I can see going forward there will be a lot of humor. Trust me it will be great . . .
I can see going forward there will be a lot of humor. Trust me it will be great . . .
Somehow Trump manages to bring out the best in people. In the January 21 women’s march demonstrations, millions of ordinary Americans peacefully engaged in the political process, expressing a variety of consistent opinions with passion and humour. I was delighted.
But today I am amazed. It seems that Donald Trump has somehow managed to make Jasoh Chaffetz act like a statesman. Chaffetz is chair of the government oversight committee, where he has always acted as an aparatchik hack. He promised years of investigation of President Clinton and won’t “go on a fishing expidition” of President Trump. He decided that the most urgent investigation was of the head of the Office of Govermnment Ethics for critizing Trump’s conflicts of interest and not of Trump for profiting from his office and doing business with foreign governments and [uh oh going of on a tangent on Trump's corruption which will never end].
I was confident that Chaffetz cared not at all about the truth and was a pure partizan who always placed the interests of the GOP over the interests of the country, honesty about plain facts and all human decency.
But today he said
On the voter fraud issue that really happens at the county level. I don’t see any evidence, but the President has 100,000 people at the Department of Justice that if he wants to do an investigation, have at it. I just don’t see any evidence of it.
Chaffetz caring whether there is “any evidence of it” is almost a miracle.
I honestly never thought there was a crazy conspiracy theory too extreme for him.
Paul Ryan and other House Republicans voted along party lines “Adopting rules for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.” The vote was 234 Yeas to 193 Nays. Three Republicans voted with Democrats to block the new rules for the 115th Congress. No big deal, right? and the New Rules passed.
As many of you probably know, I have been writing about the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare since 2008; answering questions, presenting information, and rebutting the stories, outright lies, and silly remarks. I did a lot of Maggie Mahar’s editing to get her columns up on Angry Bear and subsequently became familiar with the healthcare law. Now before you attempt to get into this with me, I will say this; “it was not perfect; but, it was all we had for the time being.” Now we are going backwards. We will be worse off under the new healthcare law.
Typically, this is not big deal except Randian Paul Ryan stuck a couple of sentences into the new House Rules. Before I get there, I want to take this a step backwards and explain. I was angry enough after reading the Rules Change to write my Congressman Mike Bishop. This is unusual for me as it typically is a waste of time. They represent upwards of 700,000 people in high density states. It was never supposed to be that way until Congress decided to freeze the number of Reps in the House. If the number of constituents represented had stayed at 60,000; my vote and opinion would have counted for more when drop kicking him across the room. There is a reason they did this and if they did not do this, the number of Reps would have been much higher.
I wrote Congress Person Mike and started explaining how Senator Sessions with the help of Rep Upton also from Michigan wrote the GAO asking why the HHS could appropriate funds. The GAO said they could not; but, the GAO left an opening for the HHS and the Administration by stating they could transfer funds from other programs into the Risk Corridor program. The Risk Corridor program for the PPACA is a 3-year program. Since there was a lot of risk for insurance companies and Co-ops, it was established along the same lines as the one for Part D Medicare which the Republicans created. An insurance company was limited to 3% profit,. If you made more than that, you kicked into the program a ratio of those profits. The higher the profit, the more you kicked in. If you lost money as the new Co-ops did, the program gave them money if the loss was greater than 3%. The CBO estimated the Risk Corridor program would generate $16 billion over its 3 year life time. Companies were taking on people who were denied insurance before due to pre-existing conditions. It was a higher risk and no one could be sure how many high risk insured they would get. They could not deny insuring them or increase premiums. This worked well for Part D.
Session and Upton were able to make the Risk Corridor program budget revenue neutral so the HHS and administration could not appropriate funds for it. They enlisted the aid of Rep Jack Kingston Appropriations Panel Chairman who stuck a sentence in Section 227 of the 2015 Appropriations Act (dated December 16, 2014). The sentence said; no
“funds made available by this Act from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, or transferred from other accounts funded by this Act to the “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–Program Management” account, may be used for payments under section 1342(b)(1) of Public Law 111-148 (relating to risk corridors).”
If you are wondering why Co-ops went bankrupt, healthcare premiums started to go up, insurance companies withdrew, and insurances companies lost millions; here is the reason why. So I laid this treachery on Congressman Mike Bishop.
I then proceeded to tell him that under reconciliation, you can not create a budget deficit. This would happen with the repeal of the PPACA. In Summer of 2016, the CBO estimated it would be ~$350 billion.
Now, back to my Roll Call on New House Rules. Randian Paul Ryan stuck a few sentence into the House Rules for the 115th Congress. Here is what they said:
“This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon –
(A) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
(B) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.”
In simple English here is what it meant; the CBO could not review the Repeal of the PPACA and the costs associated with it. My question to Congressperson Mike Bishop was; “Why did you vote yes to this knowing you were covering up the truth and creating a budget defict?”
Not that I will get one; but, I asked for a return reply.
Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger of the Institute of Policy Studies released “Tale of Two Retirements”, a study discussing how well CEOs will retire in comparison to the low and middle income citizens who only have 401ks and Social Security to retire on in the US and what President-Elect Trump’s actions will do to CEO retirement.
One hundred CEOs have company retirement funds worth approximately $4.7 billion or a sum equal to the entire retirement savings of 41 percent of U.S. families with the smallest nest eggs.
The $4.7 billion total is equal to the entire retirement savings of:
• 59 percent of African-American families
• 75 percent of Latino families
• 55 percent of female-headed households
• 44 percent of white working class households
The average of the top 100 executives is enough to generate an ~$253,000/month life time check.
• Ordinary workers have ~$18,000 of 401K savings or enough for ~$100 in a monthly payout.
• 39% of workers 51 to 61 years of age have no employer sponsored retirement plan and will be mostly dependent upon an ~$1200/month Social Security check.
Many CEOs have tax-deferred accounts totally with ~$3 billion in deferred payout. If President-Elect Trump cuts the marginal tax rate, they will also gain in retirement funding.
• Cutting the top marginal tax rate to 33 percent, Fortune 500 CEOs would save $196 million on their income taxes.
• These deferred payout accounts are also exempt from 401k contribution limitations
Mirroring the same racial and gender gap exiting today in business, white male CEOs have done better than their minority male and their female counterparts.
• The top 10 white male CEOs have a combined $1.4 billion in the tax deferred compensation accounts
• Eight times more than the top ten minority male counterparts and five times more than the top ten female counterparts.
I want to take a moment and dwell on this topic a bit more. While some readers are distracted by immigration and its impact on the economy, they ignore the crop-picking, laboring, and housekeeping jobs where many of these immigrants end up. We are losing sight of some real issues plaguing the middle income bracket making less than $100,000 annually which comprises most of the population.
“Just” 50% of the American Labor Force are offered a 401K in which to set aside money in for retirement. The maximum contribution to date for most who have a 401k is $18,000 annually with an exception for older workers who get bumps up to $24,000 annually, if . . . if you are making enough to be able to set aside the initial amount and more if older. It is a tease from the beginning and worse now with stagnant incomes. If I do not set a minimum aside, I am in deeper trouble when I am older. If I do set this aside now and I have a college loan, can I have a life, married life, and a family? Which would you choose if the potential was there to set this aside now? The choices are not easy and we are seeing the results as more people go on SS with college loans still outstanding and have their SS garnished to pay them off.
As the report details, CEOs have few if any limits to set aside taxable retirement income and more have the income to set aside. As a perk, many CEOs are given tax deferred accounts in which companies do not pay taxes until the funds are withdrawn. In the mean time the executives benefit from tax free compounding investment returns. As proposed if President Trump decides to do so, a reduction in the maximum income tax bracket from 39% to 33% because it might (laughing) create jobs, the very same executives stand to make an unearned jump in income. “At a 39.6 percent income tax rate, they would owe $1.2 billion to the IRS and at a 33 percent rate, they would owe $979 million, for a combined savings of $196 million.”
Whether $1.2 billion or 979 million, $millions in taxes are lost yearly to states and the federal government due to Tax-Deferred accounts.
• In 2007, the Senate passed a minimum wage bill that would have limited annual executive pay deferrals to $1 million, but the provision was dropped in the conference committee. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the measure would’ve saved taxpayers $806 million over 10 years.
• In 2015 alone, 215 Fortune 500 CEOs invested a combined $227 million more of their pre-tax income in these plans than they would have been able to invest if they’d been subject to the maximum $24,000 cap that applies to ordinary workers. If they had been subject to this limit, they would’ve owed the U.S. Treasury $90 million more in income taxes last year.
What is surprising is how many are willing to defend this type of compensation calling it theft if taxed. Yet this type of compensation is limited to 1% of the population and numbering less than 1 million people. At the same time, the same people defending huge salaries will decry the loss of jobs in the US going overseas or automated which many executives are handsomely compensated for in the name of cutting cost and increased profits. We also have a president today who is promoting a populist agenda and telling people he will bring back the jobs whether automated out of existence or resourced out of the country by the executives of companies. While there may be a few jobs saved over the next 4 years, most will still be quietly moved or automated.
I am sure you have noticed the all star team for promoting the well being of the nation beyond what Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger of the Institute of Policy Studies has reported on is being assembled in Washington DC by President D. Trump. Beyond the scapegoating and misdirection promulgated by President Trump in his inaugural speech, this team is just another example of chutzpah beyond Trump’s absolutely, awesome, and amazing (it will be great) standards expressed during the runup to a momentous inaugural day. As identified, there is a group of people who have been sucking up the economic gains that should be going to the middle class and President Trump has surrounded himself with them . . . the billionaires and multi-millionaires in his cabinet. No other populist administration has gone to this extreme in selecting a group so dedicated to their own well being.
(Dan here…NDd takes a shot at evaluating the President Obama legacy.)
Let me preface this essay by saying that I voted for Barack Obama twice, in both 2008 and 2012. In fact in 2008 I supported him in the primary against Hillary Clinton, who I believed had a ceiling of support at about 52% or 53% even under even under the most favorable of circumstances (which certainly seems correct now!). I believed Obama was simply more capable of winning the Presidency, and I believed he could overcome his weaknesses and grow into the job. By and large he did, but it took 5 full years before he finally gave up on his central, failed approached to governance. I believe that failure is going to cause him to be ranked, over time, in the bottom half of all Presidents.
“There is no red or blue America,” Barack Obama declared in the 2004 convention speech that first brought him fame. His presidency was largely based on that premise. I think very few people would agree with that statement now. This worldview was epitomised in his 2009 Inaugural Address:
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
….[E]verywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act ….
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness…. [W]e cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve ….
But on that very same day in 2009, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders also met, and resolved a strategy of total intransigence, to deny Barack Obama any bipartisan victories whatsoever.
Asked about that strategy early on, Obama replied that if Republicans would not come to the table with him, then they would miss the chance to have their imprint of the solutions to big problems. Rather than be shut out, they would negotiate with him for bipartisan Great Solutions.
In Colorado, on Saturday, Republican Rep. Mike Coffman held an event for his constituents at a
a public library in Aurora, Colorado. At least 150 constituents showed up, most of them hoping to ask Coffman about his recent vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and his plans for a replacement. But only about 70 people got to meet with Coffman: Despite booking a large room with ample space, Coffman allowed in only four constituents at once for five minutes at a time. When the crowd grew restless, police put up crime scene tape and Coffman snuck out the back door—six minutes before the event was scheduled to end.
Coffman co-authored a Denver Post op-ed on Friday urging the full and immediate repeal of the ACA. About 419,000 Coloradans have gained health care coverage since the enactment of the law, and many of them stand to lose their insurance if it is repealed. Yet Coffman has not proposed a clear replacement for the law, an issue constituents hoped to ask him about on Saturday. “I am potentially going to lose my health insurance,” Berthie Ruoff told NBC 9 while she waited to meet with her representative. “I’ve had a preexisting condition. I’ve had breast cancer. What’s going to happen to me? My spouse who had health insurance passed away. What do I do? You know, what am I supposed to do?”
But neither Ruoff nor many other constituents who stand to lose coverage had an opportunity meet with Coffman. When it grew clear that Coffman would refuse to meet with a majority of those at the event, the crowd channeled its agitation into patriotic songs:
This show of unity, however, did not impress Coffman. Indeed, it appears to have scared him: Rather than address the crowd, Coffman had police officers secretly escort him out of the back door before the event was set to conclude.
A few people noticed Coffman sneaking out and attempted to address him. “Next time,” one woman pleaded, “please be sure you hear all your constituents!” Coffman ignored them, hopped into a waiting car, and drove away.
“Have a good afternoon!” yelled another exasperated woman.
GOP Rep. Sneaks Out of Townhall Meeting, Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, January 15, 2016
When People claim “Millions Are Uninsured Under the PPACA,” it is a garbage statement meant to elicit a negative reaction without going into the detail of who is uninsured and why. Repeatedly Charles Gaba, Maggie Mahar, Commonwealth Fund, Urban Institute, Kaiser Foundation, etc. have explained the numbers and the whys of the uninsured, most of which are not the fault on the PPACA.
I see commenters come to AB and outside AB discussing the uninsured. Some being legitimate bloggers claim “millions are uninsured” and some have exaggerated it even more with citing “tens of millions” with their credibility disappearing as they can not recite the make-up of or the reasons for the number as they do not know it or are trying to make a political statement. The latter being worst than the ignorance of the former.
There are reasons for the uninsured as detailed by Kaiser Family Foundation. For example, Republican states which do not allow expansion of Medicaid accounts for 2.6 million, undocumented citizens 5.4 million, those eligible for Employee sponsored insurance 4.5 million, and 3.0 million who could have unsubsidized insurance. Then there are 6.4 million adults and children eligible for Medicaid and another 5.3 million eligible for Premium Subsidies and for some reason have not chosen to be insured. Some states like Michigan do make it difficult to enroll in Medicaid. These are the Kaiser numbers for 2016 and they total ~27 millionfor uninsured and why. A “tens of millions” uninsured is a BS numeric when we start accounting for Republicans blocking Medicaid Expansion in states, undocumented immigrants, ESI available insurance, 6.4 million eligible for Medicaid, and another 5.3 million eligible for subsidies. Other than undocumented citizens and states blocking the Medicaid Expansion, there is access to healthcare insurance in one form or another through the PPACA, much of which exists today due to the PPACA, or Employer Sponsored Insurance. When we account , the number drop as there are those without subsidy who chose not to be insured, others who could be on Medicare or have Premium subsidies, and those who could have Employee Sponsored Insurance.
The half-century story of Democrats’ abdication and decline
By Steve Roth. Publisher, Evonomics
On January 1, 1964, John F. Kennedy posthumously initiated the half-century decline of the Democratic Party, beginning its descent into this moment’s dark and backward abysm of slime. His massive tax cuts for the rich, implemented in ’64 and ’65, were the turning point and beginning of Democrats’ five-decade abandonment of its longtime winning formula: full-throated, unabashed, progressive economic populism. It was the signal moment when Democrats began to abandon the working and middle class. The working and middle class, betrayed and feeling betrayed, have now returned the favor.
Unapologetic progressive economic populism — starting really with Teddy Roosevelt’s slash-and-burn trustbusting, and turned up full-throttle in his namesake’s New Deal — had given Democrats three decades of electoral success. FDR lost two states and eight electoral votes in 1936. He got 523 out of 531. Over four campaigns, he never got less that 432. Eisenhower got a couple of terms as a very moderate Republican, really a progressive, but Democrats’ dominance of Congress and state governments seemed eternal.
Because: that economic populism also delivered success for America. The New Deal, combined with the government deficit spending of World War II, resulted in the greatest burst of widespread growth, progress, prosperity, and individual economic freedom in American history — before or since.
James Carville was certainly right: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Democrats’ remaining progressivism under Johnson — civil-rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, and the wholesale movement of liberated women into the workforce — eventually pushed a hot middle-out economy into the demand-driven inflation of the 70s. That torrid growth brought government debt down from 120% of GDP in 1947, to 35% in 1980. (You know what happened after that.)
But even amidst that burst of growth and sustainable government finance, Democrats were abandoning the very source of their economic and electoral success. Kennedy’s top-tier tax cuts were a preemptive, voluntary abdication to trickle-down theory, before “trickle-down” even existed. When Reagan turned that dial to eleven, he was only occupying ideological ground that Democrats had ceded and abandoned to the enemy, long before. It was an epochal own-goal of historic proportions.
Democrats have been kicking the economic ball into their own net ever since. The obvious solution to the 70s inflation was to raise taxes, reducing government deficit spending, to drain off excess demand from a too-hot economy. Instead they acceded to the banker-industrial complex and the diktats of childish monetarism, again conceding the win to an economic belief system that is egregiously self-serving for the rich, and anathema to Democratic progressive economic populism.
That’s when the enthusiastic, progressive Democratic base stopped turning out in force. (Exception: Obama. For other reasons.) Progressive baby boomers have spent their whole lives voting against Republicans and their swingeing, destructive economic policies, not for inspiring Democrats. Think about the Democratic presidential candidates since 1964. McGovern was a true social progressive, but really a one-issue anti-war candidate. Bill Clinton did okay, within the confines of the post-Reagan economic belief system, which he never seriously challenged as FDR did. Obama didn’t either, in rhetoric or practice. His administration’s failure to prosecute a single prominent bankster is arguably the best single explanation for Hillary’s electoral meltdown.
Can you name one full-throated economic progressive Democratic candidate in the past half century? I’m not even asking for fire-eating. Here’s some help: Humphrey. Carter. Mondale. Dukakis. Gore. Kerry. (Are you still awake?) Aside from Obama, no Democratic candidates had the Democratic base flocking to the polls. (Compare: Republicans and their rabid Tea-Party base.) Add Hillary to that rather stultifying list.
Starting in the 60s, Democratic candidates stopped delivering an inspiring economic message. But the real failure was substantive. In their sellout to the enrich-the-rich supply-siders, Democrats abandoned the working and middle class, and the party’s winning legacy of widespread prosperity. The Democratic party elite bought into and helped promulgate an economic belief system (the “Washington Consensus”) in which distribution and concentration of wealth and income not only don’t matter, they can’t matter. The quite predicable results are upon us — decades of working-class wage stagnation, and wealth concentrations that are as high or higher than any period in modern world history.
It’s no wonder the Democratic base feels betrayed. They were betrayed.
Still: despite those decades of weak-kneed collaborationism, Democrats have obviously remained more economically progressive than Republicans. Clinton and Obama managed to raise taxes some, and Obama gave us Obamacare. And the economy has shown the results. Democratic presidents have delivered growth, progress, widespread prosperity, individual economic security, and true personal economic “freedom” that Republicans — the self-proclaimed “party of growth” — can only imagine in their fever dreams.
By almost any economic measure — GDP or income growth, job creation, stock-market runups, deficit reduction, people in poverty…choose your measure — Democrats’ economic performance has unfailingly beggared what Republicans have offered up. That is true for any multi-decade period you choose to look at since World War II, or over the last century for that matter. It’s true at the national, state, and local levels. Republicans constantly promise prosperity and growth. Democrats consistently deliver it (at least compared to Republicans). They’ve kicked Republicans’ economic asses, decade after decade.
Bigger pie? Raise all boats? Talk to the Democrats.
But nobody seems to know that. Did you? And Democrats never even say it — much less repeat it endlessly over decades, shouting it from the rooftops to stir up the base as Republicans would. The old saw is apparently right: “A liberal is someone who won’t take their own side in an argument.”
Perhaps that failure is a result of progressives’ fussy squeamishness about people getting rich. They don’t really like that word. But voters do. A third of Americans’ think they’ll be rich someday. Fifty percent of 18–29-year-olds do. (About 5% of Americans actually are rich, with more than couple of million dollars in net worth.) That squeamishness explains the persistent “anti-capitalist” strain of American liberalism, which is such an electoral disaster at the voting booth.
Democrats have much to atone for in their failure to hold the line on progressive economic principles, their failure to wholeheartedly champion and defend the working and middle classes, their sellout and abdication to the bankster class. But they also have much to crow about. Instead, though, they’ve stood by for decades while Republicans have falsely claimed the “party of growth” moniker, contrary to all historical evidence.
It is the economy, stupid. Voters, Democratic and Republican alike, will tell you in surveys about all the things they care about. But when they walk into the voting booth, they’re going to choose the person who they think will make them, their families, and those around them more prosperous, comfortable, and economically secure. They vote for candidates who they think will deliver better lives — starting with people having enough money to pay the bills. The Republicans realized that forty-plus years ago, and they’ve been winning based on that ever since. “I’ll cut your taxes and deliver economic growth.” Full stop, drop the mic.
Trump showed us that fire-breathing populism wins elections. While his brimstone reeked of many things, economic populism was at the core of his rhetorical fur ball. Even as he prepared to betray the working class at unheard-of levels, he channeled that betrayal straight onto his vote tally. “Audacity”? Obama should grab a stool and go to school.
And Bernie showed us the same thing. His campaign was unprecedented in American political history, funding a full-boat national campaign and outspending Hillary by 25 million dollars, almost completely with small donations. His message of economic populism brought in more than 200 million dollars in donations from 2.5 million people. And he turned out the enthusiastic base, in droves. Presumably he would have done so on election day, as well. Are Democratic political operatives finally beginning to take note?
There is a path out of the wilderness for Democrats. It’s the path they’ve trod before, with huge success. It involves (for once) coalescing around a core message that resonates with all Americans, repeated endlessly over years and decades. “Equality” and “opportunity,” important as they are, are weak beer on the campaign trail. Most Americans change the channel. Tell them what they want to hear:
“We make America rich.”
The double meaning is fully intended.
Would love to tell you; but, Randian House Leader Paul Ryan along with most of the Republicans voted on a Bill restricting the CBO from examining what the cost would be. The vote was 234 Repubs “for” restricting the CBO to 193 (190 Dems + 3 Repubs) against restricting the CBO examining the cost automatically. I wonder why they are afraid of the CBO examining the cost resulting from the repeal of the PPACA?
An earlier June 2015 study had this information. “Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.” CBO Estimate. I chose the harsher number as this I believe is a fairer numeric to take into consideration. A lesser number is $137 billion over the same 10 years.
I suspect the number is higher as the Repubs are restricting the CBO from weighing in on their plans.
I am back to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, as it gives an accurate assessment of what the public really wants with healthcare insurance rather than a political view. Given that Senator Sessions, and Rep. Upton, and Rep. Kingston stopped all funding of the Risk Corridor by placing a sentence in Section 227 of the 2015 Appropriations Act (dated December 16, 2014) effectively eliminating the financial assistance to Co-ops and Insurance companies; it comes as no surprise healthcare insurance premiums would rise, Co-ops would be especially hit hard and go bankrupt, and healthcare insurance companies would leave the PPACA insurance exchanges all together. For sure, we have seen healthcare insurance premiums go up due to the unregulated healthcare industry, less competition due to fallout of companies and bankruptcies, and mostly because of the impact of Section 227 of the 2015 Appropriations Act (dated December 16, 2014). This was a well-orchestrated attack on the PPACA by Republicans, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Rep. Fred Upton, and Rep. Jack Kingston to disrupt healthcare coverage, claim to be saving taxpayers money, and shift the blame for increased out-of-pocket costs to the PPACA and President Barack Obama.
Kaiser does a good job of tracking trends with little of the political bias you might see in other polls. The number one concern of the Democrat and Republican constituency is not repealing the PPACA; but, lowering out-of-pocket costs paid by individuals such as premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. 93% of the people polled found this to be a #1 priority followed by lowering the cost of prescription drugs (89%). For sure, Sessions, Upton, Kingston, and their fellow Republicans have aggravated the healthcare premiums costs by restricting the Risk Corridor funding and are hiding in the weeds knowing they put one over on the Dems and the voters. The opportunity was there for Repubs to work with Dems and come up with ways to lower the overall out-of-pocket cost. Republicans let it go by for political reasons and now we have the head Randian Republican Paul Ryan trying to kill the PPACA, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. To replace them, you will get tax vouchers for each of those programs and a copy of “Atlas Shrugged” telling you to tough it out and be independent. This is coming from a man who has been in politics much of his life, has worked little in the private sector, went to college on Social Security Survivor benefits, and occasionally drove the OM Wiener Mobile around. Unlike ours, Representative Ryan’s congressional healthcare and retirement are a sure thing.
There are those in Congress who wish to repeal the PPACA in favor of whatever might be better as determined in their own minds. It took a long time to get to this point and the last time someone made an attempt at healthcare coverage was in the early nineties by someone named Clinton. In the early nineties, Congress did not like a President telling them what to do which is why Obama had Congress write the PPACA . . . well at least the Democrats put together the PPACA with no input from Republicans. In the chart above, 58% of the constituency favors repealing the PPACA. It is a majority; however within that majority, there are some other questions to be answered. This particular Kaiser Poll is dated December 13, 2016 so it has some relevance to what is going on today. For example, most Americans prefer Congress to either not repeal the PPACA or at least wait until the detail of the alternative plan is revealed. The second chart gives the percentages. 75% do not want to repeal and want to know “first” what is going to replace the PPACA before repealing.
The percentage of who oppose and support the PPACA shifts with the argument being made for or against. Sometimes the phrasing of the question can determine or lead to the answer given. While healthcare is one of the top priorities for the President – Elect and Congress, repealing the PPACA is not the first or even the second actions the constituency wishes the President to take as shown by the Kaiser pie and bar charts. Overwhelming the constituency wants to know what will replace the PPACA before Congress acts. Furthermore the constituency would rather see Congress deal with lowering out-of-pockets costs first, fix pharmaceutical costs second, and deal with the Opiod epidemic before even deciding on repealing the “catastrophic event ” Mr. Trump called it today. By asking for an immediate repeal of the PPACA by Congress, perhaps Mr. Trump is attempting to distract attention away from the Senate Confirmation Hearing of Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions an AG candidate who has some serious issues challenging his candidacy. We can be just as lively in both political arenas.