Just saw this tweet from a reporter at the Hill:
Durbin tells me it's ok for Dems to meet with Cassidy/Collins on healthcare b/c those 2 are "beyond repeal" https://t.co/F0RBQb8GvR pic.twitter.com/recMUqHDm3
— Peter Sullivan (@PeterSullivan4) May 16, 2017
When I read through Cassidy-Collins in January, my impression was that this was the contours of a deal or at least the start of a discussion on a deal:
The bill actually grapples with trade-offs. As a starting point of discussion for replace, this bill is worthwhile as it mostly focuses on further decentralizing the US health finance system to the states in the individual market and very little else. It does not do anything too controversial on non-germane subjects. It can be seen as a technical corrections bill with a conservative slant to the ACA…. A critical question will be what is the counterfactual? The counterfactual is critical in evaluating the quality of the outcomes of this bill.
It is a healthcare bill. It is a conservative healthcare bill.
Again, it is a healthcare bill. It is not a tax bill.
It is also sponsored by four Republicans which is one more than the minimally viable blocking coalition. It is a pitch to restore healthcare politics back into the realm of normal politics. That was my read on it in January and that seems to be the read Democratic Senators in seats that are not at risk in 2018 have on it now.
The most critical question on evaluating Cassidy-Collins is what is our counterfactual. Is our counterfactual a smooth and fully operational ACA? Is it a monkeywrenched ACA? Is it the AHCA minus 10% of the worst? What is the counterfactual will determine a lot of your analysis.