Interesting. This is the first time I’ve seen this said: “[the proposed legislation] creates high-risk pools to take care of those with pre-existing conditions without burdening all other insurance buyers with those costs.”
Is that true? From what I’ve read elsewhere, there’s no mention of any “high risk pool” for those with preexisting conditions.
Can you (or anyone) explain how that will work specifically? Will those with preexisting conditions (in this high risk pool) pay higher premiums?
Will the proposed “tax credits” be used to offset any higher premiums for those people?
If the answer to the second question is “yes” you just have the individual mandate just masked as “tax credits” (where do you or Norquist think the dollars for those tax credits come from? Obama’s trillion dollar coin?)
Another thing Norquist doesn’t address at all (from what I saw) is the fact that liability limits remain uncapped. This too has a danger of driving up costs for everyone, unless that’s somehow rolled into this amorphous “high risk pool” category.
Until I see explaination to the contrary I’m going to believe the fact that preexisting conditions will still be covered and no cap liabilities are going to drive up the cost for everyone. It’s just basic economics.
And I don’t like Beck or Levin.
In the interests of putting some things to bed:
1) No, Mike Pence can’t ignore the Parliamentarian. This would be the mechanism in effect of making all bills budget reconciliation bills. That obviously is just a way to kill the filibuster in the Senate. It would not get even 10 votes. That’s why this proposal has already been dismissed as a non starter.
2) You can stop filibuster in ways not requiring 60 votes? No. You can’t. People are saying this via the Two Speech Rule. Senators are limited to 2 speeches per legislative day on a given subject. So glory be, you can require them to talk, they’re only allowed to talk twice and you shut them down without 60 votes! Bullshit. Completely wrong.
Senators are allowed to offer amendments to a bill. They can then give two speeches on each amendment. A minority can propose zillions of amendments. You CAN limit the number of amendments (NO senators like being limited in amendments) but then if you do that, senators can raise points of order and give two speeches on those. No limit on points of order.
Here’s discussion of this from 2010, when the Dems were raging at the power of the GOP filibusters.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. If there were a way around 60 votes that does not constrain to Reconciliation, the Dems would have used it. There is nothing new under the sun in all this. The GOP is not going to discover any genius maneuver. The Dems would have discovered it in 2010 if there were.
The Filibuster is what spared the country from a single payer Canada NHS style healthcare plan. Only the Filibuster and Scott Brown stopped that. You will not find even 10 votes to kill the Filibuster for non USSC issues.