Tag Archives: Obamacare

medical news

House prepares to burn Obamacare to the ground

I told you I would say something good about Donald J. Trump when the opportunity presents itself.

It just has.

The president-elect has admonished Republican members of Congress about whether they should repeal the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement law ready to go.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-house-republicans-to-vote-on-obamacare-repeal/ar-AAlQhoT?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

According to Reuters: “The president-elect, who takes office on Jan. 20, pressed lawmakers this week to repeal and replace it ‘essentially simultaneously.'”

Yes, Trump has applauded House members’ swift action to repeal the ACA. He’s also been mindful of the consequences of peeling away health insurance for 20 million Americans who have purchased coverage under the ACA.

It’s not as if congressional Republicans haven’t had time to cobble together a replacement plan. For six years, since the ACA was approved, the GOP has been harping and carping about the need to replace it — with something! House Republicans filed a lawsuit to repeal the ACA. They wrung their hands and griped out loud continually about an insurance law that was patterned — interestingly enough — after a Massachusetts law endorsed and pushed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.

House repeal doesn’t spell the end of the ACA. The repeal effort still has to jump through the Senate hoops, too.

However, the president-elect’s insistence that Congress have a replacement plan ready to go “simultaneously” is the more reasonable and humane approach.

medical news, national news, political news

GOP set to repeal … but what about the ‘replace’ part?

It’s not like the Republican Party’s members of Congress haven’t had time. They’ve had six whole years to consider how they would replace the Affordable Care Act if they ever got the chance to repeal the law.

They seem set on the repeal part of the ACA. What, though, is taking them so long to come up with the replacement?

The ACA — aka Obamacare — is President Obama’s signature domestic achievement. He’s no doubt going to speak highly of it when he bids the nation farewell in just a little while.

The ACA has enabled about 20 million Americans to obtain health insurance. Has it been “affordable,” as the president pitched it? Not entirely. Premiums have gone up; medical plans have had trouble marrying up doctors and health insurance companies.

It is not, as the GOP has maintained for the past six years, a “disaster.” They seem to dislike it mainly because a Democratic president came up with the idea of providing insurance for uninsured Americans.

But hey! He got the idea from Massachusetts, which had a Republican governor — a guy named Mitt Romney — that had developed a nearly identical plan. Obama copied Romney’s plan, more or less, and adapted to the national model.

What’s more the president himself has said that he would have been willing to accept an alternative if it did a better job than the ACA. Republicans, though, aren’t ready to provide an alternative.

What in the world has taken them so long? Are they content only to bitch and moan for the sake of political expediency without giving serious thought and discussion to how they would replace the ACA?

They’ve got the repeal part down pat. How about giving us something with which to replace it? If they intend to govern, they need to flesh out the details of how their ideas on health care are better than what we have.

national news

Wow! Trump lashes out at GOP ethics-gutting move

2 Comments

It’s official.

Hell has officially frozen over. Earth is about to spin off its axis. The sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning.

Donald J. Trump has broken ranks with congressional Republicans who, in a surprise move, decided to weaken significantly its ethical oversight function.

The president-elect tweeted his criticism of the GOP leadership’s effort get rid of a bipartisan watchdog group and hand oversight to the House Ethics Committee.

Trump tweeted: “may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! ”

The “DTS” hashtag stands for “drain the swamp,” which Trump had pledged to do.

OK, the president-elect’s desire to repeal Obamacare and slash taxes for wealthy Americans is up for discussion, but I’m glad to see him taking the House Republican leadership to task for its effort to gut a valuable weapon to guard against congressional corruption.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-rebukes-house-republicans-over-bid-to-gut-ethics-office/ar-BBxPCgQ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Good deal, right? We’ll have to see what he thinks about ethics reform and swamp-draining in, oh, the next few hours. These things, as we know, can be subject to change.

national news

‘Get over it’? Sure, when y’all get over your own selves

trump-wins

The “Get over it!” mantra is beginning to grate on my nerves.

It’s coming from those who are glad to see Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States. The mantra is aimed at the rest of the country — more than half of those who cast ballots, actually — who voted for someone else.

They can’t “get over it.”

I don’t quite consider myself in that category of disgruntled voter. Maybe others see me as one of the sore losers. I don’t like being perceived that way. I am doing my best to level my criticism of the president-elect in a way that focuses more on the issues as I see them.

I will admit to occasionally challenging the man’s temperamental fitness for the job, but then again, that’s an issue, too.

The annoyance over the calls to get over it stems from the eight-year bitch session that’s been under way since Barack Hussein Obama was elected president.

A lot of folks haven’t gotten over that seminal event. The election in 2008 of the first African-American as head of state and head of government of the greatest nation on Earth just hasn’t gone over with a certain segment of this nation.

Sure, they’ll respond with, “I am not a racist, but …” And, no, I am not hanging the “racist” label on all of the president’s critics.

I understand that the man’s policies themselves have angered a lot of Americans. We had that big economic stimulus package that rescued several segments of our then-failing economy; we got the Affordable Care Act, over the strenuous objections of Republicans; he granted a temporary reprieve for about 5 million illegal immigrants through the use of an executive order.

I happen to support all those aforementioned actions. That’s just me. I’m one of those Americans who voted twice for the president.

We are a sharply divided nation. The election of Donald J. Trump enhances and emphasizes that division in ways we haven’t seen in some time.

I am still struggling with the idea that Trump will become the next president. I’ll “get over it” … eventually. I promise.

Just don’t keep reminding me to “get over it.” The more you say it the more I am likely to resist.

national news, political news

Let’s not despair a Trump victory

2 Comments

(c) 2006 Bonnie Jacobs

Social media are fluttering all over the place with despair.

Those who supported Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the U.S. presidency are predicting gloomy days, months and years ahead as Donald J. Trump prepares to become the next president.

I make no apologies for my own loyalties. I preferred Clinton to win, too.

I just want to put a little perspective on what I believe lies ahead for the nation … and the new president.

Trump says he intends to do a lot of things: He will “build a wall,” he’ll revoke the Affordable Care Act, he’ll ban Muslims from entering this country, he’ll revoke trade deals.

Here’s this little impediment to all those things he intends to do: the United States Congress.

The founders got it exactly right when they built a three-tiered system of government: the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

As a friend and mentor once reminded me: A president proposes, Congress disposes.

So, there you have it. The president can declare his intention to do all kinds of things, but Congress stands in the way of all those bold — and occasionally nutty — intentions.

Factor in, too, that Trump — who has zero military or government experience — has damn few friends in Congress. He has built no relationships on Capitol Hill. The Republican “establishment” pols who run both congressional chambers dislike Trump, who spent a great deal of his political capital trashing the work they do; of course, it’s understood that congressional Democrats despise the president-elect.

Does anyone seriously believe the Congress is going to give the new president a free pass on anything, let alone some of the more controversial — and ridiculous — ideas he has pitched to American voters?

You also ought to consider that members of Congress are going to watch Trump carefully to ensure he doesn’t stray too far off the constitutional trail.

Trump is going to learn in very short order that the Constitution grants the president limited authority. He will be unable to the things he wants to do unilaterally. What about executive authority? Well, he’d better take care with how he uses that power as well.

I continue to have faith in the system of government that our founders created. These were wise men who, I’ll concede, didn’t grant a perfect government document. They didn’t give women the right to vote, nor did they grant equal rights to our nation’s black citizens; those reforms came later.

However, they did place plenty of power in the legislative and judicial branches of government, which they can use to blunt an executive branch that seeks to reach beyond its grasp.

Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency as if he didn’t quite understand all of that.

He will learn it quickly.

medical news, national news, political news

Hey, what about that Obamacare lawsuit?

I’m still waiting.

Remember the lawsuit that former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner filed to strike down the Affordable Care Act? It’s been filed. But I’m waiting for something to happen. Some decision. Some court motion.  Anything!

obamacare

But wait! Boehner then quit the House and went into private life. He’s still living in D.C., or so I understand. I’ve heard some things about him wanting to become a lobbyist.

Whatever.

The lawsuit, though, has drifted into the mist. It’s been shoved way past the back burner.

Has anyone heard of its status? Does anyone at this point care about its status?

I have wondered about it already. An earlier blog post is right here:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/gop-lawsuit-takes-another-hit/

I get that Obamacare, as the ACA has come to be known, still isn’t entirely popular. Yes, more American are insured now than ever before. The premium costs remain a problem.

But its legality? Is that really the issue, or was the lawsuit meant to drive home a political point?

Plaintiff No. 1, former Speaker Boehner, is now out of the picture. He’s no longer in public life.

I’m beginning to believe that the lawsuit is continuing to die a slow death … somewhere.

national news

A little self-awareness, please, Sen. Cruz

I cannot let this pass without comment.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the filibuster led by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut a “distraction.” He said it’s a “game.” He labeled it “political gamesmanship,” which he said the public considers to be “ridiculous.”

Wow, dude.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/16/cruz_senate_filibuster_a_distraction_political_gamesmanship.html

Filibusters by their very nature are meant to “distract” senators.

I believe I’ll now point to Sen. Cruz’s own game of “political gamesmanship” when he led a faux filibuster three years ago to defund the Affordable Care Act. The effect was to temporarily shut down the federal government as Cruz read passages from Dr. Seuss on the floor of the Senate.

He didn’t succeed in defunding the ACA, but he did succeed in making a fool of himself.

Of all the 98 remaining senators who could have spoken out against Sen. Murphy’s filibuster that he used to force a vote on gun legislation, why did it have to be Ted Cruz, the unofficial king of “political gamesmanship”?

 

national news, political news

It’s time to start providing some detail, Mr. Trump

1 Comment

GOP%20Caricatures_Edit

I am acquainted with a young woman who has decided that Donald J. Trump should be elected the next president of the United States.

I didn’t know precisely what drew her to climb aboard Trump’s bandwagon. So, I did what I thought was the correct thing to do: I asked her directly.

I’ll refrain from identifying her. It’s true she’s just one person, but she seems to sound like countless other Trumpsters who’ve thrown in with the real estate tycoon/reality TV celebrity.

I just want to share her written response to my query.

“First, I have believed that our country should be run by a businessman/woman who understands profit/overhead/dealmaking/etc., as opposed to career politicians who have no problem freely spending tax money and demanding more.

“I am also I am also vehemently opposed to Political Correctness. It is both a false way to live and a maniacal way of attempting to force others to tow your chosen line, not their own. I detest racism with a passion, but I firmly defend the right of the Black Lives Matter movement to spew their prejudices …

“I believe, and always have, in a strong military. To me, the main objective is to protect our borders and citizens. Welfare, Planned Parenthood, etc., are all fine ventures, but should be privately funded, in my opinion. I truly admire that Trump says what he thinks and does not “sugar coat” in an effort to appear “perfect” because nobody is perfect and I hate that Politician Fakeness.

“The funny thing is, when Trump first announced I laughed him off as a joke looking for attention. But, I slowly realized that, love him or hate him, he speaks from his heart with no care for what others think. He has failed and rebounded more than once. Most people never achieve great success because they fear failure. He is an Alpha Male and I prefer that to a milquetoast.”

The thing that jumps out at me as I have studied her answer is  absence of any policy analysis. She has joined others in backing Trump because, as I read this, he hates “political correctness,” and has the kind of background, acumen and savvy that would enable him to run the country like a business.

How does he intend to build that wall along our southern border? How does he intend to bring back all those jobs? How is he going to negotiate with Russia, with Iran? With what will he replace the Affordable Care Act? How does his tax plan work? How will he reduce the national debt? What is his view of the ideal Supreme Court justice? How — precisely — is he going to win the war against international terrorism?

These are the things Trump ought to spell out. He’s not doing any of that. Instead, he tosses out innuendo and insults. He demands apologies from media outlets that criticize him, such as what he demanded this week of the Wall Street Journal for publishing a critical editorial.

But it’s OK with those who have signed on because, they say, he speaks for them. He says what others are thinking but don’t have the guts to say out loud.

He “tells it like it is.”

My question is this: What is the “it” he’s talking about?

 
legal news, national news, political news

Litmus tests: virtually unprovable

litmus-test-300x199

President Obama has a big decision to make.

Who’s going to become the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Now comes the inevitable question: Uh, Mr. President, do you have a litmus test that a nominee must pass?

Gee, how does the president answer that one? “Of course not! I don’t believe in litmus tests. My nominee will be the most qualified person I can find. He or she must be able to interpret law, not make it, and they must be studious as they ponder the constitutional decisions he or she must face.”

Actually, it is my considered opinion that answers like that are full of so much mule dung.

Of course there are litmus tests! The issue facing the politicians doing the appointing is that they dare not call them such.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that when, say, a president of the United States looks across a conference-room table at a prospective nominee that he or she doesn’t ask them The Question?

In a case such as this it might be: “Would you vote to uphold the Roe v. Wade abortion decision?” Or, “would you stand behind the Affordable Care Act?” How about, “would you continue to uphold the ruling that gay couples are guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be married?”

Do presidents ask those questions? Sure they do. You know it. I know. The presidents know it. The people they interview know it.

Let’s not be coy, either. Presidents of both parties ask them in search of the correct answer. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that President Reagan didn’t at least know in advance how Antonin Scalia would lean on, say, the Roe v. Wade decision when he considered him for a spot on the court? Do you think he might have asked him directly? I believe it would have been a distinct possibility.

Are all these meetings open to public review? Are they recorded for posterity? No and no.

That’s why the “litmus question” is a monumental waste of time. The answers mean nothing to me.

If only presidents would be candid. “Sure, I have tests that candidates must meet. Hey, I was elected to this office and most voters who cast their ballots for me knew what they were getting. Elections have consequences.”

 

national news, political news

Obama vetoes ACA repeal bill; what now?

obamacare-1

Who didn’t see this one coming?

Nobody. That’s who.

President Barack Obama today vetoed a bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and cut federal funds from Planned Parenthood.

This was the mother of political statements. And I’m not talking necessarily about the president’s veto.

I’m referring to Congress’s insistence that the ACA — also known as Obamacare — isn’t working, that it’s an albatross, that it represents a government overreach.

It’s also the president’s signature domestic policy achievement. He said all along — going back to other efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal the law — that he’d veto any such bill if it got to his desk. It did . . . and he did.

I believe Congress needs at this time to cut its losses. It doesn’t have the votes to override the president’s veto, even with its GOP majority in both legislative chambers. Republicans need a two-thirds majority to override; they don’t have it in the Senate.

We’ve got an election coming up. We’ll have a new president a year from now. Depending on who the parties nominate, Congress might have a dramatically different look than it does today — particularly if the Republican presidential nominee happens to have the name Donald J. Trump.

The current Congress still must work with a Democratic president who — on this issue — has drawn a line deep into the dirt between the White House and Capitol Hill.

The Affordable Care Act is going to stay; moreover, the government will continue to provide public money to Planned Parenthood. Don’t mess with either of them.

Let’s get on to the many other complex issues facing the nation.