Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Trumpcare Fail: "It Was Such a Sweet Moment To See"

Comments

1
The Keystone XL pipeline has been approved. Hosni Mubarak is out on bail. ISPs can now sell your private information to the highest bidder. Trump hasn't conceded defat on the ACHA- he's merely suggesting that he will manage it so badly it is guaranteed to fall apart due to deliberate mismanagement. He intends to make it an albatross to hang around Pelosi's neck.

My concern is that the Democrats Establishment will treat this as the money shot of the film. Now they've climaxed, the rest of the movie is anti-climax, some pillow talk with he voters about how great it was and lots of smiles for the camera, but not much else. The Women's March was big and bold and important and beautiful. Subsequent marches have not been, and in fact are declining in numbers. Now that everyone can say they were there and proudly claim that memory, they have no motivation to continue the fight, as they feel they've already done their part. So too with our legislators. They did the big job on the ACHA, and now the rest is afterglow.

In reality, that ought to have been the foreplay. We're not even out of the first hundred days yet. Its way too early to suggest "Mission Accomplished". We've still got Ryan and McConnell in control until 2018 at the earliest. The fight must not only continue, but intensify if we are to make it that far without anything too catastrophic taking place.
2
Thank the FSM for Pramila Jayapal, she rocks.
3
@ 1,

The next major action is the April 15 Black Lives Matter/Tax Day protest, so we'll see. My impression is that tons of people are still engaged and involved as demonstrated by the town hall rallies and constant flood of phone calls, however they're not sure what else to do since this is a multi-faceted, nationwide resistance movement without a single leader.

Regardless, the Twitler regime and CONgressional RepubliKKKans are clearly rattled and on the run, which is causing them to make even more mistakes and errors in judgement. The fact that they're totally incompetent at governing and have no real strategy is a huge plus. Thus far, it appears that causing chaos and destroying the government from the inside are their only plans.
4
@3,

There's multiple layers to this. The Clntonistas are laying down a constant strafe of Russian accusations. Its not a bad strategy, since the most anti_Soviet Cold Warriors were on the Far Right who now comprise the GOP base. If that same base can be convinced the accusations are truthful, it could alienate elderly voters who typically vote GOP and never miss an election, and have also received a lifetime of Cold War indoctrination. However, the current regime in Moscow is not exactly the same as the Soviet Union- Putin is very much a capitalist, totally in bed with the Orthodox Church the USSR fought tooth and nail to suppress, nationalistic, xenophobic, racist and sexist as hell. In other words, Putin's just like they are. If they see this, accusations of Trump colluding with the RF might only boost his popularity among the Far Right rather than damage it.

The Democrats have got to put together a convincing counter-arguemnt to Trump. If they re-run the Clinton 2016 campaign in 2018 and 2020 we're fucked. Defining themselves only in terms of what they are not (Trump) didn't work. Nor did burying their party's most popular leader (Sanders) in favor of someone who could not carry in the primary the states she needed to win in the general. So far, the hasnt been any inward reflection on this. The Party is externalizing all blame- it cannot be their own errors, it has to be Comey's fault, Putin's fault, Stein's fault, BLM's fault, Sawant's fault- you name it, anyone other than Clinton's fault. I'm certain this is ego-preserving, since admitting the contrary suggests they played a role in electing Trump by doing a poor job of preventing that. How could it help in the upcoming election, though? And how can sandbagging those who did vote for Trump-whom they need to convince to now vote for them instead- work? "Hey you, you're stupid. Vote for me!" doesn't make a very good yard sign.

Lastly, Harry Reid made a very good point as he headed for the exits. The Party now resembles a retirement home. Everyone (Bernie included) is over 70. By locking Milenials (and X'ers too) out of the pool of candidates, they're committing suicide. Oldsters vote GOP, not Democratic. If the Democrats are to win anything at all, they need someone who looks like the people theyre relying on to vote for them. Thats partly why Obama '08 worked.

Lastly, there is an irritating tendency among the Democrats to adopt a bunker mentality. Any critique is dismissed as evidence that the commenter making it is some kind of a crypto-Trumpist,, even when referring to people whose positions are to the Left of both Trump and Clinton. Either that, or they must be closet sexists. Which is odd, since nobody lobbied harder against Palin than they themselves. If the argument is, a) Voter is against Clinton B) Clinton is a woman, therefore C) Voter hates women. If that were true, these same people A) Voted against Palin, B) Palin is a woman too, and therefore C) They themselves are sexist. Further they voted against Stein, who is also a woman, and therefore are doubly sexist. Bill Bro's I guess.

In conclusion, we might very well win the war against Trump through gridlocking him, and yet lose the peace by failing to produce candidates or positions that can win in 2018/2020 if we continue things as they are now.
5
@1:

This is hardly anyone's idea of a political "money shot"; it's a tactical victory, albeit an important one, and given the massive shitshow we've been subjected to for the past two months, we'll take those victories - big or little - where ever they may come. And for the people paying attention, we know there are a lot more of these God-awful bills coming down the pipeline, but failing to pass the AHCA puts a huge obstacle in front of SCROTUS and the GOP, because they were depending on that Trillion-dollars in cost-cutting from gutting Medicaid to provide a huge portion of their upcoming tax "reform". With that now off the table, their job of transferring even more wealth to the 1% becomes just that much harder, but we still need to continue to fight to oppose that, and every other piece of crap legislation they're going to throw at us.
6
@5,

I know he was into piss play. Didn't realize he was also into scat.

I guess that explains the hair, huh?
7
Meanwhile Democrat side with the masses railing over what they are against without articulating what they are FOR.
8
Pramlia is such a precious clueless little twit.
This was a crap bill that wasn't going to fix anything.
Trump dodged a bullet by it failing.

This will allow another year for the decomposing corpse of ObamaCare to stink up the political landscape, and give the GOP another issue in the midterms.
By then how many counties will only have one (or none) insurance carrier?
How many state exchanges will have gone belly-up?
How much higher will the premiums of average Americans have gone up?

The Democraps have been having so much fun resisting they may have forgotten just.how.shitty.ObamaCare is.
They disgruntled disgusted American voters will soon remind them.

9
@8 - Are you trying to be a caricature of something? Because it's working if you are.
--
Also, it's not Trumpcare, it's Trumpcaren't.
10
@8 - Are you in favor of single-payer health care?
11
"It was a huge victory for organizing and for the American people."
I disagree. Although I appreciate all the organizing and public dissent, which certainly raised the public profile of the issue (and made life difficult for lots of repubs at their town halls), it was really the far-right republicans that we need to thank. According to the NYT, the 33 members announced in opposition included 10 moderates, 8 "others", and 15 hard-liners of the freedom caucus. If those 15 hard-liners weren't so all-or-nothing in their resistance, the bill would have PASSED. The really appalling takeaway is that IN SPITE of all the town hall outcry, only 18 representatives (the moderates and "others") were actually opposed on-the-record. That's really depressing...
12
@9,

I am, even if s/he isn't.

The ACA is a flawed document. It fails to deliver reduced costs because it relies entirely on the free market fantasies of the Wall Street elite.

The federal government has mandated that everyone must purchase a product from one of a handful of corporations. From the corporate point-of-view, there is no reason to lower costs. In fact, there is a strong benefit to collusion with the intent to raise costs. Since the pool of competitors is limited, and every one of those competitors is in it for the same reason- to extract maximum profits- all players in the game are going to do two things: 1) reduce the money they expend on a per-client basis, and 2) increase the amount they can charge. That means less services for more cost to the consumer.

There is no public option in the law. Joe Liberian and Max Baucus refused to vote for it unless we cut that provision out. Had there been a PO, the federal government would have entered the game as a player without a profit motive. Lacking that motivation, the PO would have played by fundamentally different rules than the other participants, and therefore been able to resist collusion and price-fixing. That competition could have provided something the private insurers would have to compete against, and therefore offer more for less.

The best option of them all is Universal Single Payer. Creating a universal risk pool reduces the risk per person, and therefore the cost of insuring each individual. There's a massive healthy worker population in the US- even moreso if we loosen restrictions on immigration. That means a lot more people would pay into a universal risk pool than would take from it. That's how you pull down costs.

The free market is all about profit for the investors, and has nothing to do with improved quality or reduced rates for the consumer. If the goal is to provide a public benefit, you can't hand that off to Wall Street and expect good results. That would be like privatizing the police force or the military or the fire department, or any other public benefit. Imagine having to pay the cops if you wanted to report a crime, or having to buy a subscription to a fire department. Or the military.

13
And this was not a victory for 'organizing' or the Democraps,
who remain merely loud unruly spectators in the cheap seats.
This was a victory for a handful of Conservative congressmen.
It will be interesting to see how The Dealmaker relates to these folks going forward.
Democraps could have been at the table but they chose their usual meaningless theatrics instead.
14
@13: Absolutely, it is absolutely essential to revamp the ACA or kill it and start anew. Unless you're poor enough to qualify for a decent subsidy, it's as unaffordable as an extended Cobra plan. The ACA is a nightmare for anyone between contracts, like I was, or otherwise self employed.

In addition it is reprehensible that many businesses are limiting their staff to 49 employees because of the threshold of tax consequences imposed by ruthless government overreach. Not to mention the micromanaging of physicians so much much that it ruins their passion for the profession.

In addition, the next bill must have serious tort reform.
15
#4 With all due respect, the longer the post, the less we read.
16
@15,

I couldn't care less if you read or don't. None of this is for your benefit. I write for my own pleasure.
18
@16:

In that case, why bother putting it on a public forum at all? Why not just keep it on your own device?
19
@18: Because some think it's a good read. I enjoy his lengthy posts from time to time. What, you think the pixies are better occupied by a run of snippy and snarky comments?

20
@18,

Because I fucking feel like it, thats why.
21
@12 - You are right on all that. is the crux of the issue: The 'free-market' can't solve core public needs. And is hardly efficient if it tries. The 'free-market' will never solve poverty. There's no money in it.