On the recordSeptember 19, 2017
Let me quote a few sentences from this article because I think they make the case dramatically about how bad the Cassidy-Graham substitute would be. Here is what he said: Compared with its predecessors, the bill would increase the ranks of America's medically uninsured more--by millions of people--cost state governments billions more and pave the way for the elimination of all protection for those with preexisting medical conditions. He goes on to say: Among the biggest losers of federal funding would be the states that had the foresight to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and the resolve to reach out to lower- income residents [and provide health insurance] coverage. He goes on to say that, under this Cassidy-Graham bill, ``they'd be punished with draconian cuts in healthcare funding.'' He goes on to write: Among the big winners would be the states that have done nothing of the kind for their residents--refusing the Medicaid expansion and interfering with outreach efforts [to bring more people into health insurance coverage]. They would be rewarded, perversely, for doing the wrong thing. He writes: Over the last week or so, reviews of the measure have been pouring in from healthcare experts, and they're almost unanimously negative. Major health provider and consumer organizations have turned thumbs down, as have analysts looking at its economic effects.…





