TrumpCare

Search

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
1hSteven Dennis
@StevenTDennis

[h=1]What CBO said about AHCA 1.0 (thread): [/h]Steven Dennis
@StevenTDennis
A 64-year-old making $26,500 a year could see a ***758%*** increase in their premiums ($14,600 yr vs $1700), plus much higher copays: CBO






320
178












51mSteven Dennis
@StevenTDennis

[h=1]In states that don't opt to revive pre-existing conditions and gut essential health benefits, score should be similar. BUT...[/h]



5
7











50mSteven Dennis
@StevenTDennis

[h=1]States that allow Uber-skimpy-cheap insurance could seriously alter the score. Lower premiums IF you qualify and don't need the bennies

[/h]



3
5










 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[FONT=&quot]Kristen.


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Sean, can you say definitively that no one with a preexisting condition will pay more under the amendment?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: I think we've done everything we can to do that. And every measure that the President has taken further not only ensures that people with preexisting conditions get covered in every scenario, but does so in a way that bends the cost curve down.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Can you guarantee it?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: I think -- with all due respect, to answer a question and say can I guarantee something -- but I can tell you that every single thing that the President has done, including the action that he took this morning to work with members of Congress, does everything by every account to bend the cost curve down, to help anybody that would potentially fall into that small group of individuals to get -- to bend the cost curve down who have preexisting conditions.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So the answer is, yes, that we have done every single thing possible to get that down and to ensure that, number one, that that potential is as small as possible. Because the bill covers people with preexisting conditions, number one. Number two, it does everything to ensure that if a state seeks a waiver that they are still covered. But it looks at every single possibility to ensure that people get the care that they need.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Is there a concern -- you criticized former President Obama rushing through his healthcare plan. Is this not being rushed through? This legislation hasn't even been scored yet by the CBO or put up for public debate -- this latest piece of legislation.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Well, every piece of legislation evolves as it goes through the process. We saw that this morning. I think we had a piece that makes it an even stronger bill. But the underlying principles that we have been talking about have been something that Republicans have been talking about and have had the contours of for the last seven years. This was something that has been part of the process for a long time.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Does he expect to see a vote this week?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: The President -- I've answered this a lot of times. The President expects to see a vote when the Speaker and the Leader and the Whip call a vote because they believe they have the votes to go on.[/FONT]
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
And here are the worthless quotes from Sean Spicer lol
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[FONT=&quot]Jim.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q And getting back to healthcare, why even monkey around with preexisting conditions? That’s the most popular thing in Obamacare. Why are you guys spinning your wheels messing around with preexisting conditions?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: I wouldn’t call it “messing around,” or however you phrased it. I think the President wants to do everything --

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Right now, people with preexisting conditions are covered. They’re not discriminated against.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: No, no, just hold on --

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q You’re going to change to a system where who the hell knows what’s going to happen. It depends on what state they live in. If they live in this state over here, that governor may seek a waiver and all of a sudden they’re thrown into this system where hopefully that fund is going to cover their preexisting conditions. It is a big change for people who live with those kinds of illnesses, is it not?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Well, look, the big change -- I guess we have a very different view of this. Because my view, and I think the President’s view, is that Obamacare -- if you have a preexisting condition and you no longer have a healthcare provider, or your premiums or deductible are going through the roof, then you don’t have coverage.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And we just read it out. I mean, I don’t -- if you have --

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q So you’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: No, no, what I'm saying to you right now --[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q Repeal Obamacare because you’re saying it’s not working, but then why change preexisting conditions?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: We're not. No, no, we’re strengthening -- I think -- look, we have done everything to not only strengthen but to guarantee --

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Is it strengthening it if --

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Absolutely.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q -- a governor can say, here’s my waiver and no more preexisting conditions?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Sure you can. Jim, I walked through this. But I think the fundamental point that seems to be getting lost is that if you have Obamacare right now, in case after case you are losing it. So if you have a preexisting condition and you have a card that says “Obamacare” but no one will see you or you can’t afford it, then you don’t have coverage.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Why not fix that?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: We are. We’re guaranteeing it. But I don’t know how much --[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q Why does the preexisting condition component have to be altered? Why not just keep that protection in place?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: The President has made it very clear that preexisting conditions are covered in the bill under every scenario. I don’t know how much clearer we can state it.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q So anybody who has a preexisting condition under Trumpcare, they’re going to be fine, without question?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Yes.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Thank you, Sean. I want to follow up on healthcare. I just want to know why the White House is pushing so hard for a vote on this healthcare bill at a time when, as you just said a few minutes ago, it’s literally impossible to analyze its impact on the healthcare system. Why not wait for that analysis to come out?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: The vote is going to happen, as I’ve said, like eight times now, when the Speaker and the Majority Leader and the Majority Whip want to. Our job is to work as hard as we can to work with members of Congress who want to see their healthcare system improved. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we’ve done. And so it will be up to the House leadership to decide when to vote.[/FONT]
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[FONT=&quot]Zeke.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q Thanks, Sean. Two questions for you; one following on Jordan real quick. You just made a guarantee to the American people on behalf of the President regarding preexisting conditions, but you told Matt and then Jordan earlier that it's literally impossible to know the impact of this law. So how can you make that guarantee?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: No, no, he was asking -- they were asking about cost. The President has made it very clear on numerous occasions that he’s going to make sure that preexisting conditions are covered.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q And so then the White House has the analysis to back that up, is what you’re saying?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: In every scenario, yes. [/FONT]
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
[font=&amp]zeke.

[/font]

[font=&amp]q thanks, sean. Two questions for you; one following on jordan real quick. You just made a guarantee to the american people on behalf of the president regarding preexisting conditions, but you told matt and then jordan earlier that it's literally impossible to know the impact of this law. So how can you make that guarantee?

[/font]

[font=&amp]mr. Spicer: No, no, he was asking -- they were asking about cost. The president has made it very clear on numerous occasions that he’s going to make sure that preexisting conditions are covered.

[/font]

[font=&amp]q and so then the white house has the analysis to back that up, is what you’re saying?

[/font]

[font=&amp]mr. Spicer: In every scenario, yes. [/font]
lol
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
[h=1]Trump guarantees protection for those with preexisting medical conditions — but it’s unclear how[/h]By Paul Kane, Jenna Johnson
May 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM
imrs.php

President Trump promised on April 30 that new GOP health-care legislation will preserve coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions — but critics say that's at odds with his promise to lower premiums. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

President Trump tried Sunday to reassure anxious Republicans that the latest proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act would continue to protect those with preexisting medical conditions, although he struggled to fully articulate what form those protections would take.


As Republicans have tried to find a health-care bill on which they can reach a consensus, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) agreed to support an amendment that would allow insurance providers in some states to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions or costly health problems, as long as that state set up “high-risk pools” that could instead help cover the cost of care. Proponents say this would lower premiums for healthy individuals, but critics say it would dramatically drive up costs for those who are seriously ill. Democrats, along with many Republicans, have argued that the popular preexisting protections should stay as they are.




In an interview with CBS News's “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday morning, Trump said “this bill has evolved” over the past several weeks and will “beautifully” protect those who have preexisting medical conditions. He highlighted the proposal to set up high-risk pools — but he also repeatedly seemed to suggest continuing the current mandate.


“Preexisting conditions are in the bill — and I mandate it. I said, 'Has to be,'" Trump said, later adding that the proposal has “a clause that guarantees” protection for those with preexisting conditions.


At another point in the interview, the president said, “Preexisting is going to be in there, and we're also going to create pools, and pools are going to take care of the preexisting.”


When asked to clarify the president's comments, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that under the current proposal, the changes being discussed would apply only to those who don't have continuous health insurance coverage. Spicer did not directly say whether the president supports this approach or whether Trump instead wants to keep the full protections in place.


“The waiver would allow states to take different approaches to incentivize people to obtain coverage before they fall ill,” Spicer said. “Under Obamacare's rules, many people are waiting until they need significant medical services before they buy insurance.”


Related: House Republicans fall short in scramble for vote on new health-care proposal

Trump's comments illustrated the internal struggle Republicans are going through in their drive to meet the sometimes conflicting promises of lowering premiums and yet maintaining certain coverage requirements such as preexisting conditions. Trump and the vast majority of congressional Republicans regularly promised that their bill replacing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, would maintain the provision protecting those with preexisting conditions.




But as House Republicans struggled to find votes for the repeal-and-replace legislation, Ryan agreed to support an amendment backed by a bloc of staunch conservatives that would allow states to opt out of these coverage requirements. This amendment was negotiated by the chairmen of the House Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group — the most conservative and moderate caucuses, respectively, among Republicans — and it won near-unanimous backing from the Freedom Caucus. However, many members of the Tuesday Group and other corners of the House GOP fear that it goes too far and reneges on campaign promises. Dozens of House Republicans have either outright opposed the proposal or are withholding support.


Related: Conservatives endorse latest Republican plan to revise Obamacare

For example, Rep. Ryan Costello (Pa.) voted for the original GOP health legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee in mid-March but last week announced his opposition to the bill because of the new amendment. Costello's suburban district, west of Philadelphia, is one of 23 held by a House Republican that Trump lost last year.


Democrats have said that the latest proposal does not provide anywhere near enough subsidies for the high-risk pools to ensure that those with preexisting conditions do not face skyrocketing premiums.


On NBC's “Meet the Press,” Vice President Pence touted that proposal and singled out Maine's use of the high-risk pools last decade to protect those at the most risk in terms of health. Maine's two senators — Susan Collins (R) and Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats — appeared on the show after Pence and noted that their state's high-risk pool was well funded through a large assessment on every health-care plan in the state and that it was left with a $5 million surplus when it ended because the ACA replaced it.




“It's all in the details, because what's being proposed doesn't have the subsidy, for example, that made the Maine high-risk pool successful,” King said. “It's worth looking at, but I don't think it is a panacea, and I don't think it necessarily is an easy answer to the dilemma of preexisting conditions.”





Paul Kane is The Post's senior congressional correspondent and columnist. His column about the 115th Congress, @PKCapitol, appears throughout the week and on Sundays.
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
Politics


A Little-Noticed Target in the House Health Bill: Special Education







Students at Merriman Park Elementary School in Dallas in 2014. The Richardson ISD Council of PTAs hosted a program called “Understanding Differences” to show students and teachers what it is like to have learning disabilities.

By ERICA L. GREEN


MAY 3, 2017


WASHINGTON — While House Republicans lined up votes Wednesday for a Thursday showdown over their bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Vickie Glenn sat in her Murphysboro, Ill., office and prayed for it to fail.


Ms. Glenn, a Medicaid coordinator for Tri-County Special Education, an Illinois cooperative that helps more than 20 school districts deliver special education services to students, was worried about an issue that few in Congress were discussing: how the new American Health Care Act, with its deep cuts to Medicaid, would affect her 2,500 students.


With all the sweeping changes the Republican bill would impose, little attention has been paid to its potential impact on education. School districts rely on Medicaid, the federal health care program for the poor, to provide costly services to millions of students with disabilities across the country. For nearly 30 years, Medicaid has helped school systems cover costs for special education services and equipment, from physical therapists to feeding tubes. The money is also used to provide preventive care, such as vision and hearing screenings, for other Medicaid-eligible children.


“If I could have 10 minutes with President Trump, I could help him understand what we do, why it’s important,” Ms. Glenn said. “If he understood, he would protect it, because this isn’t Republicans and Democrats. It’s just kids.”


The new law would cut Medicaid by $880 billion, or 25 percent, over 10 years and impose a “per-capita cap” on funding for certain groups of people, such as children and the elderly — a dramatic change that would convert Medicaid from an entitlement designed to cover any costs incurred to a more limited program.



AASA, an advocacy association for school superintendents, estimates that school districts receive about $4 billion in Medicaid reimbursements annually. In a January survey of nearly 1,000 district officials in 42 states, nearly 70 percent of districts reported that they used the money to pay the salaries of health care professionals who serve special education students.


Republicans say federal health programs must be restructured to curb their soaring costs — the biggest driver of projected budget deficits — and force a smarter allocation of limited resources.
But in a letter sent to top lawmakers this week, a coalition of school educators and advocacy organizations said such efforts would force states to “ration health care for children.”

The advocates argued that under the House bill, the federal government would transfer the burden of health care to states, which would result in higher taxes, eligibility cuts or curtailed services for children. And they said that schools would have to compete for funding with other entities, like hospitals and clinics, that serve Medicaid-eligible children.


The ability of school systems to provide services mandated under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act would be strained. The law is supposed to ensure that students with disabilities receive high-quality educational services, but it has historically been underfunded.

Under a little-noticed provision of the health care bill, states would no longer have to consider schools eligible Medicaid providers, meaning they would not be entitled to reimbursements.


“School-based Medicaid programs serve as a lifeline to children who can’t access critical health care and health services outside of their school,” said the letter sent this week by the Save Medicaid in Schools Coalition, which consists of more than 50 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the School Superintendents Association.



Ms. Glenn said she believed that Medicaid should be reined in. But, she said, schools are already reimbursed for only a fraction of the costs of services they provide.


The National Alliance for Medicaid in Education estimates that 1 percent of all Medicaid reimbursement goes to local school districts. Even without the funding, school districts would be legally required to provide special education services.


“I realize there have to be cuts, because Medicaid’s been out of control,” Ms. Glenn said. But, she added: “We have so many more demands. We’re not in it making money. We’re constantly in the hole.”


John George, executive director of the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit in Pennsylvania, said Medicaid primarily paid for speech, physical and behavior therapists.


Special education students make up roughly 16 percent of his student population, he said, and his most recent Medicaid reimbursement was about $5.4 million.


“It’s devastating,” Mr. George said of the potential impact of losing Medicaid funding. “Our most vulnerable citizens are going to be suffering the most. If any legislator votes for this, it’s unconscionable.”


Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.




The New York Times




 

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
2,755
Tokens
It's hard as hell trying to sort through all of these articles to find a post. Post a link with a sentence explaining the link. Jeez
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
[h=1]Deep-pocketed health care lobbies line up against Trump[/h]The GOP's Obamacare repeal bill is detested by virtually all of the most powerful health care groups.
By ADAM CANCRYN , SARAH KARLIN-SMITH and PAUL DEMKO
05/03/17 06:56 PM EDT
Updated 05/03/17 08:11 PM EDT

90

“We have to have [the subsidies],” said Brad Wilson (right), CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. “Clarity around what that means is absolutely critical.” | AP Photo








Just about every major health care group opposes President Donald Trump’s health care overhaul — and the self-styled negotiator-in-chief hasn’t tried cutting a deal with them.


The opposition from the deep-pocketed health care industry — and patient advocacy groups from the American Heart Association to the March of Dimes — has made it hard for Republicans to push Obamacare repeal through the House. And they could be a persistent obstacle if the legislation makes it to the Senate.

Story Continued Below



“A bill that’s completely opposed by the whole health care establishment is very, very difficult to pass,” said John Rother, who was the AARP’s top lobbyist for more than two decades.


Hospitals and doctors are actively engaged in killing Trump’s plan, fearful that its severe cuts to Medicaid and insurance subsidies will wreak havoc on their bottom lines. Patient advocates object to again allowing insurers to charge sick people more. Notably, insurers are largely avoiding this battle, focusing instead on pressuring Republicans to keep paying out Obamacare subsidies.


Trump hasn’t made a serious effort to court any of these groups, potentially depriving himself of key allies who could have helped convert skeptical lawmakers and the American public. As the repeal effort has dragged on way longer than congressional leaders anticipated, polls have found little support for the GOP bill while Obamacare’s popularity has reached new heights.


Though Trump this week has dialed up reluctant Republican lawmakers on the repeal bill, his hands-off approach to the health care industry is a far cry from the Obama administration’s concerted effort to win over the groups as Obamacare was drafted. The Obama White House wound up cutting deals with every part of the health care industry — insurance companies, doctors groups, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry — to get the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. Though Republicans panned those deals as giveaways and they even made some Democrats uncomfortable, they were key to holding the Obamacare coalition together all these years.



[h=3]Upton, Long reverse themselves and back Obamacare repeal bill[/h]By JOHN BRESNAHAN , KYLE CHENEY , RACHAEL BADE and JOSH DAWSEY

“Every single health care group was deeply invested in the [ACA],” Rother said. “It couldn’t be more opposite today.”


Those dynamics have left Republicans isolated amid the push for their first legislative victory of the Trump era. And recent changes to the House legislation meant to entice reluctant GOP moderates has only deepened the industry’s resolve.


“It’s worse. We hate it,” Illinois Health and Hospital Association spokesman Danny Chun said about the latest tweaks. “We’re still opposing it, and we’re again contacting our delegation, especially the Republicans: Do not support it when it hits the floor.”


It wasn’t long ago, however, that the health care industry wanted to help shape the GOP overhaul. In the wake of the GOP’s surprise sweep into power last November, major lobbying groups initially decided not to stand in the way of Obamacare repeal, seeing it as a foregone conclusion.


Hospital lobbyists quietly hoped to build on Obamacare’s coverage gains while reversing the health law’s payment cuts to providers. Insurers pressed the incoming Trump administration for major regulatory changes aimed at stabilizing the wobbly Obamacare markets.

But that outreach yielded few returns. They say the White House and congressional Republicans showed little interest in calling on interest groups deeply invested in the health care system. Some groups have given up on working with House lawmakers altogether, and in some cases, early hopes that Senate Republicans will be more receptive have diminished in recent weeks.


“Stakeholders weren’t brought in to kind of troubleshoot some of the problem areas of the bill,” said Betsy Ryan, CEO of the New Jersey Hospital Association. “Hence, the almost uniform opposition.”


[h=2]Morning eHealth[/h]A daily report on the intersection of health care and technology — in your inbox.



EmailSign UpBy signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.




Provider groups are worried that the GOP is jamming through policy with little understanding of its implications, according to several lobbyists charged with establishing ties to the party. That’s pushed providers to the front lines of the effort to kill Republicans’ repeal bid, issuing dire warnings about the bill’s potential to leave millions more uninsured and cut crucial funding to health care facilities.


On the Hill, some Republicans acknowledge hesitation about working with groups that actively supported Obamacare, including the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association.


“For some, there’s a little bit of suspicion about those organizations,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La).


There’s almost as little enthusiasm for Republicans’ repeal bill coming from the other corners of the health care industry. Insurers are busy with another pressing issue: whether the Trump administration will abruptly scrap crucial Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies worth about $7 billion this year. While they have major concerns about the GOP repeal bill, especially its nearly $900 billion cut to Medicaid, those are on the back burner as they press for subsidies.


“We have to have [the subsidies],” said Brad Wilson, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. “Clarity around what that means is absolutely critical.”


Trump has hinted he could nix the payments — which would likely collapse the Obamacare exchanges — to bring Democrats to the negotiating table on health care. But that would carry huge political risk for Republicans, with polls showing the public would blame them if the insurance markets implode and millions lose coverage.


“That’s the doomsday scenario that we’re all trying to avoid,” Wilson said.


CONGRESS
[h=3]Why Democrats secretly want an Obamacare repeal vote[/h]By HEATHER CAYGLE


Mario Molina, the recently ousted CEO of Molina Healthcare, said in an interview Wednesday that other health plans would like to return to the pre-Obamacare landscape.


“They don’t like the health insurance tax and they would like to return to a time when they could exclude people with pre-existing conditions,” Molina said. “For them it would be a good thing to go back to the old way of doing things.”


He said health plans have generally stayed quiet, concerned an aggressive stance could antagonize the Trump administration.


Meanwhile, the drug industry, which was the first to cut a deal with the Obama administration on health care, is laying low. While drug makers were desperate to avoid major Democratic reforms to their industry eight years ago, they have relatively little to lose in the repeal fight. However, they would be happy to see Obamacare’s tax on branded drug sales scrapped in the repeal bill.


Drugmakers — already facing plenty of scrutiny over high-cost treatments — would like to avoid unnecessary attention. Trump says lowering drug prices is a priority, and the issue is likely to surface later this year in other must-pass health care legislation.


Drugmakers “do not want to open a second battle front when they already are fighting the drug pricing issue,” said Chris Meekins, a health policy analyst for investment bank FBR.
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
It's hard as hell trying to sort through all of these articles to find a post. Post a link with a sentence explaining the link. Jeez
I just figured most wouldn't click the links...
 

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,360
Tokens
It's hard as hell trying to sort through all of these articles to find a post. Post a link with a sentence explaining the link. Jeez
For you sir

The GOP Obamacare replacement bill is finally going to a vote Thursday.

https://t.co/2zwGbWvNc7?amp=1
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Kevin-McCarthy.jpg
[FONT=&quot]


"We're going tomorrow, yes we are," House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy said Wednesday. He added that he believes Republicans have the votes for passage.[/FONT]
 

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
2,755
Tokens
For you sir

The GOP Obamacare replacement bill is finally going to a vote Thursday.

https://t.co/2zwGbWvNc7?amp=1

Much appreciated. Original thoughts and discussion is always welcomed. Fwiw, the link doesn't work but I wouldn't have clicked it anyway.

Not directed at just you
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
MAGA.png

A revised version of Trump’s American Health Care Act is heading to a Thursday vote in the House of Representatives. Revisions for the bill, which would overhaul the current subsidy-based system, includes adding $8 billion to cover insurance costs for pre-existing conditions. With senior GOP members confident they now have the votes, getting the new health bill clear of the House would mark Trump’s first major legislative victory, and be a necessary step in fulfilling the long-touted Republican promise to dismantle Obamacare.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
MAGA.png



[h=1]House to vote on GOP health care bill Thursday with leadership sure of support[/h]
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,811
Messages
13,573,542
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com