Letter to Trump, What Republicans Believe, Obamacare vs. tRumpcare, Georgia's Sixth C.D. and a Note from a Follower

What Republicans Really Believe

A theme running through my recent postings has been that all the Republicans are interested in are reducing taxes for the wealthy and businesses, and getting rid of regulations which supposedly hamper businesses … and that they don’t give a damn about anything else, regardless of what they say.

Some Republican actually believe in a totally unregulated laissez-faire economy with just enough taxes to support the military for national defense.  They are dinosaurs and have no regard for their fellow Americans who just may not have climbed the ladder of opportunity as successfully as they (or their parents) had.  They might even be religious, but usually their faith allows these beliefs.  Check out Calvinism and Predestination.  I pity these folks.  Let them read Ayn Rand to their heart’s content. 

Ayn Rand

But they don’t belong in government, which they despise at all levels.

Other Republicans would vote for the Devil, for Hitler or for anybody whom their accountant said would result in lower taxes for them.  They care for nothing else.  These greedy, self-centered people should go to hell.   Some Jews in Germany supported Hitler initially because they feared the Communists would bring about a form of “wealth redistribution.” Where did this lead?  The Holocaust!

Jack Lippman

 

Obamacare vs. tRumpcare 

One thing that those who opposed the Affordable Care Act rarely mention, and that proponents of the any Republican plan to replace it both seem to have ignored, is that the price of the health insurance policies purchased from the private health insurance companies choosing to participate in the program is determined, not by the Federal government, but by the insurance companies.  All the government asks are that things like allowing dependents to remain on the policies to age 26, eliminating lifetime maximums and that applicants’ pre-existing conditions not be considered are included in the policies.  These things of course, expose the companies to additional risks and are factored into their premiums.

While the rates are subject to State approval by State insurance departments, the Federal Government has nothing to do with the prices of the policies.  (Often overlooked in the discussions of health care is the fact that the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act leaves regulation of insurance to states!  Allowing "competition" across State lines, frequently touted by Republicans, violates this.)  If a policy has a high deductible, it can be sold for a low price.  Many purchase such policies within the ACA’s framework which insists that participating companies offer policies with varying levels of out of pocket costs and benefits.  If they later are dissatisfied with the out of pocket cost required, they have no reason to blame the government.  It was their choice.  Sadly, often that choice was all they could afford, but this is an area of the ACA which should be remedied with increased subsidies.  Again sadly, this is not a Republican priority.

Remember that insurance companies do not issue policies on which they intend to lose money.  The premiums are based on what they anticipate paying out in claims, leaving something extra for administrative costs and since these are private companies, profit.  They have actuaries and computers to figure this out.

As for the "proposed" Republican plan as it stands at this moment, “tRumpcare” eliminates the “mandate” which fined those who chose not to purchase insurance, a prod to encourage them to buy health insurance.  Doing this permits healthier, younger people, not anticipating getting sick, who would otherwise pay, to opt out of the plan.  The fines did, of course, bring in some additional revenue.  That is now to be eliminated, making opting out easier.  Unhealthy older people, however, who are far more likely to produce claims, will still purchase policies, putting a greater percentage of more costly policyholders in the mix.  As a result, the insurance companies will  have to repeatedly raise their rates.  This occurred with the Affordable Care Act, even with the “purchase insurance mandate or pay a fine” mechanism.  It will be far, far worse in “tRumpcare” without that mandate.

Replacing the mandate, “tRumpcare” also involves a 30% premium increase for those who drop policies but later decide to repurchase them.   Logically, this will scare away the younger healthier people just as the mandate does, but if one is sick, anticipating a claim, paying the 30% more will be a no-brainer.  This will produce still more claims, and the insurance companies will again have to raise rates.

It is shocking that legislators don’t recognize this basic flaw in their plans.  It almost guarantees their failure and the eventual elimination of private insurance companies from participation.  This will leave the door open to the obvious alternative: the government as the primary insurer or more simply, Medicare for everyone.

Originally, there was to be such a “public option” included in the Affordable Care Act.  It never made it through Congress but assuredly, we will have that within the next decade.

Of course, so long as the Republican Party cares only for reducing taxes and eliminating regulations, and doesn’t really give a damn about anything else in the country regardless of what they say, we will need a Democratic Congress and President to get this done.  As I said, it will happen within the next decade.

JL

An Important Race for Congress

The race in the Sixth Congressional District in Georgia, just north of Atlanta, is tight.  It usually goes Republican by at least 20 percentage points, but in 2016, while this was true of the Congressional race there, the Republican Presidential candidate won the district by only 1.5%. 

Right now, there are 18 candidates running for former Congressman Tom Price’s seat, which he vacated to become Secretary of Health and Human Resources.  A Democrat, Jon Ossoff, leads, but it is very doubtful if he will amass the 50% needed to win the April election.  Hence, a run-off in June by the top two is likely.  At that point, there will be just Ossoff and one of three leading Republicans, most likely Karen Handel, former Georgia Secretary of State.

  

One poll has Ossoff with 18% of the vote and another with 31%.   All three leading Republicans, uniting behind one candidate (probably Handel) will produce about 42% of the vote.   There is an enormous “undecided” group of voters in the polls thus far, and if they split evenly, the Republican will win.  

But there is a large number of college educated voters in the District, and if they prove to be sufficiently disturbed by the President’s performance thus far, they may swing heavily toward Ossoff, making the race into a referendum on the man in the White House.  If the results parallel how the District voted in the 2016 Presidential race, this will give Jon Ossoff and excellent chance in June.  If the voters treat it as a normal Sixth District Congressional seat race, however, the Republican will win.  

                                                                                   Jon Ossoff

It will be close in June, but the results in April will provide a clue as to the final outcome.   If the combined vote of all three Republicans in April is no more than ten percentage points more than Jon Ossoff polls, he will have a good chance in June.

(I have contributed to Jon Ossoff’s campaign, since I reside in a District which always votes Democratic, and by doing so, it gives me some skin in the game.)

JL

 
A Letter to the White House

Before I send the following letter to the President, let me know if you would like me to add your signature to it!  (Name and city only)

Dear Mr. President:

As a deal-maker par excellence, I am sure you know when a deal is going bad and precisely when it is time to pull out, removing your acorns from the fire.   That’s why you, over the years, have known what properties to keep and which ones to ditch, what financial obligations to honor and which to renegotiate making a profit in doing so, if at all possible.

So it is with health care.  You promised a plan which would all provide all Americans with (1) better coverage at (2) lower costs than does the Affordable Care Act.  The plan the House of Representative’s leaders have proposed does neither and you know it.  Your Republican colleagues’ plan turns you into a liar, and they are laughing at you behind your back for supposedly supporting it.  They are merely using you as a vote-getter.

In fact, their plan’s similarity to Obamacare and its costs have drawn the opposition of those Republicans who feel the government has no business whatsoever in health care spending that kind of money.  On the other side, some feel that existing benefits under a new plan will be shrunken, fewer Americans covered and most insureds’ costs increased, contrary to your promises.  You know that even if the House passes such a program, the Senate will reject it.   It's already dead in the water.

So, Mr. Deal Maker, this is the time to ditch the plan.  Call Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and Tom Price into your office and tell them their deal stinks, and that it is a “no deal” for Americans.  Then sit down with Bernie Sanders and see how a “Medicare for Everyone” plan can be made palatable for Congress.  Let the people know what you are doing.  They will support you, even though most Republicans will not.  Tell Steve Bannon, who will oppose you on this, to take a hike; after all, you are the President.  He has his own agenda which I do not believe is yours, if you stop to think about it.  Your job is to "run" the government.  His plan is to "ruin" the government or as he says, “deconstruct” it.  Once he does that, you will have nothing to run … except maybe the hotel down the street.

Announce this in a nationwide telecast, with Senator Sanders sitting nearby.  It will guarantee your election to a second term in 2020 … as a Democrat.  And it probably will bring in a Democratic Congress and Senate to back you up.  You know the Republicans really don’t like you.  

This is what making deals and salesmanship are all about, and at that, you are the consummate professional.  If you choose not to go in the direction this letter suggests, your presidency will probably go the way two of your less successful deals went, Trump University and your Atlantic City Casinos. 

Before you respond to me, check this out with Jared and Ivanka.  They are smart.

Sincerely,

Jack Lippman

From a Blog Follower ... Who Connects the Dots

The other day, I got a note from Marty Hellman, a fine Democrat who follows the blog faithfully.  It read as follows:

Hi Jack,
I think now would be a good time for you to connect some of the dots that are very obvious to me.  Deutsche Bank is fined millions for laundering dirty Russian Money for dollars.  Chairman of the bank resigned and becomes chairman of Cyprus Bank fined for money laundering as well. Wilbur Ross, Vice Chair of the bank becomes Commerce Sec. under new administration.  Russian Billionare buys Trump Mansion for 50 million over asking price WHY WHY?  Guess who is the largest debtor in the whole world to Deutsche Bank ????
Marty Hellman  

Well, I replied in confidence to Marty, but here are my further thoughts on his note.

Some suspect that the Department of Justice asked 46 Federal Attorneys to resign last Friday and clean out their offices in a few hours because, just perhaps, some of them were connecting the dots Marty speaks of.  Preet Bharara, Federal Attorney for the Southern District of New York didn't resign, but was fired 24 hours later.  

Bharara Leaving his Office After Being Fired 

Perhaps he needed the time to connect a few more dots.   Such replacement of Federal Attorneys is not unusual when administrations change, but doing so on such short notice is.  Bharara had met with the President a few weeks ago who told him he would be kept on.  Why the sudden change?  Why?  The dots were being connected! More dots may just be connected on March 20 when FBI Director Comey speaks before the House Intelligence Committee.
JL

Ooops!  I had omitted the following item from the blog posting sent out earlier this morning.  It is now added to it.

Someone in the media field once told me I was dancing with copyright laws when I published full columns from the media without specific permission.  Since then, I usually provide a link to the item, and let the reader go there themselves. This time, I am breaking with this practice and reprinting Michael Gerson’s full March 13 column from the Washington Post.  (If you feel guilty, go buy a copy of it, or any daily newspaper that might carry it.  I originally read it in the Palm Beach Post.)   It is that important.  

JL

Republicans are defining lunacy down

     Michael Gerson 

(from the Washinton Post - 3/13/17)

The role of conspiracy theories has been consistently underestimated in the rise and appeal of President Trump.

Trump came to the political attention of most Republicans by alleging a conspiracy to cover up President Barack Obama’s supposedly foreign birth. “How amazing,” Trump tweeted in 2013, “the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.” In conspiracy thinking, implausibility is merely the sign of the enemy’s subtlety.

Children sitting in Professor Trump’s history class would learn that Obama was America’s first Muslim president; that his co-religionists celebrated in the streets following the 9/11 attacks; that their vaccination schedule is the dangerous scam of greedy doctors; that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved in the death of John F. Kennedy; that Hillary Clinton might have been involved in the death of Vince Foster; that unnamed liberals might have been involved in the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

More recently, Trump has claimed — based, so far, on nothing — that Obama ordered the bugging of Trump Tower. And Trump’s allies, with the White House’s blessing, have alleged the existence of a “deep state,” conducting what talk radio host Mark Levin calls a “silent coup.”

If the “deep state” refers to a cadre of federal employees who are unhappy serving an ethno-nationalist president who apparently hates them, then many would gladly claim such citizenship. But this is not what Trump’s most loyal supporters are talking about. The de facto coup is allegedly being conducted by a conspiracy of national security professionals who wish to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Radio host Rush Limbaugh recently claimed that the latest WikiLeaks dump showed “the CIA has the ability to mimic Russian hackers.” He went on to claim that “there isn’t any evidence” of Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee breach. “But we have all kinds of supposition that the American deep state is deeply involved in whatever sabotage is being conducted on the Trump administration.”

This accusation is made by a disturbing collection of overlapping interests and voices: Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Nigel Farage, Breitbart News, a variety of talk radio hosts and much of Trump’s inner circle of advisers. They share the goal of defanging American intelligence services and having America accept a shrunken global role. Leaking from the CIA is the context in which Trump once asked, “Are we living in Nazi Germany?”

Does Trump himself believe the conspiracy theories he so effectively employs? It is the wrong question. In these cases, Trump does not support things because they are true; they are true because he supports them. And he expects everyone who works for him to publicly and vocally embrace his version of reality.

What is the harm in all this? First, we are seeing the corruption of the Republican Party, as it tolerates, excuses and absorbs Trump’s conspiratorial thinking. Consider the most recent WikiLeaks hack. The data breach caused serious damage to American security. And some conservatives cheered. It is a funhouse-mirror reflection of the New Left in the 1960s — led by ideology to root against the interests of their own country.

Second, these attacks on the intelligence community continue Trump’s campaign to delegitimize institutions that offer a view of reality different from his own. To maintain his version of daily events, the mainstream media must be discredited as “fake news.” On economic policy, the Congressional Budget Office must be discredited as biased. To tilt foreign policy toward Russia and away from traditional friends, the intelligence community must be discredited.

Third, talk of a “silent coup” encourages frightening, extraconstitutional thinking. If this is more than a metaphor, an existential threat to democracy has been raised. And an administration actually believing this might go beyond leak investigations and feel justified in scarier, Nixonian remedies.

Trump does not face a coup, just a government he has attacked and refused to lead. It is one challenge for Trump nominees to run departments they think should not exist. It is another for a president to declare that America’s intelligence community is plotting against him and comparable to the Nazis. You can’t declare war on people you should be providing with inspiration and direction. This is the only effective, long-term answer to leaks.

Day by day, Republicans are lowering their standards of sanity to defend an administration seized by conspiracy thinking. If they do not stand up to this trend, they will be defining lunacy down.

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman