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.
Squid Viscous's picture

go eat a fucking carrot and then back to Huff-po or maybe a save the earth rally


silentboom's picture

Ever heard of moral hazard?

Defiated's picture

Trump "RE-polish This Turd"...Bigly!!!

Sick Underbelly's picture

The main thing I remember being sold to the American people was something like, "XX million Americans don't have insurance due to pre-existing conditions and/or they can't afford the premiums."

The implied results of passing Obamacare were myriad:

a) premiums go down due to tax breaks

b) everyone can now have insurance (nobody is un-insured!!)

c) the eeevil insurance companies will have to PAY

d) you can keep your same doctor

e) health of the nation, as a whole, will go up

f) everyone, by gawd, all Americans, will have good healthcare

Later, we were told we could decline the "insurance", but we'd pay a TAX if we had NO INSURANCE, and this from the SCOTUS ruling.


a) insurance premiums have gone UP, not DOWN

b) if you believe Gallup polls, we still have 10.9% of US adults (non-medicare eligible) who do not have insurance.   Another interesting thing on that page is the 2.3% of medicare-eligible folk who are uninsured.

c) the top 5 insurance companies have had massive increases in income, stock prices have increased, and dividends given out.

They complain about the DRAIN that ACA people put on them to the tune of ~$1 billion, yet the same company (UnitedHealth) can spend that same amount on stock buybacks and dividends, and 12 times that in 4 years from "2012 to 2015, UnitedHealth spent $12.6 billion in buybacks and dividends" (see the article linked in a), above)

Yes, SOME insurers are "losing money" for the ACA people they are insuring, but they are also wasting money by doing stock buybacks...when they should be re-investing in making operations more-efficient, streamlining claims experiences, attempting to reduce costs even more.    Can we say "CEO gets bonus based on stock value; therefore, MOAR buybacks!!"?

d) I shouldn't have to link to the "you can keep your doctor" bullshit, and the fact that as exchanges have less providers, it is less likely you can "keep" your doctor.

e) the verdict is still out on whether ACA has made Americans healthier.  Medicaid expansion to the low-income and below-poverty levels seems to increase people's cognitive "well-being diagnosis", but it appears to be very hard to objectively tell whether overall health has increased.  I know posting NY Times around here will get you shot, but this is well-written and decently objective enough, and moreso says "the verdict's out"

f) see b) and a) above.

hooligan2009's picture

share buy-backs should be illegal - price gouging already s, but it needs brains and willingness to prosecute, attributes lying, cheating and stealing politicians simply don't ave

Mzhen's picture

So you present Andrew Cuomo with a choice.  Fund high risk pools in his state or continue to channel the funds to Latino immigrants.  Due to the high prevalence of diabetes in that population, there would be a lot of overlap anyway.  Let the voters tell Cuomo what is important to them.

Squid Viscous's picture

just ban chips and soda from all bodegas, they are trying that here in NC,

rejected's picture

A corporation is an entity designed to maximize profits, minimize expenses.

What the hell did / does everyone expect when corporations took over Health Insurance.

wow thats crazy's picture

America is a fucking joke! First thing you need to do is get money out of politics.

Zorba's idea's picture

Watching the Healthcare dilemma unfold over the past 40 years has been like watching a slow motion train wreck. The current HC reform charade is (a) like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (b) like making chicken salad out of chicken shit (c) like expecting Lucy will ever let Charlie Brown kick that damn ball (d) All of the above.  Middle class/Small business remain the main course at the BIG Gov-BIG HC-BIG Pharma buffet. USA!USA!USA! Can't wait to fly Ole Glory this Independence Day!

IdioTsincracY's picture


Charging people for pre-existing conditions is back?!?!


I wonder if being a Repugturd should be considered a preexisting condition?!

silverer's picture

The only way to get cost under control is to eliminate insurance completely. You can get major surgery performed on a dog or cat for $2,500. That's because insurance didn't get worked into the system.

PiratePiggy's picture

100% correct. Too many middlemen and Obamacare makes it illegal to buypass them without paying a special tax.


You can get that $2,500 surgery for yourself in Mexico, India, and many other countries from which we import H1B visa workers.

PiratePiggy's picture

Why is it legal for car insurance companies to charge more for reckless drivers than they do for safe drivers?  Under communism, isn't everyone the same?

VWAndy's picture

 Its almost funny when you think about it. For all the dancing and showmanship they just ignore the laws already on the books. Pretending the healthcare system is not a criminal monopoly. Try any of that stuff as a mom and pop and you would be in jail so fast.

 So instead of doing the right thing we get dancing fairies.

silverer's picture

Whatever it is, it won't be any good for Joe the Plumber.