Saturday, March 18, 2017

"THEM THAT'S GOT -- GETS"

  
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated” was an incredible understatement not long ago from President Trump – a fact that for years everybody but him seemed to have recognized to be true.  Why else would it have taken his Republican Party legislators, after seven or so years of legislative dawdling, an inability to create a plan to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) , aka Obama Care?   But what did they create by throwing together a last minute plan when they suddenly had to fulfill their President’s campaign promise? 


This blues tune was written by and is identified with jazz singer Lady Day -- Billie Holiday.    The unique vocalist Eva Cassidy, with a style all her own, performs this arrangement.  She died much too young due to melanoma.   "God Bless The Child" 
from Eva's album "American Tune" (2003).

"Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose                                            
So the Bible said and it still is news"

The lyrics seem most applicable to the Trump/Ryan Health Care Act, formally known as the American Health Care Act.   The details, kept hidden so long from the public, were finally revealed at the last minute, rushing the Budget Office to assess the particulars.   We finally learned the real beneficiaries of this health care bill are for "them that's got" from this administration.     "Them that's not shall lose" evidences in the fact that those who can least afford the costs -- and even more millions who will lose health insurance -- will be the people most heavily hurt.    Where are the compassionate Republicans?   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

Gradually, I would think eyes are being opened to the fact that those with the least, also seniors,  middle class, are all going to have even less, maybe nothing at all,  or more expense -- not what the minority of citizens whose votes enabled this administration to acquire extreme power were led to believe would occur.   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

We "ain't seen nuthin' yet" -- cuz when we get to tax reduction, other plans in the works, we can only wish we could reap such benefits like the wealthy 2%  will – nothing more than token reductions, if at all, will be thrown to the vast majority of citizens.  Who was it once said “let them eat cake”?   But – when selecting legislators -- will 2018 voters remember?

Meanwhile plans are being worked up to reduce consumer protections, eliminate financial safeguards under the guise of needing to eliminate regulations to free up the business and financial world to --- rip us off.  But – when selecting legislators – will 2018 voters remember? 

There’s so much more, but I’ll save it for another time when there are sure to be even new matters to address.   Meanwhile, I maintain my sanity by finding the humor in the ridiculousness of much that is happening, some of which is predictably unpredictable.  I recognize the seriousness of the situation.  I continue to be committed to preserving our democratic republic.  I persist in resisting the inequities. 

* * *

Behind the scenes information about those who bankroll, influence, our political candidates, even “call the shots”, or all three, can be interesting.    Here’s a link to one such article just published introducing a family some may find to be of interest written by Vicky Ward:  “The Blow-It-All-Up Billionaires”.  


20 comments:

  1. I get so upset thinking about the damage #45 is doing to this country I'm no sure I can stand a full four years of this man/child.

    Thanks for the link. A perfect example of how money talks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can appreciate how you feel.

      Delete
  2. the thing that troubles me with the plan (that they claim they had for over a year) is the block grants which don't take into account the poverty in a state and the ease with which those can mean nothing. Like with Obamacare, there is nothing to reduce costs. It's not as though Obamacare was a great deal for those paying $20,000 a year with a $6000 deductible. It didn't really save the ones who had a family member with a stroke and needing years of care. That still led to bankruptcy and the costs of routine office visits, any stay in a hospital kept going up. Until health care does something about costs, it's bound to be bad for most. The GOP plan will soon have premiums skyrockting for those with pre-existing conditions or are over 50, which is where we were when we began this. I also would like to know of the ones who won't have insurance, does that count the young who won't have to buy it and will choose not to without a mandate or is this totally those who can no longer afford the high premiums that look likely as long as cost of care is not addressed.

    The Republicans (and this is not about Trump) have long wanted to effectively end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Where he pays little attention to details and wants to glory in getting things done-- whatever they might be- it's hard to say what he'll sign. He claimed they were working on the House bill and got something better. We shall see given the desire of the conservatives to end a lot of what had given many Americans a sense of security. The ease of fixing SS isn't what they want. They want to make it worthless and they have the majority not only in Congress but in state legislatures across the country. Some of that is the fault of Democrats who never see a domestic bill that they don't like but never figure out how to pay for what they want done.

    Elsewhere I wrote a comment saying that why can't some see the government is needed to protect the vulnerable from the predators (rich and poor ones), but if government gets too big, it can become the predator. I can't understand why we can't strike a balance between too much and too little. It seems we constantly swing between extremes-- and the weakest suffer with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the swing between the extremes has been as severe as what we experience now -- at least during my lifetime.

      Delete
    2. I've never seen anything like it. Vietnam was bad for anger but I think this is worse. :(

      Delete
    3. Having deliberately elicited anger-stirring through the basest of means as a candidate, and then as President, we reap the consequences, but increasing overt anger expressions has been the intent. Many people perceive this administration's leader to be the first (different than Nixon) whose actions are designed to undermine our democratic republic -- quite like history has shown such leaders do who become dictators, much like what's happening in Turkey, or turning our governing system into a faux mechanism as in Russia. Protecting our system of government without being seduced or incited into more serious anger expressions is the challenge.

      Delete
    4. Of course, you probably know the right felt exactly the same way about Obama. They thought he'd find some way to stay in power, that he was subverting our Constitutional laws with his executive orders, and sending us down a road to doom with overspending and promising too much for what he could afford. It is ironic to have friends on both sides of the divide and listen to them saying the same basic things-- only in reverse. As for the hate being stirred up by Trump, how do you explain all that against Obama before Trump ran for office? I think we are a nation filled with rage against something and it's the obligation of those of us who wish to remain without it to try to keep ourselves balanced between concern for doing what is right but not being filled with resentment that is unhealthy. When rage is praised and applauded, it's not an easy balance to achieve.

      Delete
    5. Actions and words demonstrate the goal of this administration is to alter our basic form of government which was demonstrably shown to never be true of the previous one. I think there was clearly an element opposed to the previous President that was a driving force having little or nothing to do with the issues. I also think it's more productive in time and energy to focus on words and actions occurring now than raking over the coals a mistaken comparison of these two administrations. If others do not discern this most obvious difference, then I suggest they may wish to re-examine words of intent and actions from this Administration. There apparently are individuals who experience the negative feelings you describe toward others over our government. But this is true of every point of view on all sorts of issues, some of which don't even have anything to do with politics and government. Science has shown negative feelings can be unhealthy for the body, so it behooves everyone to examine how they care for themselves in their thoughts, beliefs, actions. Rage some may feel that is acted out is rarely, if ever, deserving of praise and applause since there are generally better ways to address matters.

      Delete
    6. Trump ran on changing everything; so it's not new that he'd be doing it. Even more extreme is the current Congress, elected by their states. The fact that a lot of us don't agree on the goals is apparent-- as it was with the last administration. Americans are very divided as to what makes for a good government. I think saying words like Obama was a communist or Trump a Hitler does encourage some who are extremists to act. It doesn't take much as those found in Tucson that day when Gabby was shot and others killed by someone who listened and acted-- both sides put out those kinds of words. Obama had many threats on his life as has Trump already... three tried to breach the walls this spring. They did it going after Obama too.

      Delete
    7. "Good government" to me does not include "...deconstruction of the administrative state" which this current administration declares as a goal -- a goal that was not shared by the previous administration. I don't think this is the kind of change compatible with our constitution if we want to keep our democratic republic. Name-calling which the current President began as a candidate puts him in the same category as many of those who continue to do so today, I suppose -- doesn't make it wise and acceptable to do. It is tragic when those resorting to threatening or committing violence do so. These acts do not eradicate ideas. As you say, there are some who behave irrationally -- whatever motivates them -- including mental illness, poor impulse control, lack of judgement, ideology, a belief in using violence to resolve problems, or to strike out against those with whom they disagree.

      Delete
  3. It was obvious long ago that the billionaire hotel owner wasn't remotely interested in those at the bottom of the heap struggling to make a decent life for themselves. Every day gives ample evidence that the sceptics were right. I wonder how long it will take for those who've been brutally conned to voice their outrage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent question I wonder about myself.

      Delete
  4. This administration views government as a company that buys defense industry products and manages a minimal tax system to keep highways clear. All the rest of the social programs are give-aways and have nothing to do with making money. They do not view government as a social service organization for the people who pay their salaries and put them there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's that eternal argument about where to draw the line on what the Federal government needs to be responsible for, what is that of local government, and how much is totally up to the individual. The Republican Party presumably stood for small government at the national level. The Democratic Party has been said to support large government. Sounds relatively simple but the ability for both sides to compromise is necessary to make it work.

      Delete
  5. Some of us are going to be so screwed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can only hope the legislators will set aside mindlessly following a political party line by exercising common sense and a dedication to truly do what's best for the majority of the population.

      Delete
  6. Conditions here are vastly different and so I shall refrain from commenting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, each nation has their own social, cultural and political issues.

      Delete
  7. I am continually in shock that in the US the poor have so very little of societal concern.

    Healthcare,decent and universal, is a right. Not something continually bargained and withdrawn and plunging citizens into bankruptcy, if they're lucky or death if they're not for want of medical attention.

    I can't imagine the stress this induces.

    I'm so sad for all of you that it is such a political tool.

    Revolution!!

    XO
    WWW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really is hard to understand. I've often wondered what life would be like for everyone if we all had health care and didn't have to think about it other than just focusing on our care. Think of all the time and energy that could be focused on other matters.

      Delete