The Affordable Care Act was shit legislation anyway. Did nothing to make premiums more affordable for the middle class.
This picture was taken yesterday near Wall St. awaiting news of the bill stripping the ability sue banks, predatory lenders and debt collectors!!!
Brian Williams (totally deadpan): "What Mr. Scarmucci said about Steven Bannon we cannot repeat, but if true, would make Mr. Bannon a gymnast."
THE FIRE RISES!!!! https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/072717_HJC-Letter-to-AG-DAG.pdf
for god sakes just do it. What in the world will you complain about once these former government employees are all under investigation?
CBO and JCT estimate that premiums for policies in the nongroup market would increase by roughly 20 percent relative to current law in all years between 2018 and 2026.
Interesting. So you're creating a class of slaves who can't leave jobs due to their health insurance. I get it.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/waivers-are-dead-long-live-waivers/ But here’s the rub. The waivers are presumptively approved for 8 years—and they “may not be cancelled by the Secretary before the expiration of the 8-year period.” This 8-year lockout was also in BCRA, and here’s what I wrote about it at the time. And once a waiver is granted, the Senate bill says that the federal government cannot terminate the waiver, no matter what. It is hard to overstate how unusual—even unique—this is. When the federal government offers money to states, it places conditions on how the states are to use that money—and reserves the right to cut off the states if they fail to adhere to those conditions. The cutoff threat is essential to prevent state abuse of federal funds. The Senate bill removes that threat. It says that a waiver “may not be cancelled” before its expiration. If state officials blow the Obamacare money on cocaine and hookers, there’s apparently nothing the federal government can do about it. At the same time, the bill expands the duration of waivers from five years to eight years. The upshot, then, is that the next president won’t be able to renegotiate any waivers granted during the Trump administration, no matter how badly a given state might have abused its waiver. So while the ACA’s guardrails are still in place, states can ignore them once a waiver has been granted. And there’s not a thing the federal government can do about it. To my eyes, the legislation looks like an open invitation to states to submit farfetched waivers that purport to achieve the ACA’s objectives, knowing full well that, once a waiver is granted, they can’t be held to account if their residents lose coverage. How the 8-year lockout made it past the Parliamentarian is beyond me. It has nothing to do with protecting the federal budget. It has everything to do, instead, with a Republican effort to prevent a future president from undoing waivers. And it may provide a backdoor way for states to undo some of the ACA’s most significant protections.
Cloture and the Byrd Rule are two different things. Cloture can easily be changed. Byrd Rule, not so much.
Enzi: "Maybe if you read the bill .." Senator ?: "We just got the bill an hour ago .." Enzi: "..." Senator ?: "Maybe our time would be better spent asking you questions about the bill .." Enzi: "..."