The Senate is planning to vote next week on yet another health care plan.
Why is it called the Graham-Cassidy bill?
The plan was introduced by two GOP senators: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. It has the support of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
How is it different from Obamacare?
The short version is that the plan aims to ease states out of the Obamacare system and let each state decide what health care people want.
“It is a federalist version of Obamacare,” Stu Burguiere summed it up on Wednesday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”
Under the plan, states could request waivers for various Affordable Care Act provisions, including the coverage mandate and the ban on insurers charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. States that want to keep Obamacare protections would theoretically be able to do so under their own health care plan.
Will it pass?
Hard to say … but just three Republican senators need to vote against Graham-Cassidy for it to fail in the Senate. So far, the bill has 13 supporters and one definite “no,” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Everyone else is still mulling it over.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.
GLENN: With everything going on in the world, there are a few things that will actually change your life that we should pay attention to. And one of them is the Graham-Cassidy bill.
This is the Republicans — what some are saying the last shot of getting anything done on a repeal and replace Obamacare. It is — it is starting to shape up. And it looks like it has a chance of passage. First, let’s explain what it is.
STU: So let me give you a couple of headlines. Reason.com. Libertarian angle. Obamacare repeal is dead. Here come the bailouts.
Now, Vox, from the left says, I’ve covered the G.O.P. repeal plan since day one. Graham Cassidy is the most radical.
Don’t you push me into Lindsey Graham’s arms. Don’t do it. So what does this thing actually do? If you want a real quick summary, it’s basically a Federalist summary of Obamacare. It is not a repeal of Obamacare. It is a Federalist version of Obamacare.
GLENN: Which means a state version of Obamacare, which is exactly what we were arguing for. If Massachusetts wants to do Obamacare, they could do it. If Texas says, “No, there’s a better way, let Texas do it.” So that would have been okay back then. But that’s not what this is now.
STU: No. Because all the money is still coming in. So the federal — all the money from Obamacare, largely, still goes to the federal government. And then it is distributed through block grants to the states to do what they want with. So you would have a situation where your conservative state would probably do a much better job with this, if you’re a conservative, or a liberal state can do all the liberal things that they want.
And what they’re doing is they’re taking the states that — all the money that’s going to the states now and dividing it up, what I would argue as more equitably. Like, right now, you have $100 in Obamacare money. That’s split up between California and Texas.
Right now, it’s, let’s say, $75 go to California, $25 go to Texas. What they’re going to do is split that up and make it 50/50, as a really generic way of explaining what it is.
GLENN: So far, for a really bad idea, I’m okay.
STU: Yeah. Again, I think this is another situation, where it’s better than Obamacare. But it’s still Obamacare.
You would be able to get rid of the individual mandate. However, states could pass that on their own.
GLENN: I don’t have a problem. If the state wants to do it, the state can do whatever they want.
STU: I personally think it’s unconstitutional, as I know you do, at least from the federal side. But you’re right, it’s much better the smaller government that you get to.
Now, the reason why this is in such a rush is because the Republicans have ten days to do this. The reconciliation process, which basically means you only have to get 51 votes, instead of 60, that expires on September 30th by rule because you can only do it once per fiscal year. So they have to get it done by September 30th, which means that the House won’t be able to change it. There will be no negotiation between them.
GLENN: Oh, what a surprise.
STU: Yeah. So it’s —
STU: Well, yeah.
So if this happens, they’re going to use reconciliation in 2018 for the tax bill. That’s why they need to get this done in the next ten days. And that’s why it’s such a panic.
So what does — how does the vote look?
Forty-one pretty much on board, for sure. Forty-one senators have voted for all the Republican Obamacare repeals. So you’re at 41. There are Heller and Graham. Graham is one of the cosponsors. Heller has said he’s on board with this as well. That gets you to 41.
There are five that are likely to vote yes. Lamar Alexander, Shelley Moore Capito, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, and Rob Portman, which all have very similar names. That puts you at 46 senators.
You probably are definitely not going to get Susan Collins, okay? You’re probably definitely not going to get Lisa Murkowski, though that’s not determined yet. You need to get all four of these in the scenario, which would be Mike Lee, who has not said anything about it yet. Jerry Moran, who has — who is probably a yes. Although, he’s complained about the Medicaid cuts, which are not really cuts, but that’s a whole another story. John McCain who has voted against this thing. However, his buddy, Lindsey Graham is the guy behind this one. So I’m so far counting —
GLENN: Lindsey stinking Graham is the author of this.
STU: I know. And Rand Paul who has said flatout he’s a no on it. But if he’s the determining vote between this thing passing and not, will he hang with that? My guess is probably he will. I think there’s a small chance of this passing. There’s a better chance of this passing than what we remember them doing with skinny repeal. Remember that whole thing? Because that would have — they would have had to negotiate between the House and the Senate. It never would have gone anywhere. There’s a chance here.
GLENN: What’s the worst thing in it?
STU: Well, there’s a lot of bad things in it.
First of all, all the Obamacare money stays. Obamacare in California could actually go further to the left. If you’re someone who lives in a liberal state, you could actually get hit to the left and go further left than Obamacare. There are people arguing that this actually paves the way for single-payer.
GLENN: Sure, it does. Some say it’s a Trojan horse, but it’s right there.
STU: It’s right there. So a state like California could take this money and institute single-payer. They would have to obviously add some more tax dollars on their side to pay for it. But they could get the federal government to pay for let’s say, three-quarters of single-payer. So they make single-payer in California. And they just go for it and go all out. If ten states do that, you’ve paved the way.
GLENN: I have to tell you — as long as — this isn’t the world we live in, I don’t care if California goes completely flat broke, as long as we make it very clear: We’re not bailing your ass out.
STU: Right. And you know that’s not going to work.
GLENN: And you that’s not true. But that would be fine. Look, if you want to try something, try it. If you could make it work — if we could find a single-payer system that actually worked, which I don’t think is — is possible —
GLENN: But if it would actually work, I’d be for it. It doesn’t work.
Now, if you can do an experiment in your state and you’re not going to drag me down with you, go for it. But I’m not in on your experiment. It doesn’t work.
STU: Yeah. Of course, that’s how it winds up going every time. You wind up bailing them out anyway. And that’s the risk here. We’re going to see that with pensions, which is another thing we should get to at some point. But this is — one more thing on this: The DACA deal with Chuck Schumer. Remember this? They talked about this — and, you know, they’ve denied, well, there’s not really a deal.
But that whole deal, one of the big arguments for it on Donald Trump’s side was to say that you’re going to get help now from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, when it comes to legislation like tax reform or Obamacare. Right?
Like maybe they’ll work with you a little bit.
Listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer, when Graham-Cassidy comes out. A proposal that the president strongly supports.
After a few weeks of lying dormant, Trumpcare is back. And it’s meaner than ever. While its latest version of Trumpcare may live under a new name, no matter how many ways Republicans try to dress it up, this bill is even more dangerous than its predecessors.
Even after dealing with this guy, he not only came out strongly against the proposal, which you can understand. He shouldn’t change his principles. Right? He personalized it to Trump. He took one of Trump’s old quotes calling it mean to vilify him even further, and called it even more dangerous than all of the predecessors. Never deal with these people. They never, ever, ever will honor what they’ve said.