Jump to content


Repealing the ACA under Trump

TGHusker

By TGHusker,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


ZRod Offensive Coordinator

ZRod

Posted
Posted
Right, but we shouldn't believe any of this because the CBO was wrong about Obamacare.
Link to comment

TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-19/health-care-disaster-exposes-trump-as-a-monster

 

Good read. Here it is copied:

With the Republicans' Plan C to vote for "repeal and delay" lasting about 12 hours or so before falling short of winning in the Senate, Donald Trump returned to his least attractive -- and most foolish -- position on health care: "We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us.”

Let's put aside for now the extent to which the Affordable Care Act would "fail" without active measures by the White House and the Republican Congress to undermine the state marketplaces; for that matter, ignore the extent to which active Republican resistance, such as the various lawsuits against the law and the decision by many Republican governors to not expand Medicaid, is responsible for a fair number of problems in the first place. Let's just stipulate for the sake of argument that Trump is correct and the law is doomed if his administration and Republicans in Congress adopt a passive stance of watching and waiting.

The first point is just how monstrous Trump is bragging he will be. As Brendan Nyhan says:

Imagine if Ronald Reagan had said after Congress prohibited him from aiding anti-Communists in Nicaragua: "Fine. I'll just surrender to the U.S.S.R. today. That'll show 'em!" 1 Or if Franklin Roosevelt, faced with sharp congressional resistance from isolationists, decided to disarm and allow the Axis to proceed at will. Or if George W. Bush had reacted to the first defeat of the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008 by publicly rooting for a worldwide economic meltdown.

This is worse because Trump has, in fact, undermined the health exchanges, and he has threatened to do so further; indeed, one estimate says that the bulk of projected 2018 premium increases are the result of Trump and other Republican actions, not a deterioration in the markets -- in part because insurers are directly saying that's why their rates are going up.

I certainly can't think of any president who directly promised to harm the American people unless his political opponents let him have his way.

The closest analogy might be the Republican Congresses in 1995 and 2011, which shut down the government in (unsuccessful) efforts to win policy battles with Democratic presidents. At least those episodes were conceived of as short-term actions with fairly limited costs. A better parallel might be Obama-era Republican threats to default on the debt by refusing to raise the debt limit. That, like Trump's boast on health care, was a threat to harm the American people if everyone didn't do what one side -- that didn't have the votes -- wanted. It's a fundamental violation, in my view, of political ethics, far worse than (quite bad) sundry conflicts of interest or failures to disclose tax returns.

Trump is hardly the first politician to fall sadly short when it comes to ethics. So why aren't there other examples of presidents who threatened to harm the American people?

Because it's also self-defeating. Trump claims that voters will hold Barack Obama and the Democrats responsible for health care's problems, but everything we know about retrospective voting says that outside of hard-core Republicans, who will back Trump no matter what, voters will blame the current president for anything that goes wrong, fairly or unfairly. Thus the many voters who blamed Obama and the Democrats in 2010 for the state of the economy. Thus the scattered studies of voters who turn against incumbents after totally unrelated events such as storms, losses by local sports teams and even shark attacks.

We could argue all day about who voters should hold responsible if they don't like their health insurance, but the evidence says they will blame the incumbent president and his party.

Fortunately, most politicians realize that and try hard to produce policies that will benefit their constituents. Sure, they'll also make speeches in which they blame their predecessors for anything going wrong, but they'll actively attempt to fix the problem, because they know that buck-passing rhetoric won't work very well.

Of course, most politicians also entered public life at least in part to improve the conditions of the nation. But even those with nothing but raw ambition are smart enough to at least pretend (in their rhetoric) that they care about voters' well-being, and smart enough to know that the way to satisfy that ambition involves keeping voters happy.

Most politicians. But evidently not this one.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted

This is an excerpt from Maggie Haberman's interview of Trump, posted today in the (failing) New York Times. It is an incoherent word salad of nonsense by a man who professes to understand the country's healthcare needs better than anyone.

 

LINK

 

 

TRUMP: Hi fellas, how you doing?

 

BAKER: Good. Good. How was your lunch [with Republican senators]?

 

TRUMP: It was good. We are very close. It’s a tough — you know, health care. Look, Hillary Clinton worked eight years in the White House with her husband as president and having majorities and couldn’t get it done. Smart people, tough people — couldn’t get it done. Obama worked so hard. They had 60 in the Senate. They had big majorities and had the White House. I mean, ended up giving away the state of Nebraska. They owned the state of Nebraska. Right. Gave it away. Their best senator did one of the greatest deals in the history of politics. What happened to him?

 

But I think we are going to do O.K. I think we are going to see. I mean, one of my ideas was repeal. But I certainly rather would get repeal and replace, because the next last thing I want to do is start working tomorrow morning on replace. And it is time. It is tough. It’s a very narrow path, winding this way. You think you have it, and then you lose four on the other side because you gave. It is a brutal process. And it was for Democrats, in all fairness.

Continue reading the main story

 

I mean, you think of Hillary Clinton, and you look, she went eight years — very capable — went eight years as the first lady, and could not get health care. So this is not an easy crack. The one thing I’ll say about myself, so, Obama was in there for eight years and got Obamacare. Hillary Clinton was in there eight years and they never got Hillarycare, whatever they called it at the time. I am not in here six months, and they’ll say, “Trump hasn’t fulfilled his agenda.” I say to myself, wait a minute, I’m only here a very short period of time compared to Obama. How long did it take to get Obamacare?

 

BAKER: March, March 2010.

 

TRUMP: So he was there for more than a year.

 

HABERMAN: Fourteen months.

 

TRUMP: And I’m here less than six months, so, ah, you know. Something to think about.

 

BAKER: We wrote the same stories, though, in August of 2009. “Obama can’t get it.”

 

SCHMIDT: It died several times.

 

HABERMAN: Several times.

 

TRUMP: Well, it was a tough one. That was a very tough one.

 

BAKER: He lost that election [the 2010 midterms].

 

TRUMP: Nothing changes. Nothing changes. Once you get something for pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. Once you get something, it’s awfully tough to take it away.

 

HABERMAN: That’s been the thing for four years. When you win an entitlement, you can’t take it back.

 

TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

 

HABERMAN: Am I wrong in thinking — I’ve talked to you a bunch of times about this over the last couple years, but you are generally of the view that people should have health care, right? I mean, I think that you come at it from the view of …

 

TRUMP: Yes, yes. [garbled]

 

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Red Five Assistant Coach

Red Five

Posted
Posted

TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

 

 

He has no f'n clue. None Zip. Nada.

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...