There’s an an ALTERNATIVE FACT Republican virus extant that’s infecting coverage and discussion of H.R. 1628’s (House AHCA’s) passage today. The Republican virus’ purpose is to inflict FALSE CONFIDENCE among ACA supporters / AHCA opponents.
It goes like this: If you support the ACA don’t worry: the Bill now goes to the Senate, where its defeat is a foregone conclusion.
In fact, the Senate could pass an initial Senate AHCA counterpart bill to H.R. 1628 as passed by the House on May 4, 2017; the Senate’s initial legislation could recite ALL of the key provisions of the ACA and NO provisions of H.R. 1628 (AHCA); and the eventually adopted AHCA legislation STILL could neuter the ACA’s critical protections. benefits, and financing.
The philosophical trope is Pascal’s Sock (what “it” is): if one recursively mends a sock until none of the original thread remains, is “it” the same sock?
The key to Republicans’ pulling this off is the AHCA conference committee that Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate eventually will select (more details here). Both the House and Senate AHCA conference committees will have Republican majorities. Such majorities likely will include zero moderate Republicans.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the AHCA conference committees will be utterly unable to produce amendments that will pass in their respective chambers, in which case the AHCA will die. Tbat’s unlikely because Republican leadership will use the same demonstrably successful terror tactics Republicans used to pass H.R. 1628, and Republicans likely will use the additional terror tactic of threatening to shut down the federal government.
So, when you hear MSNBC anchors (inadvertently) say, “The bill now goes to the Senate, where IT almost certainly will be defeated,” please train yourself to hear Paul Ryan’s and Mitch McConnell’s voices’ reciting that Republican false and warm fuzzy message aimed at AHCA opponents.
N.B., Congressional legislative procedure is not my field of expertise, and (I regret) this is a weakly researched rush diary (necessitated by the urgency of its arguments’ insertion into media coverage and general discussion). I gratefully welcome any and all authoritative corrections. The last (ironic) thing I want to do is propagate my own misimpressions through a diary that chastises the misrepresentations I allege. Thanks!