U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy introduces his Obamacare alternative
Source: Baton Rouge Advocate
Washington U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., has rounded up some heavyweight co-sponsors for his proposed replacement to the Affordable Care Act, his office said, but the legislation still has a long way to go after Cassidy officially introduced it Tuesday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, have signed on to Cassidys Patient Freedom Act, as have David Vitter, R-La., and four other Republicans.
Cassidys bill could form a significant element of the Republican response to a potential decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of a conservative challenge to the 2010 law. But in a radio interview Monday, McConnell said the details of the response wont be determined until after the Supreme Court makes its ruling, which is expected by the end of the month.
A ruling in favor of the Obama administration, which has defended the law called Obamacare against the challenge, would render an immediate Republican response moot. Each side has expressed confidence the court will rule its way, and the outcome is not at all certain.
Read more: http://theadvocate.com/news/12606447-123/us-sen-bill-cassidy-introduces
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Ha!
Like I would trust anything the POS was involved in?
Never!
Ex Lurker
(3,817 posts)they'd rather burn the whole thing down. The only silver lining is the resulting a Democratic landslide in 2016.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)if ruling goes against ACA ,, instantly the GOP loses millions of voters.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)"Obamacare ruled unconstitutional"
Today the Supreme Court ruled to strike down a part of Obamacare that subsidizes health insurance for millions of Americans. The ruling comes as the result of a lawsuit, claiming that the government should not be handing out money to people who refuse to get a job and pay for insurance like all hard working Americans do. This is the second time the high court has struck down the law. The ruling came as a surprise to the White House, who has fired back calling the ruling the wrong decision.
"A lot of Americans will be forced to pay full price for a service that they were qualified for. With a simple decision by a minority of people these Americans will be left without any recourse for affordable health insurance", said the President at his press conference. "It is a victory for America and what it stands for", claimed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during the Senate's rebuttle conference. "We are not a nation that rewards people who do not work while Working Americans are trying their best to insure their families with their blood, sweat, and tears".
That's kinda the way the media is going to spin that shit anyway. They need that big pharma money in between their talking head shows to make a buck.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They seem a bit over confident that the court is going to rule against the administration.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)As is the pricing transparency.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Obviously Cassidy's bill is a piece of crap, I just like the idea of premiums being payable from HSAs -- not a huge help for the poor, but probably a big help for the middle class.
CBHagman
(16,994 posts)...but it's long been true that the care of a premature baby or a dying adult can quickly reach six figures. So people are going to shop for a cheaper alternative to the NICU when their child has an infection or a heart defect?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And people often go in with absolutely no idea of what a routine procedure is going to cost.
Compare this to dentists: a lot of dentists publish a table of how much all of the routing dental care they offer costs.
I think a big step towards transparency is coming already with the WalMarts and CVSs of the country trying to provide a Nurse Practitioner-staffed clinic at every location: they say how much they charge for everything. Federally Qualified Health Clinics (which not only advertise rates but do so on a sliding income-based scale) are another good thing -- one of Sanders's best amendments was the one to the ACA that tripled their funding.
mindem
(1,580 posts)their plan has the word freedum in it so it has to be good for the American people right? If it is for freedum it has to be good because nothing is more important than them protecting our freedums. Repukes are always for freedom and would never interfere in anyone's life. Freedum loving repukes would never do anything that would let big corporations set things up to grab everyone's money. I sure do love repuke freedom.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,257 posts)until 2017, AFTER THE ELECTION. Because cutting subsidies in 2016 would be catastrophic for them.I bet their shittin' bricks that the SCOTUS might actually rule against the subsidies, because the states that didn't set up their own exchanges are primarily red states.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)never come out for inspection !
Historic NY
(37,463 posts)isn't this the same shit they want to do with social security, make it think your getting something. They want to do away with the insurance mandate but they'd never give you enough to get insurance. When that catastrophic medical bill arrives guess who's holding the bag, when the account doesn't have enough.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)If someone needs heart surgery no way a savings account is going to cover a 300,000 dollar operation
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)They can NOT be your primary form of Medical Insurance, you MUST have other medical insurance.
Roy Rolling
(6,947 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)Can I use that line elsewhere?
Boomerproud
(7,987 posts)same as "Right To Work" where the opposite effect is the actual goal.
Aristus
(66,531 posts)you know they're up to no good...