As I pointed out earlier this year to the folks at “McSally Take A Stand,” It turns out that Martha McSally does stand for somethin’: Trumpism.
The Five Thirty Eight Vote Tracker still shows our “mythical moderate” Congresswoman (a myth created by our local media) voting 100% with the destructive positions of “The Donald.”
McSally has now declared her support for the “Trumpcare 2.0” bill to be voted on Thursday, which will take health care insurance away from thousands of her constituents. Hopefully they vote and will return the favor in November 2018.
The Arizona Republic reports, Martha McSally signals support for ‘Obamacare’ repeal bill; Trent Franks doesn’t:
U.S. Rep. Martha McSally signaled support for the revised Republican health care bill Monday, but the plan’s passage remained uncertain as it headed toward a key vote Thursday in the House or Representatives.
In a statement Monday night, McSally, a two-term Arizona Republican, said the bill backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan “is not perfect and I still have concerns,” but she indicated she was working to strengthen that plan.
It should be noted that McSally’s support for “Trumpcare 2.0” came before the full court press from the White House on Tuesday. President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Republican leaders spent Tuesday pressuring lawmakers to support the new health bill. Trump Warns House Republicans: Repeal Health Law or Lose Your Seats.
McSally is in a competitive district with a Democratic voter registration edge, so voting for “Trumpcare 2.0” could very well cost her her seat in 2018.
House leadership has been making concessions to address lawmakers’ concerns with the bill to overturn the Affordable Care Act. With McSally’s apparent backing, the GOP avoids losing support from a member in one of the more competitive districts in the country. No Democrats are expected to support the Republican plan, so the party cannot lose more than 21 GOP votes in the House.
* * *
McSally joined with other Republicans to ask for three key changes to Ryan’s plan:
First, she wanted it to maintain the 2020 phase-out of the Medicaid expansion that happened under the ACA. Some conservatives wanted to move up the time frame. Second, she wanted citizens between 50 and 64 years old to receive higher tax credits to offset premium costs. And third, she wanted the states to have more flexibility and financial support in redesigning Medicaid under the GOP plan.
Ryan’s original proposal fell flat with many groups, from Democrats who oppose the entire approach, to Republicans who viewed it as a watered-down version of the health system passed under former President Barack Obama. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 10 years Ryan’s plan would leave 24 million fewer Americans with health care coverage than expected under the current system. It also estimated the Ryan plan would cut the government’s expected health care costs by about $337 billion.
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been an unmitigated disaster in Arizona — leaving us without real choices statewide,” McSally said. “The exchanges for 14 of the state’s 15 counties are devoid of competition because they are left with only a single insurer selling coverage. However, the transition to a new system will take time and those on Medicaid and ACA exchanges deserve continuity and stability during the transition.
“Over the past weeks, I have proposed detailed, specific changes to the AHCA that would provide better coverage and a stable transition for seniors, the disabled, children, and middle-class families. Through lengthy negotiations with House leadership and the executive branch, I am pleased to have played a role in moving this bill in the right direction.”
McSally lauded the Ryan bill for expanding consumer choice, but didn’t comment on the expected loss of coverage it would bring. One estimate by the liberal Center for American Progress noted 50,000 people would lose insurance coverage under the Ryan plan in McSally’s district alone. [See Table-of-CBO-coverage-loss-by-congressional-district-in-all-states-final].
Note: In Arizona, 380,000 Arizonans may lose Medicaid according to an analysis by the state’s Medicaid (AHCCCS) plan. Arizona could lose $46.8 million in federal public health funding over the next five years via a cut included in the House Republican health bill, likely forcing local health departments to reduce or cut public health programs. GOP health bill would cut nearly $47 million in Arizona public health funds.
Democrats said her support for the bill puts her out of step with her district.
“It’s clear that Speaker Ryan and President Trump hold more sway for vulnerable Representative Martha McSally than her own constituents, more than 50,000 of whom will lose coverage, while other’s rates go up and out-of-pocket costs skyrocket,” said Cole Leiter, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Ryan welcomed McSally’s backing in a statement accompanying hers.
“I appreciate Rep. McSally’s support on the AHCA,” he said. “Her unwavering commitment to her constituents and her tenacity throughout the negotiating process has led to positive changes and I believe this is a better bill as a result of her involvement.”
“Unwavering commitment to her constituents“? The only thing Martha McSally is committed to is her congressional career, and she will stand with “Trumpism” and her GOP leadership because that is what she deems is necessary to advance her career.
As for the thousands of her constituents who will lose their health care coverage, the “Trumpcare 2.0” bill is a health care plan of sorts: “Perhaps they should die and decrease the suurplus population.”
“…under former President Barack Obama.”
This is off subject, but when I read this grandiose title I had to chuckle. While just writing “Obama” is more than sufficient to let us know who it was he was to whom he was referring, he felt it was necessary to write out the whole title “former President Barack Obam” as if to make certain about which Obama he was talking. I realize that Obama’s legacy is starting to take a beating and Democrats feel it is necessary to start propping him up in any way they can, but this was just a humorous, and a bit pompous, attempt at it. :o)
“McSally is in a competitive district with a Democratic voter registration edge, so voting for “Trumpcare 2.0” could very well cost her her seat in 2018.”
Given how competitive the District is, either vote could cause a challenge to her seat in 2018. She made her choice and has cast her lot. It will be interesting to see which way it goes. I think she made the right choice and it will pay off for her. Despite your cheerleading for the ACA, it really was not doing well here in Arizona and had developed a lot of resistance. A lot of people, like me, felt that Obama betrayed them by showing his hand early on as to what his actual inetentions were with the ACA.
“In a statement Monday night, McSally, a two-term Arizona Republican, said the bill backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan “is not perfect and I still have concerns,” but she indicated she was working to strengthen that plan.
That is much better than Pelosi’s statement that, “To know what’s in it {the ACA} we will have to pass it.” At least McSally indicates she actually read the Bill she is voting on rather than Pelosi who had no idea what she was doing.
““The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been an unmitigated disaster in Arizona — leaving us without real choices statewide,”
That is true and it was always the plan. Strip people of thier choices, make it too expensive and then spring “one payer government provided health care” on the Nation. THAT was the Plan behind Obamacare.
“The only thing Martha McSally is committed to is her congressional career…”
Name me ONE Representative, Republican, democrat or whatever, who is not? If there is ONE THING you can count on Congressmen and Women to be concerned with, it is their re-election. ALL of them, not just McSally. I think McSally bet on a winner this time.
“As for the thousands of her constituents who will lose their health care coverage, the “Trumpcare 2.0” bill is a health care plan of sorts: “Perhaps they should die and decrease the suurplus population.”
My goodness, such hysterical theatrics. When Obamacare kicked in, thousands obtained healthcare because other people started paying for it, while thousands of other lost thier healthcare because they couldn’t afford it anymore. Under the new plan these people may lose it and other people will gain healthcare that didn’t have it. All these plans are giant shell games as to who wins healthcare and who loses.
Since I love playing Devil’s Advocate, where’s the disdain for Sinema? According to the linked chart at the top of the page, despite representing a district where HRC won by 10 points, she still votes with Trump nearly half the time?
Or is this a case of IOKIYAD?
Now, on the specific topic at hand, what I’ve heard is that too many people refused to get on the ground and help out Steele and Heinz because they were too scared of McSally’s War Chest, and succumbed to the marginal voter theorem, doing nothing and possibly costing the election. It’s not an easy question to ask, but if the idea is that McSally should be defeated in 2018, that’s what you have to overcome with the voters on the ground.
McSally is my representative in Congress, so I focus on her. The last time I checked we still had several bloggers in the Phoenix area who could be posting about politics in the state of Maricopa, but are not. You will have to inquire of them why that is. And FYI, I have hammered on Sinema in the past, long before you started commenting on this blog.
I apologize. I will admit that I don’t search the archives for every post going back multiple years.
With that said, I don’t really see the Democratic Party doing much to really play a positive message to the voters, which I think is a crucial step. All I hear lately is ‘Trump is Evil, Trump is a Russian Agent, Trump Must Be Stopped, Resist Trump’, and no positive message about what could be done differently. Recent history (again, the archives may speak differently), however, does suggest that you are spending a lot of time with the same negative messaging that failed to deliver a victory in 2016.
Even though I wildly disagree with the message that Trump gave, at least he had a message about what he would do differently to try to change the system for the better, while most of HRC’s advertisements were either appeals to identity (vote for the first woman president), or attacks on Trump. What even is the Democrats’ message on the economy? This is a genuine question – I really don’t know the answer.
There is most definitely disdain for Sinema. Perhaps not on this blog, but I’ve seen it other places. She’s apparently decided to be one of those Democrats who “reach across the aisle” thinking that is the way to save her sweet gig. But voting with Trump as much as she does will not endear her to progressives and most Democrats in 2018. I guess we’ll see.
I never heard any analysis of how McSally won in 2016. She had no record of accomplishment to run on because all she really does is toe the party line. I think that until now she has been able to sell herself as a women’s advocate, as strange as that may seem. Hopefully, with Trump’s unpopularity growing by the minute, representatives like McSally will be called out for their votes and will not benefit as much from managing voters’ perceptions.
I wondered about Matt Heinz, if he had enough money and support to defeat an incumbent. I seem to remember that his TV ads were pretty good.
I guess we have to hope the Democrats do better in 2018. It will be a terrible shame if McSally is re-elected given that her district represents a real opportunity for them.
This was what I heard from Victoria Steele at the Cooperation Unconference a couple of weeks back; I don’t have primary sources to corroborate her story, but I will take it that few would understand the race and its dynamics better than she.
I do think, though, that the Democratic Party is too enamored with money as a proxy for political viability, and I think that leads the national staff & their fundraising apparatus to throw a lot of good money to people who fundraise well (roughly translating as having big dinners and events with the local bigwigs and benefactors), rather than those that are spending a lot more time out in the community, actually building support networks and grassroots enthusiasm. It’s not a recipe for success.
Interesting.
Well, I think you’re right about the messaging. Democrats are going to have to take some solid positions. On healthcare, for example, they are going to have to decide where they stand and stop supporting the patchwork non-solutions that leave too many Americans uninsured and under-insured. They are going to have to cut the cord with the corporations and do what is right for the people.
Bernie Sanders is the only influential politician who has the guts to talk this way, so I’m not hopeful for the Democrats making such dramatic shifts in their messaging by 2018. I guess we’ll see.
I second Liza’s comments. And will support having McSally replaced in 2018. Poor choice in the first place.
Exactly what I expect of McSally. Who knows how she figured this, but she has obviously concluded that her seat is safer if she carries Trump’s slop jar.
Hopefully, Democrats see this as an opportunity for 2018.
Comments are closed.