So much uncertainty, no one knows what's coming down the road in six months, to paraphrase Politico's Eliana Johnson.
So true. So true.
The president's fixation on a physical wall at the southern border threatens to shut down the government in a week. Then of course there are the investigations in every facet of the president's existence, to where they'll lead is anyone's guess. Thrown into holiday season of political chaos is a Texas district judge's ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, giving Americans something else to worry about.
To curb the fears of the last point, challenges in the circuit court and then the Supreme Court will delay any repeal of the ACA at this time. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made the argument that without the ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, protections for preexisting conditions will disappear, along with increased funding for opioid treatment and young adults being able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. On top of that, he argued that drug prices would also increase. When you look at the prospect of those provisions going away, it's a powerful argument against repeal.
Though the president is quoted as saying, via Twitter, that this is great news for America, Ms. Johnson commented that he may be the only Republican in Washington cheering this because of the increased popularity of the ACA among Americans and given that Republicans during the midterms explicitly assured voters that protections for preexisting conditions would not be taken away. Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) who touted the fact that he proposed the provision of staying on parents insurance until 26 was hard pressed to answer clearly Chuck Todd's question about having 8 years to come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans in Congress simply can not agree on a way forward on healthcare, hence their lack of enthusiasm for this decision. That leaves the administration that definitely doesn't have a plan on how to move forward on healthcare. Let's face it, the only agenda President Trump has is erasing President Obama's legacy (Maybe you like that, maybe you don't but it's fact.) and especially a piece of legislation which carries the former president's name.
One last thing on healthcare that really caught this column's ear in the respective interviews with the senators was that Senator Schumer said 'access to healthcare' and Senator Blount framed it as 'access to insurance.' The difference there really frames the argument in stark terms inasmuch as healthcare is getting treatment whereas insurance can only provide treatment to a degree. It really puts how each side views the argument into distinct light. The origin of the ACA came from a Republican plan in the 90's to lower and expand healthcare, but at the same time protecting the insurance industry. The way it was phrased today by the respective senators shows us where the priority is for each.
In terms of the investigations and the Trump administration, Mr. Todd flashed two polls saying that 62% of Americans believe that the president has not been truthful and that 55% of the electorate believe that more oversight is needed. Speaking of oversight, it's quite telling that Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is resigning at the end of the year due to his various ethics violations while in the cabinet. Rather than face scrutiny for how he's conducted himself as Interior Secretary, he's hightailing out of there.
What's most concerning about all the investigations is what soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) outlined, and that is whether the president's personal business interests have had an effect on U.S. foreign policy making. As he explained, Mr. Trump's prospective business in Russia has contributed to the weak response the U.S. has had to Russian hacking during the 2016 election. He explained the his business entanglements have to be looked at as a contributing factor. The fact that it has been proven that Deutsche Bank laundered Russian money and that the same bank was the only one that would lend to the Trump Organization is not coincidence.
And speaking of finances, did they play a part in the case of the Saudis and President Trump siding with the Crown Prince over the CIA when it comes to the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi? Mr. Trump had said at campaign rallies that the Saudis have purchased millions of dollars in real estate from Mr. Trump. On the face of it, it seems like a U.S. response, or in this case non-response, is being shaped by the president's personal dealings with the Kingdom.
The Administration's posture in terms of foreign policy and how it is being shaped by Mr. Trump's personal business interests should concern all Americans.
With the news cycles being as chaotic and uncertain as they are from literally hour to hour, how and when all this comes to a head is anyone's guess.
Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; David Brody, Christian Broadcast Network; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment