Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is McCain's full statement:

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1D7F89BB-FF93-41A5-85B8-C87E3CCCC4CE

I would expect a number of GOP Senators will now claim there were going to vote against it now.

It's sad that most Rs are spineless and need someone to make the first move in order for them to speak up.

wouldn't surprise me if 5 more now come out and say no like portman and gardner

Anonymous wrote:Here is McCain's full statement:

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1D7F89BB-FF93-41A5-85B8-C87E3CCCC4CE

I would expect a number of GOP Senators will now claim there were going to vote against it now.

It's sad that most Rs are spineless and need someone to make the first move in order for them to speak up.

Anonymous wrote:this is big because graham is McCain's butt buddy so for McCain to vote no is HUGE

Thanks a lot. You've given me a mental image I'll never be able to unthink. Shudder.

Anonymous wrote:Here is McCain's full statement:

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1D7F89BB-FF93-41A5-85B8-C87E3CCCC4CE

I would expect a number of GOP Senators will now claim there were going to vote against it now.

McCain isn't perfect, but I really admire him or this:

"As I have repeatedly stressed, health care reform legislation ought to be the product of regular order in the Senate. Committees of jurisdiction should mark up legislation with input from all committee members, and send their bill to the floor for debate and amendment. That is the only way we might achieve bipartisan consensus on lasting reform, without which a policy that affects one-fifth of our economy and every single American family will be subject to reversal with every change of administration and congressional majority."

He seems to be willing to work with the other side. He was also respectful of Obama as a person though he hardly ever agreed with him on policies. This is how it used to be - respect the person but disagree on policies. As a former R, I would've voted for him for POTUS.

this is big because graham is McCain's butt buddy so for McCain to vote no is HUGE

Here is McCain's full statement:

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1D7F89BB-FF93-41A5-85B8-C87E3CCCC4CE

I would expect a number of GOP Senators will now claim there were going to vote against it now.

Phew. I'm beginning to find some respect for McCain again.

McCain against -

paul and McCain now are against, which means it'll give cover for Collins and murk to vote no.

mitch might not even bring it to the floor now

McCain is opposing.

Should be dead, then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, if those states want their share why not accept the medicaid expansion? Isn't it kind of dumb to say, "I don't want the money, but it's not fair that you get more"? Why do they need to kill ACA to get the medicaid money?

And how is it equitable that the authors of this bill are giving Alaska a special deal just so that R Senator will vote for this bill? If I were a R senator from another state that was losing money from this bill, I'd be saying that I won't vote for the bill unless my state gets a special deal, too. Imagine if they all did that? Where would this bill go?

But what is ridiculous is the offer for Alaska to keep the ACA so the rest of the country is denied the same service. It is mind boggling how this makes any sense.

PP here.. that's what I'm saying. The other PP seems to think the current ACA fund disbursements is inequitable. How is the deal with Alaska making it more equitable for the rest of the country?

This tells me that the new bill has nothing to do with equity but more about "screw the blue states" and partisan politics.

Anonymous wrote:
Well, if those states want their share why not accept the medicaid expansion? Isn't it kind of dumb to say, "I don't want the money, but it's not fair that you get more"? Why do they need to kill ACA to get the medicaid money?

And how is it equitable that the authors of this bill are giving Alaska a special deal just so that R Senator will vote for this bill? If I were a R senator from another state that was losing money from this bill, I'd be saying that I won't vote for the bill unless my state gets a special deal, too. Imagine if they all did that? Where would this bill go?

But what is ridiculous is the offer for Alaska to keep the ACA so the rest of the country is denied the same service. It is mind boggling how this makes any sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

Not really. It all depends on how far back you go. These are the blue states who expanded Medicaid and therefore are soaking up the majority of federal dollars. All this bill is doing is re-balancing so that red states get as much help as blue states.

Some of those red states decided not to take the medicaid expansion. So, more money for other states, including blue states.

I know that. Still doesn't refute the fact that the blue states are getting the lion's share. As it stands now, a lower-middle class person in a blue state cannot afford to pay for the very treatment that an "expanded" Medicaid person earning just slightly less gets entirely for free. This bill reverses that inequity, and all states are treated fairly.

Well, if those states want their share why not accept the medicaid expansion? Isn't it kind of dumb to say, "I don't want the money, but it's not fair that you get more"? Why do they need to kill ACA to get the medicaid money?

And how is it equitable that the authors of this bill are giving Alaska a special deal just so that R Senator will vote for this bill? If I were a R senator from another state that was losing money from this bill, I'd be saying that I won't vote for the bill unless my state gets a special deal, too. Imagine if they all did that? Where would this bill go?

Sen Collins confirms that the bill guts the pre-existing conditions mandate.

If this passes, it is a death sentence for me.

But those governors chose not to expand at the expense of their residents. And their residents are the ones complaining about lack of coverage. So they are blaming the ACA rather than their state government who chose not to participate.

This is cutting of the nose to spite the face.

And if this is so great, why has every.single.healthcare.group come out opposed to the legislation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a winner is fewer people covered, then sure.

More money for the state to use to help people buy health insurance

As far as "fewer," you mean that people who don't want to be forced to buy health care and only do to avoid a penalty will now have the option whether to purchase? They're not being kicked off the system - they are voluntarily opting out.

Which state would that be? Because most of them are going to experience less money sent their way.

There was a map posted on here somewhere that showed which states, of which there were many. Can't remember them all, but Texas was the biggest winner.

I'm back with the map. (Mr. Google was my friend.) Here it is, and you'll see that many states come out ahead, and that's because the bill is restoring equity among blue state "Medicaid expansion soak up" states and others that did not expand.

https://psmag.com/news/these-maps-show-what-graham-cassidy-would-mean-for-your-state