Bask In "Barr Report" PR Glory? Trumpies Would Rather Torch The ACA And Divide Their Party

It was JFK who once offered this insightful quote on Republicans and their symbol, the elephant:   "You've  seen the circus elephant, with his head full of ivory, a long memory, and no vision..The Republicans are like the circus elephant who moves around the circus ring and grabs the tail of the one in front of them."  Meaning, they lack any practical foresight, any vision.  In today's context, they also seemingly lack the savvy or brilliance of strategy to be able to secure - however temporarily- the "Win" they  got from the Mueller findings.  Actually, make that the William Barr spin and  premature conclusion on the Mueller findings - which as one former acting solicitor general (Walter E. Dellinger)  noted will be evaporated when the actual, unabridged report is made public.

But the Reepos don't even appear to know how to secure a temporary consolidation for a clear PR victory.  So full of hubris and drunk with perceived victory, they vowed revenge on all those who persecuted their sorry asses, e.g.

Trump and his allies plan to use Barr’s summary of Mueller report as cudgel against critics 


Then revealed the same Barr DOJ that delivered a PR coup Sunday - but now more drunk with unearned power- filed a notice late Monday in a federal appeals court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.  This bone- headed move would basically gut health care for over 20 m people who benefited from the ACA expansion of Medicaid, and also make it more difficult for millions of others to secure care if they have pre-existing conditions..   Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, how about beating down court house doors to do it?

The backstory to this farce began two years ago when the Trump bunch  staked out its new position in a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states.  This was after Congress failed  to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but later reduced the law’s tax penalty for people who do not have insurance to zero. The suit contended that the absence of the real tax penalty rendered the law’s “individual mandate” — the requirement that most Americans have insurance — unconstitutional..

Without a requirement to purchase insurance, the Reepo lawyers argued, the law could not then insist that insurance companies cover pre-existing medical conditions and a suite of other “essential health benefits,” such as maternity care, mental health therapy and prescription drugs.  A judge in Texas agreed and invalidated the entire law, including its expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to help many low- and middle-income people buy insurance. 

The Justice Department initially said that only parts of the law, including its protections for pre-existing conditions, should be struck down. But on Monday, the Barr -led DOJ - clearly intoxicated by the win it believed it gave to Donnie Dotard -  expanded its attack to say the whole law should be invalidated..  Do they really believe the people affected (more than half Trump supporters) are this dumb, and they won't see what's happening?

This confirmed for me once and for all that Attorney General William Barr is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.  If he had been, he'd never have made such a stupid move, especially after the summary he put out on Sunday to try to exonerate Trump.  (Which even hard core Trump haters admit cost them political advantage, since Trump is now more emboldened than a drunken buffoon standing in the middle of 5th avenue trying to stop traffic with hand waving.  But as with all such buffoons that act can't last long.)

Never mind, Barr had his cheerleaders - including the Tea Party Patriots Action - an organization of conservative extremists who asserted "the attorney general made the right decision."   Well, we'll see about that, won't we?

In the meantime, as one wit put it: "Typical  dummies. Take their cars to the car wash then park it under trees with shitting birds."

Needless to say the Justice Department’s move caught both parties by surprise, and put Republicans in a very awkward position.  As Tom Reed (R, NY) put it:

"Not only is this a poor political move, this decision hurts real people who will unfairly lose their health insurance coverage as a result. We need to work to find ways to fix our health care system — not blow it up.”

Doh,  yuh think?  

Even House No. 2 Reepster, Kevin McCarthy,  who a day earlier was so pumped up by Barr's barf he was yelping for the Dems to "move on" - was caught flat footed, saying:

"I haven’t read through what they — was it last night? I think the president has always been very clear that he wanted to repeal Obamacare, and to put a system in that actually lowers the cost and protects individuals’ pre-existing conditions.”

Yeah, but do this right after a huge political  PR win where you all got to gloat and "spike the football"?  Interjecting a  move that will have more than 15m of your voters - who stand to lose their coverage - so pissed they will have forgotten all about Trump's phony vindication from a phony PR summary.  Well, after some further ruminating on what the Dotard demanded of his DOJ, McCarthy got the picture and spat: "That's the dumbest thing I ever heard of! It's about like punching yourself in the face!"  Well, at least you finally figured it out, maestro.

Susan Collins  was more forthright in her distress:

"I thought it was bad enough when last year they wouldn’t defend parts of the law, including the parts protecting people with pre-existing conditions.  This goes far beyond that and I think was a huge mistake.”

Yes, and now your intrepid party will pay again, like they did in the midterms, and despite William Barr's fake clearance of Trump from any crimes.  Who gives a shit about Trump's vindication when they're losing their health care?

Where I differ from the media pundits is when they write "this gives House Democrats a new opening and winning political strategy to move past impeachment."

Well, maybe, maybe not. Depends what the full Mueller report discloses, which former Solicitor General Dellinger believes will be laden with impeachable offenses.

In any case, Dems aren't dopes like the Republicans.  They can actually walk and chew gum at the same time!

What Does A Traitor Do When He Loses? He Starts A Constitutional Crisis!

"If Donald Trump's newly installed political hack of an acting attorney general takes action against special counsel Robert Mueller, the Democratic House of Representatives will bring Robert Mueller to testify publicly about exactly how the acting attorney general has interfered in his investigation. And the Democratic House of Representatives will move to impeach the president of the United States for obstruction of justice.  They will do it, they will have to, they will have no choice. The new members of the House will demand it."  - Lawrence O'Donnell, last night, 'The Last Word'

As Rachel Maddow put it last night, generally when a sitting president's party loses big in the midterms, he adopts a conciliatory - not combative - tone afterwards.  This hasn't been the case after the Dems yesterday reclaimed nearly a third (333) of all the state legislature positions lost in the Obama years, as well as recapturing the House. The House, let us be clear, confers full investigatory as well as impeachment powers. Any sane or normal, i.e. non-traitor president faced with this, therefore would have not adopted a bellicose tone the day after. He'd have bent over backwards to be a Mensch instead of an asshole.  This is why the WaPo proclaimed today that "Washington has now entered the prelude to a state of war".   Peace? You want peace? Not with Trump at the helm!

That is the nature of the depraved, deranged creature we have occupying the White House, as he defiles and divides the nation.   This is a despicable orange maggot who not only threatened the new Dem House if it launched any kind of long overdue probes ("I'll investigate them too!" ) but also fired the first shot in a looming constitutional crisis.

What  did he do? He fired current AG Jeff Sessions, and then -  in a blatant display of high thuggery and disrespect for law-  he appointed a two-bit political hack and Trump loyalist instead of the next man in line of succession, Rod Rosenstein.  The stooge and puppet appointed is  Matthew Whitaker , a name that will now live on in infamy. Why?  Because he shares the same gangster mentality as Trump, and a gangster attitude that says one is above the law, because you are backed by those who would corrupt the law. Why else accept an appointment for which all DOJ rules state he ought to recuse himself? Well, because now - after blabbing his intent as a pundit - he is in the very position to kneecap the Mueller probe he targeted.  This is why Trump dumped Sessions and inserted this jag off.  As MSNBC legal specialist Ari Melber put it last night ('Last Word'):

"It is very real tonight that we have public evidence that Donald Trump and Mr. Whitaker share one priority, which is overseeing the Justice Department to kneecap the Mueller probe and not recuse. His one beef with Sessions was that he recused. Whitaker has also said as a pundit there are ways to kneecap the Mueller probe by defunding it or putting pressure on it."

Is Whitaker's failure to reject the appointment surprising - based on glaring conflicts of interest-  not to mention prejudgments and broadcast intent to stop Mueller? Nope. Not when you have thug DNA in every fiber of your being. Thanks to primo investigatory work by The UK Guardian we now know this new acting attorney general was part of a company accused by the U.S. government of running a multimillion-dollar scam. In it, Whitaker was paid to sit on the advisory board of World Patent Marketing, which was ordered in May this year to pay a $26m settlement following legal action by federal authorities, which said it tricked aspiring inventors.

In other words, we have here not only a puppet stooge but a sleaze bag. Court filings in the case against World Patent Marketing - according to the Guardian --  show that Whitaker received regular payments of $1,875 from the Florida-based company, and sent a threatening email to a victim of the alleged scam.  Whitaker publicly vouched for the company, claiming in a December 2014 statement that they “go beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translate those words into action”.

Whitaker’s role in the alleged scam was first reported by the Miami New Times in August 2017, shortly before he joined the Trump administration as a senior aide to Sessions.  This linkage itself came after shamelessly touting his willingness - as a so-so CNN pundit - to go to bat for Trump against Mueller if he needed him. Voila! Whitaker gets a nice cushy job at Justice as Session's puppet....err right hand man.

World Patent Marketing and its founder, Scott Cooper, were sued by the Federal Trade Commission in March last year. The government said it had “operated an invention-promotion scam that has bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars”.  The company was accused of tricking hopeful inventors into paying it thousands of dollars to obtain patents and licensing deals for their inventions. In fact, they “failed to fulfill almost every promise they make to consumers”, the complaint said.

Emails filed to federal court show that in August 2015, Whitaker cited his former role as a federal prosecutor in a threatening email to a customer of World Patent Marketing who had complained about the company to the Better Business Bureau. Whitaker is shown below with Scott Cooper:

In May, a judgment requiring World Patent Marketing to pay the government $25,987,192 was entered against the company by a federal court in southern Florida. Whitaker was not named among the defendants in the case.

Now the relevant details in regard to Dotard's continued treason and obstruction of justice, of which this appointment reeks...in spades.  Two weeks ago I predicted two things to Janice: 1) The Dems would retake the House in a blue wave (though the exact definition would be subjective) and 2) Realizing a Democratic controlled House meant possible impeachment and reinforced protection for Mueller, Trump would a) get rid of AG Sessions and b) appoint a Nunes clone in his place to run interference against Mueller.

This is exactly what Traitor Trump has done with Whitaker's criminal appointment:  flouting the statutes for succession at DOJ.   In doing so let us understand, Trump has also taken the media's attention off his midterm losses and onto this disruptive act of a self destructive madman.   What can Whitaker do? Well, a lot to make Mueller's probe and life miserable if he wanted, and for at least 7 months - by which end point he either needs to be confirmed in the Senate, or vacate.  In the meantime, according to  Sarah Isgur Flores, a DOJ spokeswoman, in an email: “The acting attorney general is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.”

One thing Whitaker has openly proposed, by which standard he definitely needs to recuse himself, is pulling back funding for Mueller.  Yes, he has publicly proposed choking off funding for Mueller’s investigation and wrote an article for CNN last year declaring that the special counsel was “going too far” and needed to be brought under control.  According to Whitaker:

"The president is absolutely correct,  Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.”

So not only does the Traitor have a willing pawn to issue a 'get out of jail free' card on the Supreme Court in the person of Bawling Brett Kavanaugh, e.g.

He now has a surplus toady, a 2nd "Devin Nunes" if you will, running interference for him as acting AG.  (Though as Lawrence O' Donnell correctly warned last night, if Whitaker has any ruminations about interfering in any way - even via lowballing Mueller's funding - he had better think twice because he also will be investigated for obstruction of justice.)

The whole thing smacks of a blatant,  in your face act of desperation and crass thuggishness fully worthy of impeachment proceedings. (Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said Trump’s replacement of Sessions with Whitaker was arguably an impeachable offence in itself. “This rule of law crisis has been a slow-motion train wreck for a long time,” said Prof. Tribe).

The aim is clear: To use a pet puppet and political loyalist to derail or defund the Mueller probe. This ain't astrophysics, folks.  It shouldn't take a Mensa-level IQ to spot what's going on here, and how it is tied to the Ds midterm success, now acknowledged as the 'blue wave' it is, i.e.

Steven Rosenfeld

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

2018 Elections

It Was a Blue Wave Election—And the Republicans Are Feeling the Fallout

Fortunately, at least some Reeps appear to have found spines and good sense and are warning the Dotard not to do anything else. Senator Susan Collins was among the first Republicans to warn: “It is imperative that the Administration not impede the Mueller investigation … Special Counsel Mueller must be allowed to complete his work without interference."

Mitt Romney, who won the race on Tuesday to become a senator for Utah, aimed his first broadside at Trump, tweeting: “It is imperative that the important work of the Justice Department continues, and that the Mueller investigation proceeds to its conclusion unimpeded.”

WSJ columnist Dan Henninger today ('Trump 2.0 Begins', p. A19) finally conceded in one of his least objectionable offerings: "Trump will have trouble reassembling his 2016  coalition unless his behavior changes." 

Seriously? First, Trump will never change his behavior. He is a perverse, authoritarian narcissist for whom everything is about him. Asking or expecting Dotard to change his behavior is about as sensible as expecting the Pope will become a Buddhist monk tomorrow.  Second, this "coalition" was never real in the first place, at least in terms of getting the presidency for Trump.   On Nov. 8, 2016 MOST Americans rejected Dotard, by almost 3 million votes. In other words, the candidate who came in second in the vote was awarded the presidency through the outdated and anti-democratic institution of the Electoral College.  As Lawrence O'Donnell put it: "American voters did not want Donald Trump to be president".  So in fact there never really was a "winning" coalition, and even if one strenuously argues the EC is legit, it did not function as the Founders intended, i.e. in allowing an unqualified demagogue through.   See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/09/had-electoral-college-done-its-job.html

The fact is that the Blue wave was the embodiment of the majority of Americans' disapproval of the Dotard residency from the day it began. This majority has been waiting patiently, mainly in a resistance movement to deliver its verdict. It did on Tuesday, with a number of results still being counted.

Meanwhile, Moveon.org and other progressives activated a plan for mass protests across the United States, starting today at 5 p.m. in all time zones.  John Brennan, former CIA chief, also predicted that it was likely Mueller had already completed his report for the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who was yesterday relieved of his duty overseeing the investigation into Russian election interference and any collusion with the Trump campaign.

As I told Janice yesterday - and have the same advice for blog readers:  "Buckle your seat belts and hang on because we are a long way from any domestic tranquility!" 

If you are tired of the chaos and division, maybe you need to consider moving to Canada.

See also:
Fierce Critic of Mueller Probe Now Has Power to Sabotage the Investigation

And:

Will Bunch

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

2018 Elections | Donald Trump

Trump Appealed to the Very Worst in America. Too Often, It Worked.

And:

Donald Trump Jr. Told Friends He Could Be Indicted This Week — and the President Is 'Depressed' About the Possibility: Report

"Impounding" - The Right's Vile Plan To Claw Back Domestic Spending From Omnibus Bill

Harpy and Right wing provocateur Kim Strassel, proposed the original idea for Trump and Repukes to apply "rescission"  to remove domestic spending from the recently passed $1.3 trillion Omnibus bill.

Let us concede at the outset, the Reptiles, aka, Republicans or Repukes, are a thoroughly detestable lot as they refuse to play on an even wicket, always trying to tilt the political tables to their advantage. In the latest illustration we behold an effort to invoke an obscure law: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, to claw back over a hundred billion dollars of social spending from the $1.3 trillion Omnibus budget bill.

Why? Well, the conservos have been livid ever since the huge budget bill was passed,  decrying the "criminal" level of spending, especially on the parts the Dems wanted, and allowing "the deficits to reach obscene heights". NO thought or consciousness whatever of their own misbegotten tax cut legislation which will easily add $800 b to the deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office now estimates another $1 trillion if the cuts are extended to 2028.  The CBO also estimates the debt will reach 105 % of GDP if that plan goes forth.  But that is the level of cynical rat we're dealing with: deficits don't matter an iota for their side, only for the progressives - denounced as "tax and spend liberals".

Enter now long time WSJ bomb thrower and resident harpy Kimberley Strassel and her column from a week ago: 'In For A Penny, In For Impound',  in which she broaches the idea for the GOP to use the aforementioned law to temper the Omnibus spending spree by ....you guessed it, clawing back the DEMOCRATS' spending provisions!   As she put it:

 "It's a chance for Republicans to honor their promises of spending restraint and redeem themselves with a base turned off by the Omnibus  blowout  It's an opening for the GOP to highlight the degree to which Democrats used the bill to hold the military hostage to their own domestic boondoggles."

Ok, first, no one was "holding the military hostage". The Pentagon made out like bandidos with  $80 billion awarded  for the new fiscal year, catapulting the US of A into the questionable position of spending more on defense than the next eight nations combined. All the Dems wanted was some domestic spending balance, like for CHIP and food stamps, especially if they were going to give way for the Pentagon's largesse. (Especially given the Pentagon still can't account for $1.2  trillion in spending from the 1990s.)   So never mind her bitching about the "domestic boondoggle", what really has Kim 's panties in a twist is that the Dems got the Rs to AGREE to their own spending priorities to pass the bill.  Kim's refrain , "Why must we deliver so many millions to hungry kids and elderly if we could get them to work for it?" just doesn't hold water in today's economically unjust landscape.

She goes on into specifics for her proposal and names the law (ibid.):

"It's called the 1974 Impoundment Act, which allows the president to order the rescission of specific funds so long as Congress  approves those cuts within 45 days. "

Never mind Kim didn't get the full name of the Act down, she became excited by the end of her piece as she blabbed:

"This is the kind of victory the GOP needs to show it can govern, and to motivate voters to turn out in November."

Never let anyone say Kimberley isn't given to wishful thinking, especially in terms of motivating the "base" of the GOP for November - particularly after they learn many of the benefits they depend on would be up for grabs....errrr....rescission.

Barely 4 days after her colmnn a piece appeared on page A3  of the WSJ, headed, White House Aims To Roll Back Spending', in which the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is cited. Also, Larry Kudlow  - the newly -hired  TV personality doubling as a WH  "economist" is quoted, where we learn he is involved in "planning what he called an advanced rescission package".    This is given "it's really not a bad idea to trim some spending because after all, spending can lead to deficits and spending interferes with the economy"

Of course, all the "bad spending"  is tagged on the Dems' domestic side of the ledger, as are the bad deficits.  No thought how the GOP  originally raised the level of deficits dramatically with its tax cut bill..

Trump in a separate action, reported yesterday (WSJ, p. A3) , went one better by "signing a broad executive order urging a revamp of government aid programs"   This would presumably be part of the rescsission effort and include "requiring participants" (e.g. in Medicaid or the SNAP food stamp program) to "prove they are working or trying to find jobs".

Failing to grasp most participants in SNAP are children or the elderly, and most of those affected in Medicaid are disabled or seriously ill - too much so to be "looking for work".

But this is what it's come to: reneging on budget deals already made in order to appease the "bottom half of the IQ curve" that put Trump into office, in the words of Harvard lecturer Harvey Mansfield (WSJ,  Weekend Interview, March 31).

The good news is that some Republican Senators of conscience - like Susan Collins- recognize such a fell move defeats any further appeals to bipartisanship - given the Omnibus bill is based on a bipartisan agreement. Further, with Sen. John McCain recovering from brain cancer treatments in Arizona, the Republicans can't afford to lose a single vote - as all Dems will surely vote against this treachery.

We can therefore conclude the impoundment and rescission idea is just another odious brain fart emanating from the nether regions of Repuke trolldom which will gain no traction. And if it does, by some odd happenstance, the blue wave coming in November will transform to an even bigger tsunami.
 

GOP "Skinny Repeal": A 'Trojan Horse' To Screw 16 Million Out Of Their HealthCare

"Yeah, we gonna sneak this skinny plan through when folks least suspect it!"

As Mitch McConnell's  ACA Repeal "Vote A- Rama" continues, assorted lone voices in the wilderness have tried to warn sane citizens not to mark victory too early. They point to McConnell and the GOOPs pushing a series of "mini-bill" votes through until a conference with the House can get the final job done - likely by 51 votes to 50 (Pence casting the tie breaker then relatively fast reconciliation with an earlier House bill). An end game that will emerge as a classic Trojan Horse move, as even the GOOPs now admit (see link at bottom).

Yes. it is true that yesterday a vote to "repeal and delay"  failed by 55-45 with 7 Republicans joining with Dems to reject the bill. This is the same ill-advised plan that had been favored by small-government conservatives, such as Rand Paul from Kentucky, who have been clamoring to repeal the law for years. The CBO estimated that 32 million people would lose health insurance over the next decade under this plan compared to current law.

So no wonder seven Republicans found their sanity long enough to reject it. But the $64 question is whether they can continue to do so as McConnell pushes the iterations toward "skinny repeal".

To set the legislative scene again: one  day after the Senate narrowly voted to open debate on repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) despite not knowing where it would lead, the so-called “skinny repeal” seemed the most probable of a number of options for the repeal or replacement of the ACA to succeed.

How or why is the skinny repeal a Trojan horse?

The “skinny repeal” would eliminate the individual mandate, the least popular provision of the ACA that requires all Americans to have health insurance or face a fine. It would also remove the employer mandate, requiring certain businesses to provide health insurance to employees, as well as a tax on medical device manufacturers. But, importantly, it would not touch the Medicaid program for the poor.  The danger here ought to be automatically evident to everyone as we note these aspects:

i) This cowardly mutant would barely meet the definition for "repealing Obamacare" and hence is most likely to get most small -c conservatives on board to vote for it.

ii) The Republican moderates - like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkoswki - would probably come on board because Medicaid would be left alone.

This means the "skinny repeal" has a damned good chance of being pushed through at the last minute.

Let's pursue this further.   If this measure passes the Senate with a simple majority, it would likely then enter a conference committee with the House, where Republicans could reconcile the differences and produce a larger repeal-and-replace measure later.  They could immediately claim 'victory' and that they succeeded in what they set out to do: repeal Obamacare (at least minimally).

Let's further observe that the Democrats are largely unable to stop this bill from moving forward. Saddled with only 48 votes (two of them - Angus King of Maine, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, independents) the party has remained united in opposition to any measure that would repeal the law, but has enjoined Republicans to work with them on solutions that would stabilize the insurance markets and lower premiums.

But as Republicans continued to work their way through a planned 20 hours of debate and prepared to vote for a series of amendments in the so-called “vote-a-rama”, it is still  unclear whether anything would be passed by the deadline of the end of this week set by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell.  But what I am saying is don't put anything past McConnell to pull out all the stops to get it done.

This is exactly why Democrats have urged  ACA activists to continue putting pressure on lawmakers as the Senate enters the final, frenetic push toward repeal. For months, voters and activists have inundated the telephone lines of Republican lawmakers and protested at their offices and even some of their homes.  Up to now it has worked, but the key issue now is whether it will be sustained into the most critical '4th quarter'.

At a Planned Parenthood protest on the Capitol lawn Wednesday evening, Democratic lawmakers laid out the stakes.   Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, told the crowd:

"Keep doing your thing!. Keep being you. Keep doing what you’ve been doing because it’s working and it matters and it counts.”

"Thirty-six hours,” she added, referring to the amount of time left before the repeal vote.

“So let’s keep calling. Let’s keep tweeting. Let’s keep writing. Let’s keep marching. Let’s keep shouting and we will win."

And what happens if "we" don't win and McConnell sneaks this revolting bill through? Well the consequences will be too horrific to contemplate.

The insurance markets would be roiled beyond belief, namely for people in the ACA exchanges.  Basically, minus the mandates, health care hell breaks loose. First, faced with a 20- 25 % spike in premiums even from next year, many will simply bail out.  These will likely be people who want insurance but feel they can't afford the increases. Their only option if seriously ill will be to visit ERs - jacking up even more expanses on the system.

Then, with no mandate or penalties hanging over their heads, the younger, healthier people will simply opt out of insurance altogether.  They will believe they don't need it, so why pay hundreds a month especially when they have college loans to pay off. This, logically, will leave the remaining insurance pool (again in the exchanges) older and sicker.

Such a trend - and it is expected to become a trend - will clearly  freak out insurers.  Facing the loss of the relatively healthy - who ordinarily would have helped pay for sicker citizens - the insurers will simply do what they did before the ACA and jack up premiums for everyone in the "sick" pool.  The federal government would then spend more providing subsidies to people who buy health insurance on their own - but save money by not providing subsidies to those who bailed. In other words the proponents of the bill - like Ted Cruz - are betting on the healthier folks bailing to save money to provide subsidies for those who buy their own.

Other adverse consequences are also projected. For example, with far more people uninsured, hospitals would be on the hook to provide  more care that they don't get paid for. Again, this would be mostly via ER visits by those with no insurance.   This will definitely threaten many hospitals' ability to stay open.

All in all, the "skinny" repeal, if pushed through and passed via a conference gambit, would be just about the worst calamity to happen to this nation's health care.

See also:

Republicans admit it: 'Skinny repeal' is a Trojan horse to turn Trumpcare over to the House

Update:

Thanks to Sen. John McCain (recall he was insulted during the '16 campaign by Trump as not being a 'real' war hero) the skinny bill has been sunk into oblivion. Along with Senators Lisa Murkowski (who Trump tried to blackmail into voting for the bill) and Susan Collins, McCain provided the needed 3rd opposition vote to deny the Reeps the 'skinny' majority (of 51) to pass it.  You can read more here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40750071

Rachel Maddow's Theory on the Repuke Political Gamesmanship with Susan Rice is Correct!

There is no gainsaying the fact that Rachel Maddow is one of the most brilliant articulators in all of television. Her intellect stands like a shining beacon as brilliant as a thousand suns compared to all the blow-dried wannabes on the Right, and other pretenders (like Nora O'Donnell) in the mainstream Corporate Wurlitzer. You see, Rachel not only articulates but provides marvelous insight as she does so. Truly, I cannot understand how anyone who adopts the monicker "liberal" isn't watching her night after night.

Two nights ago, Rachel put forward what I believe is the only credible theory concerning the Republicans' continued Benghazi-based witch hunt of Susan Rice. Rice, a Rhodes Scholar, is possibly a nominee for Hillary Clinton's position at State, which is exactly why the Repubs are grand standing and carrying on as if she's really CONDI Rice - one of the inveterate liars that got us into the Iraq mess.

As Rachel asked: What can explain this fixation, which borders on obsessive compulsive disorder, or at least unchecked paranoia? What can explain people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham harassing Ms. Susan Rice when they easily gave Condi a pass for her own appointment at State - for the Bush Jr. first term? What can explain their continued attitude of condescension ("She can't be very bright!" - John McCain) and hostility? Especially when Rice was not even in the State Dept. when the Benghazi attack unfolded but the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. All Rice did was appear briefly on a Sunday morning talk show - not even before any formal court, or after swearing in, and you'd think she was the next thing to Bin Ladin's wife the way Graham, McCain, Bob Corker (TN) and now even Susan Collins (supposedly the most level headed) are carrying on!

Rachel's theory is simple and brilliant: The Reeps are carrying on as if all their sacred cows were gored at once because they are using political theater - under the ruse of the Benghazi incident (which has already been explained to them repeatedly) - as a means to force Obama to appoint John Kerry instead, thereby forcing a special election for his Massachusetts Senate seat. They are betting that their one time Tea Pot hero, Scott Brown, will be the benefactor and thereby return to the Senate! (Some deluded Dems actually don't believe this will be a 'biggie', but they are fooling themselves!)

At first glance, the linear plodding brain has problems, as it does with conspiracies, because it's unable to think at two different levels at once. In addition, the plodding brain can't see that the Repukes are all about exploiting political crises to further their political ends, agendas. "Aw, they'd never make such a fuss just to get an extra Senate seat!" Oh yes they would!  They are just as petty, craven and cynical as they've always been, and they'd stoop to that and even lower! Make no mistake!

Otherwise, why the fuck keep harassing Susan Rice, even after she gave these asswipes an hour of her time, accompanied by the Assistant CIA Director? As I already observed, the intelligence community (including CIA, NRA and NSA) would never have divulged what they REALLY believed  to have transpired at Benghazi in talking points to a UN Ambassador. Thus, the intelligence community would have massaged the actual facts so that too much was not given away...especially to bloodthirsty witch hunters - who as it was, on account of their obsession, had already exposed details of U.S. Embassy security operations!

But will the Reeps acknowledge this? NO! Because to do so means they can't keep their anti-Susan Rice appointment bandwagon (circus?) going!

This is all the more reason why Obama and the Dems must dig in on this and not relent! Obama needs to forthwith formally appoint the well-qualified Ms. Rice and let the chips fall where they may! Most especially, the chips will show a retinue of white Reepos harassing and impugning the character of an intelligent black woman. It will show other minorities that in no way are these Reepos changelings, even after an election in which the minority vote was the deciding factor.

Obama lose "political capital"? Fuck no! The Reepos will for the next election, and the next, and the next....

Footnote (11/30):

Major kudos to Rachel again, for last night's segment in which she showed clips of ALL the Susan Rice opponents campaigning openly and vigorously for Scottie Brown! The clips included: Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), loudly proclaiming Brown as her "ally", Susan Collins (R-ME) yucking it up with Brown at her side at a rally and John McCain loudly proclaiming  "THIS is the man I want in the Senate more than anyone else!"

BUSTED!

Uh, in respect to Rachel's theory, can we now say CASE CLOSED!

Kelly Ayotte, questioned  yesterday about Rachel's theory by Andrea Franklin, dismissed it as "absurd". Maybe, lady, YOU are the one absurd as you take the rest of us for simpletons!