T Nation

The White House "Bunker"?


#1

It was released today the Ivanka Trump will be getting a West-Wing Office.

While I understand that the West-Wing is a place for the President’s closest and most trusted advisors; when taken in total… that everyone from “the Media” to Allies to U.S. intelligence are against you…acceptance of conspiracy theories…continued rallies to the faithful…unsubstantiated Tweets even during the process of an important Congressional inquiry…

This list is getting longer by the day. The President is giving out this uncomfortable vibe (to me and others) of someone taking on an almost “siege/bunker” mentality that borders on paranoia.

I would be more than happy to be told that I’m wrong, because this is one area that I hope to be wrong…

(By the way? What Obama may or may not have done is NOT an answer for what we are seeing in Trump).

Thoughts?


#2

It is not unprecedented to bring family in as close, even very high ranking, confidants. In the case of Robert Kennedy, it was certainly a qualitative appointment.

The tenor of the presidency is that of a siege, but I think the Gorsuch nomination and Trumpcare bill will be where the rubber hits the road for the atmosphere going forth.


#3

I think all would agree that Gorsuch is an excellent pick. In fact; the DEMS really mounted weak “opposition” yesterday.

Trumpcare; with all of the “appeasement” Amendments…is looking more and more like “Obamacare Lite”, that is more expensive with less coverage…but I’m sure that the “spin” is already in the works.

LS…I have to emphasize when taken in total…

Any individual move or Tweet doesn’t bother me…in fact, the Presidency can be a very isolating thing even if there was no opposition…Ivanka can probably help with that…

It’s the entirety of all that’s going on with the President that is somewhat disturbing.


#4

Ivanka makes a good foil to Trumps personality. That and even if he says that space bugs are attacking his thoughts they can turn the camera to her and she can preen just a tiny bit and everybody forgets what he just said.


#5

Ivanka is beautiful, classy and damn smart.

I just hope that she doesn’t get completely swallowed by the Vortex that is her Dad.


#6

I concur.


#7

I think its prolly more so she can be a substitute first lady and help poor Melania be less pissed at having to get up before midday and no more 5hour shopping marathons


#8

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.


#9

About “The Faithful”…

This latest rally in Kentucky had some not-so-subtle political points and ironies.

It is the home of the creator of the “Obama-lite” name…Senator Rand Paul…

Kentucky is one of many states where it’s citizens stand to lose the most under the new GOP plan.

We’ll see how it all plays out.


#10

Where have you heard it will be more expensive?

Edit: Some quick articles referencing costs, they might not be up to date with the latest revisions of the bill. CBO estimated savings of $337 billion by 2026 (in the NYT article).


#11

[quote=“Drew1411, post:10, topic:227524”]
"…Where have you heard it will be more expensive?.."
[/quote].

Premiums for the individual?

Everywhere. This bill appears to do nothing to address this.

Now the projections for reductions overall over 10 years?

Yes…via massive cuts to Medicaid.However; the CBO wonders how much will actually be “saved” as more and more expensive ER care and neglect of serious illnesses increases, mostly among the poor. (Who tend to be the sickest).

The reality of this “difficult medical stuff” is that if you tie-off one bleeder, 3 more open up.


#12

For specific individuals? I have heard 10% reduction in premiums overall.

Wouldn’t this increase in costs happen regardless of the bill?


#13

Not on this Planet and not with this Bill…it simply does not address the root causes of cost…and while “lack of competition” is part of the problem…it’s not anywhere near the greatest driver of overall cost.

To you other point?

BINGO!


#14

And watch that go ‘poof’ well before that decade mark. Medicaid is politically radioactive, cuts will not last.


#15

I’m confused by your view that the bill is “more expensive”. If we stay with Obamacare costs will be X. With this bill they will be .9X. That’s a 10% decrease in costs, regardless of whether X grows due to other factors.


#16

Drew:

Even President Obama didn’t feel that The ACA was ideal in it’s current state…

But if you have spent the last almost 10 years saying you are going to not only repeal and replace it…but also reduce overall cost… it’s now on you.

Also; your confusion is because your illustration is much, MUCH too simplistic when it comes to Healthcare. The President is learning that lesson the hard way.


#17

I am not trying to tackle all of Healthcare. I am only repeating what the CBO and other analysis have said regarding its current state. I am confused on your stance that it is “more expensive”. More expensive than what? If doing nothing would increase costs more, and doing this increases costs less, that is a decrease from the status quo even if overall costs go up.

Considering its name being affordable was the exact opposite of what it was, I think thats an understatement.

I’m not saying this is the holy grail. And I’m sure there were plenty of partisan talking points tryign to emphasize how bad Obamacare was. It was Obama’s signature issue, I think he owns the rising premiums and struggling health insurance industry that this new bill is attempting to get under control.

My point is that the current status quo (Obamacare) is not working. This is a step in the right direction. If you had a vote on this bill, would not do it because it doesn’t decrease costs enough (as some conservatives are saying, but without offering an alternative) or because it isn’t offering the same coverage as Obamacare (as liberals are saying)?

Considering the left doesn’t like it and the far right doesn’t like it, I take that as meaning it’s a center-right policy. I will add that I don’t think repeal and doing nothing is an option.


#18

Bingo. The budget simply cost-shifts Medicaid to the states. It’s a Fed budget ‘savings’ in the same way that shifting the cost of funding the Air Force to the states would result in a Fed budget savings.

True, this is the projection. But it reflects the fact that coverage will be so expensive for older folks and those with chronic illnesses that such individuals will not purchase it. Hence, the population of the insured will shift toward those who are younger and healthier. Given this, it is not surprising that the average premium will drop.


#19

Agreed, which is why I’m surprised Mufasa is arguing that premiums will go up. I have not heard that.

I think you present a challenging issue, and I certainly don’t have the answers (I’m not in healthcare). I’m not trying to say this is the right, wrong, best, or worst solution. I’m only saying I heard premiums will go down, and was surprised somebody was arguing they will go up.

I have had a few talks with my sister-in-law who is a nurse to try to better understand from somebody in the day-to-day, and healthcare is a really tough situation. She notices (obviously this is one account at one hospital in one area of healthcare) how the hospitals that make money only take in patients they know they can fix and have insurance. That leaves a lot of people hanging. When people request to have “everything possible” done, that can be challenging if you consider costs vs quality of life or chance of success… but who gets to make that decision?


#20

That’s not just me, Drew…it also comes from Republicans who oppose the bill and the CBO…the bill simply doesn’t address the rising cost overall and of premiums…

ED is more expert at this than I am…but there is a LOT of “cost-shifting” going on that ultimately represents a lot of smoke and mirrors.