Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats in Congress are unified in their support for significant federal involvement in healthcare, but they are not unified on the extent of that involvement.

Although there have been several reports about growing support for a single-payer system within the Democrat caucus, most Democrats are still apprehensive to embrace a European-style approach, such as the one long-espoused by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in which a national government serves as the sole funder and arbiter of care.

A letter sent on Monday by Senate Democrats to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., highlights four potential Obamacare reform proposals, none of which introduces a single-payer system.

The plans propose extensions to existing tax credits, subsidies, and cost-sharing payments, but none of them removes private insurers or other intermediary organizations from the equation, as a single-payer system would do.

Even "Medicare for all" proposals have fallen short of being bona fide single-payer systems. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., introduced the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act in January, which garnered a lot of support. Although pitched as "Medicare for all," Conyers' bill did not attempt to set up the federal government as the sole arbiter of care. Though the bill excludes private, for-profit insurance companies from involvement, it welcomes public or private non-profit organizations.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has similarly supported what she calls a "Medicare for all" proposal, but only as an option for people to buy into the program at an affordable price. Her proposal leaves private insurance companies mostly as they are under Obamacare.

The ACA was a big step in the direction of single-payer, as it significantly increased federal involvement in healthcare. Though their reform proposals continue moving the conversation toward socialization, few Democrats are prepared to dismantle the marketplaces and the health insurance system as they stand, and to take a wholesale leap toward a national system.

The rest is here:
Despite reports, Democrats not yet ready to embrace single-payer healthcare - Washington Examiner

Last week, a Politico/Morning Consult poll on President Trumps proposed travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries revealed a somewhat surprising discovery: 60 percent of voters agreed with Trumps proposed ban. That includes 56 percent of independents and even 41 percent of Democrats.

The plan, however, has a distinct advantage: Its the only idea on the table.

Whats the alternative to the ban from the left? Whats the plan to stop terrorist attacks? Literally nothing.

Every time theres a deadly attack, liberals rush to downplay the dead bodies as just a regular part of life and not take any action lest we radicalize more terrorists. After the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, then-President Barack Obama said that we refuse to be terrorized. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in France, the deadliest day of violence in France since World War II, Mayor de Blasio said terrorists cant succeed if we refuse to be terrorized.

But that just isnt true. We can all refuse to be terrorized and get murdered anyway. Trumps ban is the only idea that isnt go on with our lives as if nothing happened.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, the great leftist hope, says seriously that terrorism is caused by climate change. No wonder Trumps ban is resonating.

Is the ban wisely crafted? Of course not. It tightens visitation rules for people coming from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen but not from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates the three countries from which all but one of the 9/11 hijackers hailed.

But at least it aims to do something while the other side has their fingers in their ears pretending nothing is happening.

Its not just terrorism. Trumps something on immigration, in his case a wall that would be astronomically expensive and likely ineffective, is more popular than the lefts nothing. What do Democrats believe on immigration?

They talk a lot about compassion, and Hillary Clinton spoke often of protecting families who are here illegally, but what is their actual position? Is it much different from being essentially open borders?

Last week, Rich Lowry called the Democratic position on immigration hostile to enforcement and to any skepticism about current high levels of immigration. The Democrats dont want to do anything to stop illegal immigration, and they dont want to enforce existing immigration laws, but they cant outright say so.

When a party cant vocalize its position because it would mean certain electoral death, thats a problem and its a problem Trump didnt have.

Its the same on health care, trade and other major issues. Trumps ideas are impulsive and often poorly thought-out but they exist. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren spend their time accusing Republicans of wanting people to die but not actually making changes to a crumbling ObamaCare system that has meant abject misery for so many Americans.

Democrats entire reason for being has become we are not Trump. They remain wrapped up in an election that happened eight months ago, convinced it was stolen from them by Russian hackers and unable to let go.

When Trump spoke in Poland last week, he defended Western values and liberals went apoplectic, calling it a racist dog whistle.

The left has become all safe spaces and language policing. And the Democrats seem to be coddling this because encouraging the Resistance to stay angry at everything is easier than taking stands on issues. But anyone who has ever worked in campaigns knows you need a message with some substance. Virtue signaling and posturing isnt enough.

Policy matters.

Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled its latest proposed bumper stickers for the midterms. One that was widely mocked read Democrats 2018: I mean, have you seen the other guys?

Newsflash: The other guys control the White House, Senate, House and a majority of statehouses and governorships. Yes, the voters have seen the other guys they seem to like them.

Democrats are under the mistaken impression that simply pointing and laughing at Republicans, Trump in particular, is going to be enough. It hasnt been so far, and if signature Trump policies are going to poll at 60 percent approval, it wont be next time, either.

The rest is here:
Why Democrats are still losing the war of ideas - New York Post

Tipping can be a social and cultural maelstrom. And social media doesnt always help.

A National Basketball Association player who has a $30 million contract drew internet ire last week after leaving a $13.97 tip on a $487.13 bill. Andre Roberson of the Oklahoma City Thunder made headlines for the paltry tip, and the strong reaction shows just how emotional the question of tipping can be.

But it wasnt quite as clear-cut as it seemed. Roberson released a statement on Twitter TWTR, +0.56% saying he was misrepresented, saying he bought one bottle of liquor for $487 at a bar, around five times the retail price and rounded it out to $500. Roberson said he also had a $100 tab on shorts for which he left a $200. I thought hed be grateful for the $200 tip, he wrote of the barman who served him.

Meanwhile, some restaurants have banned tipping while Uber is finally encouraging riders to open their wallets to drivers who go the extra mile.

Now comes new data to add fuel to this fire: Republican men are better tippers than Democrat women, according to a survey released Monday by CreditCards.com. The survey, based on phone interviews with 1,002 adults in the U.S., found that Republicans, men, people who live in the northeast and people paying with credit and debit cards are the most generous tippers all of those groups leave a median tip of 20%. Women tip a median of 16% and Democrats, southerners and cash users tip a median of 15%, the survey found.

See more: Meet the most generous tipper in America

Some of the findings seemed to play out in real life when three supporters of President Donald Trump left a $450 tip for a Washington, D.C. waitress in January, though they were from Texas, not the relatively more generous northeast.

Matt Schulz, a senior analyst with CreditCards.com, pegged the disparity in tipping in different parts of the country to income levels. The more money you have, the more likely you are to leave a little extra on the table at the end of the night, Schulz said. What ties those groups of big tippers together is that they tend to be a little higher income than their counterparts. Its a lot easier to throw a few extra bucks your servers way when you have more expendable income and youre more confident about financial situation.

The survey also looked at which service providers we tip, and found that the ones we interact with the most get the best tips. For example, most people (67%) tip their hair stylists, while only 27% tip their hotel housekeeper. Part of that is about personal connection, Schulz said. If you never interact with someone or you dont see them, you probably wont feel a big need to tip them.

Dont miss: How much to tip everyone

The same pattern seems to happen when people donate money to charities, said Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which has researched how Americans give to charities. People who live in areas where they come face-to-face with poverty are generally more generous donors, Palmer said.

If you encounter people in need, youre more likely to give generously, because you see people who need money, Palmer said. Wealthy people in cities versus people who live in gated communities tend to give more.

Also read: Is this the worst tipper in America?

She noted that when it comes to measuring generosity, its not about the dollar amount you give, its about what portion of your income youre giving. Women of all income levels give higher portions of their income to charity than men do, she said. And though men were better restaurant tippers than women, females were more likely than men to tip hotel housekeepers, hair stylists and baristas, the CreditCards.com survey found.

As for how the red-blue split in tipping compares to the political divide in charitable giving, Palmer said the most recent research shows that Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes than Democrats to charity.

But that could shift along with the countrys changing political climate. Palmer said. Democrats surveyed after the 2016 election said they planned to give more to charities. Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have seen record donations as their causes have come under threat from Trump administration policies.

See original here:
Who are better tippers: Democrats or Republicans? - MarketWatch

Liberals target the Rust Belt: 'Democrats should be able to win in all these places' Sacramento Bee As the Democratic Party struggles to find its moorings after losing a handful of special House elections this spring, liberal activists say the party's future in Washington, D.C., isn't in moving centrist, but rather in moving left. A trio of new ...

Read the rest here:
Liberals target the Rust Belt: 'Democrats should be able to win in all these places' - Sacramento Bee

McConnell's words sound like more of a threat than a promise, particularly to intransigent Republicans who might fear that a bipartisan bill would be far less palatable to them and to the GOP base.

But let's imagine there is something to McConnell's idea. What if he is able and willing to mobilize a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans such as Senator Susan Collins to fix the Affordable Care Act through subsidies and other reforms that stabilize the health insurance markets?

It has happened before.

One of President Ronald Reagan's biggest defeats early in his administration came on his proposal to cut Social Security benefits for early retirees. When he included this measure in his budget, congressional Democrats snapped to attention. Dejected after Reagan's 1980 victory over President Jimmy Carter, Democrats criticized Reagan for trying to slash the benefits that elderly Americans depended on.

But Reagan didn't back away forever. In 1982, Social Security was back on the agenda when experts warned that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's greatest legacy faced a massive budgetary imbalance in the near term that threatened the program. The government would be spending more on benefits every month than it was raising through payroll taxes.

Reagan, still stinging from his defeat, established a bipartisan commission to offer recommendations about how to fix the program. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to serve as the chairman of the 15-person commission. The panel, which had more Republicans than Democrats, reviewed every possible solution. Democrats like Claude Pepper of Florida warned that the commission was stacked with conservatives and would not produce anything that his side could accept.

And other Democrats warned that the commission would have trouble making recommendations that were acceptable to their party. After all, the GOP was the party of Reagan, who had repeatedly expressed his opposition to the basic structure of Social Security, as well as Medicare.

In the 1982 midterm elections that took place while the commission met, many House Democrats -- who picked up 26 seats -- ran on the saying that, "It's not fair . . . It's Republican" in reference to the Social Security plan and other conservative domestic policies. Democrats handed out bumper stickers that read, "Save Social Security -- vote Democratic."

The commission came back with a recommendation to put the program on sound footing. The report "rejected proposals to make the Social Security program a voluntary one." But there were concerns that partisan pressures would sink the commission's recommendations.

Greenspan's panel proposed increasing Social Security revenues by taxing a larger number of employees, accelerating tax rates, taxing some Social Security benefits, delaying cost of living adjustments and more. Reagan expressed his support for their recommendations, saying, "Well, sometimes, even here in Washington, the cynics are wrong. Through compromise and cooperation, the members of the commission overcame their differences."

Dole argued that "Through a combination of relatively modest steps, including some acceleration of already scheduled taxes and some reduction in the rate of future benefit increases, the system can be saved." He added that "When it is, much of the credit, rightfully, will belong to this President and his party."

Other than a long break on January 8 to watch the Washington Redskins compete in the NFL playoffs, the negotiations were nonstop. In the end, both sides agreed that the final deal had to inflict some political pain on both parties -- that was the only way it could work. They reached a deal on January 15.

The administration found support from such congressional Democrats as Speaker Tip O'Neill who was eager to join the president in this effort to save a key part of the social safety net.

Congress eventually passed legislation that raised the payroll tax, raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, delayed the cost of living adjustment for six months and required government workers to pay for Social Security. The Social Security Amendments of 1983, a $168 billion package, remain a landmark moment in the history of the program. It made the program solvent for several more decades.

Reagan said the legislation "demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security." He continued, "It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future."

In 2017, repeating this success with health care seems almost inconceivable. The polarization in Washington has become so much worse that it is hard to imagine the two parties coming together on any issue of this significance.

House Republicans who are part of the Freedom Caucus and their allies in the Senate will have little appetite to join Democrats on any initiative. Shifting to the center feels to them like the ultimate act of political betrayal. Any Republican willing to sign on to such a deal would face great political risks back home. Repealing Obamacare has been so important symbolically that compromising on this question could be politically disastrous for Republican members of Congress.

Democrats will likewise have little appetite to hand President Trump a victory of this sort. The utter failure of Republicans to deliver on repealing the ACA, with the realization that much of the program is far more popular than conservatives believed it to be, has been one of the main rallying points for the Democratic Party. Continuing to hammer away on this issue, rather than giving Republicans a victory, could be critical to success in the 2018 election, allowing them to both save the program and regain control of the House. So why compromise right now?

And both parties must grapple with the reality that millions of Americans who now have health coverage are likely facing rising costs.

Yet maybe the politics will move Washington in the most unexpected of directions. Perhaps McConnell will see that bipartisanship might in fact offer his party the best way to save itself on health care and to move on to more appetizing issues, such as cutting taxes for business and investors. This could be a legacy-making moment for him as a congressional leader, even if there are big short-term political costs.

For Trump, it could allow him to finally claim a domestic victory and give some credence to the notion that he is a maverick. Should he defy the conservative Republicans, he might come out of this with more leverage to move the party on other issues.

Democrats could break the lock that Tea Party Republicans have had on Capitol Hill since 2010 and create a precedent for other sorts of alliances, such as a deal on rebuilding infrastructure, that go against the conventional wisdom. Republicans who locked in march step with the conservative caucus would know that the possibility of bipartisanship was a real option.

Democrats face the real risk that if gridlock prevents Congress from fixing the program, the costs of premiums will continue to rise and more insurers will pull out of health care markets, leaving the party to shoulder the responsibility of these problems. Instead, through a deal, the Democrats could come out of this bruising battle with a new and improved ACA.

In entering this alliance, they could save a health care program that is central to their party's recent rule, and offer ongoing evidence -- in the midterms and the next presidential election -- of what they can accomplish when they are in power.

The President could immediately generate some good press coverage by creating a bipartisan commission to offer recommendations for fixing the ACA.

The odds of any of this happening are slim. Intense partisan polarization is not some imaginary force in national politics -- it defines our era.

Yet every now and then, as the nation saw in 1983, both parties can find a way to join hands with the opposition in ways that benefit both of their interests and help citizens achieve more security in their lives.

Read the original here:
How GOP could make health care deal with Democrats - CNN