The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    QED

    By Flavius on Wed, 01/11/2017 - 6:52pm |

    IMHO in specifying today that the "Illegitimate son of Obama care"  will be passed on the same day as the burial of its oft-mocked predecessor Donald the T is committing that Trumpcare will offer equivalent benefits.

    Particularly since he was extremely clear during the campaign that he agreed with Obamacare's pre existing condition clause.

    Since s

    1 Accepting pre existing conditions is a money loser. In spades.

    2 To offset that loss on (1)  Obamacare  permitted Insurance.Co   to overprice everything else

    3 with UsSGOV  subsidizing  (2).

    QED

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our position should not be :"ha,ha, ha, Mr. President,You've failed."

    Just leave it to Schumer.

     

    FLAVIUS   ______X________________

                       (his mark)

     

    spelling errors  corrected around 9pm 

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Are you calling for activists to openly protest against repealing Obamacare? 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 8:59am

    If that's what Schumer wants.


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 9:41pm

    There will be no Trumpcare. The Freedom Caucus will not vote for a health care bill that requires government to spend money, so Ryan / McConnell would have to cut a deal with Schumer / Pelosi to pass anything (even without a filibuster). But the parties are way too far apart to cut a deal. Democrats will insist on subsidies for the poor and the preexisting conditions rule, but Republicans won't accept a mandate or substantial government spending. Ergo, no deal, no Trumpcare.

    The most likely scenario, imho, is that Congress kills/defunds Obamacare, their attempts to replace it collapse, all hell breaks loose, and we end up back where we were before Obamacare.

    The second most likely (and happier) scenario, imho, is that some Republicans refuse to kill Obamacare without a replacement. Since Congress can't pass a replacement (see paragraph 1), Obamacare stays, perhaps with some face-saving tweaks and a rebranding effort by the Republicans.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 10:27am

    Cogent analysis MW.

    As I said in my post on this, the GOP Job One is to eliminate the taxes on the 2% that fund the ACA. They don't do health plans, and don't care about anyone's health care but their own. And the rich don't need help on it.

    For political purposes the GOP may fund some health insurance with deficit spending at least until 2018.

    Deficit fund it for a while, to cloak the hit to their voters, with help from the 'both sides are to blame'' corporate media, and Fox/Rush, who will blame their health care subterfuge as a bad hangover from the 'disaster' of Obamacare, and 'it could have been worse' if the GOP hadn't acted to repeal ACA....(as they did by blaming liberals for the 2007-08 real estate collapse).

    GOP deficits are OK as they hobble Democrats and government after the GOP crashes the country, and as once a tax is gone, the GOP figures (even if they are big losers in 18 or 20) they can forever block any new tax increase on the wealthy.

    Since Obamacare strongly reinforced the solvency of Medicare, eliminating Obamacare will lead to the GOP next goal to, as Trump now calls it on his website, 'Modernize Medicare'.

    With Trump Sec. Tom Price's Medicare 'plan' to let 65-80+ year olds seek private insurance with a voucher, good at Wall Street for profits.


    by NCD on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 12:30pm

    Yeah, I agree that the taxes are probably the GOP leadership's biggest concern, so I could imagine the scenario you suggest, though I also think it's likely that the Freedom Caucus would shoot down a bill that only cuts the taxes. They want to smoke the whole hog, and they don't like compromise.

    PS I doubt that Medicare privatization will fly. Too much opposition from old folks across the political spectrum.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 5:05pm

    o Trump owes nothing to Ryan/McConnell.

    o He campaigned on eliminating Obamacare 

    o And delivering an Improvement.

    So he will.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 4:47pm

    Congress passes legislation, not the President. He will try to order the Republican lawmakers around, but they don't like him much anyway.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 5:08pm

    Yes and many house and senate republicans were to some degree against Trump in the race, especially Ryan who was hated by hard core Trump supporters. He and even some anti-Trump republicans won anyway and owe nothing to Trump. I don't think Trump has coat tails to help or hinder down ballot republicans. Even less than Obama did


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 5:48pm

    Trump has jobs to be given out, contracts to be given to one firm or another.


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 9:22pm

    And an enormous firm which could provide opportunities for nephews ,aunts and defeated politicians :jobs for the boys , as the saying goes.


    by Flavius on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 9:38pm

    Trump campaigned on a fantastic plan that would cost a fraction of the price of ACA.

    He has no plan. Republicans have no plan and never worked on a plan, except 'choice' you are on your own.

    Trumps mode of operation is to yell at people to do stuff that he has no idea how to do. That is how he runs his businesses.

    The problem is, no Republicans have any experience or motivation to do a health care plan replacement, nonetheless even understand how the US health care system works or is financed.

    Plus they could care less. All their skills lie in taking zero accountability for disasters they inflict, targeting minorities as moochers and rapists, and blaming liberals.


    by NCD on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 10:55pm

    That's bribery. It won't fly even in the age of Trump. The traditional key to pressuring congresspeople is funding: If you want donor/RNC money, you vote the way I tell you to vote. But Trump doesn't have that; his down-ballot fundraising was abysmal. And frankly, threats to withhold funds are less effective against grassroots Tea Party folks, which is why Boehner had a much harder time enforcing discipline than Tom DeLay. 

    The one weapon that Trump has is constituent loyalty and a readiness to attack his fellow Republicans. If he goes hard after some Republican congressperson, he may be able get that person defeated in the primary. But that only works against individuals. If the Freedom Caucus unites against him, it will be very hard for him to shut down the revolt.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 10:28pm

    And part of their brand is to do stuff out of step with thw party leadership. They've been a bit docile of late, but Ryan got shoved in by revolution and they're not happy with him either, and Trump holds less sway with them *if* they're not happy. They want real results, real crazed überconservative policies enacted, not just making Dems look bad. We'll see how Trump does with pleasing *that* base or foisting the blame on someone else.

    Trump's company is about 150 people. His executive experience is really quite limited, and he's certainly never had to balance large numbers of constituents off one another. Obama was also good at playing a Sphynx, an enigma, before he was elected. Once in office, you have to do real stuff or even your inactions are telling and speak volumes.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/12/2017 - 11:43pm

    The other way to pressure congress people to vote was earmarks which were banned in 2011. Unless the republicans decide to remove that ban leadership won't have that to keep the ranks in line. But Trump is the "greatest negotiator" in the world so we'll get to see him in action over the next four years.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/13/2017 - 1:09am

    More carrot than stick, but you're absolutely right. That said, I'm not sure earmarks would have the same effect these days even if they were legal. Earmarks used to be effective because of the old "all politics is local" dictum, but winning handouts for the folks back home is losing importance in this nationalized, hyperpartisan era.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 01/13/2017 - 1:20am