Trump Owns TrumpCare
I made this point early this afternoon, but the events of the day have only reinforced the conclusion: President Donald Trump bears full responsibility for the GOP’s disastrous proposed health care bill. The stories are all linked by Allahpundit here. Here’s Mike Pence daring Republicans to reject this excrement sandwich:
“If you like your Obamacare you can keep it,” Pence told Republicans at a closed-door meeting Tuesday. “But the American people want change.”…
The White House on Tuesday cast the GOP bill as a “work in progress,” a sign that changes may be necessary in order to move it through the House. Pence acknowledged that reality by saying as the legislative process goes forward, the GOP plan “is the framework for reform and we are certainly open to improvements and to recommendations in the legislative process.”
But he also warned the GOP, “this is the bill” backed by President Trump.
Similarly, Kevin Brady reinforced the idea that Trump is pushing this version of the bill:
The president made it very clear that this is his bill and there are no excuses — it’s time to act now. It is clear he is putting his presidential weight behind [the measure].
If you like your TrumpCare entitlements you can keep them.
By the way, the second article linked above comes from The Hill, which bullheadly characterizes this bill as “the House’s plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare.” Nonsense. ObamaCare Lite, aka TrumpCare, is entitlement city. It does not come close to repealing ObamaCare. There’s no repeal about it, and don’t let the lying media tell you otherwise.
Here’s the final nail in the coffin:
Whip sources tell me Trump agreed with their argument that this is binary choice: either u back a replacement that can pass or u keep Ocare.
— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) March 7, 2017
Ah, the old “binary choice” canard! It worked so well for him during the election! Why not drag it out again now?
The problem is, this isn’t an election. There are other possible options.
But it’s part of a con artist’s sales pitch to artificially restrict your options to two: one that is unpalatable, and another that the con artist wants you to pick.
We’re not falling for the con this time.
[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 3/7/2017 @ 7:36 pmthe trump go down down baby down down the roller coaster sweet sweet baby sweet sweet don’t let him go
shimmy shimmy cocoa pop shimmy shimmy rock shimmy shimmy cocoa pop shimmy shimmy rock
he meant it
he said it
he stole his mama’s credit
he’s cool
he’s hot
sock him in the stomach three more times
happyfeet (28a91b) — 3/7/2017 @ 7:49 pmWe’re not falling for the con this time.
Rest easy. Pence will take the ‘conn.’ There’s sure to be a storm in America’s future and when the ship of state steams into that typhoon, it won’t use ‘Article 184’ that’s used… just the 25th Amendment.
“Captain, I’m sorry but you’re a sick man.” – Steve Maryk ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954
DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/7/2017 @ 7:52 pmHe’ll own whatever form this legislation ends up taking. As will Republicans. So it’s important they don’t waste this opportunity to replace Obamacare, which was dead upon arrival.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/7/2017 @ 7:53 pmd.o.a. like emma watson’s sex appeal
happyfeet (28a91b) — 3/7/2017 @ 7:57 pmWill Bannon notice what Pence has done here? I would think so.
I see this story evolving.
ThOR (c9324e) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:15 pmAnd again, why is this a disaster?
There is never going to be a purely portable insurance market. Yes it would be best, but 80% of the voters would view it as disadvantaging them.
So, ALL health insurance is subsidized. Medicare, Medicaid are directly subsidized. Employer plans, union plans, government worker plans are all tax free income, which is a tax credit by another name.
The only people who did not get a subsidy before Obamacare (and got the short end of several other sticks) are the people buying private policies. Obamacare gave his voters (people without larege incomes) a subsidy, which might amount to a lot in some situations, and stiffed the higher earning self-employed by making them shoulder the entire burden.
This plan makes the subsidies smaller, spread out over more people, at a level still rather less than the subsidies that 85% of the population gets.
And that 85% of over-subsidized people are screaming they’re being robbed.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:24 pmSomeone find me a politician who argues for eliminating ALL health insurance subsidies. Tax all employee plans, cancel Medicare and Medicaid, etc. My bet is they’ve never won an election.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:27 pmThe reason it is like a binary choice is the heavy transaction costs involved in getting a repeal bill up for vote. Drafting a bill, feeling out where politicians stand, whipping support for it, communicating about it to the voters — all of that takes time and effort.
We don’t have the luxury of putting forward 100 bills until we get the right one passed.
If the first bill fails, getting another bill ready and holding another vote could take weeks or longer. Maybe the momentum gets stronger the second time around. But more likely, it fizzles. The narrative becomes: Obamacare is here to stay, Republicans say they hate Obamacare but secretly they love it, Trump is a hypocrite for criticizing Obamacare, etc.
Maybe we only have 1 shot. Maybe we have 5 shots before things fizzle. I don’t know. I don’t want to put my faith in liberal squish GOP politicians to do the perfect thing.
My ideal bill to start this process, if I had 51 senators, would be a flat repeal-only bill, that wipes out Obamacare in one shot, with a delayed start (e.g., that they would pass a bill today that says the repeal would be effective Jan 1, 2019, or whatever date works best in connection with winning the midterm elections). Once the repeal gets passed, then the politicians can fight over what comes next. They would have time, but not unlimited time, to get to work building something new.
But it looks like Trump wants a different strategy: repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare and keep some of the more popular pieces, on the first bill. That way, Republicans can vote for it without worrying it will cost them their seat, and Dems look like bad guys if the vote against it. It is entirely possible–maybe even likely–that Trump is not pursuing this policy because he’s a liberal squish who loves Obamacare, but because he can tell that enough House & Senate Republicans don’t have the balls to go forward with a full repeal.
Later bills–the steps 2 and 3 referenced by Trump–could take away the more popular aspects of Obamacare. We could get away with doing that as long as we give people something else in return. For example, a bill that ends one popular entitlement could also end the prohibition on insurance across state lines, or add Ivanka’s paid leave to promote procreation. Trump is a salesman and a dealmaker. If he wants to get rid of Obamacare–and I think he does, his legacy is on the line and he rightly believes that Obamacare is a pile of garbage that will drag down the economy and thereby ruin his presidency–he will find a way.
I hate to put my trust in Trump, but what other option do I have? Trust Rand Paul to rally Congress behind his principled vision? Trust the RINOs in Congress to pass a Ted Cruz-approved free-market bill? Supporting Trump now is the best of multiple imperfect options. Don’t let the existence of multiple options fool you: whether you support Trump now, at this potentially-crucial moment, or withhold your support, is a binary thing.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:32 pmI’ll never stop talking about why the best solution is the best solution. The world is full of naysayers. Someone has to explain why the right solution is right. I choose to be one of those people.
Patterico (115b1f) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:48 pmI think Trump should just sit on it and let Obamacare fester. He’s even talked of it. When the illegal exemptions and subsidies are pulled, the industry, the unions, the states – and their Democrat toadies – will come clamoring for repeal. The only reason Obamacare still exists is the extra-legal machinations of President Obama. Let it ride.
If I were Trump, I’d ask the insurance companies to repay their accumulated illegal subsidies. That should speed up the process.
ThOR (c9324e) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:54 pmHey guise-hate to barge in with a thread jack but I’m picking up my wife from BNA and there’s a city cop with an AR 15 at low ready lurking in the corner. I haven’t seen anything like that since after 9/11. I don’t suppose some folks are upset at the “muslim” ban.
Pinandpuller (31a3f6) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:59 pm10
If the best candidate is the most electable conservative/ most conservative candidate who can get elected…
Would the best bill be the most free market bill that can get passed?
kishnevi (7bc26d) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:08 pmThe new bill is is a dead duck. Other than it’s sponsors, almost everyone objects for one reason or another. It’s time to think outside the Obamacare framework, start over with a clean slate and an open mind.
If we can put a man on the moon, we can design a functional health insurance system that Americans can both afford and rely on when needed.
We can do this
There’s more than one way skin a cat.
ropelight (bbf9bc) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:09 pm“When the illegal exemptions and subsidies are pulled, the industry, the unions, the states – and their Democrat toadies – will come clamoring for repeal.”
That, or they will let it burn, blame Republicans for the mess, and retake the House in 2018 when voters are frustrated with the carnage and look to “throw the bastards out.”
The problem is that Democrats are holding America hostage.
Obamacare was designed to fail. They WANT it to fail. Their plan was: it fails while Hillary is in office (or her successor), the failure takes down insurance companies, they blame Republicans for the mess, and scare people: without strong insurance companies, the only way you can get health care is through single payer. Then they ram through single-payer and they’ve nationalized 1/6th of the economy. Repealing Obamacare is a lark compared to repealing single-payer.
They built a debt bomb that is designed to go off eventually. They’re not just running up debt because they are greedy and short-sighted. They have a PLAN. Blame Republicans for the mess, demand government action (which gives them and their cronies power over the rest of us), and then enjoy permanent democratic majority.
Defusing the debt bomb, and defusing the Obamacare bomb, are two of Trump’s most important tasks. Who knows how many other IEDs Obama planted before he left? We’re talking about a crew who wiretapped Trump’s campaign and gave Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons. There is nothing they won’t do.
We can’t fail our way to success. We have to win. Trump said there would be winning. After 8 years of Obama, America needs some winning.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:17 pmWith Paul and Cruz already going after Ryan’s proposal from the right, it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out with Trump’s strongest supporters, who for the most part, painted everyone they opposed during last year’s GOP primary season as being to the left of Trump in some way.
If Trump stays with his support of Ryan’s plan, that’s going to be a hard circle for those people to square, if the Obamacare replacement debate ends up being Ryan & Trump vs. Paul & Cruz.
John (cf1eb6) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:19 pmWhy would Trump want to squander his political capital on this lemon? Especially when there is a tax cut waiting in the wings? Will he really allow his agenda to come to a grinding halt to please the John Kasiches of the world? Doubtful.
ThOR (c9324e) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:25 pmHow many shots to the foot can team r unload?
mg (31009b) — 3/7/2017 @ 9:29 pmRyan’s idiots.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” — Friedrich Hayek
Patterico (52aafa) — 3/7/2017 @ 10:49 pmWe need to pass the repeal to find out what is in it.
AZ Bob (99e30f) — 3/7/2017 @ 10:59 pmI would like the ACA to be fully repealed and replaced with something better. In reality, it’s a pipe dream. People dislike the individual mandate and the higher premiums, but they have never overwhelmingly supported cancelling subsidies or even medicaid expansion.
I’m familiar with the libertarian healthcare proposals. I like most of it. You guys like it. But that’s just us in the center right. For most people the thought of paying for more things out of your pocket to keep cost down is a non starter. HSAs are good plans but they never caught on.
I’ve read that this bill will eventually scrap the individual mandate. For me, that’s good enough for republicans to support this bill. If this is the one and only GOP attempt to take down Obamacare, then I’d be concerned. But I highly doubt that Trump will simply let his issue rest after one “repeal” attempt.
Remember that most people don’t buy healthcare through the exchange. They get it through their work, and many others are on medicaid (not insurance, technically). Those people are set. Killing the penaltax and the individual mandate will ease the lives of middle class Americans whose income level disqualifies them for subsidies AND medicaid.
There’s just no way you can strike down the spending side of Obamacare in one swift stroke. How many battles that defined our nation were resolved that easily? I’m sure this bill isn’t anything close to perfect, but the GOP sort of has to decide what’s workable and go from there.
lee (55777a) — 3/7/2017 @ 11:47 pm@14.If we can put a man on the moon, we can design a functional health insurance system that Americans can both afford and rely on when needed. We can do this.
Once the primary goal of the American healthcare system shifts from making insurance companies wealthy to making patients well through cost-effective healthcare, yes, we can. We already know what it takes…
“The will to do it.” – Wernher Von Braun
DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/8/2017 @ 12:20 amI’ll never stop talking about why the best solution is the best solution.
I’ve been talking about that exact solution, here, for several years. But I don’t confuse it with a viable, present-day option.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 12:30 amWhat do you mean “we,” white man?
Dave (711345) — 3/8/2017 @ 12:47 am“binary choice: either u back a replacement that can pass or u keep Ocare”
What about this statement is false? What other option is there?
It is literally true that Congress will either back a replacement that can pass, or keep Obamacare.
Is there some way to not keep Obamacare, without a replacement that can pass?
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 1:59 amA “possible” option is one that might garner enough votes to pass.
If the “option” lacks that attribute, it is by definition not “possible.”
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/8/2017 @ 2:23 amIf the govt. hacks stayed out of poison care we would all have a chance at purchasing a proper product. Like buying a gallon of milk.
mg (31009b) — 3/8/2017 @ 3:03 amwhole,1%, 2%, skim and powdered. Let us decide, you pigs. And by the way – the hacks should have the same choices as us.
Gop completely controls the process and via reconciliation can do whatever they want. They can pass a 12 month sunset on obamacare. They can repeal today.
Binary choice is indeed an insult to the country, but so was electing this liar.
Dustin (eed426) — 3/8/2017 @ 4:37 amThe medical profession was incubated in a capitalistic society, the move to make it a socialist or socialist light profession is not going to be easy, just or make everyone happy. losing congress, zip worse than this imo
EPWJ (c4dd97) — 3/8/2017 @ 5:05 amWhich “capitalistic society” would that be, Eric?
nk (dbc370) — 3/8/2017 @ 5:13 am“Evolved”! It’s only in the last century and only in some capitalistic countries, primarily America, that the “leeches” have turned into the other kind of bloodsuckers, making the medical profession another profit-chasing industry.
nk (dbc370) — 3/8/2017 @ 5:34 amHere’s my plan: $250 per month, no deductibles, no subsidies, no pre-conditions, $25 co-pay to see primary care in-network doc ($50 out of network) $50 co-pay for net specialist ($100 out net) 33% co-pay for all in-office procedures, 25% co-pay for first 10 days in hospital. $10 co-pay for all generic meds, $20 for name brands, 25% for exotics.
$50 per month for supplemental insurance for catastrophic care. $75 per month for extended hospitalization, nursing facilities, durable equipment, preventative educational instruction, 50% reductions for generic and name brand meds.
ropelight (bbf9bc) — 3/8/2017 @ 6:10 amit is not that easy because you have to get it past Murkowski, Collins, and co,
narciso (d1f714) — 3/8/2017 @ 6:15 amhttp://neoneocon.com/2017/03/07/gopcare-version-1-0/
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have plans, both much better than the crap that was disclosed by Ryan.
Lets hope that these Senators can lead the Rs to victory despite themselves.
Steven Malynn (d29fc3) — 3/8/2017 @ 6:18 amThe real cause of the problem with the bill is that it is too simple. It doesn’t make enough changes. It wasn’t possible to draft something well in the short period of time Trump gave, and under the constraints of reconciliation. Trump would have accepted a much better bill. It’s the Republicans leadership in the House of Representatives who came up with this bill – that’s why nobody was complaining until now. They weren’t complaining about anything Trump might have indicated he wanted.
Trump’s only conditions really were that the repeal and the replacement had to be passed at the same time, and that the individual mandate had to go. And also of course, any requirement for contraception or abortion in health care policies, although that’s more from Congressional Republicans. And Medicare, which hadn’t been tampered with by Obamacare, would remain untouched by any changes. And also you still had to have something to take care of people who couldn’t afford to pay medical bills. And that it had to be done, or get started, quickly. Price said three weeks – Trump said to him no – draft your bill in two weeks.
But the fact of the matter is, in all these years, nobody came up with any good ideas taht otehr people liked; no consensus settled on any ideas; and nobody wanted to discuss and debate what to do. But rather, the Republican Congressional leadership wanted to bury all the differences. So now nobody really knows what kind of bill to pass. At least nobody who has been able to get a hearing. There are probably some very good imaginative ideas out there, although none may be completely worked out, and all the good ones probably require something controversial, at least at first, like a new tax, or disregarding Congressional Budget Office estimates of what it would cost. (they havet figured that out yet, for this, by the way, and they haven’t inputted many numbers.)
It would require a lot of selling to get soemthing good done – but you know, it would requiore alot of selling to get something bad, or mediocre done, too. The right way to do this is to come up with something really, really, good, and campaign and campaign for it, whle at the same time adjusting the proposal as the discussion goes on.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 6:49 amSome of the changes this bill makes are bad, like block-granting money to the states for
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 6:52 amMedicaid, which superficially can sound fair. But you have to have collosal ognrance to think this is agood idea. It’s as if all the states are starting from the same point, and have the same amount of ingrained waste fraud and abuse, or have the same cost of living and price level. You really need to get the responsibility for spending money back to the level of the patient – and doing that without harming people’s ability to do what is necessary is difficult to design. Putting the responsibility back at the level of the patient is the only way you can conserve costs without damaging health care – without cutting the muscle instead of the fat, without creating some form of rationing.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/7/2017 @ 8:32 pm
Obamacare doesn’t work and Republicans can easuly unite t make sure it works even less well (no attempt to collect the penalty/tax, no subsidies too insurance companies) so it needs to be amended. However, gnnereal agreement that something needs to be done, or even necessity is not always enough to get Congress to pass legislation. Student loans are a crisis, but nothing is getting done about them quickly.
I want to repeat or elaborate on what I said before – a bad or mediocre bill will require just as much a selling job as a really good one. The only bill that would be easier to pass is something that just gets you through the next year and a half, and this already goes further than that.
Nobody needs to pass this replacement bill to gte rid of the individual mandate, because the individual mandate is dead anyway, and no president and Congress will seriously attempt to colect that tax from many people. You might want to pass something to minimize the deficit.
I don’t want to put my faith in liberal squish GOP politicians to do the perfect thing.
My ideal bill to start this process, if I had 51 senators, would be a flat repeal-only bill, that wipes out Obamacare in one shot, with a delayed start (e.g., that they would pass a bill today that says the repeal would be effective Jan 1, 2019, or whatever date works best in connection with winning the midterm elections). Once the repeal gets passed, then the politicians can fight over what comes next. They would have time, but not unlimited time, to get to work building something new.
But it looks like Trump wants a different strategy: repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare and keep some of the more popular pieces, on the first bill. That way, Republicans can vote for it without worrying it will cost them their seat, and Dems look like bad guys if the vote against it. It is entirely possible–maybe even likely–that Trump is not pursuing this policy because he’s a liberal squish who loves Obamacare, but because he can tell that enough House & Senate Republicans don’t have the balls to go forward with a full repeal.
Later bills–the steps 2 and 3 referenced by Trump–could take away the more popular aspects of Obamacare. We could get away with doing that as long as we give people something else in return. For example, a bill that ends one popular entitlement could also end the prohibition on insurance across state lines, or add Ivanka’s paid leave to promote procreation. Trump is a salesman and a dealmaker. If he wants to get rid of Obamacare–and I think he does, his legacy is on the line and he rightly believes that Obamacare is a pile of garbage that will drag down the economy and thereby ruin his presidency–he will find a way.
I hate to put my trust in Trump, but what other option do I have? Trust Rand Paul to rally Congress behind his principled vision? Trust the RINOs in Congress to pass a Ted Cruz-approved free-market bill? Supporting Trump now is the best of multiple imperfect options. Don’t let the existence of multiple options fool you: whether you support Trump now, at this potentially-crucial moment, or withhold your support, is a binary thing.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 1:59 am
keep Obamacare, without a replacement that can pass?
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 7:05 amNathaniel had no choice in the political affiliation he was born with. Sure, maybe I shouldn’t have watched so much “Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher” when I was pregnant, but that’s besides the point now.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/8/2017 @ 7:13 amTrump was tricked into doing Obamacare first.
Davod (f3a711) — 3/8/2017 @ 7:32 amSorry, all of that starting from “My ideal bill” is from Daryl Herbert. It was below the bottom of the comment box, and I forgot I had cut and pasted itm and was rushing to save what I wrote, in case the computer’s wires got pulled.
DH> My ideal bill to start this process, if I had 51 senators, would be a flat repeal-only bill, that wipes out Obamacare in one shot, with a delayed start (e.g., that they would pass a bill today that says the repeal would be effective Jan 1, 2019, or whatever date works best in connection with winning the midterm elections).
That’s no good, because everyone, including even probably Donald Trump, knows that a second bill might not get passed, eve if two thirds or more of the members of Congrss wanted to pass something
And actually for that reason, a plain bill like that will not pass, and if it did, this might be the one thing wth regard to Obamacare passed by a Republican Congress that President Donald Trump might veto.
DH> But it looks like Trump wants a different strategy: repeal the unpopular parts of Obamacare and keep some of the more popular pieces, on the first bill.
I think he wants to keep the more popular parts, period. He’d probably easily agree to a new tax of some sort, provided it was not an income tax. He doesn’t like the “border adjustment” tax (that Paul Ryan has in mind, either to fund the Obamacare replacement or tax reform) very much. The people for the “border adjustment” tax are saying that the exchange rate of the Dollar will change (it might, but only in the same way that the stock amrket tracks the economy – in the long run, over a 20 yeasr period maybe) and that it is really a sort of sales tax (except it isn’t formulated that way, in order to avoid calling part of it a tariff and the other part of it a subsidy of exports.)
The people opposed to the “border adjustment” tax argue that it would create massive disruptions to collecct just a tiny fraction of that in tax. And tourism “exports” wouldn’t get an exemption from income taxation. And if it is upheld by the World Trade Organization, other countries might do the same, and if it is not, there could be retaliation
But there are other possible consumption taxes.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 7:38 amThrough-out this process, always remember what you were promised by the ignorant game-show host con-man:
Then decide whether the ignorant game-show host con-man has delivered on what he promised. (Hint: the answer isn’t yes).
Dave (711345) — 3/8/2017 @ 7:41 amDaryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 1:59 am continued
DH> That way, Republicans can vote for it without worrying it will cost them their seat, and Dems look like bad guys if the vote against it.
Once Obamacare is gone, you mean. I think actually the Republicans will destroy the viability of Obamacare anyway, to the extent it is viable, and the Republicans will say it was mathematically unsound anyway, and teh Democrats don’t really want to do what would be necessary to make it work, and the Democrats wll blame its failure on Republicans, for, for instance failing to apprpriate money to subsidize insurance companies, even though originally that was supposed to net out even.
Democrats don’t need to solve problems – they need, or want, issues.
DH> It is entirely possible–maybe even likely–that Trump is not pursuing this policy because he’s a liberal squish who loves Obamacare, but because he can tell that enough House & Senate Republicans don’t have the balls to go forward with a full repeal.
I think he, or some political advoseer, is afraid that a repeal could pass but not a replacemement, and he might even veto a stand-alone replacement. That doesn’t make him a liberal squish.
He, and the Republicans, do need some kind of stragey to get Democrats involved in drafting and supporting an Obamacare replacement bill, because there’s no unanimity among Republicans, and theer’d be even still less unanimity for a really, really, good bill. But that strategy of repeal and don’t replace would not work. I think campaigning in their districts could, provided you had a good bill.
DH> Later bills–the steps 2 and 3 referenced by Trump–could take away the more popular aspects of Obamacare.
He has no intention of doing that. Donald Trump is hoping someone will invent something totally new. He wants somebody to do the apparently impossible, and believes it is possible. He’s waiting for that.
DH> For example, a bill that ends one popular entitlement could also end the prohibition on insurance across state lines,
Ending the prohibition (imposed by states, not the federal government beut existing because ears ago the Supreme Court held that states are the primary reglators of insurance, I think) would not be worth anything.
DH> or add Ivanka’s paid leave to promote procreation.
You can’t really promote procreation. You can only stop discouraging it. If you want to promote it, drafting people to fight in a few wars, or other risks of children dying will help. (Israel has a higher than average birth rate for a developed ountry, and it is not all religion)
Ivanka’s paid leave is best done through the social security system – it’s best in fact, that it consist of at will temporary Social Security benefits, which can be paid back – and maybe if someone wants to draw out more than the limit, then they can prove that the earlier withdrawal was coincident with a birth. If employers do this only some employers will be requred to do so. Smaller ones willl not.
DH> Trump is a salesman and a dealmaker. If he wants to get rid of Obamacare–and I think he does, his legacy is on the line and he rightly believes that Obamacare is a pile of garbage that will drag down the economy and thereby ruin his presidency–he will find a way.
Well, that’s what I don’t know. A lot of things he has tried have failed. He, and certainly all the people around him, believe Obamacare is a pile of garbage that nopbody likes and that will fail of its own accord. I think Trump wants somebody to invent something new, but he’ll settle for a lot less. He’s too ready to rely on the existing Congressional Republican leadership.
DH> I hate to put my trust in Trump, but what other option do I have? Trust Rand Paul to rally Congress behind his principled vision? Trust the RINOs in Congress to pass a Ted Cruz-approved free-market bill? Supporting Trump now is the best of multiple imperfect options. Don’t let the existence of multiple options fool you: whether you support Trump now, at this potentially-crucial moment, or withhold your support, is a binary thing.
We should all dream on about ideal bills. We don’t lose anything by it.
If somebody else writes something really really good, and starts to sell people on it, Trump will also go along and maybe go around the country trying to sell it. I think you would also, and maybe primarily, need other people than Trump, because too many people hate Trump, and he keeps giving them reasons to at least despise him, or dismiss his ability to reason, which, unfortunately, may carry over to everything he does and says. You need Trump because he would sign it, though.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:06 amso it’s dueling politico headlines, but there seems to a difference of opinion, and since he will be administering it,
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/tom-price-gop-obamacare-repeal-235776
narciso (d1f714) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:08 amDaryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 1:59 am
Yes. The Republican leadership in Congress has said it will self-destruct, and it is not too difficult to avoid preventing that from happening.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:10 amDonald Trump lied, as usual, on Twitter, when he said the proposed House bill was wonderful, because he doesn’t think that at all, and what Price said is what he really wants and expects.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:15 amTrump called it wonderful because he approves of the fact they got the ball rolling. But he has to lie. He can’t just call it like it is.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:18 amOf course the process isn’t binary. IIRC, there’s something called “the Motion to Amend.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:40 amThere are MAJOR differences between this plan and Obamacare. Notably that we are being told what is in it first, and that it is far more understandable as it has fewer moving parts.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:41 amTrump called it wonderful because he approves of the fact they got the ball rolling. But he has to lie. He can’t just call it like it is.
The Internet gives us an open window on the Sausage Factory, but it is still a sausage factory.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:42 amMaybe instead of trying to find the best bill that we can pass for the country, we should be looking to hoist the Left on its own petard.
Obamacare is not health care, it is a weapon. It was designed as a weapon to penetrate our defenses so they could force single payer on us. The death spiral is not just obviously baked into the cake (and Republicans said so at the time Dems rammed Obamacare through on party lines), it is intended.
We can turn the weapon around on the Left by allowing Blue States to keep Obamacare, while Red States move on to some post-Obamacare free market option. The Blue States will get to experience the death spiral. The Red States will get to be smug.
Let’s face it: there are some states where Republicans simply won’t get to be the majority. For those states, we can destroy their economy by giving liberals what they want.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:58 amWhat Americans want is a healthcare system where at street level, for example, a Tylanol tablet that costs a few pennies at best to manufacture only costs a patient in the doctor’s office a quarter, tops, under their insurance plans and not $22.00 per pill. This is part of the ‘protection racket’ these weenie pols refuse to address thanks to the insurance lobby which finances their campaigns.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:00 amyes, but the supreme court would strike it down on disparate impact grounds or some other foolishness,
narciso (d1f714) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:01 am“That’s no good, because everyone, including even probably Donald Trump, knows that a second bill might not get passed”
But Sammy, if Obamacare was flat-out repealed and no second bill got passed, that would be a decent result.
It would return us to the status quo ante. Obamacare would be gone forever, completely gone.
After that happens, there will be further bills. Maybe not one giant “replace Obamacare and fix all the problems left in its wake” bill, but there will be lots of little bills. Politicians can’t resist the urge to tweak and meddle.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:05 amThis is the problem.
More than 1/2 of Americans don’t have the savings for a minor emergency.
500 bucks or less in a bank account is not the community that’s going to make responsible decisions when it comes to health care or anything else.
NJRob (43d957) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:06 amexcept daryl those plans are gone, it’s like malware, that deletes the access,
narciso (d1f714) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:09 amTrump thinks his voters won’t understand his being for something (the House bill) that he’s not actually =for= so he called it wonderful, or misapplied the adjective. You have to learn how to read between the lines. Price is more honest.
Anyway, Donald Trump, said it is only a start
So he said:
1. The bill is wonderful.
2. It’s out for review and negotiation.
3. Obamacare is imploding fast (so something needs to be passed anyway)
He also said yesterday, in response it’s not clear as to whose criticism, but probably in response to something somebody said on “Fox and Friends” and maybe somebody’s tweet:
Then he added:
Maybe that will include some lessining of he rigorous nature of drug regulation, and maybe something allowing good manufacturers with a record to have a some kind of a presumption of safety, at least like it works with food and beverages.
Yesterday evening, he added this:
There you have it.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:12 am54. Yes, but many of the people who don’t have a spare $500 have access to credit, and they can juggle bills, too.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:13 amIt’s too bad Congress won’t pass the bumper-sticker laws we all want.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:19 amOf course they do, but it shows they cannot afford a reoccurring expense and that they are pretty much living paycheck to paycheck. Any change in their life circumstances will be crippling. That’s not the best situation to negotiate healthcare.
NJRob (43d957) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:22 amThey’re not fixing the Obamacare problem they’re tweaking or fixing (take your pick) the insurance for all model administered by a few insurance mega-corps. That’s what hospitals and large providers want because they prefer guaranteed payment from the mega-corps at pre-negotiated private pricing. HIPAA guarantees access for all US persons the problem they’re trying to solve with the insurance for all model is how to pay for all those people who won’t or can’t pay at the counter.
They’ve been chipping away at free market healthcare since the 60’s. The more they’ve fixed it the more consumer choice and transparent price competition have been swept into this mess they’ve created are now trying to fix.
What the free market conservatives need to to now that this ship has sailed is fight, fight, fight to ensure a free market option for those who want it is included in this must-pass reform package. It would contain a call for transparent retail pricing for individuals and wholesale group pricing, catastrophic for major accidents/illness, tort and bankruptcy reform. Let the people choose what they want to buy, not just what policy they want the government to guarantee they can buy.
I’d be more optimistic about the outcome if the Senate were planning to move the eventual House bill through regular order, but they’re not. By announcing his intent to put the House bill on the floor for immediate passage McConnell’s guaranteeing the only outcome that will pass is the revised insurance for all model with the usual promise to do more later, blah, blah, blah.
crazy (d3b449) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:25 amKevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 8:40 am
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:27 amTrump is a 4th dimensional chess master. He doesn’t make a move without considering every possible ramification.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:33 amTrump is a 4th dimensional chess master. He doesn’t make a move without considering every possible ramification.
He considers his tweets for weeks before hitting SEND.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:42 am60. crazy (d3b449) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:25 am
That remindsme how hospitals have social workers on the payroll who enroll people in Medicaid in order for the hospital to get paid. That’s how most people on Medicaid originally got started on Medicaid.
Once on Medicaid people tend to stay on Medicaid, and everythinbg they do in life in deigned to make sure they continue to qualify. It’s means tested (not that they are very vigorous about it) and there are clawbacks. $15,000 in one case I know for someone who was advised by the state to take Medicaid because she wasn’t eligibe for CHIP, and then soon enough got a job with health insurance. She didn’t use it after she got the job and ddin’t use it very much, but now Medicaid is a $15,000 a year insurance policy in New York (or was before Obamacare – it’s now I think cheaper.)
Except that they don’t really often seriously try to collect the money, except from people who win the lottery, or who sue the state and win. The draft House bill has a whole section on lottery winners.
The Obamacare clawback (when someone’s income is higher than originally estimated) hasn’t hit yet, but that’s another problem. Obama himself prevented that from hitting while he was president.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:51 amIts not advertised that Medicaid is a loan, but it is treated that way in several respects.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 9:53 amSusan Collins is pivotal in this–for more reasons than one.
She’s on the Intel Committee. Here is what is on the Intel Committee’s schedule:
Recent Actions
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections
01/06/2017
That what might be what all that “Russian agent” stuff is about from the Dems–to gain leverage on the ObamaCare fight.
(Two asides–someone yesterday said that Collins voted ObamaCare out of committee–I think that was Olympia Snowe–who has now been replaced by Maine’s former Independent governor Angus King.
Also–Maine’s second congressional district went for Trump and while some maps will show that Politico still refuses to. They also elected a Republican to congress when they usually elected Democrats. It’s a Catholic, French and rural area–it should have been a natural for Dems–but just like Iowa–it switched.)
So–essentially due to the Russian Impeachment brouhaha–that might cost you –now–in this ObamaCare fight because that has exacted a cost on Trump in political capital.
Now the Republicans–who are also on the Intel Committee have that much more sway.
Richard Burr -North Carolina Chairman
Republicans
James Risch-Idaho
Marco Rubio-Florida
Susan Collins-Maine
Roy Blunt-Missouri
James Lankford-Oklahoma
Tom Cotton-Arkansas
John Cornyn-Texas
Susan Collins was re-elected in 2014. She use to get some of the highest favorable in the Senate when I was into following that kind of polling.
So if you want t o talk about being a deal maker–Collins has been doing that for decades in–the Senate.
Rae Sremmurd (2fd998) — 3/8/2017 @ 10:13 amRae @66: Maine’s second congressional district went for Trump and while some maps will show that Politico still refuses to.
What does their map say about Nebraska in 2008, or do they have one?
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/8/2017 @ 11:58 amCollins,Snowe
mg (f9665b) — 3/8/2017 @ 12:02 pmSOS
That’s just past noon eastern time.
Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc) — 3/9/2017 @ 11:33 amCotton and lankford and rich are sensible, the rest are at best clueless, burrow is the medici’s man as we found out in the primary re cruz
narciso (d1f714) — 3/11/2017 @ 6:09 amA rogue elephant in sen. church’s vocabulary
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-people-investigating-russias-role-in-the-election-worry?utm_term=.mbeRwQo2Ld#.jmvj08N13O
narciso (d1f714) — 3/11/2017 @ 6:12 am