Most Americans say Republican healthcare plan will be harmful: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Can anyone imaging this? We can for certain!

By Chris Kahn | NEW YORK  – When U.S. Senate Republicans unveil their plan to overhaul America’s healthcare system, they will face a skeptical public that already does not buy the justification for an earlier version that passed the House of Representatives, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

The June 9-13 poll shows that a majority of the country thinks the American Health Care Act would be harmful for low-income Americans, people with pre-existing health conditions and Medicaid recipients.

Overall, 41 percent of American adults oppose the House plan, while 30 percent support it. Another 29 percent said they “don’t know,” according to the poll.

“It’ll make people’s deductibles skyrocket” said Shannon Sowards, 39, of Memphis, Tennessee, a Trump supporter who took the poll. “So I’m not for this healthcare act. I’m for insurance for everyone.”

The Senate is expected to release its full plan on Thursday.

The gap between what Republicans say their plan will do and what people think it will do further complicates matters for Senate Republicans, who already have been criticized for drafting their bill in secret.

“It would be great if a politician had the nerve to be brutally honest” and tell people that healthcare costs are going up, said Joseph Antos, a healthcare expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “None of them seem to.”

 For years, Republicans have promised voters they would replace Democratic former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, which they say is too costly and intrusive.

When House Republicans pitched their health plan earlier this year, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan boasted that it would lower premiums, protect people with pre-existing conditions and improve public “access” to high-quality, low-cost healthcare. U.S.

Representative Tom MacArthur of New Jersey, who helped shape the House bill, said it “would make coverage of pre-existing conditions sacrosanct for all Americans.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, however, presented a different view of the bill. It estimated that under the House plan 23 million people would lose their health coverage by 2026 in an effort to cut the federal deficit.

According to the poll, nearly 60 percent of adults said they thought it would make insurance more expensive for low-income Americans and people with pre-existing conditions. Fifty-seven percent said it would make Medicaid less available, and 69 percent said it would cut federal money for Planned Parenthood.

Thirteen percent felt that the House plan would improve the quality of their healthcare, and 9 percent said it would make their healthcare cheaper.

About 28 percent of Americans said they would be “less likely” to support their congressional representative if he or she supported the House plan. Another 16 percent said they would be “more likely” to support their representative and 33 percent said it would make “no difference.”

Republican respondents were more supportive of the House plan than others. And even those Republicans who did not like the House plan said that it is probably an improvement over the current healthcare system.

Graphs BELOW THE FOLD.

The Secrecy and Hypocrisy of Republicans…

HOT AIRDo understand, this isn’t a matter of Mitch McConnell freezing out his old nemesis on what’s going on in the Senate. Cruz has been working with McConnell and others for months on drafting a plan. He’s organized numerous meetings of a Republican “working group” with participants from across the GOP’s ideological spectrum and has repeatedly proclaimed his willingness to compromise to get something done. It’s all part of a political makeover. Having alienated so many colleagues before the 2016 presidential primaries with his anti-establishment no-compromise approach, Cruz is angling to rebuild relationships before his next run in 2024. He was derided last year as a grandstander whose biggest “achievement” was ringleading the futile 2013 shutdown to block the implementation of ObamaCare. Now he’s aiming to be known as the man who midwifed an unlikely health-care meeting of the minds between conservatives like him, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee and the Susan Collinses and Lisa Murkowskis in the caucus. The principled obstructionism of Cruz 1.0 was swept away last spring by Trump along with so many other tea-party conceits. Cruz 2.0 will be more of a can-do politician willing to make the best deals, deals so great you won’t believe it. If he pulls it off, he’ll have quite a feather in his cap for his Senate reelection campaign next year.

Unless, of course, the country roundly hates the final bill that lands on Trump’s desk. But what are the odds of that?

Anyway. The point is that Cruz is a critical player in getting something through the Senate — yet here he is last night, with McConnell promising a draft bill tomorrow, telling Mark Levin that he has no idea what’s in the bill yet. Essentially he and every other Republican in the “working group” haven’t been working on an actual bill; what they’ve been working on are demands which they’ve then submitted to McConnell and the leadership team to accommodate in the form of a legislative product. If McConnell sticks to his schedule of holding a vote next Thursday, Cruz and allies like Mike Lee will have one short week to read the bill, demand changes, spend a few hours debating it on the floor, and then face a gut-check on whether to pass the revised version, assuming that there are revisions. It’s embarrassingly opaque procedural sleight of hand…

Indeed! We have a vivid recollection of then Speaker Pelosi saying that they had to pass the ACA for people to know what’s was in the bill. And now, seven years later, after no debate, no specifics, no awareness by senators, and keeping the public in the dark.  the republicans are doing precisely what they criticized democrats for. To which we say, HYPOCRITES!

The Uncertain Solution

We cannot seem to understand
that one perceives personally with limited scope,
a minuscule allotment, a slippery vision of time.
We believe to hold witness to a great single minded river,
this metaphor is bought wholly
and sold solely to sweeten our short life-
As one word often leads to the next,
a parent sires child
thinking this is the most powerful measurement of truth
we use to falsely foolproof our assurances
and assuage any feeling of being a victim,
eaten by time.
It is a shared dream of the dead man’s final words-
they carry weight, meaning and purpose.
Needing to be painfully comprehended and carried self evident.
A literary reflection of our need for death to matter,
to have matter and be of substance is a view of ourselves linearly,
as a line drawn between birth to death
then- maybe
a cathartic eternity.

Ben Lingemann

Following Georgia’s 6th District Special Election Democrats Have Their Work Cut Out For Them…

From BALLOTPEDIA :

It was the most expensive U.S. House race in history. The two campaigns, along with outside organizations, spent more than $50 million on the election.[4] Although Handel held the advantage with outside groups spending money on the race, the Democratic effort to flip this congressional seat, which has been held by a Republican since 1979, began early. Ossoff raised $8.3 million in the first quarter of 2017, where recent Democratic candidates raised no more than $45,000 in the general election. In April and May, Ossoff raised an additional $15 million.[5] Handel raised $4 million, relying on national political figures like President Donald Trump in May and Vice President Mike Pence in June to helm fundraisers.[6] Although Handel’s fundraising paled in comparison to Ossoff’s, she outraised recent Republican candidates by more than $2 million.

Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, said that his party’s investment in the race was part of a larger effort to improve party infrastructure across the country. “We’re investing heavily here in the Georgia six race, but I’m traveling across the country. We’re building strong parties everywhere. That’s what we have to do because that’s where we fell short in the past. We allowed our basic infrastructure to, you know, to atrophy and we have to build strong parties,” he said.[7] This spending was driven primarily by out-of-state contributions, which Handel and conservative outside organizations highlighted in critical campaign ads.

This special election was one of the first chances since 2016 for the Democratic Party to put a small dent in the Republican House majority. When asked about the importance of the race, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R), who represented the district for two decades, told Ballotpedia, “I do think Republicans have to pay attention, and I think it would be a big mistake to allow this district to go to Ossoff, partly because of the psychology nationally, and partly because once a relatively talented person gets in office, it’s really hard to get rid of them.”

Under normal circumstances, Georgia’s 6th District would have been seen as a safe Republican district, as the Democratic Party had not held the seat since before Gingrich’s first election in 1978. However, Trump’s narrow win by a margin of 1.5 percent over Hillary Clinton in the district in the 2016 presidential race signified that the district could be competitive. Comparatively, Mitt Romney (R) won the district by a margin of 23.3 percent in 2012, and John McCain (R) defeated Barack Obama (D) by 18 percent in 2008.[8][9] Republicans suggested that Ossoff’s failure to win in the district, despite an infusion of cash, was evidence that there would be wave left in 2018 against the Trump administration and its policies.

Ossoff was a first-time candidate, having previously worked on the Hill as a legislative aide to Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) for five years and as a documentary producer. While he positioned himself as a counteragent to Trump with a focus on small business growth, affordable healthcare, preserving Medicare and Medicaid, and national security, he was also characterized as more of a centrist than a progressive by New York Magazine, The Washington Post, National Review, and The New York Times.[10] Handel, who served as the Georgia Secretary of State from 2007 to 2010, supported the Trump administration’s position on healthcare and the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, although she rarely mentioned his name on the stump.[11] She instead focused on promoting conservative principles and economic issues like improving the tax code for small businesses.

There is slight disagreement but what liberals and progressives need to effectively define a substantive agenda for America and enunciate it clearly for the American people. A pro growth economic agenda and a realistic foreign policy agenda is what Americans want. And, they want to know precisely why it will be good for America and how democrats will accomplish it.

An expanding middle class has ceased to exist under republicans rule and it is very likely that it will continue to shrink, irrespective of what the BLOTUS might say. It is true that as the globe has shrunk, the result of globalisation, American economic power has declined and this has hit the middle and lower class the hardest. The reality is America will never again be the only game in town as it was following WW II, the rest of the world has essentially caught up. America simply must become willing to share economic power with other nations of the world. Whether we like it or not.

Trump and republicans capitalized on the economic fear many Americans are feeling and channeled the fear at immigration, among other things. Trump and republicans lied and continue to lie. Democrats need to come clean with the American people and be forthright and truthful about what is really happening. Simply running against personality, whether an individual or party is not going to accomplish a damn thing, except more of the same.

The ball is in the democrats court. With 16 monthsto mid term elections they better get to work.