“TrumpCare” Is Dead – But We Should Fear What’s Next

Long ago in the States of America, Congress was a body that actually got some things done. They would battle it out on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate and, after discussing an issue thoroughly, would usually find some way to make it work for not only each party to save some face but for the people of the country to benefit from the decision. Unfortunately, with the polarization of the political process since the mid-1990s, that has become almost as unlikely as the sighting of Yeti on the Las Vegas Strip. Thus, the information rolling out of Washington D. C. on Monday night wasn’t surprising in the least.

gopsad

Late on Monday night, the Senate, and particularly Yertle the Turtle (AKA Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), finally came to the realization that what they had fought against for almost a decade was all for naught. For all their complaining about the Affordable Care Act (or “ObamaCare” for simpletons), for all their protestations, for all the literal ink and digital bits spilled on the subject, they had nothing to provide – not one iota of an idea – that would solve the issue regarding health insurance in this country. They weren’t the only ones, however.

Earlier this year, the House tackled the issue as one that they could bamboozle the people of the States of America out of benefits while handing a huge chunk of cash to the wealthy in the nation. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, in his infinite wisdom and budget-wonkery, came up with a plan that “only” eliminated insurance from nearly 24 million people – the original “TrumpCare” or American Health Care Act (when the best you can come up with is only inserting one letter in the acronym, that probably should tell you that you’re going to have issues). It was only after pulling the bill off the table and rejiggering it (so that it only eliminated insurance for 23 million people) that the Freedom Caucus – those Tea Party bastards who didn’t think that the cuts hurt people enough nor go far enough to eliminate the ACA – came around and barely passed the bill through the House.

But McConnell would have none of that House BS. He decided he wanted to be the one to take responsibility for the AHCA with his own creation, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act. As such, he and a group of men – that’s right, despite health insurance having to cover women, not one woman was asked to be on the panel – wrote up a new bill that even other members of the GOP couldn’t see. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul even went on a hunt through DC attempting to find the group penning the piece of garbage that McConnell wanted to spin off, finally stopping when he couldn’t even find where they were writing it.

RandPaul

McConnell proved to be about as flaccid on the issue as Ryan had been, unable to even draw in enough of his OWN PARTY to get the bill to the point of discussion on the floor of the Senate. Maine Senator Susan Collins protested over the cuts to Medicaid and the removal of protections for women (especially through Planned Parenthood); Paul stood against it because it was “ObamaCare-lite.” Then came the stunner:  Nevada Senator Dean Heller, facing reelection this fall and an angry electorate, said he wouldn’t vote for the bill due to the Medicaid cuts. After Utah Senator Mike Lee (like Paul, concerned that the new bill didn’t do enough to kill people) and Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (ditto) got on the “no” side – and with Arizona Senator John “Sorry I started this crap with nominating Palin” McCain out of action following a serious blood clot surgery – McConnell’s efforts to eliminate health insurance for millions went out the window.

With the failure of the Senate to even bring something to the table for discussion, we can honestly say that “TrumpCare” is done and that “ObamaCare” is still the law of the land. The Democrats shouldn’t be celebrating, however, as what comes next may be much worse than what they thought a “repeal and replace” would look like.

Orange Foolius himself, who during the Presidential campaign said that “repeal and replace” was a mandatory action to take, is now so desperate for something to hang his sorry excuse for election on that he wants to see the Congress simply repeal the ACA. This is an impossibility. Such a repeal has absolutely no chance in either body of Congress because they have constituents that they somewhat must listen to, and “starting from scratch” will have absolutely no support from the Democrats. The scary part of the possibilities is that the GOP and the conservatives – who claim to be “Christians” even though they go against every tenet that the Bible set out – now will gut the ACA further, leading to more misery for the people.

Believe it or not, conservatives, but the ACA is neither collapsing, imploding, or failing. In April, Gallup found that most of the citizens of this country – 55% – were supportive of the ACA. Since 2014, there had been a slow and steady improvement in the ACA, according to such “pinko” organizations as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Standard & Poor’s and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. So why do there appear to be problems now? Because the conservative SOBs have cut off funding for the ACA.

Republicans weakened the market because they repealed provisions that were supposed to aid in supporting the market, such as the fine for those who didn’t have coverage or the taxes on medical devices and “Cadillac” insurance programs that would have kept them stable (not very good ideas, but we’ll get to that in a minute). In not fully funding the program, the GOP has tried to guarantee that the ACA will fail.

Now what do we look forward to?

The good side would be the realization by everyone in the GOP – from the dogcatcher in Podunk, AK to the cretin who sits in the most powerful seat in the world using his dinky digits to plunk out missives to a mass of followers that cannot comprehend anything beyond 140 characters – that it is time to work with their loyal opposition on a deal that BOTH can live with. The ACA was entirely based on the plan that former Massachusetts Governor and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney used (well) in that state. It was only after Barack Obama latched onto the idea that many in the GOP went against something they had been working on since the Nixon administration, something that was a theme throughout the eight years Obama was President.

obamapardon

The Dems got to give up some of the taxation on the “Cadillac” plans, for example. These plans, which in some cases give the wealthy the opportunity to have a doctor on call 24/7, were hard earned through their labors and shouldn’t be punished in the slightest. The GOP would have to give up the notion that health insurance is a business that the “free market” should determine all aspects of medical issues; in this case, it should be determined by the government so that it is fair for all. There are many other areas, but the essential point in this scenario is that the buffoons who occupy the halls of power in this country should work together instead of continually damaging the country with their polarization.

The bad side? Orange Foolius gets his entire repeal (which isn’t going to happen due to the fact that 1) it would take 60 votes to push any legislation through the Senate, and 2) that the GOP doesn’t want to be responsible for killing Granny) and everything goes to Hell. The repeal of the ACA would cast the entirety of the health insurance system into chaos, send shockwaves through Wall Street and send medical costs skyrocketing. Most importantly, however, it would devastate families who would have coverage ripped away, families that for the first time were able to visit a doctor for care rather than the Emergency Room.

EmergencyRoom

The people of this country must get used to the idea that they look after their fellow man also. For those who grouse about the “increase in taxes” for the ACA, well…there’s always the increase in your own insurance costs for paying for those Emergency Room visits for a cold. Then there’s the factor that it is inherent in the human condition to help those less fortunate than you, not “I got mine…screw you.”

There’s plenty of growing up that needs to be done across the board. The two ruling parties need to fix something rather than destroy it. The people of the States of America better back up their talk about being a “Christian” nation, otherwise the hypocrisy is ripe. But the problem that we face is, now that “TrumpCare” is dead and the ACA is not being funded by the GOP, what is going to happen in the future, working together or trashing the country?

Advertisements

…But “Black Lives Matter” Isn’t Helping the Situation

There is an old adage, “there are two sides to every story.” I personally have always liked the rock band Extreme’s take with their album III Sides to Every Story. III Sides to Every Story was a concept album (an outstanding album that stretched genres in hard rock) regarding different “sides” to a story that was divided into three sections – “Yours,” “Mine” and “The Truth.” That concept is more realistic than many who divide things into two sections because, regardless of who is telling the story, there is some truth in both sides. That middle ground – “The Truth” or the third side – is 99 times out of 100 the way something occurred.

When it comes to the case of police shootings, especially of unarmed civilians, across the United States, there has been the grassroots growth of a “side” to help tell their story. The loosely affiliated group known as Black Lives Matter has sprung up across the country, trying to take the helm of the protests against the overreach of law enforcement in its actions against minorities. While a coalition such as this is necessary to continue to keep the focus on the actions of law enforcement, Black Lives Matter isn’t helping the situation and, in fact, the situation overall may be better off if they didn’t intercede.

Black Lives Matter actually date back further than the turmoil that first arose in 2014 and truly exploded over the course of 2015. The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida in 2013 – and his subsequent acquittal in a trial in Florida – brought about the usage of the hashtag “#BlackLivesMatter” on Twitter, long before any incidences from the past couple of years. It is only with the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York that the founders of BLM emerged as a nationwide organization. As of today, there are now 23 chapters of BLM, spread across the U. S., Canada and Ghana.

According to their website, BLM is an organization “intended to build connections between Black (sic) people and our allies to fight anti-Black racism, to spark dialogue among Black people and to facilitate the types of connections necessary to encourage social action and engagement.” What you won’t find on this webpage is the one thing that is critical for any organization to have to be successful in their endeavors – leadership on a national level. Without this leadership, the message of BLM can sometimes get lost and, in some cases, the tactics used by those in the organization’s name can be a detriment to the overall cause of the group.

We only have to look back to 2011 to see what happens when a movement initially has a good purpose but gets derailed by the lack of recognizable leadership. In September 2011, protesters took to the grounds of Zuccotti Park in New York City’s Wall Street area to protest against the largesse of the “1%.” What came to be called “Occupy Wall Street” intended to bring attention to several facets of life in today’s world – wage inequality, financial corruption, the other reasons behind the financial collapse that brought the Recession of 2008 to life – but gradually devolved into something that was nowhere near what the original intentions of the group had been.

By the time the protesters and their tent city in Zuccotti Park was busted up in November, there were various fringe elements hanging on the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. This occurred because there was no leadership for the group to issue its thoughts, its beliefs, its coherent goals. Instead of actually having an impact, by the time the Zuccotti Park grounds were cleared, there was little that was actually accomplished by the Occupy Wall Street “movement.”

In many ways, BLM is seemingly on the same path that the OWS movement trod before them. BLM initially had a very solid reason for coming together – the killing of unarmed men (in this case black) by law enforcement under suspicious circumstances – but lacked a national coalition to be able to organize its “chapters” and drive this message home first. As a result of the inability to have a focal point to work from, the individual chapters have gone about pushing the message to the people in all the wrong ways.

One of the most obvious methods of protesting was taken from the old marches from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in blocking roadways while delivering the message through a walking protest. In some areas, however, BLM supporters weren’t just satisfied with getting their message across through a moving march, they decided to lie in the streets of major cities and block traffic, sometimes for hours on end. This method of protest violates one of the major keys of protesting:  don’t offend those whose opinions you’re trying to sway.

This style of protest became even more prevalent during the holidays this year. In Chicago – where there are seriously some issues with the police department – BLM protesters disrupted holiday shopping on Black Friday along the “Magnificent Mile,” the line of high end shops in the Windy City. It even reached the point that the Mall of America and the Minneapolis Airport (a city also protesting a police shooting) was the site of sometimes violent clashes between BLM and law enforcement.

Once you’ve made the point of your protest, then you can let life return to normal for people who had nothing to do with the situation. If you either continue to push your demonstration (look at the two months of OWS and how public opinion changed there) and exceed a reasonable amount of time, you can turn public opinion against your group and, hence, your cause. What was the reason for denying people the ability to shop? To really make them dislike you? That isn’t a desired end for the protests.

The next one was much more sinister in its message. According to several media outlets, marchers who were offered a booth inside the Minnesota State Fair this summer to advocate for their cause refused said location to instead march directly in the street outside the entrance to the carnival. During this march, the BLM banner was flying while the marchers chanted “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.” Law enforcement officials viewed this as a death threat against officers (a reasonable assumption), one that was weakly refuted by BLM “leaders” who said they didn’t hear such words being used (the You Tube links are quite numerous).

Finally, there’s been the methods used by the movement to thrust themselves into the 2016 Presidential race. Through virtually storming several campaign stops – on both the Democratic and Republican sides – the BLM movement has tried to make their cause celebre the focal point of what is a very complex election (even to the point of demanding from each party a Presidential debate on racial justice; both parties declined). Not only have the persons involved with the organization disrupted several speeches from Presidential candidates, they have caused several campaign stops to be closed due to their disruptions.

Once again, with a solid national leadership and some organization, this wouldn’t have to happen. With those simple pieces of structure, there wouldn’t be the turn against BLM that there has been. I personally have several issues that are quite important to me in this campaign (on the federal, state and local levels) – the revamping (training, screening and monitoring) of law enforcement can be done on the state or local levels, not on the federal one.

Now you might say, “Well, you don’t understand, you’re white…” and you would be correct. I don’t understand what it is like to constantly be thought of as breaking the law by simply being a certain ethnicity. I don’t understand what it is like to be viewed with suspicion in virtually every aspect of life because of my skin tone. I do understand, however, that things can be changed through solid leaders and national organization…right now, Black Lives Matter doesn’t have that and they should remove themselves from the equation with law enforcement until there is such organization as mentioned previously to this organization that could do a great deal for life in these United States.