GOP Leaders: We’re Moving on from Health Care
Senate Republican leaders signaled Monday that they intend to move on from health care to other legislative priorities, even as President Trump continued to pressure lawmakers to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
The discord comes amid uncertainty in the insurance industry and on Capitol Hill about what will come next after last week’s dramatic collapse of the GOP’s effort to scrap the seven-year-old landmark law. Trump on Monday threatened to end subsidies to insurers and also took aim at coverage for members of Congress.
But the White House insistence appears to have done little to convince congressional GOP leaders to keep trying. . . .
. . . .
McConnell did not address health care in his remarks opening Senate business on Monday afternoon. His top deputy, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), brushed back comments White House budget director Mick Mulvaney made on CNN on Sunday urging Republicans not to vote on anything else until voting on health care again.
“I don’t think [Mulvaney’s] got much experience in the Senate, as I recall,” said Cornyn as he made his way into the Senate chamber. “And he’s got a big job. He ought to do that job and let us do our job.”
Here’s the problem, Senator: you’re not doing your job.
The arrogance that drips from Cornyn’s statement betrays a failure to understand how important this is to people. Leadership is eager to “move on dot org” from health care. One suspects that their primary concern is that their vaunted August recess might be in danger. Well, the American people would like to “move on dot org” from the rising premiums and degraded service that ObamaCare has brought them. Joe Cato would like to move on from the law that caused him to lose a low-cost and effective plan, replacing it with one that costs four times as much but won’t address his main health issue. But, you see, Senator Cornyn, the victims of ObamaCare can’t move on. They don’t get a nice long cushy August recess. They’re slogging through this misery every day, paying higher premiums every month, even as you check to make sure your plane reservations are in order.
Meanwhile, what is leadership doing to the turncoat Republicans (Murkowski, Portman, Heller, McCain, Alexander, and Capito) who voted for a quasi-repeal bill in 2015 — but voted against it in 2017m once it looked like it might get signed?
Nothing, that’s what. Lisa Murkowski is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senate Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee. That’s a very important position for her. McConnell has not taken it away.
Is McConnell scared she is going to switch parties if he imposes the slightest consequence on her? Well, then, he has no power. He is weak. He should get out.
Lamar Alexander is Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. Maybe even more important to him is his position as Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy and water appropriations. That’s an important position for a senator from Tennessee, home of the Tennessee Valley.
Rob Portman is the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Shelley Moore Capito is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. I could go on, but you get the point. Nothing is being done to these people.
The reaction from leadership is a giant shrug of the shoulders. Oh well. We promised this for seven years, but there’s tax reform and trips home to worry about. Sorry about that. Listen, I’d like to talk about this further, but my plane’s here. Gotta go!
Meanwhile, you, the American citizen struggling with the problems of ObamaCare, are left holding the bag.
Remind me why people hate government again?
[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]
Good post.
Hit the nail on the head of the Republican betrayal of 2017.
http://c2.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Screenshot%202017-07-28%2011.27.11.png
harkin (536957) — 8/1/2017 @ 11:05 amWhy do we loath maverick, it saves tine
https://pjmedia.com/video/the-mainstream-media-celebrates-breathtaking-moment-mccain-killed-obamacare-repeal/
narciso (d1f714) — 8/1/2017 @ 11:18 amdoing their job lol
these sleazy senate pigs are gonna leave the senate in session while they’re on vacation so President Trump can’t make any recess appointments
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/1/2017 @ 11:22 amAs I noted a thread or two back Davidson’s piece in the Federalist on Joe Cato is woefully (willfully?) mistaken on the facts, and terribly misleading. It ultimately does no one any good to write (or to cite and rely upon) such egregiously “faulty” information; it only tends to degrade the appreciation of any points your side has (if any) that merit (or might merit) consideration. (btb, apart from the points I made in my earlier post on this topic, I just spent 5 minutes on healtcare.gov and was informed of the (wholly unsurpising) fact that Joe Cato has/d 10 (ten) plans available to him under Obamacare in 2017 – not one (as falsely asserted by Davidson) – and of course he was/is free to purchase on the “open market” as well.)
Q! (267694) — 8/1/2017 @ 11:49 am@4 Whoops. Look like I mis-linked to the Davidson piece. Here’s another try.
Q! (267694) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:01 pmApologies.
Remind me why people hate government again?
The DMV.
“When you veto someone’s funding that is not a mistake. When you hurt someone intentionally that is not a mistake.” – First Lady Ellen Mitchell [Sigourney Weaver] ‘Dave’ 1993
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:02 pmGreetings:
Me, I’m thinking that they’re ADMITTING moving on from health care. Kabuki theatre can take a toll.
11B40 (6abb5c) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:08 pmFor some reason the jury posting didn’t go through.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:09 pmIf they wanted to repeal Obamacare they would. OK then. Let them live under it for a few months. Implement the law as written. Stop the unlawful subsidies to Congress members and staff. End the unlawful subsidies to insurance companies at year end to allow time for repricing and reinsurance. If they don’t like PPACA as written then get to work.
crazy (11d38b) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:14 pmThey have to wait for the cancer to spark a new Senator from Arizona
Neo (d1c681) — 8/1/2017 @ 12:22 pmWhat makes anyone think they can pass a tax reform bill when they can’t pass a health car bill?
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:07 pmQ: Did Joe Cato’s income go up?
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:07 pmObamacare’s apologists say things like “Sure the costs went up, but so do the subsidies”, either not caring about those who make more than the fixed ceiling for subsidies, or being totally ignorant that it matters.
Since the costs have skyrocketed and the subsidies do not rise with age (but the costs DO), there are families who are paying a third of their PRE-TAX income on Bronze-level premiums. If they get sick, they still have to meet the deductibles and co-pays.
But of course, the Democrats know that working people, particularly working boomer-age people, vote Republican, and have since Reagan. The Dems’ constituents are increasingly young and clueless, or deadbeats of any age. Why the GOP feels the need to pander to these groups is beyond me.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:16 pmI just spent 5 minutes on healtcare.gov and was informed of the (wholly unsurpising) fact that Joe Cato has/d 10 (ten) plans available to him under Obamacare in 2017
It’s by zipcode, not state. There are zipcodes with no plans.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:18 pmWhat a Load! WSJ…knee-pad PR puff piece..”How’s your golf game?”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/trump-wall-street-journal-interview-full-transcript-241214
Ben burn (a4adef) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:25 pm@14. Of course I used Waxhaw’s zipcode.
@12. Huh? How would I know? How would anyone who read the article? (And why do you ask?, if I may ask)
Q! (267694) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:31 pmCongressmen and their staff get a 73 % subsidy on their health care thanks to an Obama executive order.
Trump can cancel all subsidies if he wants.
AZ Bob (728e29) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:44 pmHere’s an extreme example showing WHY Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all regime doesn’t work:
A 60yo couple, living in Nome, AK, and making $64K/year (slightly above the subsidy cut-off), would pay $37,680 (PRE-TAX) per year for the cheapest available plan (Bronze HSA) from the ONE company offering plans. On top of that is the $5250 per person deductible and the $6500 per person max OOP.
So, almost 60% of their pre-tax income goes to premiums. Drugs and most other medical coverage doesn’t kick in until they’ve spent another $10,500 as a family. They could well spend over $50,000 on medical care under the “Affordable Care Act”, even though they are “insured.”
The ACA has no provision for escalating costs, either the predictable ones related to age, or the only-slightly less predictable ones related to geography.
Now, someone making $62,000 in exactly the same circumstances, would pay about $8000 (instead of $36,800) for Silver coverage with lower deductibles.
There is a point where an additional DOLLAR of income comes with the loss of nearly $30,000 in REFUNDABLE tax credits to a 60yo couple living in Nome.
Data: https://www.legalconsumer.com/obamacare/rates.php?FIPS=02180
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:48 pmCongressmen and their staff get a 73 % subsidy on their health care thanks to an Obama executive order.
Trump can cancel all subsidies if he wants.
It might get their minds right if they spent a night in the box.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:51 pmBTW, Murkowski voted NO on the Senate bills because they would have made the examples in #18 WORSE.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:54 pmHealthcare annual cost increases were the bullhorn for single payer, but you wanted your marketplace too so you hobbled the healthcare half-measure to assure it’s failure. Your the ones who complain that making love to you your wife is like sex with a dead person, and you’re the one that killed her!
Ben burn (a4adef) — 8/1/2017 @ 1:54 pmCongressmen and their staff are employees of the federal government and should be given roughly the same coverage as any other federal employee. Anything else is singling them out because you don’t like them.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:02 pm> the Democrats know that working people, particularly working boomer-age people, vote Republican
Depends on their race and ethnicity.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:04 pmIf only we had a president who could communicate the specifics of absurd situations like that, and make a clear, compelling case why people would be better off under an alternative…
Dave (445e97) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:12 pmI am no expert, but is it the “pre-existing conditions” coverage that makes things this crazy?
I would be interested to know what a similarly-situated couple would have had to pay before Obamacare.
I mean, 60-year old people often DO require extensive medical treatment, hospital stays, surgeries, etc. There is no way the system can, on average, charge people less than what they will cost in covered charges.
Dave (445e97) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:22 pm25. Dave (445e97) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:22 pm
Actually it’s high prices for medical care that makes this crazy.
You could also say the pre-existing condition of being age 60, which is partly taken into account.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/1/2017 @ 2:45 pm“There is no way the system can, on average, charge people less than what they will cost in covered charges.”
But that is exactly what Obamacare does do for people who are subsidized, they are charged less than the costs and the taxpayers who are paying for their own coverage also get stuck collectively paying for the people who are subsidized.
All because the government and the MSM have convinced them that health care is a right instead of a personal responsibility.
The one thing that most people have not realized is that these exorbitant prices and degree of freeloading is no way sustainable. It’s going to implode. It’s like saying “let’s run health insurance the way the Dems have run Illinois”.
harkin (c0421f) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:04 pmTo say it’s a failure to “understand” misses the point – and gives Senator Cornyn far too much credit. Senator Cornyn is doing his job. He’s doing the job he’s paid to do by K Street, which just doesn’t happen to be the one he’s been elected to do by voters in Texas. Follow the money.
The reason that you’ll see no retribution is that Murkowski, Portman, Heller, McCain et al. took one for the GOPe. They are not the enemy of the leadership; anything but. They are simply the Senators who are most likely to survive the betrayal at the voting booth, providing cover to those Senators with more principled constituents. If these duplicitous Senators are replaced at the ballot box, which for most of them is at least 3 years off, with more principled conservatives, other RINO Senators will take their place nixing future conservative reforms by casting just enough votes to stymie conservative progress. This is the game. This is the reason that condemnation of Ted Cruz for pulling back the curtain was almost unanimous. They are almost all in on it.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:08 pmbut only one cowardly war hero p.o.s. has created a whole soros-funded club dedicated to screwing the voters
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:19 pmand it’s not Ted Cruz that’s for sure
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:20 pm“There is no way the system can, on average, charge people less than what they will cost in covered charges.”
That’s the problem. These “costs” are not natural.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:22 pmMaverick had the Six of his cronies. He voted NO to cover for the others who wanted to, but feared retribution from their voting base. He made sure to vote out of standard order, and last, as their ace in the hole.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:28 pmAn example of how people lose individual policy coverage:
Today, Anthem Blue Cross announced they would no longer offer ACA plans in California in 2018. If the old rules applied, people with Anthem would have to requalify with another provider and if they had developed an illness, SOL for them.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-covered-california-hike-20170801-story.html
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:45 pmWe really shouldn’t be so hard on these dissenters. They all act very Senatorial and we all know just how important appearances are.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:46 pmmy favorite was how Mr. “regular order” war hero turns around not a week later and cries like a little b-word because Mr. Senator Paul wants to do regular order on the pentagon piggy-sloppin bill
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:51 pmAs these company withdrawals snowball (I expect that more will quit in the next few weeks) the pressure on the GOP in Congress is going to be unbearable. You take away health insurance from people over 50, who all vote, or people with kids, and they will PUNISH you at the polls.
Now, sure, I’d like to hear the GOP make the case that it’s a Democrat refusal to come to the table that is causing this, but 1) the table seems to be GOP-only, and 2) the next decent PR campaign out of this bunch will be the first.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:54 pmOne man. So many standards.
No hobgoblins there.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:57 pmCan’t there be something in your quiver besides ‘failure will never subside!”. Show some frontal lobe for Jesus sake.
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 8/1/2017 @ 3:59 pmAsk yourself, WWJD?
Oh wait.s/b what would Caligula do?
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:01 pm2) the next decent PR campaign out of this bunch will be the first.
If only the GOP had a party leader who seemed to understand the nuances of healthcare legislation and could speak cogently and succinctly on reform ideas such as medical savings accounts, market-based solutions, tort reform, and other ideas that Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself here) generally ignore. But no, we have Super Tweeter instead who can barely crank out 140 characters before his ADHD takes him off somewhere else to do battle with his perceived enemies.
JVW (42615e) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:14 pmReally. You guys go nuthin
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:21 pmGot…got nuttin’..no way..no day.
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:22 pm“If only the GOP had a party leader who seemed to understand the nuances of healthcare legislation and could speak cogently and succinctly on reform ideas such as medical savings accounts . . .”
Do you really think having our own Jimmy Carter in the White House would make any difference at all? Reagan was not a wonk, which explains much about his defeat of Carter and his many successes while in office.
And of the 16 other contenders, just how many do you think posses such intellectual interest, let alone facility, you are speaking of?
Finally, this is not about nuance, but, instead, about raw political power. That’s why McCain’s “reach across the aisle” rhetoric is so laughable.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:28 pm> “There is no way the system can, on average, charge people less than what they will cost in covered charges.”
> But that is exactly what Obamacare does do for people who are subsidized, they are charged less than the costs and the taxpayers who are paying for their own coverage also get stuck collectively paying for the people who are subsidized.
This is what ALL INSURANCE does: it charges the people who need the thing being insured less than the full cost of providing the covered service, and uses the money it gets from other people who are coverde for the same services but don’t need the service right now.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:39 pmKevin M, at 33:
From the perspective of a liberal, I xepect conservatives to be fine with the people in question having to requalify; they made a bad choice of insurance carriers and if they lose coverage because their carrier has gone out of business, well, they should have made better choices.
*Maybe* because they were induced into this bad choice by the government, they should therefore be protected from the side effects of it — but if they’d chosen a carrier absent government interference and the carrier went under, why wouldn’t conservatives expect them to have to requalify and accept the consequences of their poor decision making?
(From my perspective they *shouldn’t*, whether the insurance company went under because of government interference or not, and whether they chose that company because of government inducements are not. But how do conservative principles achieve that result?)
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 4:43 pmDo you really think conservatives are that heartless? Apparently so.
DRJ (15874d) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:26 pmThe entire market has been impacted by this monstrous legislation. To expect people to know how to protect themselves from it when liberal legislators tied their hands is equally bad, and it’s all because of the liberals who imposed it on us.
DRJ (15874d) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:29 pmSuper post. standing ovation Patterico
mg (31009b) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:38 pmThe party of stupid will definitely have fewer people in d.c. come 2018. These are the dumbest sons of itches in my lifetime.
mg (31009b) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:41 pm44 – “This is what ALL INSURANCE does: it charges the people who need the thing being insured less than the full cost of providing the covered service, and uses the money it gets from other people who are coverde for the same services but don’t need the service right now.”
Ridiculous analogy.
In insurance pools, everyone pays in. In Obamacare you’re charged based on how needy the govt determines you to be. If you’re extra-not needy, you get slammed. It’s a progressive tax except those on or near the bottom profit.
Name me one insurance company that has the right to bill one person twice so it can cover two people.
Name me another insurance company where a customer can’t say “f*** this” and go somewhere else because they aren’t satisfied with price/service.
harkin (c0421f) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:42 pmDRJ: I have been told by conservatives that people should take responsibility for their own choices in cases that strike me as being every bit as unfair as the one I just laid out. I don’t understand how *conservatives* differentiate between cases that seem analagous to me.
The one that’s coming to mind for me is people who lose their health care because their employer goes out of business; i’ve been told *to my face* by conservatives that, however much that might suck, it’s their responsibility for not seeing the going-out-of-business coming and getting themselves a new job first.
How is it different?
I acknowledge that it’s possible that the people saying things like my second paragraph aren’t representative of conservatives at large. But … this use of “personal responsibility” to hold people accountable for environmental factors beyond their control comes up *commonly*, in my experience.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 6:12 pmDRJ, at 47: *Absent* the government interference in the market, do you think it would be reasonable to expect people to be able to figure out how to protect themselves from it?
My sense is that for most people, this isn’t a realistic expectation.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 6:13 pmHARKIN: I am not saying that Obamacare is exactly the same thing as private insurance; that would be ridiculous.
I’m saying that insurance *always* uses money from people-who-do-not-currently-need-service to pay for people-who-currently-need-service, and that complaining about Obamacare on the grounds that it does this is fundamentally unreasonable, as that’s essential to how insurance works.
If your complaint is that Obamacare changes the *way* that healthy people subsidize unhealthy people in an unfair way, that’s a perfectly reasonable complaint. If your complaint is that Obamacare makes healthy people subsidize unhealthy people, that’s an unreasonable complaint.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2017 @ 6:15 pmpeople should take responsibility for their own choices
obamacare is designed to deny people choice and to severely delimit the choices it leaves them
it’s a fascist harvardtrash nightmare thrice blessed:
obscene pervert Mitt Romney
soros-fellator Barack Obama
and berobed constitution-molestor John Roberts
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/1/2017 @ 6:23 pm“obamacare is designed to deny people choice and to severely delimit the choices it leaves them”
Choice is a dirty word to liberals unless you wish to terminate a fetus or insist genetics and anatomy have nothing to with gender.
Denying choice and compulsion to purchase something for someone else is only method.
Obamacare’s goal is to put millions of people under greater control of the government, increasing government power.
It’s also a scheme to get greater control over every citizen’s assets.
It’s also a scheme to unionize the fast-growing sector of home health care workers, and by so doing channel their dues to Democratic Party coffers.
It’s lose, lose, lose and people who should know better are begging for it.
harkin (c0421f) — 8/1/2017 @ 7:12 pm@43
Reagan could explain specific benefits of his policies (and the undesirable consequences of the alternatives) persuasively, in ways people understood. He may not have been a policy wonk, but he did his homework, unlike the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
How many others were ignorant, incoherent bull-sh!tters unable to digest a white-paper or complete a sentence? None that I recall. Doing a better job than Trump has done is an extremely low bar, and would hardly require Reagan-level eloquence. Whether an engaged and credible president (leveraging their honeymoon period without an endless series of self-defeating own-goals) could have prevailed, we’ll never know.
“Political power” is earned. McCain would have voted for (and did vote for) a coherent replacement plan; he voted against both “‘repeal’ and leave the system broken” bills. I believe both Murkowski and maybe Collins would have been swayed by a groundswell of support from inside their states. There were red-state Democrats that should have been targeted too. But Trump made it easy for Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester, etc. to vote no on everything.
Dave (445e97) — 8/1/2017 @ 7:19 pmIf only the GOP had a party leader who seemed to understand the nuances of healthcare legislation
Someone should tell Paul Ryan that the 140 character limit no longer counts attachments. So, he can tweet a whole raft of policy presentations to those that are interested.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:17 pmBut how do conservative principles achieve that result
By treating it as unfair dealing. Conservatives are not opposed to ALL regulation. For example, they have no problem with requiring public companies to report financials accurately and truthfully.
If insurance companies can periodically shed unprofitable clients (everyone eventually gets sick) by temporarily withdrawing from markets, and they do this as a plan, it’s fraud. And if it is ALLOWED, sooner or later they will do it.
You could say, in some kind of Libertarian spirit, that if they do that no one would sign up with them again, but there is far less freedome in the medical marketplace that you might expect. You want to have Sloan-Kettering on your list of “oh, sh1t” backup hospitals, should you get cancer? Well, you better sign up with a company that covers them. Repeat that process a few times, and the “choices” diminish.
And so, we have rules. Obamacare did not happen in a vacuum. The insurers’ brought it on themselves with their “Prisoner’s Dilemma” gamesmanship. That Obamacare was a truly crappy solution to the problem does not mean there wasn’t a problem/
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:25 pmThis is what ALL INSURANCE does: it charges the people who need the thing being insured less than the full cost of providing the covered service, and uses the money it gets from other people who are coverde for the same services but don’t need the service right now.
No, it does not. Actual insurance (as opposed to prepaid medical) simply limits loss. I give you this premium and you agree that, for the stated period of time, my loss is limited to X.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:30 pmAnd of the 16 other contenders, just how many do you think posses such intellectual interest, let alone facility, you are speaking of?
I would venture to guess the answer would be 16 of them. Their ability to discuss healthcare and make conservative points would vary candidate to candidate, of course. I would imagine that Ted Cruz would probably do an excellent job of it, Rand Paul would have very provocative things to say, Carly Fiorina would be well-versed in the issue. But we elected the guy who is probably the least curious about policy and whose instincts aren’t reliably conservative (he has spoken favorably in the past about single payer and he grandiosely promised that we would replace Obamacare with something even more lavish). We got the guy who ranks #17 on the list, and look how that’s played out.
JVW (42615e) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:30 pmI will grant you that President Trump couldn’t argue his way out of a box on matters of substance. By contrast, President Reagan was a man of extraordinary persuasive skills, though that had far more to do with his long resume in positions that required polished communication than with any facility with facts. So how did we wind up with such a poor advocate in the White House?
We wound up with him in large part because his critics were never interested in engaging candidate Trump on matters of substance. Not the other candidates, not the debate moderators, and not most of those who interviewed Trump. Their focus was – and is – matters the President’s style and not substance. The national debates were imbecilic name calling sessions in which all partook. President Trump distinguished himself as the most capable name caller and walked away with public support. Because the name calling continues to this day, he retains a remarkable level of support. President Trump couldn’t be luckier that his critics are incapable of learning from their embarrassing past mistakes. The lesson here isn’t what an embarrassment Trump is. The lesson is what an embarrassment his critics are.
The silver lining to all this is that Donald Trump isn’t just another too-cleaver-by-half pol. President Trump’s path for the past half-year has been to do his best to put in place his conservative campaign promises. At this he has distinguished himself. It is something for which we should all be grateful.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:31 pmOf course, the pool that the insurer covers is important. And, in the old system, certain pernicious effects distorted the pools. An example:
1. All new customers have to be offered the same prices for the same policies, modified by age.
2. All current customers have a right to renew, regardless of health, at the same prices as a new customer of their age.
After a period of time, the number of ill customers increases — everyone gets sick if you wait long enough. They aren’t going anywhere. They can’t. Prices rise for all, as the pool has more risk.
A new company comes into town without this baggage. They offer lower rates. The first company’s HEALTHY customers defect. This raises the rates for the remaining customers, and more healthy customer defect. At some point the original company says “we cannot make money in this state” and withdraw from the market, or their state subsidiary goes bust, or some such thing.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:38 pmWe got the guy who ranks #17 on the list
That high?
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:39 pmWe wound up with him in large part because his critics were never interested in engaging candidate Trump on matters of substance. Not the other candidates, not the debate moderators, and not most of those who interviewed Trump.
I mostly agree with you there, ThOR, though I don’t fault the other candidates for this as much as you do. Some of the other candidates like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all but begged that the campaign — especially the debates — were so focused on personalities instead of policy. Remember Cruz taking the moderators to task for their stupid questions at one of the debates?
JVW (42615e) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:47 pmThe “free market” solution is to remove the legal Balkanization of the insurance market (groups, individuals, indigent, elderly) and make it one big pool. Everyone is eligible, although there is a big penalty for entering the system at other-than-normal points (e.g. age 26 or whatever). You can change plans and problems are subrogated among companies. Everything is priced by age and zip code. Some (indigent, elderly) may get government help. But they still pick the company and plan that makes most sense for them.
The companies no longer have any incentive to cherry-pick (they can’t) and some may even offer services especially tailored to the ill (narrow coverage, but at the best hospitals). Or the Catholic (no abortion charge, maternity coverage, etc). Or to the young and healthy (e.g. very high deductible catastrophic plans).
It would be a lot freer than the system ante or now, that’s for sure.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:50 pmwere so focused on personalities instead of policy
This is because their VIEWERS don’t give two sh1ts about policy, they want a catfight. They will never admit it, of course, but that’s what they want. Most citizens can tell you which movie star is married to whom, but could not name one of their Senators, or any Supreme Court justice (remember Justice Hamburger?) for their life.
So, the reporters try to turn it into a wrestling match, and Trump excelled at that. Logic, consistency, truth? Not important.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:55 pmJVW,
I like the drama of over-generalized arguments.
Of course, you are right.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 9:04 pmFor future reference, this graphic from the NYT shows concisely who voted for, and against, each of the three senate health care bills.
Five out of the six “turncoats” (as Patterico has labelled them) voted for at least one of the repeal and/or replace bills (Murkowski and Collins were the only GOP senators to vote against all three proposals).
Dave (445e97) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:32 amYes but the top men, settled for these moderators, so they tupolev’d themselves
narciso (d1f714) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:47 am65. Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:50 pm
Yes they can, a bit subtly.
By advertising. By having seminars at places you have to drive to some distance.
Sammy Finkelman (f9508d) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:09 amMR. BAKER: What have you been doing, Mr. President, sort of behind the scenes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: A lot. A lot.
Good to know! Then we got Trump’s thoughts on taxes:
I want to achieve growth. We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have – nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, 2 ½ trillion (dollars), right, when the most elegant person – right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. But at that time I was talking $2 ½ trillion. I guess it’s 5 trillion (dollars) now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore.
Who is Mr Elegant? Lester Holt? Then this:
You know, a lot of people say – they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have.
It’s amazing! They have so many people! Then this about trade talks with Britain:
WSJ: Can you tell us more about what’s going on?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, but I can say that we’re going to be very involved with the U.K. I mean, you don’t hear the word Britain anymore. It’s very interesting. It’s like, nope.
Wut? Then this about NAFTA:
WSJ: What are you looking for specifically –
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m looking for fairness.
WSJ: But what does that – can you give an example?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it means – look, our automobile industry has just left us and gone to Mexico – I mean, a big chunk of it. And it’s very unfair for them to take our companies, build their cars, and then sell the car back into our country with no tax. It’s very unfair. They fire all our people in Michigan and Ohio, and they take it, and they build a car. And now they sell the car back in with no tax. It’s not fair.
This demonstrates Trump’s famous command of detail. In just this one interview, in fact, Trump demonstrated that he knows nothing about (a) health care, (b) taxes, (c) trade in general, and (d) NAFTA in particular. On none of these subjects could he dredge up more than the vaguest generalities. It’s like watching a middle-schooler trying to bluff his way through a book report on a book he hasn’t read.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:14 am65. Kevin M (752a26) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:50 pm
Not just indigent, not just elderly. Anyone who is uninsurable at a low rate, which should be equal to 2/3 of the tax credit.
There also must be a doughnut hole, and a way for everyone to fill it, possibly by postponing normal Social Security retirement date.
Sammy Finkelman (f9508d) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:24 amHarkin: I’m a liberal. I don’t think choice is a dirty word, and I think that your claim that I do misstates the real liberal position, which is that “choice” is illusory in a lot of cases, that things which appear like choices from the outside are in fact often forced on people by their circumstances and environment.
Kevin: your answer subtly changed the premise, in a way that I think may be illustrative. *Your* premise is that the company is temporarily withdrawing from markets to shed unprofitable customers and that if they make a pattern of this, it’s essentially a variant of fraud.
That’s fine, but I don’t think that’s the premise I was looking at. You’re talking about a company which is trying to game the system. My concern is for the person who is horribly hosed because their insurance company unexpectedly goes out of business.
aphrael (3f0569) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:52 amNo appalled this,is the way was designed as onbama,confessed to Iowa state primary goers so there would be no other choice.
narciso (5b8e39) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:59 amIn Obamacare you’re charged based on how needy the govt determines you to be. If you’re extra-not needy, you get slammed. It’s a progressive tax except those on or near the bottom profit.
Name me one insurance company that has the right to bill one person twice so it can cover two people.
Name me another insurance company where a customer can’t say “f*** this” and go somewhere else because they aren’t satisfied with price/service.
50. harkin (c0421f) — 8/1/2017 @ 5:42 pm
The people who are extra-not needy don’t get slammed – they get taxed extra, but it doesn’t bear any relation to the health nsurance they have.
It’s the people just above the needy level who get slammed.
Not to mention that means testing is very pernicious.
The big problem is that medical costs have risen to such high levels that most people can’t afford them. Some people, maybe ost people in Congress, don’t want to face up to that.
The root cause is third party payments. Insurance. Not that it makes sense getting rid of insurance.
The difficult task is to design a system where so many people have “skin in the game” that it affects how providers act, but in addition to “skin in the game” they must have the ability to pay for things, and with the additional condition that you cannot give everyone equal or minimum amount of money (like with food stamps) because people have vastly different medical needs.
Sammy Finkelman (f9508d) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:32 am61. ThOR (c9324e) — 8/1/2017 @ 8:31 pm
I think they weren’t capable. Trump managed to elect ideas that nobody else would endorse, but also nobody would argue against. Part of it was hoping to inherit his supporters.
Sammy Finkelman (f9508d) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:41 am*select ideas.
Like extreme vetting. Or Mexico paying for a wall.
Sammy Finkelman (f9508d) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:43 amSethRichAwan…
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/how-close-was-the-white-house-to-foxs-fake-seth-rich-story.html
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:47 amTrump managed to elect ideas that nobody else would endorse, but also nobody would argue against.
In fact, most of his “outrageous” ideas were simply stretching mainstream GOP discourse to their maximum. Arguing against vetting refugees? Arguing against making the border as secure as possible? The only argument that could be offered would be on grounds of logistical impossibility, but not on principle.
kishnevi (2f2588) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:51 am