Democrats Go Bonkers Over 142-Page ‘Better Healthcare Reconciliation Act’


On Thursday, the Senate published the revised healthcare bill titled, the Better Healthcare Reconciliation Act. It is not a complete replacement but it’s not simply a fix either. The bill is a refinement of the House bill.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer came out Thursday with their prepared remarks on the Senate healthcare bill as soon as it was released. These two must be speed readers since they already condemned it.

Democrats would not take part in the process of writing the healthcare bill but they do like to criticize it.

Senators have a week to read the 142-page bill and offer amendments. By way of contrast, Republicans had 24 hours to read the more than 2,000+-page Obamacare bill, but were not allowed to offer amendments.

Obamacare was written in secret and Republicans were not allowed to participate in the planning. With this new bill, however, Democrats were invited to participate in the writing of the bill and they refused, to a man.

It is clear that Republicans could present a bill written under a collaboration of Jesus, Allah and Yahweh and Democrats would have rejected it. Democrats are obstructionists. They are the party of ‘no’.

The Better Healthcare Reconciliation Act can be read on this link.

We have a few takeaways from the bill after a quick reading

Varney gave a succinct synopsis earlier today.

The following is the quick list of items addressed in the bill.

The bill rolls back the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid will continue to increase each year but it passes ultimate responsibility to states. The rate of increase is slowed so it ends up at pre-Obamacare levels in the future. The shrinkage of Medicaid has been slowed down to give states time to prepare. It appears to slash billions that were mainly funds used ineffectively by the federal government to provide oversight.

It undoes core components of Obamacare, such as the individual mandate for consumers to purchase health insurance. Instead, it gives tax credits to people who buy insurance. The bill does not penalize people for refusing to buy insurance. In lieu of that, people are incentivized to buy it.

The mandate requiring businesses to provide healthcare is gone.

Billions in taxes were cut.

People will have more choices of plans and competition is increased.

It will stabilize the insurance markets.

The bill defunds the taxpayer funding of the abortion business – for one year.

Illegal aliens will not be included.

The subsidies for individuals remain in place but the ceiling is lowered.

It’s not a done deal. There are six Republicans not yet on board, half opposed are conservatives and half are moderates. Republicans can only lose two to pass the bill with 51 votes in the Senate. The bill appears to be more moderate than the House bill.

At the present time, Obamacare is near-collapse and something has to be done. For example, Iowa has one insurer left and the insurer wants to up their premiums by 40%. The Senate bill provides insurance companies with subsidies to keep people insured and keep companies afloat until the changes can be made.

The party of ‘no’ is going wild

Prepared demonstrations from the astroturf Democrats have begun and protesters are being carried away.

Schumer calls the bill a wolf in sheep’s clothing but what was Obamacare? We were promised lower premiums, you can keep you’re doctor, healthcare for all, choice in care, no coverage of taxpayer-funded abortion, no funding for illegal aliens, and that never happened.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

It’s no wonder the Republicans fail so drastically in media circles. I was watching a response regarding the Senate Health Care Bill with Ryan to the press. Is he so detached from the public that he cannot see his own failures. His entire time amounted to LESS than five minutes. The few questions asked were replied with The Most wonkiest responses imaginable. Evidently he must assume there is no one across the country paying attention to these press events.

How does he expect anyone to Report on his remarks when, as he stated himself, few there knew the details regarding Senate operations he referred to. He spoke of obligations to the Constitution but I have absolutely NO idea what he was even referencing. Is this man SO ignorant as to not know the cameras are running and the answers are meaningless to the public. What is really disconcerting is the several questions about other matters. In typical fashion for Ryan he deflects the matter to someone else. As “Speaker” Shouldn’t HE know what is going on. Apparently he knows little of what is going on in the House, a House which HE is suppose to be running.

Considering the ineptitude of Ryan in informing the public he should return to his days as a “Staffer” for someone. His wonkish answers are more suitable for that venue. This is one area of expertise he should learn from his counterparts, namely the Democrats and specifically Pelosi. Her intentions may be without merit but her way of connecting with supporters cannot be dismissed. In everything they do they “sound” as if they are promoting the interests of the public. Ryan, on the other hand, sounds uncaring about who is affected.

Whatever piece of legislation that is passed, which has a direct affect on the public, will not garner support if it is NOT sold in a proper manner. One can speak until they are blue in the face about technicalities and Senate rules and Constitutional provisions but in the end that will only delegitimize the process in the eye of the public. It will be seen as a smokescreen for something nefarious, especially with the public’s view of Congress.

I had written the Speaker on these concerns early in the administration about the necessity of gathering support in the process. Imagine my shock when I wrote a second time and that correspondence was blocked and that address could no longer be written to. What these politicians aren’t realizing is the certainty this legislation will take time to implement and take hold, but the public will assume a failure in the short run. This will be ALL on account it was NOT sold FIRST. It may benefit but there won’t be time for those whose careers are on the line.

6 years ago

I read where some are complaining this is Not a repeal of Obamacare. This is true, and there are reasons why it is not. An actual and full repeal requires a 60 vote majority. With anything less any member can bring up a Parliamentary inquiry, a Point of Order, and force the 60 votes. This is due to the “Byrd Rule”.

As the Bill states: “To provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017”.

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. Any reconciliation that significantly changes the Budget falls under this rule.

There are measures that can be implemented to counteract this but it would require Republican leaders to stand up and force the issue. It is likely those leaders are more concerned about when they eventually are in the minority even though the Democrats would have NO such concerns.

Don Payson
Don Payson
6 years ago
Reply to  Greg

Plus,at this point, a full-on repeal would be economically disastrous…