June 22, 2017


News and Views


https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-debacle-destroys-last-rationale-trump-myth-genius-ceo-090002823.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=433beca8-469f-3942-9fad-a13615dd8aa8&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Russia debacle destroys the last rationale for Trump, the myth of the genius CEO
Yahoo News Matt Bai
June 22, 2017

Photograph -- President Trump arrives at Newark International airport earlier this month. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

Let’s begin this week with a question that has nothing to do with a single House election in Georgia, even though it was apparently the most critical and consequential local election in the history of elections, going all the way back to the Greeks.

What have we really learned to this point about the ties between President Trump’s campaign and the Russians, and what does it tell us?

My former colleague David Brooks, no fan of Trump’s, wrote thoughtfully on this subject a few days ago. In a column titled “Let’s Not Get Carried Away,” Brooks argued that — at least as of now, which is an important caveat — all the leaks and revelations about the Trump campaign haven’t actually turned up any evidence of collusion with Russian hackers looking to influence last year’s election.

Rather, if I’m paraphrasing Brooks correctly, Trump has played right into the hands of his many critics in Washington, foolishly trying to discredit or even impede an investigation that probably leads nowhere. And in doing so, all he’s managed to do is crank up the modern machinery of scandal politics, which can whir away for years in a search for something — anything — that rises to the level of a crime.

I tend to agree with this analysis. Unless the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has unearthed something we don’t know about, there’s not much here to suggest that Trump himself had any idea of what the Russians were up to, or that any of his pro-Kremlin advisers were actively coordinating with foreign spies.

The closest thing we have to a crime right now is Trump’s sleazy attempt to influence and then destroy the FBI director, and even that feels less like obstruction of justice than like the clueless machinations of a land developer who thought he could push around the Justice Department as he would an unaccommodating city inspector.

In the end, though, if Republicans are going to argue that the whole Russia fiasco has nothing to do with Trump, and is really just a story of incompetence and greed among a few cowboy operatives working for the campaign, then they have to acknowledge something else, too.

View photos

Which is that this version of events further obliterates the entire premise of Trump’s campaign, not to mention his party’s principal rationale for having supported him in the first place.

Remember, Republicans in Washington never labored for a minute under the illusion that Trump knew anything about governance or even shared their bedrock ideology. What they settled on, when they finally embraced his candidacy, was that the country could use a CEO who knew how to run a business.

This is what Trump himself kept saying, too. “The best people” — that’s what he promised.

If I had a dime for every conservative insider and voter who told me last year that Trump would surround himself with all the sharpest minds and most experienced hands around, I’d build a garish, exorbitantly expensive hotel and stick my name in fake gold at the top.

What’s become abundantly clear, though, is that Trump didn’t run his campaign like a shrewd corporate titan with a keen eye for talent. He ran it like a sucker, easily played by anyone who knew how to stroke his ego.

OK, so maybe the party’s best and brightest weren’t exactly knocking down the door at Trump Tower last year. Maybe the Jim Bakers and Condoleezza [sic] Rices of the world wanted nothing to do with Trump at that point.

But isn’t that supposed to be Trump’s superpower — getting people to “yes”? Don’t you think he would have sought out those folks and determined the bottom-line price of their loyalty, the way a great negotiator would?

Instead, he turned to misfits and marginal characters. He hired Paul Manafort, a long-forgotten consultant who’d lately been doing shady work in Ukraine for a dubious paycheck. He turned to Michael Flynn, a former general with conspiratorial tendencies and murky relationships with foreign despots. He collected people like Carter Page, the gadfly foreign policy aide who was, in effect, if inadvertently, a Russian asset.

These guys used Trump for the purposes of their overseas friends and clients. Just four years after the last Republican nominee had called Russia the greatest threat to American security, the new nominee was praising Vladimir Putin, while Russian spies hacked his opponents.

The only thing Republicans can really argue is that Trump didn’t know. He was new to the political world. How could he have guessed that Manafort was so venal? How could he have known that Flynn wasn’t being straight?

According to the testimony of James Comey, the now deposed FBI director, Trump later said he wanted to know if any of these advisers had betrayed him (and, incidentally, their country).

View photos

Only he didn’t, really. Because even after Trump had given Flynn one of the most vital and sensitive posts in American foreign policy, and even after Trump had been personally warned by his predecessor and his Justice Department that Flynn was a blackmail risk, he did nothing.

He personally lobbied Comey to leave Flynn alone. And even now, after Flynn has been publicly disgraced and faces legal jeopardy for the conflicts he failed to disclose, Trump is said to be ruminating on a way to bring him back.

No, the president may not have been complicit in this dirty foreign intrigue. “Clueless” and “ineffectual” are the words that come to mind.

None of this should surprise us, though. Because the whole surround-yourself-with-geniuses theory was always just a wishful canard, with zero basis in reality. Trump himself, in a much-quoted interview with CNBC in 2007, offered a truer sample of his management philosophy:

“I hear so many times, ‘Oh, I want my people to be smarter than I am.’ It’s a lot of crap. You want to be smarter than your people, if possible.”

Well, he certainly is making it look possible — I’ll give him that.

Trump’s White House, like his campaign, has nothing to do with recruiting top-rate talent, and everything to do with making the president feel loved and unchallenged.

Just this week, Trump’s 36-year-old son-in-law, whose collective expertise is limited to buying a bunch of buildings in Manhattan with family money, gave a little speech about reorganizing the federal bureaucracy, just before jetting off to the Middle East in a bid to broker world peace.

View photos

(By the way, since Trump so admires the House of Saud, it’s worth pointing out that the Saudi king just ousted his crown prince in favor of his 31-year-old son. If I were Mike Pence, I might take this opportunity to spend some quality time with the boss.)

Meanwhile, Trump continues to moan privately about the dysfunction and incompetence among his own senior staff, though he seems at a loss to fix it. He still can’t seem to fill most of the critical jobs at his Cabinet agencies, assuming he even wants to.

To be clear: I’ve never been opposed to this notion of a CEO president, in theory. I agree with Republicans — and maybe some Democrats, too — who think Washington could use some leadership from another arena, especially if it involves a leader who knows what he or she doesn’t know, and who understands the powerful currents reshaping the society, and who can bring imaginative thinking and top-rate intellects into government.

But that’s not this president. What the revelations around Russia are proving is that Trump doesn’t actually run things well. His success in business comes not from being some management guru, but from being a relentless opportunist and a bit of a con man.

His only defense now is that he’s the one who got conned.



THIS STORY REMINDS ME, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS TODAY, OF THE WONDERFUL IF POTENTIALLY DISTURBING TV SHOW “BRAINDEAD.” CBS CANCELLED IT, AND THE ARTICLES DIDN’T SAY WHY. THE IMPLICATION WAS THAT IT WAS JUST TOO UNPOPULAR, BUT I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY BECAUSE IT WAS TOO MUCH LIKE REAL LIFE IN OUR GOVERNMENT THESE DAYS. I WISH I COULD SAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN MY PERSONAL “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES,” BUT SADLY THEY ARE. BERNIE SANDERS WAS A KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR, BUT HE WAS TRASHED AND DUMPED. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT THE KOCH BROTHERS WON THE WAR.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigators-probe-whether-trump-associates-got-info-from-hacked-voter-databases/
By JEFF PEGUES CBS NEWS June 22, 2017, 6:34 PM
Investigators probe whether Trump associates got info from hacked voter databases

CBS News has confirmed that congressional investigators are interested in whether Trump campaign associates obtained information from hacked voter databases.

A source indicated it is still early on in the process of scrutinizing the issue, but the House Intelligence Committee is said to be scrutinizing relevant documents to see if there is a connection. TIME was the first to report the development, attributing it to two sources familiar with the investigations.

CBS News has learned that so far, there is no evidence that information taken from voter databases was used by Trump officials. Still, it is a sign that the congressional investigation is expanding.

"If stolen data was used, then there's going to be a question of how it was used, how it was obtained and with what knowledge did people use it," said Michael Bahar, who was a Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee and is currently a partner at Eversheds Sutherland.

Jeh Johnson testifies his offers to protect voting systems were ignored
Play VIDEO
Jeh Johnson testifies his offers to protect voting systems were ignored

On Wednesday, a Department of Homeland Security official testified that 21 states had voter databases targeted. But CBS News has learned that the number is actually higher. On Thursday, a former U.S. official told CBS News that nearly twice that many states showed evidence of a breach.

Multiple former officials told CBS News that in the final weeks of the Obama administration, there were discussions between states and federal officials about whether states using contractor databases should be included in the total number of breaches. Ultimately, the Obama administration decided to operate under the assumption that every single state had been affected.



IT’S GOOD TO SEE SOMETHING TODAY OF WHAT THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL CONTAINS. I WAS PLEASED THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY CRITICIZED THE HOUSE BILL AS BEING “MEAN,” AS IT CERTAINLY IS, AND ASKED FOR IT TO BE LIBERALIZED. THAT ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE GENERALLY MORE CONSERVATIVE HOUSE REPUBLICANS REMINDS ME VERY MUCH OF THE SHOCKING NEWS CONFERENCE LITTLE MORE THAN THREE WEEKS OR SO AGO, WHEN A REPORTER ASKED A CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATOR WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVES THAT PEOPLE HAVE “A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.” HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT FIRST, AND FINALLY DENIED THAT “ANYBODY EVER DIES” DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE. HE IS EITHER NAIVE, TOTALLY IMMORAL OR SIMPLY LACKING IN EMPATHY. I WONDER WHAT COUNTRY HE LIVES IN. THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS WHO DO FEEL THAT IF WE CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH CARE, WE SHOULDN’T HAVE IT – THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH A DIFFERENT MEANING.

JUST NOW I WASN’T ABLE TO FIND THAT ARTICLE, BUT I FOUND ONE THAT GETS TO THE BASIC POINT BETTER, A PBS ARTICLE. (GO BELOW TO READ IT: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/student_voices/debating-health-care-right-america/.) THIS ARTICLE IS A COMPILATION OF TWO STUDENT ESSAYS ANSWERING THE QUESTION, EACH FROM HIS OWN VIEWPOINT, OF WHETHER IT IS DEFENSIBLE, OR PERHAPS IT “SHOULD BE A RIGHT,” AND SHOULD BE GIVEN FREELY AS NEEDED TO THOSE WHO CAN’T FINANCE IT ON THEIR OWN. I THINK IF IT WERE AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE, THE FAILURE TO GIVE MEDICAL AID WOULD BE A CRIME. IT IS A QUESTION THAT WE REALLY DEEPLY NEED TO EXPLORE, AND INCORPORATE CHANGES INTO THE LAW, FROM THE CONSTITUTION ON DOWN.

IF RAND PAUL’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE JUST-REVEALED SENATE BILL ARE ACCURATE, IT SEEMS THE SENATE VERSION HAS RETAINED A FAIR PORTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE PLAN. (PAUL DOESN’T LIKE THAT.) I WAS REALLY CHEERED UP A BIT TO SEE THAT THE TAX CREDITS IN THE SENATE BILL WILL BE MORE OR LESS GENEROUS AS COMPARED TO THAT OF THE HOUSE, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, BASED ON INCOME RATHER THAN ON AGE; THE HOUSE BILL WROTE IT IN BASED ON AGE. LET’S FACE IT, AGE MAKES NO SENSE, UNLESS THOSE ALMOST AT MEDICARE AGE MAY VERY LIKELY HAVE SOME DEBILITATING HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH PREVENTS THEIR WORKING ANY LONGER.

THE LARGER AMOUNTS THAT THE HOUSE AUTHORIZED FOR THAT AGE GROUP WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THOSE IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT THE SS AND MCR SYSTEMS COVER THEM ALREADY AS BEING DISABLED, OR SO I THOUGHT; AND THE WRITERS OF THE HOUSE BILL STILL ARE SIMPLY NOT IN TOUCH WITH THE BASIC PROBLEM – LOW! INCOME! THE REASON THOSE VERY POOR PEOPLE DIDN’T VOLUNTARILY BUY HEALTH INSURANCE WASN’T BECAUSE THEY DON’T APPROVE OF INSURANCE, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BUY FOOD FIRST, RENT, SECOND, ETC., AND AN INSURANCE POLICY IS LOW ON THE LIST OF NEEDS.

OF COURSE, WE AS A GOVERNMENT ALSO SHOULD TACKLE THE OUTRAGEOUS PHYSICIAN, HOSPITAL AND DRUG COSTS HEAD ON. WE SHOULD FORCE THEIR PRICES DOWN. (I HEAR THE VOICES SCREAMING ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF THE FREE MARKET, ON MY LAST STATEMENT ALREADY, BUT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY IT.) OTHERWISE OUR WHOLE POPULATION MIGHT DUMBLY AND NUMBLY BELIEVE ALL THAT STUFF ABOUT PULLING OURSELVES UP BY OUR OWN BOOTSTRAPS, ETC., ETC. SWALLOWING THAT HOOK LINE AND SINKER IS WHY SO MANY MORE OLDER PEOPLE NOWADAYS ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE, OR AT LEAST AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE PROBLEM. [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150227084724.htm.]

“THE FREE MARKET” IS NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM ANYMORE THAN IS “COMMUNISM;” IT IS ALSO GROTESQUELY UNFAIR. ALL CIVILIZED MODERN SOCIETIES NEED A MIXED SYSTEM, AND LETTING THE PEOPLE STARVE, DIE NEEDLESSLY DUE TO ILLNESS, BE FORCED TO LIVE ON THE STREET WHEN THEY CAN’T WORK. MOST OF THOSE WHO DO LIVE ON THE STREET ARE PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY OR EMOTIONALLY UNABLE TO COPE WITH LIFE AT ALL RATHER THAN BEING JUST “LAZY” OR “INFERIOR.” THEY CAN’T FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS.

I THINK FOR THEM, PSYCHIATRIC MEDS AND GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL CARE SHOULD BE GIVEN AUTOMATICALLY. THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED SHELTER PROVIDED FOR THEM INTO THE FUTURE, ALSO, UNLESS THEY DO MAKE A GREAT RECOVERY MENTALLY. GROUP HOMES AND HALFWAY HOUSES MAY BE A BETTER SOLUTION FOR THEM THAN LOCKED WARDS, EXCEPT FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, OF COURSE. THEY CAN FIND COMPANIONS THERE WHO WILL BECOME FRIENDS, MOST LIKELY.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/student_voices/debating-health-care-right-america/
Student Voices
Back to student voices archive
September 30, 2013
Is Healthcare A Right?

On October 1, the healthcare exchanges in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, up to the general public for enrollment. The imminent implementation of the program has reignited the debate over whether the act is a government overreach, or whether it doesn’t go far enough. At the heart of the issue is the question of whether Americans believe that healthcare is a right or a privilege.

As a part of a larger debate over healthcare, NewsHour Extra asked high school students Megan and Sam to write about whether they thought healthcare was a human right or not. In addition, students from around the country wrote in with their opinions on the topic to the Do Now social media conversation hosted by KQED, the PBS affiliate in San Francisco. Some of their responses are included at the bottom.


Healthcare is not in the Constitution
By Megan Gallagher

The provision of health care is not mentioned in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers rightfully focused on life, liberty and justice.

Health care is a service for Americans and it is something that most Americans need. The basic question is really, “should the Government be in the position of saying that all Americans must sign up for some type of health care coverage?” And, if that premise is accepted, should government be in the business of then providing every citizen with coverage, whether they want it or not?”

Megan, T.C. Williams High School

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. They believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Their view on healthcare is no different. We have come to a time in our country where the American public is becoming far too reliant on the government to take care of more than their basic needs such as food, housing, and healthcare. This mantra of “let the government take care of me” is not what this country stands for and not the direction it needs to be heading in. It breeds a culture of dependency. In the news for the past year, President Obama has been persistently pursuing legislation, the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare” which will bring drastic changes to the existing healthcare system, hospitals, and many private practices around the nation.

The government already provides healthcare for the poor and the elderly through large and costly programs such as Medicaid and Medicare and this is paid for by taxpayers. If the government were to mandate universal healthcare coverage, the additional cost to the taxpayers will be huge and a drag on the economy, even though those taxpayers are not receiving any benefits from it.

Statistics show that 83.7 percent of all Americans have healthcare. This shows that although there are certainly segments of the population without coverage, the vast majority do have healthcare coverage. With statistics such as these, it shows that many people, for generations have afforded their own healthcare by their own means, not because it was a right, but because it is a privilege of where we live to be able to take care of one’s self by our own means.

Megan Gallagher is an 18 year old senior at T.C. Williams High School and also writes for the school newspaper, Theogony.


Healthcare is a human right
By Sam Hanoura

The effect that time has had on our still fairly young country is quite amazing. As the world has slowly progressed over the past few centuries, the United States has been playing catch-up with the already established nations while at the same time barreling through the industrial and technological revolutions. This of course means that along the way it can be expected that things can change in importance and relevance. For example, in the time of the founding fathers and powdered wigs, healthcare was comprised of apothecary prescriptions, amputations, and death. In the 21st century however, it can provide a longer and fuller life.

Sam, T.C. Williams High School
Sam, T.C. Williams High School

Now, when the founding fathers were drafting the constitution, the idea of someone two hundred years later not being able to pay for their chemo treatments most likely did not cross their minds. Regardless, it doesn’t matter who said or wrote what when; healthcare is a human right. The fact that this is even a discussion in policy making is absurd, further identifying lawmakers’ detachment from their sick and dying constituents.

The opposition to healthcare is more or less condemning the lower economic classes to a life of illness, campaigning to stretch the unruly rat race of the free market to the lives of millions of uninsured Americans. In comparison, free market health insurance today is slower, but just as lethal as the market for fire insurance in post-colonial America, where if someone did not have fire insurance on their home they were regarded as less of a priority. The concept is laughable now, but by what moral compass in today’s world is it right to unflinchingly run to the rescue of someone in a burning home and then deny that same person savior from an internal threat?

Those who oppose the Affordable Care Act make the argument that a majority of Americans are already covered by medical insurance. To that it must be noted that the key word in said act is “affordable.” The American people struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet, worrying about groceries, bills, and car payments. For better or for worse, that is capitalism, and as a country the United States has stayed true to its ideals. Nevertheless, the competition of the game of life should never have to be a game of life and death.

Sam Hanoura is a 17 year old senior at T.C. Williams High School and writes for the school newspaper, Theogony. . . . .


WILL THE SENATE BILL PASS?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-gop-senators-wont-vote-current-health-care-bill-192155995.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=a0d7935a-b327-11e5-bc1e-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Andrew Bahl Yahoo News June 22, 2017

PHOTOGRAPH -- WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 22: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks to the media about the Senate Republican health care bill proposal, on June 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Rand is one of four GOP senators that have opposed the bill as currently written. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)Today Senate GOP lawmakers took their first look at the health care bill that could replace the Affordable Care Act. Rand is one of four GOP senators that have opposed the bill as currently written. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)


WASHINGTON — A potentially decisive group of four conservative senators quickly announced Thursday afternoon that they oppose the health care bill rolled out by Republican Senate leadership earlier in the day.

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Ted Cruz, R-Texas and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said in a statement that the proposal did not go far enough in overhauling the current system.

“There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current health care, system but it does not appear that this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to the Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs,” the group said in the release.

With only 52 Republican senators, the bill would fail if those four members maintained their opposition. But the group indicated they would be open to a revised version of the bill. This means they may attempt to force concessions from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., before the bill is brought to a vote, potentially as soon as next week.

“We are open to negotiation and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor,” the statement said.

Paul and Lee have been critical of the drafting process in recent days, saying it has lacked transparency and indicating that they were not entirely pleased with the final outcome.

Both Lee and Cruz were part of the 13-member group tasked with drafting the legislation.

“The American people need and deserve to be able to see legislation as it moves through the Senate,” Lee said in a video this week.

Paul has criticized party leadership for having “forgotten” their pledge to repeal Obamacare.

“I mean, we had thousands of people standing up and cheering us on, saying they were going to repeal [Obamacare],” Paul told Bloomberg on Wednesday. “And now they’ve gotten kind of weak-kneed and I think they want to keep it.”

Meanwhile, more moderate Republicans are also skeptical of the bill. Those members have expressed reservations over the bill’s efforts to roll back Medicaid expansion and defund Planned Parenthood.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, are among the members who have advocated most strongly to preserve pieces of the Medicaid expansion found in Obamacare. In an attempt to appease this group, the bill begins phasing out the expansion in four years rather than the initial three.

But it is possible other changes to the program remain an issue for members.

“I have serious concerns about the bill’s impact on the Nevadans who depend on Medicaid,” Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said.

A spokesperson for Collins said the senator was reviewing the legislation and would wait for to see the Congressional Budget Office’s report, which is expected early next week.

Another issue is the bill’s defunding of Planned Parenthood for a year. Collins has previously said that “it is a mistake” to attach funding for the health care provider to the bill and another lawmaker, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, reportedly pledged to a constituent that she would not vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Both senators reiterated those stances Thursday.

But some conservative Republican lawmakers in both the Senate and the House may bail if the Planned Parenthood provisions were dropped. The House bill, the American Health Care Act, also defunded Planned Parenthood and it is unclear whether many lawmakers there would support a bill that did not cut funding for the group.

Other members may object to the amount of funding the bill devotes to combat the opioid epidemic. The Senate legislation offers $2 billion in 2018 to provide grants to states on the issue, a fraction of the amount pushed for by some lawmakers, including Republicans. Portman and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., asked for a larger package of $45 billion.

Capito said in a statement that she was reviewing the bill and examining whether it provides access to care for “those struggling with drug addiction.”

McConnell has indicated he would like a vote on the bill by next Thursday, before Congress goes on its July 4 recess.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-senate-health-bill-would-cut-medicaid-end-aca-tax-increases/
CBS/AP June 22, 2017, 6:35 AM
GOP Senate health bill would cut Medicaid, end ACA tax increases

RELATED: Senate Democrats united in trying to defeat "mean" health care bill

Top Senate Republicans plan to release a health care bill Thursday that would do away with the individual mandate, Obamacare's taxes and cut back the expansion of Medicaid, although at a slower rate than the House-passed bill, CBS News' John Nolen reports.

The Senate's proposal for dismantling President Obama's signature health care law would also keep more protections for people with preexisting conditions than the House bill did. The Senate bill will also provide tax credits based on income, providing more money to lower income recipients to help them buy insurance.

Draft of GOP health bill expected tomorrow
Play VIDEO
Draft of GOP health bill expected tomorrow

The House bill tied its tax credits to age, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would boost out-of-pocket costs to many lower earners. Starting in 2020, the Senate version would begin shifting increasing amounts of tax credits away from higher earners, making more funds available to lower-income recipients, some of the officials said, the Associated Press reports.

The Senate bill would also eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Many Republicans have long fought that organization because it provides abortions.

Senate GOP leaders hope to have the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score by Monday in order to hold a vote by the end of next week.

On Wednesday night White House staff met with Senate Republican staffers on Capitol Hill to review the bill, Nolen reports. White House staff and Senate GOP staff met frequently during the crafting of the bill.

Departing from the House-approved version of the legislation - which President Trump privately called "mean" last week - the Senate plan would drop the House bill's waivers allowing states to let insurers boost premiums on some people with pre-existing conditions.

It would also largely retain the subsidies Obama provided to help millions buy insurance, which are pegged mostly to people's incomes and the premiums they pay.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned to release the measure Thursday morning. Some of its provisions were described by people on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

"We believe we can do better than the Obamacare status quo, and we fully intend to do so," said McConnell, R-Kentucky.

McConnell was unveiling his plan even as GOP senators from across the party's political spectrum complained about the package and the secretive, behind-closed-doors meetings he used to draft a measure reshaping the country's medical system, which comprises one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

Facing unanimous Democratic opposition, Republicans can suffer defections by no more than two of their 52 senators and still push the measure through the Senate. Enough have voiced concerns to make clear that McConnell and other leaders have work to do before passage is assured.

GOP Senate leaders were eager to get a seal of approval from Mr. Trump, who had urged them to produce a bill more "generous" than the House's.

"They seem to be enthusiastic about what we're producing tomorrow," No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas told reporters. "It's going to be important to get the president's support to get us across the finish line."

President Trump rallies base in Iowa
Play VIDEO
President Trump rallies base in Iowa

At a campaign-style rally Wednesday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Mr. Trump said he urged Senate Republicans to add more money to their health care plan because he wants a plan with "heart."

He also suggested he would be willing to change the bill Republicans are crafting if Democrats would come onboard, saying, "A few votes from the Democrats, it could be so easy" and "so beautiful."

Scrapping Obama's 2010 statute is a top priority of the president and the GOP, but internal divisions have slowed its progress through the Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats say GOP characterizations of Obama's law as failing are wrong, and say the Republican effort would boot millions off coverage and leave others facing higher out-of-pocket costs.

The sources said, according to the AP, that in some instances, the documents McConnell planned to release might suggest optional approaches for issues that remain in dispute among Republicans.

That could include the number of years the bill would take to phase out the extra money Obama provided to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for the poor and disabled to millions of additional low earners.

The House-passed bill would halt the extra funds for new beneficiaries in three years, a suggestion McConnell has offered. But Republicans from states that expanded Medicaid, like Ohio's Rob Portman, want to extend that to seven years.

The Senate proposal would also impose annual limits on the federal Medicaid funds that would go to each state, which would tighten even further by the mid-2020s. Unlimited federal dollars now flow to each state for the program, covering all eligible beneficiaries and services.

The Senate would end the tax penalties Obama's law created for people not buying insurance and larger employers not offering coverage to workers. The so-called individual mandate - aimed at keeping insurance markets solvent by prompting younger, healthier people to buy policies - has long been one of the GOP's favorite targets.

To help pay for its expanded coverage to around 20 million people, Obama's law increased taxes on higher income people, medical industry companies and others, totaling around $1 trillion over a decade. Like the House bill, the Senate plan would repeal or delay many of those tax boosts.

The House waiver allowing higher premiums for some people with pre-existing serious illnesses was added shortly before that chamber approved its bill last month and helped attract conservative support. It has come under widespread criticism from Democrats and helped prompt some moderate House Republicans to vote against the measure.

Earlier Wednesday, conservative Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., seemed skeptical that McConnell's package would go far enough in dismantling Obama's law, a concern shared by other congressional conservatives.

"I'm still hoping we reach impasse and we go back to the idea we started with, which is repeal Obamacare," Paul said. "I'm open to keeping some of Obamacare. I'm not open to Obamacare lite."

Moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she had "no idea" if she'd back the legislation until she sees the language. She said an analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, expected Monday, would be "extremely important to me because I want to know the impact on coverage and on cost."

CBS News' John Nolen contributed to this report