Donald Trump and his Coterie of the Craven (part 16)

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, 47of74 said:

You're welcome!  

I'm an Episcopalian so I don't have to worry about that kind of bullshit at my church.  I left the Roman church because of all the Republican bullshit the Bishops were spewing, especially idiots like Bishop Jenky of Peoria (the one that compared President Obama to Hitler).  It was the best thing I ever did too, I just wish I had done it years ago instead of staying in the Roman church as long as I did.

As long as it doesn't involve Republicans being made to march through the streets in their birthday suits.  My stomach is churning just thinking about that.

Tar and feathers would cover that up nicely, I should think. 

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I'm thinking Paul Ryan needs to top any list made. Not because I think his job is at risk, but because I'd love to see him cry over how unfair it is to be voted out of the job. His tears sustain my soul.

I would watch a video of his tears every day as a pick-me-up. I truly despise the weaselly asshole. That's a good idea -- I will be happy to donate to pretty much anyone who runs against him.

 

"Donald Trump says he’s a big fan of history. But he doesn’t seem to trust historians."

Quote

President Trump loves history.

He loves mentioning it, imagining his place in it, declaring someone (or something) to be “the best” or “the worst” in it.

It's important, Trump has said, to learn from the past.

And why not? After all, as the Spanish philosopher George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

But Trump's first few months as president have been peppered with signs that he and his inner circle may not have an in-depth understanding of historical events.

“Trump, as our first president with no prior political or military experience, had more to learn than anyone before him,” The Washington Post's James Hohmann wrote last month. “Not only does he lack a lot of historical knowledge, he is also missing institutional memory.”

In his Daily 202 newsletter, Hohmann offered a robust roundup of examples of Trump's history-related gaffes since taking office.

• He mentioned Abraham Lincoln during a fundraising dinner for the National Republican Congressional Committee last month. “Most people don't even know he was a Republican,” Trump said. “Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that!” (Most likely, every person in the ballroom knew and has attended at least one Lincoln Day dinner.)
• On Lincoln’s birthday in February, Trump tweeted out an obviously fake quote from the 16th president: “In the end, it’s not the years in your life that count, it's the life in your years.” He later deleted it.
• “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice,” he said at a Black History Month event. (Douglass died in 1895.)
• “Have you heard of Susan B. Anthony?” he asked at a Women’s History Month reception in March.
• In January, Trump said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) — who is best known for almost getting beaten to death as he marched on Bloody Sunday in Selma — is “all talk, talk, talk — no action or results.” There are things Lewis could be fairly criticized for, but no one who knows anything about the civil rights movement would agree that being “all talk” is one of them.

And so on.

...

And Jackson biographer Jon Meacham said on “Morning Joe” that Trump had once bragged to him that he “could have done a deal” to avoid the Civil War.

It wasn't the first time Trump has pushed back on historical record.

...

In 2015, the New York Times reported on a curious plaque that had been erected between the 14th and 15th holes of Trump's newly renovated golf course in Virginia, with the following message inscribed:

Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.” It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River! -Donald John Trump

After historians pointed out that there had been no such Civil War battles at that location, Trump pushed back.

“How would they know that?” Trump asked a Times reporter then. “Were they there?”

He finally told the same reporter: “Write your story the way you want to write it. ... You don’t have to talk to anybody. It doesn’t make any difference. But many people were shot. It makes sense.”

The Times noted: “In a phone interview, Mr. Trump called himself a 'a big history fan' but deflected, played down and then simply disputed the local historians’ assertions of historical fact.”

...

Trump has proved unique in that his almost dismissive attitude toward historical data and evidence goes against most people “who have reached the high ranks of decision-makers,” he said. Those in the military rely heavily on history, as do economists. Lawyers gather evidence and scientists conduct experiments to collect data.

Historians are no different, Grossman said, analyzing physical evidence, records, archives, memoirs, archaeological objects and letters.

“We check things; that's what we do,” Grossman said. “Any time you see any kind of evidence, one of the things that you're doing is you're evaluating the quality of the evidence.”

Even an undergrad history student would have questioned the plaque at Trump's golf course, he added — but at least that didn't have public policy implications.

...

For Trump, when his views don't align with historians' conclusions, it sometimes makes sense to side with his personal gut, even if that means going against the record.

And he has certainly expressed skepticism when it comes to experts before.

Experts “can't see the forest for the trees,” Trump told The Post's Marc Fisher last summer, in a conversation that mostly focused on his reading habits, or lack thereof. Trump, on the other hand, said he relied on instinct. “A lot of people said, ‘Man, he was more accurate than guys who have studied it all the time,’ ” he told Fisher.

The then-presidential candidate also stated that he doesn't read much — nor does he feel the need to, because he makes decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

...

One telling example of Trump's cavalier botching of history came when the History Channel invited him to appear — as an expert — in a 2012 episode of “The Men Who Built America,” a series on the Industrial Revolution.

Though he was on the screen only briefly, Trump delivered his contribution to the segment with confidence.

“Andrew Carnegie was somebody that I think in terms of because I do buildings,” Trump said on the show. “And he really came up with the mass production of steel. He was the first and the biggest by far, by a factor of 30 times. And what he built was unbelievable and just got bigger and bigger and bigger.”

Even in those few lines, there were factual issues. It was Sir Henry Bessemer who invented the first process to mass-produced steel — known as the “Bessemer process” — in England in the 1800s. Carnegie adapted the process for his business needs and, in the process, became the richest man in America.

“He did not invent a steelmaking process,” the American Historical Association's Grossman said of Carnegie. “Often, invents something, but the first person who actually figures out how to use it in business is actually the one who makes tons of money.”

It's unclear whether Trump ever corrected or clarified his input on the History Channel show, or whether he would ever have any incentive to do such a thing

If those who ignore the past are indeed doomed to repeat it, Trump only has to study his own personal history to realize where his murky handling of historical facts has gotten him so far: to the White House.

I love the section about his golf course in VA. I live in VA, and there are large numbers of people who still talk about the civil war daily. They go out every weekend and recreate battles, and travel to all the battle sites. The "were they there" comment is priceless -- was HE there?

[GreyhoundFan]

...banging my head on my desk... "Trump praises Australia’s universal health-care system: ‘You have better health care than we do’"

Quote

NEW YORK — Seconds after praising his party's efforts to pass a new health-care bill that estimates said would leave millions uninsured, President Trump praised Australia's government-funded universal heath-care system.

“We have a failing health care — I shouldn't say this to our great gentleman and my friend from Australia, because you have better health care than we do,” a tuxedo-clad Trump said at a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Manhattan on Thursday.

Australia has a government-funded health-care system, called Medicare, that exists alongside private insurance. The system is funded in part by taxes, including on the wealthy.

The comments came hours after Republicans in the House narrowly approved legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.

...

Trump, after advancing his first major legislative priority, hosted lawmakers in the Rose Garden at the White House to mark the occasion.

Later, speaking to reporters after meeting with Turnbull, Trump praised the bill.

“It's a very good bill right now. Premiums are going to come down substantially,” Trump said. “Deductibles are going to come down. It's going to be fantastic health care. Right now Obamacare is failing.”

Most U.S. conservatives oppose universal, government-funded health care. But Trump has a long history of supporting universal health-care coverage.

In his 2000 book, 'The America We Deserve,” Trump wrote: “We must have universal health care.”

Trump's remarks on Thursday thrilled and amused at least one lawmaker: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran for president as a Democrat during the 2016 campaign on a platform arguing for a universal public option, similar to the system in place in Australia.

When Trump's comments were played during Sanders's appearance on MSNBC, the senator threw his head back with laughter.

“The president has just said it. That's great!” Sanders exclaimed.

 

 

 

And: "Trump crows about his health-care victory — even though he hasn’t really won yet"

Quote

President Trump clapped and pointed. He grinned and nodded. He mouthed praise and boomed exultations.

He even, at one point, turned his back to the lectern to face the House Republican leadership, tossing his arms wide in open embrace before swooping his index fingers above the crowd — as if conducting a symphony of recalcitrant lawmakers who had finally, haltingly, learned how to harmonize.  

For a president deprived of signature legislation so far, Thursday’s Rose Garden ceremony for the Republican health-care plan was the sweetest victory.  

Except it wasn’t a victory at all, at least not yet.  

The Republican plan to dramatically scale back and overhaul President Barack Obama’s health-care law barely eked through the House on Thursday afternoon on its second attempt — and now faces the almost Sisyphean challenge of passing the Senate, where some members have already begun expressing opposition to a plan that could leave 24 million fewer people with health insurance.

Indeed, Trump’s first call after the bill passed was to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). According to a senior administration official, the president told the senator bluntly: “The ball is in your court.”

...

Nonetheless, after the House bounced the Republican health-care plan to its neighboring chamber, both Trump and House leadership had reason to celebrate — a long-coveted if tenuous win for a president for whom victory is both his primary language and most valuable currency. (One senior administration official said the White House organized the news conference partly out of “frustration” over how the bill was being covered by the media).

So they gathered on a chilly, overcast afternoon in the Rose Garden, busing over House members from the Capitol so everyone could preen and crow. 

And crow they did.

A Marine quartet sat playing on the lawn — the same tableau as the day last month when Neil M. Gorsuch became a Supreme Court justice. Lawmakers snapped photos and clapped each other on the shoulder. White House press secretary Sean Spicer even raced back from his Navy Reserve duty at the Pentagon to savor the moment.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) filed in to applause, hugs and handshakes. And a legislator in the back shouted out, “Thank you, staff! Thank you, staff!” — prompting another round of catharsis for a group eager to cheer.

Trump basked in adulation as lawmakers heaped praise on him. Ryan touted his leadership, thanking Trump and Pence for “working to get this right, for getting this done and getting us to where we are.” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, heralded Trump as “a president who wouldn’t give up, a president who got engaged.” And Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told the president, “I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the privilege of being on your team.”

And Trump — who earlier in the process expressed surprise at just how complicated health-care could be — also seemed momentarily in awe of the day. 

“How am I doing?” he asked, before answering his own question and posing another. “I’m president. Hey, I’m president. Do you believe it, right?”

...

Including Trump and Pence, a dozen lawmakers and officials spoke, a snaking queue — nearly all white men — who took turns stepping to the lectern to claim their reward: cable news coverage, orchestrated by a president who values it above almost all else.

Trump is not good about handing over the microphone — or the attention — to others, but he stood patiently by as each lawmaker took a turn before the cameras. As member after member spoke, a few focusing more on the bill itself and less on showering Trump in accolades, the president seemed to wilt slightly, only to perk up after each new affirmation.

...

Re: the bolded: You're doing a shitty job. And, nope, I can't believe you're president.

[fraurosena]

Senators Turn to Health Care Bill and They Have Issues

Quote

House Republicans passed their health care bill at a whirlwind pace, pushing it through as soon as they had enough votes lined up without holding hearings on its impact or waiting for a report on how much it will cost.

Now it's the Senate's turn, where things tend to move at a more genteel pace. Having largely sidestepped this week's House contentious debate, members say they'll need plenty of time to look things over and some have already expressed concerns about the plan's substance.

"We're not under any deadline, so we're going to take our time," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the majority whip, told reporters.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has assembled a working group to try to find a consensus.

Sen. John Thune (R-ND), a member of the leadership team, noted to reporters that "the margin for error is a lot less over here" given that Republicans have a 52-seat majority and can only lose two votes. That also means a bill could take more time to work out, since any individual member could potentially derail a compromise.

An indication of the trepidation in the Senate was clear when President Donald Trump said at a Rose Garden gathering with House GOP members after their bill passed that the Senate was "eager" to get to work on the legislation — some House members actually laughed out loud.

"They are!" Trump said in response to the chuckles.

Several Senators have stressed not to expect the kind of rapid flurry of action that characterized the House's final vote.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) criticized his House counterparts for rushing forward without waiting for a Congressional Budget Office analysis or giving members a chance to add amendments or even time to examine the bill's text, which was only finalized on Wednesday evening.

"I'm not so sure this is good civics here," he said.

Unlike the House, the Senate rules won't allow them to push through a vote without waiting for a Congressional Budget Office score. They can't formally take up the House bill until the CBO finishes its analysis, which could take one to two weeks, and have it reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian.

That process carries some pitfalls of its own. It's possible some of the most important items that the House Freedom Caucus negotiated, including allowing states to opt out of Essential Health Benefits and protections for pre-existing conditions, will run afoul of rules requiring reconciliation bills to stick to items that concern the budget and not regulations.

"Anything that makes it impossible for us to do under reconciliation we'll have to either try to do it a different way or do it at a later time," Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said.

Some members, including Blunt and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), indicated the Senate might write its own bill from scratch rather than making a few tweaks to the House bill and sending it back.

"I congratulate the House on passage of its bill," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in a statement. "The Senate will now finish work on our bill, but will take the time to get it right."

Others said the House could serve as a reference point, but the measure would likely require significant changes.

"It's the skeleton, but it's definitely still not the final product," Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told reporters.

He predicted it would take at least six weeks to advance a bill, given the longer process for submitting and scoring amendments compared to the House.

[...]

Re the bolded:
Just another example that the presidunce is a delusional toddler. I wonder if he stamped his foot as he said it?

[fraurosena]

This is a MaddowBlog article from before the vote. But it makes some damning statements for the GOP.

GOP health care push reflects a breakdown in American governance

Quote

Stakeholders from throughout the health care system – doctors, nurses, hospitals, patient advocates, et al – have condemned the Republicans’ health care plan is no uncertain terms. To date, GOP policymakers have decided those voices simply do not matter and deserve to be ignored.

Republicans have not, however, heard from their own Congressional Budget Office, as Vox’s Sarah Kliff noted late yesterday:

The House of Representatives will vote on the American Health Care Act, the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, on Thursday in the early afternoon. House Republicans are hurtling toward a vote on a bill that is disliked by most Americans, opposed by nearly every major health care group, and not yet scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

This is an unusual situation, and a puzzling one.

As broken as our political system often appears, these circumstances are almost hard to believe: House Republicans are poised to vote on legislation that will have a life-or-death impact on much of the American population, but they have no idea what their bill costs, how many citizens will lose their health coverage, or how the deficit will be affected.

But this isn’t just a matter of lawmakers acting from a position of ignorance; this is an example of the Republican-led House embracing collective, willful ignorance. GOP lawmakers don’t know what their legislation would do, and more importantly, they don’t want to know.

As things stand, GOP lawmakers intend to legislate first and get an independent assessment of their bill second.

We’re obviously watching an important political fight unfold, but simultaneously, we’re witnessing a breakdown in American governance. It’s a national embarrassment on a profound and historic scale.

If House Republicans were scrambling to vote on a bill that overhauls the health care system before receiving a CBO score, that alone would be astonishing. But no one should lose sight of the fact that the Republicans’ American Health Care Act has also faced no meaningful scrutiny from lawmakers themselves: there have been no public hearings, no testimony from experts, and no public debate.

Adding insult to injury, the legislation that’s scheduled to receive a floor vote in about five hours wasn’t circulated to members yesterday or published online for Americans to review. Take a moment to consider why Republican leaders in the House wouldn’t want anyone – the media, industry experts, voters, or even their own GOP colleagues – to be able to read the legislation in advance.

This is a bill that, if implemented, would affect one-sixth of the world’s largest economy. It’s being rushed through the House in a way that wouldn’t meet the standards of an elementary school’s student government.

It’s not just the process that’s cringe-worthy. This is a cartoonishly malevolent piece of legislation that deliberately redistributes resources from the bottom up, slashing Medicaid, gutting protections for those with pre-existing conditions, and delivering massive tax breaks to the wealthy. The Affordable Care Act has pushed the uninsured rate to historic lows, and the GOP’s American Health Care Act is likely to push it higher than it was before the ACA became law.

And it’s poised to be passed in a way that will do lasting harm to U.S. policymaking.

No matter what one might think of the competing approaches to health care policy, fair-minded observers should consider this a proper scandal. Americans aren’t supposed to govern this way. We’re better than this. We have to be.

I vote we stop calling it the GOP, the Grand Old Party. There's nothing grand about it. Let's call it the party of DOH instead.

Devious Obliquitous Hypocrites.

[fraurosena]

Good. This is the way to fight back.

 

[apple1]

11 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Yeah my fornicate stick of a representative voted for this piece of feces.

In other news according to the ACLU the whole thing about religious freedom was a photo op for fornicate head in chief;

aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-so-called-religious-freedom-executive-order

 

Exactly. I would add to "photo op" - the word "pandering" -- pandering to his base.

In reality -- and I make no secret that I self-identify as a Christian - quite some time ago I reached the point that politics from the pulpit - any politics - is sufficient for myself and my husband to get up and walk out. That is NOT what church is for, in my strong personal opinion.

"You wrap a flag around the cross and you make a moot point out of both of them." (quote from Mark Lowry)

[fraurosena]

The Wall Street Journal has some good advice on how to prepare for the toddler's planned tax overhaul:

Tax Moves to Make Now, Ahead of Potential Overhaul

Quote

Experts say individuals should consider deferring income, accelerating donations to maximize benefits if brackets or deductions are changed. [...]

Give to Charity

Mr. Trump’s proposal leaves the charitable deduction intact. However, it doubles the standard deduction from the 2017 levels of $6,350 for single filers and $12,700 for married couples filing jointly. Therefore, fewer people may be inclined to itemize their taxes and claim the charitable deduction in 2018.

Because of this, it may make sense for taxpayers who think they might use the standard deduction to accelerate charitable contributions to this year, says Karen Altfest, executive vice president at Altfest Personal Wealth Management in New York.

Experts also say that taxpayers in top brackets who expect their rates to drop may want to make donations in 2017 because the deduction is more valuable against higher rates.

Defer Income

If tax rates fall next year, it may be worth deferring income into 2018 where possible, says Jeff Fosselman, a senior wealth adviser at Relative Value Partners in Northbrook, Ill.

For example, if the 3.8% surtax on net investment income is eliminated, deferring a stock sale until that happens would result in around 16% tax savings, notwithstanding any other tax changes, Mr. Fosselman says.

Have an Estate Plan

Even if the estate tax is eliminated, as Mr. Trump has proposed, there are other issues in question such as whether the step-up in basis would also be eliminated, says Ms. Altfest.

Currently, if an investor sells a highly appreciated asset, he might have a large capital gain. If he holds it until death, heirs can avoid capital-gains taxes due to the step-up in basis, which adjusts for income-tax purposes the value of an appreciated asset to the value at the time of inheritance. With this provision in place, the investor might determine that the potential tax benefit is worth the risk of holding a position he might otherwise sell earlier, Ms. Altfest says.

If the step-up is eliminated, the heirs would have to pay the tax regardless, so the benefit of holding the position is reduced, she says.

Set Up a Business

If Mr. Trump’s proposals take effect, now may be a good time to begin setting up a business, financial advisers say. The reason: Mr. Trump proposed that the business income of pass-through entities—such as partnerships, S corporations and limited liability companies that “pass through” to their owners a proportional share of income, losses and other tax items—would be taxed at 15% depending on the details. That is a huge cut from the current top rate of 39.6%.

Businesses such as accounting firms, law firms and mom-and-pop shops are typically set up as pass-throughs. Some wealthy people already use pass-through entities to shield them from personal liability and to give them privacy. For example, with an LLC, one may be able to buy assets or make transactions without revealing one’s identity.

Setting up a pass-through under Mr. Trump’s plan could yield notable tax savings.

 

[fraurosena]

The masterful Keith Olbermann. 

 

[Ali]

I refuse to call this the AHCA. I am currently liking Trump Endorsed Ryan Deathcare or TERD. I even came up with a list of slogans for the Republicans.

Tax cuts for the wealthy help the poor.

Entitlements don't exist.

Republicans are pro-life.

Death is life.

[JMarie]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-australian-health-care-system-us-47229631

Quote

President Donald Trump's praise of Australia's government-funded health care system has raised the ire of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a leading advocate of such single-payer systems.

Republicans have strongly opposed calls by Sanders and others to create a similar "universal" health care system in the U.S.

Trump's praise for the Australian system came as he met Thursday in New York with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hours after the U.S. House narrowly passed a bill to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, the health care law enacted by former President Barack Obama.

Trump described the U.S. health system as failing, and added that "I shouldn't say this to a great gentleman and my friend from Australia because you have better health care than we do." He said the U.S. would have "great" health care very soon.

Sanders, the Vermont independent who sought the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, tweeted in response Friday: "Yes, Mr. Trump, the Australian health care system is a lot better than ours and infinitely better than the disastrous bill you supported."

Australia has a government-funded system that provides free or subsidized care for all Australian citizens and permanent residents, which is partially funded by income taxes.

Trump returned to the health care issue Friday, tweeting that his "Big win in the House" was "very exciting!"

"But when everything comes together with the inclusion of Phase 2, we will have truly great healthcare!," Trump added in the tweet sent from his home on his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Trump was likely referring to regulatory and other changes the administration can make to the Obama law.

Trump was spending an extended weekend at his central New Jersey home, about 40 miles west of New York.

"Rather than causing a big disruption in N.Y.C., I will be working out of my home in Bedminster, N.J. this weekend. Also saves country money!" he tweeted.

The White House said he was holding meetings and making calls, but didn't say with whom. Trump also was expected to sign a $1 trillion bill funding the government through September.

Trump spent just a few hours in his New York City hometown Thursday, but avoided his Trump Tower home, where security has been tightened and the costs for it have mounted since he became president. He had not been back to the city since leaving for his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Not only does he not understand what universal healthcare is, he has no idea what "saving money" means.

[Childless]

On 5/4/2017 at 0:07 PM, JMarie said:

It's horrible that this could be a future decision many Americans face.

It's one that I now face.  It looks like my little one might have the same disorder as my older child.  I've decided to find info on therapy techniques on line and try to do it myself instead of getting an official diagnosis and seeing a licensed therapist since its not a life or health threatening disorder and keep the diagnosis off his medical records.  At this point, there's nothing I can do to save my older child.  He probably won't be able to get insurance as an adult (a realization that made me break down in tears last night), but I'm going to do my damnedest to save my other child's ability to be insurable as an adult.

[Mercer]

Are there any examples of the federal government actually "censoring sermons" or "targeting pastors"? I don't think that's even a thing...

So it seems like Trump just signed a basically useless executive order with no purpose other than to pander to the persecution complex of the religious right?

[Childless]

23 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I often disagree with George Will, but he does write beautifully. That description of the tangerine toddler jumped off the screen at me.

 

"Trump signs order aimed at allowing churches to engage in more political activity"

The picture at the top of this article is nauseating. The shit-eating grin on Agent Orange made me stabby. I love how it's evangelicals who feel persecuted, but have no problem clamping down on any other religion.

Yet one more reason to avoid church.  Every year they make it easier and easier.

[JMarie]

15 minutes ago, Childless said:

It's one that I now face.  It looks like my little one might have the same disorder as my older child.  I've decided to find info on therapy techniques on line and try to do it myself instead of getting an official diagnosis and seeing a licensed therapist since its not a life or health threatening disorder and keep the diagnosis off his medical records.  At this point, there's nothing I can do to save my older child.  He probably won't be able to get insurance as an adult (a realization that made me break down in tears last night), but I'm going to do my damnedest to save my other child's ability to be insurable as an adult.

One of my college classmates was born with a heart defect, and was facing another cardiac catheterization.  She didn't have insurance through her job (this was before Obamacare), and had been turned down for Medicaid.  She was engaged, but couldn't afford a big wedding, so they had pushed back the date.  She and her fiancé ended up getting married at her parents' house, partly so she could be covered under her husband's insurance and see her doctor.

[VelociRapture]

For anyone with time/energy/ money to spare -

I just finished up a running list of those Representatives in vulnerable districts. I even went through and indicated who voted "yes" or "no" on the bill. If you're able to then pick one or two to focus on and get to work turning that district blue!

If you can't, then insider sharing the list wherever you feel comfortable so others can try and help. 

ETA: The thread its in is titled, "Hey, hey, hey, Goodbye" and is in the Politics Forum.

[Childless]

17 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I really hope the Senate votes it down. For a lot of reasons. But the biggest for me is that I've come to realize I really do want a second child. Considering my history (miscarriage, really bad morning sickness, premature birth, and a NICU stay) I don't know if it would be a financially safe decision under Trumpcare.

And it kills me to write that. I live in Connecticut. My husband gets insurance through his employer. That employer is based only in this state and wouldn't have the option of offering less essential benefits than the state demands for that reason. We have the money saved between savings, our HSA, and our retirement accounts to pay for another pregnancy and birth identical to the one I had last year. It would wipe us out almost entirely, but we could make it work. I shouldn't really have to worry about another pregnancy and birth... And yet, I'm still really scared of having another baby if this becomes law.  

Living in a blue state may not save you.  Buried in this travesty of a bill is an amendment that allows companies to base their insurance on the rules in any state in the union regardless of whether or not they have employees in that state.  So, even if your employer only operates in Connecticut, they can choose to run their insurance under the rules in say Mississippi (you know they'll apply for a waiver) and there's nothing you can do about it.  Your only saving grace would be if you worked for the state of Connecticut as their insurance would have to follow their rules.  That is until the state government switches parties someday and applies for a waiver.  Then you're screwed even if you're a government employee.  I guess you could run for Congress.  Apparently, they get to keep their ACA insurance.

[JMarie]

Three congressmen who voted yes admit to not reading the bill before voting.  Not doing their jobs, but they're still getting paid? 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/05/politics/mark-sanford-chris-collins-bill-health-care/index.html

 

At least three House Republicans who voted Thursday to pass their party's health care bill have admitted to not thoroughly reading the legislation.

The admissions echo criticism levied against Democrats when the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was passed seven years ago. The landmark legislation, which squeaked by in the House after several failed efforts, now moves on to the Senate, where it faces daunting challenges because of the same ideological splits between conservative and moderate Republicans that nearly killed it in the House.

South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, who has criticized the legislation, said he attempted to read the entire bill but failed to get through some of the details.

"I wouldn't say -- yes," he told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Friday on "New Day." "I turned through every page. As to whether or not I got through some of the details on some of the pages, no. But, yes, I attempted to read the entire bill."

Congressman admits he didn't read full health care bill before voting

Sanford said because he was mostly concerned with the amendments to the bill, he paid the most attention to those pages. But he depended on his staff for most of the bill.

"I read it as thoroughly as I could," he said. "You have an entire staff to really vet these things."

He added, "So I read through the bill. I had my staff read through the bill."

New York Rep. Chris Collins also admitted that he did not read the full health care bill before voting for it.

"I will fully admit, Wolf, I did not. But I can also assure you my staff did. We have to rely on our staff," Collins told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Thursday on "The Situation Room."

Collins said he had several meetings to discuss how this plan would affect Americans and he's "very comfortable that we have a solution to the disaster called 'Obamacare.'"

Blitzer pressed further: "This legislation affects one-fifth of the US economy, and millions of millions of Americans. Don't you think it was important to sit down and read the language of this bill?"

Collins replied that he likely wasn't the only congressman who didn't read the bill in its entirety.

Virginia Rep. Tom Garrett also said he hadn't read the bill but, like Sanford and Collins, relied on his staff.

"Let's put it this way: People in my office have read all the parts of the bill," he said Thursday on MSNBC. "I don't think any individual has read the whole bill. That's why we have staff."

In 2009, then Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan slammed Democrats for voting for the ACA without having read the entire bill.

"I don't think we should pass bills that we haven't read that we don't know what they cost," he said then.

[47of74]

Then this happened.

cnn.com/2017/05/05/politics/white-house-angella-reid-chief-usher/index.html

Quote

White House chief usher Angella Reid, the first woman to serve in the position, is no longer in her post, a White House official confirmed Friday. The official gave no reason when asked.

"We left on very good terms and wish her the best and certainly hope for great things for her in the future," deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during Friday's press briefing.

"However, it's not uncommon that you might have a transition when a new administration comes in and it's simply nothing more than that," Huckabee Sanders said, adding that the deputy usher will be serving as the acting usher in the meantime.

Reid made history when she took the job in 2011. She was previously the general manager at the Ritz Carlton in Pentagon City, just outside Washington.

If it was of her own accord I sure as hell wouldn't blame her for not wanting work for fornicate face anymore.

If it wasn't, fornicate whoever did this at the White House.  

[GreyhoundFan]

11 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Then this happened.

cnn.com/2017/05/05/politics/white-house-angella-reid-chief-usher/index.html

If it was of her own accord I sure as hell wouldn't blame her for not wanting work for fornicate face anymore.

If it wasn't, fornicate whoever did this at the White House.  

I was coming here to post about Angella Reid. Many ushers work there for decades.  It doesn't matter what Sarah Fuckabee Sanders says, I wouldn't believe her if she said Saturday follows Friday.

 

 

"Mark Green withdraws as Trump’s Army secretary nominee, citing ‘false and misleading attacks’"

Quote

The Trump administration’s Army secretary nominee withdrew from consideration Friday, a senior defense official said, amid mounting opposition to past comments he made about Islam, evolution and gender issues.

Mark E. Green, a Republican state lawmaker in Tennessee and veteran of the Iraq War, blamed “false and misleading attacks against him,” in a statement provided to NBC News. The Pentagon and the White House had no immediate reaction to the move, but it came hours after a Defense Department spokesman declined to say whether Defense Secretary Jim Mattis still supported him for the job.

The decision was announced after a month of growing calls for the Trump administration to choose someone else for the job. Advocacy groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people immediately launched an effort on Capitol Hill to block his nomination after it was announced April 7, saying his history of antagonism toward them made him an unacceptable choice.

...

"...false and misleading attacks against him..." Um, yeah, sure.

[apple1]

2 hours ago, JMarie said:

Three congressmen who voted yes admit to not reading the bill before voting. 

Following Trump's leadership, i.e. don't read?!?

[47of74]

17 hours ago, fraurosena said:

This is a MaddowBlog article from before the vote. But it makes some damning statements for the GOP.

GOP health care push reflects a breakdown in American governance

I vote we stop calling it the GOP, the Grand Old Party. There's nothing grand about it. Let's call it the party of DOH instead.

Devious Obliquitous Hypocrites.

I say call them The Fucking Nazi Party (h/t Blues Brothers)

 

And fuck Trump's FCC

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/05/05/trump-just-launched-investigation-stephen-colbert/

Quote

The Republican war on free speech is now policing late-night talk show jokes about the President. Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has announced that the agency will be investigating whether a joke made by Stephen Colbert on the Late Show will be considered “obscene” and has sworn to take “appropriate action” after being flooded with complaints from Trump fans about Colbert’s remarks.

 

[candygirl200413]

So one of the reps, Tom MacArthur (The one who made the amendment about reps and their staff being protected and still having obamacare) lost his mom at a very young age to cancer, and his daughter at a young age to cancer too. Yet, he has no reasoning for pulling this out of his ass.

This N.J. Republican just lost any claim of being a moderate

Quote

If you are searching for solace after the brutal vote by the House on Thursday, let it be this: The battle lines are now clearly drawn for the 2018 mid-term elections.

Republicans, including two from New Jersey, just voted to throw roughly 24 million Americans out in the cold with no health coverage. With the savings, they are offering a fresh round of enormous tax breaks for the very rich. And for added insult, they voted to exempt themselves from any of the pain.

One of the two from New Jersey is Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, product of a line of American aristocrats extending to days of British rule, and a man whose arrogance knows no match.

He still won't hold a town hall meeting on this, despite a flood of protests, all of them respectful and polite. Yesterday, many of them said they were blocked from leaving messages at his offices. If Sir Rodney survives the 2018 election, it is because of gerrymandering alone.

The other was Rep. Tom MacArthur, who played an even more important role. He is the man who resurrected this repeal from the dead by drafting a compromise designed to entice the hard-right Freedom Caucus. The changes made the bill even more brutal, putting those with pre-existing conditions at risk.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I confess to feeling a profound personal bond with MacArthur (R-3rd).

He started out as a hero in this fight, one of just nine Republicans to defy party leaders in January by voting against a plan to fast-track the Obamacare repeal. It was a big moment, so I hopped on a train to Washington to talk it over with him.

"No American should lack insurance," he told me. "And I'm not talking about access - I'm talking about insurance."

Then he got personal. He told me about losing his daughter at age 11, with her medical bills reaching $1 million, a sum he knows an uninsured family could never handle.

The interview stopped there, on a dime. I lost a son to cancer, and as anyone in this circle of hell knows, it is a brotherhood that goes far deeper than politics. MacArthur told his staffers to leave us, and we talked alone about the horror of it.

Later, he told me his mother died of cancer when he was four, and his father had no insurance. His dad worked three jobs for two decades trying to pay those bills, and still, needed help in the end.

This is a man, I thought, who would never be caught in the stale ideological debate about health care. Republican or not, I felt certain he would be no part of a plan to strip coverage from millions of families.

And then he voted for the first repeal.

And when that flopped, he did something worse: He saved it by making it more harsh, allowing states to opt out of the key protections for those with pre-existing conditions. He was the supposed moderate leader, reaching out to the right.

With this move, MacArthur loses any claim to being a moderate. But he has new status in the party, new friends on the right. He swears that's not why he did this. But the puny concessions he won do little to mitigate the damage of this bill.

 * * *

 Mark the moment. Because this is really the starting gun of the Trump Era. This isn't just an insulting tweet, a money grab by Trump or his family, or even an executive order to keep dirty coal alive.

This is the real thing. People without insurance die before their time. They go bankrupt and delay care for their children. When their sickness is too much to ignore, a moment that comes for us all, they get care in hospital ERs, driving up costs for everyone.

They made this move in haste, before the Congressional Budget Office had time to even count the casualties. Ask yourself this: Why would they do that if they really believe the hogwash they were spewing yesterday?

Mark this, too, as the moment when Republicans sounded a retreat in the fight against the opioid epidemic. Because the money behind that fight comes mostly from Medicaid, which this bill eviscerates. In New Jersey, only 10 percent of those in treatment for heroin addiction have private insurance.

The CBO estimated that of the 24 million who would lose coverage under the first repeal, 14 million would come from the Medicaid cuts. MacArthur's "compromise" leaves those cuts in place.

Note, too, that Gov. Chris Christie isn't making a peep about that. His priority, it seems, is to offer tearful testimony, over and over, that makes him look like a hero in the fight. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Republicans promised a new law that will subject Congress to the same changes they just imposed on those in the Obamacare markets. What else could they do once that stunt was exposed?

But MacArthur defended his role on Thursday, sending out an e-mail blast that mentioned his daughter's passing, and his mother's cancer. He seems to think it offers some inoculation against charges that he's a heartless guy who has never known hardship.

To me, the mystery is how he, of all people, could pull this trigger. Jimmy Kimmel just had a terrifying scare with his newborn, and he drew the reasonable conclusion: Everyone should have health care. Period.

I can't gin up any real hostility towards MacArthur. He is in my sad club, the worst one on earth. But if I lived in his district, he most definitely would not get my vote in 2018. 

But I guess it's just like Paul Ryan in that sense.

[fraurosena]

In Rare Unity, Hospitals, Doctors and Insurers Criticize Health Bill

Quote

It is a rare unifying moment. Hospitals, doctors, health insurers and some consumer groups, with few exceptions, are speaking with one voice and urging significant changes to the Republican health care legislation that passed the House on Thursday.[...]

The prospect of millions of people unable to afford coverage led to an outcry from the health care industry as well as consumer groups. They found an uncommon ally in some insurers, who rely heavily on Medicaid and Medicare as mainstays of their business and hope the Senate will be more receptive to their concerns.

“The American Health Care Act needs important improvements to better protect low- and moderate-income families who rely on Medicaid or buy their own coverage,” Marilyn B. Tavenner, the chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s trade group, said in a strongly worded statement.

Others were even more direct about the effects the bill would have, not only on patients but also on the industry. “To me, this is not a reform,” said Michael J. Dowling, the chief executive of Northwell Health, a large health system in New York. “This is just a debacle.”

Hospitals that serve low-income patients “will just be drowning completely when this happens,” Mr. Dowling said, noting that more people would become uninsured at the same time that government payments to cover their costs were reduced.

In contrast to hospital and doctor groups, insurers had largely remained silent about their reservations, perhaps in the hopes of bartering their low profile in exchange for assurances that billions of dollars in subsidies for low-income coverage would continue. The White House and Congress have gone back and forth about their willingness to pay for the subsidies, prompting anxiety among some companies. Several, including Anthem, have threatened to sharply raise their prices or leave markets altogether without the funding.

It goes to show just how atrocious and ludicrous the ACHA bill really is, if even the insurers are condemning it.

[fraurosena]

Devious Obliquitous Hypocrites indeed.