How Trump Plans to Sabotage Healthcare
By Thom Hartmann A...
If Obamacare collapses - blame Donald Trump. Even as he rails against terrorism in the Middle East, the president is hatching up a few plots of his own here in the States.
He's now literally trying to sabotage Obamacare.
Will it work or blow up in his face?
As talk of treason and treachery swirls around Washington, Donald Trump has hatched a plot to take down Obamacare from the inside - and it could leave millions without health insurance.
Donald Trump has said repeatedly that Obamacare is about to collapse - but if the healthcare law does go under, he'll share most of the blame.
That's because according to Politico, Trump wants to stop paying insurance companies the $7 billion in subsidies they get every year to help cover the cost of insuring low-income Americans.
Known as "Cost-Sharing Reductions", these subsidies are a key part of the Obamacare exchanges.
If Trump goes ahead and cancels them, many insurance companies would probably just pull out of the exchanges altogether - and the market would collapse.
So in other words, Trump is trying to sabotage Obamacare. Is this what a president does?
Trump is clearly hoping Democrats take all the blame here. Will it work?
Comments
#2
If this Bill Passes: The death panel is coming for real. 7 billion is squat for what you get in return. The Bible, (Old and new Testament) not only tells you to take care of the poor, It tells you to take care of the alien!
#3
I smell Bannon and his KKK /Nazi party behind all of this safety net cut stuff. The sabotage of the ACA, food stamp cuts, medicaid cuts, you name it, anything to do with the poor, which is code for people of color to Bannon and his crowd. Bannon is bringing out the inner racist in Crooked Donny. Word is, Bannon reminds Trump of his racist father.
It's probably pretty god damn easy to program a simple mind like Trumps, and I'm sure Bannon and Trump are being discreet with their communication, so as not to upset other family members.
Off topic but needs to be mentioned. Everyone agrees that Putin's goal is to undermine our democracy. With this in mind, consider which political party Putin is using to destroy out country..... Why aren't the Democrats pointing this out???
This is all going to end very ugly. Prepare to be shocked, but don't panic. Put your money in a safe place asap.
#4
Putin better start worrying about his own damn country and position of power. I keep hearing that he's a marked man and some of those close to him absolutely abhor him and want the freak gone.
#5
This is certainly "off topic" but it's a question I've been meaning to pose for quite a while. Thom's piece for the day ends thus:
"So in other words, Trump is trying to sabotage Obamacare. Is this what a president does?
Trump is clearly hoping Democrats take all the blame here. Will it work?"
Here's my question: What is Mr. Hartmann hoping to achieve with his questions, many of which I find rhetorical in this space, other than to kick the choir into some kind of frenzy inside the echo chamber?
Oh sure, there is the occasional antagonist, most notably Dianereynolds, who is obviously either a paid troll or potentially someone within the Hartmann organization itself charged with "keeping the temperature up". I doubt the former possibility is credible owing to the very small stage here.
So what's the deal? What is Thom Hartmann getting out of this? Does he or any of his staff actually read the shit we write? Are any of the ideas we kick around actually used in directing his agenda in his wider radio venue? Why doesn't he personally make an occasional appearance by way of a post?
Any thoughts?
#6
Paid? Ha! ha! That is insanity based on the dozen or so regular reader/posters.
Work for the Hartmann organization? That is even funnier. I would rather stick my head in a blender.
22 dead and 59 injured and not one word mentioned in three hours on the air. Now that is a question worth asking.
#7
Hi Thom,
I answered your challenge and went to the California Democratic Party Convention in Sacramento last weekend. I attended as a proxy to a delegate, meaning I got to vote on the State Party leadership.
Maybe you've seen the news of how close Chair election was. 60 votes out of 3000 cast.
The energy in that building was intense. Don't fall for the frame that a close election was a bad thing. That convention was a building block for the future of the party.
A LOT of leaders will emerge. From this convention and from elsewhere.
Rich Reinhofer
San Marcos, Ca.
#8
I do not believe that Trump is a sociopath. Neither do I believe that he is a scion of empathy and compassion. What he is is a hard-nosed businessman. Casino's prey upon weak minded people. Because they are easy prey. I believe that he has become Jaded and addicted to power and control and he has little use for anyone who doesn't see things the same way he does. That, unfortunately, would be all the rest of us. He believes that we are easy prey.
He believes that "if you don't pay, you dont play". He honestly feels that the majority of we the people contribute nothing - that is, "they bring nothing to the table". Only the "alpha's" bring something to the table. Therefore only the alphas should get to play.
There are obviously a whole bunch of holes in that point of view. Historical myopia jumps right out at me. Can you spell SERF or PEASANT? That's how they're treating us.
Problem is, when was the last time you (we) took an active role in governing yourself? City Hall? County Seat? State? Federal Government? Probably never! Easy pickings! What are you going to do about it. All anybody has done so far is whine. That ain't nothing. We're easy pickings.
He is a "takeover artist". Strip all assets and do whatever is necessary to make the budget appear to be balanced to the "board". Then rebuild or sell. That is what this particular action is about. Creating the appearance of balancing the budget while raking off all the "profits" for the board.
What happens after that is that either they win or we lose. Take your pick. It really doesn't matter to them. It's just another deal.
Health care COSTS are determined by the providers NOT the people. We the people are NOT the problem here. What California is working on now (a single pay system) may not be perfect but at least it's doing something besides playing the blame game or a bunch of name calling like a 12year old boy.
OUR system was designed, from the beginning, to be able to make mistakes and TO FIX THEM. That is the very thing that made it better than all the systems that came before it. Nothing was written in stone!
Trump was a mistake. And allowing the Health Care hen house to be run by the foxes was a mistake. Both were our mistake!
We have to decide: is the government just another business? WE HAVE TO DECIDE! If we decide it's not - what then? We must ACT. We must get actively involved.
If we decide that it is, well, then that's it. This is what you get. Get used to it.
#9
It's not "who knew healthcare could be so hard" Trump that is sabotaging the ACA, it is and has been the Republican party. Trump is just the celebrity spokeperson putting the stamp of approval on the destruction, like a retired athlete doing commercials for a car dealer. Trump doesn't know enough about the machinations of Washington politics to orchestrate such a complex task as undermining the health care system. Let's not lose sight of the reality that it is the GOP's agenda that Trump is implementing, and that Trump was made possible by the GOP's decades long campaign of misinformation and hatemongering.
#10
100% it will work. Trump will be viewed as fiscally conservative. Besides the media doesn't use big words like "cost-sharing reductions."
#11
What does he get out of this? In my opinion Thom poses questions like that because he is trying to spark some kind of thoughtful debate. I dont think he's being inflammatory or sensational. If he sounds a little pessimistic or cynical it's because there's good reason to be.
#12
Dianereynolds -- How many hours a day to you watch Fox News?
#13
jogjr1 -- I think you left out one very effective way to become actively involved. I think you can have impact by continually communicating with your representatives.
#14
Pozoblanco: "If he sounds a little pessimistic or cynical it's because there's good reason to be."
Taking that thought one or two steps further: People who are not pessimistic and cynical -- and, frankly, deeply alarmed -- by the astoundingly regressive agenda of a narcissistic authoritarian and his fascist party of billionaire bootlickers are either living in a pollyannaish fantasy or are just as depraved as the liars and cheaters for whom they cheer.
Politicians who have no empathy with the people and no understanding of their plight have no business ascending to positions of power in a representative democracy. Just as Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, the "military-industrial-[congressional] complex" has finally succeeded in overshadowing most of our democratic institutions.
That sobering reality along with massive election fraud, which, in effect, perpetuates one-party rule and imposes the will of the minority on the majority, there is no other way to describe it: By all relevant measures, America is a failed democracy!
Let's quit pretending.
#15
#11, #14 RE: my post#5
So much for debate. Deepspace, as usual, eloquently sums up today's reality. I beleive 90+% of people that regularly contribute here will concur with his assessment.
I rest my case.
#16
I'll go further. Rather than laying out a continuous series of statementes of the patently obvious (to most of us), why is the focus not shifted to "what can we (like minded people) potentially do about it"? Is the Democratic Party salvageable? I notice that Thom seems to be an unabashed apologist for that decrepit institution. Or "How can anyone calling him/herself a 'progressive', combat the forces that seem to permeate the only two existing viable parties intent on maintaining the status quo"?
#17
Thom is not so much an apologist as he is a teacher telling us how to change that decrepit institution.
Myself, I want a parliamentary democracy.
#18
I see nothing that Thom posts on this blog as having to do with "teaching". He takes the hot news of the day and lays it out in the most partisan way, Then he typically poses one or two pregnant questions designed to evoke a predictable response from the faithful. This is sheer dogma. Being open ended, it only invites a repetition of the same. Don't misunderstand. I'm not in the least sympathetic with the Conservative Agenda. I would hope however that Thom Hartmann would more effectively use his position to stir a meaningful discussion. I think I'm 'pissing into the wind' here.
#19
Don't despair, mate. I, for one, hope you keep posting on this blog. Your counter-arguments and push-backs are lively, intelligent, informed, and well-taken, making a valuable contribution. If you feel that more diversity of opinion is in order, well then, you are that guy who is doing an admirable job in providing it.
You want a real debate? Okay then, lets have it -- or at least continue a similar one we had a while back (even though it's rather cumbersome with the commonly expected "short-burst" posts of a typical comment thread).
As far as Thom is concerned, and in defense of him, he makes no bones about being an unabashed liberal -- it's his shtick -- although, it would be most unfortunate to dismiss him as just another inflexible partisan ideologue, which certain disingenuous trolls are wont to do here. Actually, he has been an independent most of his life, but rather than a dreamy idealist, he's a sober-minded pragmatist who believes in caucusing with and working within the Democratic Party to make it more liberal and progressive. (To me, those two words mean basically the same thing.)
As far as what can "(like minded people) potentially do about it", I strongly agree with Thom's approach, as you might have already deduced. Really, where exactly is that vaunted and much ballyhooed national-third-party alternative with a snowball's chance in hell, that pie-in-the-sky level political landscape in a perfect world? The Green Party? Certainly, my heart is with them, and more often than not, my vote is too.
That's because I also happen to be a life-long independent, one who periodically resides in a solid red state where the "like-minded" minority of fellow liberals don't normally have to worry about helping strategically to swing a close national election away from truly right-wing nutballs. Here, there is no hope; we are forever cursed with a plague of hardcore teabaggers, crawling and slithering all over the place. Our collective liberal vote doesn't really make much of a difference one way or the other, except in spirit and conscience (no small thing).
In specific purple states though, like it or not, sometimes it absolutely is a Hobson's choice between the lesser of two evils (the wrong choice, ergo Trump). Unfortunately, the Greens can usually only marshal single digits on their best day during a favorable election season. Regrettably, in the real world of unjust American politics and corrupt politicians, we are, in effect, constitutionally stuck with two entrenched parties who marshal most of the available resources and voters. We hordes of little people need to claw and fight our way back into these power centers or die trying (literally)!
Idealism must be tempered with pragmatism to realize viable goals. Nevertheless, to imply that Thom does not often and pointedly criticize corporate Democrats for their misdeeds, or praise sincere Republicans who dare to push back against the dogma of their own party, indicates an acute lack of exposure to his rather extensive and ongoing body of work. In fact, he loves to debate conservatives who are diametrically opposed to his own views and does so on a regular basis, especially Libertarians.
Notice, however, that he never demands or expects anyone to either agree or disagree with his explications, however spot on or off base they may seem to others. In fact, he consistently invites independent analysis and critical thinking by all concerned in all of his venues and is always appreciative of any corrections when proven wrong on the facts. That's just who he is -- a humble person with a good heart and an incredibly active mind who seeks the truth of things. Is he a perfect host without bias? No, of course not. Who is? We're all human.
He is also an incredibly busy guy, who nonetheless takes the time out of an insane daily schedule to add a quick personal take in a blog that starts a dialogue on what is assumed to be the most relevant political topic du jour. That is much appreciated! I hope he too keeps posting five days a week, along with everyone else.
The "open-ended" format seems a good thing; whether or not "it only invites a repetition of the same" is up to the individuals who take an interest in furthering the discussion and use it as a springboard to dive deeper. We each have valid, diverse, unique, and interesting opinions, worldviews, perceived solutions, and varying degrees of qualitative sources and research methods available to us, albeit with what may sometimes appear to be only subtle differences.
Keep keeping it real, Outback!
(Incidentally, Thom does read the comments, as he has indicated many times on his daily, three-hour radio broadcast.)
#20
Hey Outback,
Damn, it's really late! Finally got a chance to read and respond -- been prepping for a busy summer of traveling. Much appreciate your rants of frustration and disgust though. Sorry to clog up your computer screen again, but here's one of my own, rising from the bowels of hell, about the pitfalls of identity politics that you mentioned. Hope it doesn't end up too longwinded:
The amazing roller-coaster ride of Bernie's historic campaign naturally left a lot of people reeling with conflict and frustration in the wake of bitter defeat, not the least of whom was me. We are emotional beings as much as we are thinking beings; and when it comes to politics, it seems that feelings trump logic (pun intended). Perhaps that is the root of motivation for "identity voters."
The essence of representative democracy is that people must choose another complex human being to act in their stead, so it's understandable how emotionally invested we become and how much of our own complexities we project onto our chosen candidates, as if they can somehow solve all the intrinsic problems of collective human nature (society) that heretofore were unsolvable. It's too tempting to downplay their faults and extol their virtues, to build a false narrative and run with it despite evidence to the contrary.
Typical politicians are well aware of this phenomenon and are experts at appealing to emotions and, by extension, at manipulating thoughts. That's their job, after all, and there's really nothing inherently wrong with it ...if they (mostly) have our best interests at heart! Managing the expectations of constituents is just part of the normal process to accomplish the compromises necessary to realize policy goals in a large and diversified legislative body with so many different viewpoints. Politics 101.
The wrongness of it all arises when politicians harbor evil intent in their selfish, greedy, shriveled-up hearts, and when their ego-centric pretexts compromise the truth at such fundamental levels that they are basically asking -- in Trump's case, demanding -- their starry-eyed followers to abandon reality altogether and live in a complete fantasy world of false notions, unrealistic expectations, and kernels of facts taken wildly out of context and blown way out of proportion. Sound familiar?
Hillary, unfortunately, was a victim as well as a purveyor of such disinformation; although, contrary to wicked and mean-spirited right-wing spin, I do not believe for a second that she was criminally minded or exploited public perception to the delusional Nth degree that Trump, the so-called master showman, is so gleefully willing to do. And of course, corporate media and the wild-west internet are equally complicit in promoting titillating fallacies and salacious scandals to attract more eyeballs, at the expense of boring and uncomfortable truths.
Bernie is not a typical politician -- daring to stick to the unvarnished truth, refusing to take bribes, fighting valiantly for people's rights. Therefore, the entire establishment was against him. The Democratic Party (stupidly), the Republican Party, Hillary's campaign (unsurprisingly), the corporate mainstream media, Wall Street billionaires, and the ubiquitous, right-wing, bubble-sphere, echo-chamber on the internet -- everyone but a yuuuge segment of a fed-up populace sick to death of the entire ridiculous circus -- did everything in their ungodly power to stop him. Yet, despite the steep odds, he almost made it ...almost. That in itself is amazing, given the political climate, or perhaps because of it.
So, yeah -- very frustrating! We almost took back our democracy! Bernie is a rebel and a fighter in the same mold as our forefathers, who bled and died on the battlefield to hand us a nation that was built first and foremost on the principle of a People's government and on the practicality of an economy balanced between the "commons" and "free enterprise" -- not lopsided, runaway, monopolistic, crony capitalism/fascism!
That is exactly what he means by "democratic socialism," and that is exactly what all his detractors and naysayers always get so wrong. It is not pure socialism; it is not pure capitalism; it is the healthy balance between the two, which benefits the most citizens possible, not just the top percent. "We all do better when we all do better." -- Paul Wellstone
Our founders figured out that simple, deeply insightful concept long ago, as did Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and so many other flawed but truly progressive politicians in our history, in the executive branch as well as on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
(Neither should we forget that Bill Clinton and Obama also championed a lot of progressive policies that helped a lot of regular people, even though they made serious mistakes, failed in many ares, were center-right, and were, regrettably, tainted badly by too many big money interests -- largely due to rapacious decisions by right-wing Supreme courts down through the decades, which crudely changed the rules of the game in favor of wealthy elites and their corporate cash-cows, basically making political bribery legal -- virtually the only Western democracy having done so, on a scale previously unimaginable.)
Liberal progressivism has always been smack dab in the center of the majority of the electorate mindset -- not to the "left" as corporate pundits would have us believe today with all of their slanted, psycho-babble punditry. By all historical standards, we grew out of the fertile soil of a liberal democracy. That's what has made America great -- not Trump's racist, "America first" crap, which is only meant to divide people with hate and fear, while a murderous gang of privileged thieves holed up in their gilded towers redistribute the wealth of a nation into their grubby little hands.
Noam Chomsky in a recent BBC interview on "Newsnight" put it succinctly, "The most remarkable thing about the 2016 election was Bernie Sanders, not Trump."
So, I'm with you; it's not about "identity politics," about one individual; it's about all of us together. As Bernie always says, it's up to us to continue the revolution. He showed us the way.
Idaho is a beautiful state! Thanks for your contact info, Outback. Fair warning: (haha, having called for unity of purpose) personally, it seems I'm becoming more and more of a jaded, battle-scarred, feckless, and goalless wanderer in the wilderness, living in the moment, and notoriously anonymous and unreliable when it comes to all things internet, other than researching and writing stuff here and there.
End of long rant (mercifully).
#21
Not a "rant' at all, deepspace. Well expressed. I won't attempt to comment (short on time this morning) other than to say I'm in accord with much of what you had to say. We do differ a little in our view of America's shining past. You are obviously intelligent and come across as well read, even highly educated, so if wouldn't surprise me if you've read "A People's History of the United States from 1492 to Present" by Howard Zinn. I've drawn my conclusions about the underlying nature of this country from sources like that, and of course, the writings of Noam Chomsky and others. Our propensity for war and violence as both a nation and a society have very deep roots.
My frustration with our political system really came into focus with Barack Obama, 2008. For the first time in my life I actually contributed financially to a political campaign. I read both of his books in print at the time and had become enthralled with him and the possibilities going forward. It took about two months (after his innoguration) for me to realize that we'd been swindled. I won't tick off the list of disappointments; you know them as well as I. Nor will I deny him his claim to "only being human" or ignore the uphill battle he faced with an intransigent Republican Party, but I felt he could have done far more, especially in his first two years with a majority in both chambers. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him in 2012. As far as I was concerned, getting involved in politics was a waste of time and energy.
And then came Sanders. I had tracked Bernie for years, even before Obama came along. With his early successes (the large crowds, the uuuuge war chest comprised of many small donations) I found myself hooked again. I railed against the media's treatment (that is, censorship) of Sanders and the liberal media's fawning over Hillary. And of course, we know the outcome.
So all of this to explain my somewhat jaundiced view of politics in general and frustration with the Democratic Party's amazing ability to shoot itself in the foot at every critical juncture.
Deepspace, I could go on, but I need to get out of here. I take it an email type dialogue isn't something you are disposed toward and I respect that. Another option is to do what we've been doing and continue the thread of a Hartmann post long after most if not all the readers have gone off to something current. I don't know how long Thom's site leaves these threads active online, but it's obviously for a while. From time to time, if you'd like to drill deeper into a topic I'd be pleased to join you for a discussion.
Stay safe in your travels. Thanks for the reply.
#22
I just checked and one of his posts from three months back is still functional, so they must not take down anything.
#23
THE THREADS THAT HAVE SEEN DISAPPEAR ARE THE ONES THAT SAY IRRATIONAL THINGS ABOUT HILLARY.
#24
Figures :-)
#25
deepspace -- Concerning the difference between liberal and progressive. I like Bernie's definition: liberal is for social issues and progressive is for economic issues. I think a very interesting example is the LA Times. The paper is liberal, but its support of progressive ideas (e.g. 91% top tax rate) are almost non-existent.
#26
Outback -- Thom has taught me so much I cannot resist responding. Today is my birthday and I am 76. I mainly mention that to let you know I didn't realize how much I had to learn, in spite of my age and PhD in engineering. If this thread were not 6 days hold, I would not mention such personal, identifying detail. The reason I wouldn’t want to mention those details is because I would not want to influence the response.
He taught me how bad the Roe vs. Wade judgment was. I bet you don't hear that on any other liberal show. Am I correct? I mostly only listen to Thom, so I am not sure. When he talks about judicial supremacy, I bet he feels like you that he is just 'pissing in the wind'. Another related thing he taught me was that Gandhi drank his own urine.
Whenever Thom has a guest with whom he discusses economics, the callers that follow almost never talk about economics. Talk about 'pissing in the wind'. The most obvious example of this was on May 4, 2017, hour 1 when he had Kate Raworth the author of "Doughnut Economics" on as the guest. When he finished his segment with Ms Raworth, one could hear him say under his breath, “that’s strange no one has called in” (or something close to that).
A simpler thing Thom taught me was the concept of the “commons”. I thought I was very ignorant, until I had a hard time finding anyone who knew about the concept of the “commons”.
#27
chuckle8: Thanks for the followup. I've long suspected there are some heavyweight thinkers lurking on Thom's blog. I count you and deepspace among them (and not necessarily myself, though I try to blurt out my little contributions).
On a personal note, my own background is also engineering (in my case electronic) and it's only been in fairly recent years, since my retirement, that I've turned my attention toward politics (and anthropology and history and sociology), which is to say, I'm a relative novice but feel, as you seem to also, that life continues to be a learning experience. These are areas I sorely neglected in my many years of being involved with a fascinating career and, of course, chasing the almighty buck. And FYI, I'll be 74 in a couple of months.
The whole vocubulary we all throw around begs for some kind of "standardization" so that we might understand our relative positions. For example, the terms "liberal" and "progressive". To me, a "liberal" is someone that embraces great humanitarian causes, even if in cases they are practically unobtainable. Still, the spirit, that sentiment is praiseworthy. A "progressive" on the other hand is a little more pragmatic but trending in the "right" direction, both socially and economically. Sanders in my mind (and by my definition) is a "progressive". And while on the subject, I didn't know this but in a book I recently read ("Global Capitalism and the crisis of Democracy" by Jerry Harris, the Term "liberal" was originally coined to describe a system or individual that embraced the liberal treatment of capital within the free market system (a far cry from today's definition). So we all should define our terms before launching a position.
Thank you, chuckle8, for your hanging in here:-)
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
With His Holiness The Dalai Lama, at His home in Dharamsala, India (Synthesis Dialogues - made into a movie narrated by Harrison Ford)
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
If Trump and the Republicans pass their selfish health care act sentencing up to 44,000 Americans a year to death, please introduce a bill to charge all those who voted for this "death" bill with premeditated murder and genocide and to be tried by a military tribunal at Leavenworth Prison. March them there like Trump's buddy Andrew Jackson made the Native Americans leave the Southeast and were herded on foot to an area west of the Mississippi. They called this the Trail of Tears. When the Republicans eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, Food Stamps, Meals on Wheels, School lunches and other social programs, additional thousands will starve to death or commit suicide. I also want them charged with premeditated murder and genocide. On the way through Kansas, pick up the Koch Brothers and charge them with murder as well. They have done a fine job buying our Congress and pressing for these egregious crimes. They are even trying to change our constitution and so far, 25 states have signed up for this change thanks to ALEC. Talk about fascist bastards. It would suit me just fine if they are found guilty and hanged.