Jimmy Kimmel tripled down on his condemnation of the latest GOP-led effort to repeal and replace Obamacare during his monologue Thursday night, unloading scathing criticisms of President Trump and Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, a co-author of the Graham-Cassidy bill. 
 
 “For Donald Trump, this isn’t about the Graham-Cassidy bill,” Kimmel said. “It’s about Obamacare, which he hates, because Obama’s name is on it. He likes to have his name on things: buildings, vodka, you name it. At this point he would sign anything if it meant getting rid of Obamacare. He’d sign copies of the Quran at the Barnes and Noble in Fallujah if it meant he could get rid of Obamacare.” 
 
 Kimmel added, “I guarantee [Trump] doesn’t know anything about this Graham-Cassidy bill. He doesn’t know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid; he barely knows the difference between Melania and Ivanka.” 
 
 Kimmel has been hammering the Graham-Cassidy bill — which would enact deep cuts to Medicaid and likely cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage — this week, and Cassidy responded by saying the late-night host “does not understand” the proposed legislation. 
 
 On Thursday, Kimmel said of Cassidy, “Some people tell me I should give him the benefit of the doubt, and you know what, I do give him the benefit of the doubt: I doubt all the benefits he claims are part of the new health care bill.” 
 
 Kimmel went on to say that Cassidy, who is a doctor and helped found a community clinic in Baton Rouge, has done admirable work in the past. 
 
 “He’s done good things, I just want him to keep doing good things,” Kimmel said. “This plan is not a good thing. His supporters say, ‘Well he’s a doctor and you’re not, what do you know?’ To them I say, all of these very reputable associations — American Diabetes Association, American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, the list goes on and on — all of these groups populated by doctors say this health care bill is bad, they’re against it. We haven’t seen this many people come forward to speak out against a bill since Cosby.” 
 
 Watch the clip above for more. Jimmy Kimmel Live airs weeknights at 11:35 p.m. ET on ABC. ||||| Is Jimmy Kimmel worth listening to beyond monologues or celebrity chats? He can make people laugh, sure, and coax conversation out of the most vapid stars. But on health care? “Health care is complicated, it’s boring. I don’t want to talk about it. The details are confusing,” the comedian allowed last night on Jimmy Kimmel Live! But not, apparently, confusing enough to lower Kimmel’s self-confidence. Graham-Cassidy would “kick about 30 million Americans off insurance” and is “actually worse than” the skinny repeal the Senate rejected in July, Kimmel said. He even added the humble parenthetical, “This is not my area of expertise.” That, at least, is truth on display: Anyone who figured being a comedian and talk-show host was a natural fit with policy expertise has been duly warned. 
 
 Comedians have become public intellectuals in the popular imagination, so maybe some charity is in order. We should be open to the possibility that Kimmel has deep and hidden reservoirs of knowledge on risk-adjustment programs, the Medicaid expansion, or per capita caps. After all, Kimmel has, in the words of CNN, become the “conscience of the health care fight.” It’s not hard to see why: Kimmel has a moving family story to tell, a huge audience, and an unmistakable gift for the big screen. His infant son Billy has a heart condition that required surgery soon after birth and, like any father, Kimmel takes his son’s well-being seriously. 
 
 But his genuinely scary experience represents the sum total of his health-care education, as far as one can tell. Months ago, Kimmel told Billy’s story before pivoting swiftly to Republicans’ attempts to reform the Affordable Care Act. The point was obvious: Republicans would not mind seeing Billy, or at least children like him with poorer parents, die. Kimmel deemed inhumane any provision that would weaken the Affordable Care Act’s regulations prohibiting insurers from charging higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions, and Kimmel said that while he can obviously afford to pay his son’s bills, other parents might not be able to. Thus a comedian became the public face of perhaps the toughest issue facing legislators today. 
 
 Senator Bill Cassidy (R., La.), now the co-sponsor of the latest Republican pass at health-care reform, proceeded to coin the “Jimmy Kimmel test” for health policy: Does the bill allow children with congenital heart defects to receive the necessary care without bankrupting their parents? The question is situated in a much larger problem plaguing policymakers, which is how to preserve elements of a free health-insurance market while also ensuring that people with more unfortunate health problems — who don’t have the luxury of choosing what health benefits to buy — can receive the appropriate assistance from the government. 
 
 Won’t wash, Kimmel says. Cassidy and Graham’s bill fails the Jimmy Kimmel test, at least according to its namesake. Kimmel labeled Cassidy, who appeared on Kimmel’s show months ago to applause, a liar. Perhaps it was a mistake for a senator to arrogate rhetorical supremacy to a comedian, but Cassidy, for his part, has since pushed back. “I am sorry he does not understand,” Cassidy said today on CNN. “There will be more people covered under the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson amendment than under the status quo,” he said later on MSNBC, explaining that his bill requires “coverage” of pre-existing conditions “to be ‘adequate and affordable.’” 
 
 What to do about the health-care system is a complicated question. Kimmel has elected to probe the empirical matter of whether this bill does quite enough to erect a safety net for people with pre-existing conditions. There are legitimate critiques of Graham-Cassidy on those grounds, but at the same time, rhetoric about those with pre-existing conditions, or about the costs of reforming our current health-care system, tends toward exaggeration. And with the leeway Graham-Cassidy’s New Federalist framework would afford them, states might be able to find more efficacious ways to protect those people. The collective decision to elevate Kimmel to status as a leading bioethicist and policy wonk reduces a tricky debate to a single talking point. It forecloses the path this bill could open up for states to implement a more competitive insurance marketplace that could make things better for all Americans. And it’s worth pointing out, as Cassidy did, that the requirement Graham-Cassidy imposes on states to waive the relevant Obamacare regulation is not a mere formality. 
 
 Of course, you won’t hear this on Jimmy Kimmel Live! Otherwise fans might check their phones instead of clapping or booing on cue. 
 
 Policy expertise is hard-won and not likely to dawn suddenly during crises. It’s also not something that resides in people who make jokes for a living. 
 
 It’s not objectionable for comedians to joke about politics. The political world is tense; comedy provides release. Politics is filled with figures who are eminently laughable, and joking about them is a tradition of the form. Late-night hosts’ lampooning of Clinton, Bush, or Trump follows Aristophanes’ lampooning of Athenian pols, and some of the best modern comedians have been the most unapologetic ones. So Kimmel should keep on making Americans laugh, and if he includes moving personal stories about his beloved son and advocates based upon what parenting a sick child has taught him, that’s no crime. 
 
 But policy expertise is hard-won and not likely to dawn suddenly during crises. It’s also not something that resides in people who make jokes for a living. Just as Kimmel is entitled to share his opinion, his audience is entitled to seek more-informed ones. 
 
 George Carlin was outraged, Dick Gregory was righteous, and Dave Chappelle is incisive. But even at their rawest, each was understood in the popular imagination to be a comedian. Does Kimmel want a career change? Or does Hollywood simply want to feel better about its propensity to wax earnest about complicated public-policy questions? Regarding anything in the era of Trump, it’s apparently time for comedians to get serious. They volunteer to do their part, not their bit — replacing good jokes with good points, laughs with nods. 
 
 Such sanctimony degrades comedy. Who really laughs at The Daily Show, Full Frontal, or Last Week Tonight? But more importantly, swapping two unrelated discursive forms corrodes public discourse. Policy isn’t funny, and comedy isn’t policy. Kimmel’s love for his son is understandable. But his epistemic humility ended after the accurate admission that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to health care. It’s irresponsible to pontificate on subjects one knows little about, but that didn’t stop him from calling Cassidy a liar. 
 
 Once we substitute even sincere feelings for policy expertise, the results are unlikely to please anyone. Jimmy Kimmel can be funny, and he loves his son. Well and good. But Jimmy Kimmel knows policy? To paraphrase another comedian, comedians are not public intellectuals. 
 
 READ MORE: 
 
 A Thinking Mom’s Message for Jimmy Kimmel 
 
 Jimmy Kimmel and the Dangers of Empathy 
 
 David Letterman’s Crazy-Old-Coot Phase 
 
 — Theodore Kupfer is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at National Review Institute. ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201709/1562/1155968404_5582404989001_5582297447001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Kimmel, not Cassidy, is right on health care, analysts say 
 
 In the war of words between Jimmy Kimmel and Sen. Bill Cassidy, the late-night host has the better grasp of health policy, health care analysts say. 
 
 Kimmel — who had allied himself with Cassidy after the senator famously proposed a “Jimmy Kimmel test” for health reform — blasted the Louisiana Republican’s last-ditch Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill in a seven-minute monologue on Tuesday night. While Cassidy had pledged to protect people with pre-existing conditions like Kimmel’s infant son, who was born with a serious heart condition, the proposal Cassidy co-authored with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wouldn’t live up to those promises, Kimmel said. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 “This guy, Bill Cassidy, he just lied right to my face,” Kimmel said. 
 
 He then listed four pledges that Cassidy made when he appeared on Kimmel’s show in May, including a promise to lower health costs for Americans and to oppose insurance companies’ lifetime caps on coverage that Kimmel said would no longer be guaranteed under the new legislation. 
 
 “Health care’s complicated [and] it’s boring; I don’t want to talk about it [and] the details are confusing,” Kimmel said in his monologue. “And that’s what these guys are relying on. … They’re taking care of the people who give them money, like insurance companies.” 
 
 Cassidy countered Wednesday that the talk-show host didn’t grasp the nuances of his legislation. “I am sorry he does not understand,” the senator told CNN on Wednesday morning. “More people will have coverage, and we protect those with pre-existing conditions,” citing a provision in the bill that states would have to ensure certain protections for individuals. 
 
 POLITICO Pulse newsletter Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 Graham on Wednesday defended his colleague, telling NBC News that Kimmel's monologue was "absolute garbage" and parroted "liberal talking points." 
 
 Kimmel "went on national TV and called this man, who has worked for the underprivileged and health care all of his life, a liar and I think that's inappropriate," Graham said. 
 
 President Donald Trump weighed in on Twitter on Wednesday night, saying that he wouldn't back Graham-Cassidy if it didn't have sufficient protections for patients with pre-existing conditions: "It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace," Trump tweeted. Later, Trump offered more personal support for Cassidy: "Senator (Doctor) Bill Cassidy is a class act who really cares about people and their Health(care), he doesn't lie-just wants to help people!" 
 
 But experts say that Cassidy and Graham’s bill can't guarantee those protections and that Kimmel’s assessment was basically accurate because of the flexibility the bill gives states to set up their own health care systems. For example, health insurers could hike premiums for patients with pre-existing conditions if their states obtain waivers from Obamacare regulations — as Kimmel said. 
 
 Cassidy’s plan “would pave the way for insurers to deny coverage to people with a history of medical conditions,” five HIV/AIDS groups warned in a joint statement on Tuesday. 
 
 The bill would also roll back the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and make other funding changes, like converting Obamacare funds into block grants and ending traditional Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement that would force states to choose whether to cut Medicaid enrollment, benefits or payments to providers — or else raise taxes. 
 
 “Graham-Cassidy, like the previous Senate ‘repeal and replace’ proposals, takes a fiscal crowbar to Medicaid’s knees,” warned Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. Those cuts could disproportionately affect children, program director Joan Alker added. 
 
 "Kimmel did not overstate the impact," Alker said. "If Graham-Cassidy becomes law, there is no guarantee a child born with a congenital heart defect will get the coverage they need. It would depend on where they live, but even states with good intentions would struggle to protect children with the massive cuts to Medicaid included in this bill." 
 
 The proposal’s significant cuts to Medicaid and other changes to the ACA’s regulations would lead to dramatic reductions in coverage for adults too, analysts say. 
 
 “It is likely that the bill, if enacted, would lead to a loss of health insurance for at least 32 million people after 2026,” the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund’s Sara Collins wrote in a post on Wednesday, citing Congressional Budget Office analysis of similar legislation. 
 
 Some conservatives disputed that the proposal would lead to coverage cuts. “I tend to think that the Graham-Cassidy proposal holds a lot of promise to expand coverage down the road,” said Lanhee Chen, a professor at Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution. 
 
 Chen cited the possibility of state flexibility and lower premiums bringing more uninsured Americans into the market, although he acknowledged that the bill's Medicaid cuts would force “tough trade-offs” in the future. 
 
 The CBO, usually the authoritative source on such questions, said Monday that it would not be able to answer them on this bill "for at least several weeks" — long after the Sept. 30 expiration of the reconciliation bill that allows Republicans to pass the measure with a simple majority. 
 
 One conservative policy analyst argued that neither Kimmel, nor Cassidy should be taking their case to TV. 
 
 "In my view, neither are correct — or at the very least, neither should be certain in their assertions,” said Chris Jacobs of Juniper Research Group. "I’m agreeing with Jimmy Kimmel that health care is complicated, so reducing it to simple talking points — that means you too, Jimmy Kimmel — often belies the reality of the situation." ||||| Late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel is back in the middle of the health care debate, using his opening monologue to take down the latest move to repeal and replace Obamacare. 
 
 Kimmel had urged Congress not to throw out the Affordable Care Act a few months ago, explaining how his newborn son needed emergency – and hugely expensive – heart surgery. 
 
 On Sept. 19, Kimmel minced no words as he dissected a health bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La.. 
 
 As Kimmel laid it out, the Graham-Cassidy bill failed on four points: 
 
 "Coverage for all? No. In fact it will kick about 30 million Americans off insurance. 
 
 "Pre-existing conditions? Nope. If the bill passes, individual states can let insurance companies charge you more if you have a pre-existing condition. You’ll find that little loophole later in the document, after it says they can’t. They can and they will. 
 
 "But will it lower premiums? Well, in fact for lots of people, the bill will result in higher premiums. 
 
 "And as far as lifetime caps go, the states can decide on that too, which means there will be no lifetime caps in many states." 
 
 Wonks that we are, we’ll focus here on Kimmel’s policy points and see how well they track with what’s in the bill and the studies that have been done. 
 
 We do this without an estimate of the bill’s impact from the Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress said it would not be able to give a full accounting in time for a vote by the end of September. 
 
 The bottom line: Kimmel goes too far in his criticisms, but he has grounds for waving the red flag. Solid protections under Obamacare have been replaced with squishier state options. There would be less money for health care, and while some would argue that states can do more with less, life might not turn out that way. 
 
 Claim: The bill ‘kicks 30 million Americans off insurance’ 
 
 This claim is unverifiable. Kimmel put a big number out there, and there is reason to question it. But backers of the bill can’t point to the CBO to rebut him. 
 
 One way to see how reasonable Kimmel’s figure might be is to compare it to the biggest estimate the CBO produced when it looked at a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act. By its reckoning, repeal would cut federal health care spending by $1.4 trillion in the 2017-26 period. 
 
 The drop in spending, along with many legal changes, would increase the number of uninsured by 32 million people. 
 
 By comparison, the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that from 2020 to 2026, the cumulative cut under Graham-Cassidy would be $418 billion — or one-third the reduction under total repeal. If a total repeal produced 32 million more uninsured people, it’s hard to see how a much smaller reduction would produce nearly the same loss of coverage. 
 
 Another estimate from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that focused on the bill’s spending plan provides some support for Kimmel’s number. The bill’s multi-billion dollar health care block grant for states ends after 2026, and its use of a per capita spending formula for Medicaid curtails growth in that program. 
 
 The center said that funding cliff would have a grim result. It said the bill would leave 32 million more people uninsured by 2026 and "the Cassidy-Graham bill would presumably result in even deeper coverage losses than that in the second decade." 
 
 Casssidy’s press secretary Ty Bofferding called warnings that the money would simply stop after 2026 alarmist. Bofferding said the Children’s Health Insurance Program has been funded continuously even though permanent appropriations were not in the original bill. 
 
 Bofferding said his office predicts more people will have health insurance: "This legislation has far more enrollment incentives than previous repeal and replace attempts so we expect improved coverage." 
 
 That said, we don’t have a good estimate. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-09-20 19:42:38 UTC PolitiFact -1 -1 -1 PolitiFact Rating: Not able to verify PolitiFact Rating: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOlibbx5sx0&feature;=youtu.be Graham-Cassidy "kicks 30 million Americans off insurance" Jimmy Kimmel Host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live During the Jimmy Kimmel show Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2017-09-19 Read More info 
 
 Claim: Insurance companies ‘can charge more for pre-existing conditions’ 
 
 Kimmel acknowledged that Cassidy’s bill allows states to set the rules and companies to make their own decisions, but when it comes to hiking premiums on those already ill, he said "they can and they will." 
 
 The bill does create that possibility. 
 
 In its section on waivers, it puts two options on the table. One would allow states to do away with "any provision that restricts the criteria which a health insurance issuer may use to vary premium rates." The other would eliminate the requirement for every plan to offer a minimum set of health insurance benefits. We’re talking here about things such as maternity or mental health coverage. 
 
 Legally, there is no question insurance companies would gain the flexibility that Kimmel said in states with a waiver. What would happen in practice is less certain. 
 
 The bill says states must show how they "intend" to keep coverage affordable for people with pre-existing conditions. That offers some cushion, although the intent to protect a group of people is not the same as guaranteeing that protection. 
 
 Bofferding of Cassidy’s office said states would be held to their promise or face consequences for misusing federal dollars. 
 
 The states could choose to use some of their block grant money to make coverage affordable. But that would be a budget decision subject to many competing demands within a state. And there’s no question that there would be a lot of competition for those health care dollars. 
 
 So Kimmel is correct on the possibility, but he predicts the outcome with great certainty and we don’t know what would actually happen. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-09-20 19:54:01 UTC PolitiFact -1 -1 -1 PolitiFact Rating: It could happen PolitiFact Rating: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOlibbx5sx0&feature;=youtu.be Insurance companies ‘can charge more for pre-existing conditions’ Jimmy Kimmel Host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live During the Jimmy Kimmel show Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2017-09-19 Read More info 
 
 Claim: ‘For lots of people, the bill will result in higher premiums’ 
 
 The CBO’s reports on previous repeal attempts, both the House bill and the first Senate bill, lend some weight to Kimmel’s point. 
 
 Those proposals gave insurance companies more leeway in setting premiums. In general, younger and healthier people would see their premiums go down, while older and sicker people would see their premiums rise. 
 
 When the CBO included all out-of-pocket costs, the results were even worse for older Americans. 
 
 But we have to mention two caveats. First, states could use their federal money to cushion the premium hit on older residents, subject to all the other demands on those dollars. 
 
 Second, the Graham-Cassidy bill allows wide use of catastrophic health insurance. This sort of limited coverage might well not qualify as actual health insurance by CBO standards. When supporters of the bill talk about coverage, they might be using a very different definition than what has been used until now. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-09-20 20:00:08 UTC PolitiFact -1 -1 -1 PolitiFact Rating: Likely PolitiFact Rating: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOlibbx5sx0&feature;=youtu.be ‘For lots of people, the Graham-Cassidy bill will result in higher premiums’ Jimmy Kimmel Host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live During the Jimmy Kimmel show Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2017-09-19 Read More info 
 
 Claim: ‘There will be no lifetime caps in many states’ 
 
 The loss of lifetime caps is the dodgiest of Kimmel’s claims, because the bill cuts both ways on this point. One section of the Affordable Care Act specifically prohibits insurance companies from setting a limit on how much they will pay for a person’s care in the course of their lifetime. 
 
 That provision remains in place. 
 
 On the other hand, that protection only applies to care that falls under essential health benefits. In states that receive a waiver, the essential health benefits could be trimmed down, and with them, the ban on lifetime and annual caps. 
 
 This is one reason that 16 patient and health care provider groups, including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, signed a letter opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill. 
 
 Again, we don’t know for sure what would happen. Kimmel assumes the worst, but no one has a crystal ball. 
 
 Share the Facts 2017-09-20 20:05:56 UTC PolitiFact -1 -1 -1 PolitiFact Rating: Possible but not certain PolitiFact Rating: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOlibbx5sx0&feature;=youtu.be With Graham-Cassidy ‘there will be no lifetime caps in many states’ Jimmy Kimmel Host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live During the Jimmy Kimmel show Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2017-09-19 Read More info 
 
 Note: This story was updated Sept. 22 to reflect CBPP's estimate that the Graham-Cassidy bill would lead to 32 million uninsured. ||||| In a remarkable Tuesday night monologue, Jimmy Kimmel delivered a powerful indictment of the latest Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, legislation known as Graham-Cassidy for its two main sponsors, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. 
 
 “This is not my area of expertise,” the Brooklyn-born host of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live said in the midst of the seven-minute segment. “My area of expertise is eating pizza, and that’s about it.” Nevertheless, the comedian managed to distill why the 11th-hour effort by congressional Republicans would be, as The New Yorker put it, a “potential disaster” robbing millions of coverage. 
 
 Kimmel would not be in the category of those left without insurance, as he acknowledged on Tuesday night (his contract with ABC nets him a reported $13-$15 million per year). And yet the host became intimately acquainted with the vagaries of the American healthcare system when his son Billy was born with a heart condition known as Tetralogy of Fallot with pulmonary atresia. Billy underwent successful surgery, but the costs of that treatment led Kimmel to reflect on the state of healthcare in an early May monologue, as Republicans vowed to finally overturn President Obama's signature legislation. 
 
 “If your baby is going to die,” Kimmel said, “and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make. I think that’s something that, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right?” 
 
 It was Cassidy, the Republican from Louisiana, who later that same week coined the notion of a “Jimmy Kimmel Test” for any new healthcare law. “I ask, does it pass the Jimmy Kimmel test? Will a child born with congenital heart disease be able to get everything she or he would need in the first year of life? I want it to pass the Jimmy Kimmel test.” 
 
 “I want to make sure folks get the care they need." 
 
 Yet as Republicans moved towards a repeal-and-replace effort engineered by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, Kimmel went on Twitter to remind Cassidy of his vow: "Reminder for Sen @BillCassidy: Kimmel test is 'No family should be denied medical care, emerg or otherwise, because they can’t afford it.'" 
 
 Cassidy did end up voting for the Senate bill, which failed. The new bill seems intended to placate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the unpredictable Republican whose dissenting vote helped kill McConnell’s legislation. Lending cross-chamber support, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan called the Graham-Cassidy bill “our best, last chance to get repeal and replace done." 
 
 Kimmel appears to have dealt that effort a blow, judging by the reaction on social media. Speaking calmly yet passionately, Kimmel accused Cassidy of lying when he’d seemingly promised, on Jimmy Kimmel Live, that he’d only vote for a bill that included features like protection for pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits. 
 
 The Graham-Cassidy bill would mangle the Affordable Care Act while ceding power to individual states. The New York Times described the legislation in a withering editorial: 
 
 It is hard to overstate the cruelty of the Graham-Cassidy bill. It would eliminate the mandate that even healthy people buy health insurance, end the subsidies that help people purchase coverage and stop the expansion of Medicaid. It would offer states block grants they could use to help people get insurance but would leave people at the mercy of individual state legislatures and, over all, would provide $239 billion less than what the federal government would spend under current law between 2020 and 2026, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 
 
 Kimmel did not wade into particulars of the bill, though he did estimate that it would lead to 30 million people losing coverage (the legislation has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office). He also noted that the single hearing would be in the Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
 
 “They want us to treat it like an iTunes service agreement,” Kimmel said of the legislation. His monologue performed a complicated feat, with Kimmel criticizing the effort without either moralizing or mocking. There was a quiet, nasal outrage to his voice, which proved far more effective than the manic anger of his late-night competitor Stephen Colbert, or the feeble political jabs of Jimmy Fallon. 
 
 “Healthcare is complicated. It’s boring,” Kimmel admitted, in the kind of admission a late-night host rarely has to make. “I don’t want to talk about it. The details are confusing. And that’s what these guys are relying on. They’re on counting on you to be so overwhelmed with all the information you just trust them to take care of you. But they’re not taking care of you, they’re taking care of the people who give them money, like insurance companies.” 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Kimmel argued that Americans want more healthcare, not less. His audience agreed. He could have referenced the rising support for single-payer health insurance among congressional Democrats, led by Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. 
 
 At one point, an image of Cassidy appeared behind Kimmel, with the phone number for the Senator’s office on Capitol Hill. 
 
 “Nobody outside of your buddies in Congress wants this bill,” Kimmel told Cassidy. 
 
 It is likely the Senator's phones will be busy this morning.
– The Jimmy Kimmel-Bill Cassidy dust-up over health care circled back to Kimmel Thursday, the third night in a row that the late-night host has taken on the Louisiana senator over the latter's bill with Sen. Lindsey Graham to replace ObamaCare. Per EW, Kimmel addressed President Trump at the outset, noting that the commander in chief's aim is dumping ObamaCare, "which he hates, primarily because Obama's name is on it. … He'd sign copies of the Koran at the Barnes and Noble in Fallujah if it meant he could get rid of ObamaCare." Kimmel did have praise to offer for Cassidy, a doctor who started a community clinic in his home state. "He's done good things; I just want him to keep doing good things. This plan is not a good thing," said Kimmel, who then rattled off the doctor-tied organizations, including the AMA, that have come out against the bill. Although some media sources have given Kimmel a thumbs-up for his understanding of the legislation, the National Review has jumped into the fray, calling the host a "policy wonk wannabe" and asserting that "comedians are not public intellectuals." "Does Kimmel want a career change?" writes Theodore Kupfer. "Or does Hollywood simply want to feel better about its propensity to wax earnest about complicated public-policy questions?" Some are coming to Kimmel's defense with clips of the conservative-leaning Fox News interviewing other celebrities on various topics. Kimmel wrapped up his latest launch against Cassidy by addressing critics. "Some people tell me I should give him the benefit of the doubt," he said. "And you know what, I do give him the benefit of the doubt: I doubt all the benefits he claims are part of the new health care bill." The whole clip here.