Post by jillboston on Sept 24, 2017 9:48:47 GMT -5
Watching Collins now on Face the Nation. "hard to envision me getting to yes on this". Says she wants a CBO score which isn't happening. Not sure why she is not just saying "nope". say she wants a series of bi-partisan bills that will fix the current law.
Watching Collins now on Face the Nation. "hard to envision me getting to yes on this". Says she wants a CBO score which isn't happening. Not sure why she is not just saying "nope". say she wants a series of bi-partisan bills that will fix the current law.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
Watching Collins now on Face the Nation. "hard to envision me getting to yes on this". Says she wants a CBO score which isn't happening. Not sure why she is not just saying "nope". say she wants a series of bi-partisan bills that will fix the current law.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
I'll make my calls to Warren and Markey thanking them again for their support of ACA - is it at all worthwhile to call Collins' office (and others) from out of state?
Watching Collins now on Face the Nation. "hard to envision me getting to yes on this". Says she wants a CBO score which isn't happening. Not sure why she is not just saying "nope". say she wants a series of bi-partisan bills that will fix the current law.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
Do blue state calls to blue state senators do anything? I'm not worried about Wyden and Merkley buckling, and I don't have any compelling personal anecdotes that they might want to share, so it feels a bit pointless.
Our Indivisible group has organized some red state phonebanking (calling red state Dems to encourage them to keep the pressure up), but they keep doing it on weekdays from 12-2, when I'm working.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
I'll make my calls to Warren and Markey thanking them again for their support of ACA - is it at all worthwhile to call Collins' office (and others) from out of state?
No. Never never never call out of state. There are thousands of people calling Collins from in-state and same with the other targets. Calls from out of state make them feel like the pressure they're getting from their actual constituents is fake, and not one of them cares at all about what other folks outside their state/district think. I promise they're being sufficiently hounded.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
Do blue state calls to blue state senators do anything? I'm not worried about Wyden and Merkley buckling, and I don't have any compelling personal anecdotes that they might want to share, so it feels a bit pointless.
Our Indivisible group has organized some red state phonebanking (calling red state Dems to encourage them to keep the pressure up), but they keep doing it on weekdays from 12-2, when I'm working.
They do because they still tally calls and discuss the numbers opposed with colleagues. The phone banking others from out of state to call THEIR Senators is also helpful.
Yeah this is insane and unexpected. Not sure what his end game is here, but worth noting he has also been cortical of past versions of the bill and then voted in favor. So we'll see.
Yeah this is insane and unexpected. Not sure what his end game is here, but worth noting he has also been cortical of past versions of the bill and then voted in favor. So we'll see.
Ok wait I'm actually reading the Cruz stuff and he is posturing big time. We've seen him (and Lee) do this multiple times and none of them ever actually vote no even when their demands aren't met. They're running up against a clock for this one so it's possible this stalls it somehow but he isn't a real no - he wants to amend it on the floor. I'm not sure I see that as possible practically speaking, but it puts us even further in the danger zone because the amendments they will propose will make the bill a lot worse. Also amendments don't need to have any scoring or anything so that adds another complicated layer.
It's not bad enough, he wants to amend it on the floor. We've seen this song and dance from him before. He's not really a no vote, he's just having a tantrum bc he can't stand that the party is courting the moderates.
Yeah this is insane and unexpected. Not sure what his end game is here, but worth noting he has also been cortical of past versions of the bill and then voted in favor. So we'll see.
I'll make my calls to Warren and Markey thanking them again for their support of ACA - is it at all worthwhile to call Collins' office (and others) from out of state?
No. Never never never call out of state. There are thousands of people calling Collins from in-state and same with the other targets. Calls from out of state make them feel like the pressure they're getting from their actual constituents is fake, and not one of them cares at all about what other folks outside their state/district think. I promise they're being sufficiently hounded.
ok - thanks. I will only call my Senators and thank them.
I'll make my calls to Warren and Markey thanking them again for their support of ACA - is it at all worthwhile to call Collins' office (and others) from out of state?
No. Never never never call out of state. There are thousands of people calling Collins from in-state and same with the other targets. Calls from out of state make them feel like the pressure they're getting from their actual constituents is fake, and not one of them cares at all about what other folks outside their state/district think. I promise they're being sufficiently hounded.
OMG just wait until I get Cory Fucking Gardner's office on the phone! The fucking nerve of this guy accusing his constituents of being out of state paid protestors and then threatening his caucus if they don't do what the big donors say!
No. Never never never call out of state. There are thousands of people calling Collins from in-state and same with the other targets. Calls from out of state make them feel like the pressure they're getting from their actual constituents is fake, and not one of them cares at all about what other folks outside their state/district think. I promise they're being sufficiently hounded.
OMG just wait until I get Cory Fucking Gardner's office on the phone! The fucking nerve of this guy accusing his constituents of being out of state paid protestors and then threatening his caucus if they don't do what the big donors say!
He is a grade A asshole. I will say I am 100% sure that calls from out of state feed this paid protester myth, which is why I'm so against it. That and it totally undermines everything we are trying to do. Some jerks (like Gardner) are never going to care either way, but Collins and Murkowski are actually susceptible to pressure from in-state folks and it won't work if they're getting bombarded from all directions by people who aren't their constituents.
Watching Collins now on Face the Nation. "hard to envision me getting to yes on this". Says she wants a CBO score which isn't happening. Not sure why she is not just saying "nope". say she wants a series of bi-partisan bills that will fix the current law.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
What is Collins's bipartisan bill? The only one I had heard of was Cassidy-Collins.
We think she is trying to keep this dialogue alive in hopes that someone picks up her bipartisan bill for next week. It's also why we wonder if she might end up voting yet on MTP and trying to add it during vote-a-rama.
The post above about this not being over yet is so true. They have all week to get it together. If the calls stop that's a very bad thing.
What is Collins's bipartisan bill? The only one I had heard of was Cassidy-Collins.
Uggh.
It's a reinsurance focused market stabilization bill along the vein of some elements that have been discussed as part of the HELP hearings. Joint with Nelson, who is a Dem. It's completely separate from the repeal effort but maintains some of the elements that she included in the old Cassidy-Collins plan, but a much less problematic proposal. It will go nowhere though and it really isn't comprehensive enough anyways but it's a starting point. The goal is to get something like this plus several other elements through with 60 votes at some point, but not sure whether leadership will allow it now that the bipartisan process has been officially abandoned.
Post by seeyalater52 on Sept 25, 2017 9:02:59 GMT -5
Yup. He can fiddle with the formula basically any way he wants in perpetuity. If I were the (red) states being promised a "good deal" under Graham-Cassidy I'd be very worried about the longevity of that promise.
New version of the bill is leaking out this morning, should have new text soon. Some concessions to the waiver criteria to appeal to Cruz and Lee (might not pass muster with Parliamentarian) and a more favorable block grant for some states (Alaska, Louisiana, and I think Arizona.)
Post by biscoffcookies on Sept 25, 2017 9:32:52 GMT -5
I stayed off Twitter this weekend for a variety of reasons and am just now seeing a bunch of Tweets that are putting a terrible feeling in my gut. First is the changes to GC (a/k/a Graham-Cassidy 2.0), which as seeyalater52 said has increases in funding for Arizona (McCain -- but changing his vote after his big statement Friday for a little extra federal funding would be the worst kind of cynical politics, so I'm hopeful he stays a no), Kentucky (Rand Paul), and Alaska (Murkowski), so that they all show that they "win" under the bill by getting more money vs. "lose" as they did under the previous version by losing money. And yes, Cassidy altered it so that his state of Louisiana gets more money because states that expanded Medicaid after December 2015 get extra money -- and Louisiana expanded January 2016. Other people are saying that they are seeing additional sweeteners for Alaska, but didn't go into enough plain-language explanation for me to understand it.
They've apparently made it easier to charge people with pre-existing conditions more because the bill no longer requires a single risk pool, in order to make Lee and Cruz happy, and states can waive the federal cap on out-of-pocket costs, which apparently they couldn't do before. According to Andy Slavitt, states no longer need to apply for waivers to do things like end pre-existing conditions, although he doesn't go into details. But basically, the first take is that GC 2.0 is much much worse both in effect and in incoherence.
Meanwhile, Rand Paul is now at the negotiating table telling people what he wants to see. One of them is less funding for the states in the block grants. The other is way less in terms of regulations -- and oh, look, according to this commentary on Twitter, GC 2.0 "simply gut" much of ACA's insurance regs in the first instance, and leaves it up to the states to decide to restore them for their states or not. So as opposed to leaving the regulations in place and requiring states to get a waiver, this seems to just take the regulations away and let the states decide what to do. That seems right up Rand's alley.
There also seems to be language that lets the Secretary of HHS basically adjust block grants with basically no constraints on his discretion. So, you know, for states that look like they might be going to single-payer, would they use that to threaten to eviscerate funding more if they try to continue? I bet yes.
And it is SO OUTRAGEOUS they are introducing basically a whole new bill with major substantive changes the morning of the "hearing," and within 5 days of the vote. And this whole thing has a surreal aspect to it, because everyone involved in the health care area -- including Medicaid directors and insurance commissioners and insurance companies - are basically begging the Senate not to pass this bill because it will be horrible. And yet they continue on, so focused on repealing Obamacare that they are content to light the health care system of this country on fire despite everyone begging them to put the match down.
Post by seeyalater52 on Sept 25, 2017 9:38:26 GMT -5
On the other hand, I am feeling better than I have in ages after seeing the changes. The worse bill means Collins is a definite no, and probably Murkowski, who remains unimpressed by Alaska specific sweeteners. I actually don't think McCain will walk back - his issue isn't with the content of the bill anyways and hey can't overcome the process stuff between now and Saturday.
And the committee hearing today is going to be great. Witness list is stacked in our favor and there are already hundreds of people waiting in the hallway.
The changes to the bill are also getting press this morning which is re-energizing people to take action and sidelining the narrative that the bill is dead. It's high stakes and not as optimistic sounding as it was when everyone was crowing that the bill was dead, but it was never dead anyways. I'm glad people are realizing that again and speaking out. Phones are apparently ringing off the hook.
On the other hand, I am feeling better than I have in ages after seeing the changes. The worse bill means Collins is a definite no, and probably Murkowski, who remains unimpressed by Alaska specific sweeteners. I actually don't think McCain will walk back - his issue isn't with the content of the bill anyways and hey can't overcome the process stuff between now and Saturday.
And the committee hearing today is going to be great. Witness list is stacked in our favor and there are already hundreds of people waiting in the hallway.
The changes to the bill are also getting press this morning which is re-energizing people to take action and sidelining the narrative that the bill is dead. It's high stakes and not as optimistic sounding as it was when everyone was crowing that the bill was dead, but it was never dead anyways. I'm glad people are realizing that again and speaking out. Phones are apparently ringing off the hook.
I am going to cling to what you say. Jake Tapper was saying that a "source close to Graham-Cassidy" said that they thought Murkowski and Rand could be yeses. And I believe it of Rand especially with the gutting of the insurance regulations and him being generally spineless, and so that makes me nervous about Murkowski.
I just am basically clinging to the hope that Murkowski will recognize that whatever her political preferences of small government, it makes ZERO SENSE to vote for a bill that anyone with any knowledge about health care is saying not only will harm tons of people but will basically through the country's entire health care system into chaos, and that she has exhibited independence from leadership before such that leadership pressure not overrule her commonsense opinion that this is a TERRIBLE idea. It is LITERALLY INSANE to pass a bill that will have as far-reaching effects as this bill when even the party admits that they don't know what it will do, and everyone who knows anything is TELLING them that it will DO VERY BAD THINGS and no one wants it. Not to mention the bill is only polling around 20%, and only at 46% among Republicans. BUT YET HERE WE ARE.
That being said: I also saw something from Cassidy and Ron Johnson saying that they are not voting for a budget resolution that doesn't allow them to continue health care in FY2018. That coupled with a story I saw about McCain talking about how his doctors gave him a really poor prognosis, and I'm already worrying about what happens next year if McCain has to step down for heath reasons, Ducey appoints a yes-person, and this bill is what they put up since it got them so close last time. I am trying to tell myself not to borrow trouble, but....
Post by seeyalater52 on Sept 25, 2017 9:49:57 GMT -5
I have never in my life hung something important on Rand Paul and I am not about to start now. No way. We aren't counting him.
I genuinely believe Murkowski will be in the right place. I hope I am not wrong.
2018 is going to be another big fight. I don't exactly see Johnson as a profile in courage, though, I think he will cave to leadership if they decide they want taxes instead of healthcare. The McCain thing is another big stumbling block. But until Saturday I'm not going to borrow trouble. One foot in front of the other.