Sunday, July 9, 2017

Why GOP Healthcare Plan is Struggling

I find this an interesting piece. CNN Why the GOP Healthcare Message is Floundering I find it fascinating that Trump's promises are one of the reasons.

"Congressional GOP messaging about what the final product would deliver ran up most rudely not against Democrats' objections, or protesters at town hall meetings, but the most powerful Republican of them all: the President. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised, vaguely but consistently, that his health care plan would cover more people and -- crucially now -- not mess with Medicaid. 
"We're going to have insurance for everybody," he told The Washington Post days before taking office in January. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us." 
The realities of governing -- and doing it in concert with Republican lawmakers -- always suggested otherwise, and the House negotiations illustrated that it was plainly impossible. Not long after celebrating the House bill's passage alongside Ryan and the GOP conference, Trump doubled back to describe the legislation as "mean.""
So is WP / CNN making this up, was Trump lying or is Trump not too smart.  I think it is a combination of the last two.  I mean they have the source identified on this one.

CNN Opinion: What GOP / DEM Compromise
CNN Money: Most GOPers Like Medicaid

26 comments:

John said...

MSN GOP Pessimism

John said...

AP 2 GOP Senators Suggest ACHA is Dead

John said...

Politico Trump Healthcare Promises

Politifact Trump Healthcare Promises and Status

The Hill Trump Healthcare Promises

This Week Trump Healthcare Promises

Laurie said...

Trump is clearly very dumb (in the traditional sense) and has no interest in what is true or not, so he does a weird kind of lying, sort of less intentional than most liars.

Also the senate bill is the BRCA, not the ACHA

Sean said...

As I've said before, Donald Trump doesn't understand health care policy. All he wants is to be seen as brokering a deal that he can claim fulfills the promise of "repeal and replace". The details are otherwise irrelevant to him -- which is why he can throw a party to celebrate a bill he later calls "mean". If I were a Republican, I would be very hesitant to walk out on that limb with him to vote for an unpopular bill, because he's going to leave you out there if the bill remains this unpopular.

Sean said...

And meanwhile, we now have Don Jr. admitting to attempted collusion with the Russians. But everything's OK!

Anonymous said...

Trump never thought he would be elected. He is the Max Bialystock of politics, who would make any promise that he could, believing he would never be in a position in which he would be required to keep them. And it the odds that he will share the same fate as Max, this morning are definitely on the rise. It's so sad that Zero Mostel isn't available to play Trump in the movie version of Donald's life.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

To me the most truly offensive thing about Trump, is his failure to keep his deep promise. Donald told us his experience in life demonstrated a vast understanding of issues that transcended the partisanship of Washington. His understanding of health care issues came from a lifetime of working in business. He knew how to make it less expensive, but with lower deductibles, and would cover more. TrumpCare would cover everyone. Had I believed these promises, I might have voted for him. Sure the votes of those who did vote for him, did believe those promises. What happened when Trump was elected? Where was the plan? Where was the business expertise his supporters believed in so passionately. It is nowhere. Trump was totally withdrawn from development of the health care plans. They were written behind closed doors by an extremely small selection of Republican legislators. Trump endorsed their work with huge gatherings of GOP congressman on the lawn of the White House. It's really hard to imagine how a politicians could so completely betray himself, his promises the Aemerican people whose trust he sought and received.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Paul Krugman explains health care in this morning's New York Times.

Here is my question. What did people expect from Trump? As a Trump non voter, he has pretty much met my expectations. He is sort of a passive guy who is pretty easily manipulated. Like a lot of old people, he believes the last thing he hears and reads. I sure hope his email is screened for communications from Nigerian princes.

But is he delivering what supporters wanted from a businessman president? What was the model they had in mind? Did they think they were electing Steve Jobs, a visionary businessman who satisfied needs no on knew that they had? Did they see someone unbeholden to the Washington power structure, someone who would bust through the encrusted partisanship with innovative solutions no one else could see? Is that what he promised us? Is that what we have got?

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
I am not sure that was an act of...

Collusion... Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose •acting in collusion with the enemy.

Seemed more like a fact finding meeting. And apparently Kushner had already reported the meeting on his forms.

Hiram,
I did not expect more from Trump, however I sure hoped for more.

I was hoping that like Obama, Trump would have matured when he was sitting behind the big desk. Maybe he is too old to learn and change...

Anonymous said...

You expected Trump would have matured? What would you have expected from the maturation process of a 70 year old man?

For me, there were definite things about what Trump said that I liked. I, too, am in favor of health care that costs less, and insures more, with lower deductibles and that covers everyone. I, too, am in favor of using market pressure to force down prices. These were things that both Trump and I supported. So why isn't Trump delivering them? Is he too mature?

--Hiram

Sean said...

"Seemed more like a fact finding meeting."

DT Jr. took a meeting with a Russian for the purpose of receiving information about HRC that could be useful to his campaign. I don't know how that's anything other than collusion.

"And apparently Kushner had already reported the meeting on his forms."

His revised, after-he-had-already-been-caught-with-faulty-and-incomplete-disclosure forms. Let's review the facts -- six Trump advisers have admitted meeting with the Russians during the campaign, and five of those six haven't been entirely forthcoming about those meetings.

Be honest with yourself, John. You would not find any innocent explanation for Hillary Clinton and her associates engaging in such behavior.

Sean said...

I'd like to remind you that during the 2000 campaign, someone mailed the Gore campaign materials prepared by the Bush team for debate preparation. They turned it over to the FBI. This sort of thing is not routine, and should not be excused away.

Anonymous said...

DT Jr. took a meeting with a Russian for the purpose of receiving information about HRC that could be useful to his campaign. I don't know how that's anything other than collusion.

Seems to be an attempt to collude that failed. Ironically, perhaps, the Russians were as skeptical of Trump's chances to win as everyone else. If they really did take him seriously, they would have probably had more of the kind of information Junior seemed open to receiving.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"Seems to be an attempt to collude that failed."

That is today's story to be sure. It's clear the expectations for what was going to be communicated were high -- after all, why would you drag Kushner and Manafort with for a nothingburger?

Of course, we also know that both father and son tweeted about the possibility of deleted e-mails actually existing on the same day that said meeting occurred. And three days later, Wikileaks began its process of dumping its Hillary-related intel (the biggest pieces of which were the July DNC e-mail dump and the October Podesta e-mail dump).

Is it all just a coincidence?

John said...

Back to the definition...

"Collusion... Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose •acting in collusion with the enemy."

I agree that they were colluding with a Russian Woman who they thought had dirt on their opponent... I just don't know if that is in any way illegal or even abnormal in politics...

I am pretty sure Hillary had people looking for dirt on Trump. Do you doubt that?

Sean said...

"I just don't know if that is in any way illegal or even abnormal in politics..."

It's highly irregular to be working with people associated with a foreign government to be doing so. (I'd also point out that knowingly accepting something stolen is also a crime, and even organizing for a third party to do something with something stolen makes you an accomplice.)

John said...

First, point I am not sure they knew of her association to the government.

Second, it sounds like they were going to get information. I am not sure that is/ was "stolen".

I agree that this adds to the case against the Trump campaign personnel, but I am not sure it is a problem in and of itself.

Sean said...

And you would feel the same if had been Hillary Clinton and her associates engaged in this pattern of activity?

John said...

Personally I would have reacted the way I am here...

Let Mueller do his job and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I never lost much sleep over the Clinton Benghazi and Clinton Server issues either.

Sean said...

I don't buy that for a second, given the number of threads you've opened on those subjects over the years, and your "everyone does it" hand-waving whenever someone talks about Trump.

John said...

I offer this as evidence

G2A Clinton is Irresponsible

Sean said...

You can keep telling yourself that. Your actions -- given the number of threads you've opened on those subjects over the years, and your "everyone does it" hand-waving whenever someone talks about Trump -- say otherwise.

Meanwhile, the rats are scurrying on the Trump Jr. meeting. Everyone has a different story, which means that some (or all) of them are lying. Especially damning is the fact that there's an e-mail that informs Jr. that this effort is backed by the Russian government.

Sean said...

The fire has been located.

"The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s elder son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”"


Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said

John said...

It definitely does sound like juicy political intrigue, I wonder if any of it was illegal? I guess we will see what Mueller's investigation determines.

Kind of like we did when Clinton purposefully kept her business emails off the business server for questionable reasons.

I keep thinking I will be reusing the old Clinton post title with a new set of names...

"Trump Etal is Irresponsible / Negligent, Not Criminal"

I agree that the Trump etal folks are worse than Clinton, I just don't where illegal starts for Private citizens meeting with foreign parties.

Sean said...

Campaign finance law prohibits the soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions or donations -- which include in-kind contributions such as research -- from a foreign national.

If there's more where this came from, there could also be (at minimum) a conspiracy case related to election fraud.