The Senate health care bill is not perfect.
But it is a good first step toward getting rid of the GOP “repeal-and-replace” agenda, and its Senate Democrats are now demanding that they include a more aggressive expansion of Medicaid to cover millions of Americans who have been denied coverage through Obamacare.
The Senate bill’s failure has made the president’s top priority of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act the subject of bitter political and policy differences between the two chambers of Congress.
But there is no denying that the Senate bill would have done more to save millions of people from Medicaid cuts than the GOP effort to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare.
And Democrats are right: It’s a good start.
Republicans and Democrats have agreed on one thing: The GOP bill would not have done enough to help people who lost their health insurance under the ACA and still have it under the Senate plan.
And they are correct: It is a great start.
But to understand why Democrats are demanding a tougher version of the Senate health bill, you have to know a little bit about what it would have actually done.
In the last 10 years, the average American’s health insurance premium has gone up over a million percent, and the costs have risen substantially for the average individual.
And while the Affordable Act has significantly expanded Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income Americans, there is a significant amount of uncertainty about how many people will be covered under that expansion, according to a report from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
This uncertainty was compounded by the fact that Medicaid expanded under Obamacare was not fully operational until 2020, and Medicaid coverage was limited to about 1.4 million Americans.
And the federal government didn’t know how many more people it would need to cover, and how much more money would be needed to pay for the expansion.
The CBO estimate that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion would have covered 1.6 million more Americans by 2020 than the Senate version did.
The CBO report also found that it would not be enough to fully expand Medicaid coverage, because states could only expand Medicaid to people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $15,830 for a family of four.
But the Congressional Budget Office, which scores congressional bills, projects that under the GOP bill, states could increase the number of people covered by Medicaid by an additional 7 million people in 2020.
That means that the CBO expects that by 2026, more than 1.2 million more people would be covered by the expansion than under the Republican bill.
The House plan, which was unveiled last month, also expands Medicaid coverage by a little over 300,000 people in 2026 and has much more flexibility in how states can administer the expansion, but that still leaves the GOP plan at about 1 million people covered in 2027.
That’s a lot of people, but it doesn’t mean the bill would be a great idea.
Democrats are worried that if the Senate does not include a provision to expand Medicaid in the bill, that the House will do so in its own bill.
In other words, they want the House to vote on its own version of Medicaid expansion, which would likely be far less generous to low- and moderate-income people than the current House plan.
The problem with the Senate proposal is that the GOP is not really interested in having any Medicaid expansion in the House bill, and it would be very difficult for the Senate to pass such a bill.
So the Senate is now looking for a compromise.
The key is to give states some flexibility in setting up the Medicaid expansion.
The Senate plan would provide states with an expanded option to enroll people who need it, but there are some provisions that would require states to pay a fee to participate in the Medicaid program.
States could also choose to have an extra fee for people who are uninsured, and would have to provide the money to cover Medicaid expansion costs.
But that fee would be paid by the federal Treasury, and so states would have no incentive to go along with the Medicaid fee, since the Treasury would receive the full cost.
In this way, the Senate GOP health care plan would give states more control over Medicaid expansion than the House plan does, and that’s good for the states.
But the Senate’s plan would be much less generous than the version the House unveiled.
If you’re in the market for a new home, you’re better off looking for an apartment in a big city.
But you may not have a lot in a rural area.
So you might not want to pay more for a smaller apartment in an urban area.
So in the Senate, you would get a little more help from states in this regard, but not much.
And in the case of an apartment that you have, it would cost more to rent in a small city.
That means that in some parts of the country, it might be cheaper to rent out an apartment to someone with a lower income, and then move in with them when you’re able to afford it