InsideSources

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman likes his hoodies.

He doesn’t seem to have any other piece of clothing in his wardrobe, and he struts around in the “everyman’s” uniform as if he were campaigning to repair the broken cement on your front curb instead of a seat in the U.S. Senate. Fetterman, who comes from affluence, has played this “hail fellow well met” game all of his adult life. I’m not sure how it went over at Harvard, his alma mater, but it’s snookered a lot of folks in the media.

Bully for him, the Twitter bully. Fake it till you make it, as they say.

But I find it particularly ironic that a guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run by simply sauntering over to home plate has decided to engage in an all-out attack on his opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, over his financial success. Fetterman has amped up his social media and television assault on the Ivy-educated doctor by trying to depict him as a man born with a platinum spoon in his mouth. And to the gullible, it has some attraction.

Recently, there was that video of Dr. Oz strolling through the store he misnamed and gathering up raw vegetables. He made the tragic mistake of calling them “crudités” which suddenly became the new “c” word with everyone who shoves a shopping cart at the local Aldi mocking him for his pretentiousness.

I don’t get it. Personally, I call chopped vegetables…chopped vegetables.

Crudite is not in my regular vocabulary, even though I was a French teacher in another life. And yet, I can’t figure out why this amounts to some sort of moral failing on the part of the man who just wanted to dip his carrots in some guacamole.

It might be a Philadelphia thing. I remember two decades ago when then-presidential candidate John Kerry came to town and made the mandatory, ceremonial visit to Pat’s Steaks. (Or was it Geno’s? Hardly matters.) The poor man made the mistake of asking for Swiss cheese on his sandwich, and to this day when you say “John Kerry” to the average South Philadelphian you’re likely to get a smirk and some version of “the moron who hated the whiz.”

He may have won the Purple Heart in Vietnam, but the Ketchup Queen’s husband will always be remembered in these parts as the Swiss Wuss.

These modern-day versions of “Let Them Eat Cake” are a perfect reflection of the real San Andreas Fault in society: Class distinctions. I’ve always maintained people are more divided by their bank accounts than by race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other attribute of identity. And despite the whole Horatio Alger idea that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make something of yourself, earning money is still considered a character flaw.

A friend tweeted the other day, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting wealth and eventually attaining it. Just saying.” I replied “Absolutely. As long as you work hard and/or don’t hurt anybody in its attainment, there’s not a bit of shame in it. ‘A man’s reach must exceed his grasp else what’s a heaven for?’ Thank you, Robert Browning.”

Unfortunately, many Americans think that if you make money it means you’re a bad person. At the very least, you have your priorities messed up. At the very, very least, you should give them some of your money. I think that despite what we say about being proud capitalists in the USA, there is a vein of opportunistic socialism threading its way through our circulatory system. Envy is real.

Oftentimes, though, we cloak it in criticism of conspicuous consumption.

John Fetterman is on the attack against Mehmet Oz because he has a lot of houses. A lot of his supporters agree, and troll Oz with glee. There is a unique hypocrisy in the fact that the home Fetterman owns was purchased from his sister for a dollar. But the Democrat has created that carefully-crafted hoodie façade that turns him into “one of us.”

Query how many times “one of us” has been able to purchase our home for less than the price of a Wawa coffee. But that’s a topic for another column.

The point is the sort of people who attack others because they have worked hard, like Oz, and attained affluence are not concerned about the little man. They are envious folk, who would love to be able to set out a tray of crudites, brie, and Chablis for their friends. They would jump at the chance to replace the Wiz with Swiss on their steak sandwiches. But since they’re stuck with chopped vegetables, they’ll pretend to make fun of those who actually can enjoy the finer things in life.

All the while looking for their French dictionaries.

“Is there a doctor in the house?” is a cliche. But U.S. Rep. Susan Wild wants to keep one out of the Senate — and she thinks the press is hurting her cause.

The Pennsylvania Democrat is complaining about the coverage of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the GOP nominee for Senate who is best known for his award-winning TV show “Dr. Oz.” She wants the media to drop the “Doctor.”

“Please stop using ‘Dr.’ before Oz’s name,” Wild tweeted. “Use his name like we do for all other candidates. Or just his last name as we often do. He’s not practicing medicine. He’s running for office.”

Every year, Gallup asks Americans to rank the honesty and ethics of various professions, and “medical doctors” inevitably appear near the top of the list — usually right behind nurses. In the most recent survey, 67 percent of respondents said they believed doctors are ethical and honest, compared to 27 percent for bankers, 19 percent for lawyers, and just 9 percent for members of Congress like Wild.

If running on the “Dr. Oz” ticket is an unfair advantage, he is not the only one who has it. There are 17 doctors in Congress, according to Patients Network Action. Oz was just one of three doctors in the Pennsylvania Senate race this year. Dr. Val Arkoosh and Dr. Kevin Baumlin ran as Democratic candidates but dropped out before the primary election.

As a practicing physician from Philadelphia for 21 years, Dr. Baumlin said he ran his campaign as a doctor trying to improve America’s healthcare system. In his campaign video and website, Baumblin included the title “doctor” in his name and said it is appropriate for candidates to do so.

“I just go by Doctor B,” Baumlin said. “Even my campaign team called me ‘Doctor B.’ When I first announced my race, the Philadelphia Inquirer did not include Dr. in my name. The Inquirer had a standard for addressing candidates and I thought it was appropriate and fine. They did the same thing with Oz, and he complained about it on Fox.”

First elected to Congress in 2010, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., still refers to himself as “Dr. Paul” on his website. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who spent 20 years working with indigent patients in Louisiana’s charity hospital system, includes “M.D.” at the end of his name.

According to Robert Hickey, deputy director at The Protocol School of Washington and author of the book “Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address,” the title of doctor is used professionally and socially. “A doctor is ‘Dr.,’ even when washing his car on a Saturday,” Hickey said. “So as a candidate, he’ll continue to be ‘Dr. Oz.’”

In the United States, a person is given only one title at a time. It is never “Senator Doctor” or the “Right Honorable Professor Dr. Smith.” So, when a person has more than one title, they should be addressed by the one most pertinent to their position, Hickey said.

“Colin Powell was never ‘The Honorable General Colin Powell,’ Hickey said. “And when it wasn’t exactly pertinent to either, he let it be known that he preferred ‘General’ since he’d spent most of his life in the Army.”

As a pastor in a Baptist church, Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., still calls himself “Reverend Warnock. It is his Twitter handle.

Critics of Wild’s tweet were quick to point to first lady Jill Biden, who has a doctoral degree in education and is notorious for insisting on being addressed as “doctor.” When the Wall Street Journal ran a lighthearted op-ed suggesting she set the title aside, the issue became a cause celebre among Democratic women. Jill Biden once held a sign with President Joe Biden stating, “Dr. and the President Live here.”

On the White House’s website, she is referred to as “Dr. Jill Biden.”

Ironically, Wild used the honorific “Doctor” when the first lady visited the Lehigh Valley last October. “Pennsylvania’s own Dr. Jill Biden is a true fighter for families, and I couldn’t be more excited to welcome her to the Greater Lehigh Valley next week to talk about the Build Back Better Agenda and our continued recovery from COVID-19,” Wild said in a statement.

According to the Emily Post Institute, a fifth-generation family business promoting etiquette, it is more common for a woman to go by “Dr.” than it was in the past.

When meeting someone with a doctorate for the first time, it’s always safe to address them as “Dr.”

Dr. Baumlin said there are more important issues to discuss than worrying about titles. Wild’s opponent, Lisa Scheller, replied to Wild’s tweet with a photo of gas prices at $5.22. Scheller said Wild was too preoccupied with Dr. Oz when she should be worrying about greater issues like rising gas prices.

In an era of increasing political polarization, sentencing reform is one of the rare issues with bipartisan support. Even though incarceration rates are lower than they have been in years, the U.S. still incarcerates more people than most other countries and long sentences drain government budgets. Clearly something should be done, but existing proposals reveal that the problem is too big for any single piece of legislation to solve.

The FIRST STEP Act has the support of many influential members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), and Mike Lee (Utah), as well as Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) and the White House. The act would allow prisoners to earn “time credits” for participating in “evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.” These credits would be deducted from the time they were sentenced to serve.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are optimistic that the bill, which arrived in the Senate this week, would pass a floor vote.

“If we get a vote, this thing will pass,” said Lee at an event sponsored by the Washington Post on Tuesday. “This is something I have been working on for the better part of the eight years that I have been in the United States Senate. “We’ve never been closer than we are right now.”

If passed, FIRST STEP would help to reduce incarceration time for prisoners who are already in the federal system. Proponents of the bill can provide numerous examples of minority prisoners who spent decades in jail for non-violent drug offenses.

However, opponents of the bill argue that there are relatively few people in the federal system who meet this classification, and the FIRST STEP act does nothing to help prisoners in state systems.

“The problem with the bill in part is that it conflates the federal system and the state system,” says Larry Leiser, president of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. He explains that incarceration rates often conflate the two systems and that Congress only has the authority to change sentencing for federal crimes, which are of greater severity.

For example, possession charges in the federal system are generally reserved for large amounts of drugs–several kilograms–implying that those charged are working as drug mules. Mandatory minimum sentences apply to some, though not all of these cases. People charged under these statutes have another opportunity to reduce their sentence by cooperating with law enforcement, he explains, adding that only 12 percent of federal inmates were serving mandatory minimums and these generally because significant quantities of drugs were involved and the individuals refused to cooperate.

“The most effective way of avoiding a mandatory minimum is that if you cooperate with us, you will get your sentence reduced,” he added.

While true, that attitude does little to help those who have already been sentenced. The system today skews more towards keeping criminals off the streets than preventing them from reoffending and this is a growing problem. According to one recently-released Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey, some 83 percent of state prisoners reoffended in the first nine years after their release. Supporters of the FIRST STEP act believe that it will encourage prisoners to take classes in both job skills and life skills, such as parenting and conflict resolution.

In fact, sentencing reform is itself a compromise between different attitudes towards drug legalization. When pressed to discuss the possibility of decriminalization, Grassley, one of the key Republican sponsors of the FIRST ACT, declined even to speculate on its prospects. Although there is support for measures to allow prisoners to work to reduce their time served for drug offenses, the current Congress is not looking to legalize marijuana or take other measure to change other drug laws.

In the meantime, the focus is on sentencing reform, which is seen as a much more achievable goal. Senators from both parties agree that the bill currently has the support not just of President Trump, but also of more the than 73 senators. The last remaining question is if it will be brought up for a vote before the end of the session.

“We need to get a vote. There is not reason why we shouldn’t get a vote,” said Lee. But for now, the matter rests in Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s hands.

Follow Erin on Twitter.

The U.S. senator behind a bill to curb online sex trafficking, which companies like Google claim could “seriously jeopardize the internet ecosystem,” says more tech companies are rallying behind the legislation.

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act is about to pick up more backers from Silicon Valley, despite opposition from some major industry players like Google and Facebook.

“We are gaining momentum within the tech community, some of whom have concerns about changing the Communications Decency Act,” Portman said on the Senate floor. “Other tech companies have also joined in the fight to ensure that we can stop sex trafficking. And I know they’re going to follow Oracle’s lead in publicly supporting this legislation.”

Portman’s bill would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law granting broad immunity to websites from being held liable for content generated or posted by users. It was the basis of classified ads website Backpage’s legal defense after CEO Carl Ferrer and executives were arrested and charged with accepting money in the prostitution of minors.

The charges resulted from an 18-month Senate investigation led by Portman and Missouri Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill that found Backpage knowingly facilitated pimping and child sex trafficking by editing ads to appear less suspicious. Despite overwhelming evidence, both federal and state courts upheld Backpage’s defense, adding Congress would have to amend Section 230 before the websites like Backpage could be held accountable.

Portman’s bill, co-sponsored by McCaskill and a total of 26 senators — including eight Democrats — would “eliminate federal liability protections for websites that assist, support, or facilitate a violation of federal sex trafficking laws.” It would also empower state law enforcement “to take action against individuals or businesses that violate federal sex trafficking laws” even without Justice Department participation.

There’s already companion legislation in the House of Representatives boasting more than a hundred co-sponsors, almost half of them Democrats. A Google lobbyist asked House members not to support the bill in August, arguing, as others in Silicon Valley have, that it would hold web services accountable for content posted by users, potentially subjecting them to criminal lawsuits and civil restitution. Media outlets friendly to Google and other tech giants have also voiced opposition.

Earlier this week, database, cloud, and business software firm Oracle became the first major company to endorse the bill, arguing affordable technology now exists to automatically screen user-generated content for offensive material like underage sex ads.

Portman praised Oracle on the Senate floor, saying others would soon follow publicly but neglected to name them.

“They agreed that this narrowly-crafted bill will hold bad actors accountable while protecting well-intentioned websites,” Portman said. “Oracle’s letter says in part, ‘your legislation does not, as suggested by the bill’s opponents, usher the end of the internet. If enacted, it will establish some measure of accountability for those that cynically sell advertising but are unprepared to help curtail sex trafficking.’”

The Ohio senator said “many of them police their site” for such content already, adding the “Facebooks of the world, the Googles of the world, they are not the bad actors.”

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

Leadership of some of the most influential unions praised Democratic leaders Monday for unveiling a new worker-focused economic agenda.

President Donald Trump has made working class issues a focus since launching his campaign. He was able to win rural districts that have traditionally had strong liberal and union influences. His populist economic message resonated with the working class who felt like they had been forgotten.

Democrats are now refocusing their agenda back towards those workers and their families. The new approach will primarily look to improve what jobs are available, increase wages, and ensure workers have the skills they need going into the future. Union leaders were quick to applaud the new approach.

“I applaud Democrats’ commitment to building an economy that rewards working people and not just the wealthy and well-connected,” AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in a statement. “Substantial investment in infrastructure, paid family leave and a higher minimum wage are all important policy goals.”

Workers have experienced flat wage growth and decreased opportunities over recent years. Workers are also increasingly seeing their skills becoming obsolete in the face of emerging technologies. The president argued when launching his campaign that the government has failed both workers and employers.

Trump had a particular interest in protecting domestic workers from unfair foreign competition. He has looked towards trade and immigration as pathways to address the problem. Democrats echoed that concern in their new agenda by promising to aggressively crackdown on unfair foreign trade and outsourcing.

‏”The Senate Dems come out with solid economic program for Americans,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said on social media.

Democrats will continue to pursue several progressive policies that make their new agenda distinct from what Republicans are doing. The new agenda reaffirms support for raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. It will also aim to protect entitlements like Medicare.

“The best way to accomplish these goals is to promote the freedom of Americans to join a union and negotiate a fair return on our work,” Saunders said. “Unions provide the power in numbers that make better jobs, better wages and a better future possible. We encourage all lawmakers to make freedom to join a union a centerpiece of any economic agenda going forward.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leading progressive lawmakers introduced a bill May 25 aimed at increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Sanders originally introduced the proposal in July 2015. The policy eventually gained enough support during the election to be included in the Democratic Party platform.

The National Nurses United (NNU) expressed some dissatisfaction with the new agenda. The union hopes the party will go further and include additional items like free Medicare for all and free college tuition. NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro noted online that the union will deliver 100,000 petitions to Democratic leaders Tuesday.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said online that Senate Democrats understand what working families need. The union further expressed its support by linking to an opinion piece from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushing the new agenda.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Labor unions took their opposition to the Senate healthcare bill online Wednesday where they are encouraging workers to fight back against the legislation.

Republican lawmakers have worked to fulfill a major promise to voters by replacing the Affordable Care Act. Senate leadership introduced a replacement last week amid mixed reviews. Labor unions are now ramping up their opposition online in the wake of a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Some unions even started calling their onslaught of opposition tweets a “twitter storm.” Labor unions argue that the bill would be devastating for working families and low-income individuals. Some even called it a life or death situation. They encouraged their followers to join in to make their opposition to the bill known.

“Senate Republicans want to take Medicaid from 15 million ppl,” American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) tweeted. “That’s a bad deal for working families.”

The CBO analysis added fuel to the opposition. The report states the bill would cause 22 million people to lose insurance by 2026. It also found the bill would reduce federal deficits by $321 billion over the coming decade.

“Healthcare is a human right,” the AFL-CIO tweeted. The unions then urged supporters not to let Senate Republicans, “take it away from 22M hardworking Americans. Call your senator now!”

The AFL-CIO and other unions expressed particular concern over proposed cuts to Medicaid. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka added that the bill is a vicious assault on health care security. AFL-CIO local chapters have already started to hold protests against the bill. The American Federation of Teachers held its own protest in Washington D.C.

“The Senate GOP healthcare bill is a shameful bill that leaves 22 million people without insurance,” the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) tweeted.

Local unions contributed to the tidal wave of negative tweets even more so than the national affiliates. Some smaller unions even targeted their local representatives directly. SEIU local 32BJ claimed the bill would destroy healthcare to give millionaires tax breaks.

The Teamsters union encouraged its followers to keep up the fight after a temporary victory Wednesday. Senate leadership decided to delay the vote amid growing opposition from within the party. The union encouraged those opposed to keep calling their senators.

SEIU President Mary Kay Henry‏ added that healthcare bill would result in an immediate decline in health-sector employment in 17 states. 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced plans on Facebook to hold a candlelight vigil Wednesday night in opposition to the bill.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Senate lawmakers convened a hearing of tax policy experts Wednesday to examine ways to reform the tax code so that it promotes small business growth.

Republicans have made tax reform a major policy priority since securing control of the government. The need for tax reform tends to be a bipartisan position, but the two parties often disagree on some key policies. The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee arranged the hearing to explore the best approach for small businesses.

The hearing primarily focused on ensuring small businesses are considered in the current push to lower corporate tax rates. The Small Business Administration found that small businesses make up a sizable portion of the national economy at 49.2 percent of private-sector employment.

“As we all know, our tax code is in need of reform,” New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking member of the committee, said at the start of the hearing. “As Congress considers tax reforms, we need to make sure small businesses are at the table.”

President Donald Trump promised to simplify the tax code and reduce rates to help spur economic growth. The administration released a summary of its plan April 26. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Rep. Kevin Brady introduced a blueprint last year which mirrored many of the same ideas.

“Tax relief should not mean a reduction for C Corporations only,” Annette Nellen, executive committee chairwoman of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, testified. “Congress should encourage, or at least not discourage, the formation of sole proprietors and pass through entities. If Congress decides to lower the corporate tax rate, small businesses should receive a lower rate as well.”

Nellen included a number of other suggestions in her written testimony. She argues tax reform should focus on fairness, certainty, convenience, information security, simplicity, economic growth, transparency, accountability, and should ensure government revenue is appropriate.

There are several different types of small businesses. S corporations, for instance, are closely held companies, meaning shares are given and traded privately. A limited liability company (LLC) is a corporate structure commonly used among small business owners. These businesses are also known as pass-through entities.

Pass-through businesses are not subject to federal taxes like a public corporation would be. The businesses owners are, instead, directly taxed on their income. That tax is based on their share of the profits and losses. It’s a model that is often used by small businesses.

“Small businesses are really big,” S Corporation Association President Brian Reardon said during the hearing. “The pass through sector, which is S Corporations, partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietors, they employ more people, they employ the majority of private-sector workers in the country.”

The House Ways and Means Committee explored the need for tax reform last month. Business leaders discussed how tax reform could spur economic growth generally. The hearing highlighted how the United States has increasingly become less competitive globally in the years since its last major tax overhaul in 1986.

“The current tax system, especially as it applies to business income, is woefully out of date,” Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Director Mark Mazur said during the hearing. “Three decades of changing business practices increased globalization, and expanding aggressiveness in tax planning activities has led to this current situation.”

The economy looks radically different than it did when the tax code was last changed. Technological advancements have opened up new opportunities like in the information technology sector. Technology has also allowed the world to connect more easily, which has created a more open global economy.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found in an analysis that many other developed countries have been moving towards a more competitive tax system for over a decade. The United States, however, has done little to its tax code to stay competitive during that time.

The National Taxpayers Union highlighted the need for tax reform in a letter Tuesday to Congress. The letter urged lawmakers to cut the corporate tax rate, move to a territorial system, and allow full expensing on business purchases. The border adjustment tax is one type of territorial system that is currently being debated.

“Lawmakers should work to find tax solutions for small businesses, including lowering corporate and small business rates to allow smaller companies to compete on an even playing field in a crowded market,” the American Council for Capital Formation said in a statement provided to InsideSources prior to the hearing. “Additionally, lawmakers should examine the benefits of switching to a territorial system.”

The border adjustment tax is a value added tax levied on imported goods. It is essentially applied when a product is produced in a foreign country but sold domestically. It has become a major point of contention among some on the right with critics warning it could hurt consumers by increasing costs.

The Business Roundtable found in a survey that business owners would begin investing more back into their companies and employees if the tax system was reformed successfully. National Taxpayers Union Foundation found in a 2015 study that the economy loses $233.8 billion annually from hours spent doing taxes.

The tax system is incredibly complex which forces companies to spend time and additional resources in order to comply with the law. A simplified tax code could potentially save companies on those additional costs that weren’t going to increase government revenue anyway.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

With the American Health Care Act moving to the U.S. Senate, some New Hampshire Republicans are cheering as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Yet, for some Trump supporters in the Granite State, especially in the North Country, they might not be too happy with its current version.

Despite still having some concerns about the AHCA, Gov. Chris Sununu said on Thursday that he was glad the bill passed the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives.

“Failure to reform our health care system is not an option,” he said. “It is critical that we keep this conversation moving forward. My concerns with the AHCA remain firm and I expect that the United States Senate will take those concerns into consideration as they work to improve our nation’s health care system.”

Before the House passed the bill on Thursday afternoon, Sununu and 15 other governors sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan reiterating their support for the Obamacare replacement and asked for states to have more flexibility when it comes to Medicaid.

It’s a similar letter Sununu signed on to earlier this year when the U.S. House tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act the first time. In a Friday interview with the Concord Monitor, he applauded the passage of AHCA, but said he still had issues with the current version.

“I love the idea that Congress is taking action, the president is taking action,” he said. “They’re listening to the American people and they’re moving the ball forward. In it’s current form, I still have a lot of concerns, there’s no doubt. But we are moving it forward, and more important than anything is the need to reform the health care system right now that has failed the American people.”

It’s a different tone than he had in March, when he said the first version of the bill didn’t give states flexibility and would hurt New Hampshire’s expanded Medicaid program, which had bipartisan support.

“The bill that’s been proposed in Congress gives us concerns on a lot of different levels, to be very blunt about it,” Sununu said at a March press conference. “What I’m seeing in Washington gives me a lot of pause for concern to be sure, not just on the Medicaid expansion front, because that would drastically affect New Hampshire, but just on the mandates that are coming out of it.”

As expected, all of New Hampshire’s Democratic congressional delegation is opposed to the GOP-led plan. U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster voted against the bill. Critics slammed the bill for potentially making millions lose health care and making it harder for people with some pre-existing conditions to find affordable insurance.

Some Granite State health care providers say more than 100,000 low-income New Hampshire residents could be at risk of losing health coverage under the AHCA plan. New Hampshire Hospital Association President Steve Ahnen said his organization was “deeply disappointed” that the U.S. House passed the health care bill.

“This bill is a significant step backwards on the commitment to ensure coverage and we cannot support it,” he said. “We will continue to work with Congress as this bill moves over to the Senate to ensure that any final legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act improves our health care system in a thoughtful and responsible way, rather than dismantling coverage for our most vulnerable residents.”

President Donald Trump campaigned aggressively on repealing Obamacare and lowering premiums. However, according to recent analysis, it appears premiums would significantly increase for older Granite Staters.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focused on health care, compared premium costs under the ACA and AHCA. For New Hampshire residents aged 60 or older who make $30,000, they could see their premium costs increase by 173 percent under AHCA. However, the same analysis also says younger residents in New Hampshire would pay less under the AHCA plan.

Many critics point out that the Trump-approved health care bill would negatively impact the people who voted for him. This holds up when using Coos County as an example.

Coos County overwhelmingly voted for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton by 52 to 43 percent, respectively. There is a large number of residents who are aged 65 and older in the North Country and the average household income is about $42,000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Those residents could fare worse under the AHCA plan than under the ACA.

In a Granite State Poll released Monday by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, Trump’s approval rating in the state has remained steady at 43 percent. It’s the same rating he had in February. Republicans also still overwhelming approve of the president at 83 percent. Survey results from the North Country showed a statistically insignificant change.

It will be interesting to see over the next few months if residents in the North Country, especially those who voted for Trump, change their support. Nationally, it seems his base is sticking with him so far. Now, the U.S. Senate will now take over the AHCA bill and reports suggest the chamber will overhaul the legislation, making it different from the House version. The health care debate in Washington is far from over, leaving how it will ultimately impact New Hampshire a mystery for now.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.