Mediaboss Marketing

After years of insisting the Affordable Care Act was "rammed through" without Americans knowing what it would cost, House Republicans passed their own health-care plan on May 4, without an estimate of its impact from the Congressional Budget Office. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

It was one thing for Donald Trump to pledge on the campaign trail that his plan forhealth care would assure that every American had coverage. He did so repeatedly, including during a town hall event in February 2016 at which he saidhis promise to take care of everyone might sound as if hewas talking abouta single-payer system, but he wasnt. Thats not single-payer, he said. Thats not anything. Thats just human decency.

It was another thing, though, for Trump to make similar claims after the election. Before the election, it was anything goes in a way that most politicians would avoid. Afterward, one might expect Trump to zeroin on his preferences a bit more narrowly, to scrape away the rhetoric and describe, instead, what it was that he wanted to see.

Were going to have insurance for everybody, Trump told The Washington Posts Robert Costa and Amy Goldstein during an interview less than a week before his inauguration. AlthoughTrump was characteristically confident and equally characteristically light on specifics, he did outline several things that he anticipated the Republican replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act might include.

The plan would have lower numbers, much lower deductibles. The philosophy in some circles that if you cant pay for it, you dont get it? Trump insisted that thats not going to happen with us implying that there would be universal coverage regardless of income. Whats more, people could expect to have great health care that would be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.

Trump told Costa and Goldstein that people wouldnt keep their existing plans but would have some sort of insurance plan. [T]heyll be beautifully covered, he said. I dont want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people.

That is not the proposal that passed the House on Thursday.

The American Health Care Act, passed on the strength of 217 Republican votes, is another beast entirely. The bill would overhaul the Affordable Care Act, cutting Medicaid spending and changing the incentive structure to reduce government subsidies and eliminate the individual mandate.

How does it stack up to Trumps January pledge?

Trump promised insurance for everybody. The AHCA would probably result in 24 million more uninsured people by 2026, according to the Congressional Budget Offices analysis of the original GOP bill.

Trump promised lower numbers and lower deductibles. The AHCA would probably have higher deductibles. The CBO anticipates that theywill be higher under the AHCA than they would have been if the ACAwere kept, thanks to a change in the actuarial values used in determining plan costs.

Trump promised much less expensive coverage. The AHCA would probably mean that customers would eventually see lower premiums after premiums increased, pricing more-expensive patients out of the market.

Trump promised that people who cant pay for coverage would still receive coverage. The AHCA would probably reduce the number of lower-income people with coverage. This is in part because they will receive less government support to pay premiums. Its also in part because the Republican bill cuts funding to Medicaid, meaning that millions fewer people would be covered under the program.

Trump promised that policies would be much better and that people could expect to have great health care. The AHCA would probably reduce the quality of insurance plans, thanks to late amendments that would allow states to get waivers so that insurers could separate coverage items out of the default package. The cost of plans would go down but people who find themselves needing coverage for something that had been removed would end up paying much more.

This is only the set of promises Trump made to The Post in January. He made other commitments even after inauguration that havent been met. He pledged repeatedly to protect funding for Medicaid, which is threatened under the AHCA. Just last week, he made another explicit promise.

Trump promised that the plan would take care of preexisting conditions. The AHCA would probably increase costs for a substantial number of people who have preexisting conditions, as our fact-checkers noted Thursday.

Trumps promise to cover everyone more broadly and for less money was always an impossibility, akin to saying that you were going to have your cake, eat your cake and give everyone in America the same cake, which would feed them forever. But based on the comments he made at the unusual Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the passage of the House bill, its still not clear that he admits that what was passed diverges from what he promised.

As far Im concerned, your premiums, theyre going to start to come down, he said to applause. He later added, Yes, deductibles will be coming down. Again, this is not what outside analysis completed in March suggests will happen. Granted, the CBO hasnt conducted a review of the amended AHCA, since the Republican majority pressed forward on a vote before it was complete. Its unlikely, though, that the changes made in the past seven days would achieve the goals Trump promised again today.

He said something else, though, that may explain his overall strategy.

Make no mistake, the president said at one point, this is a repeal and a replace of Obamacare, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake. The bill would significantly alter it, but it isnt a repeal-and-replace of the Affordable Care Act. Of all of Trumps pledges on health care, though, that was his most consistent. Repeal and replace summarized the true extent of his desired outcome so fully that it was the only health-care point articulated on Stephen K. Bannonsinfamous whiteboard. No details about the repeal. None about the replace. Just Repeal. Replace.

All Trumpneeds to do now is to convince America that this is what the AHCA does. Or at least, convince himself.

Visit link:
This is not the health-care bill that Trump promised - Washington Post

President Trump has made several history-related gaffes since taking office. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

PresidentTrump loves history.

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

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 Hohmannwrote last month. Not only does he lack a lot of historical knowledge, he is also missing institutional memory.

In his Daily 202 newsletter, Hohmann offereda 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 Lincolns birthday in February, Trump tweeted out an obviously fake quote from the 16th president: In the end, its 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 whos 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 Womens 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.

[Trump is learning and sometimes mislearning the lessons of the presidency]

On Monday, questions about Trump's grasp of history resurfaced when he made head-scratching (and historically inaccurate) claims about Andrew Jackson's feelings toward the Civil War in an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito.

In that exchange, Trump seemed to suggest that the Civil War might have been prevented if Jackson had been involved.

I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War, Trump told Zito. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, 'There's no reason for this.' People don't realize, you know, the Civil War if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

As many pointed out,Jackson couldn't have prevented the Civil War or been angry about it because he wasn't alive then. Jackson diedin 1845, more than a decade before the Civil War began in 1861.

That didn't stop Trump from taking to Twitter to double down on his statement.

And Jackson biographerJon 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.

[Memo to Donald Trump: Thomas Jefferson invented hating the media]

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 dont have to talk to anybody. It doesnt 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.

There have been all sorts of famous gaffes by presidents,said James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association. In most cases, if the mistake was brought to their attention, there was some kind of an official statement saying yeah, this was wrong or whatever.

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.

[Thomas Jefferson and the fascinating history of Founding Fathers defending Muslim rights]

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.

The Jackson stuff on Monday is different, Grossman said. In that case, where he was wrong deeply, deeply matters for public policy and public culture. It's important that we know that the Civil War was fought over slavery. It's important to know that it wouldn't have been good to make a dealunless that deal had freed the slaves, which obviously wasn't going to happen.

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 Fisherlast 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 statedthat 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.

(Fisher noted that as Trump was preparing to be named the Republican nominee for president, he had not read any biographies of presidents. But, Fisher wrote:He said he would like to someday.)

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.

[Hunting down runaway slaves: The cruel ads of Andrew Jackson and the master class]

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.

Read more:

Is President Obamas glass houses scripture reference in the Bible? Not exactly.

Struggling to attract visitors, Virginia's historic houses may face day of reckoning

The fake news that haunted George Washington

A ship full of refugees fleeing the Nazis once begged the U.S. for entry. They were turned back.

Trump just reached his 100th day in office. Heres why the 'ridiculous standard' doesnt matter.

Read more:
Donald Trump says he's a big fan of history. But he doesn't seem to trust historians. - Washington Post

Donald Trump started tweeting eight years ago today, a strategy that ultimately turned him from a real estate magnate and reality-TV star to becoming the President of the United States.

Ever the self-promoter, Trump's first tweet was about him appearing on since retired David Letterman's late night show.

Since that time, has sent out nearly 35,000 tweets on a variety of topics, interacting with his fans, a strategy he has credited with winning the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton.

FACEBOOK CLAMPS DOWN ON SICK VIDEOS, BRINGS IN 3,000 ADDITIONAL REVIEWERS

"I really believe that, um-- the fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, et cetera, I think it helped me win all of these races where theyre spending much more money than I spent," Trump told "60 Minutes" Leslie Stahl in his first interview since winning the presidency in November 2016. "You know, I spent my money. A lot of my money. And I won. I think that social media has more power than the money they spent, and I think maybe to a certain extent, I proved that."

Despite initial claims that he would tamper down his tweeting -- which he said in the same interview -- President Trump has continued to fire off tweets from his personal account, as well as @POTUS, discussing everything from foreign and domestic policy to the Super Bowl.

RUSSIA EYED AFTER FACEBOOK SAYS IT WAS USED BY 'MALICIOUS ACTORS' DURING US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Most recently, President Trump has focused his Twitter attention on a number of topics, including attempting to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which was a campaign promise of Trump's he has yet to fulfill.

He has also called on Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor under President Obama to testify, despite Rice turning down a request from Senator Lindsey Gram (R.-SC) to do so.

Continue reading here:
Here's Donald Trump's first tweet ever - Fox News

We dont know exactly how many people will lose their insurance, or how much this bill will cost, because the House, in an unprecedented and insanely reckless move, voted on the bill without getting a score from the CBO. Its worth underscoring this: They voted for a massive bill to reorganize a sixth of the American economy without knowing what it would do.

This vote will backfire even if the bill doesnt ultimately become law. Its worth pointing out that spiking the football, as Ryan and Trump did, is remarkably short-sighted. The CBO is going to give this bill a terrible score, erasing whatever positive coverage Republicans are getting right now (CNN and other outlets are labeling this a win). And Republicans in the Senate are going to take months to change this bill into something more palatable, and its not clear that they can even do that.

If this bill does end up becoming law, it will do more than simply return the countrys health care system to the shambles it was in before Obamacare. Millions will lose their health care. Costs will rise. People will literally die. And if the bill doesnt become law, it will stand as a morally repugnant vote. Republicans put millions of peoples lives at risk so they could tell their base they had voted to get rid of Obamacare. At the Rose Garden press conference, Trump and Ryan acted as if the bill had already become law. Expect footage of that press conference to haunt them when it is hurled at House Republicans in 2018.

Some Democrats were not-so-secretly rooting for the bill to pass the House, expecting it to die in the Senate. This is a classic example of counting political chickens before theyve hatched. With this group of Republicans, in this climate, anything is possible, including the destruction of President Obamas biggest domestic achievement. Still, the ads against Trump and the 217 Republicans who voted for this bill are already being cut, and health care will be the defining issue in the 2018 election. (Premiums are going to be coming down. Deductibles are going to come down, Trump declared. Well see about that.) For the first time since 2010, Democrats wont be on the defensiveand Republicans may have just given them the key to take back the House.

Excerpt from:
Donald Trump and Paul Ryan Are Going to Regret Repealing Obamacare - New Republic

Donald Trump has turned to his Twitter account to shame Susan Rice for declining a request to testify at a Congressional hearing related to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

On Thursday morning the commander-in-chief tweeted: Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor to President Obama, is refusing to testify before a Senate Subcommittee next week on allegations of unmasking Trump transition officials. Not good!

Subscribe to the Broadsheet, Fortunes newsletter for and about powerful women.

Rice, Obama's national security adviser refused an invitation from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism regarding Russias interference in last years election. She declined via a letter from her attorney, Kathryn Ruemmler, that was first obtained by CNN .

In the letter, Ruemmler explained that Rice was turning down the invitation because it came only from Graham and was not bipartisan in nature (the subcommittees ranking Democrat, Rhode Island's Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse reportedly did not agree Grahams request).

The former national security adviser got involved in the Russia scandal last month , when Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake, citing anonymous U.S. officials, reported that White House lawyers learned she had requested the identities "of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign." In other words, Rice sought the names of those in Trump's circle who were caught up in the legal surveillance of foreign targetseven though those identities are usually redacted from summaries reviewed by the White House.

Rice told MSNBC in April that she didn't use intelligence reports to spy on Trump associates for political purposes, though she acknowledged that she had had the ability to request their names. She did not say whether she sought intelligence on Trump's associates or asked for their identities; that information would be classified, she said.

More here:
Donald Trump Calls Out Susan Rice For Declining to Testify About Russia - Fortune