The latest Zombie Trumpcare iteration has been unveiled with a not-so-rousing endorsement from House Speaker Paul Ryan, who says that it "helps us get to consensus." That faint praise is true as far as it goes and which got most of Freedom Caucus maniacs on board. Here’s what they’re agreeing to:
The new agreement gives the Freedom Caucus some additional concessions, including waivers that allow states to opt out of major Obamacare regulations touching on essential health benefits and when insurance companies can charge higher premiums.
What’s not entirely clear, though, is how they’re dealing with the new wrinkle of the really bad thing they put in there that the public found out about. This new Freedom Caucus-endorsed amendment does a thing Freedom Caucus types would normally scream about: exempt lawmakers and staff from that part where protections can be taken away from them. Here's where it all gets extremely convoluted and where the lack of care, understanding, and legislative expertise that is the hallmark of Paul Ryan's house really shines. It's a yuuuuge mess.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), the leader of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, was one of very few who had an answer ready. He argued to reporters that because D.C. is not a state, it cannot apply for or receive the same waivers states can under their bill. […]
But Tim Jost, a health care law expert and professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law told TPM this isn’t true. “D.C. is clearly defined as a state in the Affordable Care Act. And I don’t see anything in the AHCA that changes that, including this provision,” he said. “The provision provides for congressional coverage through the marketplace, and the language is clear [regarding the exemption].”
Later, Meadows appeared to admit that the exemption was in fact in the bill and would be stripped out.
Yes, it's in there and will have to come out now that people know it's in there. But then there's the crazy-ass explanation for why it's in there: "it was inserted in the first place in order to ensure that it could pass the Senate under what is known as the Byrd Rule, though they did not fully explain why." They don't fully explain why because they apparently don't fully understand why.
“It’s not a provision that says that we can exempt out,” [Meadows] told reporters. “It was a provision that, from a fatal standpoint, would not allow us to address it because jurisdictionally on the budget reconciliation instructions, that were narrowly tailored to two different committees of jurisdiction. To fully address that would had to have gone over to another area which would have made it fatal.”
As if the entire thing wasn't already fatal in the Senate. And probably the House. Sure, the Freedom Caucus types are now saying they'll get on board, but it's not appealing to the moderates in the party, as they like to call themselves. The leader of what they say is the centrist Tuesday Group, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) says that he's still firmly opposed. "Based on what I've read, it does not change my position. I was a no, and I remain a no." More of the "moderates" agree, and seem about ready to kick out Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), who freelanced this thing with the Freedom Caucus and Trump regime.
Bottom line? This still is very unlikely to ever be a real thing, and certainly not in popular vote loser Donald Trump's first 100 days.