@ judges
There was never anything to pass you ing nitwit. You have to at least attempt to pass legislation before ing about obstruction.Nevertrumper and RINO Paul Ryan was serious about passing Trump's healthcare? That's news to me.
John McCain?
Does anybody read anymore or do I have to do all the explaining?
What was Trump's healthcare plan?
unfair question, won't get a response, as always
An unsubtle Trump threatens veto of 'Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019'
Donald Trump doing things like saying he would veto a bill called "Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions."
legislation would protect Americans with pre-existing conditions from the Trump administration's healthcare sabotage by reiterating that insurance companies cannot discriminate against them.
This is in response to guidance from the
Trump administration that will allow states to let insurance companies sell non-compliant policies
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1856506
Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.
No states want to take Trump up on his offer of crappy health insurance
allowing states to have a waiver to make crappy, not-ACA-compliant insurance plans legal.
The problem for Trump: The states don't want to do it.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that it would process and accept these waivers last fall, back in October.
So far, not a single state has indicated that it wants to do that.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1856336
44 states act, Trash has done nothing in two on drug prices
Teva, other drug companies accused in sweeping U.S. price-fixing scheme
U.S. states filed a lawsuit accusing 20 drug companies including Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc of a sweeping scheme to inflate drug prices - sometimes by more than 1,000 percent - and stifle compe ion for generic drugs, state prosecutors said on Saturday.
The drug companies engaged in illegal conspiracies to
unreasonably restrain trade,
inflate and manipulate prices and reduce compe ion,
according to the complaint by 44 U.S. states
“Teva and its co-conspirators embarked on one of the most egregious and damaging price-fixing conspiracies in the history of the United States,”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-lawsuit/teva-other-drug-companies-accused-in-sweeping-u-s-price-fixing-scheme-lawsuit-idUSKCN1SH0DP?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm _source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe ed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reuters+Health+News% 29
There is no crime in simply raising prices to whatever the market will pay. That's the heart of "free market".
USA is the only industrial country that doesn't regulate drug prices since corrupt BigPharma owns corrupt Congress.
Any guess as to whether Trash/Barr will join the suit?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-11-2019 at 10:53 AM.
Getting to Medicare-for-All
I had the opportunity to testify last week before the House Rules committee on Medicare for All.
Incredibly, this was apparently the first time the topic had been explicitly addressed in a congressional hearing.
In my testimony, I argued that a
Medicare for All program would be affordable, but the key factor was reducing the cost of input prices, like prescription drugs, medical equipment, and doctors’ pay.
I also briefly laid out what I considered the key features of a transition from the current system. I want to go into this issue in a bit more detail here.
I listed four main steps as being key in the transition:+ Fix the current Medicare system;
+ Allow a Medicare buy-in;
+ Take measures to reduce input prices;
+ Lower age of Medicare eligibility to 64.
These four steps should allow for an orderly phase in of a universal Medicare system.
They also should quickly provide substantial benefits to most of the population in the form of better quality/lower cost health care.
Fixing Traditional Medicare
The first point largely involves reversing the effort over the last few decades by right wingers to sabotage traditional Medicare and drive people into private Medicare Advantage plans or to require them to buy private supplemental insurance if they remain in traditional Medicare.
The most obvious fix here is to impose a cap on out-of-pocket spending. This is actually required for Medicare Advantage plans, but for some reason, no cap was ever put in place for traditional Medicare. We can start with a cap of $6,000, which is roughly the cap for Medicare Advantage. As we move towards the more comprehensive system envisioned by proponents of Medicare for All, this cap can be lowered, but the first step is simply to have a cap in place comparable to the cap for Medicare Advantage plans.
The second important fix is to roll part D drug benefits into the traditional Medicare program. Requiring a separate insurance package for prescription drugs makes little sense except as a way to force beneficiaries to give money to the insurance industry. Stand-alone prescription drug insurance plans do not exist in the private sector; it is absurd that the Bush administration insisted on going this route in 2003 as a condition of providing a prescription drug benefit.
It would also be desirable to merge Medicare Part A and Part B as part of a single system, to reduce complexity.
This would require some fundamental revamping of the program (Part A is financed by the designated payroll tax, while Part B is paid partly by premiums and mostly out of general revenue), but this revamping will be necessary at some point in the movement towards Medicare for All in any case. Even if Part A and Part B are not immediately merged for current beneficiaries, they should certainly be merged for those opting to buy into the program.
The third part of a fix is to eliminate the effective subsidies that Medicare Advantage plans obtain from “upcoding” their enrollees.
Medicare reimburses Medicare Advantage plans based on the health of the people they have enrolled. Recent research indicates
Medicare Advantage plans systematically upcode their enrollees,
implying their health is worse than is actually the case, in a way that could increase payments by as much as 16 percent.
The program should move quickly to end these excess payments. One route would be to assume that the insurers lie about the health of their enrollees and adjust payments according. For example, if the average overpayment is found to be 10 percent, then the payment to Medicare Advantage plans can simply be reduced by 10 percent.[1]
Alternatively, improper coding of enrollees could be treated like the fraud which it is.
This would mean severe civil penalties for the companies that engage in the practice and possible criminal penalties for the corporate executives that design the policy. There are plenty of people in prison for stealing cars that might be worth just a few thousand dollars.
There is no reason that insurance executives, who might be stealing tens of millions from Medicare, should not face punishment that is at least as harsh.
Allowing a Medicare Buy-In
After putting in the fixes discussed above (which should be quickly doable),
people of all ages should be allowed to buy into the Medicare program, so that the system competes directly with private insurers.
This buy in would be either through the exchanges, with households being able to apply whatever subsidies for which they are eligible under the exchanges, or alternatively through employer-based coverage, with employers able to pay an age-adjusted rate for their workers, as is the case now for private insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
This buy-in would serve four purposes. First, it should give every person in the country access to a decent insurance plan. A reformed Medicare plan will provide access to a large number of providers and avoid the harassment that often proves so profitable for private insurers. It also is likely to provide an attractive option to employers who currently provide insurance for their workers. There is no reason not to allow employers to replace a current private plan with Medicare, and undoubtedly many would choose to do so.
The second benefit is that it would provide a serious compe or for private insurers. This is especially important in markets where consolidation of insurers has limited the availability of plans to just one or two insurers, but a reformed Medicare plan, if priced at cost, should be an attractive option everywhere.
The third benefit is that a reformed Medicare program, with a buy in option, should have enormous market power. The existing plan, with 40 million enrollees, already has substantial market power. But if we assume that half of those currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage switch to a reformed Medicare plan, along with 10 percent of the pre-Medicare age population, the reformed Medicare plan would have almost 80 million people enrolled, or just under a quarter of the population. Since this group includes most of the elderly and disabled, it would account for an even larger share of health care spending.
This would be such a large share of the market that it is likely that providers in many areas would opt only to deal with Medicare in order to avoid the administrative costs associated with dealing with a variety of smaller insurers. There would be even more market power with a merged Medicare-Medicaid program, which together with a modest degree of voluntary buy-ins, would account for well over half of the country’s health care spending, and far more than half in particular markets. Insofar as providers decided to rely on Medicare only, it would allow for the administrative efficiencies sought by proponents of Medicare for All.
The last advantage of a buy-in is that it would increase people’s familiarity and comfort with getting their insurance through Medicare. It would make the step to a universal Medicare program seem far less drastic.
Getting Health Care Input Prices in Line with the Rest of the World
The United States pays roughly twice as much for our health care inputs – drugs, medical equipment, doctors – as do people in other wealthy countries.
This both makes it much more difficult to pay for universal Medicare and also leads to poorer quality health care.
This is most clear in the case of prescription drugs and medical equipment. Because these items are expensive in the United States, doctors and patients often choose inferior courses of treatment. In the case of prescription drugs, they may take a less effective drug because it is cheaper. Alternatively, many people take half doses in order to economize on their drug spending. In the case of medical equipment, they may not take advantage of new technological developments because they are too expensive.
These health endangering efforts at saving money are especially painful because it is government policy that makes drugs and medical equipment expensive. Specifically, they are expensive because the government grants patent monopolies as the way it pays for the research and development costs for new drugs and medical equipment.
Without these government-granted monopolies, drugs and medical equipment would almost invariably be cheap.
In the case of prescription drugs, new breakthrough drugs would sell for the same price as generic drugs long on the market. There would be no issue of debating whether the government or private insurers should have to pay for a new drug that cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands a year, since new drugs would rarely cost more than a few hundred dollars a year.
The same applies to medical equipment. The most modern scans would not cost much more than a simple X-Ray. There would be no economic reason for doctors not to prescribe the best method for examining a patient.
If we did not rely on government-granted patent monopolies, the government would need another mechanism for financing research. The obvious alternative is direct government funding. This would likely be an enormous money saver.
We will spend more than $430 billion this year on prescription drugs that would likely cost less than $80 billion in a free market without patent or related protections.
[2] For this additional $350 billion in spending, we get roughly $70 billion in research from the pharmaceutical industry.
The government currently spends more than $40 billion a year through the National Ins utes of Health and other agencies.
If it were to double or triple this spending, it should be able to replace the research currently being supported through patent monopolies.
This publicly funded research would have two major advantages over the current system.
First, all the results would be fully public, this would be a condition of receiving the money.[3] This should allow research to advance more quickly, since researchers could quickly build on each other’s’ successes or failures.
The other great advantage is that it would eliminate the incentive to lie about the safety and effectiveness of drugs. This is a widely recognized problem with the current system where pharmaceutical companies often engage in questionable or even illegal practices to promote their drugs. In extreme cases, they push drugs in contexts where they can be harmful to patients, as is alleged to be the case with Perdue Pharma promoting OxyContin as not being addictive, even though it knew it was. No one would be lying to increase sales of OxyContin if it sold for the same price as generic aspirin.
We will not get a system of publicly funded research overnight, and even if we did, it would take many years before the research yielded fruit. However, we can ramp up funding, with the explicit intention of bringing new drugs onto the market at generic prices. In the meantime, we can use the same sort of price controls to bring prices in the U.S. in line with other wealthy countries.
A bill proposed by Senator Sanders and Representative Khanna provides a great example of how this can be done.
It would require companies to charge no more than the median price available in the next seven largest wealthy countries or lose their patent monopoly.
A separate bill introduced by Senator Warren and Representative Schakowsky would limit abuses of monopoly power in the generic market by creating a government manufacturing capability that would allow it to quickly enter markets where excessive concentration has allowed generic producers to jack up prices, as happened with Martin Shkreli and Daraprim, an important treatment for AIDS patients.
These are measures that could in the near term allow for hundreds of billions of dollars of savings annually on prescription drugs.
We can also enact comparable measures for medical equipment, getting our costs in line with other wealthy countries.
In the case of doctors and dentists, who earn on average twice of what their counterparts make in other wealthy countries, we can look to measures to increase the supply through rules that allow qualified foreign doctors to practice in the United States.
We can also change licensing rules to allow lesser paid medical professionals, such as nurse prac ioners and physicians’ assistants, to do tasks for which they are fully competent, like prescribing drugs, which are now typically performed by doctors. A reformed Medicare can also lower compensation rates.
If we look to get doctors’ pay in line with other wealthy countries we should also cover most of the cost of their education, as is the case in other wealthy countries.
In addition, we should look to loan forgiveness for those who acquired large debts from their education.
Even with paying more for medical education, there should still be large savings.
If we paid $100,000 a year towards the education of 60,000 medical and dental students, it would come to $6.0 billion a year, less than 2.0 percent of what we pay doctors and dentists each year.
Taking these and other steps to reduce the cost of health care inputs would both immediately lower the cost of health care to everyone and also make an eventual transition to a universal Medicare system far more affordable.
If the cost of health care inputs in the U.S. were in line with other wealthy countries, the government would already be paying almost enough to cover the cost of Medicare for All.
Lowering the Age of Medicare Eligibility to 64
The most obvious way to extend Medicare coverage is to expand the age group that is automatically eligible. There have been a variety of proposals to lower the age to 60, 55, or 50 as a major step towards including the whole population. While these age reductions are reasonable policies, they would undoubtedly be big steps.
Just lowering the age to 60 would add close to 20 million people to program.
By contrast, lowering the age of eligibility to 64 is not a big step. It is just one year, roughly doubling the number of new enrollees that Medicare would see in a normal year. Also, the cost would be limited since many of 64-year olds would already be getting Medicare through the Social Security disability program, or alternatively would be receiving Medicaid.
It is likely that at least 40 percent of this age group already is having their health care paid by the government, and this would include the highest cost patients, since these are often the people receiving disability. Given this skewing,
the additional cost of adding 64-year olds to Medicare would probably be in the neighborhood of $12 to $14 billion a year,
the sort of money Congress adds to the military budget without a second thought.
While this would be a small step, it would nonetheless be an important one.
First, it would directly extend Medicare coverage to millions of people, providing them with a much greater level of health care and financial security.
It would also move the year of eligibility one year closer for many people with health issues who are approaching 65.
This modest extension of coverage would also give insights into the problems that would be encountered in a larger expansion. There will inevitably be mistakes in any large scale expansion of the program, but
the experience of taking a smaller step, like lowering the age to 64 should, make the system better prepared to deal with a larger expansion.
This simple step will also make the idea of an expanded Medicare program very concrete. The system was set up to cover people over age 65, and the disabled more than fifty years ago, with no change in the age of eligibility.
(There have been some efforts to raise it.)
If we can successfully lower the age to 64, this will be a new fact on the ground.
Everyone will know that lowering the age of eligibility is possible and that we can move to universal Medicare system.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/13/getting-to-medicare-for-all/
Politifact: ‘False’ Rating For Trump On Pre-Existing Conditions Claim
Politifactgave Trump a “False” rating for this
claim from early May: “We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions, very importantly.”
The analysis relied on interviews with four experts who cited Trump’s desire to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as contradicting the his claim.
Trump’s Justice Department asked federal courts to completely eliminate the ACA, part of which protects people with pre-existing conditions from paying higher health care costs or being denied health insurance all-together.
The administration reiterated their goal in May, writing that the entire ACA “must be struck down.”
the Trump administration is allowing states to sell junk health insurance plans that are not required to protect people with pre-existing conditions
the “White House’s policy trajectory does exactly the opposite” of protecting people with pre-existing conditions, concludes Politifact.
The analysis goes on to say that Trump’s team has “taken further steps that could make it harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get affordable coverage.”
Rather than being honest about what he is fighting for,
Trump’s statement “is not accurate and makes a claim in direct opposition of what’s actually happening.”
https://www.nationalmemo.com/politifact-false-rating-for-trump-on-pre-existing-conditions-claim/
From Repug hole Texas
Big Pharma-loving lawmaker whines about Americans criticizing corporate profits: ‘I mean. it’s just offensive’
Trump-Supporting GOP Congressman Says He Hopes US Companies Continue to Make a ‘Crap-Ton’ of Money
U.S. Rep.
Chip Roy (R-TX) broke down, appeared to cry, and yelled
during a House hearing Thursday afternoon on the exorbitant and growing prices pharmaceutical companies are charging Americans.
Congressman Roy called it “offensive” ...
over Americans criticizing the drug manufacturers for making out-of-control profits
while people are literally dying because they can’t afford the high cost of their prescriptions.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/big-pharma-loving-lawmaker-whines-about-americans-criticizing-corporate-profits-i-mean-its-just-offensive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
‘Medicare for All’ Could Kill Two Million Jobs, and That’s O.K.
Reform has a cost. But the point of a health care system is to treat patients, not to buttress the economy.
Any significant reform would require major realignment ofthe health care sector,
which is now the biggest employer in at least a dozen states.
Most hospitals and specialists would probably lose money.
Some, like the middlemen who negotiate drug prices, could be eliminated.
That would mean job losses in the millions.
the point is to streamline for patients a Kafka-esque health care system that makes money for industry through irrational practices.
the Harvard economists Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra warned against “treating the health care system like a (wildly inefficient) jobs program.”
The first casualties of a Medicare for all plan, said Kevin Schulman, a physician-economist at Stanford, would be the “intermediaries that add to cost, not quality.”
For example, the armies of administrators, coders, billers and claims negotiators who make good middle-class salaries and have often spent years in school learning these skills.
the answer is not to freeze the sectors where we are for all time.
When agriculture improved and became more productive, no one said everyone had to stay farmers.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/o...er=rss&emc=rss
Alabama congressman: "People who lead good lives" don't have preexisting conditions
Mo Brooks ... claimed that
"people who lead good lives" don't have to worry about dealing with pre-existing conditions —
like a stroke, or heart problems or birth defects."
"My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require
people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool.
That helps offset all these costs, thereby
reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy.
And right now, those are the people — who've done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing."
https://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/alabama-congressman-people-who-lead-good-lives-dont-have-preexisting-conditions/
Some if you have medical condition, or are poor, it's your own fault, and God doesn't love you because you are a bad person
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-19-2019 at 11:52 AM.
Promises made
Promises kept
Now let’s get back to Hillary.
Trump says he’ll give Americans the ‘best healthcare ever’ — but only if Republicans win in 2020
Trump said he’s developing a plan
that will be far better than the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).
But that bill will never become law in the next two years because he wants Republicans to be elected first.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/trump-says- -give-americans-the-best-healthcare-ever-but-only-if-republicans-win-in-2020/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Will this be Trumpcare 2.0? 3.0?
Trump thinks he can create his own healthcare law that will take the issue off the table for Democrats
one thing he is talking about is a better healthcare law than the Democratic one.
Trump is “vowing to issue the plan within a month or two, reviving a campaign promise with broad consequences for next year’s contest.”
He thinks he can take the issue off the table by providing the GOP’s plan.what plan?
“But nervous Republicans worry that putting out a concrete plan with no chance of passage would only give the Democrats a target to pick apart over the next year,”
“The hard economic reality of fashioning a plan that lives up to the promises Mr. Trump has made would invariably involve trade-offs unpopular with many voters.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/tru...e+Raw+Story%29
Here's a promise that Trash didn't keep, and doesn't even talk about it anymore
As price of insulin soars, Americans caravan to Canada for lifesaving medicine
Her daughter, who is 13, has Type 1 diabetes and needs insulin. In the United States, it can cost hundreds of dollars per vial. In Canada, you can buy it without a prescription for a tenth of that price.
So, Greenseid led a small caravan last month to the town of Fort Frances, Ontario, where she and five other Americans
paid about $1,200 for drugs that would have cost them $12,000 in the United States
Like millions of Americans, Greenseid and Nystrom are stressed and outraged by the rising costs of prescription drugs in the United States — a problem Republicans and Democrats alike have promised to fix.
Insulin is a big part of the challenge. More than 30 million Americans have diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. About 7.5 million, including
1.5 million with Type 1 diabetes, rely on insulin.
Between 2012 and 2016, the cost of insulin for treating Type 1 diabetes nearly doubled,
Large numbers resort to rationing — a dangerous and sometimes deadly practice.
None of this is recommended by U.S. officials, and some of it
might be illegal under Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
“When you have a bad health-care system, it makes good people feel like outlaws,” Greenseid said.
“It’s demeaning. It’s demoralizing. It’s unjust.”
Those ideas aren’t necessarily popular in Ottawa, where many worry that bulk buys from the United States could cause shortages or higher prices.
He said insulin prices in Canada are controlled through policy, including price caps and negotiations with manufacturers.
When Nystrom was diagnosed with diabetes as a child
in the late 1990s, she said, her family paid about $15 to $20 a vial. Now, at 33, she sometimes pays more than $300 for the same amount.
her son spent about $1,000 per month on the drug.
Alec Raeshawn Smith, an uninsured Type 1 diabetic, rationed his insulin supply due to cost, his mother said. He died in 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/as-price-of-insulin-soars-americans-caravan-to-canada-for-lifesaving-medicine/2019/06/14/0a272fb6-8217-11e9-9a67-a687ca99fb3d_story.html?utm_term=.e89473fd5cfa
Predatory, avaricious, sadistic Capitalism.
I buy my Novolin 70/30 at Walmart. $24.88/vial. They don't carry the short acting variant.....yet.
then why are others spending $1000s / month? why wouldn't "social networking" or just internet search show the Walmart product?
I actually found out on Facebook. I dismissed it immediately. Then, out of curiosity, I asked a Walmart pharmacist about the program. She simply asked "How much do you want?"
So yeah, it's the real deal. Its the older, human sourced variant.
The new synthetic analogs are more expensive and need different dosing structures.
Google Walmart insulin.
Red States that refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA are seeing their rural hospitals close down
ABC’s ‘This Week’ about rural hospitals shutting down in states that have refused to expand Medicaid.
Only the most backward red states have refused to implement expanded Medicaid.
Those states are now seeing a lot of their rural hospitals closing down, with many more rural hospitals in deep financial trouble.
Rural hospital closures leave residents with few options: 'It's a fight every day'
Across Tennessee alone, a dozen rural hospitals have closed since 2010,
and, according to an analysis by The Tennessean newspaper,
more than a dozen others are at serious risk of going under.
But it's not just a problem for Tennessee.
In the last decade, more than 100 rural hospitals have closed across the country, according to the University of North Carolina's
Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research. And an analysis by the management consultancy firm Navigant found that
21% of rural hospital in the United States are in danger of closing, too, if their finances don't improve.
Rural hospitals face a variety of challenges.
They tend to serve aging communities that suffer from poor health and require expensive treatments.
There are often severe doctor shortages in rural areas, and
gaps in insurance coverage if patients have insurance at all.
And, several studies show that
rural hospitals are closing at a faster rate in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage to poor residents under Obamacare.
The 12 ( HOLE) states besides Tennessee that have refused to expand Medicaid are:
Alabama
Florida:
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas ( bage are Bigger in TX!)
Wisconsin
Wyoming
(Georgia is in the process of changing it’s law. )
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
Obamacare's immediate fate lies in the hands of a nightmare couple of Republican judges
Last week, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
that will hear arguments on the Affordable Care Act issued a disquieting order questioning the right of Democratic states and the U.S. House of Representatives to appeal a lower-court decision that threw out the law.
The judges are
Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee who will preside;
Jimmy Carter appointee Carolyn Dineen King;
and Kurt D. Engelhardt, a Trump appointee.
Elrod is indeed a nightmare judge, having distinguished herself in anti-abortion and anti-immigration cases.
Englehardt has a "history of disturbing rulings on cases involving racial violence and injustice, as well as cases involving sexual harassment and workplace discrimination against women."
This isn't going to be a forward-thinking majority,
nor one that gives a damn about the ACA and the millions and millions of people receiving health coverage and care through it.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/2/1868784/-Obamacare-s-immediate-fate-lies-in-the-hands-of-a-nightmare-couple-of-Republican-judges
Republicans are screwed on healthcare — regardless of what the courts decide this week
Trump and the GOP are counting on the fact that Americans will forget Republicans just spent the last ten years trying to attack Democrats for Obamacare and working to repeal it over 80 times.
Trump wants to fight Democrats on healthcare, claiming that the Republican Party has the best plan and they can solve everything. The problem is that the chickens come home to roost on Tuesday at the 5th Circuit.
The ACA has gone to court several times and survived most attempts to bring it down.
But Tuesday there is no win for Republicans.
If the 5th Circuit strikes down the law, they have two problems:
First,
they will be outed for trying to kill healthcare for millions and pre-existing coverage for the country.
Second,
the GOP will be forced to find the replacement they campaigned on but never ... developed.
If they lose on Tuesday,
they choose whether to continue fighting the law in what will become a very public Supreme Court battle,
or admit defeat.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/republicans-are-screwed-on-healthcare-regardless-of-what-the-courts-decide-this-week/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-08-2019 at 09:36 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
