The Trump presidency

[CrabbedOne]

On The Hill Social media users poke fun at #boycottHawaii over travel ban ruling

Darn, first that fake birth certificate now this.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Forbes Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Coverage In America

...
When Democrats respond to job losses with an offer to expand the public safety net, blue collar voters cringe and rebel. They are not remotely interested in sharing the public social safety net experienced by minority groups and the poorest white families. Meanwhile well-employed and affluent voters, ensconced in their system of white socialism, leverage all the power at their disposal to block any dilution of their expensive public welfare benefits. Something has to break.

We may one day recognize that we are all “in it together” and find ways to build a more stable, sensible welfare system. That will not happen unless we acknowledge the painful and sometimes embarrassing legacy that brought us to this place. Absent that reckoning, unspoken realities will continue to warp our political calculations, frustrating our best hopes and stunting our potential.

There's some truth in this Americans are fine with European style "socialised" risk pooling but for a lot of them the definition of who is an "American" is pretty narrow and doesn't even cover out group folk who are born and bred citizens. It's tinged with racial attitudes and a determination to win in a rough zero sum game.

The strange US healthcare system that greatly empowers employers also keeps the risk pool narrow and more middle class. It's a competitive Devil take the hindmost attitude shared by a lot of basically very decent people who would often bend over backwards to help a stranger in trouble. That's what a lot of the rage about Obamacare was about even among folk who benefited from it. Attitudes to refugees and immigrants that are often more tolerant than in Europe but can easily be stirred up often come from a similar place. The lifeboat is full.

 

[CRI]

Cycling while Black in Chicago

and worse

Rundle Won't Charge Prison Guards Who Allegedly Boiled Schizophrenic Black Man to Death

But in an unconscionable decision, Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle's office announced Friday that the four guards who oversaw what amounted to a medieval-era boiling will not be charged with a crime.

“The shower was itself neither dangerous nor unsafe,’’ the report says. “The evidence does not show that Rainey’s well-being was grossly disregarded by the correctional staff.’’

WTF?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On Forbes Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Coverage In America
There's some truth in this Americans are fine with European style "socialised" risk pooling but for a lot of them the definition of who is an "American" is pretty narrow and doesn't even cover out group folk who are born and bred citizens. It's tinged with racial attitudes and a determination to win in a rough zero sum game.

The strange US healthcare system that greatly empowers employers also keeps the risk pool narrow and more middle class. It's a competitive Devil take the hindmost attitude shared by a lot of basically very decent people who would often bend over backwards to help a stranger in trouble. That's what a lot of the rage about Obamacare was about even among folk who benefited from it. Attitudes to refugees and immigrants that are often more tolerant than in Europe but can easily be stirred up often come from a similar place. The lifeboat is full.

Rings true to me, setting aside the use of the word socialism to describe what Germans would call the 'social market', which has got some backs up on here, but we know what is meant in this context, I think.

Certainly, the fact that the US is the only developed country in the world without some form of universal health care system (and there are a fair few underdeveloped countries that have some kind of universal system too) demands an explanation. And this does sound pretty persuasive to me.

 

[CRI]

Ghastly puff pieces in New York Times about Donald Trump Junior (complete with bizarre Senior photo stylie outtake photo) and In New York Magazine, "Kellyanne Conway Is a Star. Not your star perhaps. But that's the point." I mean Christ, both of them are really dire efforts to "humanise" people at the heart of efforts to destroy the US, y'know, just in case we start to think they are awful people, we must remember they are hoooooooooomaaaaaan, too. Every time you think the main stream media may have found its spine, you get ass licking tripe like this.

Naw.

 

[NoXion]

Destroy the US, yeah right. They might contribute to the US no longer being the pre-eminent world power (signs of which I believe we have already started to see before the Trump presidency), but they'll do so unwittingly. Anything else is liberal nationalist bollocks.

 

[J Ed]

Rings true to me, setting aside the use of the word socialism to describe what Germans would call the 'social market', which has got some backs up on here, but we know what is meant in this context, I think.

Certainly, the fact that the US is the only developed country in the world without some form of universal health care system (and there are a fair few underdeveloped countries that have some kind of universal system too) demands an explanation. And this does sound pretty persuasive to me.

Americans voted for universal healthcare in 2008, the candidate promising it then turned around and delivered the agenda of private health insurance companies instead without even attempting to do anything else.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Americans voted for universal healthcare in 2008, the candidate promising it then turned around and delivered the agenda of private health insurance companies instead without even attempting to do anything else.

Point about that piece, though, surely, is that, from the 40s to 60s, while the US was still a racist state, universal health care was prevented in a large part because a very large number of white Americans did not recognise black Americans as full people, and so were actively opposed to any system they saw as them paying for black Americans to have health care. The point made is that the US's employment-based health care system formed part of the system that maintained white privilege within the racist state. By the time the battle for legal equality had been won, the current system was entrenched and it's been kept entrenched ever since by the powerful groups whose interests it serves.

I'm not sure you're being altogether fair to Obama here either. 'turned around' or 'was blocked at every turn'?

 

[J Ed]

Point about that piece, though, surely, is that, from the 40s to 60s, while the US was still a racist state, universal health care was prevented in a large part because a very large number of white Americans did not recognise black Americans as full people, and so were actively opposed to any system they saw as them paying for black Americans to have health care. The point made is that the US's employment-based health care system formed part of the system that maintained white privilege within the racist state. By the time the battle for legal equality had been won, the current system was entrenched and it's been kept entrenched ever since by the powerful groups whose interests it serves.

I'm not sure you're being altogether fair to Obama here either. 'turned around' or 'was blocked at every turn'?

Who do you think Obama appointed to lead healthcare reform? Jim Messina and Rahm Emanuel, one went on to lead David Cameron's 2015 election campaign and the other is probably one of the furthest right people in the Democratic Party. There are people he could have appointed who were sympathetic to single payer, or something that was actually universal in some other form and he did not. Not a single Republican voted for the ACA, the Democrats cannot blame the awfulness of the ACA on anything other than themselves.

Americans for decades supported single payer heathcare, the will of the people was there to pass it and there was no reason why the Democrats could not have... other than of course their own institutionalised corruption and neoliberal ideology.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Who do you think Obama appointed to lead healthcare reform? Jim Messina and Rahm Emanuel, one went on to lead David Cameron's 2015 election campaign and the other is probably one of the furthest right people in the Democratic Party. There are people he could have appointed who were sympathetic to single payer, or something that was actually universal in some other form and he did not. Not a single Republican voted for the ACA, the Democrats cannot blame the awfulness of the ACA on anything other than themselves.

Americans for decades supported single payer heathcare, the will of the people was there to pass it and there was no reason why the Democrats could not have... other than of course their own institutionalised corruption and neoliberal ideology.

Problem is, though, unless you move towards the UK model of paying for health through general taxation, any new system of insurance will involve some people paying more. And that's what's happened with Obamacare - premiums for the already-insured have in many cases gone up in order to pay for the newly-insured. Resentment against this came out last year in the election - instead of black people, the resentment I saw quoted was towards immigrants of various stripes, and the 'undeserving poor' of all stripes.

You say that Americans have for decades supported universal health care, but that support has been by no means as general as it would be, say, here, or in almost any other country in the world. There is significant opposition to it, and not just from the rich.

 

[damnNAFTA]

You say that Americans have for decades supported universal health care, but that support has been by no means as general as it would be, say, here, or in almost any other country in the world. There is significant opposition to it, and not just from the rich.

What exactly are you basing this on? January of 2017 Pew research poll:

Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility. The share saying it is the government’s responsibility has increased from 51% last year and now stands at its highest point in nearly a decade.

Regarding the ACA:

in a Pew Research Center survey in December, 39% said it should be repealed, while an equal share (39%) said the law should be expanded. Just 15% of Americans said the law should be left as is. A December Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows repealing the law is not the public’s top health care priority for President-elect Donald Trump and the next Congress

More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage

I've been following this for years and polls have consistently shown a majority of U.S. public support such a thing. Politicians have signaled they will do it (Clinton in the 90s, Obama, etc.), win, and start having backroom deals with the American insurance industry lobbyists and single payer never gets passed (it's also worth remembering that the ACA was based on a Republican plan from the 90s). I do not think one can honestly claim the Democrats are merely doing what their constituents want or that they've been stopped entirely by Republicans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

38% of people say that ensuring health care coverage should not be the government's responsibility. And that's the lowest point that figure has stood at for a decade? That's a staggeringly high number of people to believe such a thing.

 

[CRI]

Problem is, though, unless you move towards the UK model of paying for health through general taxation, any new system of insurance will involve some people paying more. And that's what's happened with Obamacare - premiums for the already-insured have in many cases gone up in order to pay for the newly-insured. Resentment against this came out last year in the election - instead of black people, the resentment I saw quoted was towards immigrants of various stripes, and the 'undeserving poor' of all stripes.

You say that Americans have for decades supported universal health care, but that support has been by no means as general as it would be, say, here, or in almost any other country in the world. There is significant opposition to it, and not just from the rich.

I'm probably missing part of this convo, but I'm not sure where the evidence is "that Americans have for decades supported universal health care." There has generally been support for Medicare, which is the safety net of health care for older people. There has been waning support though for Medicaid - basic health care for the poorest, mainly for the same reasons poor folks despise and resent the very poorest on welfare. Healthcare provided by the VA for veterans is another entitlement that most Americans across the political spectrum tend to support. (That's another area of difference - in the US, there's strong support for service personnel across the spectrum while in the UK, this seems to decrease as you move from right to left.)

I expected there to be more uproar from Trump supporters at proposed cuts to the VA, and cuts already happening - the federal freeze on hiring, which still affects some VA installations. My eldest niece works in a VA hospital in Missouri and they're struggling to fill posts not covered by the exemption, and it's seriously impacting on services.

Ditto, the proposed move to block granting Medicare and Medicaid to the states (a step towards making it easier to cut and eliminate federally funded programmes.) I thought there would be more of an outcry from GOP voters, but no. I suspect some will wake up, but I'm still seeing plenty unwavering loyalty to the vision of Trump and the party.

My sister tries to avoid conversations about politics in the deepest of red areas where we grew up, but she says people keep saying they know Trump has a plan and they're not worried.

The deep culture of "me and mine," faith in the free market and the influence of big corporations in the health care industry, amongst other factors, mean it's really unlikely anything even close to the NHS system would have ever flown there. Now, I'd say absolutely impossible, sadly.

 

[bimble]

38% of people say that ensuring health care coverage should not be the government's responsibility. And that's the lowest point that figure has stood at for a decade? That's a staggeringly high number of people to believe such a thing.

And 67% of "Republicans and Republican leaners'"apparently (say they feel the government does not have a responsibility for ensuring health coverage, according to that article above). That's a lot of people.

 

[J Ed]

Problem is, though, unless you move towards the UK model of paying for health through general taxation, any new system of insurance will involve some people paying more. And that's what's happened with Obamacare - premiums for the already-insured have in many cases gone up in order to pay for the newly-insured. Resentment against this came out last year in the election - instead of black people, the resentment I saw quoted was towards immigrants of various stripes, and the 'undeserving poor' of all stripes.

You say that Americans have for decades supported universal health care, but that support has been by no means as general as it would be, say, here, or in almost any other country in the world. There is significant opposition to it, and not just from the rich.

Obama campaigned on the idea of universal healthcare and then didn't deliver it, just as he didn't deliver on his promises of being an anti-war and pro-civil liberties president. It is absolutely something deliverable under the US system, with significant support. Obama and the Democratic Party betrayed their voters.

 

[CRI]

What exactly are you basing this on? January of 2017 Pew research poll:


Regarding the ACA:

More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage

I've been following this for years and polls have consistently shown a majority of U.S. public support such a thing. Politicians have signaled they will do it (Clinton in the 90s, Obama, etc.), win, and start having backroom deals with the American insurance industry lobbyists and single payer never gets passed (it's also worth remembering that the ACA was based on a Republican plan from the 90s). I do not think one can honestly claim the Democrats are merely doing what their constituents want or that they've been stopped entirely by Republicans.

Okay, but "ensuring health care coverage for all Americans" isn't the same as offering universal health care services to all Americans. It just means access to health insurance.

Going back to the discussion I had with my sister the other day, she said one neighbour insisted that Trump would make sure that more people had "access to health insurance." She replied, "Like I have access to that brand new Cadillac at the dealership down town. Doesn't mean I can afford to buy it." If premiums and deductables are so high it swallows up nearly all your wages, access to a health plan means zilch.

 

[CrabbedOne]

Americans voted for universal healthcare in 2008, the candidate promising it then turned around and delivered the agenda of private health insurance companies instead without even attempting to do anything else.

From what I recall Obama never promised universal health care but an extension of the base of the insured population. Clinton actually attacked him in a debate for not backing single payer. The primary voters rejected Clinton's proposal which unlike Obama's had an individual mandate requiring healthcare cover be purchased. It was this way as he knew that was an affront to the GOP's dogma of consumer choice. The GOP voters later rebuked the author of Romneycare a successful rightwing prototype for Obamacare that proved an Albatross around Romney's neck.
Obama delivered the expansion of cover promised in a very complex bill though he fell a few millions short of the 2018 target. What he broke his promise on was the individual mandate which was necessary for any insurance based system, you being able to keep your existing plan and not doing much to reduce costs. The GOP worked hard to make this compromise a failure.

This does not compare with what was a pack of "populist" lies on healthcare by Trump who promised universal better and cheaper coverage and who is now brazenly backing a plan the CBO says reverses the expansion at a cost to a lot of his own ageing supporters. It's a neoliberal crock of shit that to the fury of some Republicans also still punishes those who don't buy healthcare by fining them when they reenter the system. And Trump's clearly signalled fall back position is just letting everything fail and continuing to blame Obama which actually might get him a second term. This is a despicable toying with people's lives.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And 67% of "Republicans and Republican leaners'"apparently (say they feel the government does not have a responsibility for ensuring health coverage, according to that article above). That's a lot of people.

It is, and it's an enormous difference between the US and here and lots of other places. How many people in the UK oppose the idea that the govt should ensure that everyone gets health care? 2%? 1%? I don't know - it's a lunatic fringe opinion.

 

[bimble]

It is, and it's an enormous difference between the US and here and lots of other places. How many people in the UK oppose the idea that the govt should ensure that everyone gets health care? 2%? 1%? I don't know - it's a lunatic fringe opinion.

Yes, but probably only because we got the NHS post war and have grown to love it and or take it for granted. I don't think there's anything innately more 'community-minded' or less selfish about people over here.

 

[J Ed]

From what I recall Obama never promised universal health care but an extension of the base of the insured population. Clinton actually attacked him in a debate for not backing single payer. The primary voters rejected Clinton's proposal which unlike Obama's had an individual mandate requiring healthcare cover be purchased. It was this way as he knew that was an affront to the GOP's dogma of consumer choice. The GOP voters later rebuked the author of Romneycare a successful rightwing prototype for Obamacare that proved an Albatross around Romney's neck.
Obama delivered the expansion of cover promised in a very complex bill though he fell a few millions short of the 2018 target. What he broke his promise on was the individual mandate which was necessary for any insurance based system, you being able to keep your existing plan and not doing much to reduce costs. The GOP worked hard to make this compromise a failure

Obama explicitly did promise universal healthcare, which isn't necessarily the same thing as single payer. You are right about Clinton attacking Obama from the left on healthcare, I had forgotten about that, funny.

He broke his promise on far more than the individual mandate, one of the main and earliest broken promises was on the transparency of the negotiations to set up the healthcare bill.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, but probably only because we got the NHS post war and have grown to love it and or take it for granted. I don't think there's anything innately more community-minded about people over here.

I don't claim that. But it will also be a lunatic fringe opinion in any other country that has compulsory insurance schemes instead of an NHS. Or somewhere like South Korea, say, which only instituted a universal system in the 80s. In most countries, the question is 'how should govt provide health coverage', not 'should govt provide health coverage'.

 

[damnNAFTA]

And 67% of "Republicans and Republican leaners'"apparently (say they feel the government does not have a responsibility for ensuring health coverage, according to that article above). That's a lot of people.

Did you read the entire sentence?

Most of those on the other side of the issue – people who say the government does not have a responsibility to ensure health coverage – say on a subsequent question that the government should continue Medicare and Medicaid (32% of the overall public), while just 5% of the public says the government should have no role in health care.
Among Republicans and Republican leaners, most of whom (67%) say the government does not have a responsibility for ensuring health coverage, there is very little support for the government not being involved in health care at all. Just 10% of Republicans favor no government involvement, while 56% say it should continue Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Did you read the entire sentence?

That 5% would be people saying that military vets shouldn't get health coverage from the govt, presumably. 'no role' is an enormous statement. That even 5% think this is itself a massive number, really. Doesn't change the fact that 4 out of 10 Americans do not believe in the idea of universal health care on principle.

 

[damnNAFTA]

That 5% would be people saying that military vets shouldn't get health coverage from the govt, presumably. 'no role' is an enormous statement. That even 5% think this is itself a massive number, really. Doesn't change the fact that 4 out of 10 Americans do not believe in the idea of universal health care on principle.

In 2013 polls show 7% in UK supported privatizing the NHS, not too far off. I don't really see what the point of this dispute is. The majority of Americans still want increased government role in the healthcare system. I would imagine if the U.S. did have an already established national government run healthcare system it would be as popular as in other countries (much like how even Republicans support Medicare and Medicaid in the polling above). The reason there is still debate about it is because there is not one.

 

[8den]

Ghastly puff pieces in New York Times about Donald Trump Junior (complete with bizarre Senior photo stylie outtake photo) and In New York Magazine, "Kellyanne Conway Is a Star. Not your star perhaps. But that's the point." I mean Christ, both of them are really dire efforts to "humanise" people at the heart of efforts to destroy the US, y'know, just in case we start to think they are awful people, we must remember they are hoooooooooomaaaaaan, too. Every time you think the main stream media may have found its spine, you get ass licking tripe like this.

Naw.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Not a single Republican voted for the ACA,

Yes: that was the problem. Republican obstructionism.

Bipartisanship was basically dead, as the Republicans worked to thwart every legislative move Obama made. That was why Obama turned to making Executive Orders. He couldn't get anything past the Republicans.

Don't forget that the President who should have been able to appoint the new Supreme Court Justice, was Obama - but the Republicans said no.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. There, Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

aucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

The Real Story of Obamacare's Birth

 

[J Ed]

Yes: that was the problem. Republican obstructionism.

No it wasn't, it got passed without a single Republican vote. They could have passed something better, and didn't.

 

[CRI]

In 2013 polls show 7% in UK supported privatizing the NHS, not too far off. I don't really see what the point of this dispute is. The majority of Americans still want increased government role in the healthcare system. I would imagine if the U.S. did have an already established national government run healthcare system it would be as popular as in other countries (much like how even Republicans support Medicare and Medicaid in the polling above). The reason there is still debate about it is because there is not one.

But, you are comparing two different questions here.

The 2013 YouGov UK survey asks "Do you think the following should be nationalised and run in the public sector or privatised and run by private companies? - National Health Service" 84% said public, 7% said private, 9% said don't know.

The US Pew Research report found "5% of the public says the government should have no role in health care."

The 7% of YouGov respondents were only saying the NHS should be privatised, not that the government should have no role in health care.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To be sure, the extended negotiations via the Gang of Six made a big difference in the ultimate success of the reform, but for other reasons. When Republicans like Hatch and Grassley began to write op-eds and trash the individual mandate, which they had earlier championed, as unconstitutional and abominable, it convinced conservative Democrats in the Senate that every honest effort to engage Republicans in the reform effort had been tried and cynically rebuffed. So when the crucial votes came in the Senate, in late December 2009, Harry Reid succeeded in the near-impossible feat of getting all 60 Democrats, from Socialist Bernie Sanders and liberal Barbara Boxer to conservatives Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln, to vote for cloture, to end the Republican filibuster, and to pass their version of the bill. All sixty were needed because every single Republican in the Senate voted against cloture and against the bill. Was this simply a matter of principle? The answer to that question was provided at a later point by Mitch McConnell, who made clear that the unified opposition was a ruthlessly pragmatic political tactic. He said, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”

- the Atlantic article, above.