‘We absolutely need him’: Some in GOP say it’s time for Trump to get involved in shutdown talks even as leaders rebuff idea

[Variant]

How stupid do you think Democrats are? Republicans won't negotiate now. We both know that if the Democrats vote for the CR Republicans won't negotiate then, they would have already gotten everything they wanted.

Does Lucy with the football come to mind?

Not only that but they passed a "clean CR" earlier this year and Donald Trump basically decided not to abide by the budget that the CR extended.

 

[Koala]

The whole ACA act was supposed to be a temporary bandaid on our healthcare crisis., according to Obama himself (actualyl he said it was supposed to be just the 1st step in long process).

Little did Obama know, that no progress would be possible...for the whole country...its been a slow dive down the sewer since.

OVder 10 years later, Republicans have finally privately admitted that repealing the ACA would be political suicide cause their constituents rely on the support granted in the ACA (whether they realize it or not). But rather than take advantage of the Republicans slow reckoning, the Democrats have done precisely nothing to expand the ACA, and have spent all their time failing to defend the ACA from being eroded by the constant attacks of Republicans.

Both parties disgust me here. The American people want universal healthcare coverage, something like 67% want a medicare for all system. And we're not getting it because the Democrats and Republicans dont give a damn what the American people want, they only serve corporate interests like insurance companies or possibly hostile nations pretending to be allies like Israel (which does have Universal Healthcare coverage for its citizen, btw).

This shutdown is about who is gonna be scapegoated for the refusal of our elected government to put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of the health insurance companies.

 

[NuffSaid]

Trump doesn't need to negotiate. Democrats can end the shutdown any time they want. They just choose to make a stand now because their welfare state is under threat.

You sound like the sackless cuck.
No wonder the government stays shut down.

 

[NuffSaid]

We don't negotiate with terrorists, I see no reason negotiate with Democrat extortionists until they stop blocking funding.

Today was the 12th time they prevented the passage of a clean bill.

I love how people who claim to love America just called about 40% of the population as terrorists.

Congrats.

 

[MTAtech]

The whole ACA act was supposed to be a temporary bandaid on our healthcare crisis., according to Obama himself (actualyl he said it was supposed to be just the 1st step in long process).

Little did Obama know, that no progress would be possible...for the whole country...its been a slow dive down the sewer since.

OVder 10 years later, Republicans have finally privately admitted that repealing the ACA would be political suicide cause their constituents rely on the support granted in the ACA (whether they realize it or not). But rather than take advantage of the Republicans slow reckoning, the Democrats have done precisely nothing to expand the ACA, and have spent all their time failing to defend the ACA from being eroded by the constant attacks of Republicans.

Both parties disgust me here. The American people want universal healthcare coverage, something like 67% want a medicare for all system. And we're not getting it because the Democrats and Republicans dont give a damn what the American people want, they only serve corporate interests like insurance companies or possibly hostile nations pretending to be allies like Israel (which does have Universal Healthcare coverage for its citizen, btw).

This shutdown is about who is gonna be scapegoated for the refusal of our elected government to put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of the health insurance companies.

Universal healthcare wasn’t politically possible in 2010, and still isn’t. The Democrats wisely believed that getting half a loaf is better than no loaf. So the ACA was formed (and was a Republican idea in 1989.)

Affordable Care Act (ACA), was a three-legged stool of regulations and subsidies. The three legs represent the three essential components needed for the ACA to function: a mandate requiring people to buy insurance, community rating or non-discrimination provisions, and subsidies to make coverage affordable for lower-income individuals.

The way the ACA works is that insurance companies are prohibited from discriminating based on medical history — they have to offer the same plans, at the same prices, to healthy people and less healthy people. They can’t charge you more if you have a preexisting condition. The goal of that prohibition is to make sure that health care is available and affordable to those who need it most.

Suppose you want to guarantee that insurance is available to people with pre-existing conditions. Well, you can establish community rating, requiring that insurance companies make the same policies available to everyone. But if you stop there, you know what will happen: healthy people will opt out, leaving behind a high-risk, high-cost pool.

So you have to also have a mandate, requiring that people buy insurance. And you can’t do that without subsidies, so that lower-income people can afford their policies.

Trump cut off one leg in his first term, the requirement to buy insurance and the ACA still survived, losing the uninsured rate to the lowest it’s ever been.

The original, 2010 version of the ACA was, however, underpowered. The subsidies were too small, and they cut off suddenly for people whose income rose above a relatively low threshold (400 percent of the poverty line.) What the Biden administration did was to make the subsidies more generous and also end the cutoff.

Now comes the key point: Biden had very limited political room for maneuver, since he only had 50 Senators and couldn’t afford to lose a single vote. So he was constrained by the most conservative Democrats — basically Joe Manchin — and while Manchin was willing to expand the ACA subsidies, he did so only on a temporary basis, extending through 2025. Now the enhanced subsidies are about to expire, and the financial hit to many Americans will be apocalyptic.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Republicans do love their welfare...

View attachment 67594613

This is why I'm not against the planned end of subsidies to go through, because if the Democrats aren't making headway in their messaging on why they're not approving the government funding without the subsidies, then all of those dependent on them need to learn the hard way in order to understand what's at stake.

 

[MTAtech]

This is why I'm not against the planned end of subsidies to go through, because if the Democrats aren't making headway in their messaging on why they're not approving the government funding without the subsidies, then all of those dependent on them need to learn the hard way in order to understand what's at stake.

I agree in philosophy but many who will be hurt will be children, who just happened to have dumb parents.

Your overall point is a good one, that Trump voters have benefited greatly from the liberal programs that Republicans are cutting and always promised to cut. It's a complete disconnect -- people voting against their own interests.

Policy wonks (like you and me) have spent years pointing out that if rural Americans voted based on their informed self-interest, they would be supporting Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans are constantly trying to eviscerate Democrat-supported programs that benefited rural states like Medicaid spending, SNAP (the supplementary nutrition program formerly known as food stamps), and school lunches. Trump is also cutting subsidies for green energy programs like solar farms and wind turbines – subsidies that disproportionately went to red states. Iowa gets 63 percent of its electricity from wind!

 

[ElChupacabra]

I agree in philosophy but many who will be hurt will be children, who just happened to have dumb parents.

Your overall point is a good one, that Trump voters have benefited greatly from the liberal programs that Republicans are cutting and always promised to cut. It's a complete disconnect -- people voting against their own interests.

Indeed, which might be what it takes to get people to realize what the current administration is doing in real time and not just rhetorically.

 

[MTAtech]

Indeed, which might be what it takes to get people to realize what the current administration is doing in real time and not just rhetorically.

it's a debate my wife and I have been having -- is it better in the long run to save America from the savage Republican cuts or let them experience what Republican control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress do to them?

It reminds me of the good read the late Molly Ivins wrote in 2004:

A Rotting, Dead Chicken | Common Dreams

Well, look at it this way: You cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise. My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong...

www.commondreams.org

Snippet:
My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit [of killing chickens] is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog’s neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad the dog won’t be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won’t kill chickens again.

Trump leveraged the deep discontent within rural America to infused the belief that only Republicans, and Trump in particular, respect rural voters, which is the opposite of the truth. We see it with him screwing soybean farmers and beef ranchers by having a trade war with China exaggerated with his $40 billion subsidy to Argentina, who now sells soybeans to China and Trump's plan to import Argentine beef.

I am prone to this "we told you so" attitude. You farmers didn't like Hillary's emails and thought Kamila had a funny laugh. But if farmers voted for either of them, they'd be better off.

 

[Koala]

Universal healthcare wasn’t politically possible in 2010, and still isn’t. The Democrats wisely believed that getting half a loaf is better than no loaf. So the ACA was formed (and was a Republican idea in 1989.)

Affordable Care Act (ACA), was a three-legged stool of regulations and subsidies. The three legs represent the three essential components needed for the ACA to function: a mandate requiring people to buy insurance, community rating or non-discrimination provisions, and subsidies to make coverage affordable for lower-income individuals.

The way the ACA works is that insurance companies are prohibited from discriminating based on medical history — they have to offer the same plans, at the same prices, to healthy people and less healthy people. They can’t charge you more if you have a preexisting condition. The goal of that prohibition is to make sure that health care is available and affordable to those who need it most.

Suppose you want to guarantee that insurance is available to people with pre-existing conditions. Well, you can establish community rating, requiring that insurance companies make the same policies available to everyone. But if you stop there, you know what will happen: healthy people will opt out, leaving behind a high-risk, high-cost pool.

So you have to also have a mandate, requiring that people buy insurance. And you can’t do that without subsidies, so that lower-income people can afford their policies.

Trump cut off one leg in his first term, the requirement to buy insurance and the ACA still survived, losing the uninsured rate to the lowest it’s ever been.

The original, 2010 version of the ACA was, however, underpowered. The subsidies were too small, and they cut off suddenly for people whose income rose above a relatively low threshold (400 percent of the poverty line.) What the Biden administration did was to make the subsidies more generous and also end the cutoff.

Now comes the key point: Biden had very limited political room for maneuver, since he only had 50 Senators and couldn’t afford to lose a single vote. So he was constrained by the most conservative Democrats — basically Joe Manchin — and while Manchin was willing to expand the ACA subsidies, he did so only on a temporary basis, extending through 2025. Now the enhanced subsidies are about to expire, and the financial hit to many Americans will be apocalyptic.

Nice post! I can tell you know what you're talking about. But lets recall together that Obama was forced to give away 'the public option' negotiating card with insurance companies. Which would have been the best way to bridge the U.S. to Universal Healthcare. I see no reason except for the capitalist interest that there shouldnt have been a government-run public insurance company that sought to operate at a 0 gain financial margin -- basically a non-profit organization, and based insurance rates off of that. The insurance companies balked at that because of course, that would put them out of business.

But thats the point, we need to get for-profit insurance out of business.! THats the whole fight! And capping isurance company profits to 4% doesnt do the trick either0, theyll just find a way to "hide the profits" -- perhaps by spending it on bonuses, perks and benefits for top management.

 

[gdgyva]

To get things done you have to actually be trying. The white house and Republicans have basically said they aren't even going to talk.

no...they arent going to negotiate under duress
you want to negotiate, do it after the clean CR is passed

you want the GOP to give you want you want, as if they had a gun to their head...do it or else.....

NO

 

[NolanVoyd]

no...they arent going to negotiate under duress
you want to negotiate, do it after the clean CR is passed

you want the GOP to give you want you want, as if they had a gun to their head...do it or else.....

NO

If you need democratic votes to get this passed you need to compromise with democrats.

That is how it works.

Didnt you know that?

 

[MTAtech]

Nice post! I can tell you know what you're talking about. But lets recall together that Obama was forced to give away 'the public option' negotiating card with insurance companies. Which would have been the best way to bridge the U.S. to Universal Healthcare. I see no reason except for the capitalist interest that there shouldnt have been a government-run public insurance company that sought to operate at a 0 gain financial margin -- basically a non-profit organization, and based insurance rates off of that. The insurance companies balked at that because of course, that would put them out of business.

But thats the point, we need to get for-profit insurance out of business.! THats the whole fight! And capping isurance company profits to 4% doesnt do the trick either0, theyll just find a way to "hide the profits" -- perhaps by spending it on bonuses, perks and benefits for top management.

I agree that universal -- single payer (Bernie Sanders' plan) is the goal. It just isn't politically possible. It was hard enough to get the ACA passed, with the voices on the right telling the public it included death panels. Given that insurance cos donate to political campaigns is one of the hurdles.

 

[ElChupacabra]

it's a debate my wife and I have been having -- is it better in the long run to save America from the savage Republican cuts or let them experience what Republican control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress do to them?

It reminds me of the good read the late Molly Ivins wrote in 2004:

A Rotting, Dead Chicken | Common Dreams

Well, look at it this way: You cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise. My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong...

www.commondreams.org

Snippet:
My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit [of killing chickens] is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog’s neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad the dog won’t be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won’t kill chickens again.

Trump leveraged the deep discontent within rural America to infused the belief that only Republicans, and Trump in particular, respect rural voters, which is the opposite of the truth. We see it with him screwing soybean farmers and beef ranchers by having a trade war with China exaggerated with his $40 billion subsidy to Argentina, who now sells soybeans to China and Trump's plan to import Argentine beef.

I am prone to this "we told you so" attitude. You farmers didn't like Hillary's emails and thought Kamila had a funny laugh. But if farmers voted for either of them, they'd be better off.

From my perspective it's less of a "we told you so" attitude and more of a learning experience in real time. I'm also not committed to the idea it will all be bad because we're not clear on what the MAGAGOP response will be if there's a strong backlash to the cuts not only to the ACA but other social safety nets that will impact the MAGA base as well. From day one I've viewed Trump through the lens of an experiment in governance, and I am more convinced the experiment needs to run its course so we can judge it on its merits and let the ideas it promotes to prove themselves out.

One of the main reasons I feel this way is because Trump has depended on grievance politics, and given his first term was not the full Trump experience given the officials who ran interference against Trump's nutty ideas, this go around should be an opportunity for this kind of politics to run into the inevitable corner it's destined to go. Those affected can then decide whether this kind of governance works or doesn't. This will be particularly important for rural communities, since they've been sitting on the resentment of decades long declines in their areas, so ultimately the question will be what has Trump done to help their everyday lives. The theater of "owning the libs" can only mask the continued decline as more of the youth leave rural areas due to lack of opportunities and services.

 

[j brown's body]

Trump is in an odd situation because his "art of deal" only involves forcing the other side to capitulation, which the Dems aren't doing.

He would sooner die than back down.

However, his Repunlican colleagues can call him in with great fanfare to negotiate with the Dems. After a ton of going around and around, Trump could then give in to the Dems and say this is what he wanted all along.

 

[Taylor]

I love how people who claim to love America just called about 40% of the population as terrorists.

Congrats.

There isn't 40% of anyone who wants the government shut down. Just a few elected democrats trying to look tough.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The GOP should bring the House back into session and present the Senate with new items to vote on.

Oh...but then they'd wind up releasing the Epstein files.

Wonder what matters to the MAGA Congress more? Opening the government or protecting pedophiles?

Certainly not opening the government.

 

[gdgyva]

The main issue is neither side wants the other side to have a WIN

If the dems vote for a clean CR, the GOP gets a win
If the GOP capitulates and negotiates with the dems, they get the WIN

Neither side is backing down, and hence we have a game of chicken in DC
Who will blink first? Who will give in to the pressure from outside sources?

I am not betting against the manchild....too stubborn, and too big an ego

 

[Variant]

no...they arent going to negotiate under duress
you want to negotiate, do it after the clean CR is passed

you want the GOP to give you want you want, as if they had a gun to their head...do it or else.....

NO

The Republicans have shown no desire to negotiate without the duress either hence the duress.

No governance in good faith either as Trump didn't abide by the last CR canceling many programs that the last budget had appropriated funds for unilaterally.

So, there's no such thing as a "clean" CR, it's just a rubber stamp for Trump to continue doing whatever he wants.

So, there's no reason for Democrats to agree to what is neither a continuation of the previous budget, or a real promise of negotiations for a new budget.