Healthcare clarity from Kevin.

[T]he AHCA would create winners and losers, with no broad philosophical principles determining who falls on which side of the line.

In no way is this an improvement on Obamacare, certainly not with respect to statecraft. Hillary could not have done worse, and might well not have.

Here's the last list of Obamacare excemptions... There may have been hundreds of thousands thereafter, but this was the final publication of their names. Then the page vanished.

I have to admit I do not understand what the hell is going on in Washington. They have somehow managed to completely tune out the plain language that they received from the voters last November, which is that Obamacare sucks and needs to go. The GOP Congressional leadership's position seems to be that they think people like Obamacare, and that if they can just do some tweaks around the margins and then re-brand it as GOPCare, they will be in high cotton. It's one of the most clueless things I've ever seen come out of Washington, and that says a lot. Meanwhile, is Trump in favor of this or not? There's no way to tell.

The Republicans are going to wind up doing the same thing they did in 2014, when they ran on a conservative platform but then went RINO as soon as the election was over. That's how they got Trump. Apparently they still think of Trump as just a noise spike, an error that will correct itself as long as they stay the course. I've got news for them: Trump is a Hail Mary pass thrown by Flyover America, the last attempt to win a rigged game by playing within the rules. If it fails, the next move may be to throw out the rule book.

It is always about the possible Cousin Dave. The Democrats flat reject anything modifying the ACA. And there are enough Republican RINOs that the RINOs have final sign off on any bill. So a small modification on Obamacare is all that is possible. As for Trump, I doubt he really cares. Didn't he run on repeal and replace? Well, anything you replace Obamacare with will be little different from Obamacare in practice. Flat repeal and getting the federal government out of the game is the only good solution. But that isn't an option with the politicians right now.

Obamacare IS popular, just not by the commentators on this blog. This includes red states who received medicaid expansion.

The problem is the threat of taking away something people have---even if they never liked it before makes something popular and liked. And now you understand voter logic and why we can't do simple things like untie healthcare from our jobs.

"Obamacare IS popular, just not by the commentators on this blog. This includes red states who received medicaid expansion."

I think a lot of this is democratic party smokescreen. Very few red states expanded Medicaid, and the ones that did, are now busting their budgets paying for it.

Oregon (not a red state) is cutting back their medicaid expansion because they likewise are going broke.

California will keep theirs until they can't borrow anymore money to fund it, and then lots of things there are going to collapse at once, including their ludicrous public pension system.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the last election, popularity as in the popular vote does not always translate into an electoral college victory or a mandate.

Anything free is going to be popular with those people not paying for it. But I am betting it is not popular enough with the actual voters.

The basic problem is, the cost of medical care has rapidly exceeded the Average American's ability to pay for it.
I think we are going to end up with a system like what is in most of Europe. Everone gets long lines and basic care at a public facility for a reasonable annual premium. (Like medicare)

Anyone who has to earn a living and cant afford to sit all day pays cash at a private facility.

You want a heart transplant, advanced cancer treatment, hip replacement or sex change surgery, private doctor, private hospital, private insurance or cash.

Market forces always win out in the end. You can have it good, cheap or fast, pick any two. (Sometimes only one if the government has screwed up the market badly enough)

People like the concept of Obamacare Ppen. They don't like the reality. When you pair the benefits with the costs very few people end up liking it. As Isab said good, cheap, or fast, pick one or two. You can't have all three. And that is where it all falls apart.

I don't think O-care is popular for anyone who actually has to pay full price for it. Families like mine would be paying roughly what we pay for full-time childcare, or private school tuition, just in premiums. We're not high-income; we make just a little over the cutoff for subsidies.

Ppen called it -- Obamacare IS popular with a lot of people, just not with those who comment on this blog. It does in fact bring down costs for those in some states, and not just low income people getting subsidies -- it made things cheaper for people in certain high-cost states that did not get insurance through their job. I can tell you that in New York, if you didn't get health care through your job, the cost of individual health care plans was pretty insane, and Obamacare plans are much more affordable. I know that's not true everywhere, though.

IMO, a big part of the problem in the healthcare discussion is that people are not looking at the same sets of options. If healthcare was disconnected from employment, and people in all states were looking at comparable healthcare plans at comparable costs, there would still be arguments, sure, but at least people would be arguing about the same general picture. Not true now. People with healthcare through their employer don't tend to realize what it costs for those who pay for it themselves; people in a low cost state don't know what it looks like for people in a high cost state.

I remember Amy talking about the great healthcare option she lost, for example. We didn't have an option that like that here in New York, or I would have taken it in a heartbeat.

I would have loved to have seen a GOP plan that separated healthcare from employment, and that focused on bringing down the costs of healthcare and expanding the range of options to everyone. If you wanted a cheap catastrophic plan, you could get one, if you wanted Cadillac, you could get it, and it wouldn't look wildly different depending on where you live and what your job happened to be.

But we didn't get anything like that. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal is entirely about cutting taxes for the very wealthy, and really not at all about improving the healthcare mess. I think it's worse than Obamacare, and I was really disappointed. They didn't have the guts to do a real free-market plan -- instead, they tweaked Obamacare in a way that I don't think is an improvement.

I wish they hadn't been in such a fucking hurry. This was an opportunity, one that won't come again, and I think it was a huge fail. I also think it will come back to bite the Republicans in the House in 2018 and 2020, unless perhaps the Senate manages something better. Time will tell.

Dems did gear and continuous advertising for Aha. People like parts of it but not the cost and the inneficincy of the gov't. Kind of like how people like chocolate donuts but not the calories or the cost.
For those who don't have to pay for AHA they like it those who had to pay/lost old plans don't. The marketplace was garbage. As to the new stuff it does tie price to health whic some won't like but is better. Remember many pay no taxes so doing it through health ins vs taxes is better, a health poor person would pay less incentivizing health.
With all the media and Dems praising AHA it will be tough to kill without looking like monsters.

You need to get out of your bubble Gail. This is a major part of why Romney lost. No one believed the father of Romney care would kill off Obamacare. It also helped to take Hillary down. And very clearly wiped out many Democrat Senators and Representatives. Prices may have dropped in New York but across the nation they are rising at tremendous rates. 1/3 of counties have only one approved insurance provider. Five states also have only one approved insurance provider. And that is increasing as insurers continue to abandon the federal marketplaces.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2017/05/03/people-dont-hate-obamacare-they-hate-the-cost-fix-that-gop/#679fe5076515

As I said, people love Obamacare as long as they don't have to pay for it. Forbes wants Trump to keep Obamacare and make it affordable. I say that is impossible. Offering subsidies without raising taxes to pay for those subsidies just doesn't work. The two are inherently tied.

I wish they hadn't been in such a fucking hurry. This was an opportunity, one that won't come again, and I think it was a huge fail. I also think it will come back to bite the Republicans in the House in 2018 and 2020, unless perhaps the Senate manages something better. Time will tell.

Gail at May 12, 2017 3:13 PM

Obamacare was set up to be a rats nest that would not be easily undone.

Many of the insurers have pulled out of it in quite a few markets and it is in a death spiral.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/698255/aetna-pulling-remaining-obamacare-markets

Obamacare is going away. Know that. The only question is going to be what replaces it, and when.

Unfortunately the Republicans have to deal with the same powerful constituencies which made Obamacare such a mess in the first place, The health insurance companies, now just as dependent on Uncle Sam for the health of their bottom line as are the colleges and universities, the medical service cartel, and the trial lawyers.
Tort reform has got to be a significant component of any health insurance fix, as does transportability, and elimination of state mandated coverage. In addition a lot of elective niceties have to be cash only, or better yet over the counter.

Forcing someone to visit a doctor to get insulin, birth control bills, allergy medications, pain killers or an effective cough syrup is just a really poor use of resources. Forcing them into an emergency room to get a bad cut stiched up or an abscessed tooth pulled is even worse.

And Gail, I live in a low cost health insurance state, and right now, my heath insurance costs 19,000 bucks a year. That is BCBS through an employer, with a 13,000 annual deductible.
Esentially just a catastrophic policy now, although seven years ago, it was ok.
The good news is, the cruise industry and medical tourism is booming. I know a lot of people who cruise every year just to stock up on medications that the FDA requires a doctor's script for every thirty day supply. Im not one of them, as I dont have any cronic pain or other issues, but still I have hacked away a couple of nights that I really needed my sleep with the elimination of the right to buy codeine cough syrup in my state with a signature and an ID card at the pharmacy. Im not five. I dont need to be protected from myself and it makes me hope the government lackeys and all of congress, and the FDA burn in hell.

I think you've got some ideological blinders on, too, Ben. Besides the fact that some people really do get a good deal on Obamacare (I completely agree that many don't), there's also the fact that many who don't qualify for subsidies still want others to have them. Not everyone is motivated purely by their own wallet.

You also might want to look at the populations in the counties you're talking about. Just as one candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, talking about "counties" doesn't tell you much about how many people we're talking about. My county has millions of people in it. Yours?

Another thing people here are overlooking is the age 50-64 crowd. Under the GOP proposal, many could end up paying three times the premiums of younger people, even if they are in perfect health -- which could mean they can't afford insurance at all. They are likely to be better off under Obamacare. Does that mean Obamacare is awesome and perfect? No, but it does mean the GOP plan sucks ass.

and the pre-existing conditions thing. That's immensely popular with most people. It's political suicide for the GOP to back away from that, frankly.

The fact that the House didn't even bother to wait for CBO numbers says worlds. They KNOW voters will hate those numbers and they'll have an even bigger firestorm on their hands. and not just liberal voters. They don't give a flying fuck about liberal voters. It's independents, moderates. and low income Republicans they're worried about.

The GOP could have done something better than Obamacare. Unfortunately, they didn't.

Mostly, it's important that Trump's irrational supporters, and that's most all of them, continue to afix their (enfeebled, defensive, needy) ego mass to the ineffectual conduct of this president, such that any critique, judgment or challenge for his behavior is a direct and punishing assualt upon their own dignity….

——————

…Just like the subject of your bathetic, malnourished adoration, the tape-recording 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump!

His healthcare is making America great again! Wait until you see the wall! It's not just about Hillary! No mercy for petty criminals!



He's going down hard. It's probably going to be recorded as the most tawdry episode in the flow of Western Civ, the greatest imaginable squandering of treasure and social capital... And you boys, with your anemic little resentments, ARE NOT WORTH IT.

But when it's over, I am going to LOVE watching you sniffle and sputter and kick pebbles with your eyes down, cloudiing your own skulls with excuses, as you (presumably) did when the pretty girls in high school didn't go out with you. This guy, your champion, has no appreciation for the scope of his very real opportunities, just as you have no clear sight of human character. He can't get things done.

You will be humiliated, you will deserve it, and I can't wait.

Even though they only changed it a little Repubs will be given full blame when Obamacare collapses.

> Repubs will be given
> full blame

Anyone who doesn't provide Free Candy Healthcare or speak of its failed delivery as [A.] a mere paperwork problem or [B.] the consequency of poltical opposition by meanies will be blamed.

Free Candy is an enduring dream in the hearts of listless registered voters.

Free Candy!

By the way, Isab, the cost of your insurance is a really great example of how different things are from state to state (which I think is a real problem).

Prior to Obamacare, the cheapest policy I could have gotten on my own would have been about 10K a year (and that, of course, was some years ago). Now a bronze care plan in New York is about 5K a year. And yes, that's without subsidies. Obviously, that's very different for you, and I don't know why. And yeah, the cost of yours is way too fucking much. No argument from me, at all. (I am also NOT arguing that Obamacare rocks, if that isn't clear. I'm only noting that some in fact are better off, and so genuinely do have motives to prefer it. It's just not true that everyone hates Obamacare.)

Also, getting insurance through an employer, the cost can be sort of invisible, unless you're the kind of person who pays attention to those things. I always paid attention to them, but a poll of a number of my friends showed that many actually didn't even know what they paid for healthcare premiums every month -- they had to double check it. They had no idea what premiums in New York looked like for those purchasing their own insurance.

I think it's difficult to have a discussion about healthcare when people's options look so different, and it's not about the coverage they're getting. Competition across state lines would have been nice to see, IMO. But we're not going to get it.

Consequence, not consequency.

Never do blog comments with your stocking feet up on the couch.

Well Gail, the real shame is, if Blue Cross Blue Shield wasnt trying to balance their books on the backs of a couple of ultra healthy Army vets, we might have kept a policy with them as secondary insurance when my husband and I become eligible for Tricare in seven months and five days (but who is counting)

One of my great anonymous pleasures will be kicking that company to the curb, after 22 years as a customer.

I'll never understand how this conversation became about insurance.

McArdle once asked, and I'm probably bungling the paraphrase: Why has this constellation of policy, procedure, paperwork and profit-slicing cut into lives of the entire nation when all we wanted was to provide HEALTH CARE —not insurance, but genuine care— to about 10 million demonstrably needy people?

Why do we care how the insurers feel about anything at all?

To talk about insurance is to accept the deceptions of bureaucratic and regulatory connivance.

I agree with you, Crid, both that our elevation of insurance companies over healthcare is skewed (though I doubt it will change) and that Trump is a tangerine nightmare. Also, my stocking feet are on the couch.

I'm about to watch Idiocracy, which somehow feels appropriate.

The Costco greeter.

Costco. Yeah, I know that place pretty good. I went to law school there.

McArdle once asked, and I'm probably bungling the paraphrase: Why has this constellation of policy, procedure, paperwork and profit-slicing cut into lives of the entire nation when all we wanted was to provide HEALTH CARE —not insurance, but genuine care— to about 10 million demonstrably needy people?

Because the federal government has no such powers?

But it does have the power to fuck up health insurance through mandates and the tax code so of course, that's what we got?

I got a three-point plan to fix EVERYTHING.

I'm not in my bubble Gail. If everyone loved Obamacare as much as you claim then the Democrats would still have a majority in both the House and the Senate. They don't. And Obamacare is a major reason why. I'm guessing most of your acquaintances are older from what you've said. A key part of Obamacare was moving costs from older workers to younger ones. So people you know can finally afford insurance. But the flip side is younger people no longer can afford it. I know a few people who are really happy with o-care. They are all older (50+ I think). And I know three times as many who hate it with a passion. They are mostly 20-40s. I'm one of them and I no longer have insurance because I can't afford anything that is actually useful.

But we'll see how it plays out over the years. I agree that the current Republican plan is just nibbling around at the edges and doesn't solve any significant problems. But I also don't see how they had the votes to do anything significant either.

And you are right about scarcely populated counties Gail. But we don't elect presidents on the popular vote and we don't entirely elect congress on it either. When you lose all those flyover people you lose a good chunk of the government too.

And here is Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/affordable-care-act-gains-majority-approval-first-time.aspx

The first time the ACA passed 50% approval was April of this year. A big jump from November.

Ben, most millennial-aged voters went for Clinton rather than Trump -- she got 55% of the millennial vote to his 37%. Trump was stronger with the over-45 crowd.

Based on that, it seems that either keeping Obamacare seemed like a good idea to most millennials, or else it was not a crucial factor in their vote.

Also worth noting -- only 17% approved of the first version of the Republican replacement bill, and bets are that even fewer will like the current version.

http://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-shows-17-percent-of-american-support-trumpcare-ahca-2017-3

Support for Obamacare may be lukewarm, but support for Trumpcare has hypothermia -- and that's in all demographics.

Worth noting -- during the campaign, Trump promised that everyone would have healthcare, and it would be cheaper and better than Obamacare. That's not what the Republican Congress delivered in their bill, at all. Trump's poll numbers, even among his core base, dropped after it passed.

Trump promised something he couldn't deliver. Costs will go up for his core base -- which is heavily among lower-income 50-64 year olds. Estimates are that premiums could triple for that group under the Republican plan and make insurance completely unaffordable for them. That is not the candy and ponies they were promised. I predict they will be very unpleased.

And...while people might not like the $700 penalty under obamacare for no insurance, they're really going to hate it when, under trumpcare, they decide to forego insurance until they have a problem...only to pay a 30% penalty of their annual premium, with no subsidy, and not have their pre-existing condition covered.

And they're going to hate having their premiums go up drastically with age, because guess what is going to happen to each and every one of them? birthdays. You can control a lot of your choices, but you've got none about birthdays. Cancer and such doesn't give you much of a choice either. Having your premiums soar to unaffordable exactly when you need the care -- that's the kind of plan that only appeals when you're 25 and invincible.

It's all the more unappealing when the only beneficiaries are the very same rich fat swamp cats you thought you were giving the finger to when you voted Trump.

So, yeah, that's not the moonbeams and ice cream Trump's core base thought they'd get. Most of them actually didn't have much fucking clue about what he might actually be able to deliver, and were far from being grounded in conservative fiscal principles. Trump pissed off the libbies and screamed "lock her up!" He promised a big-ass wall and impossible shit. They bought it. When they don't get their candy, and they won't, their tantrum will not be pretty.

Again -- this is not so much a defense of Obamacare as an indictment of Trumpcare. It's worse, and for those who can least afford it. It's just fucking sad they had seven years to think about it, and this is what we get.

ok. I might be done now. Maybe.

Dayum Gail said everything I was thinking.

> He promised a big-ass wall
> and impossible shit. They
> bought it.

I sincerely doubt this.

There's never been a candidate and certainly not a President like Trump. He got there by communicating with his voters, and most especially his television viewers, through an informal pattern of chatter that's never worked for anyone heretofore elected to DC. There've been a few articles about it and I could find you one, but it would be easier to look at any of his stump speeches, even the ones he's given at rallies since being inaugurated.

He speaks off the cuff, with all the same mannerisms he'd bring to a business lunch... Including that weirdly awkward thing when he's discussing some petty injustice. He kind of squarely pulls in his shoulders up to his earlobes while keeping his chin straight and looking only a few degrees right or left. Then he knocks his wrists together, palms up, and then spreads his stiffened arms while delivering the payoff: 'I ask you, is that fair???'

His listeners hear the same discursive, non-premeditated thinking they share with their own friends, rather than the pompous, legalistically parsed and ultimately deniable rhetoric that brought Hillary and a hundred thousand other candidates to their posture on a ticket.

His intercourse with his supporters is not like anything seen heretofore. (And a right good fucking it is.) The commerce between them is regarded by professionals with the same disdain bankers and regulators feel for Bitcoin... Because it's invisible (to them), untaxable and uncorruptable. Columnists and experts have been clucking 'Well, he's in trouble now!' and 'Now he's gone too far!' for more than two years, and here we are.

I don't think the 77,000 decisive voters "bought" any particular promises from Trump... He was too vague about them, and too obviously removed from the levers of policy and persuasion to know what he was talking about. They elected him anyway to let it be known that the reprehensible duplicities of conventional American politicking were no longer to be tolerated. They had voted for a sincere-seeming black guy (as if by definition for an outsider) twice and been hurt as badly as ever; they didn't need to be mocked by another Clinton, even a boundary-breaking woman, to know the consequences of that choice.

When Washington chatterbots speak as you do about this, we're reminded just how tightly insular and comforting the elites of government and commerce have becoming. From cradle to grave, their feet have never touched the ground for conventional communication... They've forgotten how trust works.

Their bogus intimations of cleverness about the way the world REELEE works, Bay-bee no longer apply.

Sorry for the two heretofores, though. That was just sloppy

Crid at May 13, 2017 12:39 AM nailed it IMO.

Did a Trump voter think that a Congress that excludes itself from every law that has an adverse affect actually do something? Nope.

A Hillary voter knew that no changes would be made to the existing situation.

A Trump voter thought "Maybe that SOB can get something changed.".

This insurance vs. health care stuff would be a lot easier to figure out if it was decoupled from employment and open to all States (like car insurance).

Gail, you haven't refuted my points.

"most millennial-aged voters went for Clinton rather than Trump"

Yes. And so what. Most millennial vote Democrat. Obama took millennials by 65 to 35. Clinton only managed 55 to 37. And their turnout was down. More significant, millennials like the population at large mostly get their insurance through their employer. So they aren't as directly effected by ocare.

"Trump promised something he couldn't deliver. Costs will go up for his core base -- which is heavily among lower-income 50-64 year olds."

That is already happening. They already can't afford things as they currently are. One unaffordable bill isn't that different from another unaffordable bill. So no net change.

"Having your premiums soar to unaffordable exactly when you need the care -- that's the kind of plan that only appeals when you're 25 and invincible."

Which explains the obamacare death spiral. Those 25 and invincibles can't afford insurance anymore. Ocare pushed the costs from older people down onto younger people. So they are disproportionately dropping out of the market. With fewer nonconsumers paying in the price on the remaining insured has to go up. At which point more people drop out because they can't afford it. Rinse and repeat.

And none of this shows "Obamacare IS popular with a lot of people, just not with those who comment on this blog." Even now 40% of Americans want to change ocare. And 30% want to flat get rid of it. Only 26% like ocare. Even among Democrats only 44% like ocare. Understandably only 9% of Republicans like ocare.

Look at the geographic locations of people on this blog. You in NY like it. Ppen in LA likes it. But Houston and Dallas don't. Well, that looks a lot like the electoral map.

I also have to say when you wrote :
"Not everyone is motivated purely by their own wallet.

You also might want to look at the populations in the counties you're talking about. Just as one candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, talking about "counties" doesn't tell you much about how many people we're talking about. My county has millions of people in it. Yours?"

You really came off as a rich coastal jerk. I know that isn't how you intended it to sound. But in flyover country that really hits an archetype. Especially since the point is that us flyover types flat can't afford things. Charity is great an all but at some point you run out of money. Calling people greedy for not paying what they can't afford doesn't go very far. Following it up by calling people hicks and rednecks just makes it worse.

Now to be clear, nothing I've presented shows that Trumpcare is popular. In fact I'd say Trumpcare is the reason Obamacare's popularity is increasing. Nothing argues for the status quo like looking at a bunch of crappy alternatives. But as I also wrote above the issue is votes. Not a single Democrat will vote to change Obamacare. Consequently any Republican who might vote no has outsized power over the process. Ryancare was a stealth repeal of Obamacare and it failed because the Freedom Caucus wanted an overt instead of a stealth repeal. It looks like someone talked to them but others decided to throw their weight around and we ended up with the current bill.

As for electoral consequences, we'll see. But it is pretty indisputable that doing nothing would be the worst thing Republicans could do if they want to get reelected. We are at 30% of Americans want Ocare flat repealed and that is a low point for the decade. If you change that from citizens to likely voters you should end up a bit under 50% (I'm guessing 45%). That plus one other issue is enough to swing an election. Of course if that other issue is fucking thing up even worse than they were beforehand Republican politicians may not be happy with the outcome.

Crid: "...They elected him anyway to let it be known that the reprehensible duplicities of conventional American politicking were no longer to be tolerated. They had voted for a sincere-seeming black guy (as if by definition for an outsider) twice..."

Trump's base does not primarily consist of people who voted for Obama twice. It consists largely of people who harbored a delusion Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim who wasn't even eligible to be president. Sure, there were a few who switched from Obama to Trump, but that's not primarily what happened in this election. What happened, mostly, was that Trump's base was energized about him and got out to the polls, but the Obama base was considerably less enthusiastic about Hillary, and moreover thought (along with most pundits) she'd win anyway. It's still, of course, the case that she got 3 million more votes than Trump -- just not where she needed them. But the base that would cheer Trump if he shot their grandmother? Yeah, they didn't vote Obama twice, or even once.

Right now his base is rabidly happy because liberals are UNhappy. And I do agree Trump speaks his base's language, and that it's gotten him far. I don't believe, however, that this will insulate him forever, from everything. I think they genuinely do believe he has a three-point plan to fix EVERYTHING, and when he doesn't deliver, and what they get is more swamp, disillusionment will kick in with many. As is often the case, time will tell.

Ben, you keep shifting the goalposts of your argument about millennials around to the point that I'm just going to let you do it. Life is short, and I know a discussion that will chase the ball in pointless circles when I see one. Anyway. I'm going away for the rest of the weekend and am out of message board time, so the field is all yours, at least for a couple of days. Have a good time and don't get your uniform too dirty.

Sorry about shifting on the millennial thing Gail. I was mostly responding to your points and showing how they were incorrect which is why the goal posts seemed to move as what you were saying moved.

...the few voters who DID switch 180 degrees from Obama to Trump are exactly the ones who are chasing moonbeams, and will become just as disillusioned w/ Trump as they did with Obama if he fails to deliver. They aren't the ones who simply adore Trump for his beastly orange self and couldn't care less what he actually does.

"Trump's base does not primarily consist of people who voted for Obama twice. It consists largely of people who harbored a delusion Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim who wasn't even eligible to be president."

Funny. On-topic, I thought he became despicable for lying repeatedly to you about the Affordable Care Act (I'll be offended for you if you think being directly and repeatedly lied to is just fine). As his mother was an American citizen, apparently, that pretty much ended your point with me, although I would be interested to see how he complied with the Selective Service Act, and a few other things not mentioned by people who ought to know better.

It took me a little bit to clear my thoughts on the millennial thing Gail. I was trying to show that you can't talk about the benefits without also talking about the costs. You can't talk about the winners without also talking about the losers. And that is especially true about Obamacare. Every survey shows overwhelming support for all of the benefits provided by Obamacare . . . until you include the costs. At which point support plummets. But you can't separate the two. No one can. Not even the amazing orangutan.

I already lowered my grade for Trump to a C, due to his signing that dog of an appropriations bill. If the Senate does not make the AHCA more pro-freedom before Trump signs it -- you know he will -- and the act leaves people like Amy with shitty health insurance, then a C it will remain.

Again -- this is not so much a defense of Obamacare as an indictment of Trumpcare. It's worse, and for those who can least afford it. It's just fucking sad they had seven years to think about it, and this is what we get.

The GOP-e: supporting the Democrat agenda.

The Senate isn't going to pass this thing. They've already made that pretty clear.

I predict that the Senate turns out something between Obamacare and Trumpcare -- and I predict the House doesn't sign on to that version.

If, between them, they ever do manage to eventually agree on a bill, Trump will sign it immediately and claim a win, regardless of whether it is any good, because that's what he does.

Meanwhile, as the House and Senate haggle between them, the increased uncertainty in the healthcare market -- no one knows what the hell is going to happen -- will further unstabilize the Obamacare markets, spiraling insurance costs up and choices down.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, in the throes of the resulting catastrophe, we ultimately end up with a form of single-payer health insurance. Trump, in the past, has spoken in favor of it, and he recently praised Australia's single-payer system as much better than ours. If the Republicans don't get their asses together on something good by 2018 and Democrats gain more power in Congress as a result, that becomes more likely. (And certainly makes a free market healthcare system very unlikely.)

IMO, the House shouldn't have passed a bill until they had something excellent that would have given some confidence to voters and the healthcare market. Instead, they rushed together a half-assed frankenstein compromise (ironically, what they complained Democrats did with Obamacare) without even waiting for CBO numbers, no doubt because they knew those numbers were going to suck and be highly unpopular, all in the name of passing something as quickly as possible so they could say "neener neener" to the Democrats.

I wouldn't have had any problem with them passing something quickly and saying "neener neener" to the Democrats, were it a good plan they'd been carefully working out all this time, with numbers to back it up, and a solid plan for the transition. That ain't this, though. And they'll never, ever get it through the Senate.

It's a mess, and a mess is the last thing we needed. The instability and uncertainty is going to make things suck more than they would have if they'd left things alone until they had a full-fledged replacement plan.

Again, I really hope I'm wrong about all of this. And again, time will tell.