Tag: donald trump
As Insurance Costs Surge, GOP No Longer Pretends To Support Universal Coverage

As Insurance Costs Surge, GOP No Longer Pretends To Support Universal Coverage

The Trump administration’s wrecking ball has succeeded in shattering one of the core beliefs of centrist health care reformers, which states: Incremental reforms will eventually lead the U.S. to the promised land of health insurance for all—something most advanced industrial nations achieved more than 75 years ago.

Even many Republicans once signed onto the gradualist approach to achieving the goal of universal coverage. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon proposed covering everyone through insurance industry-managed plans. In the 1990s, a Republican-controlled Congress authorized universal coverage for children. Even President Trump in 2017 vowed to replace Obama’s Affordable Care Act with a new plan that would provide “insurance for everyone.” Ultimately, he failed to either release a plan or repeal Obamacare.

But now, for the first time in its history, the U.S. is making a sharp U-turn on the long road to health care for all. The GOP not even pretending that universal coverage is a desirable national goal. It is deliberately raising the ranks of the uninsured.

The One Big Ugly (not Beautiful) Bill signed by the president last July will drive an estimated 17 million people from the insurance rolls by 2034, according to KFF. More than two-thirds of those losses will come from cuts to Medicaid. Half those cuts, which establish bureaucratic roadblocks for obtaining coverage, won’t be reversed even if the Democrats succeed in forcing concessions from the majority party during the shutdown negotiations, which are still underway as of this writing.

Thanks to legislation Democrats passed during Joe Biden’s administration, the national uninsured rate fell last year to 8 percent, which is within hailing distance of universal coverage (generally considered to be five percent or less). Some states are already below that threshold, which might have occurred nationally had not ten Republican-run states, including populous Texas (still 16.4 percent uninsured) and Florida (10.9 percent), refused to expand Medicaid to cover the working poor. That overall rate is certain to rise next year and for the rest of this decade. If no changes are made, it will soar into the mid-teens, nearly to the levels seen before the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.

Universal coverage doesn’t guarantee Americans will enjoy better health. Nor does it ensure health care will be affordable. However, it is inconceivable that either of those goals can be achieved without universal coverage, which is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for addressing the long-term health care cost crisis affecting most American households.

Step by step

The incrementalist strategy emerged in the wake of President Harry Truman’s failed attempt after World War II to implement a government-run, universal health insurance plan, similar to those adopted by many European countries. Opposition from the American Medical Association, labor unions with their newly negotiated employer-based plans, and a burgeoning health insurance industry doomed the bill.

But calls for universal coverage never ceased. A decade-and-a-half later, with the White House and Congress in Democratic hands after Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 landslide, the government created Medicare and Medicaid for the old, disabled, and poor. In 1997, after the Bill Clinton administration’s significant push for universal coverage failed, a Republican-led Congress included a separate plan for uninsured children in the Balanced Budget Act.

Then, in 2010, with Barack Obama in the White House and the country reeling from the Great Recession, a Democratic Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It created a subsidized individual market for those without employer coverage; expanded Medicaid to include individuals and families earning up to 137 percent of the poverty level; and began experimenting with a host of delivery system reforms to hold down costs.

However, cost-saving measures cannot be effective unless everyone is in the insurance pool. Uninsured individuals often postpone necessary but non-emergency care. When they become so sick that they must seek care, they show up in emergency rooms, where care is the most expensive, and where their outcomes are usually worse because they waited too long. For their troubles, they are often saddled with unpaid debts.

More uninsured hurts everyone

The dysfunction wrought by a growing pool of uninsured people affects everyone’s pocketbook. Providers and insurers use the uninsured’s unpaid bills as an excuse to pass along those expenses in the form of higher prices to the privately insured, who already pay 2 ½ times what Medicare recipients pay on average. This results in not just more expensive plans for employers (the median family plan cost a staggering $27,000 in 2025), but higher co-premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for their employees, whose share of the total cost of “employer-financed” care has hovered between 25 and 30 percent for decades. (I put scare quotes around “employer-financed” because employer contributions are a tax-deductible business expense that otherwise would go to workers as wages if it weren’t spent on benefits.)

Universal coverage doesn’t guarantee that health care will become more affordable for everyone. But it reduces the level of more expensive, uncompensated care in the system, which is necessary to lower prices for everyone, including private insurers and their employer customers. Universal coverage is a crucial prerequisite for achieving more affordable health care.

Yet now, under Trump and a supine Republican Congress, America is deliberately reducing the ranks of the insured. The process has already begun. Premiums for individual plans being sold on the exchanges for next year are soaring due to the expiration of enhanced subsidies, which will discourage many people from buying plans.

Though the bill’s new Medicaid work requirements were postponed until after the 2026 mid-term elections to hide their full effects from voters, states were given the green light to begin enforcing twice-annual recertification requirements. Many red states are already moving to do that, as well as cut their Medicaid spending in response to the cutbacks in federal support for the joint federal-state program. Millions of low-wage workers will start losing their Medicaid coverage next year, not because they aren’t working, but because they become frustrated by the paperwork requirements set up by hostile bureaucrats beholden to their Republican overlords.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are singularly focused on maintaining the enhanced subsidies and restoring the cuts in Medicaid financing. That means the work requirements and other bureaucratic roadblocks will remain because they can’t be addressed in a reconciliation bill. No matter how the shutdown is resolved, a sharp decline in both coverage and access is inevitable.

That will financially harm almost everyone covered by employer-sponsored plans. This year, those rates soared at twice the inflation rate on average, according to the annual KFF employer survey of just under 1,300 firms. Mercer, a leading benefits consulting firm, says rates will rise by a similar level next year. Plan structures will undoubtedly include higher co-payments, higher deductibles, and higher co-premiums for workers and their families.

No matter how the government shutdown is resolved, the health care affordability crisis, exacerbated by the historic GOP U-turn on universal coverage, will remain a salient issue during next year’s House and Senate campaigns. The only question is whether Democrats will be able to take advantage by offering a program that addresses voters’ number one concern when it comes to health care.

This story first appeared on the Washington Monthly website.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health care and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News


'Sandwich Guy' Triumphs Over Ham-Fisted Jeanine Pirro As Jury Acquits Him

'Sandwich Guy' Triumphs Over Ham-Fisted Jeanine Pirro As Jury Acquits Him

Sean C. Dunn, affectionately nicknamed the “Sandwich Guy” after lobbing his Subway footlong at a Border Patrol officer, will not spend time behind bars after a jury acquitted the Air Force veteran on Thursday of misdemeanor assault charges.

If there is anyone who will be hanging their head and calling this outcome baloney, it’s U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro. The perpetually angry former Fox News host has been carrying out a failed vendetta against protesters like Dunn who have stood up to President Donald Trump’s bogus federal takeover of the nation’s capital.

After people took to the streets in August to protest Trump’s decision to send ICE, Border Patrol, and the National Guard to police the so-called crime-ridden city, Pirro vowed to pursue maximum sentences against those arrested.

She’s been having a hard go at doing exactly what she was hired to do, and Dunn’s case is another example of that.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the meaty moments that emerged from the trial.

“The sandwich kind of exploded all over my uniform,” Border Patrol Officer Gregory Lairmore testified on Tuesday. “It smelled of onions and mustard.”

During the trial, prosecutors tried to convince the jury that Dunn’s dinner delivery to Lairmore’s bulletproof-vest-clad chest was a violent attack.

But the defense didn’t buy the sob story, pointing out the sandwich-themed memorabilia Lairmore displayed in his office following the incident.

“If that vest ... is going to keep you safe from military rifle fire, it is certainly going to keep you safe from a sandwich,” attorney Sabrina Shroff said.

And of course, despite the man who got pelted by some pastrami finding humor in it all, Dunn—who worked as a paralegal with the Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department’s criminal division—was fired from his job.

While Dunn’s days at the DOJ under this administration might be toast, his action became a symbol for the resistance against Trump’s invasion of blue cities.

From sandwich-lobbing to the Portland frog, these jokesters are bringing humorous attention to some serious issues in the U.S.

And while we can laugh, the meat of the matter is that people are enraged and concerned about the Trump administration’s heinous treatment of immigrants, their disappearances, and the use of military and masked federal forces against the people protesting these travesties.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

How Tucker Carlson Is Dragging J.D. Vance Down Into The Neo-Nazi Fever Swamp

How Tucker Carlson Is Dragging J.D. Vance Down Into The Neo-Nazi Fever Swamp

Before Fox News fired him, Tucker Carlson was among the most influential figure on the right-wing cable news outlet. Carlson had so much power on the right that when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said something that offended him, the GOP senator made a beeline for his show to smooth things over.

Although Carlson, post-Fox News, doesn't have as much power as he did in the past, he still has plenty of followers on the far right

According to journalist/author Jamie Kirchick, Carlson is promoting a great deal of infighting among MAGA Republicans. And one MAGA Republican who has the most to lose, Kirchick reports, is Vice President JD Vance.

In an article published by the Washington Post, Kirchick highlights Carlson's friendly relationship with Nick Fuentes — a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who, in 2024, attacked Vance for being married to an Indian-American woman, attorney JD Vance.

"Ironically, the politician Carlson is harming most with his antics is the person he wants to succeed Trump: Vice President JD Vance," Kirchick explains. "Carlson, who praised Vance in his discussion with Fuentes as one of the very few people on the right who shares his foreign policy views, reportedly played a decisive role in convincing Trump to name Vance as his running mate. Vance, who has since employed Carlson's son as his deputy press secretary, invited Carlson to the White House when he guest-hosted the Charlie Kirk Show following the assassination of its eponymous host. Having benefited from Carlson's scorched-earth campaign against 'the neoconservatives,' Vance now appears stuck with Carlson's antisemitic, conspiratorial, anti-American baggage whether he likes it or not.".

Kirchick continues, "Thus far, Vance has done nothing to distance himself from this kind of politics. When Politico exposed racist and antisemitic text messages sent by members of Young Republican clubs last month, the vice president forgivingly characterized the appalling behavior of these 20- and 30-somethings as “what kids do.” A more disturbing incident occurred last week, when Vance responded to a question from a student at the University of Mississippi. Sounding very much like one of Fuentes' 'groyper' followers, the young man in a MAGA hat asked Vance why the U.S. supports Israel “considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution (sic) of ours.”

According to Kirchick, Carlson is fueling — not discouraging — the civil war among MAGA Republicans.

"The inevitable fracturing of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement is in sight, the instigator of its rupture that most narcissistic and destructive of media personalities: Tucker Carlson," Kirchick reports. "Since his firing from Fox News two years ago, Carlson has turned his podcast into a weekly circus featuring guests such as rancid conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Russian despot Vladimir Putin and Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust denier who claims Winston Churchill was the villain of World War 2 and whom Carlson praises as 'the most important historian in the United States.' Carlson’s approach with his guests is not that of a skeptical interlocutor, prodding their arguments for weaknesses, but rather, that of a reputation-launderer making reprehensible ideas respectable for mainstream conservative consumption. Even Trump calls Carlson 'kooky.'"

Trump is cracking down on large universities over protests against Israeli operations in Gaza — protests he attacks as antisemitic. Yet a prominent figure in the MAGA movement is Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and Holocaust denier who often criticizes other MAGA figures for not being far-right enough.

"It was only a matter of time, then, that Carlson would invite Nick Fuentes up to his Maine cabin home studio for a chummy colloquy last week in which the self-professed Hitler and Stalin admirer ranted about 'neocon Jewish types behind the Iraq War,' 'organized Jewry,' 'Zionist Jews.… controlling the media apparatus,' and 'the historic animosity between the Jewish people and the Europeans,'" Kirchick explains. "The furthest Carlson went in rebuking Fuentes was to offer the friendly advice that he refrain from condemning 'the Jews' per se, because 'going on about the Jews helps the neocons.' Otherwise, the two were simpatico, particularly on the subject of Christian Zionists, who, Carlson said, have been 'seized by this brain virus.'"

Kirchick adds, "Carlson's jovial exchange with Fuentes naturally stirred controversy, particularly within the conservative movement, which many pro-Israel Christians call home. So intense was the anger that the Heritage Foundation removed Carlson's name from a donation page on its website. The scrubbing must have been unauthorized, however, because the following day, Heritage President Kevin Roberts released a defiant video reaffirming the organization's relationship with Carlson."

According to Kirchick, arguments over antisemitism are only growing more intense in the MAGA movement.

"Finally, the battle lines are being drawn," Kirchick writes ". Earlier this week, Carlson said the controversy over his parley with Fuentes is really 'a fight over what happens after Donald Trump.' He's right."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Hannity's Campaign For New Jersey Republican Nominee Comes Up Way Short

Hannity's Campaign For New Jersey Republican Nominee Comes Up Way Short

It was a bad night for Sean Hannity.

By the time President Donald Trump’s chief on-air propagandist took over Fox News’ election coverage at 9 p.m. ET, it was already clear that Democrats were on pace to sweep races across the country. And in perhaps the ultimate indignity, it was left for him to announce that his network’s decision desk had called the New Jersey gubernatorial race for Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill over Jack Ciattarelli, a Trump-supporting Republican businessman whom Hannity had spent weeks trying to pull over the finish line.

Hannity revealed Fox’s projection for the race and noted that “the GOP had hoped that Ciattarelli could deliver an upset after a very close loss four years ago” before pivoting to what he termed the “math problem” for the party’s efforts to flip the state: According to Hannity, “nearly a quarter of a million people in New Jersey left that state” in recent years.

The Fox host repeatedly returned to that figure over the course of the broadcast, suggesting this posed an “overwhelming” hurdle for the GOP because “a great majority of those people are probably Republicans, probably seeking lower taxes, probably seeking law and order.” Per the Trump propagandist, Democrats should win such a “deep blue state” in a landslide, and “the fact that this is anywhere close in any way is fascinating to me.”

Hannity’s analysis has two fundamental problems.

First, New Jersey wasn’t “close in any way” — while the Republican pollsters Hannity hosted over the last month predicted a tight race, Sherrill ended up winning by a dominant 56 to 43 percent margin. By contrast, outgoing Gov. Philip Murphy beat Ciattarelli by only 51 to 48 percent in 2021. Indeed, Sherrill’s win was so large that even if all 250,000 people Hannity says left the state had remained, and voted as a block for Ciattarelli, he still would have lost — his deficit is currently more than 416,000 votes.

Second, Hannity had spent recent weeks urgently focusing the attention of his viewers on the New Jersey race; interviewing Ciattarelli several times to talk up his campaign; putting on a town hall for him last week that functioned as an on-air pep rally; and repeatedly hosting GOP pollsters who stressed that the race was very close and Republicans needed to get out and vote.

What a Trumpist zealot like Hannity cannot accept — and relate to his viewers — is the possibility that voters have soured on the president and are punishing Republicans up and down the ticket for his economic failures, corruption, malfeasance, and authoritarian conduct.

Hannity’s campaign to put Ciattarelli in the New Jersey statehouse

“New Jersey's gubernatorial race, it is heating up and heating up big time,” Hannity explained on his September 25 show. “Trump-endorsed Republican Jack Ciattarelli fights to turn New Jersey red. It looks like it is possible.”

Hyping an Emerson poll he said had the race in a “dead heat” and a new “bombshell” about Sherrill’s college days, Hannity told Ciattarelli that night that he planned to work to help him win his race.

“I told you the last time you were on, I'm not going to make the same mistake again,” the Fox host said. “I did not see how close it would be the last time you ran. You could have won if people paid more attention to it. I'm not making that mistake.”

“New Jersey is in play,” he concluded the interview. “We'll watch it closely. Thanks for being with us.”

Hannity again touted Ciattarelli’s chances while introducing him for an October 2 interview.

“The American public, they're fed up with the left and their antics and political stunts,” he explained. “And nowhere now is this more important than the great blue state of New Jersey. Democrats are in serious peril — this is real — of losing the gubernatorial race next month.”

“I just want to tell my friends in New Jersey, this is very real,” Hannity said at the end of the interview. “And I know other pollsters that are in the field that have you even up by one, but it's a very close race. It's a very blue state. The people of your state of New Jersey are fed up. This is a winnable race. It's going to be fun to watch.”

On October 16, Hannity brought on GOP pollsters Matt Towery of Insider Advantage and Trafalgar Group’s Robert Cahaly — credentialed by Hannity as “the guys I trust” — to discuss their new polls showing Ciattarelli trailing Sherrill by only one point and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger leading Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears by only two points in the Virginia gubernatorial race (Spanberger currently leads by 15 points with 95 percent of results in).

“In New Jersey, there's been a shift in politics in New Jersey,” Towery told Hannity’s audience. “The northern portion of New Jersey that used to be big-time Democrat is now more Republican. It's all — it's all flipped. … I happen to think New Jersey is exceptionally competitive. I think that race is closing very fast. ”

“I don't want to raise false hope in people but it seems — my interpretation of your polls, Matt Towery, is if people get out and vote in New Jersey, if they want change, they have a shot. In Virginia, they have a shot,” Hannity responded.

Towery and Cahaly returned to the program on October 30 as part of the full-hour town hall Hannity put on for Ciattarelli from the state. After declaring that “the enthusiasm is squarely behind Ciattarelli” and calling the race “tighter than ever,” Hannity touted them for having “nailed the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential election” and being “the first to pick up this race is way closer than anybody knows.” The pollsters, in turn, stressed that Ciattarelli’s victory was possible and that turnout would be crucial, as Fox’s chyron declared, “Polls Show Tight Race In New Jersey.”

The pair were back on Hannity’s show to give their final analysis on the eve of Election Day.

“New Jersey, there's a lot of energy up there,” Towery offered. “That's different than the rest of these races I'm looking at. There's a lot of energy and I think New Jersey could be a shocker tomorrow.”

If you had been getting your analysis of the race solely from Hannity and the Republican pollsters he offered up to his viewers, the results were, in fact, “a shocker.” But Ciattarelli’s crushing defeat doesn’t seem to have dissipated the Fox host’s confidence in Towery and Cahaly.

They were back on his show on Tuesday night to try to explain why a blue wave that they had apparently missed was cresting over the country, blaming the government shutdown and the need to figure out how to turn out Republican voters without Trump on the ballot. But while they found time to discuss Democratic wins in Virginia, New York City, and Georgia, New Jersey went curiously unmentioned.

At least they can take solace from the fact that the president was watching them tap-dance around his failures.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World