Something to Do With Ends and Means

 

The killer of the UHC CEO is apparently Luigi Mangione, although some people online have the idea that being caught with the weapon and fake ID of the shooter and carrying a three-page manifesto is a little too "on the nose".  I don't know what to tell you, folks. The above screen cap is his Twitter profile--he definitely did not have that many followers this morning!

I said the other day: 

I am a bit of a cynic at times, and we might find out that the killer is not actually a folk hero with a wronged loved one, bankrupted by medical bills or brought to an untimely end by denied claims. Some of the populist "death to the bloated ticks!" sentiment may be inauthentic (people do love a viral bandwagon).

The idea that a bright, promising young man was deranged by pain from a back surgery is appealing, but inapt. Many people experience pain and don't resort to violence. He deliberately chose a brutal, individualized solution to what could be potentially resolved by legal collective action based on the valorization of the man of action as a hero/martyr.

If he hoped through his actions to put the health care system on trial, the surprise is that he will be on trial for premeditated murder: full stop. 

Unauthorized Thoughts and Declined Prayers

 

Generally, when a stranger is murdered in cold blood, there's at least a muted "Damn shame!' sort of reaction. If a man with a family dies at the age of 50, why, you can certainly say "That's far too young, that poor man's family!" (Not that he was poor--unfortunate, but not poor.) You don't actually see people writing folk songs about the killer and posting them to social media, or see people back out of the search for the killer. 

What has happened, if one can at all "read the room", is that the murdered CEO has become a stand-in for a parasitical industry. Our health insurance system isn't a "health care system"--it's a promise to pay for protection. Some of your health care bill will be paid. Not all. Your course of treatment can be affected by your insurance company. 

This can and does result in bad (fatal or crippling) outcomes. Of course, people feel some way about that. 

And the result of that feeling may look very cold-blooded. It isn't. It's rather hot, actually.

TWGB: Here's to the Losers

 

Once upon a time, in a far-off land called TrumpWorld, a would-be king promised there would be "so much winning" that people would get bored of winning.  I still don't know what that means, and I've studied it like it was my job. It sounds like something a conman would say. But lately--there has not been a lot of winning. One term, two impeachments, three marriages, four indictments, five deferments, six bankruptcies  (six point drop after missing the first GOP primary 2024 debate), seven trials, probably going on eight (Arizona? Michigan?) or even nine. 

The losers for August 30th include Pete Navarro, who can't claim executive privilege that Trump didn't claim for him and will go to trial in a whole minute for contempt. He seems to have thought Trump won in 2020, (or alleged to), but the sign held up behind him reminds us Trump most certainly did not. And any rational person would realize that, by the utter lack of Trump in the White House right now. Navarro tried to wrest the sign away from the protester and was advised he was on camera and you know. 

Loser. 

Once Again, Not One Republican

 

Given the opportunity to participate in delivering an economic package that invests in preserving our climate, keeping health care costs affordable, ameliorating inflation and reducing the deficit, the House Republicans chose to say "Thanks, but no thanks." 

Here's what that means: they would have been in favor of higher insurance premiums. They would have been in favor of higher drug costs, especially for seniors. I've already explained what Senate Republicans shamefully did regarding failure to assist millions of Americans reliant on insulin to live.  The GOP preferred to lie about this bill over supporting a reduction in the deficit--that means they just aren't fiscally responsible. They don't care that this bill curbs inflation--they would rather we had runaway inflation, if it only meant they had a better electoral position. 

That's an astonishing disgrace, isn't it?  Depending upon what party is in power, you can't hardly rely on Republicans to ever do the right thing, they will just do the politically convenient thing. Take a look at  their old president, who they still support in rigid lockstep, as if unable to entertain what anyone with critical intelligence and a functioning ability to connect the dots would have realized--he's just not any good. 

They have done more to support Trump than they have done to support this country, in roughly the way Trump has done more to protect his tax returns than he has ever done for presidential records. 

They are a benighted and useless party, an infected appendix of the body politic. They need to be voted out before they become septic.  All the more reason for anyone who cares about the future to vote Democratic. 

Continuing, Resolutely

Consider me in the "not a cave" camp regarding the vote to end the government shutdown in exchange for six years of CHIP funding. a promise for a DACA debate, and the possibility of another shutdown.  The deal wasn't perfect--of course settling the situation of the Dreamers sooner rather than later would be better as the lives of hundreds of thousands are in the balance.  But Sen. McConnell already gave us a clue that that was not the binary choice Dems (and a handful of Republicans) were actually going to get. In the meanwhile, CHIP remained unfunded, and Sen. McConnell had blocked a bid to keep the military and other federal workers paid. Hostages were piling up.

It should be clear that, just as the party that has neither the majority in the House and Senate nor the Presidency is unlikely to be the main culprit in causing a government shutdown in the first place, that the party that does have those advantages is also responsible for determining what gets voted on. It should be obvious, but there is no counting on the media not to report this as a "both sides" problem. The framing coming from the White House and from Majority Leader McConnell presented the most negative light: Those liberals were ready to support illegal immigrants over American citizens. And sure--that's crap. Kids brought here when they were minors had no control over coming here, and are as American as anybody, except for the paperwork. But given enough time, and without the ability to easily reframe that debate, Dems were facing losing support for the trying to do what not only seems right but is actually popular.

The thing of it is, while DACA is popular, government shutdowns are not. So, I don't see this vote as a "cave" so much as choosing a different time and battlefield. Dems responsibly voted to end the shutdown. And if Mitch McConnell is a man of his word, he will allow a debate on DACA. He said so.

Now, that means an awful lot rides on the good word of Mitch McConnell. Senate colleague Bob Corker was optimistic:

Addressing questions about whether McConnell would stick to his word on DACA, Republican Sen. Bob Corker said, “He’s going to do it. He said he’s going to do it. I’ve never gotten any sense that he’s not going to do it."

Corker added that it would be an “affront” to a larger number of his colleagues if McConnell didn't keep his promise.

 (Wouldn't it just be an affront, now?) But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been luxuriating in his effrontery for some time, now. There was that thing about denying President Obama a hearing on his SCOTUS pick. There was giving assurances to Senator Collins and Senator Flake  for votes over things that did not come to pass. But what McConnell promised just now was public and maybe just a little harder to go back on. And in three weeks, if he was not a man of his word, he deserves to get well and truly dragged for his bullshit.

There's no guarantee that, even if a debate takes place, an acceptable bill will get passed by the House and Senate, what with the Freedom Caucus and all that. Or that a bill gets signed by President Trump, given who his particular base is, and all that. (There were no assurances this time around either, which makes me wonder what people think would have happened this go-around.) Our best option on a good DACA resolution would involve neither a Republican Senate, nor racist-ass Trump in the White House--and that takes elections. But the next time, the debate about immigration can't hide behind insurance coverage for kids. It rests on McConnell having the debate, and the spotlight being on what Republicans do with that debate.  All in an election year.

Trump Raises Novel Obamacare Questions

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump hit on a pretty good, or at least, reliable, Republican talking point by hitting on the news regarding expected premium rises on the ACA exchanges, but because Trump is Trump, he sort of had a message for the GOP faithful, but he eated it:

"I can say that all of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare," he said with scores of workers at the resort clustered behind him. "What they are going through with their health care is horrible because of Obamacare, so we'll repeal and replace it."

The statement raised several questions. Since the law requires any business with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance or pay a fine, why would "all" of Trump's employees be getting their insurance through Obamacare and having problems with it? Does he not provide health insurance?

Right. So he introduces people who he gives a paycheck to and has them freely and enthusiastically praise Great Leader Trump, and then sort of doesn't know whether in His Munificence he gives them healthcare or not, or whether they are at the mercy of a cruel and absurd iteration of Big Stupid Government. Way to go, you! So Trump has either revealed he does not exactly know what an Obamacare is or how it works, whilst simultaneously signaling he hasn't the shakiest consideration of what's up with his employees' pay-packet. (Does he know what his businesses do?) Maybe both. Or maybe he's just lying his face off about the whole shebang--let's face it, the joy of Trump is that he'll "keep you in suspense".

I dunno. Maybe it's just my relentless notion that politics should be about ideas, but isn't it kind of fuckery to make a speech about Obamacare in response to sort of bad news about how ACA premiums in fact are going up (albeit not in an unpredictable way, nor a way that wouldn't be a "tweak" as far as regulating the insurance companies goes--if you even think they need to have their asses regulated at all goes--and I say we sure do)--

But Trump didn't go after the policy argument. He just lets us understand he will take down the whole thing (which has increased the percentage of covered people in this country saving who all knows how many lives?) and replace it with something amazing to be determined later in probably a haphazard and dumb way like this hotel/destination advert pretending to be a political rally. Because his campaign is a dumpster fire, and his administration would not be better run, because why would he even bother?

I am so tired of this damn guy and his stuff.