CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

60%↑

40%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 27, 2017 11:05 AM UTC

Gardner Can't Possibly Support "Skinny Repeal," Right?

  • 22 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Sen. Cory Gardner (R).

Politico’s Dan Diamond reports on the latest Congressional Budget Office estimate of Republican legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act–this being an estimate of the version known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate specific components of the ACA like the individual and employer mandates while leaving other parts of the law intact.

The CBO estimates millions of Americans would still lose coverage–and premiums would skyrocket:

Republicans’ rumored slimmed-down Obamacare repeal bill could lead to 16 million more uninsured Americans next year, according to a CBO estimate requested by Senate Democrats and shared Wednesday.

Democrats asked the CBO to score a mock-up of the bill based on provisions that the GOP is reportedly considering, two Democratic aides said. The mock-up included repealing Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, medical device tax, community health center funding and prevention fund, in addition to defunding Planned Parenthood.

Based on those provisions, the CBO projected that the so-called skinny repeal bill would result in premiums about 20 percent higher compared to current law, according to a Democratic aide. [Pols emphasis]

In theory, this estimate that “skinny repeal” would hike premiums by some 20% should be the plan’s death knell. We’re basing that on the explicit statement from Sen. Cory Gardner that he would not support legislation that increased the cost of insurance:

Of course, this is the same Cory Gardner who paid lip service to protecting Medicaid expansion patients and having the details of a replacement before voting for repeal. And in the last 48 hours, Gardner has broken both of those promises. By voting for bills that would reduce the number of insured in Colorado by hundreds of thousands, Gardner has made a joke of his former concern over policy “cancellations.” By voting to kill the Medicaid expansion and changing his rhetoric to “making Medicaid sustainable,” Gardner has broken his promise to protect those patients. And by voting for repeal with no replacement, he’s broken that most basic of promises as well.

After all these broken promises, would deliberately voting to jack up premiums–for no good reason other than tax relief for wealthy Americans–be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back? Or has Gardner already crossed that threshold as his plummeting approval ratings indicate?

We can’t believe anything Gardner says, demonstrably. All we can do is wait for the votes.

Comments

22 thoughts on “Gardner Can’t Possibly Support “Skinny Repeal,” Right?

    1. Be sure to rub it on your memory and soon all you will remember is that I have nice teeth and deserve to be re-elected because I don't support controlling women's bodies (suppresses chuckle with calculated ease).

  1. See you at your offices, Cory G. We're not letting up, and we're not going to let you hurt Coloradans, whatever the glibberish you use to justify it.

    1. To paraphrase our snake oil endorser.

      "Thank you Senator for your thoughtful approach to improving healthcare in America.  I salute you as only a toady can by applying my lips…"

    1. And the fact that Bennet has voted no these piece of shit bills while Gardner voted yes means jack and shit.  

      Gotta chase your White Whale.

    2. Because he's as compromised and corrupted as Gardner, that's why.

      I'm clearly no fan of Thurston, but fuxsakes Zap, keep spouting that kind of genius horseshit and you'll have as much credibility as Fluffy around here!

      1. That ship has sailed, Dio. I think Zap had a crush on Bennet and his venom is just bitterness over his guy not returning the love the way Zap wanted.

    3. From what I have read, Bennet has been unequivocal in his opposition to these bills and hasn't waffled like Gardner.  If you're only criteria for criticizing him is that he hasn't publically endorsed a public option then you are on thin ice.  People are going to start viewing your rantings as that of an uncompromising extremist.  Do you really want to be the left's version of Moldy?

      1. Thing that gets me about him.  The one time in recent memory Bennet did something many of us found objectionable,  nothing from Zappy on that.  The rest of the time, Bennet should have done this or that.

      2. And Bennet did cosponsor a public option bill, back in September 2016. He skated by with not voting on today's "Medicare for All" bill.  Bennet also slammed Coloradocare, which was our best chance to start building universal health care in Colorado.  Sanders will be introducing another Medicare for All bill in the Senate after all of the repeal nonsense is over. In the House, Degette, Polis, and Perlmutter are supporters of Medicare for All

         

          The thing he did that most of us are mad about was this jaw-dropping Palestine suppression bill. The Israel anti-boycott act (S720) would make it a felony to publicly advocate for boycotting Israel. Several Palestinian protesters have already been arrested in the good old USA for daring to advocate for a boycott of Israel. This obviously has grave implications for the first Amendment in our country.

        Bennet is a mixed bag. He is a bit of a weasel, taking "bold" stands when the law has no chance of passage, and wienering out when it might make a difference. He's been pretty consistent on fighting this Senate health care insanity, but there isn't anything wrong with pushing him a bit on some of his more craven positions.

         Senator Bennet: Contact Us

        Senator Gardner: Contact Cory*

         

        1. My your only source for Bennet being Satan's succubus on Israel is a leftist blurb I've never heard of.   Until I see something mainstream, like ny Times or Fort Morgan Timessmiley

          I'm withholding judgment.

          1. V,

            Here's some mainstream news outlets opining on the Israel Anti Boycott Act. I think that AIPAC (the Israel lobby) just presented this legislation as a "must-pass" item, and a bunch of Senators of both parties (Bennet included) just cosponsored it without carefully analyzing the language.

            When the ACLU looked at it, they were appalled to realize that the bill would punish a college student passing out a flyer to boycott Israel with a hefty fine and possible jail time. The original intent of the bill (if you read the original bill text) was to balance the UN's anti-Israel, pro-Palestinan stances. They got carried away with punishing anyone who advocates for a boycott. Here's the sources:

            New York magazine editorial against the law

            NYT criticism of "anti-anti Semitic law", also proposed by AIPAC

            ACLU's critique of the Israel Anti Boycott Act, as written

            Washington Post editorial against the Israel anti-boycott Act

            This is not to say that all boycotters are automatically free speech heroes; indeed, BDS advocates have themselves at times shut down Israeli academics or speakers to the detriment of academic freedom. Thus, it’s understandable that free speech advocates might not immediately identify BDS supporters as victims of censorship. But when government takes sides on a particular boycott and criminalizes those who engage in a boycott, it crosses a constitutional line.

            Boston.com reports on Senator Joe Kennedy's reviewing the legislation in light of the ACLU's concerns.

            Haaretz, a progressive Jewish news organization, writes:

            "The letter published by the ACLU is expected to generate pressure on these Democrats and others who have expressed support for the legislation, to demand changes to the bill's language, especially the part of it referring to criminal punishments for the violators. Already on Wednesday, a number of Democrats who were contacted by the website The Intercept admitted that they were not aware of the exact content of the legislation and would examine it closely in light of the ACLU's warnings. "

            I do like your turns of phrase, though. "Satan's succubus", indeed. wink

  2. The talk now is that Ryan is going to invoke a 'Martial Law' rule and bypass the conference process altogether and send the Senate bill straight to the House floor for a vote.  This means that Coffman goes on the hot seat again to immediately vote for whatever POS the Senate sends to them.  At least he won't have to spend days waffling like Gardner.

    1. It will be quick and painful for Mike Coffman. Unlike for Cory where it's been slow and painful.

      Yes, Kevin McCarthy messaged the House members not to go far because they may be called back on short notice.

      1. What's going to be painful is watching Coffman over the next 18 months justify caving on this vote if he switches from a No to a Yes.  What's going to be even more painful is the possibility that he will vote Yes and we will have 18 months to see if he still gets re-elected.  God I hope the Dems come out of the woodwork for a shot at unseating him.  If he votes No again then it will be a lot harder for him to lose his seat but he will have zero influence on his fellow Republicans.  As they say, stay tuned.

  3. Skinny Repeal Actually Now Has a Name…..

    Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA). Add that to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), or the Budget Reconciliation Care Act (BRCA).

     

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!