1. Case Study: The Fox News Echo Chamber Model Of "News" Is Designed To Encourage Dictatorships & Destroy Democracy
2. The Last GOP Bill Condemned 28,600 Americans To Death (Approx), Media Ignores Story
3. How Media Helps With the GOP's "Murder, Death, Kill" Policies OR How The Media Is Failing The American People On The Healthcare Debate
This post just continues the update of GOP lies to con the people into killing citizens that CAN be saved because they want to give their handful of rich donors a tax cut rather than deporting them (with their cash) for trying to kill Citizens for money. Note: dividing the tax cut by number of estimated American deaths caused by this new policy, gives you the value of one American Citizens life to a GOP Republican (a pitifully small amount since GOP politicians can all be bought for less than 100,000 dollars though some make alot more than that). In fact, given the state of bribes today, Citizens would be better off pooling their resources together to buy politicians the way Sheldon and Kochs bought the Republicans. Of course, Sheldon & Kochs bought the Republicans to kill off citizens s o they can get a tax cut (though in reality I think they are trying to impose thier psychotic vision for society on everyone that would require destroying the Constitution as "we the people" is anti Republican/Koch/Sheldon at this point). Communities of Citizens are unlikely to do that and are thus a better solution as the buyers of our politician rulers rather than Monty burns (from the Simpsons) type rich "humans".
A summary of GOP lies in comedy form;
REPUBLICANS TARGET OBAMACARE (AGAIN) 9/20/2017 Republicans take yet another stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare with a hastily crafted bill sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy.
Summary of the lie the GOP are selling to the people,( i.e. that insurance is bad or that the people are stupid for falling for their con)...
BACK IN BLACK - REPUBLICANS DON'T KNOW WHAT INSURANCE IS 9/20/2017 Lewis Black explains why congressional Republicans will never be able to fix America's health care system and offers grim advice to healthy millennials who aren't insured.
In depth research:
BREAKING... The Misunderstood Economy: What Counts and How to Count It OR Real Economics VS Fake Economics: How The Kochs Are Destroying America By Attacking Its Societal Structures In Favor Of Social Darwinism Or "Survival Of The Fittest"
Implementing "Medicare for All" Is The Fastest, Easiest AND Cheapest Way To Insure The Least Number Of Citizens Die From Preventable Causes
Outline of GOP/Republican lies and cons on healthcare for their handful of rich donors;
Pattern of behavior: When constituents get angry Republicans solution is to lie harder....
Republicans on recess hold town halls, are met with constituents angry about health care A Colorado senator holds two town halls and is met with constituents angry about his attempts to repeal Obamacare
“Why on Earth did you vote for the Republican [health] care bill when the vast majority of your constituents opposed it?” one man asked the first-term senator as the crowd cheered, according to The Denver Post.
In his first in-person town hall meeting in more than a year, Gardner replied that he won on the promise he would vote to repeal and replace President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation. Gardner voted in favor of every Republican attempt to pass some form of ACA repeal, including one that would have repealed the law without providing a replacement.
The accident of Trump and Hillary's email scandal at the end gave the GOP a boost in votes because voting Trump meant you voted Republican and the GOP got in on the coattails of Trump to implement their anti-American society and unconstitutional policies.The Senate healthcare bill joins Area 51 as a top secret American entity that only government officials can lay eyes upon.
How GOP leaders are using TV to misinform the public about the potential health care repeal Interviews with Graham-Cassidy supporters spread misinformation, devolve into misleading deflection
Republican senators took to the airwaves this week to shore up support for the so-called “Graham-Cassidy” health care bill, the latest GOP proposal that aims to dismantle much of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a series of proposals adopted from previously failed legislation. The often contentious interviews frequently devolved into stonewalling and deflection when reporters pressed lawmakers for answers about the ways the legislation would affect tens of millions of Americans who rely on programs such as Medicaid, live with pre-existing medical conditions, or have gained coverage under the ACA.
Republican lawmakers have attempted to build support for the latest attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, which is in jeopardy of collapse amid reports that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is opposed to the bill, by once again recycling worn-out myths about the Obama-era health care reform law and spreading falsehoods about the proposed legislation. With Republicans set to appear on the Sunday morning political shows this weekend to build support for the bill, which many lawmakers seem to know little about, their refusal to engage in a factual debate about the legislation should be a red flag for the journalists conducting those interviews.
Sen. Bill Cassidy
During September 20 appearances on CNN’s New Day and MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) spread several falsehoods about the health care repeal legislation that bears his name. (He spread much of the same misinformation from the friendly confines of Fox News, where he was allowed to push his talking points completely unchallenged.) During his CNN and MSNBC appearances, Cassidy falsely claimed the proposal would result in more people getting health insurance coverage and asserted that the new bill protects the tens of millions of Americans living with pre-existing medical conditions. When CNN’s Chris Cuomo pressed Cassidy to provide proof of his claims, Cassidy pivoted to attack the ACA’s individual insurance mandate. And when MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle confronted him about coverage cuts for “low-income seniors, children, and people with disabilities,” Cassidy evaded the question while claiming that his bill would simply reroute money currently allocated to those groups through the existing Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP):
In reality, the Center for American Progress, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), and The Commonwealth Fund each reported that, according to previous estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Graham-Cassidy proposal to end private market health insurance tax credits, along with its severe cuts to Medicaid and rollback of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, would result in 32 million people losing health insurance over the next decade. And as Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation explained to Axios, though the Graham-Cassidy bill would not repeal the ACA's rules about pre-existing conditions, "they might end up only existing on paper." That's because, as PolitiFact has also noted, the bill removes ACA protections against charging higher premiums to customers with existing medical problems and the language about pre-existing conditions "is vague and subject to broad interpretation.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham
During a September 20 appearance on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) emphasized the supposed need to pass his health care agenda because “Obamacare is collapsing around us.” Graham also asserted that under the ACA, “access to health care is going down” nationwide:
Graham’s claim that the ACA “is collapsing” echoes years of conservative smears about the law, which exaggerate any hiccup in the implementation of ACA reforms as proof of an impending “death spiral.” In reality, the insurance marketplaces established by the law have stabilized considerably over the past year, and lingering issues are largely the result of Republican sabotage, not a failure of the ACA. Graham’s additional claim that the newest GOP bill is a solution to reduced health care access could not be further from the truth: The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time low in 2016 before the Trump administration launched its efforts to dismantle the ACA and, as previously noted, Graham’s bill would strip insurance from millions of Americans.
Sen. Ron Johnson
During a September 19 interview on CNN’s New Day, bill co-sponsor Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) bemoaned health care reforms instituted by the ACA, which he called “Washington, D.C.’s one-size-fits-all model” for health care coverage. Johnson reiterated his support for the proposal in the Graham-Cassidy bill to convert ACA revenue into block grants to states, which he claimed would be “far more responsive to their citizens than Washington, D.C., will.” Co-host Alisyn Camerota largely let Johnson push his talking points unchecked, and she seemed more interested in Johnson’s plan to recruit additional Republican supporters than with the ways the legislation would affect millions of Americans:
Johnson approached his September 21 interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe with a similar strategy, stressing that Graham-Cassidy would help states be more responsive to their citizens and deflecting questions about concerns from several Republican governors that the bill’s Medicaid cuts will devastate low-income communities. When co-host Willie Geist pressed Johnson about whether some Medicaid recipients would be “denied coverage they have now” by Graham-Cassidy’s rollback of the program, Johnson again deflected those concerns and suggested the problem could be avoided if governors “manage their programs properly”:
In fact, according to CBPP, any proposal to convert federal Medicaid funding into a block grant systemwould inevitably lead to major funding cuts and program restrictions. CBPP estimated that millions of Americans would lose Medicaid coverage from the block grant system proposed by Graham-Cassidy, a concern shared by the bipartisan group of governors opposed to the bill.
Sen. John Barrasso
On the September 19 edition of MSNBC’s MTP Daily, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) falsely claimed that Medicaid had “failed” as a result of ACA reforms and argued that the program insuring low-income Americans is unpopular with patients. (Host Katy Tur, however, correctly noted that Medicaid is extremely popular.) Barrasso also asserted that “this bill protects everyone with a pre-existing condition” and smeared ACA patient protections requiring insurance plans to cover essential health benefits (EHBs), which protect consumersfrom inadequate plans. When Tur pressed him to provide support for his claims, Barrasso simply talked over her repeated inquiries while reiterating the same talking points:
On the September 20 edition of CNN Newsroom, Barrasso had a less contentious interview with co-hosts John Berman and Poppy Harlow, during which he spread even more misinformation about the Graham-Cassidy plan. Barrasso bizarrely claimed that Graham-Cassidy would not kick millions of people off their plans, but would instead empower millions to drop coverage with “the free choice they have as Americans.” He also falsely claimed the Graham-Cassidy bill would result in states “get[ting] more money to deal with” the health care needs of their own residents. A September 20 report from Avalere Health, however, has revealed that the bill would actually “reduce federal funding to states by $215 billion” through 2026, by $489 billion through 2027 when block grants for Medicaid run out, and by a staggering $4 trillion through 2036. In the end, Graham-Cassidy would redistribute billions of dollars from states that enacted ACA provisions to those (like Wyoming) that refused to do so:
Seven reasons media shouldn't fall for the latest health care "compromise" The latest Obamacare repeal plan rehashes the same unworkable ideas as the others
As the budget reconciliation period draws to a close in the Senate, a handful of Republicans are pushing a last-ditch effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), branding their proposal as a “compromise.” While media may be tempted to accept that framing, the proposal is built on the same unworkable, recycled ideas that undermined previous ACA repeal plans.
Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have been shopping a plan, known informally as the Graham-Cassidy health care bill, to repeal and replace the ACA for months. Just last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of three Republican senators who voted against the last iteration of ACA repeal, said he would support the Graham-Cassidy bill (but after he reads a draft and if it goes through committee hearings). McCain’s support means the bill has a chance of reaching the 50-vote threshold it would need to pass the Senate under budget reconciliation rules, which expire September 30.
The Graham-Cassidy effort is largely a regurgitation of the same unworkable solutions Republicans have been putting forward for years. The biggest difference seems to be how the plan’s supporters are selling it. As Vox noted, the Republicans who support the bill “have spent the past two months selling it as a compromise plan” to gain support on Capitol Hill and in the media. Media cannot accept this framing. Here are a few reasons why:
Graham-Cassidy’s Medicaid block grants would increase the number of uninsured and hurt low-income people, the elderly, and the disabled
New York magazine reported last month that the Graham-Cassidy plan would “turn both Medicaid expansion and Obamacare-tax-credit money into a block grant for states” and “put a long-term per capita cap on Medicaid.” This same provision was adopted in the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill the Republican-led House passed this summer to repeal and replace the ACA.
Per capita caps on Medicaid funding make as little sense today as they did earlier this summer. Block-granting Medicaid “is not a new or innovative idea,” according to Families USA, but rather "just another way to cut Medicaid.” In a piece for The Washington Post, political scientist Ryan LaRochelle explained that “turning Medicaid into a block grant would result in less funding.” Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) also pointed out that block-granting Medicaid would “threaten benefits for tens of millions of low-income families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.”
Graham-Cassidy would repeal the individual and employer mandates, resulting in less coverage and higher premiums
Graham-Cassidy, like two previous bills -- the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and the Health Care Freedom Act -- that failed in the Senate, would repeal the ACA’s employer mandate, which “requires larger companies to offer affordable coverage to their employees,” The Washington Post reported. The Graham-Cassidy plan also eliminates the ACA’s individual mandate, which the Post noted “requires most Americans to have health coverage or pay a fine.” This proposal was floated earlier this year by Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee.
Repealing these mandates would have devastating consequences. The Commonwealth Fund found that repealing the individual mandate “would significantly reduce health insurance enrollment and cause individual market premiums to rise.” Additionally, CBPP policy analyst Tara Straw concluded that ending the employer mandate “would erode employer-sponsored insurance and increase the ranks of the uninsured.”
Graham-Cassidy would end ACA subsidies by 2020, leaving many people without affordable coverage options
Under the Graham-Cassidy bill, “ACA subsidies would be eliminated” by 2020, according to The Washington Post. This would include ending “cost-sharing reductions” (CSR), which help insurers offset the costs of covering low-income customers, something President Donald Trump has hinted he may do in the near future.
Ending CSR payments would increase individual market insurance premiums by nearly 20 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). And, as CBPP noted, getting rid of these subsidies specifically would “shift additional costs and risks onto states”; “leave low- and moderate-income people with no guarantee of affordable or adequate coverage”; and “create significant near-term uncertainty and disruption in the individual market.”
Graham-Cassidy would allow insurers to make coverage “unaffordable” for seniors
The Graham-Cassidy legislation would reinstitute the so-called “age tax,” which, The Washington Postreported, would mean that “insurers would be able to charge older customers up to five times as much as they charge younger customers.” This provision was also included in the Senate health care bill that failed to pass the chamber last month.
This “age tax” would make coverage “unaffordable” to seniors, according to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). An AARP representative told CNBC in June that currently “health care is barely affordable for those people who are over age 50” and cautioned that the “‘age tax’ … would just make it unaffordable for them.” A report AARP published in March found that this “age tax” could cost some older adults over $8,000 per year in premium increases.
Graham-Cassidy’s reliance on HSAs would hurt people with chronic illnesses and benefit the rich
Like the Senate health care bill, under the Graham-Cassidy plan, “people can contribute more to their health savings accounts than under the ACA, among other changes making HSAs more attractive,” The Washington Post reported.
This reliance on health savings accounts (HSAs) would benefit the rich by letting them set aside more pretax income, but would cause harm to low-income people and those with high medical costs who already cannot afford to save money. As CBPP’s Park noted, similar HSA proposals “would mostly help wealthy, not uninsured” people. Economist Kathryn Phillips explained that HSAs “primarily benefit the wealthy, the healthy, and the educated.” Additionally, KFF found that HSAs can increase out-of-pocket costs for “people with chronic conditions, disabilities, and others with high-cost medical needs” and would do nothing to increase coverage among the uninsured.
Graham-Cassidy would allow states to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit, giving insurers “a backdoor way” to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions
The Graham-Cassidy legislation, like the failed Senate bill, would allow states to “change what qualifies as an essential health benefit,” according to The Washington Post. Under the ACA, insurers are required to cover things designated as essential health benefits (EHBs), including hospitalization, maternity care, ambulatory care, and other important services.
According to a May 2 report from The Brookings Institution, allowing states to set their own standards for what qualifies as an EHB could “weaken ACA protections against catastrophic costs for people with employer coverage nationwide.” And as economist Gene Sperling and former White House economic advisor Michael Shapiro explained in The Atlantic, eliminating some EHBs would give insurers a “backdoor way” to price out people with pre-existing conditions. Sperling and Shapiro added, “If these benefits are not covered, a plan is all but worthless to those with serious pre-existing conditions.”
Graham-Cassidy would freeze Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood, leaving many women without a health care provider
Under the Graham-Cassidy proposal, “Planned Parenthood would face a one-year Medicaid funding freeze,” The Washington Post wrote. A similar provision was included in the House and Senate bills brought up this summer to repeal and replace the ACA.
The Republican crusade against Planned Parenthood would leave millions of American women stranded. In a blog post for Health Affairs, public health professor Sara Rosenbaum wrote that the right-wing argument that community health care centers could “absorb the loss of Planned Parenthood clinics” is “a gross misrepresentation.” The Guttmacher Institute found that in 103 counties, Planned Parenthood is the only “safety-net health center” that provides accessible contraception services. And, as The New York Timeseditorial board explained, Planned Parenthood serves more patients and has “higher quality care than centers without an emphasis on reproductive health.”
While those who support the Graham-Cassidy bill may try and frame it to the media as a newfound compromise on health care reform, it’s not. The supposed compromise proposal is based on the same unpopular proposals Republicans have fought for years to enact. And just like those plans, this one would wreak havoc on the health care system as it exists. Media need to say so.
Like state run TV but by a corporation, i.e. kinda like a king or prince manipulating the public for profit and power;
Sinclair "must run" segment lets Trump official mislead about health care coverage
Conservative local TV giant Sinclair Broadcast Group’s chief political analyst, former President Donald Trump aide Boris Epshteyn, has begun interviewing administration officials for his “must-run” commentary segments airing on local newscasts across the country. In his latest interview, with Small Business Administration (SBA) head Linda McMahon, Epshteyn allowed McMahon to paint the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a burden to small businesses. McMahon claimed that “the health care plan that exists just has really had an incredible, devastating effect on small businesses” and that, before the ACA, “employees had a pretty good plan, a reasonable plan. Now they have nothing.”
In fact, more than 95 percent of businesses don’t face a health insurance mandate under the ACA, and the law also offers generous tax credits to help small businesses that don’t have an insurance requirement provide health insurance to their employees regardless. Also contrary to McMahon’s claims, a disproportionate shareof uninsured workers prior to the ACA’s enactment were small-business owners and their employees; the year the ACA was enacted, one in five people who enrolled in ACA plans were small-business owners, self-employed, or both.
Epshteyn failed to challenge McMahon with any of these facts in his interview, or to note that the GOP’s recent efforts to destabilize the ACA have already hurt small businesses. Rather than inform the public, Epshteyn’s interview allowed a Trump administration official to push flawed, unchallenged talking points disguised as straight news -- more evidence that these mandated local news segments are basically Trump TV.
The exchange, as aired by Sinclair-operated Charleston, WV, station WVAH on its September 19 edition of Eyewitness News at 10:
This is clearly a Koch Echo Chamber (TM) going on...
Common GOP lying tactic: Fox & Friends leaves out that Obamacare mother actually benefited from the law Hosts also pressure Republicans and deflect blame from Trump
Fox & Friends lies about Obamacare being in a "death spiral" It's not.
Related:
Previously:
Fox host: "All of Obamacare is immoral. All of Obamacare has resulted in human suffering"
LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY (CO-HOST): I mean, the whole enterprise, all of Obamacare is immoral. All of Obamacare has resulted in human suffering. And all you have to do is look at someplace like Alaska, where people's premiums have quadrupled since 2013. And that's why -- they've gone up even more in Alaska, and that's why [Sen.] Lisa Murkowski [(R-AK)], one the senators from that state, is having a really tough time with this, because she has to make sure that if she makes another promise on health care to the people in her state, she'll be able to deliver. The governor -- and the governors have much more say this time around because of the federalism aspect, and that is a necessary -- that's a very important part of the conversation because what are they going to do with that money when Medicaid funds are now block-granted to the individual states?
Previously:
After failing to repeal Obamacare, Fox's Kilmeade complains that "healthy people are paying for the sick people"(i.e. its the concept of insurance... the houses that don't get hit by a tornado - if they have tornado insurance - pay for the houses that do get hit by a tornado. The "healthy" pay for the "sick". It's just a weird situation "news" media has got to.)
Result of this echo chamber is stuff like this;
“Free Democrat ad”: Right-wing media assail Jimmy Kimmel for criticizing Bill Cassidy’s lies about Obamacare repeal
Right-wing media figures attacked Jimmy Kimmel, host of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, after Kimmel sharply criticized Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) as having “lied right to my face” about health care in May. Kimmel pointed out that the Affordable Care Act repeal package Cassidy is co-sponsoring does not protect all children with pre-existing conditions, even though Cassidy told Kimmel he would support only those bills that passed that test.
Jimmy Kimmel calls out Sen. Cassidy for lying about health care bills: “This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied right to my face.”
CNN: Kimmel “didn’t pull any punches” against Sen. Bill Cassidy over Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill. On September 19, Jimmy Kimmel, host of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, opened his show by explaining that Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) “wasn’t very honest” when he appeared on Kimmel’s show in May to discuss health care. According to CNNMoney, Kimmel explained that Cassidy had promised to “only support a healthcare bill that made sure” children with pre-existing conditions were covered “no matter how much money his parents make,” but that the health care bill Cassidy has proposed, the Graham-Cassidy bill, would not meet that bar. Kimmel concluded,“This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied right to my face.” From the September 20 CNNMoney report:
Jimmy Kimmel didn't pull any punches when it came to the Senate's new health care bill and U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, saying that Cassidy lied "right to my face.""A few months ago after my son had open heart surgery, which was something I spoke about on the air, a politician, a senator named Bill Cassidy from Louisiana was on my show and he wasn't very honest," Kimmel said opening Tuesday night's show.Kimmel then explained how Cassidy came up with what the senator called the "Jimmy Kimmel Test," which according to the host was a test that said that "No family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise because they can't afford it.""He agreed to that," Kimmel said. "He said he would only support a healthcare bill that made sure a child like mine would get the health coverage he needs, no matter how much money his parents make."[...]In Tuesday's show, Kimmel explained that a new bill proposed last week by Cassidy and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham "actually does pass the Jimmy Kimmel Test" in that with this bill "your child with a pre-existing condition will get the care he needs if, and only if, his father is Jimmy Kimmel.""Otherwise, you might be screwed," he said.Kimmel then showed a clip of himself asking Cassidy in May if he believed that every American, regardless of income should get regular checkups and maternity care in the same way that people who have health insurance receive the care. Cassidy responded "yep" in the clip."'Yep' is Washington for 'Nope,'" Kimmel said. [CNNMedia, 9/20/17]
Right-wing media mocked Kimmel for his monologue and derided the “free Democrat ad”
Media Research Center attacked Kimmel’s “FREE DEMOCRAT AD.”
FREE DEMOCRAT AD: ABC's @jimmykimmel argues Republicans want to take your kid's health care away for money #TTT bit.ly/2fjrwdr
MRC Vice President Dan Gainor: “Yes, @jimmykimmel is concerned about kids, except ones R. Kelly hangs out with.”
What the GOP plan to do, while lying and saying they are doing something else, is making it easier for the poor to die and by poor I mean anyone who is not rich or getting money from rich donors that the GOP politicians get their money form)
Real-Life Health Care Struggles Versus Right-Wing Gutting of Safety Nets at Stake in Today's Senate Vote Will Republican senators be bullied by Trump and McConnell, or defend millions of constituents from drastic health care cuts?
(Editor's note: Shortly after 3 PM EST, the Senate voted 51-50, with a tie broken by Vice President Mike Pence, to begin the health care debate. Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, returned from recent brain surgery to vote yes, but urged the body to return to the "old way" of doing business to create a bill based on compromise and open hearings. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell then put a strike-all bill on the floor, written in secret and not previously shared, with debate to follow. More updates and analysis to follow.)
The Senate is poised on the edge of a cliff where a vote late Tuesday will reveal if Republican senators are willing to preserve health coverage for tens of millions of Americans under Obamacare and Medicaid, or will gut those safety nets while giving the rich a major tax cut.
The body’s Republican and Democratic leaders offered conflicting versions of reality in opening remarks, hours before the body will reconvene on a motion to proceed with the House-passed bill to repeal Obamacare, gut Medicaid and reverse some taxes on the richest Americans. The Senate has proposed amendments that make even deeper cuts to Medicaid, reducing its budget by a third.
“We have a Senate with a great chance before us to do our part now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “If other senators agree and join me on voting yes on a motion to proceed, we can stand one step closer to sending legislation to the president for his signature. I hope everyone will seize the moment, I certainly will... Inaction will do nothing to solve Obamacare’s problems, offering relief to those who need it. In fact, it will make things worse for our constituents all across the country.”
McConnell didn’t acknowledge that tens of millions of people could lose their current coverage or see greatly increased costs—all but the youngest and healthiest Americans, as independent congressional analysts have repeatedly said. Instead, the Republican Leader threatened senators who might vote no, repeating President Trump’s bullying from Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment