.
It was my understanding the House never presented their version to the Senate.
Ryan was holding on to it waiting for CBO score.
I didn’t see where Ryan sent it after the CBO score.
Not sure what’s true anymore.
And I’m back to my original question.
Not much. Any change between the two versions have to be reconciled into a new bill and both houses need to approve it.
Never mind the draft. Can it pass?
They need 50 votes plus Pence. I have a hard time believing that any version of Trumpcare that gets 50 votes in the Senate would pass the House. It will make for an interesting reconciliation process.
Or the House can just pass the Senate bill as drafted and send it to the President for his signature. That could happen. It’s starting to sound like the Senate, despite earlier claims, is just tweaking the House bill, but with everything apparently being conducted in closed committees it’s hard to tell.
Meanwhile the MSM keeps focusing on Russian collusion...
I doubt there would be the votes. The House had a hard enough time passing the version that the Senate is re-writing.
Meanwhile the MSM keeps focusing on Russian collusion...
I doubt the Republicans want them focusing on Trumpcare, though if McConnell does force a vote within the next two weeks that could change rapidly.
>>I have a hard time believing that any version of Trumpcare that gets 50 votes in the Senate would pass the House.<<
And yet it’s starting to sound like the Senate is just tweaking the House bill. We’re not hearing anything other than relatively small demands being made to extend the time when Medicaid changes are implemented. Nothing about the rest of the House bill’s other major provisions including the subsidies granted in that bill to help people purchase their own policies.
I suspect this is all going to be wrapped up a lot faster than the Democrats and liberal press expected, especially if the House is okay with what turn out to be minor changes in the House bill. If so, the House approves the Senate bill and it could be signed immediately thereafter.
Then Trump can fire Mueller and libs will never find out what’s in the bill until it’s implemented because they’ll be too busy hyperventilating over Trump’s presumed obstruction of justice.
>>I doubt there would be the votes. The House had a hard enough time passing the version that the Senate is re-writing.<<
I guess that depends on how much “re-writing” they’re actually doing. It certainly doesn’t sound like they started from scratch like they claimed they were going to do at the outset, but I could be wrong. I don’t have any sources for my thoughts other than what I’ve read in the press.
They need 50 votes. They're not going to get that with minor tweaks to the House bill. I suspect there are a lot more changes being discussed behind the scenes.
>>I doubt the Republicans want them focusing on Trumpcare, though if McConnell does force a vote within the next two weeks that could change rapidly.<<
Here’s what I’d really like to see because liberal heads would be exploding all over the place:
Day 1 (preferably a Monday): Senate approves a bill very close to the House version.
Afternoon of Day 1: House approves the Senate version.
Evening of Day 1: Trump signs the bill.
Day 2: Trump announces firing of Mueller.
Rest of Week: MSM goes stark-raving nuts trying to figure out which talking points to use, while GOP quietly advances tax reform bill.
And the Senate leadership is keeping such a tight lid on what's in their plan that we won't know until the vote most likely. No hearings. No debate. Get it scored by the CBO and vote. It's a given that no Democrats will vote for it. It'll be interesting to see how they manage to get Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee to vote for the same bill as the Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, and Lindsey Graham.
>>They need 50 votes. They’re not going to get that with minor tweaks to the House bill. I suspect there are a lot more changes being discussed behind the scenes.<<
And yet they’re sounding pretty optimistic and we’re not hearing carping from the usual suspects. I guess we wait and see, but I’d be surprised to see major differences between the two bills, and especially deal-breaking differences.
>>It’ll be interesting to see how they manage to get Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee to vote for the same bill as the Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, and Lindsey Graham.<<
Going off-topic here, but that’s exactly why the argument that the filibuster encourages bipartisan legislation is such a crock.
In this example, the only way we’re going to get bi-partisanship is if the parties you cited can come together. As you imply, that will drag any result to the left, because we will be able to rely upon no Democrat votes.
But why zero Democrat votes? Because it takes at least eight of them to make a difference and that’s too big a number for the first three or four willing participants in the process to take a chance on. They stick their necks out for a good bill and it doesn’t pass and they get primaried for desertion.
But without the filibuster, a couple of relatively conservative Democrats (or at least from a conservative state) might consider offsetting the loss of Collins and Graham to get a good bill passed, have their names on it, be able to say to their constituents that they were on their side in DC, etc. In other words, we’d have a chance at a form of bi-partisanship that doesn’t automatically drag the bill to the left.
The filibuster is a pox on effective governing and absolutely needs to be jettisoned. Besides, we know the Dems will do it as soon as that’s required.
You are drifting rather far afield because the filibuster has nothing to do with this. The Senate is using reconciliation to vote on this, so all they need is 50 senators plus Pence to vote for it. They certainly don't have that if their bill is a near mirror image of the House bill.
This is going to be a train wreck. The Republicans have been making promises - lower premiums, better coverage, more choices, pre-existing conditions covered - that they can't keep. Trumpcare will do un to them what Obamacare did to the Democrats.
>>You are drifting rather far afield because the filibuster has nothing to do with this. <<
Which is why I said I was going off-topic for a bit.
>>This is going to be a train wreck. The Republicans have been making promises - lower premiums, better coverage, more choices, pre-existing conditions covered - that they can’t keep. <<
Actually, they should be relatively easy to keep, in my opinion. Certainly, if we just go back to pre-Obamacare, we’ll have lower premiums and more choices. I don’t think the GOP can possibly offer “better coverage” because Obamacare offered it all, but at a prohibitive cost, but if “better coverage” means getting what you want at a more reasonable price, they can do it.
It’s the pre-existing conditions that are perceived to be the problem, but that’s just perception. Ultimately, an ongoing insurance marketplace will have to cover pre-existing conditions. If you take out insurance and keep paying the premiums your insurance should cover whatever conditions you develop. The next year, when you pay your premiums again, your existing conditions will logically be covered.
The problem is how to include those with pre-existing conditions at the outset. We’re not talking about a lot of people here, since most people are already covered in existing plans. Obamacare did it wrong by seeking to overcharge the young. The GOP could do it right by establishing temporary risk pools to cover those not insured today but who have pre-existing conditions. As those people move out of the pools (by dying, getting a job with insurance, going on Medicare at 65, or becoming healthy again) the pools will diminish in size along with the cost of maintaining them.
At least that’s how I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.