Democrats turn tables on GOP in ObamaCare messaging war

Democrats turn tables on GOP in ObamaCare messaging war
By Nathaniel Weixel - 05-07-17 07:30 AM EDT

Democrats have assailed the way House Republicans handled repealing and replacing ObamaCare, describing the legislative process as a sham.

For Republicans, much of the criticism should have a familiar ring, as it echoes the attacks that the GOP leveled against Democrats in 2009 and 2010 during the Affordable Care Act (ACA) debate.

Republicans rode a wave of anger over ObamaCare to electoral victory in 2010, and they haven't relinquished their House majority since. Now, Democrats have been using the GOP's own playbook against them.

Democrats "can start the ads now," said Julius Hobson, an attorney and former lobbyist with the American Medical Association. "Now you get to attack every GOP House member and say he or she was the margin of victory to take away your healthcare benefits," just like the Republicans did when ObamaCare passed.

Accusations of hypocrisy flew fast and heavy from Democrats this week, as the House passed an ObamaCare repeal bill after struggling with the contents for more than two months.

The bill was passed without an updated score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan scorekeeper of legislation, and lawmakers had little time to review the updated text before the floor vote.

Republicans "got [the bill] out of the House, albeit by a narrow margin, but they violated every norm and pledge about how to get legislation through the House" that they've made, said Jim Manley, a former spokesman for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

During the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of rushing a massive bill through Congress without knowing what was in it or how much it would cost.

Those criticisms came from none other than Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), now the Speaker of the House.

"Before members even had time to read the 1,000-page bill, it already has cleared two major House committees," Ryan wrote in a 2009 op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "Those members of Congress who voted for this bill already in their committees did so without knowing what the legislation costs."

House Republicans reject accusations they've rushed the bill.

"We've been talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare for seven years. That's the first time that I've had anybody say that we rushed anything," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday.

Democrats railed against Republicans this week for passing the healthcare bill without an updated CBO score.

On March 18, 2010 - three days before the final ACA vote in the House - the official Twitter account of the House GOP asked, "Will Speaker Pelosi 'Wait for the Final Number' from the CBO?" The score was released that day.

The GOP legislation, known as the American Health Care Act, would allow states to opt out of covering ObamaCare provisions preventing insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandating minimum insurance coverage requirements so long as high-risk pools are offered.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted the bill would actually "strengthen" coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, though he added it is "literally impossible" to predict the effects of the bill.

After the House passed the bill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said "forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that the Republicans are afraid of the facts."

The CBO hasn't analyzed any aspects of the bill since it was pulled from the floor in March. The agency at that time determined that 24 million people would lose insurance coverage over 10 years if the legislation passed.

Another popular claim from Republicans was that ObamaCare was negotiated and passed in the dead of night, behind closed doors and without one Republican vote. Democrats can counter they held numerous hearings, town halls and industry listening sessions.

The House GOP worked for seven years to repeal the ACA, but held just two marathon markups of the bill that they passed last week, along with a quick session at the Budget Committee.

Republicans might also recognize the impassioned floor speech Pelosi made just moments before the vote on Thursday.

In a back-and-forth with Democrats, Pelosi echoed the infamous "hell no" speech given by then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) moments before the 2010 House vote on ObamaCare.

"I'm sure somewhere Boehner was hoisting a glass of his favorite red wine and laughing," Hobson said. "If you stay in this business long enough, you'll see the roles reverse."

Why the GOP's "Repeal and Replace" Bill (AHCA) Is *Worse* than Obamacare [Reason Podcast]

reason.com  |1 hour ago

In a new Reason Podcast, Reason's Peter Suderman tells Nick Gillespie why The American Health Care Act (AHCA) not only fails to really "repeal and replace" Obamcare but actually makes the system even worse.

Indeed, the AHCA, which passed by four votes on a strictly party-line vote, locks in Obamacare's system of tax subsidies and while it ends the loathsome individual mandate, it effectively replaces it with an equally ineffective and distortive penalty for failing to maintain constant coverage. The AHCA is also a disaster in terms of process: The GOP House majority rushed it throughout with waiting for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score its costs and benefits. Taking a page from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Paul Ryan forced a vote despite a number of members saying they had not had time to read the lengthy legislation.

Suderman also explains the steps that need to be taken in order to start building a truly market-oriented health-care and medical-insurance system.

Produced by Ian Keyser.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

War with North Korea: the Toll

J. Robert Smith

Rising tensions and possible war with North Korea have been in the news for weeks. Less reported on would be a war's toll. War on the Korean peninsula would feature technology-juiced conventional and asymmetric fighting. Destruction and casualties would tally quickly. That's military and civilian -- U.S., Korean, and possibly Japanese. Modern warfare's lethality needs to be understood. If a nation goes to war, it needs to go with its eyes wide open. 

Let's establish this first. President Trump has every right to worry about Kim Jong-un's efforts to develop ballistic missiles capability. Outgoing president Barack Obama warned Trump about the threat. Trump has clearly learned a lot more since.

Reported BBC News:

North Korea's latest efforts appear focused on building reliable long-range missiles, which may have the potential to reach the mainland United States.

Two types of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) known as the KN-08 and KN-14, have been observed at various military parades since 2012.

Carried and launched from the back of a modified truck, the three-stage KN-08 is believed to have a range of about 11,500km.

The KN-14 appears to be a two-stage missile, with a possible range of around 10,000km.

War scenarios have the U.S. launching a preventive strike against the North. The principal aim would be to "decapitate" the Hermit Kingdom's leadership. Simultaneously, the U.S. would go after Kim's nuclear sites. Attacks would target the North's military chain of command and seek to disrupt -- if not shut down -- communications and stymie the Korean People's Army's (KPA) movement. U.S. and South Korean (ROK) forces would act to neutralize KPA's forces massed along the DMZ.

A first strike against the North would be a coordinated mix of conventional warfare (primarily cruise missiles and fighter aircraft), special forces and covert operations, and cyberattacks. It's "shock and awe," with more hoped-for finality. If it worked as planned, the war would practically end before it started.

It's high stakes. A first strike is unambiguous. Short of killing Kim and the North Korean elites outright, they'd get that it was death match. War with the U.S. and the South would mean inevitable defeat for the North's elite. That's the makings of desperation.

What we know about wars is that they rarely go as planned. The KPA isn't Saddam's army. It isn't the Taliban. They're generally well equipped, rigorously trained, and appear motivated – via fear and special status -- to fight. (North Korea's military is ranked 23 out of 126 by globalfirepower.com.) The North has concentrated forces and thousands of artillery pieces in the hills just north of the DMZ to strike Seoul. Seoul's a mere 30 miles from the DMZ.

Metro Seoul's population is 25 million. In the opening phase of a war, the North would unleash thousands of rounds of artillery fire. Or intend to. It's speculated that much of that artillery is outdated, and munitions may be poor, too. But that's based on documents "leaked" from the North. They may be disinformation. But it's a numbers game, anyway. 

With thousands of artillery pieces, what portion would have to be operational to wreak havoc on Seoul? From the Washington Post:

The Second Corps of the Korean People's Army stationed at Kaesong on the northern side of the DMZ has about 500 artillery pieces, [analyst] Bermudez said. And this is just one army corps; similar corps are on either side of it.

All the artillery pieces in the Second Corps can reach the northern outskirts of Seoul, just 30 miles from the DMZ, but the largest projectiles could fly to the south of the capital.

How quickly could the U.S. and ROK make headway in destroying functioning artillery? Not overnight. How much time would KPA firepower have to attack Seoul? Add to the mix the North's chemical and biological munitions stockpile.

The North has agents deployed throughout Seoul Metro. They would act as saboteurs, yes, but they'd target leaders to kill. Soft civilian targets would be in their crosshairs too.

The North has 180,000 commandos. Per the Washington Post:

"Strategic SOF [Special Operations Force] units dispersed across North Korea appear designed for rapid offensive operations, internal defense against foreign attacks, or limited attacks against vulnerable targets in the ROK [Republic of Korea] as part of a coercive diplomacy effort," the report said. "They operate in specialized units, including reconnaissance, airborne and seaborne insertion, commandos, and other specialties. All emphasize speed of movement and surprise attack to accomplish their missions."

The U.S. has 23,500 stationed in the South. Thousands of U.S. troops are deployed along the DMZ, serving as a tripwire. In the opening days, U.S. causalities would be significant. Rolling up the KPA would mean advancing up the Peninsula toward the Chinese and Russian borders. Fighting would be fierce. Much of the Korean peninsula features hills, mountains, and valleys. It's suitable terrain for resistance warfare. 

As for the Chinese and Russians, military intervention is unlikely, for obvious and complicated reasons. The Russians don't have a history of direct military confrontation with the U.S. Berlin and Cuba saw tensions resolved without conflict. The Russians were glad to equip and arm the North Vietnamese communists, but not to do the fighting.

For the PRC, the early 1950s are long gone. Mao certainly tipped the balance for the North Korean communists in the Korean War. U.S. and allied forces had all but won the fight when Chinese intervention led to a stalemate.

Modern China's economic health is tied to manufacturing and global trade, much of it with the U.S. The PRC seeks broad hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. Xi Jingping and Trump may have come to an accord over what to do about the North in hopes of avoiding war. Certainly, Pyongyang is unhappy with the Chinese, lashing out at Beijing for its "lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S." 

War and the North's defeat would push refugee hordes into China. Managing a refugee crisis isn't something China wants. Nor does the PRC want U.S. and ROK troops perched on the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. For that matter, Putin wouldn't care for the U.S. to be nearer Vladivostok. Avoiding conflict better serves China's interests.

There's no question that Kim Jong-un is ruthless, but is he suicidal? Like a poker player, Kim could keep his nuke card in hand, threatening to play it to wring concessions. Kim's father and grandfather were masters at bellicosity and exacerbating tensions to leverage aid and economic help.

A White House official is worried about nuclear blackmail, as Fox News reported:

North Korea's nuclear weapons development could be used as "blackmail" to influence the U.S. to abandon its ally in South Korea in order to make it easier for Pyongyang to overtake its archrival, a White House official [Mark Pottinger] said Tuesday.

Would a future U.S. president abandon South Korea in the face of nuclear blackmail? Who knows if Kim's successor would be ruthless and rational? Even rational men miscalculate. Is conventional war now, even with its high price, better than war tomorrow, with nukes in the mix?

Trump is weighing a lot. War, and its consequences, carries the greatest weight.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

Feinstein: We Have Zero Evidence Of Russian Collusion During 2016 Campaign

Matt Vespa

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that there is no definitive proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have also said they don’t expect to find any evidence of collusion. Now, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, ventured over to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia for a briefing concerning their probe into the allegations.

“You don’t have to provides us with any classified information, Senator, but do you believe—do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blizter.

“Not at this time,” replied Feinstein.

So, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re probably not going to find any evidence. Every development with this story has gone nowhere. We have an unsubstantiated dossier compiled by a former MI6 operative, Christopher Steele, who has admitted that portions of it are unverified. The only thing that CNN can corroborate is that Russian officials spoke to other Russians, but we don’t know what they talked about. The New York Times reported that Trump officials had contact with Russian intelligence officials a year prior to the election, but that was due to business interests. The Times added that doing business in Russia involves interacting with its intelligence apparatus, so nothing new, nothing illegal, and no evidence of collusion. 

Still, we’re going to keep chasing phantoms because Democrats can’t get over the fact that Clinton lost in the election.

Oh God: Clinton To Launch New Super PAC To Help 2018 Candidates, Organizations Opposed To Trump

Matt Vespa

Hillary Clinton is out of the bunker and now part of the resistance. This was inevitable. Clinton lost the 2016 election, she just cannot move on from it, and now will continue to try and influence Democratic politics even though many just want her to go away. Regardless, now that she’s out of the woods, Clinton will be eliciting the help of her former chief development officer at the Clinton Foundation to find donors for her new super PAC that will start out helping organizations fighting the Trump agenda. Eventually it will put to work to assist candidates for the 2018 midterms. The PAC will be called Onward Together (via Politico):

The former secretary of state is building a new political group to fund organizations working on the resistance to President Donald Trump’s agenda, spending recent weeks in Washington, New York City, and Chappaqua, N.Y., meeting with donors and potential groups to invest in, and recruiting individuals for the group’s board of directors, multiple people close to the two-time White House hopeful and people familiar with the group’s planning told POLITICO.

She is looking to launch the group, expected to be called Onward Together — a nod to her campaign slogan, Stronger Together — as soon as next week, they say. Clinton’s spokesman declined to comment for this story.

Clinton has been working with Dennis Cheng, her campaign’s finance director who was previously the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, to bring donors into the fold.

Clinton made it know that she was part of the resistance during the Women for Women International luncheon in New York City on Tuesday. The former first lady and two-time presidential loser spoke with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour during the event, where she said (once again) that FBI Director James Comey and the Russians cost her the election. Clinton also plans to write a memoir, which will include the 2016 election. She said she plans to detail the various flaws that sunk her campaign. For Clintonites, they’re going to eat this up. For others frustrated over her campaign and distraught over Trump’s victory, they really, really want her to shut up and go home.

Former Trump Aide Calls Russia Probe ‘Comically Fake

Former Trump Aide Calls Russia Probe ‘Comically Fake’

The Stream - Saturday May 6, 2017

by Deb Riechmann

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate committee investigating Moscow’s interference in last year’s election has asked several of President Donald Trump’s associates to turn over information about possible contacts with Russian officials or businessmen. Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page responded on Friday, calling the congressional probe a “comically fake inquiry” but pledging to cooperate.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Republican strategist Roger Stone and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort are also among those the Senate intelligence committee has asked for information and documents related to its investigation.

Both the Senate and House intelligence panels along with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are investigating alleged Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. FBI Director James Comey has said that the FBI probe is exploring the nature of any links between individuals associated with Trump’s campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between Russia’s efforts and the Trump campaign.

The Senate committee would not disclose which individuals it is targeting, but in an email to The Associated Press, Stone said he intended to comply with the committee’s requests.

“I am eager, indeed anxious, to testify in full public session, have requested no immunity and am ready to go,” Stone wrote. He also said that he “rejects” the claim that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0, the unnamed hacker that has taken credit for breaking into the Democratic National Committee servers, are Russian assets. He said the U.S. government has offered no proof to support that assessment.

Stone communicated through Twitter direct messages with Guccifer 2.0. Stone has said that he was unaware at the time that U.S. officials believed the hacker had ties to Russia.

The letters the committee sent to Stone and Page, which were shared with the AP on Friday, were virtually identical. The committee asked them to provide emails, text messages, letters, phone records or any other relevant information they have about meetings or contacts that they or any other individual affiliated with the Trump campaign had with Russian officials or representatives of Russian business interests.

The requests seek information about any contacts that occurred between the day Trump announced his candidacy, June 16, 2015, and his inauguration on Jan. 20. It also asks for information about Stone and Page’s financial and real estate holdings related to Russia, including financial securities or holdings they might have sold or divested during that period.

In a written response to the committee’s request, Page argued that the panel was conducting a “comically fake inquiry.” At the same time, Page pledged to cooperate with the committee to “help resolve all of the false allegations which led to this fanciful witch hunt in the first place.”

The committee also asks that Page and Stone appear for closed interviews with intelligence committee staff. Lawmakers set a May 9 and May 19 deadline for various materials to be provided to the committee.

Page told the committee that the material he has will be “minuscule in comparison to the full database of information” the Obama administration collected during “last year’s completely unjustified” secret warrant. Page said law enforcement officials under the Obama administration obtained a sealed order from a secretive intelligence court last summer to monitor his communications to investigate whether he was acting as a Russian agent.

Page said the warrant put him under “unscrupulous surveillance for many months” and targeted him for exercising his First Amendment rights both in 2016 and earlier.

Page met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2013 and provided him documents about the energy industry, according to court documents from a 2015 prosecution alleging a Cold War-style spy ring in New York. Page, referred to in the filing as “Male-1,” is not accused of wrongdoing and said in a statement that he shared “basic immaterial information and publicly available research documents.”

Little is known about Page’s role in Trump’s campaign.

In March, Trump personally announced that Page was part of a newly minted foreign policy advisory team. But as questions began swirling about Page’s ties to Russia, the campaign started moving away from the investment banker. Trump has since said he has no relationship with him.

“I originally joined the Trump movement and eventually volunteered for a small, unpaid, informal role in the campaign since I knew our candidate would finally help lead this country and the world toward peace through strength,” Page said in his letter to the committee.

Flynn, Trump’s ousted national security adviser, also received a letter from the committee asking him to turn over information. A person with direct knowledge of the letter’s contents confirmed Flynn received it. The person demanded anonymity to discuss the information because of its sensitive nature.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, declined to confirm whether Manafort had received a letter from the Senate committee, but a person with knowledge of the letter said he had. The person was not authorized to talk about the letter and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Lawmakers have said previously that Manafort had voluntarily offered to be interviewed by the House and Senate intelligence committees as part of their investigations.

In March, Manafort confirmed in a statement that his attorney had reached out to the House committee with an “offer to provide information voluntarily regarding recent allegations about Russian interference in the election.”

___

Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Eileen Sullivan and Chad Day contributed to this report.

 

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read More Here

GOP rep: ‘Nobody dies because they don’t have access to healthcare’

GOP rep: ‘Nobody dies because they don’t have access to healthcare’ 
By Elliot Smilowitz - 05-06-17 07:43 AM EDT

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) drew intense jeers at a town hall Friday when he defended the GOP's ObamaCare repeal plan by claiming nobody dies due to lack of access to health care.

One day after the House passed the American Health Care Act, Labrador faced off with constituents at a town hall at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho, according to the Idaho Statesman.

One woman stood up and said the GOP bill, which makes major cuts to Medicaid, was essentially telling people to die.

"That line is so indefensible," Labrador shot back. "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

His response immediately drew boos and quickly drew attention on social media.

Labrador was similarly criticized at another town hall last month, when he said healthcare is not a "basic human right."