US House panels OK Obamacare replacement after marathon debate

If House lawmakers include provisions that the Senate Parliamentarian finds to be extraneous or unrelated to budgetary matters, Senate Democrats can block them and slow down the Republicans’ momentum.

But Obamacare, and its tinkering with the free market, drove Republican legislators insane. They presume he will take a strong stand against swampcare if it does not change.

Governors, especially those from political battleground states, were generally cool to the bill put forth in the Republican-controlled U.S. House. House Democrats would be foolish not to accept the terms their rivals are offering.

What’s interesting about his embrace is that the proposal fails (forgive me) bigly in living up to the joyous health care future Trump envisioned.

More importantly, our health care system’s success means life or death for millions of Americans. It enhances choice and control for the American people by expanding health savings accounts. “Then, we can have a separate vote on replacement legislation that will deliver lower costs, better care, and greater access to the American people”.

Gardner originally opposed the Medicaid expansion and has previously voted yes on Obamacare repeal bills that would have phased out the Medicaid expansion, though those bills were never going to become law while Obama was president.

Democrats have warned that the GOP’s bill would result in taking away healthcare from millions of Americans and increase healthcare costs for the elderly. That shift is driven largely by changes among Republicans, from 58% in support of repeal only with replacement in January to 66% now. Taking away entitlements is a risky political maneuver.

The reason that the bill – which will be a combination of two bills, one approved by the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the other by the House Ways & Means Committee – focuses so heavily on taxes is simple, according to Gail Wilensky, PhD, a senior fellow at Project HOPE in Bethesda, Md. and former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President George H.W. Bush. Though its impact would be deep, it’s actually superficial reform, roughing Obamacare up and kicking some poor people off health insurance in the process so that Republican leaders can claim they’ve repealed and replaced Obamacare, even as they leave some of its pillars in place. They each represent states that chose to expand Medicaid under the health care law, after the US Supreme Court made the expansion optional instead of mandatory in a 2012 ruling. That’s just swapping one entitlement for another.

Refundable tax credits are also included, which means that people who do not now pay any income taxes will be given free money as an incentive and a means to obtain coverage.

While Republicans hold a majority in both the House and Senate, passing the new bill into law will not be an easy feat: Conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike have all grumbled about the bill. We as Republicans, who fought the creation of [Obamacare], and accurately predicted it would not work, ran for office in 2010, in 2012, in 2014, in 2016, on a promise that if given the ability we would repeal and replace this law. That would be far preferable to the leadership’s bill.

Ryan’s comments mirrors those of conservative members of Congress and advocacy groups who have long argued that the health care system will be improved with less government interference. However, wouldn’t it be nice to know that you have the upper-hand with insurance giants for a change? In the US, health insurance is far from universal.

House Republican leaders are attacking the wrong problem.

Many of our most vulnerable citizens can’t afford health care or health insurance. It’s, “How can government set conditions that promote individual freedom, rational prices through competition in the freest market possible, clarity on costs to the individual and to institutions, and help for those whose medical conditions make them uninsurable?” It was a politically expedient attempt to evolve America’s private-based health system, not completely revolutionize it.