Politics

7 Major Battles Ahead on the Environment

By Thomas McKinless
12,000
Politics

Trump Appeals for a Little Respect

By John T. Bennett
12,000
Politics

Rising Stars 2017: Advocates

By Roll Call Staff
12,000
Heard on the Hill

Seven Arrested During Marijuana Handout to Hill Staffers

By Alex Gangitano
12,000 Read more...

Bummer on Capitol Hill: Seven Arrested at 4/20 Event

By Alex Gangitano, Thomas McKinless
12,000
12,000
Politics

Who Might Run for Chaffetz’s Seat?

By Eric Garcia
12,000
Politics

Rising Stars 2017: Administration Staffers

By Roll Call Staff
12,000 Read more...
Heard on the Hill

Falling Tree Kills AOC Employee Near Capitol

By Alex Gangitano
12,000
Politics

Funding Deadline Tests GOP Strategy

By Lindsey McPherson
12,000
Politics

Tax Overhaul Not Immune to GOP Infighting

By Lindsey McPherson
12,000
Heard on the Hill

Take Five: Lou Correa

By Alex Gangitano
12,000
12,000
Politics

Rising Stars 2017: Hill Staffers

By Roll Call Staff
12,000
Politics

Rising Stars 2017: Members of Congress

By Roll Call Staff
12,000
12,000
 

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have shouldered the majority of the blame for the GOP’s failure to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law, but moderates may be equally — if not more — responsible for the impasse.

There are arguably more hard “no” votes (members not likely to be convinced to move to “yes”) for the GOP leadership’s plan among moderate Republicans than there are among the members of the Freedom Caucus.

The Freedom Caucus, however, is the easier scapegoat. Many of the caucus’s members vote against leadership’s plans more often than members from other factions of the GOP conference. But on this issue the moderates have more to lose.

Several Republicans described health care as a deeply personal issue in their explanation for why it’s so difficult to find conference agreement over a single plan.

If you buy that rationale, it helps explain why moderates aren’t jumping on board with leadership’s bill like they have with measures to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. They can logically explain voting for compromise legislation that keeps the government open or the nation from defaulting on its debt.

But a similar rationale does not exist in the case of health care. Moderates are having trouble finding a logical reason to vote for a bill that would result in 24 million people not having health insurance.

Politically, repealing the 2010 health care law is a murky issue in many of the swing districts that moderate Republicans represent. If they vote for a repeal bill without a viable replacement to protect their constituents’ health care, they could face losing their 2018 re-election races.

Moderates who are supportive of the heath care bill understand the dilemma many of their colleagues face.

“They’re in states that are fairly liberal in their thought process to the role of government related to health insurance. They’re in states that expanded Medicaid. … They’re just very different parts of the country,” New York Rep. Chris Collins said last week.

Collins and his fellow New York Republicans are largely moderates from a state that expanded Medicaid, but most of their concerns were allayed with the addition of a provision to exempt New York counties from contributions to the state’s Medicaid program. That addition, which Collins and Rep. John Faso helped secure, is one of the reasons Rep. Dan Donovan will likely never vote for the bill. The Collins-Faso provision does not apply to New York City, which Donovan represents.

Then there’s New York Rep. John Katko, who promised his constituents he would not vote for a bill that repeals the health care bill unless there was an adequate replacement offered at the same time. He explained in a statement that the GOP plan does not provide adequate market-based options for insurance access nor does it address skyrocketing costs.

Two “no” votes among New York’s nine GOP members is still a lot of division for a state that effectively secured an earmark to win its members support. In other delegations, the divide is even greater.

Four of five New Jersey Republicans announced they would vote “no” on the bill, positions which they appear to still hold. The state’s sole supporter of the bill is Rep. Tom MacArthur, co-chair of the moderate Tuesday Group. MacArthur has become the de facto negotiator for moderates that are willing to support the bill, while the group’s longtime co-chair Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania remains unlikely to flip to “yes.”

“I’ll listen, but I’m still a ‘no,’” Dent said last week.

Among a list of concerns, Dent worried that continuing to shift the policy to the right will make the legislation unpassable in the Senate.

“A lot of members here don’t want to walk the plank for a bill that may not ever be brought up, may not ever be passed by the Senate,” Dent said before the March 23 vote on the bill was postponed and then canceled.

Vice President Mike Pence and Trump administration officials made the rounds last week among Republican caucuses, trying to whip up support for an idea they hoped would get conservatives on board without losing any moderate votes in the process. But the White House has not focused on what may happen to the bill in the Senate. Nor has it tried to win over many of the moderates who opposed the bill.

For example, those involved in negotiations frequently refer to MacArthur when speaking about talks with moderates, and sometimes the Tuesday Group’s third co-chair Elise Stefanik, but never Dent. Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry last week complimented MacArthur and Stefanik for being “constructive.” Asked if his omission of Dent meant that he was not being constructive, McHenry said only, “He’s a colleague and friend of mine.”

The negotiations with MacArthur and other moderates have focused on keeping the “yes” votes on board, rather than working through the hodgepodge of concerns raised by the moderate “no” votes.

Instead, Pence targeted the bloc of “no” votes in Freedom Caucus with a pitch to allow states to seek a waiver to opt out of certain insurance regulations. The proposed waivers gave the Freedom Caucus hope that their concerns were finally being addressed, but then moderate “yes” votes started coming out against the idea.

That see-saw effect of negotiations shifting between Republicans on the far right and those in the center has gone on for weeks. Most members remain optimistic they’ll find the right balance, but if they don’t, both sides will be to blame.

“There will be some people in both groups who can never get to ‘yes.’ And that’s ok,” MacArthur said. “We can lose 20-plus votes and still have this carry.”

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

12,000 Read more...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Click Here  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Click Here

12,000