GOP leadership never wanted to end Obamacare. It's a proven fundraiser. End it and you lose an issue. Ditto Planned parenthood.

The Republican bills (outside Rand Paul's four page simple repeal) were never about repeal- they were instead attempts to fix the unfixable and would've just ended with Republicans owning the problem.

I can't say there is much new in this article, but it sure reflects how I feel

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...e-premiums-spike-15/

In early 2010, after a bunch of procedural gimmicks, a rigged Congressional Budget Office report, and Barry’s Lie of the Year allowed Obamacare to become law, the Republican Party went on a righteous repeal crusade.
“Just give use the House of Representatives, and we will kill Obamacare,” they told us.

So, in 2010, after a record-setting midterm election, voters gave Republicans total control of the House.

And they accomplished exactly nothing.

“This is not our fault,” they whined. “We need to control the Senate to stop Obamacare.”

So, in 2014, after a second record-setting midterm election, voters gave Republicans total control of both the House and the Senate.

And they accomplished exactly nothing.

“Come on, guys; it is not our fault,” they mewled. “We need the Senate, the House, and the presidency to kill Obamacare.”

So, in 2016, after years of repeal promises, years of astounding electoral victories, years of raising gajillions of dollars off of this very issue, years of defining themselves by the promise to repeal Obamacare, the American voters took them at their word and handed the GOP total control of the federal government; House, Senate, and presidency.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were now not only in a position to finally rid our country of the hideous failure that is Obamacare, there was no promise the GOP could not keep, no wish they could not scratch off their list. With total control of the government, Republicans could pretty much do as they damn well pleased.

And what did the GOP do with this once-in-a-generation opportunity?

Launched endless investigations against their own president, pushed for amnesty for millions of illegal Democrats — oh, and of course, Obamacare remains the law of the land because it was always a lie. And isn’t John McCain a handy fall guy?

Yes, in the United States of America, even with Republicans in control of the government, freeborn men and women are still required by a fascist government to purchase an over-priced, completely unnecessary product (Cadillac health insurance) from a large corporation.

Meanwhile, out here in the Real World, the objective failure that is Obamacare is set to spike 15 percent next year. Look at these numbers: “average premiums will total $3,400 for a 21-year-old, $4,800 for a 45-year-old.”

How in the world is a 21 year-old supposed to get anywhere when the government mandates he pay an outrageous $300 a month for health insurance? How is a 45 year-old supposed to pay off her mortgage in time for retirement while paying $400 a month for health insurance?

Keep in mind that these numbers represent individual coverage.

Family coverage averages more than $1000 a month.

But that is only the beginning of Obamacare’s cost.

With individual deductibles averaging $4300 and family deductibles averaging $8400, unless something catastrophic happens, everyone is paying for their own health care on top of the premium cost.

In other words, unless something terrible happens to your health, Obamacare is useless. You never meet the deductible, so it never picks up your medical costs. This means that most people pay for insurance and for their own care.

Obamacare is like paying for a luxury car the government won’t let you drive.

And this is all due to the fact that Republicans will not allow freeborn Americans to sit down with a private business and work out a health coverage arrangement that benefits both. Without this freedom, millions of Americans are wasting thousands of dollars a year on a product they do not use or need.

Wait. It gets worse.

While backstabbing Republicans focus all their energy on helping millions of illegal aliens, according to our own government, by the end of 2018, 63 counties will not have a single Obamacare provider.

That leaves over 70,000 Americans without access to insurance through the individual market — 70,000 who cannot buy insurance in that market, even if they wanted to — and all because for seven years, the Republican Party lied to us.

Voters kept their end of the deal. But in the end, it was all a GOP con, a hustle, a lie, a fiction, a cheat, a fraud, a mockery…

Oh, Lucy is again holding the football. I have read all about it. But it is just more lies. Blah, blah, blah…

Now I would just like to know who the fools are still sending these GOP grifters money. How can such a useless and corrupt political party be raising record amounts of cash? What kind of lunatic funds a gang of serial liars who only want to investigate Trump and see to it that your vote is canceled out by an illegal alien?

You get what you pay for. And what we have paid for is to become second-class citizens in our own country.

quote:

Now I would just like to know who the fools are still sending these GOP grifters money. How can such a useless and corrupt political party be raising record amounts of cash? What kind of lunatic funds a gang of serial liars who only want to investigate Trump and see to it that your vote is canceled out by an illegal alien?

You get what you pay for. And what we have paid for is to become second-class citizens in our own country.

You and I and millions like us stopped giving them money after 2012 when we knew we were being lied to. We then gave our support to Trump because he wasn't part of the uniparty, he didn't reside in the swamp of Wash. D.C.

But the problem is: they don't care. They need our votes, but they don't need our money. You and I don't really give that much compared to the big donors. They continue to lie to us because they know what we want and they need our votes.... but they are all doing the bidding of the lobbyists for wall street, the big insurance companies and the chamber of commerce. That's where the big money is. They want open borders and they want the limited competition and subsidies found in Obamacare. They don't really care about free markets because competition is difficult. It's easier to be an insider, sheltered from too much competition.

4 Republican senators holding up the latest repeal attempt

Rand Paul
has been tweeting his opposition to the bill, saying it keeps too much of ObamaCare

never good enough for Rand Paul

John McCain

“The governor of Arizona is favorably inclined, but I am going to have to have a lot more information,” McCain said.

He reiterated his call for committee hearings and amendments, known as “regular order.”

“We should be going through regular order,” he said. “I’ve said that about 12 times.”

McCain just wetting his pants to roll over for the DEMs

Susan Collins
voted against previous repeal efforts, has also said she has concerns and is expected to be a no vote.

Lisa Murkowski

"I need to figure out how all the numbers work with regards to Alaska," she said, noting she wanted to make sure there is enough money in the block grants for her state.

She also indicated she would prefer a separate, bipartisan approach that is currently being discussed in the Senate health committee, aimed at stabilizing ObamaCare.

“I always think that when you can get support for whatever the initiative from across the spectrum, it’s just better legislation,” she said.

oh yes, because DEMs were so "across the spectrum" when they jammed obamacare down our throats

http://thehill.com/policy/heal...-bill-gains-momentum

quote:

And what did the GOP do with this once-in-a-generation opportunity?

Launched endless investigations against their own president, pushed for amnesty for millions of illegal Democrats — oh, and of course, Obamacare remains the law of the land because it was always a lie. And isn’t John McCain a handy fall guy?

Well.... yes.

September 18, 2017
Thanks to McCain, Obamacare premiums to rise 15%, 63 counties to lose coverage in 2018
By Monica Showalter

Obamacare, which could have been killed off last summer, were it not for the saving vote of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, is continuing its living-death death spiral and taking its unwilling consumers down for the ride.

Insurance premiums under Obama's Affordable Care Act are set to jump 15% in 2018 according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

The budget office projects that average premiums will total $3,400 for a 21 year old, $4,800 for a 45 year old, and $9,800 for a 64 year old this year.

Market uncertainty is rampant among insurers, fearful that $705 billion in subsidies for buyers may not be replenished by Congress and that either Obamacare's buyers or else they themselves will have to eat that cost.

Meanwhile, the CBO projects that two million consumers will be knocked out of the market by the 15% higher cost, leaving the remaining consumers to pick up the tab – meaning that another price hike should be well in the works.

At the same time as this spiraling cost nightmare is going on, the Free Beacon reports that 63 counties next year are projected to have no Obamacare provider – all of the insurers have "gone Galt" and pulled out due to skyrocketing costs and the inability to cover them. Another 1,472 counties are projected to have just one provider, so take it or leave it. Those recipients, incredibly, must still pay the fine even if there is no coverage to buy, despite talk in Congress of exempting them from that.

Can a system this bad be stopped? Sure, the way a car crash is stopped, through momentum. Eventually, it will just stop. Price hikes and uncovered counties can go on only so long until the whole system fails. Such a path takes a lot of people down with it before the wheels finally stop spinning.

The other option was in front of us last summer – when the Senate voted to get rid of Obamacare and allow the free markets some sort of room to breathe. That was stopped, by a handful of GOP senators, the final deciding vote being cast by McCain, who, despite campaigning to get rid of the nightmare, would do anything to prevent President Trump from achieving any of his agenda.

Now the consequences of that are here in the rising costs and uncovered counties. McCain can stand up and take a bow, because he owns it.

http://www.americanthinker.com...overage_in_2018.html

I can't imagine that anyone with a sick child (or any condition, for that matter, would support this new bill), once they thought about its effects. It literally provides an avenue for insurers to make insurance completely unaffordable for many of us here on Sigforum for example.

This is not about people who are getting insurance through the ACA. It affects most of the people on this board, I would imagine (if you are on a private health insurance plan).

Have we not read the topics here about those of seeking prayers and guidance for sick children, or for themselves? Those people are the literally the targets of this bill.

Those children of Sigforum member, or adult Sigforum members, and their now pre-existing conditions, would likely be required to pay many times their current insurance rates. THis bill gives the insurers and the states the ammunition to do so.

Got a kid with asthma? Allergies? Are you overweight? High cholesterol? High blood pressure? Smoker? Former smoker? Well, you could very well pay much much more, if you are encouraging your representatives to vote for the tools in this bill.

Yes, it is a tax, and yes, it sounds good in theory to get rid of a tax, but when you think of it in terms of how it will impact you, your friends, your family, it seems really cold-hearted to vote in favor of allowing insurance companies to bankrupt them.

Are you really in favor of wanting Sigforum members with sick children, your family members, and yourself to pay multiple times their current, outrageous rates for insurance?

Sorry, but that is my opinion (and it is worth absolutely nothing). I imagine I am alone in this view, and will catch all kinds of flak for such an opinion, but if we look at just the members of this board, the results could be devastating. Maybe I am getting soft in my old age, but I like this forum and the people in it. I could not in good conscience give insurers the ability to raise, by several multiples, the premiums we all pay. It is hard enough as it is with high medical bills.

It's hard to know what you are referring to unless you cite a particular provision that concerns you.

obamacare is failing across the country.

Costs skyrocketing.

W large deductibles, many people don't get much benefit.

taxpayers are taking the heaviest brunt of the costs

Why shouldn't a product cost more for those who will use the services more ? obamacare shifted a lot of cost from the old to the young with the limit on cost diff wrt age

doctors are burdened w the reporting reqs

even w increasing insurance costs, some insurers are dropping out of the exchanges. Many states have just 1 or 2 to pick from on the exchange

obamacare is gold plated. that is one reason it is so expensive

The new bill lets each state set up a custom approach

sorry, but I do not understand "It literally provides an avenue for insurers to make insurance completely unaffordable for many of us here on Sigforum for example."

obamacare is not affordable. (unless you get subsidized so heavily that the tax payer covers your cost)

it is estimated that w/o the requirement to have health insurance, 16 million will drop their insurance. That is an individual choice.

The above isn't flak, I just disagree.

Republicans Push New Obamacare 'Repeal.'
Here Are 4 Things You Need To Know.
By Ben Shapiro

It’s now clear that the latest Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is gaining significant steam in the Senate. It’s doing so because Senate Republicans are tired to hearing that they aren’t doing anything to push the ball forward, and also because the latest deadline on September 30 means that Republicans must either pass a new budget or lose their opportunity for reconciliation under the Senate rules.

So, what’s in the new bill, sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA)?

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Medicaid Gets Slashed. Technically, Medicaid growth gets slashed. Instead of the federal government sending money to states on a need basis, states are given block grants — and more importantly, all the money is pooled and redistributed, rather than granted to states that expanded their Obamacare-subsidized Medicaid rolls. The goal would be to cut expected Medicaid funding on the federal level by one-third by 2026, and eliminate it entirely by 2027. But that’s ten years down the road, and unlikely to ever occur.

2. Medicaid Gets Redistributed. The states hardest hit are those that have already expanded their Medicaid rolls, attempting to take advantage of President Obama’s subsidies. The new rules would benefit states like Wisconsin, Alabama, and Mississippi at the expense of states like New York and California.

3. No More Individual Mandate. This was always the least popular part of Obamacare, and it would disappear. This means many people would voluntarily drop out of the health care market. It also means that insurance companies would likely raise their rates to compensate.

4. States Get The Ability To Waive Essential Benefits. Under this new plan, states could waive certain “essential health benefits,” opening up the market some more. Pre-existing conditions regulations would remain on the basis of sex, for example, but states could waive regulations forcing insurance companies to cover certain “essential health benefits.” The bill still requires states to show “how the state intends to maintain adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”

This is a better bill than the one the Republicans rejected a few months back. It still won’t do enough to open up competition — until all pre-existing conditions regulations are removed, competition won’t be free and open. It also doesn’t get rid of all of Obamacare’s taxes. It’s going to be difficult for Republicans to pick up Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) vote, and Republicans may have to ignore Planned Parenthood funding in order to grab the votes of Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). In any case, this won’t be an Obamacare repeal. It will be a continuation of Obamacare, with significant cuts to Medicaid. Until key Obamacare regulations and taxes are fully removed, watch for premiums to increase as the individual mandate is repealed.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...re-are-4-ben-shapiro

Pre-existing conditions, or at least some of them, are something I can live with if there's no other way. That was always the ingrown hair that fed pus to the boil of "national health" programs, and it may take a long, long time to get those off of the taxpayers' collective back.

At this point I'd just be happy to get rid of cosmetic stuff like sex-change operations.

I'm done donating money to these guys.

All they can do now is make it worse than they already have. A halfassed fix won't work and only continue to make things worse.

All it will accomplish is allowing Democrats to call it our bill/problem. Touching it without fixing fixing it makes a Republican catastrophe instead of a Democrat catastrophe...brilliant move you dopes.

quote:

Are you really in favor of wanting Sigforum members with sick children, your family members, and yourself to pay multiple times their current, outrageous rates for insurance?

As for preexisting conditions. When I became an adult, my parents had me get my own insurance before theirs didn't cover me.

I distinctly remember the fear of preexisting illnesses. Basically, you got insurance and always made sure you had it without interruption to avoid the preexisting condition problem.

What's so wrong with that? Health coverage should be one of the primary things families pay for. Removing that fear removes the incentive to pay into the system.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Pre-existing conditions, or at least some of them, are something I can live with if there's no other way. .............

At this point I'd just be happy to get rid of cosmetic stuff like sex-change operations.

I'd be OK with it if it was a treated condition(actual heart attack) vs a pre________ tendency or family history. Also, if someone has maintained continuous coverage, they should not be cut off or have their premiums skyrocket.

I'm with you on pulling anything cosmetic out. No more Viagra either. Buy your own boner. (Not you IC)

Trump Slams Rand Paul As "Negative Force" On Fixing Healthcare; Paul Immediately Responds

Sep 20, 2017

Now that hopes for a bipartisan deal to fix Obamacare are dead and the Republicans are pushing on with a last-minute scramble to repeal Obamacare ahead of a Sept. 30 legislative deadline in hopes third time will be the charm, on Wednesday morning just after 8am, President Trump slammed Sen. Rand Paul for being a "negative force" on health care.

"Rand Paul is a friend of mine but he is such a negative force when it comes to fixing healthcare. Graham-Cassidy Bill is GREAT! Ends Ocare!" Trump tweeted adding "I hope Republican Senators will vote for Graham-Cassidy and fulfill their promise to Repeal & Replace ObamaCare. Money direct to States!"

Previously Paul had called the bill from Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy "ObamaCare lite" and said he wouldn't support it. The Graham-Cassidy bill seeks to give more power to states by converting money currently spent on ObamaCare’s subsidies and Medicaid expansion into a block grant to states.

Paul wasted no time in responding to Trump's accusation, and just moments later responded that "#GrahamCassidy is amnesty for Obamacare. It keeps it, it does not repeal it. I will keep working with the President for real repeal."

According to the Hill, earlier this week, Paul expressed concern that the Republicans' latest attempt to repeal ObamaCare might pass.

Even the best investors can benefit from financial advice. Get matched with the right advisor for you in under 5 minutes, and run your strategy by someone you can trust.

“There's a big groundswell of people pushing for this,” Paul told Reporters on Monday. “Two weeks ago, I’d have said zero [chance it’ll pass], but now I’m worried.”

He said the bill "does not look, smell or even sound like repeal" and “I’m kind of surprised this has been resurrected because I don’t think it has been fully thought through." He also said the bill exists "mostly to take money from four Democratic states and redistribute it to Republican states."

However, just like during the last two failed attempts to repeal Obamacare, it will not be up to Paul but senators John McCain and Lisa Murkowski who will decide the fate of the Republicans latest ObamaCare repeal effort. The two were among the three Republicans, along with Sen. Susan Collins who sunk the last GOP effort to repeal ObamaCare.

With Paul saying he is voting no and Collins thought to be a likely opponent, the bill would need both McCain and Murkowski to vote yes to pass.

* * *

As a reminder, efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare sprung back with considerable momentum on Monday (after two failed attempts) as several lawmakers expressed support for a new repeal and replace bill, spearheaded by Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bill Cassidy, R-La. Introduced last week, Graham described the bill as Republicans’ last hope for rolling back President Barack Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act.

“If you believe repealing and replacing Obamacare is a good idea, this is your best and only chance to make it happen,” said Graham last week at a press conference. The bill is also sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

With 52 Republican Senators in Congress, the Graham-Cassidy bill can only afford to lose two Republican votes.

* * *

Here, courtesy of ABC, is what to know about the proposal:

The Graham-Cassidy plan

The Graham-Cassidy plan proposes distributing some federal funding currently available under the Affordable Care Act directly to states in the form of block grants. From 2020 to 2026, states would receive a set amount of federal funding to be used at their discretion for health care coverage, but cost-sharing subsidies the federal government pays to insurance companies to lower the cost of some plans on the individual insurance markets and money some states receives to expand their Medicaid rolls would go away.

The 31 states that applied for Medicaid expansion funding under the Affordable Care Act would see that money rolled back and eventually cut off. Graham and Cassidy say their plan would help balance Medicaid funding across the country, but Democrats say states with large Medicaid populations would struggle to provide coverage to their populations. Spending on Medicaid would be done per capita, meaning that less populous states like Maine and Alaska--home to two Senators currently on the fence about the plan--might struggle to foot the bill.

The plan would repeal two key parts of Obamacare, the individual and employer mandates, and states could apply for waives to alter what counts as an “essential health benefit” for insurance companies as they design their plan options. In addition, states could obtain waivers so that insurance companies could charge people with some pre-existing conditions more for some plans in their states. That practice is prohibited under current law. While insurers would likely still have to offer people with pre-existing plans choices, they could potentially limit coverage options as well under the proposed bill.

Graham-Cassidy would also allow people over the age of 30 to buy into catastrophic coverage plans, which have high deductibles but lower premiums and less benefits, as a way to get more healthy people covered. The bill would also allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times more than younger Americans. Obamacare taxes unpopular with Republicans, like the medical device tax, and tax on health savings accounts would also be repealed.

* * *

When will Congress vote?

McConnell assured Graham and Cassidy a vote would be scheduled with the condition that the Senators drum up the 50 votes needed to pass the bill. Republican leadership is hard at work trying to convince a small--but undecided--group to commit their support to the legislation. McCain has raised procedural concerns over the bill, saying he is hesitant to support any legislation that has not been scrutinized in committee hearings.

“Why did -- why did Obamacare fail? Obamacare was rammed through with Democrats' votes only. Are we going to ram through our proposal with Democrats and the president? That's not the way to do it,” said McCain on CBS' "Face the Nation."

McCain is one of a handful of Senators, including Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Shelley Moore Capito, R. W.Va., and Rob Portman, R- Ohio, who have not indicated their support for the bill. Some have appeared to scrap repeal efforts altogether in favor of working towards the small, bipartisan solutions for the individual insurance market that have been introduced in hearings with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has remained strongly opposed to the Graham-Cassidy bill, even calling it “Obamacare-lite.” With one Senator already voting no, Republicans cannot afford to lose more than one more vote. A primary roadblock for Graham and Cassidy has been the Congressional Budget Office, or C.B.O. The C.B.O. announced on Monday that while it plans to offer a “preliminary assessment” of the bill, it will not be able to provide a full score of the bill for “at least a few weeks.” The C.B.O. score indicates how much the legislation will affect the government’s deficit and is needed for the Senate to vote.

Graham pleaded for the C.B.O. to expedite its scoring process so he can present cost estimates to Senate colleagues before Sept. 30. But Democrats say the Senate should not vote on the legislation unless a full--not preliminary--score is released.

* * *

The political battle ahead

Ryan called Graham-Cassidy, “our best, last chance to get repeal and replace" on Monday at an event in Wisconsin. And Republican leaders, sensing an opportunity to knock down key parts of Obamacare, are moving full speed ahead with the bill. Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey endorsed the bill on Monday, adding extra pressure for McCain to support a bill written by one of his closest allies and friends in the Senate. In an interview with ABC News, Collins said she is still undecided. "I'm leaning no certainly, but I am still evaluating the bill and its text. We hadn't had it for very long and it's difficult to do without the assistance of the Congressional Budget Office." Democrats say those cuts to Medicaid are unacceptable, with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., tweeting that Graham-Cassidy “is an intellectual and moral garbage truck fire.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...immediately-responds

If Paul Ryan supports it - it must be a shit show.

Yeah, and if Susan Collins voted for a judicial nominee, that nominee might as well have been nominated by Obama, right?

At some point you have to put together majorities in order to get what you want. You're never going to be 100% happy with who's in that majority (at least in this session of Congress), so the best you can do is get what you're after and be happy about that.

And yeah, that's coming from someone who's beyond pissed at Susan Collins.

The heart of Obamacare is the individual mandate. I don't care what anyone else says, but if that is gone, it's no longer Obamacare.

I agree.

The Graham Cassidy bill does enough to drive a stake into the obamacare heart.

It will take several years to fix more things that resulted from obamacare. Huge damage has been done to our healthcare system.

But what we desperately need is that first mortal blow.

Arguments For And Against Latest Obamacare Replacement Bill
Should conservatives support it?

September 20, 2017

There is growing momentum behind an Obamacare replacement bill put forth by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA). President Trump has agreed to sign it and is lashing out at Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for doubling down on his opposition to the bill.

The key components of the bill include eliminating Obamacare's individual mandate, employer mandate, and tax on medical devices. It also block grants Medicaid and Obamacare's subsidies to the states. States will have the option to opt out of some of Obamacare's regulations. However, the bill still leaves in place most of Obamacare's taxes and costly regulations.

Since there seems to be a split on the Right as to whether the bill should be supported, here are the arguments for and against the bill.

Against

The main argument against the bill is that it doesn't do enough to repeal Obamacare. Michael Tanner is concerned that "Republicans have unilaterally disarmed" in the fight against single-payer and perturbed that the bill redistributes Medicaid funding from blue states to red states. Avik Roy has written that while there is a lot to like about Graham-Cassidy, it gives blue states the option to implement single-payer, which they couldn't do under Obamacare. Roy also doesn't like how it leaves most of Obamacare's taxes in place, and explains how states can take advantage of Graham-Cassidy:

The bill requires states to subsidize insurance plans that conform financially—in terms of actuarial value—to plans that states offer in their Children’s Health Insurance Programs. It’s unclear exactly what effect this has on insurance markets, but it’s at least possible that states could game the Graham-Cassidy block grants by driving their CHIP actuarial values higher.

Another problem is that the bill gives more money to states that focus on enrolling those with incomes between 50 and 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. While those individuals are certainly worthy of attention, discriminating in their favor at the expense of other low-income cohorts makes little sense. Ideally, states would be encouraged to address all Americans who remain uninsured.

One of Paul's objections to the bill is that it essentially punts the issue to the states and maintains most of Obamacare's spending levels.

For

The Republicans have until September 30 to pass an Obamacare replacement bill with a simple majority vote rather than the 60-vote threshold. After that deadline, Republicans would have to a pass a new budget resolution to pass Obamacare with a simple majority vote, meaning that any new Obamacare replacement bill would have to take place during fiscal year 2018.

As Ben Shapiro pointed out on his Tuesday podcast, 2018 is an election year, meaning that lawmakers are going to be squirrelly about supporting any legislation that they could face potential backlash over. In all likelihood, Obamacare is going remain as is until after 2018 should Graham-Cassidy fail to pass the Senate.

The National Review editors argue that Graham-Cassidy is the most viable option at this point since the votes simply aren't there for full repeal. Chris Pope points out that the block grant of Medicaid and tax credits for the Obamacare exchange gives the states the ability "to increase the attractiveness and stability of the individual market."

"In doing this, it meets a clear need, but it also facilitates more thorough reform by repealing the individual mandate and potentially allowing fairly priced, fully competitive insurance to be offered outside of the exchanges," wrote Pope. "It also greatly expands the flexibility and potential uses of Health Savings Accounts."

Daniel Horowitz, who has been a staunch critic of the Republicans' Obamacare replacement efforts, has interesting suggestion as to how Graham-Cassidy can be used to create a free market for health care:

If we can’t repeal Obamacare, let’s allow the malignancy of Obamacare to destroy the existing model of insurance, which was never a free market to begin with. When we allow individuals and employers to exit the system, the cartel will no longer have us by the neck. You see, the more they raise their prices, the more people will just give up on insurance. Employers will drop coverage like a hot potato as well. In fact, the coverage regulations forcing insurers to cover people after they get sick for the same price works to our advantage under this scenario, because people will readily leave the system and then stick the system with the tab when they need the coverage.

In the meantime…health-sharing ministries have shown an alternative model to the existing insurance paradigm. Graham and Cassidy are wrong about prices coming down under their bill. The continued higher prices, in conjunction with allowing people to opt out, will create a market for health-sharing association plans in which groups of individuals and associations get together and pool their resources to cover catastrophic needs. The basic needs would be paid for directly by the consumer to the doctor.

In other words, Horowitz is acknowledging that Obamacare isn't going to be truly be repealed anytime soon, and since Graham-Cassidy nixes the funding mechanism for Obamacare, the individual and employer mandates, premiums will only continue to skyrocket. Therefore, people will turn away from the current system and more toward group plans that are closer to free market health care.

The arguments for and against Graham-Cassidy eventually boil down to if you think the bill doesn't go far enough to repeal Obamacare and Republicans should wait until they have the votes to do full repeal, or if you think Graham-Cassidy is the best option in the current political climate.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...cement-aaron-bandler

So if the individual mandate gets knocked out, exactly how much of a political fight does anyone expect the Dems to be able to muster to protect the rest of OCare between now and November 2018? It does kinda sound like its about as good a scenario from bringing about a 'death by a thousand cuts' to OCare as we're likely to get any time soon.