I certainly take Sarah Kliff's point, although I'm somewhat baffled by it. Writes Vox's health-care expert (formerly of the Washington Post's Wonkblog):
Republican senators are expected to vote later today on a plan that many journalists have dubbed "skinny repeal"….
Skinny repeal refers to a bill that would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase health insurance, as well as a few more minor provisions.
I’ve used the term skinny repeal in my own reporting. But I’ve come to think it’s wrong, and I’m going to stop.
Here’s why: Skinny repeal isn’t really that skinny at all. Rolling back the individual mandate would cause an estimated 15 million to 16 million Americans to lose coverage, according to Congressional Budget Office analyses of that policy. The nonpartisan office expects that premiums would rise 20 percent in the individual market.
The expectation could indeed be valid. What bewilders, however, is something I linked to yesterday. That is, in February 2017, the IRS issued this statement: "[We have] decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn't indicate their coverage status." In other words, in line with Trump's executive order to do so, the IRS ceased enforcing the mandate months ago.
What's more, any "skinny bill" is not intended to become law; it merely "represent[s] a bridge to a conference committee," reports the Post, "and lawmakers are already skeptical that the differences between the two chambers can ever be bridged."
They can't.
The skinny bill is from pure hunger — to do something, which can't be done.