�Թϲ�����

As with the Middle East “peace process” the quest for a health-care bill to pass the Senate rests on a false assumption: All we need are really clever negotiators and the will to pursue a deal. Call this the myth of the “there must be a solution.” It’s as false for health care as it is for peace in our time between the Israelis and the Palestinians. On health care, we are solemnly instructed to watch  the 13 or so GOP senators who are supposedly working on this task. They are fully engaged! Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is talking to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)! The problem is not primarily in that group or even in the Senate. It’s not even in the House, although recalcitrant and irresponsible leaders who would vote to transform the health-care system are problematic. (Jennifer Rubin, 5/30)

Throughout the 2016 campaign — and for months afterward — Donald Trump promised that his replacement for Obamacare would provide “insurance for everybody.” Last week’s Congressional Budget Office report makes clear that the House Republican health care bill falls well short of that goal. But we now have a road map for how Senate Republicans can do better: by ensuring that more low-income Americans can afford coverage. (Avik Roy, 5/31)

In his May 10 guest commentary, U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder painted a confusing picture of American healthcare. He alleged that the failing Affordable Care Act is forcing millions to lose health care coverage because of limited marketplace options and unaffordable premiums for now skyrocketing insurance. He falsely asserted a binary choice: Either transition the country to “socialized medicine,” or embrace what he characterized as a “return to personalized medicine” in the form of the Republicans proposal — the American Health Care Act. (Emily Riegel, 5/30)

As a law student learning to represent people seeking welfare benefits, I was taught that forms had to be filled out flawlessly. No crossing out words. No white-out. No misspellings. The slightest error would provide an excuse to deny the cash needed for rent, food or a growing child’s shoes. Republicans revile such bureaucratic rigidity when it inconveniences businesses or the wealthy. Yet they embrace it when it hurts the most vulnerable. We’ve seen this Republican red tape with onerous voter-ID requirements. The American Health Care Act passed by the House to repeal Obamacare is the latest example. (Noah Zatz, 5/30)

It’s a given that federal budgets in final form do not much resemble the budgets proposed by the White House, no matter who is president. At no other time in modern history has it been more important that this be true. President Donald Trump’s budget, if enacted, would be a nightmare for America. By slashing and remaking Medicaid and today’s version of food stamps, it shreds the safety net, with responsibilities shifting to the states — many of which, like Texas, consider being called misers in this regard a badge of honor. (5/30)

Coming from any other Republican, the request for the federal budget that President Trump submitted to Congress last week would not have been a surprise. But because Trump campaigned on a populist economic platform and not a traditional conservative one, his budget flummoxed political operatives and observers in the media. (Max Ehrenfreund, 5/30)

It is possible both for the Republican's American Health Care Act to be a seriously flawed bill and for the Congressional Budget Office to have unfairly maligned it in the report it issued last Wednesday afternoon. So, I come today not to plead the virtues of the AHCA, but to argue that the CBO's lambasting of it is likely to prevent useful debate over the future of American health care. While a result-oriented person might not worry too much if the AHCA is killed off too readily, they might start to care when perpetuation of the same CBO methodologies kills off other more realistic reforms even as Obamacare falters. Unfortunately, because America trains people to have their eyes glaze over when it comes to numbers and popular culture reinforces perpetual innumeracy, the CBO's projections are likely to be treated as oracle, monopolizing conversation in a climate of analytic ignorance. (Seth Chandler, 5/30)

Specifically, do Medicaid enrollees receive fewer unnecessary services than people with private insurance, because of the relative stinginess of Medicaid reimbursement? Or do they receive more, because people on Medicaid have more need or greater demands? The answer is – yes and yes. Medicaid enrollees receive more of some unnecessary services and fewer of some other unnecessary services. (Peter Ubell, 5/31)

Congress can and should still move forward with important health care reforms to ease the burden on millions of American businesses and workers. The National Restaurant Association and the one million foodservice locations we represent urge our elected officials to make a few basic changes to relieve the burdens on our businesses that are stifling growth and impacting our ability to hire new employees. Regardless of the AHCA passage, there are a number of legislative and regulatory issues impacting restaurants, and further actions are still necessary to truly reform the Affordable Care Act (ACA) so it works for all Americans. (Robin Goracke, 5/30)

The U.S. has the best educated doctors, nurses and medical technicians. We have the best equipped hospitals. We lead the world in medical research and developing life-saving drugs. Why then are we so deficient in delivering health care, spending twice as much as the rest of the world, abysmally poor in infant mortality, life expectancy and the ability to insure everyone? (Nick Hoesl, 5/30)

Frighteningly, the recent Congressional Budget Office report reveals that the current version of the Republican health care bill eliminates the requirement for essential health benefits and threatens this solution. If insurers do not cover Suboxone, outpatient providers will be unable to continue prescribing this medication to discharged patients. For emergency physicians like us, this means that while we may be able to start patients on these lifesaving medications, there may be no outpatient physicians able to continue the treatment, effectively creating a bridge to nowhere. (Nathan Kunzler and Alister Martin, 5/31)