The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate drug prices. I wouldn't be surprised after we get Medicare-for-all that lobbyists will manage to get laws passed preventing Medicare from negotiating anything.
gerritn said:Another good point. Once Medicare becomes Medicare-for-all, their negotiating position would be galactic.
Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.
Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html
It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.
I did not know that. That does not make sense at all.
tjohn said:
mtierney said:I am guessing that if I did some research, I would find that the concept of latch key kids has existed in financially stressed communities since forever.
it wasn’t factory or shift work back in the late ‘60s - ‘70s which triggered latch key kids in Maplewood as I recall.
Tbc
i did not intend to imply that the term was original to Maplewood!
There were kids back in the ‘40s in Brooklyn where I grew up who had their house key and skate key around their necks! I was a lucky kid — my parents ran a candy store and I just went there after school.
gerritn said:
BG9 said:I did not know that. That does not make sense at all.
drummerboy said:Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate drug prices. I wouldn't be surprised after we get Medicare-for-all that lobbyists will manage to get laws passed preventing Medicare from negotiating anything.
gerritn said:Another good point. Once Medicare becomes Medicare-for-all, their negotiating position would be galactic.
Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.
Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html
It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.
Of course it makes sense. You just have the wrong point of view. Suppose you are a politician desperate for donors and the drug companies explain to you why Medicare shouldn't be allowed to negotiate for the best prices...
So it's the 100th scandal about Scott Pruitt today. On a separate but related note, I don't know why Scott Pruitt reminds me of Heinrich Himmler.
Some good news for a change. Remember the kid from Iowa with 2 moms who spoke out in the Iowa legislature for same-sex marriage?
He ran for, and won, the Democratic primary in his district, and looks almost guaranteed to win against his Libertarian opponent, Carl Krambeck as an Iowa state senator. Mr Clinton, as author of a book of fiction, has reopened a whole nother can of worms..
What Bill Clinton Was Really Thinking
His book tour provided an important window into understanding an old man at a new moment - and revealed Clinton as painfully behind the times.
By JOHN F. HARRIS | 06/07/2018 05:33 AM EDT | Updated: 06/07/2018 11:36 AM EDT
Mary Altaffer/AP Photo
People say they want authenticity from politicians—just show us what you really feel—but when Bill Clinton gave it to them this week on the “Today“ show in his peevish interview about #MeToo and Monica Lewinsky, many viewers were aghast and indignantly demanded a show of artifice.
Clinton later complied, in part, uttering contrite words in what Stephen Colbert offered as a “do-over” interview. But the original display—defiant, self-justifying, “tone deaf,” in CNN’s description, a “meltdown” in the Washington Post’s—was the more important window into understanding an old man at a new moment.
Part of the “Today“ show interview revealed Clinton as painfully behind the times in his understanding of how recent events have changed the public conversation about sexuality, power and respect for women. He spoke accurately about the big personal and financial price he paid for his transgressions and sincerely (or so it seemed to me) about how badly he felt over his own lapses. But he gave no hint that he understood that what the modern audience is clamoring for is a sign that he understands the price other people paid for his behavior, including the woman who was an intern of 22 when they began their West Wing affair. He suggested a public apology to Lewinsky 20 years ago had paid that debt in full and declined even to speak her name.
That part of the interview obscured another part that was just as important. We can now see the Clinton of the 1990s as a man far ahead of his times. Whose side are you on—mine or the people who want to destroy me—was the question that Clinton asked to successful effect in 1998. And it is the same question Donald Trump has made the basis of his presidency 20 years later.
That year of scandal was not about rule of law, Clinton argued in 1998, and it was not even about sex. It was about the battle for power. He thought then and still thinks now that Democrats lose by too often acting as if the political-media-scandal complex is on the level when Republicans prove every day that it is not. How else to explain a party that piously said the Constitution gave it no choice but to pursue Clinton’s moral failings over sex and lies but is tolerant and even celebratory about Trump’s failings over sex and lies and tax returns and Russia and Cabinet scandals and on and on?
Progressives insist that an ex-president on their team find exactly the right words to express remorse and respect. Conservatives cheer when a president for their side starts his mornings free-associating on Twitter to express self-aggrandizement and contempt. This contrast, one feels sure, was what drove Clinton’s anger on the “Today“ show.
“Do you think President Kennedy should have resigned” for adulterous conduct, Clinton rasped to NBC News interviewer Craig Melvin. “Do you believe President Johnson should have resigned? Someone should ask you these questions ... ”
An acknowledgment: I could tell right away Clinton broke wind with his answers, but I did not anticipate the acrid, room-clearing effusion that many others perceived.
The explanation, I suppose, is that I had heard these themes—often delivered with more intensity, at higher volume—so many times since I first covered Clinton as a White House reporter in January 1995.
There is no reason to suppose that Melvin should have known it — he was 13 when Clinton was first inaugurated, and 18 when the Lewinsky matter exploded—but his interview was replete with Clinton riffs that go back a quarter century or more.
No one should be surprised at the difficulty Clinton seemed to have reckoning not with the politics of the Lewinsky case but with the pure human dimension of it. He always seemed to hold this element at an emotional distance.
Lewinsky herself recalled at the time that even after her West Wing flirtations with the president in 1995 crossed the line one night to fellatio in a darkened office that she was not sure Clinton knew her name.
Later, when allegations of an illicit relationship erupted publicly and Clinton was wounded by a series of wobbly and obviously evasive interviews, it was another instance when he needed a “do-over.”
As it happened, I was the print pool reporter in the Roosevelt Room when Clinton—visibly shaking with anger and determination—drew a sharp line that later proved to be false.
“I want you to listen to me,” he said, with sharp jabs of his finger. “I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman”—the disdain conveyed by the phrase “that woman” was palpable, as was the awkwardness in the moment of dead space before he finished the sentence—“Ms. Lewinsky.”
Perhaps most revealing was the role Lewinsky played in Clinton’s 2004 memoir, “My Life.” The book is written as a parade of minute details, each day unfolding as Clinton experienced the presidency in real time. Notably, however, Lewinsky enters the narrative not in 1995—when their relationship begun—but in 1998, when the matter became public. The implicit message: her significance was a political crisis to be navigated rather than as a person with whom Clinton became intimately intertwined over two years of West Wing visits and steamy telephone calls.
Clinton’s critics would describe this distance as a sign that he lacks shame, but my own belief—heightened over the years—is that it more likely reflects the opposite, that his self-reproach ran deeply. He could not reckon publicly with Lewinsky as a person because he had trouble reckoning with his own guilt privately.
Nor should there be much surprise that Clinton bared fangs at an interviewer at precisely the moment when the merits of presenting a different face to the world seemed obvious.
“How could they not be ready for this?” several people asked me, correctly noting that the line of inquiry Melvin, Colbert, and others pursued was easy to anticipate.
A couple answers come to mind.
First, don’t exaggerate the “they.” Bill Clinton, like Hillary Clinton, doesn’t go out for a big publicity tour without discussions and rehearsals with advisers, but at the end of the day his words are his own. No amount of coaxing—“Sir, that’s well said but in this case it be might be better if you steered clear…”—typically will prevent Clinton from saying something that he believes is important and true.
Which leads to another point. Clinton’s reputation as a silver-tongued slickster is misleading. Certainly, like any politician, he can shovel it on thick when necessary to give some audience or another what they want to hear. But on important matters, in my experience, the gap between what Clinton believed and what comes out of his mouth is more narrow than for many political leaders. As White House reporters in the 1990s, we learned the hard way not to skip evening fundraisers in which aides told us Clinton was not planning to make news. It was on such occasions that he regularly did make news—by sharing with the audience, as he did with Melvin, what he really thought.
That is what he did in August 1998, when he finally admitted his relationship with Lewinsky. Most advisers wanted him to give a sober speech expressing quiet remorse and leave it at that. Clinton argued that his own supporters wanted more fight, and wanted him to attack the legitimacy of independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation. So that is what he did.
Finally, it is often at moments when people expect Clinton to be most cheerful or filled with generous reflections that the grievances he nurtures pierce through the surface.
In 1996, just after a successful reelection, Clinton self-righteously compared himself to Richard Jewell, the hapless security guard who had been wrongly targeted as a suspect in a bombing at that summer’s Atlanta Olympics.
In 2004, as thousands gathered in Little Rock, Arkansas, for the opening of Clinton’s presidential library, he clashed far more heatedly with ABC News anchor Peter Jennings than he did with Melvin in an exchange over his historical legacy. “You don’t want to go there, Peter,” Clinton seethed. “Not after what you people did” with scandal coverage favorable to Starr, “the way your people repeated every little single thing he leaked.”
Long term, Clinton has always argued that he is winning the argument, and that in historical perspective his presidency will be seen for its accomplishments, and the scandals that buffeted his presidency will be seen as illegitimate.
A victory for Hillary Clinton surely would have advanced that cause. And Bill Clinton would right now be writing a new chapter in his own history, the first president to also be a spouse of a president and a powerful figure on the world stage.
Instead, changing times and changing standards have turned Clinton—for the moment--into a kind of ex-presidential Gatsby, borne back ceaselessly into arguments over his own past.
John F. Harris is editor-in-chief of POLITICO and author of “The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House.“
I'm more worried about the moron who says he doesn't need to prepare for his meeting on nuclear disarmament next week than what some fossil from the 90's said or did.
But that's just me. I have issues with nuclear incineration. You go right ahead.
Was there some version of mtierney back in 1917 going on about the real or imagined crimes of Grover Cleveland as the US prepared to enter the First World War?
Mtierney must like Fox News. If you watch Fox News carrying on about Obama and HRC, you would be excused for thinking HRC won the election. But that's just Fox News doing everything they can to draw attention away from the pig in the White House.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-admin-aca/index.html
So now DOJ, with the express approval of DJT, won't defend Obamacare in court. So now if an insurance company denies someone who is sick, or has a pre-existing condition, it is OK, they can get away with that again. They also send back refugees and immigrants, want to cut food stamps, and give tax cuts to the rich. Yet amazingly, the same administration is backed up by many Christians, who voted for the man and still support him. Quite unconscionable.
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
Klinker said:
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
Yes, the Donald J Trump award. It's an award where, after you have accepted it, you learn that you have to pay for it yourself.
Klinker said:
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
Giuliani the misogynist. I would be inclined to rate the credibility of adult film actresses above that of most politicians.
tjohn said:
Klinker said:Giuliani the misogynist. I would be inclined to rate the credibility of adult film actresses above that of most politicians.
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
Certainly above this politician.
Klinker said:
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
Giuliani is making a stupid statement designed to sound persuasive to stupid people. Being an adult film star is completely unrelated to whether or not a person is honest. It's just an occupation like any other. It's like saying a person can't be trusted to tell the truth because they drive a bus or work in a hospital.
gerritn said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-admin-aca/index.html
So now DOJ, with the express approval of DJT, won't defend Obamacare in court. So now if an insurance company denies someone who is sick, or has a pre-existing condition, it is OK, they can get away with that again. They also send back refugees and immigrants, want to cut food stamps, and give tax cuts to the rich. Yet amazingly, the same administration is backed up by many Christians, who voted for the man and still support him. Quite unconscionable.
I just saw a great quote on a Yahoo article that explains the problem.
"Hate is to politics like sex is to advertising.
The New Messiah of the party of so-called Christians followed the playbook the party has been using for over 40 years--the Southern Strategy. Give them someone to hate and to blame for their woes. . .people of color, women, immigrants, LGBTQ people, the poor (except the white poor), and these ignorant bigots will always vote against their own interests. It has been so successful the party of so-called Christians and family values control the majority of states, both houses of Congress, and the White House.
"
or, as LBJ observed:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
"
gerritn said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-admin-aca/index.html
So now DOJ, with the express approval of DJT, won't defend Obamacare in court. So now if an insurance company denies someone who is sick, or has a pre-existing condition, it is OK, they can get away with that again. They also send back refugees and immigrants, want to cut food stamps, and give tax cuts to the rich. Yet amazingly, the same administration is backed up by many Christians, who voted for the man and still support him. Quite unconscionable.
You left out global warming.
Klinker said:
Giuliani apparently told reporters yesterday that “I don’t believe Stormy Daniels.... The business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight"
Coming from a man who currently makes his living representing Donald Trump, this has to win some sort of award for irony.
IMHO porn stars are among the most honest people. What is more honest than being naked in front of millions?
tjohn said:
"
or, as LBJ observed:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
"
Making that observation comes close to atonement for all of LBJ's sins.
mtierney said:
gerritn said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-admin-aca/index.html
So now DOJ, with the express approval of DJT, won't defend Obamacare in court. So now if an insurance company denies someone who is sick, or has a pre-existing condition, it is OK, they can get away with that again. They also send back refugees and immigrants, want to cut food stamps, and give tax cuts to the rich. Yet amazingly, the same administration is backed up by many Christians, who voted for the man and still support him. Quite unconscionable.
You left out global warming.
Still waiting for you to explain how a good Christian can support Trump. Hint: It's not possible unless there is some provision in the Bible I missed for doing business with Devil.
mtierney said:
You left out global warming.
Why would a troll care about global warming?
Donald Tusk, President of European Council: "With friends like Trump, who needs enemies". And that was before the G7.
Even if staged, this photo says an awful lot about international relations at a supposedly friendly, cooperative meeting.
I'm wondering how you see this in terms of the President's stance, his relationship to the the others, their attitudes to him/the USA?
mtierney said:
But not in MOLand....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/sunday/affluent-suburbs-democrats.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times&action=click&contentCollection=todayspaper®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=12&pgtype=collection
I don't get it. I read that this morning, and thought the authors were missing a lot. Living in South Orange/Maplewood gives me that view, and I don't think we're unique in that.
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't get it. I read that this morning, and thought the authors were missing a lot. Living in South Orange/Maplewood gives me that view, and I don't think we're unique in that.
He's a troll.
There is a lot of truth in that NYT article and Democrats ignore that truth at their own peril.
Republican values on display.
She says federal officials took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center
I am guessing that if I did some research, I would find that the concept of latch key kids has existed in financially stressed communities since forever.