President Donald Trump: The Thread

[StrangeSox]

We're a couple months into this presidency and so far it's controversy after controversy, gaffes, investigations, embarrassing interviews and numerous flat out lies from the President and members of his staff, as well as an alarming number of senior positions requiring Senate confirmation that have yet to be filled. Has there ever been a start to a presidential term that has been remotely as disastrous?

 

 

...we're not even that far in. It's day 45. 6 weeks, 3 days.

[RockRaines]

Its embarrassing, but once again, 40+ percent of americans think he's been awesome.

[StrangeSox]

White House put out a press release praising Exxon Mobile with language copied verbatim from Exxon's own release.

 

https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/83887...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[StrangeSox]

Senate subcommittee is going to investigate Trump's unsupported claim of being wire tapped by Obama.

 

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/83890430...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[G&T]

Senate subcommittee is going to investigate Trump's unsupported claim of being wire tapped by Obama.

 

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/83890430...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

That looks like a committee Trump doesn't want to be in front of:

 

Graham - R (who called out Trump over the weekend)

Whitehouse - D

Senator Cornyn - R

Senator Durbin - D

Senator Cruz - R (a wild card at this point)

Senator Klobuchar - D

Senator Sasse - R (who used the phrase "civilization warping crisis of public trust")

Senator Coons - D

Senator Kennedy - R

 

I don't think any had ties to Trump as part the of transition or earlier, unlike Nunez. It could be that Trump handed them the stick with which to beat him. Or nothing will come if it. Who knows.

[caulfield12]

Monday, the bill was released without any Congressional Budget Office score, a sign that Republicans may be worried about the fallout once Americans understand how many people could be affected by changes in coverage.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/rep...plan/index.html

Republicans unveil new healthcare plan

 

American Health Care Act...how long until TrumpCare becomes the brand? DumpYourCare? DumpedCare? You'veBeenTrumpedCare?

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/econo...bill/index.html

 

But the Republican bill would go beyond just eliminating Medicaid expansion. It would overhaul the whole program, which covers more than 70 million people, by sending states a fixed amount of money per enrollee, known as a per-capita cap. This would limit federal responsibility, shifting that burden to the states. However, since states don't have the money to make up the difference, they would likely either reduce eligibility, curtail benefits or cut provider payments.

 

All this could hurt not only poor adults, but also low-income children, women, senior citizens and the disabled.

 

The legislation also would eliminate the subsidies that reduce deductibles and co-pays for moderate-income policyholders on the individual market. And the tax credits it would provide would not go as far Obamacare's subsidies.

 

Folks making $20,000 a year take the biggest hit at any age under the GOP plan, a recent Kaiser study found. A 27-year-old would get only $2,000, instead of $3,225 under Obamacare, on average, while a 40-year-old would get $3,000 versus nearly $4,150.

 

However, the biggest loser would be a 60-year-old, who would receive only $4,000, instead of nearly $9,900 under Obamacare.

 

Older Americans could have to pay more. Enrollees in their 50s and early 60s benefited from Obamacare because insurers could only charge them three times more than younger policy holders. The bill would widen that band to five-to-one.

 

The winners? The healthy (who would have more flexible/lower-cost packages), young people, the insurance industry and the rich. Of course, only the first two groups are going to be "politically" popular, and one would guess the majority of Trump voters in the Rust Belt/Midwest aren't exactly setting any health/fitness records, and most of them are in their late 30's through early 60's, so not young, either. So the irony is that two main groups to benefit from the proposal are basically Sanders supporters living on the two coasts, where people in general tend to be healthier than the Midwest and Deep South.

 

 

 

This response to the article made me laugh...at least the writer made his point

 

Here's the thing. Regardless of the changes that Republicans say are coming, there will still ne NO affordable options for lower and middle class working people. They will have to go back to using emergency rooms, just like they did before. This will force up costs which will be passed on to people paying premiums, which will go up. Healthcare in America is FOR PROFIT. As long as it remains FOR PROFIT, policies will never be affordable. Should I repeat that? Healthcare in America is FOR PROFIT. As long as it remains FOR PROFIT, policies will never be affordable. Obama wanted NOT FOR PROFIT insurance, i.e. Medicare for all, but Big Insurance and their Republican supporters in Congress would have no part of that (they even worked hard to kill the public option compromise which would have lowered premiums but cut into their almighty profits), so Obama settled for a few small changes like pre-existing conditions and covering the poor. The so-called ACA was never affordable, but not because of Obama, rather because it remained FOR PROFIT, as Big Insurance and the Republicans wanted. Republicans then turned around and absurdly called the ACA "Obamacare" to blame HIM for their FOR PROFIT act, which is not what Obama ever wanted. And now, once again, the exact same thing will happen. They have crafted another FOR PROFIT insurance act, with a different name, and they are telling you that you will have affordable choices (which you won't). So, one more time .... Healthcare in America is FOR PROFIT. As long as it remains FOR PROFIT, policies will never be affordable. Really people, put your politics aside and try to grasp.

 

Another...

Funny. Waiting to see how some articles address this. Most important piece for me is, replace the individual mandate, in which the penalty was money going to the GOVERNMENT to subsidize others paying insurance (redistribution) with a GOVERNMENT REGULATION that allows a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, BUSINESS to charge you 30% more; so the penalty now goes to a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT BUSINESS, which will not be used to subsidize or lower insurance costs for others. Cannot make this stuff up. Finally, no mandate and tax credits based on age not income? How is this not going to end up costing more and covering less people?

Edited March 7, 2017 by caulfield12

[Steve9347]

My mother and father in law, who work for hospitals, are drooling at this new plan.

[Dick Allen]

White House put out a press release praising Exxon Mobile with language copied verbatim from Exxon's own release.

 

https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/83887...src=twsrc%5Etfw

The plan has been in place for 4 years, but it's really all Trump. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We keep winning.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-...s-to-grow-jobs/

[Iwritecode]

Another...

Funny. Waiting to see how some articles address this. Most important piece for me is, replace the individual mandate, in which the penalty was money going to the GOVERNMENT to subsidize others paying insurance (redistribution) with a GOVERNMENT REGULATION that allows a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, BUSINESS to charge you 30% more; so the penalty now goes to a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT BUSINESS, which will not be used to subsidize or lower insurance costs for others. Cannot make this stuff up.

 

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. I've read a few articles about the new plan and only 1 mentioned it. So if you go for a year without insurance for whatever reason, they can literally penalize you for the rest of your life.

[bmags]

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. I've read a few articles about the new plan and only 1 mentioned it. So if you go for a year without insurance for whatever reason, they can literally penalize you for the rest of your life.

 

I don't think that's right, it's just a 30% surcharge your first year. This is also a bad idea because it is a somewhat light, one-time penalty, so there is no incentive to have insurance when not sick. It will very likely destabilize the markets and cause everyones premiums to go up.

 

 

[Iwritecode]

I don't think that's right, it's just a 30% surcharge your first year. This is also a bad idea because it is a somewhat light, one-time penalty, so there is no incentive to have insurance when not sick. It will very likely destabilize the markets and cause everyones premiums to go up.

 

I haven't seen much written about it so if it's only for the first year that is slightly better. But the fact still remains that you are paying a private company more money simply because you didn't previously buy their product. I don't see how that helps anyone but the insurance companies to make more money.

[bmags]

I haven't seen much written about it so if it's only for the first year that is slightly better. But the fact still remains that you are paying a private company more money simply because you didn't previously buy their product. I don't see how that helps anyone but the insurance companies to make more money.

 

It's goal is a stick to keep people insured even when healthy, which, the more healthy people insured the better the insurance marketplace.

 

However, after the ACA challenges of yore, it is very legally questionable. The ACA mandate passed because it was a "tax" which government had unquestionable authority to do. This is mandating that private companies charge more for behavior. Is this going to be seen the same as a price floor? The commerce clause was narrowed so it would be interesting to see the verdict.

[illinilaw08]

I haven't seen much written about it so if it's only for the first year that is slightly better. But the fact still remains that you are paying a private company more money simply because you didn't previously buy their product. I don't see how that helps anyone but the insurance companies to make more money.

 

It's the catch-22 of a healthcare system that relies on private, for-profit, insurance. If you don't penalize people for not buying healthcare, then people won't buy it until they need it. For-profit insurance relies on premiums from those who are healthy (or in the automobile industry don't get into accidents) in order to pay out the claims for the sick. It's the whole reason that the ACA required people to have coverage in the first place.

[caulfield12]

Whether it's a floor or ceiling set way too low, it won't work...because the costs will outpace that 30% and you'll end up with everyone gaming the system.

 

Run the risk of not paying when you're young/healthy, which inherently increases the risk pools for everyone else (driving up their premiums to compensate for lost revenues from all those previously paying but not utilizing it who are no longer in the pools)...then try to max out all the benefits you possibly can when sick. End result, for profit insurers will bail on that system eventually as well.

 

Not to mention the emergency rooms will be overrun again by those without any insurance.

 

That's leaving out the moral dimension and even more expensive consequences of taking the insurance away from 10-20 million people and simultaneously reneging on all your campaign promises to help the middle class, providing a better quality of care at a lower price. Yeah, sure.

Edited March 7, 2017 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

It's goal is a stick to keep people insured even when healthy, which, the more healthy people insured the better the insurance marketplace.

 

However, after the ACA challenges of yore, it is very legally questionable. The ACA mandate passed because it was a "tax" which government had unquestionable authority to do. This is mandating that private companies charge more for behavior. Is this going to be seen the same as a price floor? The commerce clause was narrowed so it would be interesting to see the verdict.

 

I think it allows companies to charge more, not that it requires them to.

[caulfield12]

It's the catch-22 of a healthcare system that relies on private, for-profit, insurance. If you don't penalize people for not buying healthcare, then people won't buy it until they need it. For-profit insurance relies on premiums from those who are healthy (or in the automobile industry don't get into accidents) in order to pay out the claims for the sick. It's the whole reason that the ACA required people to have coverage in the first place.

 

What's most striking is how derivative and unimaginative the whole thing is with 7-8 years to study the weaknesses of ACA.

 

That's the best they can come up with? Gutting Medicaid and disadvantaging everyone over 60 that's not rich (fixed income population)?

 

No wonder everyone is losing faith in government. Bannon is getting his way, and so is Ryan. Hope they can deal with protests and primary challenges the next two election cycles. That's their new reality. When the GOP starts pointing to the success of anything Scott Walker has done in WI, look out.

[bmags]

What's most striking is how derivative and unimaginative the whole thing is with 7-8 years to study the weaknesses of ACA.

 

This is very true. There were conservative think tanks that for years reported on health care policy and none of their interesting ideas seem to be included except state lines and block granting.

 

But the block granting is insane as it betrays one of the core conservative critiques of programs for the poor as it is designed to incentivize making less and staying on Medicaid.

[StrangeSox]

What's most striking is how derivative and unimaginative the whole thing is with 7-8 years to study the weaknesses of ACA.

 

That's the best they can come up with? Gutting Medicaid and disadvantaging everyone over 60 that's not rich (fixed income population)?

 

No wonder everyone is losing faith in government. Bannon is getting his way, and so is Ryan. Hope they can deal with protests and primary challenges the next two election cycles. That's their new reality. When the GOP starts pointing to the success of anything Scott Walker has done in WI, look out.

 

They needed to craft a bill that would hopefully:

 

1) appease the right wing 100% repeal-with-no-replacement faction

2) appease the general conservative faction that don't like the Medicaid expansion or many of the regulations or taxes (but this one keeps the Cadillac tax everyone hates? what?)

3) have a non-zero chance of getting through the Senate

4) doing it all with no tax/budget changes so they can get it through reconciliation and avoid the filibuster

5) doesn't cause their various bases to revolt and throw them out of office because while lots of their voters hate "Obamacare" and the mandate isn't particularly popular, the ACA in general is and the specific provisions (kids on until 26, no lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions) are and throwing tens of millions of people off of insurance probably wouldn't work out so hot for them.

 

This one sort of does 1 and 2, but several Republican Senators came out recently against Medicaid cuts and Rand Paul called this bill DOA. It turns out health care is hard and complicated! Who knew??

[StrangeSox]

This is very true. There were conservative think tanks that for years reported on health care policy and none of their interesting ideas seem to be included except state lines and block granting.

 

But the block granting is insane as it betrays one of the core conservative critiques of programs for the poor as it is designed to incentivize making less and staying on Medicaid.

 

But it also puts hard caps on Medicaid spending and can be a method to slowly strangle the programs to death. Right now, states automatically get increased matching federal funds if they have some sort of health crisis they're dealing with (e.g. Zika, which took Congress almost a year to provide a fraction of the additional funds requested). This way, federal Republicans can say "hey, we gave you funding, it's your fault for not spending it better!" and wash their hands of any responsibility.

[bmags]

Actually now that I think about it, this looks exactly like a bill that would be created by someone who is only focused on taxes (and not even deficit). Paul Ryan does not care about healthcare, so you get a ridiculous billl that literally only cares about gutting the revenue, and then rewarding higher earners.

 

Paul Ryan ladies and gentleman!

 

He is really going to destroy himself as speaker if he forces a vote here for a DOA bill.

[Dick Allen]

 

Donald J. Trump

✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

 

122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!

 

6:04 AM - 7 Mar 2017

 

113 of the 122 were released by George W. Bush.

[Soxbadger]

Donald J. Trump

✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

 

122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!

 

6:04 AM - 7 Mar 2017

 

113 of the 122 were released by George W. Bush.

 

Obama is George W. Bush. Trump is going to rip his mask off and then Bush will say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it werent for those meddling kids."

 

Surprise twist, Trump is Scooby Doo.

[caulfield12]

As an Iowan, could someone please prevent Grassley and King from opening their mouths, lol.

Embarrassing.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-representati...-174638632.html

“We are talking about the emergence of a deep state led by Barack Obama, and that is something that we should prevent,” King told the Times. “The person who understands this best is Steve Bannon, and I would think that he’s advocating to make some moves to fix it.”

 

The term “deep state,” which is relatively new to American politics, has been used to describe a permanent military, intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracy manipulating government policies in secret.

 

King added that Trump “needs to purge the leftists within the administration that are holdovers from the Obama administration, because it appears that they are undermining his administration and his chances of success.”

 

King’s remarks echoed a previous statement made on his Twitter account, where he wrote the president “needs to purge Leftists from executive branch before disloyal, illegal & treasonist [sic] acts sink us.”

 

 

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

For someone who loved to complain about Obama golfing, Trump has now golfed 8 times in 6 weeks of office. I think he's trying to break a record.

[Big Hurtin]

Did Trump get the wiretap info illegally from AG, due to it being part of an open case? I know people have said she's unreliable, but I wouldn't put it past the folks involved.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/LouiseMensch/sta...206474077323264