Trumpcare Is in Trouble After 3 Republicans Voted Against the Bill

Republicans moved the bill to the floor, but the Freedom Caucus still isn’t happy.

Olivier Douliery/CNP/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A group of House Republicans delivered conservatives’ first official rebuke of President Donald Trump’s health care bill Thursday morning, voting against the GOP’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. During a House Budget Committee hearing, three members of the conservative Freedom Caucus—Reps. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), David Brat (R-Va.), and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.)—joined every Democrat in voting against moving the legislation to the House floor. However, the rest of the committee’s Republicans supported the bill, and it narrowly passed on a 19-17 vote.

The Freedom Caucus has attacked the repeal bill because it maintains Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion until 2020 and offers refundable tax credits for people who buy insurance on the individual market. It’s hard to know whether the three Freedom Caucus members on the Budget Committee were truly committed to killing the bill; members of Congress frequently cast politically expedient votes when they know a bill will pass regardless of what they do. Still, their opposition spells trouble for the proposal’s prospects when it reaches the full House.

The Freedom Caucus doesn’t have an official membership list, but it reportedly includes roughly 40 GOP members of Congress. If every Democrat opposes Trumpcare, 22 GOP “no” votes would be enough to defeat the bill. That means the Freedom Caucus has plenty of clout to kill the plan if the rest of its members have the same views as Sanford, Brat, and Palmer.

Paul Ryan and the White House seem to recognize this problem and are scrambling to find ways to appease conservatives and modify the bill before it comes to a full House vote. But that could pose another problem: The Freedom Caucus’ complaint is that the bill isn’t conservative enough and that it needs to offer less generous benefits. The Congressional Budget Office already measured the effects of the current bill and found that the GOP plan would insure 24 million fewer people by 2026 than Obamacare. Tinkering with the bill to meet the Freedom Caucus’ demands would likely result in even more people lacking insurance, something that could prompt moderate Republicans to turn against Trumpcare.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate