librewolf's picture

    Lie Alert: Obamacare Imploding; Trumpcare the Best for Patients

    Obamacare is "imploding", "collapsing under its own weight" etc. That is, and has been, the Republican drum beat, but is it true? I would argue that the answer is a flat out "No." But, but, but, what about those 130% premium increases, providers bailing on the Exchanges, etc. Yes, there are those issues ... in states who failed to implement the ACA (Affordable Care Act) the way it was crafted to function.

    Cartoon:Trump's healthcare plan. Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News. Reprinted under license


    It is a bit like buying a storage cabinet in a box. There are all the pieces "A" through "qq", all the various screws and self-locking bolts, 3 special drivers, and detailed  instructions for assembling the cabinet. You start putting it together and decide that there are just way more self-locking bolts, and you only want 2 shelves instead of 5, and you want the drawers on the right rather than the left. You finally get the thing put together, cussing included, get it all loaded up, and you open the drawer (now on the right), and the whole damn thing collapses, taking your special $5,000 vase with it.

    Now, you can make the argument that the cabinet was "faulty" and just "imploded" after you put it together. And, you can try suing the manufacturer for selling this lousy cabinet, and they should pay you not only for the cabinet, but your time, and the $5,000 vase that got broken when it fell apart. And, when it c0mes out how you "modified" the construction you are likely to get hit with a counter suit.

    The same is true of many of the issues the Republicans are carping about in regards to "Obamacare." Half of the states have chosen to either not participate or to only partially implement the program. Thereby undercutting important components. If they chose to not participate, then those folks within their state choosing to exercise their rights to healthcare, may find that the Exchange in their area has shrunk and costs are climbing.

    That is ONE way to look at the lie, and Johnathan Gruber explains this further in the audio file below from his interview on NPR.

    1. There should be coverage for all - medicare for all. Medicare is a plan that works fairly well, though improvements could be made - the first being that you should NOT be virtually forced to get a third party plan in order to actually use your benefits.
    2. Standard medical coverage (excluding optional and unnecessary procedures - and I know this is a tricky component) should be NON_PROFIT. The health of the nation should not be a for-profit environment.
    3. Pharmaceutical companies should be controlled more closely, and bidding and contracts to control costs (and quality) should be implemented.
    4. Developing and implementing a good PUBLIC health system that includes both urban and rural areas, and that may mean instituting both clinics and hospitals.
    5. Mental healthcare and dental care should not be treated differently than physical healthcare.
    6. Bag the taxing of "Cadillac" plans. I was lucky enough to work for an employer, in a UNION position, with a good insurance plan. While it would count as a "Cadillac" plan as identified under the ACA, it was NOT. It was a plan that AT A MINIMUM everyone should have (reasonable premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket  to cover standard, emergency, and catastrophic care), but there are far better oout there and the corporate executives have them.

    I am sure that we could add to the list. The problem in trying to implement a full coverage system in the U.S. is trying to make sure that everyone gets their piece of profit along the way - the pharmaceuticals, the insurance companies, the care providers and their administrators, the equipment providers, etc. These things don't only screw up healthcare policy, they screw up healthcare costs - higher and higher each year.

    Medicare administration is consistently under 10%, and the "paperwork" would be radically reduced if it was one system. This is far better than the costs of insurance companies. My Medicare payments are about $125 a month - taken out of my Social Security. My third party costs are far higher than that. I firmly believe that we could craft an exceptional healthcare system for everyone at relatively low cost IF we quit trying to keep all the private interests not only afloat, but coming up roses.

    There is nothing to stop the existence of a collateral for-profit health system, including a number of insurance possibilities for accessing it, or even bridging between it and the nonprofit system.

    I think it is important to remember that we once had a pretty good public health system (I was born in a public hospital), and a private system that was covered though employers. Employers began cutting benefits , and then locking down wages, to improve their profits. Reagan killed the public health system and opened up for-profit medical care. As employers cut benefits employees were forced into an environment with no insurance or paying out of pocket (something most people and families could not afford). For those employers who not only cut benefits, but also forced low wages or non-full time employment (like WalMart) they shifted the burden of not just healthcare (via medicaid), but food costs (via food stamps) and other subsidies (via welfare programs) onto the "government" (tax payers). Meanwhile the effective tax share of corporations decreased as the middle and working class effective tax rates increased. In other words, the tax payers (which includes the exploited workforce) picked up the tab on benefits (plus) to improve the profits of an array of corporations. I will restrain myself from going on about the ever-expanding quest for corporate profits and what it has cost the people, the nation, and the world.

    So fix healthcare for the PEOPLE, and not the for-profit arena and those with way more than their fair share of wealth.

    On March 9, 2017, MSNBC's Ali Velshi did a bang up job challenging the lies an memes about collapsing Obamacare, the wonders of the Republican plan, and the "problems" of single payer systems. He did what the Democrats SHOULD have been doing for the last 9 years - at least. You have to repeatedly challenge lies or the lies "win" in that many will think they are true.


    Velshi on healthcare _Vimeo from Rowan Wolf on Vimeo.




    Librewolf...  Nice post here...

    Here's another expert. Let's take a quick trip back to December and read what someone who can really answer the questions and knows the subject inside and out...

    December 3, 2016 | Salon

    Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel: Donald Trump has an
    opportunity “to do enormous good” — or to create “chaos”

    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was a White House adviser to President Barack Obama on healthcare and a key architect of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare. Today, he says he knows how to fix it. Emanuel shared with Salon his diagnosis of what ails the program and his recommendation for how to get the American health care system back on its feet, even with the unexpected arrival of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party in control of Congress.

    And here's the key questions that Dr. Emanuel answers...

    • During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump said that Obamacare is a “total disaster.” Is he right?


    • Help me understand why you think Obamacare is not a disaster, especially since it is rather unpopular.


    • What about overall costs? There is a widespread perception that Obamacare is just another expensive government giveaway by Democrats.


    • So how do you explain the fact that Obamacare has been so vilified and has become so unpopular?


    • Trump and the GOP say they will repeal and replace Obamacare. Can they do that?


    • Do any of the Republican ideas for replacing Obamacare have merit?


    • The GOP claims it will repeal Obamacare’s unpopular “individual mandate,” but keep the more popular aspects, like preventing insurers from denying coverage for “preexisting conditions.” Wouldn’t this approach be popular?


    • The Republican Congress has already passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, but Obama vetoed it. Speaker Paul Ryan now says that he will present this same bill to President Trump after his inauguration. What if this happens?


    • Obamacare, though, is facing problems of its own. The two main concerns are that premiums are increasing significantly for next year, and health insurers are pulling out of the market.


    • Yes, these are problems. The bigger of these two problems is the increase in premiums for ordinary Americans. But again, it is important to keep this in perspective.


    • What is the overarching cause of the current problems with Obamacare?


    • Some have said these problems are big enough that Obamacare is now in a “death spiral.” Is this the case?


    • So how would you fix Obamacare?


    • Why haven’t these adjustments to Obamacare already been made?


    • What is the future of Obamacare? Is it dead under President Trump?


    • Despite your association with President Obama, if President-elect Trump calls, might you agree to help him?

    Read the entire article here for Dr. Emanuel's answers...-->>


    Oh and Uh... To answer that last question.

    That was from here...

    March 19, 2017 | Twitchy

    Donald Trump set to meet with Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel tomorrow







    Many liberals were disappointed that the ACA was the best we could get. But many of the problems, as you pointed out, was republicans working against it. Another republican caused problem was defunding risk corridors.

    When Democrats wrote the Affordable Care Act, they understood that insurers might initially have a hard time figuring out where to set prices. Because insurers hadn’t sold these kinds of policies (with comprehensive benefits) under these conditions (without exclusions for pre-existing conditions), they didn’t have actuarial data on which to base pricing decisions.

    In order to reassure insurers that might hesitate to enter the markets amid such unknowns, and in order to protect them against crippling losses, the law’s architects created a “risk corridor” program, in which the government promised to reimburse insurers, mostly, for excessive losses. (Insurers that misjudged in the other direction, and had unexpected windfalls, would pay part of that money into the program.)

    The idea was not novel. Medicare Part D, the program that provides seniors with prescription drug coverage, also has a risk corridor program. And it has never been controversial ― even though it’s a permanent part of the program, unlike the temporary one in the Affordable Care Act.

    But conservative groups targeted the program, calling it a “bailout” for health insurance companies, despite the fact that it was included in the law from the beginning. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) picked up the mantle and led a crusade to undercut the program’s funding.

    I personally got screwed by the defunding of risk corridors, my co-op insurer Health Republic went belly up before the end of the term in 2015 and all of us subscribers had to scramble for coverage outside of the usual schedule. It was not fun. We also had to straighten out things like unsettled claims and co-pays etc. by a deadline imposed by that, and I couldn't manage the time by the deadline and lost a significant amount of money.

    Joy Reid did an excellent job of dismantling the lies of a Georgia Republican Congressman about Trumpcare on Sunday.

    While I find the use of the word "imploding" to be hyperbolic, I think that it is true that fewer and fewer insurers are going to be offering plans on the exchanges, and that coverage will become more expensive and also dissatisfying to users. And anyone who cares about actually truly fixing Obamacare Romneycare (granted, most of the Congressional GOP does not) will admit that and not get into fighting agitprop with agitprop. Because if they didn't do anything, I think it is true that more and more people would become very dissatisfied with Obamacare. Romneycare.

    I like to read analysts who suggest causes and solutions to the problems, like this one:

    How to fix Obamacare with this one amazing trick

    Forcing young, mostly healthy Americans off their parents' coverage could help Republicans make good on their promise to salvage the health care system.

    By and

    @, 03/19/17 07:01 AM EDT

    Whether that would be wise to do politically is another question. But I will say this: look at how the Congressional Budget Office, trying to be a fair and objective analyst, screwed up GOP political machinations.

    Edit to add: of course Trump has been shown to be a emporer without clothes on health care policy and clearly had zero knowledge of policy when he made his promises. Anyone who doesn't realize that after his "it's complicated" comment is a hopeless case and is going to support him no matter what. Most people don't have time to understand the complexity of Obamacare and health insurance policy alternatives and are going to go with whoever they trust, and complain later when they have to use it and are unhappy, that's just reality.

    And this @ WaPo, posted one hour ago:

    Ezekiel Emanuel, whose brother Rahm is the mayor of Chicago and former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, appears to be the rare Democrat the president is consulting on health policy.

    A simple fix?

    Those two authors there at Politico know just about enough to make it appear so easy to fix the problem with one little change. If we really wish to fix it, the following is a bit of reality from Dr. Emanuel. And as to the WaPo piece Emanuel's stance hasn't change one iota since December 2016.

    December at Salon:

    The author: So how would you fix Obamacare?

    Dr. Emauel: Fixing Obamacare is actually not all that difficult. What is needed is to implement a set of measures designed to guide the program in the desired direction. It is sort of like taking your car into the shop for a tune-up. Mechanics put the car up on the rack and make a whole series of adjustments. This is what Obamacare needs. I’ll give you a few examples.

    One measure would be to extend the expiring risk-mitigation programs. When Obamacare was being developed, the insurance companies faced substantial uncertainties in forecasting the potential profit or loss from participating in the exchanges because uncertainty existed about the number of people who might enroll and the extent of their health care expenditures. This uncertainty caused the insurance companies to increase their pricing. So Congress agreed that the government would provide various risk-mitigation programs, such as the risk corridor program and reinsurance, to help defray unanticipated expenses.

    Under the risk corridor program, for example, both profits and losses are shared if the actual health spending by enrollees varies substantially from the forecasts. In other words, if the insurance companies earn a high profit, then a portion of this profit is paid to the government. And if the insurance companies suffer a significant loss, then a portion of this loss is reimbursed by the government. This provides greater certainty to the insurance companies and results in lower premiums.

    As it so happens, both the risk corridor program and the reinsurance program are expiring at the end of 2016. And lo and behold, premiums for 2017 are increasing substantially. Extending these risk-mitigation programs would likely cause the insurance companies to lower their premiums. Lower premiums, in turn, would lead to greater participation by more healthy enrollees.

    Another measure would be to increase the penalty for not purchasing any insurance. When the penalty is significantly lower than the cost of purchasing the insurance, some people will elect to simply pay the penalty. But as the penalty increases, not only would more money flow into the system, but more people would be inclined to purchase the insurance. This would increase enrollment.

    Another measure would be to increase the government subsidies. This would lower the cost of the premiums and thus cause more people to purchase the insurance.

    A number of other measures exist as well, including some from Republicans. The net effect of all these measures would be to lower the cost of premiums, increase participation in the program by healthy people, and increase the number of insurers participating in the marketplace.


    Politico has the "sweeteners" that have been added to the House bill for the vote, including those suggested by the Trump admin:


    accdg. to the NYTimes, there has also been a gift inserted fro NY State Republicans as regards Medicaid:

    WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders, trying to lock down the votes of wavering upstate New York Republicans, inserted a last-minute special provision in their health care bill that would shift Medicaid costs from New York’s counties to its state government.

    The move — one of a number of late changes designed to gain more votes — would affect New York State only. It could save county governments outside of New York City $2.3 billion a year. But it could shift costs to state taxpayers or deny New York that same total in matching federal aid if the state continues to require those counties to contribute to the cost of Medicaid. Upstate New York Republicans, backed by local government officials, pressed for the measure over the angry opposition of New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo [....]

    Health care bill's 'Buffalo Bribe' detonates across New York

    'They've declared war on New York,' said Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

    By Jimmy Vielkind @ Politico, 03/21/17 06:31 PM

    ALBANY — They call it the ‘Buffalo Bribe.’ Or the ‘Tammany Haul.’ Or the ‘Knickerbocker Kickback.’ [....]

    If you were truly old like me you´d remember a ¨how to"book from 1980 called ¨The pursuit of excellence or something like that. Mostly , yawn,  But with two good things in it.

    ¨ Ready , aim , aim , aim, aim Fire¨. 

    And my favorite: ¨ Do it ,fix it.¨

    Or as Goethe put it even more succinctly  ¨Only begin ¨

    Probably one or another, or several , or all ,of the suggestions above could have fixed Obamacare.

    Or something else.

    But it could have been fixed. It was in the ball park. The dogs had shown some interest in the dog food. There was a market. I could dredge up several more old saws but......... OK , here's one.¨Obamacare¨ was a  ¨beta test¨. .It proved the concept.All that was required to establish it permanently was a government that wanted it. Note the period

    I was going to write  ¨A government that wanted it to succeed ¨ but the last two words were redundant.

    It was less successful than it needed to become because the Republicans used every tool available to them to prevent it from becoming as successful as it needed to become.

    Why? Didn´t know it was saving lives? That real human being were breathing on Dec 31 2016 who wouldn´t have been if there were no Obamacare; Thousands and thousands of them.

    As I write I remember a young doctor I knew in the UK. He´d been living in New York , attached to a famous hospital. And loved New York. How not?  And loved making money How not ?But couldn´t  stand the  certain knowledge that patients whom he ´d  seen  were going to experience pain and/or die because they couldn´t afford  the meds , the treatment or hospital bills required. So he moved back to boring old Britain where such people would automatically be treated and continue with their boring old lives.

    Of course the Republican  knew that and still  know that. And they don ´ t care. Say after me:

    The Republicans don't give a damn about the lives that  were  saved by Obamacare.

    Why? I ´ll stop here because otherwise the next words I would type would be very unpleasant.

    Like them. 


    Well, I believe that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. And I feel that it should be non-profit as making healthcare (including pharma) a profit center means that those who have less are by definition worth less (or worthless) and ethically that is just not tenable in my book.

    It pisses me off that (at least in my neck of the woods) if you are on medicare you almost have to get third party insurance (beyond the medicare you already pay for) in order to actually access healthcare. My sister-in-law who has the equivalent of medicaid had virtually no choice in accessing medical care.

    I do not get what "compassionate conservatism" is unless it is for those with high economic substance (or the corporations then own).

    So Flavius,I'm with you on this one.

    I suspect nearly everyone on this site would agree in theory that the profit motive has no place in the practice of medicine and while all have flaws, not just single payer but national health is the best system. How to get to that point with like 1/5 of our economy involved in what we have now, is another thing. As you well point out here, the profit motive now even has it's claws around Medicare.

    There's all kind of jobs jobs jobs involved with all that money being made. And growth growth growth all the time as boomers age. And then there's this that few arguing on health issues note: health related stocks are some of the most popular around, they may even be part of IRA portfolios of people on this very site.

    Flavius... Yes that's where we've been...

    Now would I be correct in assuming that this is NOT one those issues that falls into the department of, "Sometimes Trump's right"???



    You are correct.

    The Freedom Caucus is actually more insane than Trump on how miserly they want to be on healthcare

    Couple this with the profile of Trump supporter Robert Mercer (see link to profile in the "News" section) and you have to conclude that the party is clearly deranged.

    Edit to add:

    More evidence of derangement, a Pennsylvania Republican Congressman says God polluted the Chesapeake. He wants to follow God's plan for the Bay.

    look at this big headline just up @ WaPo. there's similar at Politico and The Hill. Ooo it's an alpha male show, this is serious "are you men or mice" crunch time for the Freedom Caucus types, and others wavering. do you believe in your ideology, are you a betting man, you gonna bet Trump will still be there and continue to be favored by your constituency:

    The president stormed Capitol Hill to sell the health-care overhaul, using both charm and admonishment to make his case, reassuring skittish members that they would gain seats in Congress if the bill passed. Rep. Harold Rogers, a supporter of the bill, said of the president's threatening remark: “Oh, he was kidding around. I think.”

    Meanwhile, there's plenty other stories around the last few days how Trump hasn't that much of a clue what's in the bill.So he is betting he can bullshit or bully his way out of it if it should pass and the fans aren't happy with the results (not totally unlikely: blame them that you threatened and say "well, you know I don't read?


    I think a lot of the Republicans will fall into line on the Thursday vote.

    The GOP is backing away from the vote today. Trump and Ryan failed.

    but he's not giving in yet; NPR calls it "Major Blow to Trump": BUT that

    Trump is going to try a different tack — at a point a bit more leftward on the spectrum — and meet with the maybe two dozen moderates in the so-called Tuesday Group later Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said at a White House briefing with reporters.

    Edit to add: comes to mind, moderates got to feel that they come second to conservatives with him! When they probably started out thinking he was more on their side given the nature of his vague promises when running.

    I don't see how this helps him. It's the so called "freedom caucus" being unwilling to compromise that's stymied efforts of moderates to compromise for the last 8 years. So far they don't seem any more willing to compromise now that republicans are in control. We'll see I guess. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.


    yeah nothing left to lose does come to mind but then it's ironic because they are supposedly such a majority. As a long time Independent, I think that whole thing is just more pile-on of many years of our political parties having very little meaning anymore, they are far too factional to have any.

    What popped into my mind now on this front: a day ago I was reading that big mean scary Trump was going to remember every single person that didn't vote his way, whoever wouldn't deal and make sure their life was miserable. And he was going to start with the conservatives.  And then I saw the story about the Koch brothers promising they'd cover anyone threatened with being primaried for refusing to vote for the Ryan bill, cash money included (Scroll down a short ways to see that story, I posted it on this thread Thu, 03/23/2017 - 12:30am .)

    It doesn't seem to me that threat has any teeth. "Little Marco" "Lying Ted Cruz" and "not a hero" McCain won easily despite the fights they had with Trump. He doesn't seem to have the power to convince people not to vote for someone any more than Obama seemed to have the power to convince his followers to vote for his choices. Look at all the seats democrats have lost during Obama's 8 years despite his campaigning for them.

    Great point that make Nunes look even more wimpy.  But Trump's still not giving up, WaPo now

    At Trump’s urging, House Republicans to vote on health-care bill Friday even as they still whip for votes

    and on CNN they just had a report live from Capitol, the GOP is having a big pep rally,on like the procedural vote, the reporters outside can hear like standing ovations inside the room

    and that Trump's personal account has just tweeted support including creating the hashtag #passthebill

    But I like that Chris Cillizza's op-ed from a few hours ago is #5 on "most read" and climbing:

    Nice version, thanks. Has it been 14 years? Jesus.

    GOP rep: Trump could be 'one-term president' if healthcare bill passes

    By Max Greenwood [email protected] The, 03/22/17 09:32 PM EDT

    [....] During an appearance on CNN Wednesday night, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said that the plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act will only become less popular over time, further degrading its already tepid support.

    "We're afraid he's a one-term president if this passes. We are trying to save him," Massie said. "The phone calls to my office are running 275 against versus four – only four votes from my constituents are in favor of this."

    "Voting for this is bad today, and it's going to be really bad in two or three years when the changes start kicking in and health insurance prices start going through the roof."  [....]

    GOP centrist leader to oppose healthcare plan

    By Cristina Marcos [email protected],  03/22/17 10:57 PM EDT
    The leader of a centrist group of House Republicans said late Wednesday that he will oppose the GOP healthcare legislation. 

    Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a co-chairman of the centrist Tuesday Group, said in a statement that the bill to repeal and replace the 2010 healthcare law "misses the mark."
    Dent had previously expressed concerns about the bill's rollback of the Medicaid expansion. His formal opposition could open the door to more centrists voting against the GOP leadership's proposal. 
    "After careful deliberation, I cannot support the bill and will oppose it. I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans, particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals," Dent said. 
    Dent's announcement came as a meeting between GOP leaders and members of the Tuesday Group stretched late into Wednesday night. 
    GOP leaders plan to bring the bill for a vote on Thursday. 

    Earlier Wednesday evening, members of the conservative Freedom Caucus said they were hoping to negotiate changes to the bill with President Trump. Those alterations could include repealing ObamaCare's essential health benefits that require minimum insurance requirements. 

    But it's a change that could alienate centrists who GOP leaders were already struggling to convince to get on board with the legislation. 

    Dent was among the nine Republicans to vote against a budget resolution in January that took the first step toward repealing ObamaCare. 


    Koch Network to Defend Republicans Who Vote Against AHCA

    Newsmax, March 22

    The conservative Koch network is promising to spend millions of dollars to defeat the health care overhaul backed by President Donald Trump and top House Republicans.

    The network's leading organizations, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, announced late Wednesday the creation of a special fund to support House members who vote against the health care bill.

    The announcement, which comes on the eve of the House vote, marks the influential conservative network's most aggressive move against the health care proposal, which is under attack from the right and the left.

    "The bill as it stands today is Obamacare 2.0," said James Davis, executive vice president of Freedom Partners, in a statement announcing the new fund. He added, "We will stand with lawmakers who keep their promise and oppose this legislation - and work toward a solution that reduces costs and provides Americans with the relief they need and deserve." [.....]

    and on Trump wheeling and dealing to win over some of the above:

    Inside Trump’s last-ditch bid to avoid a health care disaster

    The president is doing a hard sell ahead of Thursday's decisive House vote.

    By , and

    @ 03/22/17 07:22 PM EDT

    Kaplan & Pear @ NYT this morn basically suggest here  that Trump was not very successful in his supposed deal making with the House conservatives:

    WASHINGTON — Hard-line conservatives in the House left their White House meeting with President Trump Thursday afternoon without consensus on legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as they pressed to eliminate federal requirements that health insurance plans provide a basic set of benefits like maternity care, emergency services and wellness visits.

    House Republican leaders had placed their faith in a House Freedom Caucus negotiating session at the White House with Mr. Trump. Without an agreement, a vote on the House floor, still scheduled for Thursday, could slip, although House leaders have not made that decision [....]

    NYT basically acting as House Whip on the voting with a new article, very detailed, with interactive charts & maps

    How House Republicans Are Planning to Vote on the Obamacare Replacement

    By THE NEW YORK TIMES UPDATED Thursday, 3 p.m. Eastern

    I paste the beginning below but the charts will not paste, best to see at their site:

    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan is still trying to build a majority to pass the Republican health care bill, which is scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday.

    The bill needs 216 votes to pass. None of the Democrats in the House have said they support it, but at least one is expected to miss the vote. That means no more than 22 Republicans can vote against the bill, if it is to pass. Of the 237 Republicans in the House …


    144 Support the bill or lean yes


    47 Undecided or unclear


    15 Concerns or lean no


    31 No

    Positions are based on public statements by members, and may change.

    House Republicans released an amendment to the bill — the American Health Care Act — on Monday night in an effort to sway more members to vote yes. The original bill had faced opposition from both conservative and centrist Republicans.

    Many of the Republicans counted in our “oppose” group have expressed concerns about the original bill, which was released on March 6, or have said they would vote against it. Party leaders expect many of them, as well as many of those who have been undecided, to support the bill as it is finalized.

    The Hard-Line Conservatives


    Position of Freedom Caucus members and of recipients of campaign contributions from the group's PAC


    The House Freedom Caucus, a group of at least 30 members, poses the greatest threat to Republicans’ long-awaited opportunity to undo President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act.

    Latest Comments