Senate Republicans Exempt Themselves From The Non-Repeal/Replace Bill

Vox’s Sara Kliff thinks she has caught out Senate Republicans doing something nefarious. What’s she has unintentionally pointed out is worse, at least for those who have been voting Republican

Senate Republicans exempt own health coverage from part of latest proposal

Senate Republicans included a provision that exempts members of Congress and their staff from part of their latest health care plan.

This exemption could have the effect of ensuring that members of Congress have coverage for a wider array of benefits than other Americans who purchase their own coverage.

A Senate Republican aide confirmed that the exemption existed but was unable to comment as to the specific effect it would have. The aide said it was included to ensure that the bill hewed to the chamber’s strict reconciliation rules that limit the policies this health bill can include.

The exemption is similar to the one that existed in the House health bill. After Vox reported on its existence, the House voted to close the loophole — and the Senate aide expected their chamber to follow the same path.

I’m really not seeing the big problem: all these bills do is require that Congressional health plans have lots and lots of coverage, much as private employers do, while allowing citizens and private entities to obtain plans with lower coverage. But, really, this is not the point: here’s the point

The revised Senate health bill draft released Thursday lets health insurers offer plans that do not cover the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, which requires insurers to include a wide array of benefits such as maternity care and mental health services.

Insurers can offer plans without these benefits — unless they’re selling coverage to members of Congress and their staff, who are required to buy coverage on the health law marketplaces. The exemption says this part of the law still applies to any plans sold to Congress.

Do you see it? Why is an exemption needed if this Senate bill is supposed to be a repeal and replace? If it was truly R&R, there would be no need. Because Obamacare would be repealed. If it is creating exemptions, that means that Obamacare is still the law of the land, and the Senate bill simply dinks and dunks, makes some changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare.

One would think Democrats would be happy that these idiots aren’t actually repealing Obamacare. That way, when the GOP loses the House and Senate over the next 2 election cycles, and probably the White House, all because Republican voters will be too mad to vote GOP because they were lied to about R&R, Democrats can get rid of the measures the GOP passes, because Ocare is still around.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

50 Responses to “Senate Republicans Exempt Themselves From The Non-Repeal/Replace Bill”

  1. Jeffery says:

    One would think Democrats would be happy that these idiots aren’t actually repealing Obamacare.

    No one should be happy that the GOP is making US healthcare worse.

  2. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Because Obamacare would be repealed.

    A true repeal would require overcoming a filibuster; hence, the use of reconciliation, which means it is a budget bill. The bill will effectively end ObamaCare, however.

    One of the biggest problem with the Republican bill is that is will almost certainly lead to an insurance death spiral, as old and sick people become concentrated in full coverage plans, while young and healthy people leave for low-cost alternative plans.

    • david7134 says:

      Obamscare is coming apart, anything is better, except your dear single payor. I don’t think you know the difference between health insurance and medical care.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: Obamacare is coming apart

        Actually, even though Republicans have worked to destabilize the system, such as trying to stop the risk corridor stabilization fund, and by threatening to not fund required subsidies, ObamaCare is stable in most areas, though less stable in a few rural areas.

        The new Republican bill will be highly unstable. The old and sick will become concentrated in full coverage plans, while young and healthy people leave for low-cost plans. That will mean that full-coverage plans will spiral up in price, beyond the reach of most people; just another way ending coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

        • Obama's boyfriend says:


          C’mon I haven’t heard such a load of tripe since Gruber sold us Obama care. Tell us the truth, you’re Gruber aren’t you?

          • Jeffery says:


            The A.C.A. is not perfect, but its problems are fixable. In fact, 71 percent of Americans want Republicans to work with Democrats to improve the law; just 23 percent want lawmakers to repeal and replace it, according to a Kaiser poll. Democrats have said they would be willing to work with Republicans to strengthen the law. But Mr. McConnell and his party have become so blinded by their rage against Obamacare that they are losing sight of what ought to be their goal: safeguarding the health of their constituents.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff, lyin with fake news. Fool.

          • Zachriel says:

            Obama’s boyfriend: C’mon I haven’t heard such a load of tripe since Gruber sold us Obama care.

            Handwaving is not an argument.

  3. david7134 says:

    Another lie, FOOL.

  4. david7134 says:

    How many times must you be told that Obamacre does not cover people and has adversely wrecked the insurance of the rest of the country.

    • Zachriel says:

      david7134: How many times must you be told that Obamacre does not cover people and has adversely wrecked the insurance of the rest of the country.

      More Americans have insurance coverage than ever before. More Americans have actual access to regular healthcare than ever before.

      • david7134 says:

        No they don’t Z. And as I have said there is a difference between insurance and coverage. Try to learn something.

    • Zachriel says:

      These findings suggest that not only has the ACA decreased the number of uninsured Americans, but has substantially improved access to care for those who gained coverage.”

      • drowningpuppies says:

        According to the uh,…ahem,.. dated and somewhat questionable “findings”…

        • Zachriel says:

          Handwaving is not an argument.

        • Zachriel says:

          Multiple studies have confirmed the findings. See French et al., Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): A Systematic Review and Presentation of Early Research Findings. Health Services Research 2016

  5. Jeffery says:

    The GOP has spent over 7 years raising awareness of and casting doubt on the ACA, yet nearly everyone hates the GOPKare alternative.

    Quoting trump, “No one knew healthcare was so complicated.”

  6. Jeffery says:

    Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): A Systematic Review and Presentation of Early Research Findings.

    The article is a literature review published in the peer-reviewed journal, Health Services Research, in 2016.

    Principal Findings
    Overall, research shows that the ACA has substantially decreased the number of uninsured individuals through the dependent coverage provision, Medicaid expansion, health insurance exchanges, availability of subsidies, and other policy changes. Affordability of health insurance continues to be a concern for many people and disparities persist by geography, race/ethnicity, and income. Early evidence also indicates improvements in access to and affordability of health care. All of these changes are certain to ultimately impact state and federal budgets.

    The ACA will either directly or indirectly affect almost all Americans. As new and comprehensive data become available, more rigorous evaluations will provide further insights as to whether the ACA has been successful in achieving its goals.

  7. Jeffery says:

    If one is concerned about bias in cited articles look no further than the right-wing National Review printing an opinion piece (without citations) from the right-wing Pacific Research Institute.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Daily Caller, American Enterprise Institute, ibid.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Nah, little jeffuckery, just shows your lack of reading comprehension and dishonesty.

  9. Jeffery says:

    The Russians engineered a soft coup, with full cooperation from the trump family and campaign, to have trump installed as president of the us of a.

    Nothing the trump regime does will even be fully investigated. AG Sessions, part of the conspiracy, will do nothing. trump, also part of the conspiracy, will use the power of the federal government and the pardon to defend his dynastic kleptocracy.

    The GOP goes along with the closet Russian, trump, because he supports their simple agenda of supporting the wealthy and corporations and punishing the poor and working classes.


    • drowningpuppies says:

      Still got that pussy hat on your head, little jeffuckery?
      You wear it well.

    • david7134 says:

      So why don’t you outline how this happened. Then explain why Hillary gave the Russians 20% of our UR. Then explain why you are a fool.

  10. Jeffery says:


    Mr. Mueller will reveal the Russian/trumpski perfidy in due time. It’s looking bad for the trumpski clan so far.

    We’re foolish for reading anything you type.

    Secretary Clinton did not give the Russians 20% of our U (not UR as you keep typing). Once again your congenital lack of curiosity is misled by your ignorance and your willingness to swallow right-wing tripe.

    The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
    Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

    Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.
    A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

    Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

    The timing of most of the donations does not match
    Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state. 

    Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman: His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
    The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

    • david7134 says:

      Can’t answer the question or outline what you think is wrong, typical for a fool.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings,


  11. Jeffery says:


    Our objective is to refute your lies. Otherwise, we ignore your pointy-hooded slurs.

    Do you admit that the right-wing is wrong on the uranium issue?

    • david7134 says:

      I am sorry jeff, did not see this little comment, fact is your article proved beyond a doubt that Hillary have the Ur to the Russians. Fool.

  12. Jeffery says:

    What most surprised liberals about the far-right is their complicity and willingness to support trumpski’s apparent anti-American activities.

    trumpski has invited a foreign adversary into the US halls of power.

    We would never ever have believed the far-right was anti-America despite their fealty to the wealthy and their disdain of the working classes. We always thought the far-right would join with us and defend the nation.

    What has been revealed (and what many leftists warned us about) is that our right-wing ACTUALLY do value authoritarianism over freedom. As long as they’re in charge!

    Russia attacked the US with the cooperation of the trumpski administration. They also attacked Germany, The Netherlands and France. They may be responsible for installing Putin’s puppet, trumpski, in our White House.

    But since trumpski displays all the plumage of a Putin style dictator, our far-right brethren are OK with it.

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff, now you are a stupid fool. By the way your so called article is so full of wholes that it hurts. Man you are a looser.

      • david7134 says:

        Oh, my, fool, I am sorry, I said wholes rather than holes. And I still like the UR for the substance rather than the periodic symbol U.

  13. david7134 says:

    Have is gave.

  14. Zachriel says:

    david7134: What is it that you don’t understand about the difference in having insurance and the fact that the insurance will not pay for basic service?

    Multiple studies have shown that more Americans are receiving *actual* medical care than before ObamaCare.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Those multiple studies, biased as they were, are dated through 2014-15 are do not reflect the present “actual” situation (failed exchanges, exorbitant rate hikes, deductibles, taxes, etc.).

    • david7134 says:

      But do you ever wonder that the studies may be terribly wrong, just like all the other stuff over the last 8 years that goes against observed events. Give me your names and I will forward the concerns of my poor patients to you and you can explain the studies.

    • david7134 says:

      I think you lied to me. I can’t find any studies specifically about medical care rather than just insurance. There are none indicating how often stress test are turned down or ECHO’s. Is this issue so important to you that you will forsake your honor and lie? Makes you look bad.

      • Zachriel says:

        We can provide the citations, but we can’t make you read them. “Early evidence also indicates improvements in *access* to and affordability of health care.”

  15. david7134 says:

    You don’t have anything and you certainly don’t have anything to support the discussion. People can see a doctor, that is up but the doctor can not get needed testing or treatment. You refuse to see that concept. Then medication are much higher. A tube of steroid cream used to cost $50, now $300. That is because it is now a mechanical treatment.

    • Zachriel says:

      david7134: People can see a doctor, that is up but the doctor can not get needed testing or treatment.

      It took you long enough to be specific. So, you agree more people can see doctors. Do you have empirical evidence that there is less access to “needed testing or treatment”?