That's a strong statement and no matter what happens, I don't expect the Democrat's to capture hardcore GOP voters without an Economic message that will appeal to them.
But, when I read newspapers in GOP districts from states that expanded Medicaid, I see GOP congressman discussing their concerns that TrumpRyanCare doesn't create a system that will work for the working poor and lower middle class when it is fully implemented. Because these peoples jobs almost certainly do not last forever, and may or may not provide them with health insurance, they move on and off of Medicaid over time. TrumpRyanCare would not cover them once they left the rolls in 2020.
Meanwhile, hard core Conservatives who dominate the alt-right media channels are against anything that falls short of a full repeal of ObamaCare and a return to misery for many that the pre-ObamaCare generated.
Reading the WAPO today was like reading war stories with words as the weapon of choice.
It is too much too hope for, perhaps, but is it possible the GOP cracks up over the American Health Care Act, aka TrumpRyanCare, and cannot be stitched back together before the 2018 election and the voters actually decide they want to throw the bums out and elect a Democratic Congress?
Maybe that thought will make my dreams more pleasant tonight.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Purity vs Irony
That seems better than Purism vs Ironism.
Anyway, David Brooks study of philosophy has finally found a path back to reality. It is a bit funny that he published his column today as RSL has gotten politically active (beyond voting) and I went to an ACLU teach in event on practical ways to be involved. At the end, many people bolted and a few stayed on to talk, as well was partake in the wine and vittles the host had provided. As anyone who knows me, wine and munchies are all I need to be the last one at a party.
The discussion meandered around, but I finally got to make my point that Democrats need to find ways to back off on social issues, and I specifically mentioned the issue of baking cakes for a gay wedding. We went quickly to the difficult issue of how is religious discrimination against gays different from white discrimination against blacks. At one level, I agree it is not. Thankfully, the sponsor, who is am attorney, made a coherent case that constitutionally protection of religious belief is on an equal footing with an individual's right to buy something from someone. And if the latter person has alternative places to make their purchase, they have not been harmed. What makes this situation different from racism is that is conducted on an individual level and not at a societal/legality level.
In fact, I can now see the logic why Orthodox Religious people feel their religion is not being respected and I certainly understand why they would vote that issue over any economic issue that caused them harm. If a Democrat wants some of their votes, the discussion must be moved off of religion.
If Democrat's wants to win in a district where a significant number of voters are religious (which is a significant part of the country), they have to acknowledge that once social issues have been won at the societal/legal level, you stop trying to do anything beyond protecting the issue at that level and you let individuals figure it out at the very local level. If there is some rude behavior and sensitivities are harmed, well that occurs in life and we all have to get over it and move on with our life. Buy your wedding cake at a place that welcomes your business.
Anyway, David Brook's column on this issue is worth reading.
The Benedict Option
Anyway, David Brooks study of philosophy has finally found a path back to reality. It is a bit funny that he published his column today as RSL has gotten politically active (beyond voting) and I went to an ACLU teach in event on practical ways to be involved. At the end, many people bolted and a few stayed on to talk, as well was partake in the wine and vittles the host had provided. As anyone who knows me, wine and munchies are all I need to be the last one at a party.
The discussion meandered around, but I finally got to make my point that Democrats need to find ways to back off on social issues, and I specifically mentioned the issue of baking cakes for a gay wedding. We went quickly to the difficult issue of how is religious discrimination against gays different from white discrimination against blacks. At one level, I agree it is not. Thankfully, the sponsor, who is am attorney, made a coherent case that constitutionally protection of religious belief is on an equal footing with an individual's right to buy something from someone. And if the latter person has alternative places to make their purchase, they have not been harmed. What makes this situation different from racism is that is conducted on an individual level and not at a societal/legality level.
In fact, I can now see the logic why Orthodox Religious people feel their religion is not being respected and I certainly understand why they would vote that issue over any economic issue that caused them harm. If a Democrat wants some of their votes, the discussion must be moved off of religion.
If Democrat's wants to win in a district where a significant number of voters are religious (which is a significant part of the country), they have to acknowledge that once social issues have been won at the societal/legal level, you stop trying to do anything beyond protecting the issue at that level and you let individuals figure it out at the very local level. If there is some rude behavior and sensitivities are harmed, well that occurs in life and we all have to get over it and move on with our life. Buy your wedding cake at a place that welcomes your business.
Anyway, David Brook's column on this issue is worth reading.
The Benedict Option
Friday, March 10, 2017
David Brooks further Outlines the Battle Lines
I'm going to have to reread this to try and have an idea of what campaign themes the Democrats can use to keep the base mollified while attracting back rural FDWVFT.
FDWVFT: Former Democrats Who Voted For Trump
Link to Brooks "The GOP Health Care Crackup"
FDWVFT: Former Democrats Who Voted For Trump
Link to Brooks "The GOP Health Care Crackup"
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Is King Donald's Administration Imploding?
Perhaps on the policy front. Click through on the link to Jennifer Rubin's column today. I have to admit for someone who is a conservative (she hated everything Obama and loved everything Bush II), she has consistently stood against King Donald.
Link to column explaining why the White House has no concrete policies in motion
Link to column explaining why the White House has no concrete policies in motion
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
GOP Health Insurance: Bring Back State Run Death Panels
The cruelty of the GOP towards people without wealth is stunning. I know they think society cannot afford to reward lackadaisical and irresponsible behaviors, but for people to participate in society in a responsible way they have to have hope and a stake in our system. The greed grab going on in the GOP agenda with everything aimed at reducing taxes on the 1% is unbelievable.
Today's 1st section of the paper was a mind-blowing insight into this cruelty. Legal immigrants crossing the border into Canada fleeing this land that used to welcome the tired, hungry and poor. Now they take a taxi to the border, hop a creek and welcome the warmth of a Canadian Border Patrol car. There was no story about the breaking up of families because one parent is not here legally, but the rest are. Where is the GOP angst about single parent families and the less than optimal societal behavior that results (in their mind) from single parent families? Where is their focus on family values? In the gutter of hypocrisy. The only family values that matter to them is prohibiting things they do not agree with, and trashing family values that they oppose.
And then I moved on to analysis of the GOP Health Insurance. Back in the good old days before the ACA, States determined which procedures they would cover for people on Medicaid. That generally did not involve new technology. So as new procedures and process developed for serious illness, people on Medicaid were denied access to this new stuff. So when you have a block grant to the states for Medicaid, states will be forced by the design of the system to develop death panels. Where is Sarah Palin when you need her. I guess this falls into the gutter of hypocrisy for some GOP leaders.
Link to column explaining Necessity of Death Panels in GOP Construct
Link to Editorial highlighting Cruelty and loss of insurance coverage in GOP Construct
Link to Ross Douthat Explaining a Political Fatal Flaw in GOP Health Insurance
Today's 1st section of the paper was a mind-blowing insight into this cruelty. Legal immigrants crossing the border into Canada fleeing this land that used to welcome the tired, hungry and poor. Now they take a taxi to the border, hop a creek and welcome the warmth of a Canadian Border Patrol car. There was no story about the breaking up of families because one parent is not here legally, but the rest are. Where is the GOP angst about single parent families and the less than optimal societal behavior that results (in their mind) from single parent families? Where is their focus on family values? In the gutter of hypocrisy. The only family values that matter to them is prohibiting things they do not agree with, and trashing family values that they oppose.
And then I moved on to analysis of the GOP Health Insurance. Back in the good old days before the ACA, States determined which procedures they would cover for people on Medicaid. That generally did not involve new technology. So as new procedures and process developed for serious illness, people on Medicaid were denied access to this new stuff. So when you have a block grant to the states for Medicaid, states will be forced by the design of the system to develop death panels. Where is Sarah Palin when you need her. I guess this falls into the gutter of hypocrisy for some GOP leaders.
Link to column explaining Necessity of Death Panels in GOP Construct
Link to Editorial highlighting Cruelty and loss of insurance coverage in GOP Construct
Link to Ross Douthat Explaining a Political Fatal Flaw in GOP Health Insurance
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Fatal Flaw in House GOP Health Insurance Proposal
In my mind the biggest problem with the ACA, aka Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare, is that for people who are not on Medicaid/getting a subsidy to pay for health insurance, it is expensive for most people who do not have employer paid health insurance.
But remember the old system wasn't inexpensive. When I last worked in 2011, I was paying roughly $400 a month for health insurance with a 3,000 or 4,000 deductible and a higher max out-of-pocket. My friend, RedStateVT, was in the individual market paying roughly $200 a month for a family policy, but with a 25,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket. And the Federal Government was paying $billions to hospitals to compensate them for providing health care to people with no health insurance, while they jacked up the price to insured people for the same reason. In our economy, everyone needs to cover their costs at a minimum. That remains true today.
So, now we see the House GOP plan. People with pre-existing conditions get health insurance at the same price as everybody else if they have maintained insurance coverage. And people without pre-existing conditions can go uninsured with no penalty and sign up for health insurance when they are good and ready at no penalty if at that moment they do not have a pre-existing condition. Do you really think people will not game this system to sign up for health insurance when they know they have something coming up? Do you really think the Hospitals will not have to deal with uninsured patients who come in after an accident? Do you know that cancer can strike anyone of any age at any time, potentially, and where will they go for treatment?
I know the GOP thinks the later group should suffer financially for their folly, but lets get on to the fatal flaw.
Tax Credits are only a benefit if you work and occur in the 1st 4 months of the year following the year in which you are seeking health insurance. In the current system, with the requirement that everybody have health insurance, where the insurance company can make a profit in NY costs a full paying individual $500 a month with a $6,000 deductible, max-out-of-pocket.
How is a $4,000 tax credit in April following the year of cash out-flow going to motivate a low/middle income person to pay $6,000 (individual) to $12,000 (family) plus deductibles when they make $40,000 a year pre-tax, 28,000 after-tax and have to pay for rent, food, car, clothes? No one will pay 40% of their take home for health insurance no matter what the tax credit is.
And once you have uninsured who is going to subsidize the hospitals for their treatment?
And what happens when the tax credit expires in 2020 or whatever the House GOP stuck in the bill?
Their plan is not a functional plan that will maintain coverage for everyone who has it today nor will it lower the price of health insurance for those who are full payers today.
To quote King Donald, "Health Insurance is unbelievably complicated." My reaction to that was, where has he been if he just figured that out? And he calls himself the smartest person he knows. He is delusional, but any more ranting on that point will have to wait for another time.
But remember the old system wasn't inexpensive. When I last worked in 2011, I was paying roughly $400 a month for health insurance with a 3,000 or 4,000 deductible and a higher max out-of-pocket. My friend, RedStateVT, was in the individual market paying roughly $200 a month for a family policy, but with a 25,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket. And the Federal Government was paying $billions to hospitals to compensate them for providing health care to people with no health insurance, while they jacked up the price to insured people for the same reason. In our economy, everyone needs to cover their costs at a minimum. That remains true today.
So, now we see the House GOP plan. People with pre-existing conditions get health insurance at the same price as everybody else if they have maintained insurance coverage. And people without pre-existing conditions can go uninsured with no penalty and sign up for health insurance when they are good and ready at no penalty if at that moment they do not have a pre-existing condition. Do you really think people will not game this system to sign up for health insurance when they know they have something coming up? Do you really think the Hospitals will not have to deal with uninsured patients who come in after an accident? Do you know that cancer can strike anyone of any age at any time, potentially, and where will they go for treatment?
I know the GOP thinks the later group should suffer financially for their folly, but lets get on to the fatal flaw.
Tax Credits are only a benefit if you work and occur in the 1st 4 months of the year following the year in which you are seeking health insurance. In the current system, with the requirement that everybody have health insurance, where the insurance company can make a profit in NY costs a full paying individual $500 a month with a $6,000 deductible, max-out-of-pocket.
How is a $4,000 tax credit in April following the year of cash out-flow going to motivate a low/middle income person to pay $6,000 (individual) to $12,000 (family) plus deductibles when they make $40,000 a year pre-tax, 28,000 after-tax and have to pay for rent, food, car, clothes? No one will pay 40% of their take home for health insurance no matter what the tax credit is.
And once you have uninsured who is going to subsidize the hospitals for their treatment?
And what happens when the tax credit expires in 2020 or whatever the House GOP stuck in the bill?
Their plan is not a functional plan that will maintain coverage for everyone who has it today nor will it lower the price of health insurance for those who are full payers today.
To quote King Donald, "Health Insurance is unbelievably complicated." My reaction to that was, where has he been if he just figured that out? And he calls himself the smartest person he knows. He is delusional, but any more ranting on that point will have to wait for another time.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Trump Blames Obama, What is Trump Hiding?
Donald Trump thinks he can go back to the well and pull up another falsehood that will somehow save him. After all, he made his political mark by accusing President Obama of being born in Kenya, not a citizen and being a Muslim. Trump has barely admitted that all of that was wrong. Now, in some desperate move, he accuses Retired President Obama of directing that Trump Tower be wiretapped.
It is a base fact that for that to happen would require a Judge to authorize such thing based upon some evidence that illegal actions were taking place in such a location. In other words, either King Donald is making something up out of thin air to distract from something he is trying to hide, or there were illegal actions taking place somewhere in the Trump Tower.
Neither is pretty condition for the President of the United States to be in.
When will the GOP Congress have enough of this? I for one am ready for President Mike Pence so we can do back to arguing over policies, not crap like this.
Meanwhile, Trump wants Congress to investigate this falsehood. While they are at it, why don't they investigate President Obama's birth certificate? Why don't they investigate Donald Trump's tax returns? Why don't they pass some laws? This Congress cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
It is a base fact that for that to happen would require a Judge to authorize such thing based upon some evidence that illegal actions were taking place in such a location. In other words, either King Donald is making something up out of thin air to distract from something he is trying to hide, or there were illegal actions taking place somewhere in the Trump Tower.
Neither is pretty condition for the President of the United States to be in.
When will the GOP Congress have enough of this? I for one am ready for President Mike Pence so we can do back to arguing over policies, not crap like this.
Meanwhile, Trump wants Congress to investigate this falsehood. While they are at it, why don't they investigate President Obama's birth certificate? Why don't they investigate Donald Trump's tax returns? Why don't they pass some laws? This Congress cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)