Mediaboss Marketing

House Speaker Paul Ryan said his proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act is what Republicans have "been dreaming of doing," during a news conference on March 8 at the Capitol. (Reuters)

One can imagine a bizarre contest among Republicans as to who can say the most insulting, unhelpful remarks about health-care reform, sure to reinforce the stereotype that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) piped up that for those claiming health-care insurance is not affordable maybe rather than getting that new iPhone . . . maybe they should invest it in their own health care. (An iPhone 7 retail costs nearly $800; health-care insurance varies by state but in many parts of the country can cost more than $3,000 for a single, young person. As for families, The costs of providing health care to an average American family surpassed $25,000 for the first time in 2016 even as the rate of health cost increases slowed to a record low, according to an analysisCNBC reported on last year. The $25,826 in health-care costs for a typical family of four covered by an employer-sponsored preferred provider plan is $1,155 higher than last year, and triple what it cost to provide health care for the same family in 2001, the first year that Milliman Medical Index analysis was done.

[The House Republicans health-care bill is a thicket of bad incentives]

Then House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blithely declared that coverage didnt matter. What matters is that were the lowering costs of health care and giving people access to affordable health care plans. The government will always win the war on government-run plans, saying, if we mandate everybody buys what we say they have to buy, then the government will always estimate that theyll buy it.I just think thats bogus, that entire premise of that comparison doesnt work. Actually coverage matters a lot to those who are losing it, or those whose access will cost more for less coverage than it did under the Affordable Care Act. Dismissing the concern that 10 million to 20million will lose coverage is politically daft.

And when Ryan says only cost matters, hes asking for trouble. Many people will pay more out of pocket under the GOP plan while the rich (over $200,000 for an individual) get a huge tax cut by rolling back the ACAs Medicare surcharge on net investment income (3.8 percent) and on wages above the threshold (0.9 percent). Moreover, insurers and actuaries point out that as long as you keep the ACA provision that bans annual or lifetime limits, health-care providers have an incentive to charge more for service.

And to top it off, the Office of Management and Budget director Rick Mulvaney opines that insurance is not the end goal here, is it? Unfortunately, for tens of millions it is. He asserts actual care will be more accessible, but for virtually everyone access is only possible with insurance.

[The Republican health-care bill is all about shortchanging the poor]

Its hard to tell how the GOP intended to sell this plan to the public. Right now their game plans consist of the following: Declare Obamacare is dead or dying; underplay principled conservative resistance; dismiss concerns about tens of millions losing coverage; and dont tell people how much it costs, who benefits and who loses coverage. No wonder they are trying to rush this through. Nevertheless, the plan is so obviously flawed, both politically and substantively, that opposition formed almost instantaneously. (Joining AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association have come out against the bill. Fortune reports, Plenty of other, smaller or specialty trade associations have also expressed deep concerns with the bill, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals.)

This firestorm explains why Republicans from Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have urged the House to slow down. Thats fine advice, but what the House really needs is an about face.

Read more from the original source:
Republicans are tone deaf on health care - Washington Post (blog)

Republicans overwhelmingly favor the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. But Republicans who live closer to the border are less likely to support the wall than are those who live farther away.

A survey last month by Pew Research Center found that 35% of the public favored building a wall along the entire U.S-Mexican border, while 62% were opposed. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (74%) supported building the wall, compared with just 8% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

A new analysis of this data finds that 63% of Republicans who live less than 350 miles from the border support building the wall, compared with 34% who oppose the wall. Those who live at least 350 miles away from the border, by contrast, are more supportive of the wall (76% favor, 21% oppose).

This difference in the level of support for the wall is most pronounced among those who live 200 miles or less from the border, based on a further analysis of data from multiple surveys conducted over the course of 2016 and 2017. (The sample sizes in a single survey are not large enough to look at distances of less than 350 miles from the border.)

Democratic opposition to the wall is overwhelming, both among Democrats who live less than 350 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border (83% oppose) and those who live farther away (90% oppose).

Republicans and Republican leaners who live closer are less supportive of constructing a wall than those who live farther away, even when controlling for demographic differences that may be associated with distance from the border (age, sex, race and ethnicity, and education).

This analysis of geographic support for the construction of a border wall uses respondents self-reported ZIP codes, as well as ZIP code data from the U.S. Census Bureau. It uses the geographic center of the ZIP code to determine respondents distance from the Mexico border.

Topics: Mexico, North America, Political Issue Priorities, Population Geography, U.S. Political Parties

The rest is here:
In Republicans' views of a border wall, proximity to Mexico matters - Pew Research Center

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), right, and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), at a news conference on the American Health Care Act, the House Republican's plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, March 7, 2017. Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom/ZUMA

Democrats are mucking up the GOP's plans for a smooth, quick process of repealing Obamacareand their strategy seems to be to annoy Republicans as much as possible with legislative arcana.

Two House committees kicked off their hearings on the Republican replacement health care bill Wednesday morning, a quick turnaround given that Republicans didn't even release their bill until Monday evening, after keeping it under lock and key last week. At the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Democrats quickly derailed proceedings with objections and parliamentary inquiries. Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), the top Democrat on the committee, regularly interrupted the committee's chairman, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), to object to the rushed legislative process.

Most of Pallone's proposals didn't go anywhere; they just dragged things out with arguments over procedure. His request to give members longer than a minute for their opening statements was turned down by Walden, and his motion for a 30-day delay on the hearing was rejected in a party-line vote.

Finally, an hour and a half into the hearing, the committee was all set to delve into the substance of the bill and begin debating its provisions and offering amendments. Not so fast, Rep. Ben Lujn (D-N.M.) objected. He wanted a full reading of the bill. While Republicans are fond of pointing out how much shorter their plan is than the Affordable Care Act, it's still a lengthy, technical document, and reading it out loud would take quite a while.

"We've been told to expect to be here through the weekend," Walden warned, saying there'd be many long nights of hearings thanks to the many amendments Democrats intend to propose.

While most of these legislative machinations seem intended solely to pester Republicans, they're not just empty maneuvering. Thanks to the fast turnaround from the bill's release to its markup, the Congressional Budget Office hasn't had time to calculate how much the bill will cost or how many people will lose their health insurance. If the Democrats can drag things out so that the committee doesn't vote on the bill until next week, that might buy the CBO enough time to offer an assessment before committee members cast their votes. And Democrats likely hope that they can prevent the bill from getting a full House vote before the Easter recess next month, forcing Republicans to confront their constituents before the bill gets a full vote.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats' Health Care Strategy: Annoy the Hell Out of Republicans - Mother Jones

When I was in grade school, an occasional deafening alarm prompted our teachers to usher us into the school basement where we would squat along a clammy, concrete inner wall until the all-clear bell rang. It was practice in case the Russian commies (then the Soviet Union) decided to annihilate Pittsburgh. As preteens, we did not realize that if our city did get nuked no school basement would have saved us.

Back then, we were taught that the Russians were our adversaries. For most of the past seven decades the Russians have been our adversaries. They competed with us in a dangerous Cold War nuclear arms race. They tried to sneak nuclear arms to our doorstep in Cuba until President John Kennedy stopped them. They provided weapons to kill American soldiers in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere.

And last year, Russians hacked into the computers of the Democrats and worked to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in favor of Republican Donald Trump. What does that say about Russia and Trump?

Republican leaders, including Trump, do not act like the Russians are adversaries any longer. In fact, it is well documented that Trump and people close to him have had business dealings with Russians. We dont know the extent of Trumps dealings with Russia, partly because he refuses to release his tax returns. But we know Trump has praised Russian billionaire, strongman, President Vladimir Putin. We know that Trumps son told a 2008 real estate conference that Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.

Republicans repeatedly castigated former President Barack Obama for not being tough on Russia. But these same tough-talkers were suddenly silent when government security experts verified that the Russians actively interfered with our presidential election. To many people, this was an act of aggression rivaling the Cuban missile crisis. Our longtime adversary was caught undermining a basic part of our democratic process.

But except for a few like Sen. John McCain, Republican patriotism took a back seat to political expediency. So what if the Russians interfered with the election? Their man had won.

A half-hearted investigation is under way in the Republican-controlled Congress. There probably would be no serious congressional investigation if Democrats were not pushing hard to learn more about the Russian hacking and about the Trump campaigns possible knowledge and complicity.

Thanks to investigative journalists, there are new revelations almost daily. We know that during the presidential campaign, Trump insiders were in regular communication with Russians, including the ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, considered to be a Russian spy by U.S. intelligence officials, according to CNN and other news outlets.

Michael Flynn lasted less than a month as Trumps national security advisor after communicating privately with Kislyak before Trumps inauguration. Flynn acknowledged the communications but apparently lied when he said they did not include discussion of sanctions that President Obama imposed against the Russians for interfering with the election.

Flynn changed his tune only when we learned via the media that U.S. intelligence personnel had listened to the conversations and knew otherwise. Now we have learned that Trumps attorney general, Jeff Sessions, met with Kislyak twice last year and failed to disclose it when asked under oath during his confirmation hearing.

Republicans may no longer think so, but secretly cozying up to the Russians and hiding or lying about it is a big deal. Russian interference with our election is a big deal. Republicans either need to start treating it like a big deal or explain why they are putting partisan politics ahead of their country.

Bill McCann is a Bastrop County resident and writes commentary columns for the Advertiser on matters of national and local interest.

See the rest here:
Commentary: Why are Republicans ignoring Trump's connection to Russia? - Austin American-Statesman

New York Times

No Wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill New York Times Republican House leaders have spent months dodging questions about how they would replace the Affordable Care Act with a better law, and went so far as to hide the draft of their plan from other lawmakers. No wonder. The bill they released on Monday ... Republicans' Obamacare Replacement Just Got A Powerful EnemyHuffington Post Some congressional Republicans speak out against "Trumpcare"CBS News Conservatives rebel against Trump-backed Republican healthcare planReuters Washington Post -NPR -New York Post -Energy and Commerce Committee all 2,155 news articles »

See the original post:
No Wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill - New York Times