John McCain announced that he cannot vote for the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill. Unless Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine change their votes, this bill is dead.
CNN reports:
Sen. John McCain announced Friday in a statement that he cannot “in good conscience” vote for the GOP’s latest plan to overhaul Obamacare, likely ending Republicans’ latest effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
“I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal,” the Arizona Republican said in a statement. “I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will (affect) insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.”
McCain’s “no” vote makes it very likely Republicans won’t be able to repeal and replace Obamacare before September 30, as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he would not back the effort and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is also expected to vote “no” on the proposal.
Republicans need at least 50 votes to pass the measure under the process of reconciliation.
McCain was one of three most-watched members on the fence and considered a key vote on the bill. Without his support, Republicans would need to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, as well as Collins to sign on. It’s unlikely considering the fact that Collins said Friday afternoon that she was leaning against the bill and had key concerns that the legislation did not do enough to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The problem is that Murkowski’s state has been told they would get funds if she does vote for it and she said she’ll do what’s right for Alaska. Far away from previous that she said she’d do what’s right for the country. That means she’s going to sell out to that POS 45. If she does get the money for Alaska, they’ll reelect her anyway. Corrupt BS going on.
LikeLike
This does seem probable. Extortion is likely to work unless Murkowski has super strong support that will overide the Republican Party’s gangster-like tactics.
LikeLike
Murkowski wont forget that she came home to a hero’s welcome after she voted against the last bill
LikeLike
Thank You John McCain. Here’s hoping Murkowski and Collins will vote no on this abomination of a bill.
LikeLike
Then WHY not encourage democrats to WORK WITH REPUBLICANS? Instead he is willing to violate the people that voted for him. Right now he is no better than a resist democrat. NOTHING GETS DONE THAT WAY!
LikeLike
They were. The Republicans shut down the bipartisan committee working on healthcare to push this latest abomination with no input from Democrats who were purposely not included..
LikeLike
Facts are terrible things. The only way somebody would not know that Alexander and Murray were doing just that is if they were glued to rt wing propaganda all day . Enough said .
LikeLike
Linda Giffin
How is he violating the people that voted for him . I thought conservatives liked the idea of people paying for the services they use rather than being on the public dole . I thought only us Snow flakes think you can get things for free. Wasn’t that the Idea behind Heritage-care in the first place, personnel responsibility.
We have a Healthcare system built on employers providing healthcare. .Those employers get to deduct 100% of that cost as a business expense . Their employees do not get taxed on this government subsidy either. Yet only 56% (down from 70 % by 09) of American workers receive their insurance from their employer . How is that fair to the other 44% working for Employers who either don’t offer or do not pay enough in wages, for an employee to afford to buy into this Government Welfare.
LikeLike
Just want to add that employees DO pay premiums, copays, and balanced bills, and have a deductible to hit. Spouse and I pay $420 a month, which, granted, is cheaper than some of my coworkers who get their insurance through my employer. However, my employer charges a surcharge of $75 to $100 a month if you insure your spouse through it, and your spouse has access to insurance through its employer, or is eligible for medicare.
I’d love to see us all have Medicare/Medicaid. One payer. We’re already paying premiums/copays/balanced bills – why not pay premiums to the Government, and eliminate the $Million dollar salaries of insurance executives?
LikeLike
Therlo
Well aware that is part of the decline as more and more cost are transferred. To the employee fewer and fewer employees sign up .
The number of employers who offer healthcare is much higher than the 56% . But if you can not afford it on your wage what good is it.
I laugh when I see a sign at McDonald’s we offer healthcare and a Pension . Yup a 401k on your 7.75 an hour.
LikeLike
I hope McCain does not change his mind and is not just grandstanding or playing hard to get. The Republican arm-twisters are trying to buy Murkowski. I also have heard that there might be problems with NJ’s Menendez if they don’t let him off from his trial to vote.
LikeLike
Thanks, Senator McCain. But also many thanks to the people who called and sent emails to their Senators. John McCain is my Senator. We have something in common as I wrote him. He is a cancer survivor with cancer again. I am a cancer survivor recovering with cancer the third time. The first time I was 25, my husband was in the military, and I was pregnant. I had our son, had treatment (massive radiation), and my husband was killed in an F-4 training exercise. At 48, I had breast cancer from the radiation. At that time, insurance didn’t pay for both to be removed, so three weeks ago, I had the second mastectomy at 66. I have heart problems, Radiation Fibrosis syndrome, and other problems from the treatment. These are considered preexisting conditions. I’m grateful that I have been here for 42 years, but these preexisting conditions are through no fault of mine.
I am fortunate to have Medicare and a supplement. However, my understanding is people with preexisting conditions will pay higher costs. Also, what about others like myself and Senator McCain with cancer, who don’t have insurance. Do they just go away and die?
LikeLike
If Rand Paul and Susan Collins hold as “noes,” and McCain is telling the truth, then that’s only 49 votes for, even without Murkowski.
But if one of those three votes yes, then it’s a tie, Pence breaks the tie, and we’re screwed.
LikeLike
I suspect this gives cover to not even bring it up for a vote . So Mitch turns and says we do not have the votes and everyone is covered.
LikeLike
Very encouraging news!
LikeLike
I’m encouraged on the rare occasions GOP members make decisions that aren’t insane.
LikeLike
Well, Arthur, it’s true. But we shall see what happens.
I saw a comment elsewhere on the web that said that Republicans tend to think with their amygdalas (the part of the brain responsible for emotions such as fear, among other things).
Makes sense to me. Fear, anger, that kind of stuff.
LikeLike
That may be part of it. But all those suitcases full of cash must play some role too.
LikeLike
They don’t think with anything because they lack a brain, a heart, and a soul . . . They do, however, think with $$$$$$$$$.
LikeLike
Do too do the Democrats.
LikeLike
I meant:
So too do the Democrats.
LikeLike
This is a principled stand by McCain, the kind rarely seen in D.C. from any politician. Consider his words: “Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will (affect) insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.”
When is the last time any politician said he needed all the facts – not merely expressions of sentiment – before he could cast an informed vote on an important issue? The Bernie Sanders Medicare-for-All proposal should be held to the same standard. Sanders has not provided a credible plan to pay for such a massively expensive program, as – shockingly but impressively – several quite left-wing writers have noted.
LikeLike
“Sanders has not provided a credible plan to pay for such a massively expensive program…”
It’s a no brainer where that money should come from, when you have such an inequitable distribution of wealth as we have in the US. Instead of cutting taxes on the rich, as the GOP intends to do, increase taxes on the .01% who already have more wealth than the combined wealth of nearly 90% of the people in this country.
Since we have so many people struggling to make it to, and stay in, the middle class these days, we should be returning to the 90% tax rate that we had under GOP president Eisenhower, when the middle class was able to grow by leaps and bounds. Too bad if wealthy elites can only afford to own 5 homes on the planet instead of 8. Many of us would like to be able to own ONE home in our lifetimes.
LikeLike
No need to even go there first. You take all the other plans, . Medicaid , Medicare . the tax subsidies for ESI , the out of pocket expenses for employees premiums and copay’s Role them into an employee/employer increase in the payroll tax . Figure in the savings achieved by eliminating the 30% profit and inefficiencies of for profit insurance .The savings to be achieved by early care for diabetes or heart disease … Then you take pharmaceuticals out of drug research, NIH can fund it all , relegating them to producers of generics at a fraction of the price.
Then you figure out how much to tax the .01% -1% to keep those payroll taxes low for the poor and affordable for the middle.
LikeLike
I think it was Nobel prize laureate economist Joseph Stieglitz who pointed out that the problem with government funded pharmaceutical research is that companies get to take ownership of the patents. The government gets nothing in return for its investment, while tax payers have to pay an arm and a leg for medications. Something is very wrong with this setup!
LikeLike
homelesseducator
That was just the point . Right now 50% of research is funded by NIH ,
Then the Pharmaceutical Companies are granted patents that in turn
raises the cost of drugs sometimes 1000% what the cost to manufacture would be .
Stieglitz proposes alternate means of Government funding for research . No patent protection and all production would be generic.
Baker sees it possibly reducing costs up to 400 billion a year . The additional government investment a little over 30 billion.
LikeLike
Joel, Exactly. Stiglitz suggested offering monetary prizes instead of patents, to prevent pharmaceutical monopolies, to increase generic drug production and lower the cost of meds. Sanders previously proposed legislation in support of awarding prizes instead of patents, but it went nowhere.
Big Pharma loves their control over pricing and their 1000% increase in charges over production costs, Monopolies enable price gouging instead of letting markets determine prices. We need legislation to protect consumers, but DINOs like Cory Booker have voted down consumers’ ability to pay lower prices on drugs, such as by buying meds for less in Canada. No doubt Big Pharma has bought a lot of clout.
LikeLike
The Bernie’s bill would go through the committee process where all those details would be worked out . The Cassidy Graham bill is a finished product ready for a vote.
The bill Sanders submitted during the election did detail funding .
This is a different bill a hybrid of existing systems and single payer options . It will not make it into committee,for discussion , no less out of a Republican committee . Normally their would be CBO scoring on any number of proposals before they were voted on.
So take a chill pill
LikeLike
there
LikeLike
Sanders has said that he would raise taxes but in return you would not be paying insurance premiums, you would not go bankrupt from medical costs and the drugs would be cheaper. That’s a good deal in exchange for higher taxes; you get value for your tax money. This is not rocket science, all the other wealthy civilized countries have universal health care. Universal health care is long overdue in the US, it’s doable, it’s been done before in those other countries and their overall costs are much cheaper. We have the most expensive health care system in the world. The Sanders’s plan would actually be much cheaper than our present mess.
LikeLike
The problem is getting there . Not that the economics would not make sense . If you read the Baker piece I posted below . The problem is that the disruption will be seized on by the right to turn the people against a new plan . Bakers point is the rest of the world did this when it was cheap to do and were able to then keep costs under control .
Let’s look at one problem American doctors earn twice what doctors in other parts of the civilized (those that have universal Healthcare) world earn. The GP has disappeared and I have 4 specialists I see in addition to my Internist who no longer has to do much more than review the list of specialists I have seen instead of testing at my physical . That’s a tough culture to change. Those that have that coverage will feel cheated. My libertarian internist probably about 50 cries about who is going to pay his loans . My answer; why is it you need a loan for education .
American drugs also multiples more expensive.
So part of universal healthcare is bringing costs down.
So Baker who did call out Krugman for his attack on the Sanders plan in the primary, sees the new Sanders Bill a very complicated mishmash as a far better means of getting there . The original bill would have needed more than a political revolution . It would have required pitchforks and guillotines. The sad part if Heritagecare had not been enacted in 2010 . The pitchforks would be marching down the street as employer sponsored and mostly inferior health-coverage would have been in a death spiral by now . Probably less than 47% of Americans would still have it . The pressure on Governments to eliminate the “PERK” would have been immense. The competitive pressure on good employers to eliminate it the same.
If not for the harm repeal of ACA would do. I almost feel like saying “make my day “.
The new Sanders plan has many parts . Lowering the age for medicare down to 55 . A continuation of ESI , a buy in to a public option and I have not read the actual bill so I will take Bakers word, it is a realistic way to get there in an incremental way .
LikeLike
Well sometimes a post disappears in the cloud . This time it posted twice
LikeLike
Thank WordPress.
LikeLike
Here’s the best of the hardheaded analyses by left-wing writers regarding single payer, Medicare for All proposals.
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
LikeLike
John Webster
I guess you can google the quote from Baker . I tried finding it on CEPR before I made my last response in the same piece that he said this ;
“I don’t think you can get there overnight. I think you have to talk about doing it piecemeal, step-by-step.”
He also asserted that Bernie was wise not to put a price tag on it.
at this stage .
LikeLike
“In short, the current political environment is presenting a great opening for progressive health-care reform. This opening could be wasted if progressives are not willing to work for a wide range of reforms that would extend coverage and reduce costs and, instead, insist on a single-minded focus on single payer. The new proposal that Sanders put forward with 16 Senate co-sponsors offers the sort of flexibility needed to structure a workable incremental approach. This is a huge step in the right direction.”
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/can-we-pay-for-single-payer
LikeLike