Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
WSJ: McCain Says He Can’t Support Latest GOP Senate Health Bill
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that McCain is second GOP no vote, would be third if Collins opposes.
WSJ: "Mr. McCain’s opposition is likely the death knell for the latest GOP health proposal, given that two other Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine, already have come out against it or have signaled concerns about it."
To encourage her support for the pending bill, the GOP's Murkowski incentive (aka "bribe") was to allow Alaska to essentially stay on the current ACA program.
Given Maurice's observation re McCain, and extending that to Collins, Murkowski, et al, one must wonder why the Republicans wasted their time and energy on this last attempt.
@Maurice. You keep saying Obacamare's horrible. But a lot more people have healthcare today than before the law passed, and most think the new law's preventing insurers from disallowing pre-existing conditions is vital. So how is it "horrible?"
This is important stuff. It affects us all. But is this web forum really the place for this? OK, there are health care stocks in Mutual Funds. I think it's a bit of stretch. Just my opinion. But please keep it civil. So far, so good.
To encourage her support for the pending bill, the GOP's Murkowski incentive (aka "bribe") was to allow Alaska to essentially stay on the current ACA program.
I really don't have a word to describe that.
Me neither. "Obamacare is a horrible thing, but if you help us repeal it, you can keep it for your people." HUH?????
Funny how the GOP isn't saying boo about this "bribe" to Alaska on the ACA repeal, but they were howling like crazy at the Dem's 'Cornhusker Kickback' that greased the skids for its passage. My, my me, what convenient memories we have in Washington.
I know people who have dabbled in politics at the lowest rungs (e.g. party central committee) and found what they needed to do even at that level so distasteful that they had to get out.
One would hope that at any level of service, people retain some shred of integrity, putting what is right above what is expedient. Even at the presidential level, e.g. LBJ's comment on the Civil Rights Act that "We have lost the South for a generation."
Apparently McCain wanted to show that some things do still matter. (Even if as he said, what matters is Senate procedure, not necessarily substance.) BTW, the mid-term election where he would be up for a vote is 2022. Unfortunately, I expect his health to preclude a campaign then.
Let's accept this joke for what it is. The republicans don't care if they have a better plan or any plan at all for that matter. All they truly care about is repealing the plan that is on the books so that they can tell their base that they got rid of Obamacare or anything remotely related by name or otherwise to a president they never accepted. Such a silly, useless waste of time and energy when they could be working productively on fixing or amending the parts of the current plan that are less than adequate. I know, it makes too much sense for government work.
Almost everyone in the GOP is gunning for a 'win' just so they can say they repealed O'care. The substance of their proposals, likely outcomes, and public polling numbers are irrelevant -- the ONLY thing that matters to these people is to say they "fulfilled a campaign promise" somehow, no matter what ultimately happens. It's all about the money and being re-elected in an oddly self-serving political system full of career politicians more in it for what they can get out of it.
I'm conflicted here a bit: yes, I want my fellow citizens to have affordable, preventive, and non-ideologically provided health care. But in terms of the repeal movement, the other (larger) part of me is feeling that if you'll be affected by these changes, and you voted for the politicians proposing or supporting 'repeal' in whatever form it might happen --- then congratulations, you can live with the consequences. You wanted it, you got it, so don't complain if, er, when, you have health insurance problems down the road.
The fact that people in this country have to lose their limbs or sight or lives because they cannot afford health care is criminal and inexcusable in this country. Oh sure, we have great health care . . . if you can afford it. Rubbish!
Canada and Great Britain now have a greater life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. Duh.
One of the best run gov't programs is Medicare with only a 3% overhead. This compares to the health insurance industry with 20% overhead. Duh.
It's time for a 'one payer' system. If you want to call it socialized medicine - fine.
The private industry overhead is less than 20%. That 20% is overhead plus profit. The medical loss ratio (that measures the amount that insurers actually pay for health care) has hovered around 83% for awhile.
The ACA requires large insurers to spend at least 85% on actual care (or internal quality improvements which apparently are not considered overhead but "care"). That still means that even large company plans have overhead many times that of Medicare.
In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Grassley expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy health care reform proposal currently before the Senate, arguing that the GOP has pledged to repeal the law known as Obamacare and must seize any opportunity to do so. “You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Grassley said. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
... The repeal bill’s capping of federal Medicaid funds and conversion of Medicaid and individual market subsidies to block grants “would constitute the largest intergovernmental transfer of financial risk from the federal government to the states in our country’s history.” Few states, if any, are prepared for the change. The healthcare consulting firm Avalere, in a new study, placed the loss in all Medicaid funding to states at $896 billion through 2026, and $3.6 trillion through 2036. Every state would lose money compared with current law, Avalere said, with states represented by some of the repeal bill’s sponsors among the worst hit.
The problem here, just like our Mutual funds, is alignment of interest. Law makers should have the same choices as everyone else. If Democrats, and some RINOs, believe it is the best choice, they should have it as well. The same is true for Social Security. If they were forced into the same boat, the ideas would get much better. Its easy to say what they should do, but what would you do for yourself?
davidrmoran, you walk into the ER with a broken arm. Senator xy or z walks in with a broken arm 5 or 10 minutes later. Do you or the senator get taken care of first? Derf
Comments
✔@jimmykimmel
Thank you @SenJohnMcCain for being a hero again and again and now AGAIN
Regards,
Ted
It's called 'hard corps'.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Here, here!
Him voting 'no' also gives Murkowski some helpful political cover to also say 'no' as well, I think.
I really don't have a word to describe that.
Was it all a show for the "base"??
Funny how the GOP isn't saying boo about this "bribe" to Alaska on the ACA repeal, but they were howling like crazy at the Dem's 'Cornhusker Kickback' that greased the skids for its passage. My, my me, what convenient memories we have in Washington.
I also don't think he ever appreciated that heroes "don't get captured" remark.
I know people who have dabbled in politics at the lowest rungs (e.g. party central committee) and found what they needed to do even at that level so distasteful that they had to get out.
One would hope that at any level of service, people retain some shred of integrity, putting what is right above what is expedient. Even at the presidential level, e.g. LBJ's comment on the Civil Rights Act that "We have lost the South for a generation."
Apparently McCain wanted to show that some things do still matter. (Even if as he said, what matters is Senate procedure, not necessarily substance.) BTW, the mid-term election where he would be up for a vote is 2022. Unfortunately, I expect his health to preclude a campaign then.
I'm conflicted here a bit: yes, I want my fellow citizens to have affordable, preventive, and non-ideologically provided health care. But in terms of the repeal movement, the other (larger) part of me is feeling that if you'll be affected by these changes, and you voted for the politicians proposing or supporting 'repeal' in whatever form it might happen --- then congratulations, you can live with the consequences. You wanted it, you got it, so don't complain if, er, when, you have health insurance problems down the road.
Sigh.....
Just a thought before heading to the garden.
The fact that people in this country have to lose their limbs or sight or lives because they cannot afford health care is criminal and inexcusable in this country. Oh sure, we have great health care . . . if you can afford it. Rubbish!
Canada and Great Britain now have a greater life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. Duh.
One of the best run gov't programs is Medicare with only a 3% overhead. This compares to the health insurance industry with 20% overhead. Duh.
It's time for a 'one payer' system. If you want to call it socialized medicine - fine.
enough is enough,
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
The ACA requires large insurers to spend at least 85% on actual care (or internal quality improvements which apparently are not considered overhead but "care"). That still means that even large company plans have overhead many times that of Medicare.
Even if not all of the 15%-20% or so is overhead.
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/307/images/JOH45_1_DayArticle(1).pdf
In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Grassley expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy health care reform proposal currently before the Senate, arguing that the GOP has pledged to repeal the law known as Obamacare and must seize any opportunity to do so. “You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Grassley said. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-repeal-why-20170922-story.html
... The repeal bill’s capping of federal Medicaid funds and conversion of Medicaid and individual market subsidies to block grants “would constitute the largest intergovernmental transfer of financial risk from the federal government to the states in our country’s history.” Few states, if any, are prepared for the change. The healthcare consulting firm Avalere, in a new study, placed the loss in all Medicaid funding to states at $896 billion through 2026, and $3.6 trillion through 2036. Every state would lose money compared with current law, Avalere said, with states represented by some of the repeal bill’s sponsors among the worst hit.
Derf
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7913836
Derf
how would that work?
And actually, at a lot of hospitals and with a lot of ER nurses I know, the triaging is blind to that sort of thing.
Whatever. I read you as making a different point, other than fame etc.