Top leadership sources on Capitol Hill warn that it's premature to call this a \"breakthrough\" because (a) the rumoredcompromise hasn't been agreed upon by the relevant parties, (b) there is no legislative language to reflect its potential content at this point, and (c) the full GOP conference has yet to discuss it -- though it will likely come up at length during an already-planned conference call this weekend. The overall message seems to be, \"there has been significant progress, but everyone hold your horses for now.\" It's almost as if senior Republicans aren't eager to raise expectations or erect any empty deadlinesfor some reason. The Trump White House is reportedly urging the House to hold a vote on whatever plan emerges next week, but based on conversations I've had this afternoon, this feelsroughly accurate: <\/p>\n
Setting aside questions of timing and logistical X's and O's, thepolicy rumblings indicate that a new bill wouldbe a modifiedvariation of the original American Health Care Act (AHCA), with most of its core provisions intact. It's unclear how many of theeleventh-hour additions that discussed astacked-ons to the legislation during the last, failed legislative push will carry over to the new bill. Here is the core ofthe would-be bargain, which centers around the option for states to seek waivers to some of Obamacare's mandates and regulations: <\/p>\n
So states would be able to ask the federal government for exemptions to current top-down federalrequirements on \"essential health benefits\" and the so-called \"community rating\" mandate under which insurers are barred from charging patients with pre-existing conditions higher rates than healthier consumers. In order to be granted waivers, states would be required to demonstrate that they are pursing themin the interest of lowering costs or increasing coverage. They would also be required to help protect sicker citizens with pre-existing conditions who may find themselves priced out of the general market either by setting up and subsidizing a state-level \"high risk pool,\" or participating in a federal one. Theoriginal AHCA allocated about $100 billion for this purpose, and an additional $15 billion stabilization fund has been floated to help provide more immediate relief. <\/p>\n
Supporters of these waivers would argue that each state would have the flexibility to pursue the best option for their residents, and that burdening insurers with fewer costly mandates will guarantee lower premiums and an increased array of choices for many. Two of Obamacare'sfundamental flaws are relentlessly rising rates and severely contracting coverage options, which go hand in hand, and aregetting worse. Critics of the idea object that scaling back EHBs would result in less comprehensive plans for too many people, and that while people with pre-existing conditions would technically be protected, the potential scrubbing of \"community rating\" regulations in some states could make coverage totally unaffordable for that population. That's why high risk pools are such a critical component of the GOP idea. <\/p>\n
Politically, Democrats will argue that the new bill is worse than the original TrumpCare because of \"reduced protections\" that may hang patients with pre-existing conditions out to dry. Republicans would need to credibly counter that the high risk pools are adequate mechanisms to solve that market failure while arguing that flexibility on the comprehensiveness of plans will provide younger and healthier Americans will have more and cheaper options than exist under the sputtering status quo. Will the GOP manage to unify behind this compromise, if it's finally reached? Keep a close eye on the moderates especially.If the infighting subsides, will they be able to sell the bill to a skeptical public? And when could they realistically pull this together for a floor vote? I'll leave you withPaul Ryan's framing of the current process: <\/p>\n
AbortionistClaims Pro-Lifers Are Trying to Prevent Abortion of Black Babies Because They Want More White Babies? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the rest here: <\/p>\n
Hmm: House Freedom Caucus, Moderates Closing in on Healthcare Compromise? - Townhall<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Top leadership sources on Capitol Hill warn that it's premature to call this a \"breakthrough\" because (a) the rumoredcompromise hasn't been agreed upon by the relevant parties, (b) there is no legislative language to reflect its potential content at this point, and (c) the full GOP conference has yet to discuss it -- though it will likely come up at length during an already-planned conference call this weekend. The overall message seems to be, \"there has been significant progress, but everyone hold your horses for now.\" It's almost as if senior Republicans aren't eager to raise expectations or erect any empty deadlinesfor some reason Continue reading