Republicans Said To Near New Healthcare Deal

Tyler Durden's picture

After weeks of fits and starts, Obamacare repeal may be back on the table. According to the Huffington Post, the chair fo the House Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows and Tuesday Group co-chairman Tom MacArthur have reached a tentative Trumpcare deal. But while the two Republican lawmakers say they are nearing a deal on changes to the ObamaCare replacement bill that could move the measure closer to passage, doubts remain.

According to a summary of the amendment posted by Politico,  states would have the option to apply for waivers to allow them to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions,. That means insurers would no longer be prevented from charging people with pre-existing conditions higher premiums because of their illness. The measure would also allow states to repeal ObamaCare’s essential health benefits, which mandate that insurers cover a range of health services, including mental health and prescription drugs.

Additionally, benefits like prescription drug coverage, pregnancy and mental health services would be included again in the bill, but states could get a waiver for that too if they prove it would lower premiums, or provide some other benefit to people.

Yet while the new agreement could find support among more conservatives, moderates are likely to remain an obstacle according to the Hill.

"There's no deal," said an aide to a moderate House GOP lawmaker. "I wouldn't be surprised if they started to lose more moderates" because of the new changes, he added.

Many Republicans objected to similar changes that were discussed before the recess earlier this month. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the chief deputy GOP whip, called similar changes earlier this month a “bridge too far for our members.”

He said that he and much of the Republican conference wanted to maintain ObamaCare’s community rating protection for people with pre-existing conditions. Many moderate Republican lawmakers also pledged to protect that provision at town halls over the recess.


These new changes will be a test of whether moderate Republicans lawmakers will hold to that position.


Conservatives argue that funding for high-risk pools will allow for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. Democrats counter that high-risk pools were underfunded and did not work before ObamaCare.  The new amendment would also not change deep Medicaid cuts and coverage losses that moderates have objected to.

A previously scheduled conference call for all House GOP lawmakers on Saturday will be a chance to discuss the changes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Peak Finance's picture

Yea, Pre-Existing Condition Coverage! Great IDea!

NExt up, buying fire insurance after your house burns down!!



Plunge Protection's picture

Repeal ... DONT replace, lets replace it the free market for once.

Ghost of Porky's picture

Why can't everybody just give me stuff?

ne-tiger's picture

Don't give a fuck on whatever the bill: until there are riots on streets, it's just going to get worse

RAT005's picture

Remove mandate and fine.  Remove defining plan coverage.  Remove state boarder restrictions.

Basically no gov benefit to being in health insurance business.

JRobby's picture

Trying to stave off being voted out in Nov 2018. I think it might be too late.


N2OJoe's picture

If you want a  shortage of something, put the government in charge of it.

IDK about you all, but with this obamacare shit, I basically don't have insurance unless I'm in the hospital for a week to meet the deductable but if I stop paying the premiums then I get a beatdown by the IRS.

SO I've taken to this game: I've been to a doc a couple times last year and I ask right up front, "What does this checkup/whatever cost?" and if they play games and refuse to tell me(which they almost always do), they get what they think is the deductable and the bill that comes later gets tossed into the shredder.

In my business, you give people the price upfront and if they aggree, you do the job and get paid. If I went around doing work for people and demanding exorbitant payment of my own determination after the fact, I would literally be brought up on charges and lose my license.

Déjà view's picture

Pre-existing Condition...LOL...

Can you imagine living in a property that has flooded 10 times? How about 20 times? It’s hard to fathom enduring that kind of situation, yet owners of 2,109 properties across the United States experience just that. Not only has each of these properties flooded more than 10 times, but the National Flood Insurance Program has paid to rebuild them after each flood. One home in Batchelor, Louisiana flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,379 in flood insurance payments. 

These 30,000 Severe Repetitive Loss Properties represent a disproportionate burden on the NFIP. Despite only representing 0.60% of the 5 million homes in the program, these properties have received 10.6% ($5.5 billion dollars) of all flood insurance claims since 1978. That’s an average of $181,444 paid over the life of each property. Nearly half (13,499) of these properties have been paid more in flood insurance money than their house is worth.

In 2017 Congress will have a chance to reform the NFIP (the National Flood Insurance Act must be reauthorized every five years) and NRDC will be pushing them to consider this option. Among the 30,000 properties examined, NRDC estimates it would cost about $2 billion to buy out those properties that are still insured, unmitigated, and at-risk, a not-unreasonable amount considering these same properties have already collected about $2 billion in flood claims. The NFIP is currently $23 billion in debt

NFIP was created as a result of the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Congress enacted the NFIP primarily in response to the lack of availability of private insurance and continued increases in federal disaster assistance due to floods. At the time, flood was viewed as an uninsurable risk and coverage was virtually unavailable from private insurance markets

FireBrander's picture

Locally, the army core of engineers, and the city, spent ~$60 million to build a massive levee to protect about 250 homes and businesses.

These properties are in an old/industrial part of town...home values sub $ property worth about the same..


250x100,000 = $25,000,000...Spent $60,000,000 to prevent $25,000,000 in damages.

It gets better...because this large area no longer floods, other populated area's that were low risk for flooding are now high risk...the water has to go more levees...

slightlyskeptical's picture

You have a choice of where to live. You have no choice if you get cancer, hit by a car, etc.

Comparing health insurance to house insurance is ridiculous.


How about if your house burns down and is only half built by the end of coverage period. Does your house insurance stop paying to rebuild ay year end? Thats what happens with health insurance. You can pay for 30 years like me and if you get sick under any republican plan, you lose your insurance or it becomes completely unaffordable. Doesn't matter at what stage your illness has been corrected. At least the house insurance pays until the loss is corrected despite the time frame of the work.

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

"You have no choice if you get cancer, hit by a car, etc."

Really?  Your choice to smoke doesn't correlate w/lung cancer?  Your choice to over-eat doesn't contribute to your obesity, high blood pressure, increased heart attack and stroke risks?  Your choice to look at your "smart" phone while walking into a busy intersection doesn't affect the probability that you will be struck by a vehicle? 

There's a lot more to untangle here, but I've got to go teach a pig how to dance.  That experience should be about as productive as this one.

StychoKiller's picture

So long as Decepticrats are included, what's not to like? :>D

Laddie's picture

That is what his voting base voted for REPEAL of Obamacare. But Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were very helpful to Obama in getting that passed, and TPP too.

Obamacare is yet ANOTHER wealth transfer from US, the White populace, to the people of color. At the same time .gov is, effectively, killing off the Golden Goose, i.e. White America.

The BASE means nothing to Trump and his Zio-Con pals.

And from the campaign days when Trump supporters were NEVER helped by Trump while they were being VIOLENTLY ATTACKED for peaceably gathering. Trump has not helped even now.


Whitey doesn't matter only the Tribe.

The Battle(s) of Berkeley – Someone is Going to Get Killed. Where is Trump?

There Will Be Blood: Left Prepares For War After Berkeley Beat Down: “Combat Training, Better Equipment, Guns…”

Filthy Berkeley Commies Cancel Ann Coulter Speech

What Berkeley doesn’t know, is that you can’t stop Ann “Kick a Beaner” Coulter. The talk is still on.

Living Large No Longer

Libertarians Prove Their Irrelevance in Auburn

An alt-right supporter being arrested at Auburn after a scuffle with antifa.

Today, free speech is under vicious attack. And white people—the only people in the history of the world ever to care about another group’s liberty—are slated for demographic destruction. If we lose these battles, libertarians will not be able to go back to their debates and seminars. As white men—and how many libertarians are not?—they will be attacked, expropriated, and driven from their homes. Yesterday, the formerly white population of Rhodesia; tomorrow, the whites of South Africa; how long before they come for us?

It is past time libertarians recognized this. If you love liberty, if you love progress, if you love reason and the triumph of light over the darkness, you should stand and fight for the civilization that gave us the Magna Carta and the man on the moon. Berkeley and Auburn prove this. Those who refuse to see it are only proving their irrelevance.

FireBrander's picture

"Obamacare is yet ANOTHER wealth transfer from US, the White populace, to the people of color. "

You are so fucking full OF SHIT!

A. 10's of millions of WHITE people benefit from the ACA; including me!

B. Every LAST FUCKING DOLLAR that flows through "ObamaCare" winds up in the pockets OF CORPORATE AMERICA.

C. Did the "People of Color" spend $500,000,000 "Lobbying Congress" to "shape" the ACA and get is passed?

D. Did the "People of Color" WRITE THE FUCKING BILL?

E. Who wrote the ACA? "Demcrats"? No fucknuts...the "Health Lobbly" wrote the ACA!


Why won't the Republicans just repeal the ACA? What, are they now "people of color" lovers? THE R's WON'T REPEAL THE ACA BECAUSE THE HEALTH LOBBY WON'T LET THEM!

Geesh, stupid is off the fucking charts.

NidStyles's picture

You say it's bullshit, then later in the same exact post confirm that he's right.


Are you sure you're White, because your IQ isn't displaying that here.

detached.amusement's picture

you need to read a little more slowly

billwilson2's picture

MORON! A free market in health care? .... seriously? .... talk about a guaranteed way to make sure you get screwed if you ever get sick - and a guaranteed way to make health care ridicuoulously expensive. EVERY country that uses a form of single payer has cheaper care and better results.

FireBrander's picture

Free Market 101:



If you're in the "health industry", to maximize profits, you would NEVER FUCKING INSURE sick people....and if you're a care giver, you would NEVER FUCKING HELP people without insurance or the means to pay cash.


Free Market Health care system:

Cheap and plentiful coverage for the healthy and/or wealthy; death for everyone else.

RAT005's picture

20 years ago health insurance was not an issue because the health care industry didn't extort customers and gov didn't make doctor offices so expensive.

Obamacare is a vote buying extortion written by lots of white people that empower themselves with black and white votes that are bought with mostly white people's money.

It's not racist, it's demographic that can be hidden with racist statistics.

FireBrander's picture

"It's not racist, it's demographic that can be hidden with racist statistics"


It's IS racist, it's USING A demographic, and racist statistics, to CAMOUFLAGE CORPORATE WELFARE!



NOBODY VOTED FOR THE ACA...CORPORATE AMERICA LOBBIED FOR IT, WROTE IT, AND GOT IT PASSED...and all you see is "Demcrats" and "People of Color" as the problem...useful idiot.

detached.amusement's picture

dunno why the fk you're arguing with him, its not like you're really disagreeing ....I mean unless you think you are, in which case, smh

ILoveGooold's picture

And yet back in the day when we actually had a free market healthcare system we lead the world in healthcare and costs were not an issue. Is single-payer better than the mess we have now? Maybe (although I doubt it), but that's like asking if its better to have a knife up your ass than a fork.

NAVIGATOR0832's picture

May as well go full Marxist, huh....

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Clearly you do not have a preexisting condition that previously locked you out of healthcare insurance access.

new game's picture

my pre existing condition is i exercise, eat healthy, am not over weight, no high blood pressure or high colestral. so, i opted out.

did i make the right choice? lol...

i sure hope all the healthcare lobbiests got in on the bill and the sponsors got a' health'y deposit for their vote.

now the snow job to get it through.


fbazzrea's picture

require politicians to live with healthcare and social security programs enacted for the people. take away their "special-class" status.

problem solved.

Peak Finance's picture

So when I get sick you are saying I will turn into government leach? Don;t think so buddy, I actually have a bad pre-existing condition I treat myself with diet and excersice. 

I've read your stuff before didn't think you were a socialist. 


Cognitive Dissonance's picture


Wow. So presenting the other side of an argument is being socialist. You should get out more often and smell the other roses.

Everyone has pre-existing conditions. If you become sick and visit the doctor, you by definition have a pre-existing condition. You knew you were sick, thus you know you have a pre-existing condition.

If the doctor runs tests during your yearly checkup and finds you have serious liver or kidney problems, isn't that a pre-existing condition?

Locking out someone who is now without insurance and has an established 'pre-existing' condition is simply the way insurance companies prevent adverse selection, which hurts their profits. If every insurance company must accept pre-exiting conditions, everyone insurance company is protected from adverse selection.

This has nothing to do with subsidized insurance premiums and everything to do with access to insurance for all. The insurance companies already have the situation priced into their rates. What is driving up rates is the huge list of 'mandatory insurance' coverages along with the obscene increase in prescription costs, legal malpractice insurance resulting in over treatment and the skyrocketing cost of latest greatest treatment no matter how much it costs.

FireBrander's picture

Pre ACA, the Insurance companies would give me a form to fill out about my health and would TRUST ME to tell the truth...because in the fine print it says that if I lie, my policy is void and they keep whatever premiums I paid...they WANTED TO ME LIE and made it very easy for me to do so.

Post ACA, they no longer "trusted me" and I had to have a physical...

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Actually they NEVER trusted you.

Pre ACA anyone who applied for medical, disability or life insurance was checked against the MIB, the so-called Medical Information Bureau, to see if you have not disclosed (or under-disclosed) your medical history. This is the medical equivalent of your credit file. The MIB is still consulted and updated.

You might be very surprised to find out what's in your file, as well as how many errors it contains.

FireBrander's picture

You would be VERY surprised to see what's in my file...that recent physical and...we'll let's just say I'm working on beating my dads record of not voluntarily stepping foot in a doctors office for 37 years.

Our family has good genetics...rountinely make it to 90 or so with a few surpassing 100...very little needs for "doctors"...actually, while I am impressed with what medicine can do, I think minimal "doctoring" is the key to a long life.

FireBrander's picture

Recent news bit about a 103 year old vegan...said if he had it to do over again, he'd eat meat; the extra life wasn't worth not eating what he really family eats familiy member is 101 and still goint strong...still eating meat!

44magnum's picture

"10's of millions of WHITE people benefit from the ACA; including me!" Your rant from above.

Maybe its me but how do YOU benefit if,
"we'll let's just say I'm working on beating my dads record of not voluntarily stepping foot in a doctors office for 37 years"

So your paying monthly for a shitting plan with a shitter deductable yet avoid the doctor to beat your fathers record?

I wish I had something I could force you into buying

FireBrander's picture

How do I benefit:

1. I get a some of your money to pay my premiums; yeah, that's fucked up, but I'm white, I'm the dole all the WHITE MEDICARE recipients...


"37 years":

2. I'm paying the monthly premium not because we need care, but as BANKRUPTCY INSURANCE. Sure, you can do a lot to keep healthy...but you're still "out of the blue" and our "health system" will BANKRUPT YOU in the blink of an eye.

BingoBoggins's picture

note: some states don't allow malpractice lawsuits. Drs. who made mistakes are "re-educated". No recourse for the agrieved.

Funny thing, debating against ACA w/a Labour supporter in Cornwall, a nurse no less, I argued myself into MediCare expansion! A lot of the NH supporters are ill-informed, btw.

Harry Paranockus's picture

The pre-existing condition populace before Obamacare was about 500,000 people. Of those, about 350,000 were insured in high risk pools in the states. About 150.000 couldn't get insurance or didn't want to pay the premiums.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Please provide a link to those statistics. In my opinion, based upon much reading over the years, it seriously understates the pre-existing population.

I suspect it is selectively assessed.

BingoBoggins's picture

overheard at an art gallery, some years ago; "some people just can't take care of themselves".

my nephew's installation, 3" hemp rope suspending 3' in diameter lath and concrete veneer eggs from the 18' deck. We even aged them with a blowtorch, which was kinda fun. one of the good times I had w/ my erstwhile brother, a couple of decades ago, maybe.

the longhair who spoke referred to the burgeoning population of street people, and not just the winos, by then a dying breed, though the rust belt migration was just starting. a local thing, the demographic on the day so last century ... american indians, too.

nephew's teaches art at CC in NC now. his pa later said, "he turned into a flaming liberal", amusedly shaking his head. born on the cusp of the baby boom, twice divorced and determinedly independent, he believed in health reform, nonetheless. maybe for his non-custodial parent status, that led him into sole proprietor ventures, that played hell w/ the taxman, the sheriff and the county's alimony balances. school loans, too.

come to think of it, Wellstone was in office then.

vaft's picture

Clearly you do not have a preexisting condition that previously locked you out of healthcare insurance access.


"Locked out" isn't exactly the same thing as "charged higher premiums." Insurance is a legalized form of gambling; "betcha I get sick this month." -- "betcha you don't."

It's illogical to demand that one side be disallowed from setting terms of the bet based on a risk assessment.


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I never said those with pre-existing conditions shouldn't pay higher rates. If I'm a bad driver I pay higher rates for my car insurance. The same should apply to health insurance.

But before the ACA many states did not have a 'high risk pool' for health insurance and many people simply could not get health insurance at any price.

Never One Roach's picture

Abolish the tax penalty. That is freaking un-American. Also allow people to choose whatever insurer they want instead of forcing them onto a SoweetoCare unaffordable plan.

With premiums about $12,000/year and deductibles at $5,000 who can afford it?!

Obama should be thrown in jail for htis shit.

new game's picture

not sure the lobbiests would agree with you. manadory is lawfull under fascist gov policy. not to mention, they contribe uuuge to campaigns...

847328_3527's picture

It is lawful under the present system of "Fuck Americans First" and has been for over 8 years.

MagicalUnicornFarts's picture

Abolish the IRS, Dept of Ed, EPA, Dept of Energy, NASA, the CIA, the FBI, Deep State, the Regulatory State, and FISA

MagicalUnicornFarts's picture

So basically the Dems (Marxists) want govt run health care, and the Reps (Progressives) want govt run health care.


What a choice

Canoe Driver's picture

Congratulations on being able to see this particular line of reasoning. You are smarter than 98% of Americans. If you have to cover pre-existing conditions, it's simply not insurance. The correct solution, barring single-payer, would be to require insurers to cancel a policy for failure to disclose a pre-existing condition within 90 days of writing the policy. Otherwise, if the insurer keeps collecting premium, the law should deem that constructive waiver of the right to cancel.

Kamehameha's picture

Trust me NO insurance is better than what they are offering.

You can always go overseas for affordable surgery and care.