home

Trump Blames Dems For Failure of Health Care Bill

TrumpCare is dead. Republicans, not having enough votes, pulled the bill.

Trump is not "the closer" he thought he was. The Washington Post reports: [More...]

But Trump’s effort was plagued from the beginning. The bill itself would have violated a number of Trump’s campaign promises, driving up premiums for millions of citizens and throwing millions more off health insurance — including many of the working-class voters who gravitated to his call to “make America great again.” Trump was unsure about the American Health Care Act, though he ultimately dug in for the win, as he put it.

There were other problems, too. Trump never made a real effort to reach out to Democrats, and was unable to pressure enough of his fellow Republicans. He did not speak fluently about bill’s details and focused his pitch in purely transactional terms. And he failed to appreciate the importance of replacing Obamacare to the Republican base; for the president, it was an obstacle to move past to get to taxes, trade and the rest of his agenda.

In a press conference I heard some of on the car radio, Trump blamed the Dems, praised Paul Ryan and Tom Price, and said exactly nothing about health care other than repeating his insistence Obama Care would implode.

Big Failure for Donald Trump. The first of many, I'm sure. As for those saying this was his worst week, I'd remind them he has yet to have a good day, let alone a good week. Courts have rejected his major immigration order, his first military raid in Yemen resulted in an American death, and everybody sees Russia from his window.

Jared Kushner got to miss most of Trump's desperation this week, as he left Monday night to join his wife and kids in Aspen and only returned to work today. Although he spent only two and a half days in Aspen, returning last night, CNN reports Trump was angry he left. A Trump spokesman denied it.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Trump was fuming. According to a source close to the president, "[Trump] is upset that his son-in-law and senior adviser was not around during this crucial week."

...It has not been entirely clear what specific role Kushner, who has no Capitol Hill or Washington background, would have played in a legislative effort.

What difference would his lack of legislative or policy experience make to Trump, who thinks Jared is qualified to bring a peace accord to the Middle East?

At least the plane mystery is cleared up. The Trump kids flew to Aspen on Trump's private 757 plane (which his son Donald called Trump Force One), not Air Force One or a government plane.

When Ivanka and the kids took off for Aspen last weekend, sharing a ride on Trump's private 757 jet with Donald Trump, Jr. and his family and Eric and Lara Trump, Jared did stay behind in Washington

Trump or Pence seem to have some future Vail/Aspen trips planned however, as the Air Force was back at Eagle County Airport this week practicing their 757 maneuvers "for all things presidential." It turns out, Air Force One is not a plane at all, it's just a call sign:

Also, those aircraft are not actually Air Force One unless the president is on board. It’s not Air Force Two unless the vice president is on board, [airport manager Alex]Everman said. Air Force One is not a plane; it’s a call sign the Air Force uses when POTUS is on board.

Finally, who made Ivanka's sunglasses? The Daily Mail says they are Raybans ("Almost as eye-catching as her colorful top were the $510 high-waisted wide-legged patchwork jeans by Sonia Rykiel worn by the first daughter, who finished off the look with some iridescent Ray Bans...") while CNN says they are by Dior and cost $585. I'll go with Dior Technoglogic, in gold, for $585 (which I think look great on her.) (Added: The Daily Mail has now updated their article to include an ad for the Dior Technologic sunglasses, so I guess they realize they are not "Ray Bans").

I think Ivanka looks better wearing other designer's clothes than her own, which I'm not a fan of. She's recently hired a new stylist to revamp her wardrobe for her new duties in the White House (whatever they are) who hopefully will steer her away from her own designs. The stylist has great taste and I look forward to seeing a more polished look from Ivanka than the dresses and shoes in her own line.

Here's Vanity Fair on Jared and Ivanka's predictable absence from Washington this week.

And yes, with three kids, they brought their Nanny to Aspen. You can see her in this photo from the Daily Mail. They've had a Chinese nanny (who teaches Arabella Mandarin) since Arabella was born. Here is a 2012 interview with Ivanka on the topic. "My daughter is studying Mandarin; I have an incredible Chinese nanny who's teaching her." Vogue Magazine spent a day with Ivanka in 2015 and reported her name is XiXi. Here's Ivanka and a nanny in 2011, and Ivanka, Jared, Arabella and a nanny in 2015. I have no idea if they are the same woman. But rest assured, despite the dozens of photos showing just Ivanka and Jared with their kids and secret service, traveling to Aspen with three children, including an infant too young to ski, is not something they are likely to do without at least one nanny in tow.

The Kushners' Washington neighbors are now royally p*ssed off at Secret Service presence on their block. They point out this isn't to protect a President, but a rented house for Trump's adult children:

“Are you kidding me?” asked Marti Robinson, a trial attorney who lives across the street. “This is the adult child of the president. Sometimes there are 10 cars out here.”

Metal barricades along Tracy Place and Kalorama Road now make it impossible for pedestrians to use the sidewalk bordering the house. Neighbors talk of clusters of Secret Service agents lingering on the pavement, conversing in loud voices and even changing their shirts in public view.

“They’ve completely taken over the whole street — as if they have the authority!” said Robinson, an Obama appointee to the U.S. Product Safety Commission. In her own email to the mayor, Robinson wrote that the Secret Service encampment “has truly ruined my peaceful enjoyment of my house.”

Also today, Planned Parenthood zinged Ivanka for not speaking out in defense of women's health care and against Trump's failed health care bill, which would have defunded Planned Parenthood.

In any event, I'm hardly surprised the health bill failed. I didn't take it as a serious threat the day it was introduced, and nothing's changed my mind. Trump is not the successful closer he thinks he is. He failed big-time, and as is so characteristic of him, can't even accept any blame. It's always someone else's fault.

Which is why this thread is as much about Trump's kids and their trip to Aspen and their clothes and nannies as the failed bill. Failure was predictable and the bill's defeat just isn't very interesting to me, since it wasn't a real threat to begin with. I'm far more interested in how much protecting Trump's adult kids costs, and how despite their lack of one iota of domestic or foreign policy experience, he is asking them to guide him in running the country. How pathetic.

< Friday Open Thread | Iraq Suspends Mosul Advance Due to High Civilian Deaths >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    the whole thing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:32:21 PM EST
    feels more like a Royal Court than a White House staff.

    I don't think that El Trumpo... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    even knew what was in that un-healthcare bill, nor did he give a crapola.

    totally (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    totally clueless.  what they were pushing late last night was grim.  he wanted a bill.

    Parent
    I'm on the way to the gym (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 07:42:02 AM EST
    after a long layoff.  I'll let you know what they say.

    The awakening: (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 09:23:16 AM EST
    "I never thought leopards would eat my face, sobs the man who voted for the Leopard's Eating People's Face Party."

    one thing i hear that really rubs my rhubarb (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    is that the fact that large numbers of people didnt umderstand that "Obamacare" was providing their health care is somehow a "failure of The Obama admisistration to "communicate" the law"

    horse sh!t

    if you, after living trough 2008-9, do not understand you are getting your healthcare from the Afordable Care Act you are an idiot. full stop.  you are a waste of space and a blight on the gene pool and that is not the fault of the Obama administration.

    i took a vituperative pleasure watching the faces of some of these people when the question - a question ive heard a LOT recently - "is this going to effect ME??" was asked and answered

    Parent

    Honk, (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    if you are tragically unqualified. "We will immediately repeal and replace Obamacare and nobody can do it like me.  We will save $'s and have much better health care."

    It "will be so easy!" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    The times that Trump claimed repealing Obamacare would be "so easy", his plan would mean healthcare for everyone at a fraction of the cost, he would repeal it immediately and he's the only one who can do it.

    Now he claims he never said it.

    Wonder if his supporters are ever going to acknowledge his perpetual false claims?


    Quite frankly I never understood (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    how they could replace Obamacare with nothing care.  I'm soo glad I made it out of Aspen before the Trump clan arrived.  As I've mentioned before, I used to ski with Ivana Trump, who was both a very good skier, and a genuinely nice person.

    As well as astute enough to Dump Trump (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    she's also (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    great looking and has terrific poise. But she doesn't belong in an advisory role in the White House. It's far beyond her skill set and running America isn't for people still riding bikes on training wheels.

    Parent
    he said (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by linea on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    ivana trump

    not his daughter ivanka.  but seriously, given ivanka vs donald? who woudnt want ivanka as president over her dad?

    Ivana Marie Trump is a Czech-American businesswoman, author, socialite, and former fashion model. She was the first wife of Donald Trump. (Wikipedia)


    Parent
    I wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    Neither one is remotely qualified to do anything in government, let alone be President.

    Parent
    I can't tell if this is good or bad (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    It should be good for me in the short run.  I live in California, so I'll probably be able to take advantage of some Obamacare tax credits next year.  But what about the other states where it isn't doing so well?  

    I doubt The ACA will "explode" like Trump and other predict but I do think there will be some serious problems.  Will more providers drop out?  I just want to know what my options will be like in the near future.  

    Everyone is going to pick a side and blame the other for this mess. I blame both parties.    

    the democrats give you health care (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:25 PM EST
    the republicans do everything they can to first stop you from getting it and then to take it away and ultimately are only thwarted in that effort by their own incompetence.

    yeah

    it totally makes sense to "blame both parties"

    Parent

    The Republicans had 7 years (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    to come up with a decent replacement and couldn't do it.  I blame them for that.  

    The democrats forced the ACA down our throats.  It's been good for the poor and those who choose not to work hard but bad for the middle class.  I blame them for that.

    At some point both parties are going to have to come together and come up with a long term solution.

     

    Parent

    Both sides do it (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    Everyone is going to pick a side and blame the other for this mess. I blame both parties.    

    The Republican Party had seven years to create their health plan and explain it to the public.  With that much time and passion devoted to a single subject, you would think they would write something down.  You would think there would be thousands of pages of analysis and the plan would be honed to a razor edge.  Everyone would be on the same page, they would have held dozens of meetings and seminars, and anyone in the party could explain in detail why their plan was better.

    The Republican plan turned out to be complaining about the features of Obamacare that were compromises to get enough votes to pass it, and holding 60 symbolic repeal votes, safe in the knowledge that they would be met with a veto.

    This is more than a political setback.  It is a metaphor for politics of image over ideas, and automatic objections to anything proposed by the other party. It is the difference between using the power of government to help people, and using that power against them.  Mr. Obama spent years hammering out a plan and most of a year getting it through Congress.  Pinning his name on it was originally supposed to be an insult, but now it is a triumph.

    Mr. Trump now crows, "The Democrats OWN Obamacare!"  Please, that was what you ran on.  It's not like we didn't know it.  But thank you for reminding everyone.

    Mr. Obama and a Democratic majority created something that is a long way from perfect but a decided improvement.  They spent years working on it.  The campaigned on it and they got it passed.

    The GOP now owns the halls of power, and can't find the light switch. They don't do homework and they don't seem very smart.

    This contrast will make it difficult for the media to pretend that "both sides" are somehow equal, but I'm sure they are up to the challenge.

    Parent

    It will be interesting to see who takes (none / 0) (#36)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:45:25 AM EST
    most of the blame if Obamacare fails as some predict. I agree with most of your criticism of Republicans on this but I don't think the Dems are blameless.


    Parent
    the difference (none / 0) (#37)
    by mm on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    the president is actually cheering for it to fail.  what kind of monster does that?  If you see something that has problems, the adult thing to do would be to put your blood sweat and tears to fixing it.

    Parent
    Different philosophy (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    Sometimes you have to tear an old building down to build a better one.  Sometimes you just need to make minor improvements.  

    Parent
    Sometimes you have to PRETEND ... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    ... the existing building is failing and then refuse to maintain it while promising tenants that you're going to give them a building that's "so much better!" at a "fraction of the cost!" - then just evict 24 million of them a few years later.

    Trump has experience doing that in the figurative and literal sense.

    Parent

    that is a perfect analogy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mm on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    As a civil engineer, I can relate.

    You don't "tear down" an existing building if people are still living in it.

    When we find a structure showing signs of distress, the number one priority is the safety of anyone that could be affected by a failure;

    I see no evidence trump is doing the hard work of developing plans for a new structure.  Simply acting out with a temper tantrum of a petulant child.  When is he going to realize he is a president of the entire country?


    Parent

    Sticking with the CBO estimates, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    the number of those who would no longer for be covered under the now failed Trump plan is 14 million. Mostly Medicare. Some would be younger and healthy people choosing not to have healthcare, so they wouldn't be "losing" anything.

    The larger 24 million number would be in 2025, and assumes that many more people would be covered by them. Must also assume that ObamaCare would work and not fail. Don't know how CBO could assume that, given current problems and trends.

    Parent

    " Mostly Medicare" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    I assume you mean Medicaid.

    Medicare is not in play.

    Parent

    Oops. correct on Medicaid. Thx. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    You should ask them (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    No idea what you're talking about with Medicare, as that wasn't part of the CBO report.  "Some" would actually choose to go without health insurance.  Of course, we would end up with the tab if they or their children get seriously sick or injured.  Not to mention those who decided to get a junk policy and would think they had insurance, but would be buried by the expense of any serious illness or injury.  

    Many others would "choose" to go without insurance because they could no longer afford it under the Republican plan, since their tax credits would be slashed and their premiums would rise drastically, particularly poor and older Americans.

    Parent

    Well, the frontal assault is over... (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    but now is the time to guard the flanks.

    Parent
    i havent had healthcare (none / 0) (#11)
    by linea on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:46:16 PM EST
    for over a year. i just paid the penalty for last year. was going to get healthcare for 2017 as the penalty is being raised and there wasnt enough of a difference. but the newly elected president stated that he was eliminating the tax penalty. i also keep hoping i'll get a real job with healthcare. i dont mind paying cash for doctors visits and in WA state pharmacists can prescribe birthcontrol and i love the costo pharmacy and have an uninsured discount. but i do worry about an unexpected medical catastrophe.

    Parent
    Truthfully (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:10:38 PM EST
    if none of us ever had medical catastrophes none of us would ever have insurance. The possibility of something completely wiping you out is why you buy insurance in the first place. I hope you can continue in good health.

    Parent
    thank you! {{ }} (none / 0) (#14)
    by linea on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    Trumpocalypse Now (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    needs a new soundtrack:  My suggestion: The Dead Kennedys: Kill the Poor

    There's not much to discuss.  President Trump embodies the biggest case of hubris ever.  Ever.

    There's only one song that's appropriate ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 06:52:34 AM EST
    ... for a country that Rick Rolled itself last November.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Trump Thinks Obamacare Will "Explode" (none / 0) (#15)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:17:48 PM EST
    on its own.  Of course he and HHS Secretary Price plan to help that happen.  This Bloomberg report gives some of the weapons they have available.  Of course there may be bad political consequences of such an agenda, and law suits to boot.

    Doesn't he mean (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 24, 2017 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    "implode"? I what sense would the PPACA "explode"?

    Parent
    I believe he said both impolde and explode (none / 0) (#19)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 01:23:33 AM EST
    Like a collapsing star becoming a supernova.  I'm OK with most of Trump's comments but he's definitely not a wordsmith.

    Parent
    You're "ok with most of (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    Tr*mp's comments"? Seriously? I'm embarrassed for you.

    Parent
    I'm not the wimpy, easily offended type (none / 0) (#48)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    and I'm not a hypocrite.  As I've said before, I find it refreshing to have a politically incorrect president.  I will judge Trump on what he does, not what he says.

    Parent
    Shorter (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    McBain: "Facts are for wimps" and "I find totally unhinged statements refreshing"

    Parent
    Refreshing to (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 08:46:42 AM EST
    have a politically incorrect president--  Different realities for different folks.

    Parent
    Of course you will (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    Since most of what he says is an embarrassment to the office and the country (even on those occasions when it's not a tinfoil conspiracy theory or an outright lie), you'll choose to ignore it and pretend it's just "political correctness".

    Those double standards can be so convenient.

    Parent

    So now (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    ignorance = politically incorrect?

    Parent
    And the same should be said for sexism, bigotry and intolerance.

    Honestly, the term "politically incorrect" is nothing more than a euphemism for intemperate expressions of hostility and anti-social personal behavior. As such, it's hardly a badge of honor, given that those who otherwise believe it praiseworthy are often engaged in the bullying and marginalization of others.

    We should not even deign to debate on that level, lest we somehow validate the misguided notion that public displays of misogyny, racism, homophobia, or just general obnoxiousness are somehow at least "refreshing," if not something akin to virtuousness.

    Anyone so self-absorbed as to think it's perfectly okay to unabashedly abuse, denigrate, slur and malign women, LGBT persons and socio-ethnic minorities in public, and who would further resent being publicly called out by others over it, is not someone whose personal views I'd otherwise consider worthy of any serious consideration or even acknowledgement.

    Rather, and speaking for myself only, I tend to treat such a person just as he or she otherwise advocates treating others, e.g., as my inferior or as a social pariah.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Let's have a thread on whether ObamaCare will work (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 12:37:38 AM EST
    Assume the Repubs will get their act together and come up with Plan B, but if not, I don't think ObamaCare will work. Think it's going to fail.
    Too many exchanges failed. Too many insurance companies leaving the market. Premium costs going up. Cost reimbursements for Medicare too low, to keep enough medical people in the business.

    Also, is anyone posting here paying anything for ObamaCare? Anyone paying the .9% wage tax, or the 3.8% investment income tax? Or, are we just playing with someone else's money? Isn't ObamaCare paid for with these taxes and reductions in reimbursements for Medicaid?

    How about an actual discussion with no snipping or name-calling.

    I don't think Obamacare (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 07:17:54 AM EST
    ... is failing or in a "death spiral" - they're just Republican talking points.  The Republicans might be able to do enough without legislation to cause a crisis, but not on is own.

    I personally don't pay either tax, but it wouldn't change my position on the issue.  The fact that someone making over $200K will have their investment income taxed at a slightly higher rate which is still much lower than the rate many pay for their wage income is not a problem.   Moreover, it's tax revenues, not "other people's money".

    Parent

    It will probably work in some states (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    and not others.  

    I assume I've been paying for other people's subsidies, which makes me want to take advantage of any I might qualify for.

    The problem with the current income based subsidies/tax credits is some of that goes to people who choose not to work or not to work very much.  I don't know to fix that.

    The old system wasn't fair to people with pre existing conditions. Obamacare might have gone to far in the other direction.

    There has to be a way for poor people to get decent care and the middle class not to have ridiculous premiums without a huge tax burden on everyone.  

    Parent

    Captain Obvious (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    There has to be a way for poor people to get decent care and the middle class not to have ridiculous premiums without a huge tax burden on everyone.  

    There must be a way, since EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION has found it.

    Parent

    Then what's your solution? (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    For good healthcare without big taxes?  

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 11:53:57 AM EST
    Then what's your solution?  For good healthcare without big taxes?  

    If we eliminate the 40% of our health care expenditures that do nothing but make money for middlemen and extortionists, that will cut costs tremendously, won't it?

    My wife and I pay $600 a month for medical insurance, and most of that is raked off as profit for people who do none of the medical care.  I'm happy to pay less than that on my taxes to get coverage for us and everyone else.

    Single payer works everywhere it is used, i.e. every other industrial nation.  The "solution" then is to do what everyone else does, since it clearly works.

    Parent

    What in the world leads you to believe ... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    ... that quality universal healthcare is something that can be delivered to people on the cheap?

    The best and most efficient way that we as a society can control and manage the extensive socio-economic costs related to healthcare, is for us to endeavor to keep people healthy in the first place.

    You're never going to accomplish that by begrudging and / or denying the least among us the means of coverage and livelihood necessary to maintain a basic healthy lifestyle and existence. The very concept of Social Darwinism is both selfish and amoral, if not altogether immoral.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If it is so important to make sure all or most (2.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    people have access to healthcare, then I believe more than 5% of the people should asked to help pay for it. It's easy to play with someone else's money.

    Parent
    What a Republican thing to say (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    "If it is so important...."  If???

    Of course it is important.  But said like someone who is not too focused on people who have trouble getting insurance.

    More than 5% should pay, you say.  Well, that is the GOP obsession--all those people not paying. The middle class and the poor, however, do pay taxes.  

    Parent

    The US has been around for several hundred (1.50 / 2) (#64)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    years, and never has everyone in the country been covered for healthcare. Still not 100%. Yes, "if". Study some history.

    Parent
    Is it? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    Okay.  Tell ya what - we can drop the 3% tax on the wealthy as soon as they give up their 15-18% tax break they get on their investment income.

    After all - it's easy for them to play with our money, right?

    Parent

    There isn't a 15/18% "tax break" on (none / 0) (#65)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    investment income. Very good reasons for having tax rates lower for investments/capital gains than for wages. Namely capital formation. If the tax rate is too high, people don't sell their investments unless they have to, and there isn't sufficient capital to invest in other and newer and better ventures.

    The tax rate on capital investments has never been higher in the US than the top tax rate on ordinary income, to my knowledge. Certainly, not since 1954.

    It's my understanding that the US rate on actual gains is higher than the comparable tax rate in most industrialized nations.

    Maybe you should starting paying 39.6% on your salary/wages/income, and then we can talk. Ha.

    Parent

    You keep using that word - "Ha" (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    You must be under the impression it means something else, because you never actually win an argument, yet you continue to act as though you have.

    But I'm happy to educate you on how it's done:

    The tax rate on capital investments has never been higher in the US than the top tax rate on ordinary income, to my knowledge. Certainly, not since 1954
    .

    Excellent example of a strawman argument.  But since no one claimed otherwise, you've only managed to win an argument with yourself.

    It's my understanding that the US rate on actual gains is higher than the comparable tax rate in most industrialized nations.

    Good for you.  Unfortunately, also irrelevant.  Plus, your "understandings" are often false/flawed, soooo ...

    Maybe you should starting paying 39.6% on your salary/wages/income, and then we can talk. Ha.

    My tax rate is also irrelevant to the point.  But I'll explain it in simple terms for you.

    The wealthy pay a much lower tax rate on their investment income than they would if they earned that income through wages.  That's preferential treatment aka a "tax break" over the 35-39.6% rate they would pay if they were earning wages.  So when you get upset they have to pay an extra 3% to help make healthcare more affordable for the poor and working class, well ...

    ... that's just a d@mn shame.

    Parent

    You obviously don't know much about business, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:45:05 PM EST
    investments, capital formation or tax rates. Perhaps you should do some research on capital formation and tax rates.

    Different tax rates for different types of income is not "preferential treatment".

    I assume you don't pay 39.6l% on your income, and some people do, so I guess, under your view of tax rates, you get preferential treatment.

    I don't try to win arguments on TL. Ha, indicates a minor joke. It doesn't indicate winning an argument.

    Parent

    You always make these ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    ... baseless claims through feeble attempts to insult people, but it's no substitute for facts.

    But it's particularly funny, since Warren Buffett is making the same argument I am.  By your "logic", he "obviously" didn't know much about business, capital formation, tax rates, or investments.  You should let him know how much you know and how little he knows on the subject.

    "Ha".

    Parent

    When you are paying 39.6% (none / 0) (#71)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:59:20 PM EST
    on your income, I will listen to you.

    Parent
    That's the best you can do? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:07:43 AM EST
    Typical.

    Parent
    And Buffett was talking about (2.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    the mega rich and the super rich, not generally raising the tax rate on capital gains. Buffet is86 and a bit over the hill, in my view. Has some goofy ideas. Google "is W. Buffett getting senile?"

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:12:10 AM EST
    Buffet is86 and a bit over the hill, in my view. Has some goofy ideas. Google "is W. Buffett getting senile?"

    No one cares about your amateur diagnoses of Buffet.  Or are you just trying to provide an example of a "goofy idea"?

    Parent

    It's not mine (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    Google it.

    Parent
    It absolutely is yours (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    You're the one citing his age and your silly opinion that he's "over the hill" and has "goofy ideas" while telling people to google "is warren buffet going senile?".  Can't blame you from trying to back away from that cowardly slur, though.  Could get you named in a defamation suit if he had any idea that you existed.

    Parent
    Oracle of Omaha looking a bit ordinary (none / 0) (#86)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    That was the title of this NY Times article a few years ago.

    "Mr. Mehta won't hazard a guess, but he does compare Mr. Buffett to Michael Jordan, the basketball star. "There were essentially two careers," Mr. Mehta said. "In the first, he was a superstar. And in the second, late in his career, he just wasn't one anymore."

    I think his investing recovered a bit after that, but didn't check.

    NYTimes.

    Parent

    That's the best you can do? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    You don't like Buffet's ideas, so you suggest he's senile.  Then, when you get called on your ridiculous, libelous smear, you backpedal to attacking his business acumen because his firm underperformed for 3 years out of 49 years?!?!?
    .

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    That's pathetic.

    BTW - He's not only "recovered" since then, he's had spectacular success.

    But you already knew that.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:14:36 AM EST
    Warren was NOT talking about only the mega-rich.  He was talking about anyone earning over a million dollars.

    Parent
    Title of his op-ed said "Super-Rich" (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

    By WARREN E. BUFFET. August 14, 2011"

    "Mega-rich" is mentioned twice in first several sentences. My concern is over-taxing and thus inhibiting economic growth. I have little concern for the Super-Rich tax rate. Yes, a reference to one million is also mentioned later in the op-ed.

    "Our leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

    While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

    While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks."

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    That "reference" was what he was talking about, as opposed to the headline which was likely written by an editor.

    Parent
    Comparative capital gains tax rates (none / 0) (#69)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:49:45 PM EST
    "[US rate] is the 6th highest rate in the OECD. Taxpayers in most OECD countries face much lower capital gains tax rates than their counterparts in the United States. Only taxpayers in Denmark (42 percent), France (34.4 percent), Finland (33 percent), Ireland (33 percent), and Sweden (30 percent) face higher rates. The U.S. rate is about 10 percentage points higher than the OECD average (18.4 percent) and 5 percentage points higher than the weighted average (23.2 percent). Nine OECD countries full-exempt most capital gains income."

    Article.

    Parent

    That's nice (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    Let me know if you win that straw man argument you're having with yourself.

    Parent
    Just for (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    curiosity, what % would you be comfortable with funding it, 10, 25, 50 more?

    Parent
    For me, it's not a question of what (none / 0) (#66)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 10:19:13 PM EST
    percentage should the rich fund. It's that others in the middle and upper middle class should pay something, and have some skin in the game.

    It's too easy to say, sure, we must fund healthcare for everyone--if healthcare for everyone isn't going to cost you anything.

    What percentage are you willing to fund?

    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 06:16:37 AM EST
    be happy to have some of my tax money contribute to universal healthcare. I would be happier if the government took it from my funding of the MIC and other corporate welfare scams.  

    In general I am for raising taxes on wealth across the board, using it to fund universal healthcare sounds like a winner to me.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    In general I am for raising taxes on wealth across the board, using it to fund universal healthcare sounds like a winner to me.

    Would that be "wealth" as in capital held in cash on hand, stocks, bonds, gold, land, art work and all things that either yield a return or can?

    Parent

    Good question (none / 0) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 12:40:12 AM EST
    What percentage are you willing to fund?

    Whatever it takes.  Right now we're paying $600 a month to a company that has a death panel that may or may not approve what they are getting paid to provide.  The irony is that they make MORE MONEY by denying me treatment than by providing it.

    Almost half of your health care dollar goes for people who count the money, take a big chunk of it, and then pay the doctors with some of it.  They don't even have to pay the doctor if they don't want to, and there are incentives not to.  Because the doctor has to wait for approval, treatment is delayed until that approval arrives, from someone who has a financial incentive not to give it.  

    40% of your hospital staff is not being paid to provide health care, but to deal with figuring out who's paying for the treatment.  That occupies a lot of the building that could otherwise be used for health care.

    By comparison, I met an American kid who broke his leg in Denmark playing football.  He said at the hospital they asked him two questions, his name and citizenship, and then treated him and never handed him a bill.

    Would YOU like to be treated promptly and not have to fill out a single page of anything?  That sounds a lot better than what I get EVEN WITH a very expensive health plan.

    Parent

    Of course you assumed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    I assume I've been paying for other people's subsidies, which makes me want to take advantage of any I might qualify for.

    It fits conservative notions of being a victim of the system, while allowing them to feel like they're not being hypocritical when they accept the same benefits.

    Did you pay the investment or salary income of over $200K/$250K family?  If not, you didn't - feel free to include yourself in that class of "takers" you're complaining about.

    Parent

    GOoPers seem (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 07:39:33 AM EST
    downright shellshocked

    Best statement (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 08:09:54 AM EST
    on this whole thing I read was "we thought we had a mandate".

    Parent
    My favorite (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    From Sen. Menendez on Twitter:

    "Hey Republicans,  don't worry,  that burn is covered under the Affordable Care Act."

    Parent

    Josh Barrow (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 08:16:58 AM EST
    "after lying about healthcare for decades the republicans are about to get the punishment they deserve"

    Parent
    And Barton (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    admitting that whole exercise in voting to repeal Obamacare was more or less just a fleece the rubes operation.

    Parent
    Third Rail of politics - what Social Security (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    has been called for years.

    America: Meet your new third rail.

    They'll be campaigning on this issue for years to come.  They'll use it the same way they use the abortion issue.  The only way they can lose is to actually win.

    maybe president trump (none / 0) (#51)
    by linea on Sat Mar 25, 2017 at 10:31:54 PM EST
    could see (or ivanka expained to him) that the republican alternative was absolute garbage and rather than continuing to work on a bad alternative, that didnt meet any of his campaign promises, he simply announced "pass it now or we're done" knowing it was done.

    Of course ... Ivanka (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    ... that source of sage, sound counsel.

    Parent
    You don't think a handbag designer (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 01:05:41 AM EST
    has the ability and experience to run the country, while her daddy goes golfing . . . for a third of his presidency, already?

    Parent
    But she's "posh". (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    Isn't that qualification enough? How is this not nepotism? This is turning into an imperial presidency with the recent news that Jared Kushner has a new assignment to make running the government more like running a business. Seem like they are turning it into a family business. What's the spin on this Trevor? Jim? Bueller? Bueller?

    Parent