Trump Care Naming Contest

Repeal and Replace has such a nice ring to it.
Republicans have always been masters of the phrase: So the estate tax (which sounds like a good thing, sticking it to those wealthy enough to have "estates") became the vile "death tax."  End of life panels became "death panels." Union busting laws became "Right to Work" laws. Oh, they are good, those Republicans.

But how to describe the plans for health insurance with which the Republicans propose to replace Obamacare?

Of course, we do not have clear details, so it's tough, but among the broad outlines of some which have been floated resurrect the old idea of "health savings accounts." Here the citizen can set aside dollars which get subtracted from his or her taxes in an account to pay for whatever health expenses might arise. So, if you set aside say, $14,000, it's there for you, untaxed, to spend on unexpected health expenses, like, say that $500,000 heart surgery, or that $1,000,000 kidney transplant, or that cancer therapy, including all the radiation therapy, chemotherapy and multiple hospital admissions.
Oh, the health savings account, well, that ought to take care of the housekeeping and bed linens for your heart surgery hospitalization. 
We might call this "Bare, naked insurance," or "Phantom Care," or "Evaporating Care" or "Trumped Care."
Perhaps the New Yorker ought to run a naming contest, like its cartoon caption contest.

Paul Ryan has spoken vaguely of coupons with which citizens could purchase insurance from the HUGE, YUGE, GIGANTIC array of choices which private insurance companies will rush to offer, now that the dreaded Obamacare ogre is gone.  
Problem is, before Obamacare, before the government started providing subsidies for premiums, there were very few health insurance policies and few companies offering anything at all beyond Catastrophic insurance--which paid up if you needed that heart surgery, but not if you got diabetes or hypertension or if you broke a hip and needed multiple visits to the doctor.
Of course, the problem the Republicans are having with health insurance is that old problem of any insurance policy, the problem every insurance company faces: The one customer you want to avoid is the customer who actually needs you. So every commercial insurance company of any sort will do anything to eject from its roles the person who might demand a payment. Auto insurance, home owner's insurance--the first claim you make will be your last. Your rates will sky rocket, as if the company is determined to make back in your premium payments all the money it just shelled out. 
Health insurance companies, of course, are no different. They want only young, healthy people who have never been sick, do not plan to be sick and, if at all possible, will never be sick. The ideal health insurance company customer is 18 years old, has never been ill, stays healthy his entire life, pays premiums for 60 years and then is hit by a truck crossing the street at age 78 and never makes a claim. For that customer, every company competes.
But if that 18 year old has diabetes or a congenital heart disease, or asthma or is a smoker, he need not apply. 
If the Marines want the few, the proud, the Marines, then what these health insurance companies want is the few, the proud, the dropped dead before they could be hospitalized.
Maybe that's the tag line: Drop Dead Care. 
Or maybe Don't Call Us Care.

Stay tuned--once we have the details on the table, the names may suggest themselves. 


Personally, right now, I'm leaning toward "Donald Don't Care." 

Million Women Mush or ...Movement?

Listening to coverage of the Million Women March on the radio and watching it on TV, I was discouraged.

Reporters were interviewing marchers and they were saying all sorts of things: they were afraid their daughters would be molested because the President seems to enjoy molesting women; they were worried teachers would be fired; they were angry because Trump is intolerant of Muslims; they were angry for inchoate reasons; they were fearful it would become a crime to be LGBT; they were fearful Trump would bring on a new age of racial division; they were angry because, well just because.

Alicia Keys came on stage and sang, "This Girl's on Fire."

They carried signs saying, "Make America kind again." 

Then Scarlett Johansson spoke and she was more focused: She was worried about government funding being denied to Planned Parenthood and Roe v Wade being reversed. That, at least was a coherent set of issues.

Of course, it's not likely Trump has thought much about this. His first response to the North Carolina bathroom law was a person should be able to use any bathroom he or she chooses. Then somebody talked to him and he reversed that. 

When he was asked whether women who had abortions should be punished, he said sure. Then he thought about it and wasn't so sure.

Michael Moore got up and told the crowd to call their Congressmen and Senators daily and to call their state representatives as well. That was practical advice, although all he was really saying was "Resist." It remains to be seen what needs to be resisted.

I am looking for the speeches by Gloria Steinem and Elizabeth Warren. They are usually coherent. 

Of course, during the 60's these marches were more focused: Stop the war in Vietnam. Pass the Civil Rights Voting Act.  End legal, institutionalized racial discrimination.

But there were always the hangers on who had their own agendas. The problem watching today's marchers is they did not seem to have coalesced around any clear set of demands. They struck me as a crowd throwing a tantrum, not really sure why. 

They are simply offended by Trump for being...well Trump. But Trump is simply Joe Sixpack. Trump is a Zelig, a man who reflects those around him without having a central essence.

A friend told me it wouldn't matter to her if Trump wound up naming a liberal to the Supreme Court, getting a government sponsored infrastructure spending law through, employing all those out of work Rust Belt voters, shut down the coal mines and shifted government spending to windmills and solar, signed a law to make state colleges tuition free, passed meaningful Wall Street reform and strengthened Glass-Steagall, signed a Medicare for All law into effect. She'd still hate and him and vote against him because of his imitation of a disabled journalist.

Just look at this video. I ask you: Who did Mr. Trump damage more, the man he was trying to humiliate or himself?  Could he have been more exposed had his toupee blown off and his own pants fallen down?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIotH8dKMwg

What struck me about this Day of Protest was how counterproductive this is.

If I were in control of all this, I would say here is the list of our complaints, our Declaration of Resistance:
1/ If you attempt to make Medicare voucher care, we will fight you.
2/ If you attempt to "privatize" Social Security, we will fight you.
3/ If you appoint a Supreme Court Justice who is committed to reversing Roe v Wade and making abortion a federal offense, we will fight.
4/ If you cut taxes for the rich, we will fight you.
5/ If you attempt to round up every undocumented immigrant, we will shelter them and we will fight you.
6/ If you attempt to place a ban on Muslims visiting the country, we will fight.
7/ If you repeal Obamacare and replace it with some lame excuse for health insurance, voucher care, whatever, we'll fight that, too.

Then there is the current issues of defunding Planned Parenthood. 
I'm not exactly sure how the government funds Planned Parenthood. Is there a direct payment or simply payments for services rendered? 
If it's the former, well, as far as I'm concerned, you can keep your money. We can raise funding without your bloody Tea Party money. If the government refuses to pay for services, well then there's the courts. 
I think Planned Parenthood is too important to be left in the hands of politicians like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Take it into the hands of people who have an ongoing commitment to its mission. I'm not sure, but I wonder if Planned Parenthood wouldn't be better off without government funding.

We'll only know with time whether what we see today is the beginning of something or the dying out with a whimper.

Joyful Thought On the Inauguration of Donald Trump

Feeling down today? 
Feel embarrassed for your country?
Think the nation is sliding down a chute toward oblivion?
Here's something to cheer you up.
Try this mind game.
Below are photos of some Americans.
How many of these men can you identify?
How many of these men mattered?

So who are these guys? Presidents of the United States, one and all.

 Did any of these guys really matter? If I gave you a list of their names, could you match any to their photos?

 Can you name a single act or law or principle for which any of these men can be remembered?
And the big question, from all this, should be, how much does the President really matter?

Obama mattered to people because he was a symbol. 

For some people, he was, like Kennedy, urbane enough, cerebral enough to allow them to say, "See this is what our country is capable of."

But are you any better because Tom Brady, a great quarterback,  plays for your team?

Where does this sense of identification come from? 

He's just a President, this Donald. He doesn't really matter.

 I'll give you a hint, one of these guys is Warren Harding, who was, by his own admission completely unqualified to be President and a dissolute failure in office.

 One of these guys is Zachary Taylor, who was a decent general. I bet you can guess who he is. But can you say anything about anything that actually happened during his Presidency? 

Here are some names: James Polk, Millard Fillmore. These are names you wouldn't want to visit upon any relative or descendant of yours.

 Then there are the names which sound very "American" which is to say, white bread: Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, William Harrison.

Tell me what you know about any of them. 

Will you even be able to remember, 10 years from now who the guy who replaced Barack Obama was? 

Trump Semi Haiku Contest

Here's a game for you.
Try to speak like President Trump.
Use all the best words.
Keep your sentences simple: no ifs and's or but's.
Be able to say each sentence in one breath.
Make people feel really good about themselves.

It's not as easy as it sounds.

Here's a sample. It's sort of like Haiku.

You will all be winners.
There will be lots of winning.
You will not be ignored.
The bad stuff stops now.
The good stuff starts now.
China is bad.
America good.
You  good.
I  good.
Muslims are maybe bad.
Radical Islam  bad.
We will destroy Radical Islam.
Mexicans bad.
Wall good.
Trump good.
Trump make you feel good. (Especially if you are a woman.)
Happy.
Happy.
Good.
Burp.

In Banality We Trust

comparing Donald John Trump to Abraham Lincoln is an exercise in absurdity.
Last night, Trump and his family stood before the statue of Lincoln and stared up at his words engraved on the walls behind him and it was essentially pathetic. Here was Donald Trump looking at the image of the man and the engraved words of one of the best writers America has ever known.

The nation was blessed to have a Lincoln in 1861. We needed him to survive. There was not a better man available for the office in the entire nation, although that was not immediately apparent.

We are now in a very different time and place. Our nation is not riven with strife, torn by the original sin of slavery, torn by poverty and ill prepared to provide for and receive immigrants. Racism is not buried here, but it is in no way as widespread and virulent as it was then. Our economy is strong, although the inequality in wealth is even greater now than it was then, than it ever has been.

We are stronger in relation to foreign powers than we were in the middle of the 19th century, but we  cannot impose our will just anywhere we please. From Vietnam, to Afghanistan to Syria to the entire Middle East, we are unable to dictate attitudes or events. But we are not threatened by a power which is capable of invading us, or denying our ships and airplanes access to overseas markets.

We have a new problem: global warming, but we do not need to launch a world war to address this.

There is no ideology out there like slavery, fascism, communism or anarchism to compete with our ideas of democracy and capitalism.

We have mass communications, amazing transportation, access to information which would astonish anyone from Lincoln's time or from Washington's time.

What will determine the fate of the people in the Rust Belt  will be decisions made in CEO offices, board rooms of commercial companies, and that is not a new thing, actually, in American history. Often enough, the captains of industry have driven the big things in American life and politicians were either unimportant or only facilitators. The Trumps can point the finger at "Washington" but the real power is not in Washington. It is in money.  

The fact is, we probably do not need a strong President right now. We can work around a boy/man like Donald John Trump, much as they do in the state of Maine, where legislators literally walk around the office and the hallways connected to the office of Governor LePage.

The fireworks at the Lincoln memorial, the spiritual presence of Lincoln himself, the place which once provided the setting for Martin Luther King's memorable address, only served to diminish Mr. Trump last night.  Standing where Lincoln delivered his masterful Second Inaugural address, Mr. Trump, it was apparent, is no Lincoln. He's not even a Grant, certainly not an Obama.
He's one of those forgettable men, like Warren Harding or Franklin Pierce or even silent Calvin Coolidge. You remember Cal: When Dorothy Parker was told President Coolidge had died, she famously remarked, "How can they tell?"

If we are lucky, Mr. Trump will be like that, a President of no consequence.

The Way We Were and the Way We Are

A movie from 1973 keeps popping up in my mind, a movie which was disavowed by the guy who wrote the original screenplay, which had multiple writers trying to rework it and which was thought to be a schmaltzy failure at the time. Actually, not everyone thought it was a failure: Pauline Kael  liked it but she thought it had been dismissed because it was a woman's fantasy rather than a male fantasy.


The basic theme had to do with political awareness and the value of social responsibility versus the obligation to simply make things work for yourself.

The pragmatist and the politically engaged

The heroine, played by Barbara Streisand is a Jewish girl from New York who is very engaged in the ideas of her time, which is 1944, so fascism, the Second World War draw her in, and then after the war, the McCarthy era of Red baiting and the Committee on Un-American activities. In college she meets a golden goy, Robert Redford, who intrigues her because, beyond his good looks, he writes very well. He also writes very easily, and he is clearly talented in a way she never could be.


There is a scene in a bar, where she finds him in his white Navy uniform, drunk on a bar stool and she brushes his blonde hair back from his eyes, which Kael pointed to, as one of the few representations of female enrapture ever depicted in film.

They eventually marry, but they travel different paths: she is caught up in fighting the forces of darkness--McCarthy, repression of Blacks, the Commie hunting, repression of free speech, and the blacklist for writers accused of communist sympathies during the House on Un American Activities witch hunt--and he is writing screenplays for sit coms, making himself a career, making money, indifferent to the causes which so inflame her.

In this, there is something similar in Dr. Zhivago, where Julie Christie just wants to live a normal life but her husband is a Bolshevik zealot. Of course, in this case, your sympathy is with the woman who wants to avoid the passions of political conflict. The Bolshevik, Strelnikov's, ardent political convictions drives him to actions which destroy his marriage, his family and his life, just the sort of thing Redford's Hubbell decries. Principles driving a doomed destiny. This is the primary conflict in Zhivago, the desire for a private life, which the Communists decry as decadent; the important thing is signing on to the big principle. The capitalist, Ayn Rand says the only moral thing is to take care of yourself, and let individual choices drive the big picture. Even George Bernard Shaw, in Major Barbara, lines up in this direction: The biggest obligation one has in life is not to society, but to not being poor.


The scene from The Way We Were I always remember shows that Redford actually does have a philosophy which drives him and it is a philosophy which rejects political activism as self indulgent.


Redford (Hubbel): This is grown up politics, Katie. And it's stupid and dangerous.
Streisand (Katie): You're telling me to shut up because it's dangerous?
Redford: I'm telling you its a waste. And that those men are only gonna get hurt. And that nothing is gonna change. And after jail, after years of bad blood, when it's practical for a fascist producer to hire a communist writer because his movie is in trouble, he'll do it.  They'll make movies, have dinner, they'll play tennis, make passes at each other's wives. What did anybody go jail for? For what? A political spat?
Streisand:  You're telling me to close my eyes and watch people being destroyed so you can work in a town that doesn't have spine enough to stand up for anything but a buck?
Redford: I'm telling you that people are more important than a God damn witch hunt. You and me. Not causes. Not principles.
Streisand:  Hubbell, people are their principles.

Strelnikov, all principle, no personal: Dr. Zhivago

And there you have it. People are their principles. That is a political person summing up.
And for Donald Trump, principles do not matter. The deal matters.

Do Ideas Matter in Politics?

I'm not sure how Trump won the election.  I'm not sure how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party.

Listening to people who voted for Trump, it's pretty clear they come from all over the place--virtually everything you heard said in his favor comes up when people explain their votes: He may be a loud mouth but he says what he believes not what he thinks people want to hear; he's not politically correct, which is a good thing; he is a good businessman and cares about jobs and he'll save the coal industry and he'll keep manufacturing jobs in America; he'll protect our borders; he'll prevent dangerous Muslims from coming here; he'll back police over Black people; he'll make America White again; he'll keep us out of other people's wars; he'll build the military so we don't have to use it.

I want my coal mining job; don't talk to me about retraining

Virtually everything negative you heard about Hillary comes out in the reasons Trump voters voted against her: She killed Vince Foster; she sacrificed those Americans at Benghazi; she cheated on her income taxes; she sold herself to Wall Street; she waffled on abortion, after saying she was for only first trimester abortions she said she was for late term abortions, which proves she has no real convictions.

All these ideas come from somewhere.

Cantor selling tax cuts

Eric Cantor, writing in the New York Times explained how he had hoped President Obama would work across the aisle, but after he extended a hand, he snatched it back and then just ran over the Republicans and didn't listen to their ideas.

And what, exactly were those great Republican ideas which Obama rejected? When the financial crisis threatened to send the country into the next great Depression, Cantor and Boehner went to the President and suggested he solve the problem by, can you guess? CUTTING TAXES! Yes, the Republican solution to everything. Just cut taxes and we would have been fine. All those belly up mortgage backed securities which collapsed banks and insurance companies and brokerage houses, just cut taxes and it all goes away.  Government spending is how Obama wanted to fight the crisis. Why we Republicans have known since Herbert Hoover government spending can only be a bad thing.

Hillary's America: Counties she won

And, oh, regulation, get rid of that, too. (Never mind it was the lack of regulation which allowed credit rating companies like Moody's and others to endorse worthless securities as "triple A.")

So the Republicans came with the same answers they had in Herbert Hoover's day--let the private sector lead the way. No government spending. That will only worsen the problem. Let the banks and Wall Street and the financial houses rescue us, as if your response to the Titanic was giving the captain a new ship.

Dark blue are the counties Trump won

What I'd like to know is how the Rush Limbaugh crowd, the Mitch McConnell crowd, the Fox News crowd gets its ideas out there. 

Why can't the Democrats study how they did it and emulate that?  The Japanese built an economy on the idea of taking apart superior products and then building better versions of the same thing. Why can't the Democrats do that?