Mediaboss Marketing

2016 Election Results, by County Carrie Dunn / NBC News

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., whose state has just two options for insurance in the individual market, said that its not about politics but making sure people dont suffer.

We have to do something to reduce premiums, we have to stabilize the market or real people are going to get hurt, Rounds said. I dont think the American people want us to simply walk away and let this think explode which is what its doing.

But Trump vacillates between urging Republicans to keep working and making statements that make the insurance system stable and predictable.

And Republicans are starting to blame Trump for some of the health systems problems.

Im troubled by the uncertainty that has been created by the administration, said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on NBCs Meet the Press on Sunday. The uncertainly of whether that subsidy is going to continue from month to month is clearly contributing to the destabilization of the insurance market.

Republicans are open to do something they wouldnt normally do to ensure that the system doesnt collapse: prop up Obamacare with federal funding.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who represents a state with just one or two insurers in most counties, has said throughout this process that his first priority is to help people who are facing few insurance choices. He plans to hold hearings soon on how to ensure that insurers stay involved in the current system.

Republicans will need to temporarily support some things we would not normally support over the longer term and I would hope Democrats would do that as well, said Alexander, chair of the Senate health committee.

A group of about 40 centrists Republican and Democrat members of the House of Representatives released a framework for fixing the problems with Obamacare Monday. At the top of their list is to fund the so-called cost sharing reduction payments and to create a stability fund to prop up the Obamacare exchange market.

That plan doesnt seem to have any real momentum yet and any idea that involves throwing money at the problem is likely going to be a last resort in the Republican Congress.

AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for Speaker Paul Ryan, responded saying, while the speaker appreciates members coming together to promote ideas, he remains focused on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

While Trump is urging Obamacares implosion, he is also continuing to push Republicans to hand him a victory. He met with Sens. Lindsey Graham R-S.C., Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Dean Heller, R-Nev., on Friday at the White House to discuss their plan to give federal funds to the states for states to implement components of their own health care plan. Sen. Cassidy had another meeting at the White House on Monday to continue discussions.

But theres not a lot of time. The deadline for insurers to set their plans and pricing for 2018 is at the end of September. And the administration is supposed to decide if it will pay the subsidies for low-income Americans by the end of August: two deadlines with major repercussions for the insurance markets.

But coming to an agreement is going to be difficult will likely need Democrats.

"There's just too much animosity and we're too divided on healthcare," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Reuters.

Go here to read the rest:
Health Care Collapse Not a Viable Option for Congressional Republicans - NBCNews.com

Schumer said he was all for the concept of a bill advanced by Rep. Thomas Reed that would mandate roughly $7 billion in federal cost-sharing subsidies. | Getty

ALBANY, N.Y. Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday he has heard from 10 of his Republican colleagues in response to his call for a bipartisan approach to health care legislation.

No one thought Obamacare was perfect it needs a lot of improvements, Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after an unrelated news conference at Albany Medical Center. Were willing to work in a bipartisan way to do it. What we objected to was just pulling the rug out from it and taking away the good things that it did: Medicaid coverage for people with parents in nursing homes, for opioid treatment, for kids with disabilities, pre-existing conditions.

Story Continued Below

The so-called skinny repeal bill, which would have removed some of Obamacares least popular provisions, failed early Friday in a 51-49 vote. According to The New York Times, Schumer told Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, that he was committed to a legislative effort in regular order to improve the health care system. McCain cast an unexpected and decisive "no" vote.

Schumer said he was all for the concept of a bill advanced by Rep. Thomas Reed (R-N.Y.) that would mandate roughly $7 billion in federal cost-sharing subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket costs for poor consumers. Schumer, the Senate's minority leader, said he wasnt sure whether legislation would emerge in a big bill or take several steps.

Well, well have to wait and see. The first step is to try and stabilize the system that means the cost-sharing which would reduce premiums and increase coverage. Both Democrats and Republicans Sens. [Tim] Kaine and [Tom] Carper and [Susan] Collins have talked about re-insurance plans, so the most severe cases go into a separate insurance fund, and that reduces costs, Schumer said. Those are immediate things, but in the longer term, Republicans have some ideas, we have some ideas, and well sit down and try to hash them out as Congress should do.

View post:
Schumer: Republicans have been in touch about health care - Politico

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Since the time he secured the Republican nomination for president, people have been asking, "When are Republicans going to finally distance themselves from Donald Trump?" Now, after one of the worst weeks ever experienced by an American president who wasn't assassinated, we're getting an answer. Sort of.

Don't worry we haven't seen any grand profiles in courage, at least not yet. But for the first time, we're seeing enough elected Republicans criticize and contradict the president that it no longer seems surprising when one of them does it.

The most dramatic instance of a Republican standing up to Trump was of course that of John McCain, who cast the deciding vote to kill (for now) the GOP effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. With less glowing attention from the media, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski held firm against it, too; Murkowski had to withstand the secretary of the interior calling to threaten that if she didn't get in line, the administration would punish Alaska for her intransigence.

There were lots of good reasons having nothing to do with Trump why those three didn't sign on to that bill, not least that it would have been extraordinarily destructive to Americans' health care and politically disastrous to boot. But there are other ways in which Republicans are showing they're more directly perturbed with the president. His almost sadistically cruel treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions telling every interviewer who'll listen how disappointed he is in Sessions, insulting him over Twitter, yet not firing him has particularly annoyed the attorney general's former Republican colleagues in the Senate who count him as a friend.

Then there was Trump's tweet announcing a blanket ban on transgender Americans serving in the armed forces, which swiftly drew criticism even from such staunch conservatives such as Orrin Hatch, Joni Ernst, and Richard Shelby. And in a stunning move, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill imposing new sanctions on Russia over the White House's objections, leading to retaliation from the Kremlin. It was only four years ago when Trump asked plaintively about Vladimir Putin, "Will he become my new best friend?" The answer appears to be no.

To be clear, this isn't some kind of dramatic tipping point, after which Trump will be the target of a deluge of denunciations from elected Republicans. They know that their fates are still tied to his, and if he fails, they'll be the collateral damage. But they're also seeing the value in some strategic distancing. With Trump's approval in the 30s, they don't seem all that afraid of his wrath particularly when he does things they know will be unpopular. They'll continue to be cautious about criticizing the president, but he'll also give them plenty of opportunities to show they aren't his lapdogs.

It doesn't help that Trump can't tamp down that dissent with an appeal to party loyalty. Politicians who have devoted their careers to the Republican Party were uneasy about being led by someone without strong party ties, and since becoming president he's only made it clearer that he wants little to do with the GOP. As Tim Alberta points out, when Trump booted Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, he lost his most important connection to the GOP "establishment" which, much as he and his core supporters might scorn it, is still an entity he desperately needs if he is to succeed.

Who will provide that connection now? Not John Kelly, the new chief of staff he's a military man who might or might not be able to impose discipline on this unruly White House, but he doesn't have the same kind of political relationships with Republicans on Capitol Hill. Not Jared Kushner, the president's closest adviser, a political neophyte. Not Stephen Bannon, his chief strategist unlike Karl Rove, who played that role for George W. Bush, Bannon has no deep roots in the party and is justifiably regarded with suspicion by loyal Republicans. While there are midlevel staffers with those party connections, none of them are in an influential enough position to help determine the path the administration takes. Which means that the people closest to Trump don't have much of an ability to keep restive members of Congress in the fold.

If you're a Republican watching the carnival of crazy that is the Trump White House the unfortunate firing of the infinitely entertaining Anthony Scaramucci on Monday was only the latest shocking news you probably don't want to count on the president or his aides for much of anything. They might have your back, and they might achieve victories that help the whole party but it's not something you'd want to bet your career on. It might be wise to invest now in some gentle but clear disagreements. That way if the worst happens, you can say, "I never really believed in him anyway."

Go here to see the original:
Republicans are starting to flee Trump's carnival of crazy - The Week Magazine

The media may be awash in stories describing the White House as being in chaos especially with a communications director who lasted 11 days but President Trump has a drastically different view:

Highest Stock Market EVER, best economic numbers in years, unemployment lowest in 17 years, wages raising, border secure, S.C.: No WH chaos!

But there have obviously been enough White House difficulties that Trump has brought in John Kelly while bidding farewell to Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer and Kelly abruptly dropped Anthony Scaramucci as communications director yesterday. Scaramucci was a fierce Trump loyalist, and while he did himself some damage last week, this was a case of the general taking charge and wanting to build his own team.

The staff shuffles have spawned some media analysis about how much connection the president still has to the Republican Party.

And I would argue he didnt have much to begin with.

The Wall Street Journal says Trumps tumultuous past week has widened rifts in his party between those who vocally support the presidents combative style and others who bridle at it.

Fair enough. Trump recently tweeted that Senate Republicans look like fools and are wasting time by not abolishing the filibuster so they can more easily replace ObamaCare after several health care bills went down. And many staunch conservatives resent his public denigration of Jeff Sessions.

Politico goes a step further by declaring: Without Priebus, Trump Is a Man Without a Party.

Priebus ran the RNC and Spicer was its top spokesman, so they had deep party connections.

By contrast, says Politico, Kelly, the retired general, is not a political figure and is not known to hold strong political or ideological inclinations. Scaramucci is a political novice who in the past donated to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Steve Bannon used Brietbart to try and burn the Republican Party to the ground. Gary Cohn is a lifelong Democrat, and Hope Hicks had no political background. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were Manhattan progressives Only Mike Pence has any association with the Republican Party.

Actually, this roster leaves out Kellyanne Conway, whos been a well-connected GOP pollster for decades.

The story goes on to argue that Trump often refers to Republicans as they and might feel even more liberated after ousting Priebus.

I dont think Donald Trump needs to feel liberated. Ive always viewed him as an independent president who happened to run on the Republican ticket.

Has anyone forgotten how hard Trump ran at the GOP establishment, and how hard it tried to stop him? Jeb, Marco, Ted, Kasich all failed, and Trump essentially completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

Has anyone forgotten how the real estate mogul, who gave plenty to Democrats over the years, broke with GOP orthodoxy on key issues? He went left on Social Security and Medicare, repeatedly vowing not to touch the programs, and right on trade and immigration, taking a harder line than traditional Republicans.

That, in my view, is why Trump won: He had a certain crossover appeal. I suggested during the campaign that he could create a new class of Donald Democrats, and indeed, he won over 8 million Obama voters and carried key Rust Belt states.

The tapping of a general could help Trump run a tighter ship. But he was always a president who was going to take on both parties with his swamp-draining crusade.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Read the rest here:
Post-Scaramucci White House: Why Trump is fighting Republicans - Fox News

President Trump unveiled his tax plan on April 26, after months of pledging to make drastic changes to the tax code. The Post's Damian Paletta explains why tax reform is so complicated. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

With the first major legislative effort of the Trump presidency in tatters, there are more than a few Republicans who will be only too happy to have the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in their rear-view mirror they never cared all that much about health care as an issue, and they eventually realized that the whole thing was going to be a political disaster for them. Even more importantly, having the issue resolved (so to speak) allows them to move on to what they really want to do: cut taxes.

There are some good reasons to look at the coming tax reform push and see how it could suffer the same fate that health-care reform did. But I dont think it will. Before I explain why, lets consider the case for why tax reform might fail.

The primary stumbling block is the lack of Republican unity on the issue. Its important to keep in mind that tax reform and tax cuts are not the same thing. What Republicans want to undertake isnt just some cuts, its a complete overhaul of the tax system. Theres a reason this happens only once every few decades and takes years to negotiate: Its incredibly complicated and inevitably results in lots of powerful interests at odds with one another. Republicans often complain about the complexity of the tax code, but it didnt get so long because socialist Democrats kept coming up with new ways for bureaucrats to control your life. The tax code is long because it has been written in large part by special interests, especially corporations, shaping it to suit their needs.

How is it that hugely profitable companies such as ExxonMobil and General Electric often get away with paying little to no federal taxes? Its because they employ armies of lobbyists who sculpt the tax code to make sure they dont. Now it comes time for reform, and what are those companies going to do? Theyll say, Hey, reform sounds like a great idea. But lets just make sure we dont touch these loopholes. Now multiply that by 1,000.

Then youve got the fact that Republicans just arent very good at this whole legislating thing, as weve become so aware. As effective as they were at building a wall of opposition to the Obama administration, theyre not nearly as good at doing affirmative things. While many of us thought that complete government control would produce an orgy of legislating, they havent managed to pass a single consequential bill in six months.

And theyre not getting the help they need from the White House. The president is a buffoon who cant be bothered to learn either the substance of policy or enough about Congress to act as a positive force in the negotiations, and the White House staff is caught up in a gruesome civil war of endless leaks and backstabbing.

All that suggests that reform is likely to fail. But why might it succeed? Or, to think of it another way, why is it so different from health care?

The first reason it might succeed is that even if the public isnt clamoring for tax cuts, neither will they be threatened as profoundly by the GOP effort on taxes as they were when it came to the ACA. A big tax cut may be bad policy, but ordinary people wont feel that its going to do something as drastic as take away their health coverage or even kill them. Whatever activism that rises up in opposition to it is unlikely to have even a fraction of the intensity that the effort against ACA repeal did. Which means that members of Congress wont feel as if their jobs are on the line if they vote for the eventual bill, even if it does favors only for the rich and corporations.

The second reason tax reform will be different is that, unlike on the ACA, Republicans will have some backup. That was one of the striking features of the health-care debate: Republicans were completely alone. Their bills were opposed by doctors, by hospitals, by insurers, by patient advocates, by pretty much everyone in the health-care world. That lack of allies made it much harder to make their case and persuade wavering members.

But that wont happen with tax reform. In fact, theres a mobilization underway to support the GOP effort. Lets look at some reports from the last few days:

So Republicans will be getting all kinds of outside help as they round up support for whatever they come up with, even if deciding on the particulars of their bill will be difficult.

But most important is this: Republicans really, really want to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. There is not a single policy goal that is more important to them. This is what they come to Washington for. If they do nothing else with their time in control of Congress and the White House, they will do this.

That doesnt mean itll be easy. There will be conflicts among business interests about the details. But theres another difference between tax reform and health care: When the going gets tough, theres a fallback plan. Republicans can set aside that complex reform that overhauls the entire system, and just cut the corporate tax rate and some personal tax rates bring down income taxes, maybe get rid of the inheritance tax, toss in a couple of other goodies for the wealthy, and theyre done. Theyve already dropped the idea of a border adjustment tax, because while some Republicans wanted it, it proved too divisive. Manufacturers might have liked it, but retailers were opposed, and arguing about it for the next year was a miserable prospect.

You could easily see the same thing happening to every controversial provision Republicans consider it runs into some opposition from one interest group or another, and they say, Okay, forget it. The result is a stripped-down bill that still retains its heart: blessed relief for our suffering wealthy and corporations. For Republicans, that will be more than enough.

Read this article:
Why Republicans may succeed at tax reform where they failed at health reform - Washington Post