Trump announces plans to nuke healthcare

Donald John Trump has unveiled the Trump Tower Hospital plan to rip off Merikkka and put more American healthcare dollars in the hands of Trump family members and hangers-on.

Trump the John, in his pursuing the harlot of health care help, ignores that about everything he wants is purely aspirational until approved by Congressional legislation which, per Poppy Bush? Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

Part of the deal is that, oh my fucking god, he actually uses the word “Obamacare,” which has House wingnut Rethuglicans shitting bricks as I speak, even if it's to bash it the first time he references it.

And, of course, the realities of health care costs are far beyond insurance companies ripping Merikkka off.

It’s also doctors and clinics with fee-for-service medicine and consulting arrangements ripping us off, and related back-scratchings. Failure to address fee-for-service medicine and pretend that American insurers are 90 percent of the problem with American healthcare costs is why I have strongly rejected Physicians for a National Health Program’s idea of national healthcare, and rejected three-time Green Party presidential nominee (and medical doctor) Jill Stein’s support for it, along with that of Green Party consigliere and medical doctor Margaret Flowers. I truly and deeply believe we need something like the British National Health Service — government ownership of the means of healthcare delivery, to go socialist, as discussed at that link.

Beyond the medical industry?

It’s also the pharmaceutical industry, aka #BigPharma, like the Sacklers who are the people who actually killed Mark Dubowitz’s brother, not Nicolas Maduro. (A rare case of Zionist on Zionist death, I know.)

That said, knowing the John’s love of alliteration, why didn’t he call this:

The Big Beautiful Boobs, Botox and Babies Bill? (He surely knows in some way about the first two.) Or

The Overcoming Onerous Obamacare? Or, per above?

The Healthcare Handouts for Hospitals?

==

More seriously, back to the early part.

This is all aspirational.

Even if Trump starts filing criminal charges, lawsuits, or both, against insurance companies and their executives, which, given how he’s using that cudgel, is seriously a possibility that should NOT be rejected out of hand.

Ditto on him possibly doing the same to the American Hospital Association, the AMA or other players.

That said, there IS one thing that Rethuglicans would sign off on in a New York minute.

And, that’s expanding healthcare savings accounts. Trump probably has in mind some Ponzi-like investment scheme for people putting healthcare savings accounts money into cryptocurrency or something.

Remember, nothing it too loony for either his:

• Grift and possible graft;

• Ego fellation;

• Intimidation.

Stand by for news.

We already have national health care, sort of

Quartz recently noted that half of Merikans rely on one form or another of gummint health care aid, be it Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP, and VA and Tricare for veterans. And, that doesn't count the partial assistance of ObummerCare.

But, the righteous wingers consider Medicaid for slackers. Medicare, per people in the past telling the gummint to "keep your hands off my Medicare" is considered an entitlement, not in the technical sense, but in the Trumpacolypse entitled Karens and Kens sense. O'bummercare is, well, you know, socialism on the cheap if not the road to the hell of Medicaid.

The VA, well, that's for our veterans! Nothing too good, except when it's converted to VA  HMOs, which is what Tricare is.

Oh, the Quartzite guy forgets about Indian Health Service, as well as not counting Dear Leader Care.

Count the IHS, and Dear Leader's Keep Your Doctor at 25 cents on the dollar, and we probably have 60 percent of Merika on the gummint health dole.

But, it's fragmented as hell.

Ain't that Merika, the home of the free? Sing it, Boss Bruce!

Damn, we could do this all for so much better.

If you've ever been on worker's comp, you know how easily national health care could work.

Wendy Davis is back: Why?

One time, and likely still, gun nut (and other things) Wendy Davis is now running for Congress, 21st District. Click the tag for more about her 2014 guv run nuttery; no mention of pink tennis shoes this time. The district might be winnable, but as it's neither Fort Worth homeland nor really in her Austin legislative/legal lobbying home, Davis might face carpetbagger comments.

Hell, I wanted her to go away four and a half years ago, when she bombarded us with spam emails after her crushing loss to Abbott.

Here's why, to save you part of the click throughs:

Wendy went along with border crisis nuttery in 2014 — I hope to be held against her, given the current national political climate on immigration, by whoever else is in the Dem primary.

She went to the right of Rick Perry on pot.

She pandered to moderates and endorsed ConservaDems, in other nuttery.

Years ago, she sued the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and over op-eds, not news stories.

And, this one's a biggie. Dems, or libruls of any stripe, who disrespect the First Amendment in ANY of its five clauses are pissing me off more and more by the day.

Finally?

In 2014, Davis lost to Greg Abbott FAR worse than Lupe Valdez did in 2018. Yeah, yeah, "Trump" or whatever, but? Abbott far outran other Republicans in 2018. It was 59.3-38.9 versus 55.8-42.5 in 2018.

Kuff said, in his piece about her entry, that 2014 was a bad year for Dems. I do know she lost worse than Alameel did to Cornyn, but Cornyn was an incumbent, and Abbott wasn't, at least not as gov. But, her pandering got her to do no better than Van de Putte did against Danny Goeb. Kuff, given VDP had some pandering of her own, maybe it was more a bad year OF than FOR Democrats.

Back to Wendy today.

The person on Twitter who I saw writing about this said her website (the second link from top, the "running") was basically content-free. Yep, it's a nothingburger.

Like the other Texas ConservaDem with inflated reputation who announced an office run Monday, Royce West, Davis talks about "healthcare costs" but the Groucho Marx secret phrase of "Medicare for All" or "single payer"? Missing.

The NOT "battle-tested" Royce West jumps in Cornyn race

Texas State Sen. Royce West has jumped in the race to face John Cornyn, months after Julian Castro did his own Hamlet, while more candidates entered the race in the meantime.

Don't forget to tip the multiple Pullman folks who will be handling your baggage, Royce. And, that Dallas Inland Port and other John Wiley Price baggage doesn't even include the baggage of lobbyists which I didn't mention in the original. Nor does it include the baggage of grifting on your legal contracts with Dallas ISD, which I did belatedly add.

I wonder how much the fake "Mr. Ethics," Chris Bell, will jump on this. After all, he needs a signature issue to boost his viability and visibility, and this is tailor made for the person he once presented himself as being in the Lege.

Besides that past "baggage," it's time to critique what West said today.

First, you're NOT "battle tested." Your past election history is full of cakewalks. You faced a token Republican in 2012, a re-run of him plus a Libertarian in 2014, and NOBODY in the 2018 general election. Let's go back further. Un-primaried and un-generaled in 2002. Ditto in 2004.

In fact, you've NEVER been primaried. "Battle tested" my ass.

Second, "affordable universal health care" could mean all sorts of shit, as Beto O'Rourke used similar language. Unless you explicitly say "single payer" or "Medicare for all," smart minds can only assume you're against it, Royce. That squares with Mark Jones of Rice saying that West will be looking for Biden voters.

Let's also note that he will be the oldest candidate in the primary. Given that many Texas Dems are following the national trend of looking for younger, fresher voices, this isn't such a good thing.

I will credit West for everything he's done in the Texas Senate on the issue of racial profiling. But I'm not going to let pass his history of grifting off his law office, his ties to John Wiley Price — especially over the Dallas Inland Port — and other issues.

And, contra my initial prediction, maybe the age issue has something to do with him running. He's 66, and so what if he has baggage. If he loses here, he's not up for re-election on his state senatecritter seat for three more years. And, he's never been primaried.

With that, I don't know which is sadder — the number of Lege seats the Dems haven't even tried to contest in past elections, or the number of their own seats where incumbents have never, ever been primaried.

Top blogging in June

These are not necessarily blog posts written in June, but ones most popular with readers in the last month.

Topping my list was my call-out of pergressuves (you, Bernie) who want single-payer, but without reining in doctor and hospital prices. I stand by the idea that I don't want the government to go broke on health care costs any more than private individuals.

Second was my statement that I doubt Royce West will seek the Democratic nomination to run against John Cornyn. As of now, I stand by that.

Third was my D-Day post, focused on everything Nigel Hamilton got wrong as well as right in the last book of his trilogy about FDR as Commander in Chief.

Fourth was my reminder — forgotten by the MSM and the courts as well as many librulz at times — that the First Amendment has five freedoms it protects.

Fifth was celebrating the 75th anniversary of Big Bend as a national park.

Sixth was noting how the Lege screwed small school districts.

Seventh, surprisingly, was my writing about online dating pretentiousness from a Beto backer.

Single payer backing politicos? You can't kowtow to hospitals (or doctors)

That includes ESPECIALLY you, Bernard Sanders.

Yes, America's Health Insurance Plans, ie, the health insurance industry and lobby, is the big stumbling block on single payer.

The actors are fake, but concerns behind those they represent are quite real.

But, "bribing" hospitals (and doctors) with promising to leave untouched fee-for-care service, and actual fees, to get single payer passed, is no way to do it.

Jon Walker calls out both Sanders, and also other single-payer or single-payer-lite Dems, AND Physicians for a National Health Program, on just this issue.

Walker is totally right as far as he goes.

But, he doesn't explicitly ask the question of what's your ultimate action if you can't beat hospitals and doctors down enough.

Since he compared American prices to British ones, I'll tell you my answer.

It's incorporating at least some elements of a British-type National Health Service here in America.

I know that Sandernistas or whatever think Bernie's work for single-payer is the bomb.

No, it's not.

It's better than nothing, but per Walker, and per myself, it's not the bomb. It's a small hand grenade.

I've said before that I don't want individuals going broke OR the government going broke over health care costs.

That's still true, and Sanders' small hand grenade (along with other single-payer Dems who don't address the cost issue) doesn't touch that.

I know the Bernie backers don't like to admit that his answers aren't always perfect.

He IS the best Democratic candidate. But, his answers aren't always perfect.

Per the stock photo, how much, in the US, with results varying from state to state, are we paying doctors for stuff that physicians assistants or nurse practitioners could do? How much are we overdoing the medical mantra of "get a second opinion" to having third and fourth opinions offered? How often, per the liked of pieces by John Horgan, are we paying doctors to be overaggressive in their diagnoses — and prescriptions for action — on things like prostate cancer? How much do hospitals go along with this to get "their cut" of doctor's admission fees? How often are we ignoring interlocking doctors' consultancy fees?

(On the "you don't need a doctor" department, I'm not sure how much better Europe is than us, but, on law, they have the equivalent of "super-paralegals" who get a bachelor's degree in law and have for decades done most of the corporate legal legwork.)

Much of this part is specific to doctors in hospital settings, due to the independent contractor type relationship they have with hospitals, and which nurses — and NPs and PAs — generally do not. The issue of racist hospital patients wanting white-only staff illustrates this.

Beyond this, anybody who takes a scientifically critical look at modern medicine knows what a whole book now says — too many doctors overtreat and overprescribe. Single-payer done right has to address this.

And even Greens may not be perfect on this.

Dr. Margaret Flowers busted the chops of Beto O'Rourke on his single-payer head fake. (And Sema Hernandez has yet to cop on accepting a head fake as reality.) BUT .... I've tweeted her this very blog post and have yet to hear back.

American fee-for-service medicine and everything connected to it — overdiagnosing, backscratching consulting arrangements and more, is almost as big a problems as AHIP in first and #BigPharma (plus medical device manufacturing) in second. And, it's not like pediatricians, as she is, engage in this to the degree high-dollar specialists do. But? Physicians can be tribalist themselves. And she is big on Physicians for a National Health Program.

Jill Stein is not as active in the organization as Flowers. But, she too has officially saluted its version of single payer.

Here's another story that talks about how part of America's health care problems is doctors and hospitals overcharging, overtreating and more, all for money.

And, here in Texas, while not writing explicitly about single-payer, Chronicle columnist Chris Tomlinson explains how, in fighting the new law on surprise medical bills, doctors and hospitals will do everything they can for your last dime.

Why I am likely not voting for Beto — it's personal

Beto O'Rourke is a nice enough guy. Per Shrub Bush, maybe you could have a beer with him more easily than with Al Gore or John Kerry. That said, Barack Obama offered beers to both Henry Louis Gates and a Cambridge, Mass., cop. Solved nothing, and Obama remained a bankster-friendly neoliberal anyway.



I've interviewed, as well as photographed, Beto. (Link is dead, but it was after the primary and in the general election campaign.) Yeah, kind of photogenic. A Texas Kennedy.

And? Today's Congressional Kennedy is a neoliberal who hates national health care.

With that as the entree, let's dive in.

Personal? You bet.

"Access for all" as a "shit in the one hand" option to "Medicare for all" is getting personal for me.

I'm over a certain age. An age at which job discrimination happens. Age discrimination is harder to prove than racial or sexual discrmination, but it happens, and I believe I've been the victim of it before.

I'm also in less than the most stellar career field, even as I try to get out.

Should 2 + 2 = the end of decent jobs at some point in the future, it would be a LOT easier to face that before age 65 with national health care than without. Indeed, this is part of why I say single-payer national health care is more important for the working people of America than the basic income Scott Santens touts. (That's doubly true with his favored versions of basic income, which he wants to replace unemployment insurance, replace SSI and SSDI, and partially replace Social Security itself. Pass, Scott; I want no part of libertarian, or even neoliberal, versions of basic income. Hit the tag for it below to get the details.)

Back to our topic, though.

Beto-Bob (since friend Brains never tires of pointing out his given name as Robert) has touted that he is for "access for all" on medical care.

WTF is "access for all"?

Bob, Republicans will tell you we've got "access for all" right now, and they've said that since Reagan's time.

If you're making a bit too much for Medicaid, or have a crappy pewter-level Obamacare program with a deductible so high you can't use it unless you're dying, you've got that same access for all the GOP has been selling for more than 30 years —

Your local hospital's emergency room.

C'mon, Bob, stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's trickle-down health care.

I mean, for fuck's sake, a writer at The American Conservative recently wrote out a conservative case for single payer, either an insurance-driven or a straight government version. (Chase Madar is personally not that conservative, it should be noted, but, BUT ... American Conservative ran it!) Hayek favored it, too. (Yes, libertarians, he did.)

In addition, per The Hill as of Oct. 20, A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS want Medicare for All.

Speaking of, Beto either does know or should know that big biz prefers the current system of health insurance "benefits" because it lets them keep their employees as serfs.

Any real liberal, progressive, left-liberal or leftist (I'm one or another of those last two) knows that capitalism is an octopus which has killed equitable, sensible, low-cost health care in this country.

And, it's going to take a single-payer system, at minimum, to fix that.

Actually, I've argued it's going to take an American version of the British NHS to really fix it.

"Access for all"? Please.

As noted in my original post about him this year, he's a squish on health care issues. He has called single-payer "one way to get there" on health care access, stresses "access for all," and never signed on as a co-sponsor of HB 676, the House's "Medicare for All" bill. (See more here on my post about nuancing details of "universal" health care.)

For people who are Big Beto Backers, per that post, I agree that HB 676 had the flaw of not including for-profit hospitals. That said, per the Texas Observer, he said he couldn't support Bernie's bill in the Senate, either. Why? He wants everyone to have both a copay and a premium payment. I might "accept" that as part of a compromise to get something passed, but making that my starting point? No way. And, even then, my finish line would prefer to have only one or the other. (Most countries with national health care operate with no premium, but still having copays.)

This all said, per my "nuancing" post, MediCAID actually covers more than MediCARE.

We haven't even talked about how you're a bankster-loving warmonger.

Now, I know some Democrats will say "but the SCOTUS." Really? When two of the librul justices, Breyer and Kagan, both said cops can continue shooting people with impunity, what Supreme Court justices will a ConservaDem support? And even Ginsberg isn't all she's cracked up by some to be all the time.

Besides, let's look at recent history. Within 90 days of joining the Senate, and three years left until a primary, let alone the general election, Doug Jones had already moved to the right of Joe Manchin.

So blame him. Or Manchin. Or Heidi Heitkamp. Or blame Dear Leader for not campaigning for vulnerable Dems in 2010 after they passed Obamacare.

If "you" want a ConservaDem to tie the Senate at 50-50, assuming all else stays equal, throw former Tennessee gov Phil Bredesen money or other love. He's more likely to win than Beto, though his own chances seem to be fading. Or send some love to Kyrsten Sinema, just to piss off Arizona wingnuts.

Brains offered up one updated round of thoughts a couple of months or so ago. Basically, his thought is similar to what I wrote a month ago — Beto has one foot in the ConservaDem world. And, not only do I not expect him to withdraw that foot, I expect him to continue to plant it more firmly.

He's got something newer now, as of late July, which tees off more, and like me, is skeptical about his actual chances of winning.

Ditto on his staff, or at least his volunteers who keep texting me. They all seem clueless about Beto refusing to ever officially co-sponsor John Conyers' HR 676 "Medicare for All" bill.

Beyond single-payer, probably the biggest thing that cheeses me off is that Beto, by his documented Congressional inaction, doesn't walk the talk on marijuana decriminalization or legalization. Per that link, co-sponsoring a bill to force the DEA to downschedule pot from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 would seem to be a no-brainer if someone actually cared about the issue.

==

And, while I don't agree with every one of Brains' reasons for voting no, read him too. (He's recently noted that, for this election cycle at least, he's like in being close to a single-issue voter on this.

I've invited, on Twitter, Sema Hernandez, Beto's main primary opponent of two, who was also debate-dodged by him, to also undervote. That would require her changing her mind, as in July she said she'd pull the trigger for him. But, maybe she will change her mind. I think it unlikely, though. I think Sema has buttered her under-40 version of Just.Another.Politician bread already.

Sorry, Sema. I refuse to believe that Beto Claus, after three terms in the House refusing to support HR 676 then going out of his way to attack S 1804, will change his tune next year. If you want to start entering the Just.Another.Politician world by endorsing him, that's your choice. I'll of course look at you with more scrutiny in the 2020 Dem primary, if I'm still in Texas and not taking a pass on that primary to sign a Green ballot access petition.

Speaking of, Michael Lighty, a fellow with the Sanders Institute and a California DSAer, has brought a Medicare for All speaking tour to Texas and Florida. Dates here, though other details are TBD. This is right before early voting starts, which leads to other questions.

1. Was Beto invited to any of these events to speak publicly?
2. If so, did he accept?
3. Dito on 1 and 2 on Sema?

Why endorse Beto O'Rourke if you have a DSA rose?

This is largely adapted from my "Is Beto a ConservaDem," but I was getting to the point where I thought this needed a separate pullout — and I wanted to give it one.

People who are knowledgeable about this year's Texas US Senate showdown between Robert Francis O'Rourke and Rafael Edward Cruz know, as noted in my original post about him this year, that Beto is a squish on health care issues. He has called single-payer "one way to get there" on health care access, stresses "access for all," and never signed on as a co-sponsor of HR 676, the House's "Medicare for All" bill. He's elsewhere discussed "universal health care" without defining it.

Per that original post, I partially agree that HR 676 had the flaw of not including for-profit hospitals. That said, per the Texas Observer, he said he couldn't support Bernie's bill in the Senate, either. Why? He wants everyone to have both a copay and a premium payment. I might "accept" that as part of a compromise to get something passed, but making that my starting point? No way.

On Facebook, others have challenged him too, including Green Party Maryland Senate candidate (and MD) Margaret Flowers. Elsewhere, Flowers says that Bernie's bill is itself considerably weaker than the House bill, and Beto can't even support it. She also provides the background to HB 676, including explaining why Conyers' bill excludes investor-owned for-profit facilities and other things.

And with that, let's jump into the angle behind this post's header.

Sema Hernandez — maybe to remain a good-graces Democrat to prepare for running against John Cornyn in 2020 — as of Sept. 3 decided to drink the Kool-Aid herself. See the letter for details.

Sorry, Sema, but not buying.

Why doesn't Beto flat-out endorse HB 676 right now, if this is the case?

Or, why didn't he ever create his own bill, as he told the Texas Observer he was going to?

Or, at a minimum, why doesn't he endorse S 1804 now, and retract his previous dissing of it?

And, per my link above, given that Beto has already rejected Bernie's bill, I see no reason to believe that he would change his stance and then endorse it next year if he becomes a senator.

Would you believe him, if he were instead running for House re-election, and he said, "Oh, next year, I'll finally back HR 676"?

Not me. I stopped believing in Santa Claus long ago.

Beto ALSO promised, last year, to put forth his own Medicare for All bill. Still waiting on that, too. You're also still waiting, aren't you, Sema?

Further evidence to support my cause? O"Rourke not walking the walk on marijuana legalization, decriminalization or anything close to that.

Sema, I think, knows better. She's wanting to run against Cornyn (good luck on that, if you get the nomination; Cornyn isn't personally disliked the way Cruz is) and so is keeping her Democratic Party bread buttered and gunpowder dry. And, that explains the problem that DSA Democrats face.

If she doesn't know better, and is actually now taking Beto at his word, then we have a serious error in judgment already presenting itself.

Beyond that, Our Revolution's Harris County branch has refused to endorse Beto, as David Bruce Collins noted. In an update, he notes that Our Revolution, Texas Gulf Coast Region, though not having a website link, has made basically the same endorsements — and lack thereof with O'Rourke (and Lupe Valdez and Mike Collier). Collins adds that normally, a group like this doesn't endorse without being asked. But, that's on Beto, still. He knows Our Revolution's roots, and probably, if he was thinking about it, realized that his head fake on "universal health care" wouldn't pass the sniff test.

Sema, even with political ambitions, you could have kept radio silence rather than endorsing Beto. If you do run against Cornyn in two years, people like Our Revolution — the type of people that are supposed to be your focus — may well ask you about this. (It should be noted that, as of the time this post was written, Our Revolution Texas and active local chapters within Texas, outside of the Harris County one, had not issued general election endorsement lists.)

Then, there's this, along related lines:

Despite Sema's encouraging O'Rourke to co-sponsor HR676, he insisted that he prefers the provisions of S.1804, which differs slightly.

This is an opportunity to tell O'Rourke that he's not a shoe-in for the Senate. Let him know how to win your vote.

— 🕉 Scap🌹☮ (@scapelliti) September 5, 2018

Sorry, Scap,  but as you'll see in me tweeting the link to this blog post back to you, that's not true. I note above, of course, that O'Rourke doesn't support Bernie's bill, and even if he did, it's quite arguably weaker than HR676 anyway.

Also "shock me" that as of March 14, 2019, Beto is STILL SCHWAFFLING on supporting single payer, per a transcript of a radio interview in Iowa.

And, there's two other points here.

One is that Beto is a ConservaDem at worst, a ModeratoDem at best, per the header. He's certainly not a DSA Dem, whether official like Scap, or either quasi-official or official, like Sema.

The second is that DSA Dems are still Dems at bottom line. If they're activist DSAs, they're presumably activist Dems at bottom line, refusing to take the ultimate pressure step of publicly calling for a candidate undervote to pressure that person.

To the degree that icons in a person's Twitter handle mean anything, that's why I have a sunflower, not a red rose. And, if the Green Party cracks up enough for me to drop that sunflower, I'd be more likely to add a red flag than that red rose, if you catch my drift.

(And, as I have noted before, besides the Greens, the Socialist Party USA exists as an actual political party of the Left.)

This also illustrates the tyranny the duopoly — and duopoly-based thinking — continue to have.

Thus, just as a Beto, like a Dear Leader, needs to be pushed from the left, DSAers like Sema Hernandez also need to be pushed from the left. We've seen this in one other case already. DSA Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat a hasty retreat from staking out even a mild pro-BDS stance. If you DSA folks are going to fold on major issues, at bottom, aren't you just another subgroup of current Democrats? (Hernandez, in her 2018 platform, did say she wanted to "end the wars." That's also more than Beto wants to do. More on this in another piece.)

See Brains' own good piece from last week, and our conversation, for largely similar, but not exactly the same, thoughts on some of these issues. Per that conversation, I can't think of any reason why, other than running against Cornyn and wanting a Gilberto Hinojosa head-pat, that Hernandez is staking out this position.

Let's put this another, stark, blunt and snarky way.

Let's say our country did NOT have Roe v. Wade-based reproductive choice freedoms. Let's say some Democrats were trying to pass that in the House. And, one House member said, "I favor getting there (Iron Stache!) but I don't support that bill because it forces certain hospitals into this." Then a Senator proposed a weaker bill, but one that might get us some sort of reproductive choice freedoms. And this House member said, "I favor getting there, but this bill doesn't make women pay enough for reproductive choice freedom."

Let's say this person then said, "Elect me to the Senate, and I'll (I guess) support that weaker bill then."

You buying that, Sema?

Otherwise, especially as I get closer to certain "finish lines," I'm getting closer to being a single-issue voter on this substance. I didn't buy vacuous Obama promises in 2008 and I'm damn sure not buying vacuous O'Rourke promises in 2018. And, that's why I remain officially not a Democrat. Also per convo with Brains, it's why I've blogged occasionally about the Socialist Party USA; Greens, on this whole "decentralization" nuttery, you need to nationally get your act together.

This is also not to say that all DSAers — including past, present and possible future candidates — will "cave" to the traditional Democratic hierarchy. Nor is it to say that those who give a bit here are there are "caving." But ... when you give more than a bit, and on a blank check, you could at least be charged with a cave.

Speaking of that? Some Hillbot types aren't all wrong in talking about usage. The DSAers actually are NOT "democratic socialists." If you go to a place like Wikipedia, you'll see that, as one moves gradually left politically, you have "social democrats," then "democratic socialists."

Hernandez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez et al are all "social democrats." They're not "democratic socialists." None of them advocated for government ownership of any means of production. The same is true of Bernie Sanders.

Note: None of this is meant to crush DSAers, especially young ones running for office. You're better than non-DSAers — including better than the ones you endorse to suck up to the DSA establishment. But, you're not really democratic socialists.

I am. And, I do, in at least some cases, support the government ownership of a few "means of production."

I support a National Health System like Great Britain's. I don't think single-payer will be enough by itself to get capitalism out of our health care.

I support converting the U.S. Postal Service back to the pre-1971 directly government owned U.S. Post Office.

I support having that Post Office be allowed to do postal banking, but we don't need to restrict that to a quasi-private Postal Service.

I support 49 other states following North Dakota and creating something similar to the Bank of North Dakota, only with that bank's original powers, not with later trimming.

I'm a democratic socialist.

You all are social democrats.

And, with that, I'll stop there, but will likely do a pullout of this into a separate piece in the future.

I'm a leftist, at least for America. But, yet, a skeptical leftist.

And, this is all coming further to roost in the Twittersphere as Donut Twitter touts Beto 2020 more and more, and Sema and Scap are silently having to eat some words.

Then, there's this, Dec. 11:

I'm disappointed as well, I voted for him after all he was the nominee, our campaign convinced him to support #MedicareForAll in the senate and he's a far better choice than Cruz.

Beto lost the election but got very close to unseating Cruz.

Let's see what's the next for Beto

— 🌹Unapologetically Human, Sema🌹 (@_SemaHernandez_) December 11, 2018

Sorry, Sema, and I'm not alone on this, but ... I never saw a public, unequivocal support of single payer, rather than universal health care, by Beto after you endorsed him.

The top line of the tweet is the most important, though: "I voted for him after all he was the nominee." Folks, I can't find better proof of how DSA roses will remain Democrats at bottom line.

Unlike the likes of Sema and Scap, not all DSA roses drank the Kool-Aid. Dan Derozier, Houston DSA elections committee chair, in a Chronicle-run retrospective, notes clearly that Beto stood for Beto and little else. So true. Even worse than Obama, he left little "apparatus" to build on. (Derozier dodges Beto's stance, or lack thereof, on specific positions, though. He's just criticized as a values-free campaigner without noting WHAT values he was free of.)

Update, Dec. 17: Scap now claims to have refuted me. My quote tweet back:

Scap and the gang know better, or should. Beto's claim at the 2 minute mark to have supported Sanders' single-payer bill is IMO a lie. You cannot "like" it and at the same time attack its central provision. I know Sema, actually being in Texas, knows that https://t.co/zHJ7cLxzpe https://t.co/QZa1IB8IKR

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) December 17, 2018

In my first quote-tweet back, I noted that Beto's first words in that video use his old trick of conflating "single payer" and "universal health care."

Plus? Claiming to like Sanders' bill, while attacking a key portion of it — no co-pays — is not "liking it." That said, every non-single payer Texas House Dem in that piece offered up some version of lies or bullshit.

On Beto's stance on Bernie's bill? Let's use an analogy.

It's like saying, "I like your jelly donuts, except for them having too much jelly." Does that person really like them?

If that's Scap's proof, well, then, it's only because he drank, not so much Beto's Kool-Aid, but Sema's Kool-Aid. And, Sema brewed up her own batch of Beto Kool-Aid with a shot of her own sidebar flavor because she wants to be a player in the 2020 Democratic Senate primary.

That's her biz. Doesn't make her claim, or Scap's, about Beto any more true.

It's no wonder that Actual Flatticus rightly laughed at many roses. I am not sure he singled Scap out by name like he did Esha, but he may have.

David Sirota now notes how often Beto voted against the majority of House Democrats in his Congressional career.

Related:

As Beto continues to get hammered by David Sirota, Norman Solomon, Elizabeth Breunig, Zaid Jilani and others (with me adding my own tidbits) over his Congressional voting record, taking money from the oil and gas industry for that, taking money from the FIRE sector for that, refusing to walk the walk on marijuana reform laws (I checked; that blog post of mine was before Sema officially endorsed Beto) and more, the following questions arise:

1. Did Sema Hernandez know all that? (She should have; she saw the first version of this ConservaDem piece as it was updated at that time, without the oil and gas info, before her endorsement, if I recall my Twitter timeline correctly.)

2. Why did she make that endorsement, other than moving into Just.Another.Politician.™ territory?

3. Will she own up to being, in any way, Just.Another.Politician.™?

4. Will she, if worried about fellow Roses or about the Our Revolution folks in Houston and elsewhere who refused to endorse Beto, try to rescind her endorsement?

Answers:

1. Yes, as noted.

2. For that reason, as noted.

3. No, because that would undercut 1 and 2, IMO.

4. Call me back in about 12 months.

These are all issues that hold true whether or not Beto allegedly gave an explicit promise to back single-payer (not the "universal health care" fudge) after she endorsed him. (BTW, based on his actual 2018 history with Sanders' bill, I don't believe such an explicit promise was made.)

"Medicare PRICES for All" — latest neolib head fake

In a move of health care strategery that the likes of a Beto O'Rourke would surely love, two Obamacare flaks at neoliberal punditry mag Washington Monthly say "we" (who's that mouse in your collective pocket?) don't really need Medicare for All.

We need Medicare PRICES for all.

This is built on such a foundation of sinking bullshit, I don't know where to start.

First, if this does save my late-stage capitalist employer money on health care, he's not passing it on to me. But, you guys know that.

Second, my boss wants to keep me enserfed to health care benefits. "Bennies," so that I still don't want to change jobs. But, you guys know that, too.

And, talk about burying the lede? It's down in the last paragraph of the long piece:

So why not just keep it simple, at least to start? A “Medicare prices for all” plan doesn’t require tax increases or involve transfers paid for by the middle class. It doesn’t require Americans to give up their current health care plans. And it doesn’t repeal or replace the popular features of the Affordable Care Act. But it does directly attack the middle-class affordability crisis using a proven approach that the great majority of Americans might actually support.

In other words, you poor? Keep your state-largesse-dependent Medicaid. Working poor? Keep your CHIP for your kids. 

If you're "working poor" or lower-middle-class in a state that didn't do the Medicaid expansion with Obamacare, or did it, but with restrictions? Oh, so sorry. That "transfers paid for by the middle class" shows the gig is up right there. Because we can attack, or pretend to attack, an abstract health care industry, but we can't tax rich individuals more and more progressively as part of a national health care system.

They even outrightly admit that, two paragraphs up:

Even if the CAP plan was financed in good measure by new taxes on the super-rich, it would still involve large transfers from middle-income people, who will be at least partially financing their own benefits, to people with lower incomes, who would be paying nothing for the health care they receive.

This dreck may not be racist, but it certainly is classist. Beyond that, middle-class taxes already help pay for Medicaid and CHIP. And these neoliberal wingnuts know THAT, too. So, it's classist with a counterfactual pandering element.

And we sure as hell can't have a British-style NHS because that would be an even bigger giveaway to "them" than Medicare for All. (It would also address the increasing monopilization of hospitals that Medicare PRICES for All would not. What's to stop a hospital from going cash-only? Or a cartel of them, if the gummint doesn't investigate?)

Fuck you all. Fuck your Council for Affordable Health Coverage, since it's an insurance industry front group.

Nuancing universal health care, #Medicare4All and copays

This is taken from an update about my Robert "Beto" O'Rourke visit to Northeast Texas two weeks ago, with a paragraph that was originally in the middle of this update pushed to the top.

If you're citing "Medicare for all" as your national health insurance model, you need to note that the actual Medicare program requires you to have your wallet open if you're middle class. Bernie Sanders got backfire in 2016 for wanting to present a "Medicare for all" that was really something more like workman's compensation.

And, I think this is the problem. A lot of Americans are flinging around the phrase "Medicare for All" without asking what the actual Medicare program is. And, if that's what O'Rourke means by saying we can do better than it — if he's referring to what level of coverage Medicare actually has, well, he's right.

A recent Tweet led me to one other update that needs to be italicized.

If you're citing "Medicare for all" as your national health insurance model, you need to note that MediCAID covers many things Medicare does not. But, from Bernie Sanders on down, classism in the US means that we can't talk about "Medicaid for all" because that would invoke poor people.

Back to the heart of things. In my original post about Beto's visit to Northeast Texas, I noted that he was some degree of squish on single-payer national health care, but less than Wendy Davis in her gov run four years ago on other issues.

As for him being a squish of some sort on single-payer? Well, if it is truly universal, in that everybody in the country, no ifs, ands or buts, has coverage, that's the rock-bottom starting point. A lot of the other developed counties that have national health care have co-pays, after all, and some people bashing Beto-Bob on this may not be aware of that. No, it's not ideal, and it's not close to gov candidate Tom Wakely's idea of a Texas NHS. But, if it is universal coverage, that's the baseline.

Per Wiki, many of those other countries have what is called two-tier care. Part of that second tier, with Denmark France and Germany countries mentioned by name, is for private insurance to cover the cost of copays. And, yes, that's deliberately boldfaced. Many countries with national health care use a two-tier system like that. Government insurance covers all basic medical and surgical needs. You buy private care for elective and experimental surgery and other things.

People need to look at the details of how universal health care works in these other developed countries, and is funded, in general. If you're poor, copays, etc., are usually paid by the government, kind of like Medicaid. But, if you're middle-class, in most the developed world? No, you need to have your own wallet open. Not a lot, maybe. But you need to have your own wallet open.

As for the amount of copays? Brains says Norway's is just $219 per person. That said, Norway has the highest overall cost of health care per person outside the US, and that's with a sovereign wealth fund and oil money.

Germany has an insurer-based universal health care system. Payment for the insurance works similar to here. It has much smaller copays than here, but it does have some. More details here. And, the German system isn't perfect; read here.

In countries like it and Switzerland, then, you're paying part of your health care premiums directly, rather than through a tax-based system. If you're in a low-income job, let alone unemployed, the government helps with this. But, if you're middle class? You're paying.

I went into this in some detail when I called out the groupies of Actual Flatticus and his toady, ShirtLost DumbShit Zack Haller, for being sketch on the details themselves.

As for people bashing Beto-Bob for wanting national health care to be useable at for-profit hospitals? You folks are either ignorant or willfully obtuse if you think nonprofit hospitals are significantly different from for-profits, because they ain't.

Thirty seconds of Googling found me not one but two or now three Pro Publica pieces with in-depth coverage of major ethical wrongs of nonprofit hospitals. And I can certainly find more. And, it looks like I may feel the need to do that, and do a separate piece.

If you want a true British NHS, as I do, fine. But stop falsely claiming that, within the current hospital system, nonprofits hospitals are somehow enlightened versus for-profit ones. For that matter, per Wiki, a few extra quid and bob will get you extra service even in an NHS hospital.

The NFL of concussion likes and Kaepernick hating is a nonprofit, for doorknob's sake.

Besides that, you know who else runs nonprofit hospitals? The no-abortion, no birth control Catholic Church.

Another issue is that "no copays" people may not be talking about cost controls. I sure don't want a no-copays national health care that still costs more than twice as much to treat a person as other developed nations. I have said that MANY times.

I think, other than reimportation of meds from Canada, few Dems and not that many Greens have tackled this issue. I've said I want at least a partial National Health Service, similar to Britain's, as part of the cost control side.

No, Beto-Bob hasn't mentioned that. But, as far as I know, neither has Sema Hernandez. Tom Wakely, for governor, has, in spades.

So, is Sema Hernandez' stance overall better than Beto-Bob's? Yes. Is it perfect? No. (And, I'll fess up that not being from Houston, I've not met her.)

And, if Brains is going to throw skepticism elbows at me? I've already commented to you 12 months or so ago on a bunch of stuff related to Jill Stein's recount. And, if you're going to go by his actual first name, you can call him Robert? Or "Robert Francis," per earlier cracking wise by me that he's a "Kennedy brother by an El Paso father."

And, I'll later tackle the issue of possibly undervoting this race in the general election.

==

Oh, while I'm here — Beto adopted, or was given, the nickname pre-adulthood. And, I'm sure he's not the only Anglo named Robert in a Hispanic-heavy area to take, or be given, the nickname.

So, "some people" who want to play with this? Just as on the for-profit vs nonprofit hospitals, and on the universal service? I think we're in "gotcha" territory.

Also, Brains knows what I put in italics, specifically because he sold Medicare supplement insurance. If Medicare copays weren't that high, he wouldn't have been selling such things.

#SinglePayer, #Medicare4All, #NHS, and #ActualFlatticus

Flatty’s in the hashtag, especially for Twitterers, because as long as curator Twitter accounts don’t want to let him sleep, I won’t either.

At issue, per the other three hashtags, is something where he’s technically right on one part, technically wronger on another part, and straining at gnats all the way through — with the gnat-straining causing problems itself.

Technically right? Single-payer and Medicare for All are two different things. I’ll explain in a minute.

Technically wronger? A National Health System is not at all the same as single payer. I know the difference. And he should. That’s because I’ve blogged about wanting an NHS as part of whatever we get beyond Obamacare, and he saw it. And I’ll explain that in a minute too.

Technically, a “single-payer” system is one in which one entity pays EVERYTHING. As Medicare has deductibles, a Medicare for All bill like HR 676 is not single-payer.

But it IS still “national health care” in that it offers national or “universal” coverage, which Obamacare does not.

All other advanced democracies, like the major countries of old Europe, plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in Asia, and Australia and New Zealand down under, offer some version of national health care. Brazil is moving there, though I’m not sure that it’s fully there yet.

A few other countries out there do as well, but that’s enough for illustration.

In some cases, the government is the insurer. In other cases, like with Obamacare, but with universal coverage, private insurers are. In some cases, like Germany, it’s a mixed system.

In all cases, though, coverage is universal. All citizens — and in many cases, all residents, not just all citizens — are covered. Deductibles vary from country to country, but are usually fairly low. And, of course, no country has health system costs per person of much more than 50 percent of the US.

So, that’s where Flatty strained at gnats. Period. End of story. Whether it was simply to be technically correct, or another case where our champion academic debater, and whatever drove him on, semi-compelled him to "have to" win, I don't know.

Flatty and Shirtless Pundit Zach Haller strained at gnats together here. Countries with national health insurance, as in universal coverage, but still having co-pays, include France and Germany, per Wiki. Many countries with national health care use a two-tier system like that. Government insurance covers all basic medical and surgical needs. You buy private care for elective and experimental surgery and other things.

Medicare for all IS universal. And, for Americans worried that our hypercapitalist insurance system, unlike private insurers in Japan and Switzerland, would charge too much on such coverage, it’s also government-payer.

There’s nothing wrong with this.

And, contra Obamacare, since this would be a change in kind, not just degree, on insurance coverage, here, the good would not be the enemy of the better. Not at all.

So, Flatty’s straining at gnats won him cheap debate points.

BUT, it obfuscated the real issue, and made it look like Bernie, Nurses United and others were a bunch of grafters and grifters.

Fuck you and the pipe you smoked in on, Smithee.

Besides, you were wrong about the NHS. At least in the Tweet I saw.

The NHS, or National Health System, is government-OWNED health care services. That’s the actual name of Britain’s socialist medical care system, and NHS is usually used as shorthand for anything else.

My turn to be correct and strain not at gnats but at reality.

In Britain, the NHS is single-payer in that there’s no deductibles. No co-pays. Period.

However, a “generic” NHS elsewhere does not have to be single-payer.

The VA system here in the US, as well as the Indian Health Service, are both NHS systems. In both cases, the government owns the hospitals and clinics and the government employs the doctors, nurses and other staff.

Yes, we have quasi-socialist medicine in the US, and veterans are the primary beneficiaries. And, the VA, for its problems, is light years ahead of the IHS, with Indians getting screwed again.

But, both the VA and the IHS don’t cover every penny of everything medical. And, the VA, at least, has income eligibility limits for at least some services.

Other notes? Besides myths of long wait times, national health care systems elsewhere in the developed world can decide not to cover certain procedures or certain medications. National health care does not mean free Laetrile.

Anyway, the bottom line issue is that straining at gnats to win debating points can undercut real progress.

I've covered some of this ground before in my piece on getting a partial NHS here in America. A few thoughts from there.

A basic version would put a government medical clinic in every county in the United States. It would also let national standards trump state ones on what medical professionals could treat what; ie, a lot of it could be done by physician's assistants and nurse practitioners.

We could then combine that with some version of national health insurance. But, having national CARE for basic and preventative services would immediately start the ball rolling on de-capitalizing our current system.

And, THAT is how you do things bottom up. People get used to the government taking care of their kids' vaccines, their own routine physicals and other preventative care, and basic medicine, and they get OK with it. States realize that non-MDs are doing this just fine and accept because they have no other choice.

And thus, per a Vox piece, throwing aside the code phrase of "Medicare for all," I would be OK with a single-payer system with copays and deductibles IF we got the free clinics along with it. Beating for-profit medicine over the head will help make things less expensive than Vox frets.

TX Progressives look at #Harvey cleanup, more

The Texas Progressive Alliance encourages you to keep supporting Harvey and Irma relief efforts as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff reminds us that we have elections this November and they still need our attention.

As part of job hunting, Socratic Gadfly pays careful attention to some of the fluffery and hyperbolic language in employment ads and job descriptions and translates some for you, likely as part of an ongoing series.

The question "what happened" was not answered by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs, but rephrased as: 'WTF are Democrats going to do going forward?'  (Hopefully not more infighting.)  He also had a good word to say about Houston mayor Sylvester Turner's efforts in managing the city's responses to Hurricane Harvey.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders what is worse?  Denying food stamps to Harvey victims or refusing to register students to vote?

Turning 50 this week, Neil at All People Have Value offered a list of his favorite politicians in life. It is not a long list. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Jobsanger says polls and research show America still has too many racists.

Houston Justice says there may be racism lurking in GOTV events.

Grits for Breakfast helped launch the new podcast by Just Liberty.

David Bruce Collins talks about the renewed "Medicare for All" push from a Green Party POV. More here from a national GP press release, including weaknesses in Bernie Sanders' current plan.

Dos Centavos wonders if there is a head fake in President Trump's alleged deal with Democrats on DACA and a border wall. Salon follows that with a question of who swallowed whose Kool-Aid.

 =====================

 And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

 Daniel Williams highlights the continued need for local non-discrimination ordinances in Texas.

 Melissa Law denounces the idea that Harvey was anything but a catastrophe that is still ongoing.

 It's Not Hou It's Me shares her mucking experience.

 Juanita rounds up some of the lesser 9/11 memorials.

Therese Odell rounds up the late night reactions to the Ted Cruz Twitter porn-liking saga.

Michael Li explains what happens next in the redistricting case.

Mean Green Cougar Red examines Harvey-related survivor's guilt.

Dan Wallach goes into detail about the security properties that a voting system needs to have.

Space City Weather looks back at all of the Harvey-spawned tornadoes.

While Houstonians continue to recover from Harvey, former San Antonio Spurs legend Tim Duncan helps Irma work in his hometown U.S. Virgin Islands (which may get hit again, by Maria)/

-->

Insurers get self-righteous on #Trumpcare vs #Obamacare

The likes of Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Delta, Cigna, etc., are making me vomit in their mouths over Mitch McConnell's ongoing attempt to repeal Obamacare, whether "repeal and replace" or "repeal now, replace later" or simply "replace."

The "statement" by the Blues shows why.

Self-righteousness over a veneer of hypocrisy usually gets under my skin.

They're really committed to insuring those with pre-existing conditions because Obamacare requires it, while giving them money to do so. Pre-Obamacare, they told people with pre-existing conditions to fuck off and die just like most Senate Republicans want to do right now.

A system that doesn't require people to PURCHASE coverage is what's truly needed, of course, but what we will never get supported by these folks.

I'd be fine, per my call-out for at least a partial version of a British-style NHS, if the Blues et al still had some modicum of existence selling the equivalent of Medigap plans to those under 65. They could otherwise disappear.

As for their employees finding future employment under such a change, well, maybe they'd start supporting a guaranteed basic income or universal income.

Remember, folks, often, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, but just a temporary ally of convenience. Accept the Blues' help on fighting Trumpcare.

But stop settling for Obamacare.

Vote Green. Vote SPUSA. Stop voting Democrat. Stop being a sucker for neoliberals who wanted to reward bloodsucking leeches by giving them more reward money. You know, like Cory Booker, a B-grade neoliberal on the Democratic neoliberal second team. A shadow Obama. An even bigger shill for Big Pharma.

Remember, national health care would transform the whole employment world, too. You wouldn't be chained to a crappy boss. You could work part time if you didn't have to work a minimum number of hours for health insurance. You could freelance. Etc., etc.

That's why American neoliberals hate single-payer. And why they despise something like a British National Health System, which is what America really needs.

For the good of Texans, Joaquin needs to challenge Beto

As of this time, neither El Paso Democratic Congressman Beto O'Rourke, for all his reported progressivism — the only announced challenger so far to Sen. Ted Cruz — nor possible challenger, Austin Democratic Congresscritter Joaquin Castro, have yet to endorse Rep. John Conyers' HB 676, his so-called "Medicare for all" single-payer national health care bill.

I can understand where friend Brains is coming from — primary fights can be expensive, and in states where you're a permanent minority at this time, and by several percentage points, that's money wasted that could be used in a general election.

On the other hand, "glide path" primaries, or attempted ones, often produce crappy candidates. Wendy Davis for gov in 2014. Tony Sanchez for gov in 2002 as part of John Sharp's "dream team." Hillary Clinton for prez after the DNC tried to force a glide path by cheating.

I don't know where Castro stands on legalizing, or even decriminalizing pot, or the larger War on Drugs. If he's at least halfway to O'Rourke's neighborhood, that means that single-payer would be the only possible dividing line of significance, if one of them came out in favor.

In other words, contested primaries between viable candidates force them to stand for something. All Hillary Clinton would stand for is her gender and her turn — and she lost the general.

That said, due to state court of criminal appeals race shenanigans by the Texas Democratic Party, I can't vote for either O'Rourke or Castro. I have to sign a Green Party ballot access petition, so I can't vote in the 2018 Dem primary.

So, if Castro won't challenge, or even if he does, if neither will shit or get off the pot on single-payer, fuck em.

Hell, Charles Krauthammer, wingnut deluxe, now thinks single-payer is inevitable and that Congressional Republicans should accept that, and maybe even try to steal a march.

New season of The Biggest Loser starting now — reality TV, DC style

The three main characters in the new season are Mitch the Turtle, Sieg Heil and Eddie Munster, as pictured from left.

The season, at the start, revolves around the plot twists over Obamacare, Ryancare, Trumpcare, the Affordable Care Act, and the American Health Care Act.

Besides the three mail main characters, waiting in the wings as the possible real Biggest Loser, all along, has been the American public. Within it, the potential Biggest Loser was a TrumpTrain core — older, lower-income white voters.

And, our story line develops from there

Besides reminding us of a classic classic rock song, here with a new cover by Reservoir Dogs:



"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with you" isn't totally true, per the pic, which I saw, with this caption, from a TrumpTrain rider on Twitter. Trump is actually as much a clown or joker than either of them.

And, he got punked, in part because between Nov. 8 and Jan. 20, he never stopped to realize that health care is indeed hard. (Well, if you have a single-payer system, with one set of rules, it's not quite so hard.)

Now, per some of the inside-the-Beltway chattering class postmortems, Trump may eventually learn more of a political game. Or, he may remain like a more narcissistic Ross Perot, thinking he can be CEO to Congressional mid-level business execs, with him just snapping his fingers and getting results. (That igmores that when Trump snapped his fingers in the business world the results were often bad, except in cases where he often allegedly had the help of organized crime.

But, Trump's going to have to do a lot more political learning.

His threat to primary House Republicans who wouldn't get on the Trump Train basically got laughed at by the likes of Gohmert Pyle and other teabagger members of the House Freedom Caucus. More quietly, House GOP non-wingnut conservatives (please, don't call them "moderates") laughed at Trump their own way.

Speaking of the House GOP, Speaker Paul Ryan has already been labeled a poseur and dilettante by the chattering class. More clearly, he's now damaged goods. Will he be considered damaged enough that Gohmert Pyle and other Freedom Caucus members threaten him with a leadership challenge, just like they did with John Boehner? It wouldn't surprise me. Breitbart already has out the long knives; stay tuned for what Faux News says in days and weeks ahead.

Question No. 2 and related — if this drumbeat against Ryan increases, will he stop kissing Trump's ass and try to find his own long knives? Or more subtle anti-Trump sicarii?

Next loser? Rinse Penis, that is Reince Priebus, is already getting dinged. Besides GOP civil war, Trump staff civil war will surely increase.  Eminence grisé Steve Bannon is already pulling out some long knives there, but more toward Eddie Munster, which is surely what's fueling Breitbart. That said, Bannon, contra his nominal buss Trump, is being honest that this was a big defeat.

Related to that, Bannon reportedly wanted to force a public vote, so that he had his own "enemies list" over the issue in the House.

Trump himself is reportedly boo-hooing over letting Ryan do the bill-writing. But, that's simply bullshit. Congressional GOP has been calling for more action, more leadership, from Trump for some time. If Bannon wants to play this game, at least some in the House are more savvy than Ryan in knowing who they're dealing with.

Winner of sorts? The Turtle. The bill never got to the Senate. He never had to threaten a nuclear option requiring actual stemwinder filibustering from Senate Dems. And, he can now play himself up to Trump as elder statesman, vs. Ryan. And, Bannon knows (I think) that even he can't mess with McConnell.

Tom Price, Trump's new HHS secretary, has been named in that last link above, as another loser. If so, that shows every Trump cabinet member who came from Congress is on some sort of hot seat. Given his role in many spots, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney shouldn't sleep easy.

Loser again? Trump. His own aides are all but calling him an idiot for trying to put blame on Dems for the bill's failure.

Loser again again? Trump. That info above is coming from a flood tide of leaks inside his staff.

That said, I disagree with the likes of Washington Monthly when it says Trump didn't care. No, he did care a lot — as long as it was easy. As soon as the going looked tough, and it looked like he could still blame Ryan et al, and not take too bad a hit himself, he bailed.

Don't forget, WM is part of the neoliberal wing of the Beltway chattering class — the type of folks who agreed with Hillary Clinton 12 months ago on trying to promote Trump's candidacy over other Republicans.

Mixed loser/quasi-winner? House Freedom Caucus. Trump himself called it a loser, as noted here, where its head, Rep. Mark Meadows, thinks O-care can still be defeated. That intensifies the loserdom, if he's that clueless. (And he is; none of the Freedom Caucus members chair any committees, let alone one in position to put forth O-care repeal bills.) But, it's a quasi-winner to its diehard wingnut supporters.

Meanwhile, the American public, even though not the Biggest Loser, remains a loser.

• The Congressional GOP stands officially exposed as having no desire to make Obamacare actually better;
• A full 25 House Progressive Caucus members have yet to cosponsor HR 676, John Conyers' single-payer bill;
• Bernie Sanders has yet to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, and his last excuse has now been removed.

None of these three will change soon. Sorry. Blogs like Down With Tyranny will keep looking for ponies while continuing to refuse to #DemExit. And nothing will change.

The MSM halfway catches up with me on #Obamacare

It's long been clear to me that Obamacare is at least semi-broken. (Well, that's setting aside another issue that I've repeatedly blogged about — we don't even have "Obamacare" since Dear Leader himself, its namesake, has delayed implementation of several of its major portions — some delayed repeatedly.)

Well, the Old Gray Lady has finally weighed in, at least in part.  

The nut grafs are buried near the end, in two quotes, especially the second:

Dr. John W. Rowe, who was the chief executive of Aetna from 2000 to 2006 and the president of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York before that, predicted that “the insurance market will stabilize in two or three years.”

“We are not in a death spiral,” Dr. Rowe said. “If this were a patient, I would say that he’s not in intensive care, but he’s still in the hospital and requires careful monitoring.”

But that does not mean the act will heal on its own, said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.

“Even the most ardent proponents of the law would say that it has structural and technical problems that need to be addressed,” she said. “The subsidies were not generous enough. The penalties for not getting insurance were not stiff enough. And we don’t have enough young healthy people in the exchanges.”

Bingo.

The big issue is that these were issues largely known in 2008. Hillary Clinton called Obama out for not having any sort of penalty in his plan. That, in turn leads to not enough young people enrolled. These could have been fixed as part of the original law — which also could have been less complicated, especially in its not-yet-implemented areas.

The lack of subsidies? That's on Obamacare vs. single-payer.

(In turn, that ignores that the profit motive, and a hypercapitalist version, may be so ingrained in the American medical system that we need a British-type NHS.)

As for the public option, the devil is in the details.

Contra Bernie Sanders, I think it should have deductions and co-pays similar to single-payer systems in other developed countries. 

At the same time, it should be more generous in psychiatric coverage than current private insurance.

Meanwhile, in your hypocrisy alert of the day, the Slickster is calling O-care "the craziest thing in the world." And Madame Slickster has also, despite wrapping herself in the flag of O-care vs. Bernie Sanders, has made recent similar cracks. Indeed, the flag-wrapping included her claim that O-care was originally H-care.

And, an update, as the Big Dog tries to walk it back, including:

(T)he insurance model "doesn't make sense" and "doesn't work here."

So, he now backs single-payer?

As for differences between O-care and Hillarycare, the small businesses the Slickster claims to defend opposed Hillarycare because it would have forced them to provide coverage. Politico has a thumbnail sketch of the few differences between the two.