I went through the "what ifs" a few days ago on healthcare if Trump's executive order stands, and as far as policy consequences go, they range from dire to just unpleasant. The political wrangling was similarly uncertain. I put a low likelihood on a simple fix to the loophole that let Trump block the cost-sharing subsidies, and added another category for crazy-shit-happens. The rekindling of the Alexander-Murray talks is somewhere between the two.
First, recall that Alexander and Murray were in talks for bipartisan fixes to Obamacare before the whole Graham-Cassidy mess, and Alexander, shall we say, "shut that whole thing down," because there was no way Graham-Cassidy could pass if it looked like Obamacare was going to have its holes patched. So, he stuck a knife in Patty Murray's back, ended bipartisan negotiations, and gave his full support to Graham-Cassidy.
He hasn't actually restarted that process, and somehow, Murray isn't spurning him entirely. (Think about that. Would you?) Anyway, roughly, the deal is as follows. Cost-sharing subsidies are fully funded in the law (temporarily, at least), but along with that are a few goodies for the GOP, like reduction in the requirements for some state waivers.
So, there are two interpretations we can take from this, depending on how much the GOP goodies wind up being worth, presuming the deal passes (more on that, after the fold).
1) Hostage-taking, and in fact, hostage shooting works again. Back in 2011, the GOP held the debt ceiling hostage (in Mitch McConnell's words, the debt ceiling was "a hostage that's worth ransoming"), and Obama didn't understand what he was doing, or who his opposition was. So, he gave the hostage-takers a shitload of money, in the form of spending cuts on programs about which he cared, just to not crash the economy of every country on the planet. It took a few cycles to break the GOP of the hostage-taking habit (although the impulse is still there). Really, it took the 2013 shutdown, but they've been burned by it, and they stopped doing it (mostly). Trump just shot the fuckin' hostage. Patty Murray is now offering the GOP policy concessions to stop shooting hostages, undoing the hard work that the Democrats did fixing Obama's 2011 fuck-up.
2) Maybe the concessions to the GOP are just minor concessions to help the fix go down easier. As I wrote the other day, most in the GOP don't want Trump doing this kind of stupid shit because they know the risks to the health insurance market, and they know that the GOP will take the blame. So, patch the hole. But, getting a deal through requires getting Republican buy-in, and that requires throwing a bone to the conservatives, and in particular, the Freedom Caucus so that they don't feel like they got screwed even though the only thing they know how to do is to complain about how they are getting screwed. So, find something that looks like a win for them, but isn't all that big in real terms, add that to the deal along with the important thing, which is blocking Trump from cutting off the cost-sharing subsidies, and Bob's your uncle.
The difference between 1 and 2 is the importance of Murray's concessions. This... is where I'm really not your best source because this is about the importance of one policy versus another. I'm not really a policy guy. The aspect of the deal that I find most interesting, from the Democrats' perspective, is the increased eligibility for catastrophic plans. I'm going to do some reading on those, and from a strategic perspective, I think the Democrats should too because that could be a trojan horse. Then again, as I said, I'm not a policy guy. Go elsewhere for that shit.
Now, can this pass? In the Senate, if Mitch McConnell lets a vote happen, then yes. Murray's support means the Dems will follow her. Alexander can bring in Collins and Murkowski easily. The Democratic caucus plus Alexander, Collins and Murkowski... Getting to 51 in the Senate shouldn't be a problem. Ugly, yes, but it should happen if McConnell permits it. Of course, there is the perverse possibility of a majority party filibuster, but I'm skeptical. We'll see.
The House... Again, I find it difficult to believe that the Democrats will turn on Murray's negotiated deal. We have seen them follow her before. When she was Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, post-2011, she worked out a framework for future spending to prevent stuff like that showdown with the Chair of the House Budget Committee at the time. I think is name was Paul somethingorother. He was an Ayn Rand-worshipping dudebro. Whatever happened to that guy? Regardless, House Democrats went along with Murray. They tend to do that.
Anyway, that leaves, as usual, the mess of the House GOP caucus. Even if there are enough Republicans willing to support the Alexander-Murray plan, the Freedom Caucus can threaten to overthrow Ryan if he brings it up for a vote, and Alexander-Murray is dead. Will that happen? It depends on how they see the concessions, and I have no clue about that. Maybe Trump will say he loves the deal, and they go along. He has already signaled general support, so who knows?
This is all batshit crazy. Welcome to modern American politics.
Related Posts :
Inside Israel's Top-Secret Anti-Terror Operation Center
Melania Trump praises Kavanaugh on Egypt trip but says 'I have my own voice'
2-year-old US boy shreds parents' savings of over $1,000
Football: Nike 'deeply concerned' by Ronaldo rape allegations
World News Briefs -- October 8, 2018 (Evening Edition)