Sunday, May 07, 2017

5.7.17: Healthcare and the Russia Question No One in Congress Answers

Andrea Mitchell in for Chuck Todd

Since the Republican-controlled House [read: Republicans only] passed their Healthcare Bill there have been a lot of people in the media making football analogies - today's "Spiking the Football, It's only the first quarter, this is a first down not a touchdown," et al.  While apt, because the politics of it are certainly being playing like a game, the outcomes will most definitely not be.

The Rose Garden beer party the House Republicans had after the vote was asinine and juvenile, pure cynically political legislation prematurely and inappropriately celebrated by a group of men, who frankly were as diverse as a white bread American cheese sandwich, with mayo. Bad optics?

In that vane, bad optics and bad policy is the Senate committee consists of 13 white guys crafting their version of the bill. No women, pointed out by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) while also noting that women are over 50 percent of the population. They don't have a seat at the table?

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price neither talks about health nor sounds human. He answered every question with some form of we're going to give individuals, families and doctors more control and choice over the health care that they want to have. What he left out was that the insurance companies are taking back control of health care distribution and what they can charge. The Medicaid Expansion will be the responsibility of the individual states which will not be given enough funding to continue then eventually be cut altogether.

After scrolling 22 organizations across the screen, which included the AARP, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, and the March of Dimes, among others Secretary Price said all of those organizations "don't see that there is a better way." Really? Interpret as you will but that's a little suspect to me.

By the same token, however, the taunting the Democrats did singing, "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" on the floor of the House was bush-league and also inappropriate, even if you get the 'why' of it. Most everyone would agree - that Republicans are repealing a major social program, something we've never done Yahoo's Matt Bai noted, and the political outlook for doing so will cost Republicans seats in Congress. But that's no excuse.

The take away is this: the Medicaid expansion will eventually be phased out by giving the responsibility to the individual states and people will lose coverage not being able to afford private insurance. The money that the federal government will save with go into a tax cut coming in the near future.


As for widely known as fact Russian meddling in the American election and other in Europe (appropriate today given France's election today), here's the question for Congress:

What's the recourse? 

Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) called it "unfortunate." OK... (?)

What are the consequences for these actions, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States? I guess we have to wait until all the investigations are concluded to get those, timetable not-soon-enough. It's just beyond comprehension the passivity on the part of members of Congress when the speak on this topic. Odd. However, Senator Feinstein also pointed out that when the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian government employees, the Kremlin didn't react, inferring the connection between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Between Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort all of whom are the focus of the FBI, there are some bad actors.

During the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, they changed the platform position on its support of Ukraine in terms of support and armaments to stand up to Russia. Paul Manafort is seen as the driving force behind that effort so we're he and Flynn working in coordination or independently?

And the twists just keep on coming...


Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Rich Lowry, The National Review



No comments: