US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[Fez]

Single payer loses its appeal among the conservatives who support it once Republicans start attacking the idea directly (same way Clinton had sky-high approval back in 2013 when no one was attacking her) and loses its appeal among moderates and some liberals once they realize just how high taxes need to go to pay for it (there's a reason why Vermont and California abandoned the idea). Yes, those tax increases are more than off-set for most people by the reduction/elimination of premiums and out-of-pocket care costs they currently have, but that's not an easy argument to make; especially since there are some people who will be worse off under single payer (every system has trade-offs).

That isn't to say Democrats shouldn't implement single payer if they get the chance, but they should be extremely careful about how they do so to not disrupt too many people (I'd recommend starting off with Medicare and Medicaid buy-ins and slowly moving from there) and it probably shouldn't be the centerpiece of an election campaign.

[OldGimletEye]

Interesting, but I’m sure in the hell not getting my hopes up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/upshot/why-trumps-base-of-support-may-be-smaller-than-it-seems.html

Quote

Even the most recent Russia revelations seemingly haven’t dented support for Mr. Trump among Republicans, who continue to approve of his job performance at very high rates — 82 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Sunday, for instance.

But numbers like these may mask a decline in support for Mr. Trump among his original party base.

 

Quote

One example is the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress and an increasingly vocal Trump critic who has announced that he is leaving the party.

Could of told you the Republican Party has been going insane for years, but I guess it took an Orange Swamp Thing to take it over to convince you that was true. And lets be clear here: Trump wasn’t an exogenous event that hit the poor old Republican Party. He was endogenous event that developed as a result of the Republican Party takin’ the crazy train to nuttown.

...........................

Poor Republican Party!! It’s sure got itself in a jam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/19/heres-what-health-care-looks-like-if-republicans-new-obamacare-repeal-plan-succeeds/

Quote

Things have gone from bad to worse for the Republican effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. On Monday night, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lacked the votes to pass a bill that would undo much of Obamacare and replace the law with a modified system. But the majority leader's back-up plan -- repealing Obamacare entirely right away, with the goal of working out a replacement later -- appears no more likely to succeed.

Back in the day, Republican Teddy Roosevelt said: Talk softly and carry a big stick. Now the Republican Party's motto is: Be a bigger talker, and don't worry if you can back up your claims. Where's that awesome Republican healthcare bill?

.............................................

Today Trump says. But yesterday he was saying…...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/18/theres-a-trump-tweet-for-everything-failed-obamacare-repeal-edition/

Quote

President Trump's extensive Twitter history — 35,300 tweets and counting, stretching back to 2009 — virtually guarantees that there's a past tweet to serve as an ironic exclamation point for just about any moment of the Trump presidency.

..............................

Wait, Trump never had a viable healthcare plan? It’s only to let Obamacare fail? I’m shocked! Shocked!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/upshot/obamacares-future-now-depends-on-an-unhappy-white-house.html

Quote

While premiums for Obamacare plans rose sharply for many customers this year, a growing body of evidence suggests that the insurers still in the market have begun making money and would be likely to stay if not for the administrative uncertainty. So far, there has not been a widespread run for the exits among insurers, but that could change if the companies feel that the administration wishes to actively undermine the markets.

 

Quote

President Trump, for the moment, appears to be leaning toward that course of action. In a Tuesday morning tweet, he wrote, “Let Obamacare fail and then come together and do a great healthcare plan.” Later in the day, he told reporters that Republicans should “let Obamacare fail,” adding, “I’m not going to own it.”

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You sound like Mitch McConnell.  "Dems did this and strategy that and winners/losers wah wah".  I don't give a fuck.  American democracy is pretty much done and the Democratic party is certainly done and people are still advocating for neither party to not govern appropriately.

@dmc515 is right though. We need to keep the Democratic base energized and the GOP base demoralized. Taking a symbolic vote that won't accomplish anything other then undoing that dynamic is a terrible idea. 

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

Single payer loses its appeal among the conservatives who support it once Republicans start attacking the idea directly (same way Clinton had sky-high approval back in 2013 when no one was attacking her) and loses its appeal among moderates and some liberals once they realize just how high taxes need to go to pay for it (there's a reason why Vermont and California abandoned the idea). Yes, those tax increases are more than off-set for most people by the reduction/elimination of premiums and out-of-pocket care costs they currently have, but that's not an easy argument to make; especially since there are some people who will be worse off under single payer (every system has trade-offs).

That isn't to say Democrats shouldn't implement single payer if they get the chance, but they should be extremely careful about how they do so to not disrupt too many people (I'd recommend starting off with Medicare and Medicaid buy-ins and slowly moving from there) and it probably shouldn't be the centerpiece of an election campaign.

Of course it does.  Again, conservatives stand for nothing beyond what their fair leader tells them to stand for.  They will believe and support anything.  

The idea would be for the GOP not to attack single payer, but to pass it and support it and tell their people it's good.  Their people will believe it because that's how they operate.  And let's face it, single payer is good regardless the party that implements it.  Hopefully dems wouldn't have a mental meltdown like conservatives did just because the other guy did something good.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

@dmc515 is right though. We need to keep the Democratic base energized and the GOP base demoralized. Taking a symbolic vote that won't accomplish anything other then undoing that dynamic is a terrible idea. 

I didn't say anything about a symbolic vote.  I wrote about single payer being introduced and then mentioned the hypothetical idea of the GOP passing it.  Everyone else is stuck on some stupid strategy game about what the completely useless dem base should be doing, as though this is a game of monopoly and things are only ok if your person wins.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I didn't say anything about a symbolic vote.  I wrote about single payer being introduced and then mentioned the hypothetical idea of the GOP passing it.  Everyone else is stuck on some stupid strategy game about what the completely useless dem base should be doing, as though this is a game of monopoly and things are only ok if your person wins.  

Except there is exactly a 0% chance that the GOP would pass it, so introducing it would be purely symbolic, and a detriment to the electoral chances of the Democratic Party in 2018 and beyond. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Except there is exactly a 0% chance that the GOP would pass it, so introducing it would be purely symbolic, and a detriment to the electoral chances of the Democratic Party in 2018 and beyond. 

I guess you've forgotten what the word "hypothetical" means???

jfc, I'm talking about a hypothetical.  Like hypothetically the GOP gets on board with single payer...I'm just going to have to direct you to google for this one because I'm not going to define basic words for someone. 

And sorry, but the Dem party is done.  The only thing they have left to do right now is try to, you know, actually govern.  That's the only chance American democracy has, if the dems currently in office actually try to do their job, whether or not the GOP will or not.  This bullshit where the dems do absolutely nothing because they are afraid the GOP will ignore them continues to be bullshit.  If the dems want to do any looking towards the future, they need to actually get shit done right fucking now.

But they won't, because they have a base who goes insane at the mere hypothetical idea of the GOP selling single payer to their own base.  We're becoming as dumb as they are.  

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Of course it does.  Again, conservatives stand for nothing beyond what their fair leader tells them to stand for.  They will believe and support anything.  

The idea would be for the GOP not to attack single payer, but to pass it and support it and tell their people it's good.  Their people will believe it because that's how they operate.  And let's face it, single payer is good regardless the party that implements it.  Hopefully dems wouldn't have a mental meltdown like conservatives did just because the other guy did something good.

I didn't say anything about a symbolic vote.  I wrote about single payer being introduced and then mentioned the hypothetical idea of the GOP passing it.  Everyone else is stuck on some stupid strategy game about what the completely useless dem base should be doing, as though this is a game of monopoly and things are only ok if your person wins.  

There is zero chance the GOP would pass single payer, so why talk about the hypothetical of them doing so?

There are, or rather there were, conservative policy ideas that could potentially improve the health care system; if you want hypotheticals, you might as well focus on them. They won't get implemented either, but at least its not a total fantasy.

Also, I wouldn't say single payer is good regardless of anything. It could be very good, but as always the devil is in the details; and supporting it without reservation is a bad idea.

[Zorral]

Quote

The idea would be for the GOP not to attack single payer, but to pass it and support it and tell their people it's good.  Their people will believe it because that's how they operate.  And let's face it, single payer is good regardless the party that implements it.  Hopefully dems wouldn't have a mental meltdown like conservatives did just because the other guy did something good.

This cannot happen because the Koch bros, etc. who own the party and much much mucho mas besides, can't have it.  With a single payer health care system there has to be a central government and their objective is to get rid of it.  This is WHY the so-called entitlement programs must go.  They have to be supported, via taxation.  They need administration.  They need regulation, etc.  This makes for government and governance -- and taxation and legal regs, and this is antithetical to the neoliberal / libertarian paradise.

Which is why suddenly they are floating getting rid of the military too, and 'privatizing' war.  But perhaps this clashes with the objectives of the Bannonites, etc., who are deep in the role-playing game of Religion and Civilization: Clash Of. They need a nation or at least a national military to wipe Islam and all the Others from the face of not only the earth, but history.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

There is zero chance the GOP would pass single payer, so why talk about the hypothetical of them doing so?

All this thread does is talk about hypotheticals.  And besides, a rather large portion of Trump voters support medicaid for all.  Again, the GOP would have zero chance of losing power if they took on the single payer mantle.  (Not that they have much chance of losing power now, except if/when Trump claims his dictatorship).  

Quote

There are, or rather there were, conservative policy ideas that could potentially improve the health care system; if you want hypotheticals, you might as well focus on them. They won't get implemented either, but at least its not a total fantasy.

Also, I wouldn't say single payer is good regardless of anything. It could be very good, but as always the devil is in the details; and supporting it without reservation is a bad idea.

Every progressive goal remains a total fantasy as long as progressives continue talking like you or others in this thread. 

I also didn't say single payer without reservations.  My point is that I'm not a little baby who gets butthurt if the other guy does something good. I'd be advocating for the dems to work alongside things to make any healthcare plan better.  Much as I advocate for it now with the actual healthcare debate. 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

This cannot happen because the Koch bros, etc. who own the party and much much mucho mas besides, can't have it.  With a single payer health care system there has to be a central government and their objective is to get rid of it.  This is WHY the so-called entitlement programs must go.  They have to be supported, via taxation.  They need administration.  They need regulation, etc.  This makes for government and governance -- and taxation and legal regs, and this is antithetical to the neoliberal / libertarian paradise.

Which is why suddenly they are floating getting rid of the military too, and 'privatizing' war.  But perhaps this clashes with the objectives of the Bannonites, etc., who are deep in the role-playing game of Religion and Civilization: Clash Of. They need a nation or at least a national military to wipe Islam and all the Others from the face of not only the earth, but history.

 

Yeah, obviously billionaire libertarians need to not be part of the equation.  But again, we're talking hypothetical.  

I guess I should point out that there is almost no policy of the GOP that I support.  I'm not in support of the administration.  But neither am I going to sit and cry and try to say X isn't good just because the other guy did it.  That's my issue here.  The only reason posters here don't want X to be done by party in power is because they aren't members of the same team and they are too worried about strategies as though this is all a board game instead of real life where losers are actually dying and being harmed every day.  

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

All this thread does is talk about hypotheticals.  And besides, a rather large portion of Trump voters support medicaid for all.  Again, the GOP would have zero chance of losing power if they took on the single payer mantle.  (Not that they have much chance of losing power now, except if/when Trump claims his dictatorship).  

Every progressive goal remains a total fantasy as long as progressives continue talking like you or others in this thread. 

I also didn't say single payer without reservations.  My point is that I'm not a little baby who gets butthurt if the other guy does something good. I'd be advocating for the dems to work alongside things to make any healthcare plan better.  Much as I advocate for it now with the actual healthcare debate. 

What are you even talking about?

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

What are you even talking about?

What are you confused about?  I made a hypothetical in a thread that is nothing but hypotheticals, people got butthurt because a hypothetical where the other guy does something right is bad or something.  You then went on to say that singlerpayer without reservations isn't great, and I pointed out I never said that.  

Dems are done.  The only thing they have now is to either continue as they are and hasten america's decline, or actually do something.  I prefer them doing something.  

[OldGimletEye]

LOL. It's the Democrats fault. Democrats  can barely organize a fire in a match factory.

But, the Trumpsters are going to blame the Democrats. Surely, neither Trump nor the Republican Party are at fault.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-blames-democrats-trumpcares-collapse

Quote

The Republicans’ health care gambit failed, at least for now, because the party couldn’t overcome its partisan divisions. The GOP majority in the House and Senate is large enough to pass the legislation, but as is now obvious, there aren’t enough Republican members prepared to back their party’s regressive and unpopular bill.

And yet, consider this exchange from yesterday’s White House press briefing, where Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted intra-party divisions aren’t the real problem.

Q: First, who is responsible, primarily responsible for what appears to be the failure of this healthcare legislation?

SANDERS: I would say Democrats.

 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What are you confused about?  I made a hypothetical in a thread that is nothing but hypotheticals, people got butthurt because a hypothetical where the other guy does something right is bad or something.

The problem here is people use hypotheticals that are plausible, or at least reflect political reality.  The point of hypotheticals is to "hypothesize" about how to explain or predict the real world.  If I thought there was a greater-than-zero possibility GOP would ever get on board with single payer I'd be much more sympathetic to the argument and stop sounding like a turtle or I'm playing a game or whatever your issue is.

55 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This bullshit where the dems do absolutely nothing because they are afraid the GOP will ignore them continues to be bullshit.  If the dems want to do any looking towards the future, they need to actually get shit done right fucking now.

This just doesn't make any sense.  How is the opposition party supposed to "actually get shit done right fucking now?"  What are they supposed to do?  I guess you mean advocate certain policies - fine, that's great.  But it's politics 101 to not push a policy you know will be detrimental to regaining power if it has no chance to pass anyway. 

I'm totally fine with working with the GOP too, but only if there's a decent possibility they would be willing to compromise on the issue, and single payer is not one of them.  Moreover, it seems quite odd to concurrently say democracy has basically ended and the Dems should find ways to work with the party that has basically ended it.

[Fez]

What dmc515 said.

 

Anyway, I'm legit shocked...

That sounds like actual integrity from a currently-elected Republican.

Although maybe its just an excuse to avoid hearing anymore of Trump's BS; I suspect there are quite a few other Senators that wish they also had an excuse like this. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But the GOP base wouldn't.  Conservatives stand for nothing, and besides one campaign promise of Trump's would be that everyone would have health insurance.  All the Republican party would have to do is just implement it and their idiot followers would think it's good even if five minutes ago they thought single payer was bad.  And then we'd have universal healthcare.  That's a win in my book, I don't give a fuck what party does it.  That's basically the Republican issue with the ACA, it's that Obama signed it into law and not one of their own (white) men.  

Um yes, they would. The whole reason McConnell is even bothering to hold this Repeal and Wait vote is to appease that 30% or so of the base that is still deadset on repeal, regardless as to whether or not they benefit from Obamacare.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-paradox-of-mitch-mcconnells-repeal-only-vote/534129/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Maithanet]

It seems really strange to me that there isn't more criticism from Republicans about the decision to include a huge cap and shift of medicaid in the Obamacare repeal bill.  Those do not need to be linked.  A big part of why the CBO score on the bill was so disastrous was because of Ryan/McConnell's insistance that Medicaid be changed into a block grant.  If they had a bill that just loosened some of the rules on insurance plan eligibility, repealed the individual mandate and replaced it with some sort of alternative fee to avoid free riders, they could have called it a win.  Yes, it wouldn't be a complete repeal of Obamacare, but neither was the HCRA.  It is a partial repeal, and Trump could rightfully declare victory. 

Considering how hard it is to take away a major entitlement like medicaid (very very hard), why wasn't this even considered? 

[aceluby]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Considering how hard it is to take away a major entitlement like medicaid (very very hard), why wasn't this even considered? 

My guess is because it wouldn't pass the house.  The Freedom Caucus never would have gone through with that.

[S John]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Dems are done.  The only thing they have now is to either continue as they are and hasten america's decline, or actually do something.  I prefer them doing something.  

They need some new blood to emerge - and soon, but they aren't done.  These things are cyclical, even with gerrymandering.  Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president at this point in his presidency and it does not look like he is equipped to drastically improve those opinions.  With some fluctuations here and there I'd expect him to continue to shed supporters as it gets harder and harder to ignore how full of shit he is.  His base is still intact mostly, but it's only been 7 months.    

And the Republicans continue to fail at solving their most threatening long-term problem which is demographics.  I'm admittedly inclined towards optimism, but when I see the Trump crew on TV I see the desperate dying gasp of those not well equipped for the realities of 21st century.  The 2016 election was a major setback for social issues, the climate, healthcare reform, and improving economic equality, but I don't see it as the final say on all of those things.  Trump supporters tend to be old and white and the only way the R's are going to bring in more young people, more minorities, and more people of color is by actually doing an incredible job and improving the lives of voters in a tangible way.  But what has happened so far instead is that they are fucking up.  They've got a guaranteed two year window to fundamentally change this country with a flurry of regressive legislation but they obviously do not have a coherent plan and Trump is a terrible leader on legislative issues, he just wants sign things with his big pen, golf, and tweet.  

If things continue like this it is entirely possible that the political make-up of the presidency and congress looks very different in 4 years.  And even if they get it together and succeed at implementing a conservative agenda (especially on issues like healthcare) I think there's a good possibility that when the American people get a dose of what that entails the R's own agenda could bite them in the ass at the polls.  Trump was all about jobs, jobs, jobs - but many of the industries he championed are in dying industries that have been heavily automated.  Those aren't coming back in the numbers it would take to revitalize the rust belt and in 2020 it should not be difficult to demonstrate that Trump's campaign bluster for 2016 was mostly a bunch of bull shit.  Gonna be a long 4 years, though, that much is for sure.  

 

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It seems really strange to me that there isn't more criticism from Republicans about the decision to include a huge cap and shift of medicaid in the Obamacare repeal bill.  Those do not need to be linked.  A big part of why the CBO score on the bill was so disastrous was because of Ryan/McConnell's insistance that Medicaid be changed into a block grant.  If they had a bill that just loosened some of the rules on insurance plan eligibility, repealed the individual mandate and replaced it with some sort of alternative fee to avoid free riders, they could have called it a win.  Yes, it wouldn't be a complete repeal of Obamacare, but neither was the HCRA.  It is a partial repeal, and Trump could rightfully declare victory. 

Considering how hard it is to take away a major entitlement like medicaid (very very hard), why wasn't this even considered? 

IMO Trump hates Obamacare mainly because it has Obama's attached to it.  Obama made fun of him to his face in public once, and now Trump wants to destroy his legacy.  And I think scrubbing out Obama's legacy is a major motivation for congressional republicans as well.  If the solution is to 'fix' Obamacare, but it remains fundamentally Obamacare - that isn't good enough.  

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

My guess is because it wouldn't pass the house.  The Freedom Caucus never would have gone through with that.

Yeah, but they wouldn't have any problems with moderate Republicans defecting, so you could put a lot of pressure on the Freedom Caucus to get on board the repeal train.  Doubly so if McConnell passed the bill in the Senate and the Freedom Caucus is looking at two options of Save Obamacare and Partial Repeal/Replace. 

1 minute ago, S John said:

IMO Trump hates Obamacare mainly because it has Obama's attached to it.  Obama made fun of him to his face in public once, and now Trump wants to destroy his legacy.  And I think scrubbing out Obama's legacy is a major motivation for congressional republicans as well.  If the solution is to 'fix' Obamacare, but it remains fundamentally Obamacare - that isn't good enough.  

What I've outlined isn't just a "fix" of Obamacare, it is still a big change.  Trump could correctly say that such a bill has fundamentally replaced (Trumped?) Obama's signature achievement.