To make it impossible to reconcile? Could the House kill it?

1) decimating the social safety net for less fortunate Americans and 2) ensuring even greater tax giveaways for the wealthiest 1% they will reconcile it. Those are the only two things motivating them.

is just another republican death panel decision.

your grave paid for that!

and eliminate the unemployed as members of society

Did I miss anything?

Fiscally, it's not a huge item, but it might be a deal-breaker. I think Murkowski and Collins both said they'd vote No if that were in there. If they hold to that, then it takes only one more GOP defector, on the Planned Parenthood issue or anything else about the bill, to deny them their majority.

I also think that opposition to PP is not important to many RW legislators, cutting government and taxes is.

They use PP to stir up their base.

It would make sense for them to dump the attack on Planned Parenthood, but McConnell's newly announced bill retains that part of the House bill. As you say, they use it to stir up the base. Their decision to keep it in the bill tells me that they feared angering the base more than they feared losing Murkowski and Collins.

Maybe their plan is to back off that provision over the next week, and tell the anti-abortion zealots that at least they tried. Alternatively, they may be relying on party loyalty to bring ferocious pressure to bear on all the Republicans, those who disagree with the bill from the left and from the right. The pitch would be "We've been campaigning on repealing Obamacare and this is the ONLY way to get it done, so you centrists have to agree to defund Planned Parenthood and you extreme conservatives have to agree to a slower Medicaid phase-out, and everybody just STFU."

with that as the stated reason. I think it is the need to get under reconciliation - not fear of the base or fear of the two Senators that are important here. They absolutely do not have 60 votes.

At the risk of people misunderstanding what I mean, this is similar to why the Democrats did not add what was needed to have a public option in the reconciliation bill that was passed soon after the passage of the Senate bill being passed as is with 60 votes under the regular process. I expect, if they do that, just as MANY here argued that they could have done so if Obama, Baucus, etc would have allowed it -- there will be some on their politically active base who similarly will argue that this did not happen because someone important did not want it.

Gardner is working on this. He's a fucking religious fanatic who is pro forced birth, anti birth control, but many women in CO voted for his pretty smile.. because they like living under a boot, I guess.

particularly the part about removing language on restrictions on abortion.

They know they do not have 60 votes. Under reconciliation they only need 50. Not to mention, that means they can continue to use PP as a raw meat issue with the base.

It will also be used by Lisa Murkowski to justify voting for this as a compromise bill. What they want is to cut billions to use for tax cuts for the wealthy.

I say 20 million lose healthcare with this version.

The devil is in the details that we probably won't see but there is enough sweetness in it to make it palpable to the Trump base and the moderate GOPers. The real problem will be that the media will give all the positive messaging time to the GOP and the Dems will come off as being opposed to healthcare and whiny. Our opposition to it must be carefully crafted. These fuckers know the push-button words to use for their base. If we can't get their base to protest with us, it will become law within a month.

I suspect that many readers who see the article will take the phrase "bigger subsidies" to be a comparison with ACA, the exisiting law, not the House bill.

I hope the Democrats will quickly get some tables out that put numbers to show how much people at different incomes stand to lose.

I agree completely with your assessential it is a terrible bill. I even wonder if the Republicans planned the shift from having subsidies by age to income to give cover to some Senators to vote for this. It never made sense to base them on age, not income.

If one goes to the article it says " larger subsidies than house bill"

I get the limitations of the LBN format. I did not go to the article so that the full title. (It is a lot better that the WP has the fuller headline.

or Mom? or Dad?

My mother-in-law is in a nursing home because she has dementia. My husband and I were her main caretakers until it wasn't possible to care for her. She just turned 93. Except for dementia, she is in good health. She could live many more years and I hope she does. The first couple of months at the nursing home took care of her savings and she qualified for Medicaid in Ohio. She pays almost all of her SS to the nursing home. I haven't cancelled her secondary insurance coverage because of the uncertainty she'll need it because of the slavering pukes who are hellbent on killing people like her. If I cancel it, the money that went for the premium will go to the nursing home. We don't mind that. She is safe and cared for. If this health coverage plundering occurs, who can take her? We couldn't meet her needs 2 years ago, how will we meet them now? Or in 2020? What happens to people who are unable to leave a professional nursing care facility? Like paraplegics? Or the profoundly challenged?

How many families will just refuse to take their loved ones back into their homes? Will nursing home residents who have no one, no money, no assets just be put out on the curb, like wretched refuse? Are we really back to that?

uninsured dying, injured & critically sick people and HUGE COSTS to states to pay their hospitals.