What really counts in 2020: Are you better off since Trump became president

 This Financial Times poll likely is the most important one to watch during the 2020 election cycle. Ronald Reagan's famous: "are you better off today than...." is extremely important. Trump will try to convince voters they are better off and scare voters to thinking they would be worse off under the Democratic candidate, but with only a roughly 1/3 of voters believing they are better off since Trump took office, the GOP is starting with a handicap. The impact of the impeachment action is yet to be seen and may not, in the long run, but it could the determining factors, contributing to the disgust and character turnoffs of Trump.  The Senate trial began with those wanting Trump removed at 51%. in national public polls. The key is in 6 battleground states which is what counts in the electoral college. One advantage in getting impeachment out of the way before 2020 begins in earnest is for Democrats to go for the President's weakness: he wants to make those in the battleground states worse off by repealing affordable healthcare insurance for the lower middle class, tie them and their children to the millstone of student debt, note the Trump administration is wedded to big pharmaceuticals' high costs and removing coverage of pre-existing conditions. They should take a page from their 2018 win and go about showing suburban women how Trump is not in their court, including supreme court choices who want to turn back the clock to a time before Roe v Wade.  Pocketbook issues that count can be added to the "disgust" factor" with Trump's character in a way that may offset his followers devoted to his anti-immigrant and racist stance in the exact swing states he must win in order to win in the electoral college. Remember: national polls are a mirage. Democrats usually win those, but only what counts will be the electoral college vote based on individual states.

From the Hill posting: "The Financial Times-Peterson poll released in November found that almost two-thirds of Americans said their finances haven’t gotten better since Trump has taken office.

"Thirty-one percent of respondents in the new poll said their finances have gotten worse since Trump won the White House, while 33 percent said their finances haven’t gotten better or worse in the same time frame.

"Just over one-third, 35 percent, of respondents did say they have seen a positive change in their finances since Trump took office.

"Of those who said their financial situation has worsened since Trump took office, 36 percent said their wages are to blame, while 19 percent blamed their personal or family debts."

The poll also showed an even split amongst likely voters over whether Trump’s policies help or hurt the U.S. economy. Forty-five percent of those polled said they believe Trump's policies have improved the economy, while another 45 percent said they’ve worsened the economy." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468802-majority-says-they-are-not-better-off-under-trump-poll
That is an interesting contradiction.  Even some of those who do not see they are better off or are worse off under Trump still think Trump's policies have improved the economy.  Politicians who think that voters are only interested in their own financial situation will vote on behalf of their own self-centered interest may overlook the optimism of hope, that others are benefitting and they may too, sometime.  That is the value of full employment, some income security even if they get laid off.  The downside to that is that they may have to take a cut in wages or income and they know that even wages are beginning to increase and minimum wage laws are gaining popularity.  What that may mean for Democrats is that their candidate should not threaten economic trends that they like, and still make their economic lives better.

 While the progressive left talks about how they would make their lives better, the cost of their proposals and shaking root and branch of the economic system with increasing debt, there is an uneasiness within those with hope and feeling positive about their gains will be threatened.  They want both: the gains and the betterment.  That may explain why Biden and Bloomberg are showing polling strength, Warren has faded, and Sanders appears peaked with a set number of dedicated supporters. It is a balancing act and many know it. They are asking themselves do they want to take risks or be cautious.

___________________________________________________________________
Obama warning: do not go too far left
https://www.yahoo.com/news/too-far-left-candidates-dont-165007808.html

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/shit-life-syndrome-trump-voters-and-clueless-dems/?fbclid=IwAR34Zc1tjY-_Mqe-2MMD-2ND1oK8kbEEWEZvtDyroETd4UWk9qqUow1MrBM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/why-donald-trumps-economic-dream-crumbled/601153/?fbclid=IwAR3f7LNdzag1ecMEe5xl9l4seyCYMM-41KZQxKyZltTOamlcbTL9N5yvC3gThe U.S. manufacturing sector is practically in a recession. The ISM index, a key measure of that industry’s health, registered its lowest number in 10 years. Real exports of goods and services have declined in the past year, after peaking in 2018. Mining jobs have declined in the past 12 months, too. Finally, hovering in the background behind declining investment, sputtering manufacturing, and wilting exports is the trade war with China, which has proved neither “good” nor “easy” for American 


businesses.

Democrats, don't blow it.

A version of this was published in Sky Hi News print and e-edition November 14, 2018 and on line
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-muftic-democrats-dont-blow-it/
.
Democrats scored heavily on November 6 in the midterms.  There were significant gains in the suburbs and in bringing new voters to the polls .  The result was a large shift to blue in many state legislatures, seven governors, and in the  U.S. House of Representatives. The structural foundation  has been laid for Democrats in the 2020 presidential year, especially in the Senate and in states where redistricting and gerrymandering activities would be in control of more Democrats than in 2016.  The GOP remained in control in the Senate and  gained some seats  in the Senate though some races are still facing recounts. In 2020  many more sitting Republican Senate seats will be contested in blue states. Democrats can build on this if they do not blow it .

Colorado went deep blue.  GOP Congressman Mike Coffman lost his suburban seat to Democrat Jason Crow, and the state Senate flipped from red to blue, as did every single state office currently held by Republicans. The governor’s seat and state House legislature  remained in Democratic hands.  Joe  Neguse , a Democrat ,  won Jerad  Polis’ vacated seat as Polis won his race for governor. Neguse will be Grand County's representative to Congress.  Colorado Politics, a publication limited to subscribers, reports a poll showed that much of the Democratic wins were due to unaffiliated shifting to them because they loathed Donald Trump himself. https://coloradopolitics.com/poll-finds-unaffiliated-voters-in-colorado-dont-like-republicans-loathe-trump/

Grand County  has always been very red, but it went pink this year.  Grand County’s registration’s most recent  party affiliation  (Feb. 2018) numbers were   21.6%  Democrats,   38.3% Republican,  and  40.1  independents/Libertarians/Green.  However, in the midterms  Democrats impressively  outperformed their registration share  especially when  compared to 2016 results of Trump(52%)-Clinton (38%), a 14% difference.   In the 2018 midterms, Grand County GOP voters trumped Democrats by only  a 5% margin of total votes  in the Governor and Congressional race and 8% in the other state wide positions. Grand County, part of a state House district with  the county's  majority voting for the GOP candidate,  found its Democrat state representative, KC Becker, re-elected and named Speaker of the House for the next two years.
Democrats can take a lesson from their  national midterm success. The winners and the near winner gainers emphasized solving local problems, red tide, water quality, roads and bridges,   and focusing on access to health care. Protecting the pocket books and health of middle income Americans was a winner.
However, fundamentally contributing to  Democrat’s wins was Donald Trump.  He made the midterms an election about himself and voters took him up on that.  The Democrat’s pitch, check him by turning the House blue, appeared to have resonated.  Per  PBS exit polls. race, gender, age,  and education levels were  also determining factors per Pew Research. Per Politico, race and age were not factors in Colorado, but the richer, more educated counties tilted to Democrats.   Trump’s  constant belittling and  insulting  women, especially women of color  (horse face, pig, empty barrel, a graduate of Yale law school, state legislature minority leader was unqualified) who challenge him resulted in a 19 point  gender gap for women, doubling the 2016 gap per pollster Fivethirtyeight.
Here is how the Democrats can blow their growing advantage for 2020.   Democrat’s control of the House and a slightly increased GOP control of the Senate  makes impeachment unlikely, but it also saves Obamacare and meaningful coverage of pre-existing conditions from GOP Senate efforts to repeal, and not replace.  The  Democratic House turns any   GOP Senate  initiative to sabotage and repeal Obamacare a futile exercise.  A Senate still in GOP hands makes impeachment unlikely. If Democrats had a weakness at the beginning of 2018, it was viewed as just “anti-Trump” and no one knew what it stood for. Saving Obamacare (ACA) Medicare and Social Security, emerged as their plank .Not only must  Democrats make an effort to   deliver, they also must be perceived by the middle class voters as looking after their family budget concerns.  Having every news cycle dominated by sensational House investigations into Trump administration misdeeds could drown out efforts to develop Democrats’ credibility as advocates for middle class pocket book issues. In 2020,  Donald Trump may not be the GOP candidate.
________________________________________________________________________________


  That is going to be a challenge. Donald Trump has already thrown down his gauntlet with a move the day after the elections, in an overt maneuver to cut the Mueller investigation off at the knees. He fired Attorney General Sessions and replaced him with a loyalist,  anti-Mueller probe, who had never been confirmed by the Senate, setting off  charges that this appointment was illegal. A media firestorm erupted.
_________________________________________________________________________________

House Democrats are aware of the balancing act of checking Trump v positioning themselves on winning public policy issues before 2020.  I heard one Congressperson comment that "don't worry; we can walk and chew gum at the same time".  The problem is that media gets fixated on the the more sensational, headline grabbing, breaking news stories and the grind of the legislative process is a slow burn and, as often noted: "like sausage being made", some times ugly and taking many steps. The hot topic on health care will be the media fixation on what faction of the Democratic party wins: the Bernie Sanders Medicare for All or the more moderate: repair Obamacare.  In the next two years, given the GOP control of the Senate, legislation will likely become deadlocked and Democrats will be lucky just to see preservation of Obamacare  as it is now. Should the Supreme Court, now firmly ideologically to the right, rule Obamacare is unconstitutional or that the coverage of pre-existing conditions is the part of Obamacare that is unconstituional, then the job of the House is to make sure any replacement legislation is not just a bill title, but truly is an equivalent and comparable replacement.  The worst screw-up  the Democrats could do would be to break up into two factions over which form of health insurance they want. Medicare for All is a moot issue until 2020 when the Democrats have a chance to flip the Senate blue, keep the House, and have someone in the White House who will not use the veto pen.

One possible strategy for the next two years would be for the House to originate two health care insurance bills: one woud be for Medicare for All , to pass tha,t and ship it to the Senate for them to be on the record of killing it and then, after it is killed,  send through an Obamacare repair bill.  That would permit the CBO to score it so we really know what the comparative  costs would be on the   official record. Otherwise there will be wild claims made to scare people away from either partisan side.  It would also put on record where every member of Congress stood on the issues for the purposes of the 2020 election cycle.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-voters-viewed-trump-health-care-and-immigration-according-to-exit-polls
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/how-grand-county-voted-2018-midterm-election-results/
https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/colorado/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2018-gender-gap-was-huge/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/9/18075536/midterm-elections-2018-results-governors-state-legislatures-agenda
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18071410/democrat-state-legislature-colorado-minnesota-election-results
https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2018/11/07/littwin-polis-trump-stapleton-crow-neguse/
https://elections.denverpost.com/results/county-break-down/all/?Grand/08049
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_32260366/boulder-rep-kc-becker-will-be-next-state?source=most_viewed
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/11/09/jason-crow-congress-washington-aurora-mike-coffman/

The GOP is swinging wrecking ball at affordable health care insurance and coverage of pre-existing conditions

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi Daily News October 15-16, 2018
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-muftic-the-gop-is-out-to-cost-you-money-for-health-care/

 If Donald Trump has failed to make good on at least one of his campaign promises, "cheaper and better health insurance for all" is the one.  In fact, his party and his administration are hell-bent to make health insurance cost more and even become out of reach for families on a budget.  Worse, some of their actions, if successful, would end all affordable coverage including treatment of pre-existing conditions.  The GOP has tried before to either subvert the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or completely destroy it. Now they have some new stealth tactics and they just might succeed.

 The part of their scheme already implemented is to let the healthy go scot-free without insurance and soak those who need it.  The Trump administration did this to placate the better-heeled who made too much money to qualify for subsidies and did not want all of the bells and whistles and those who felt confident they would never get sick and were never hurt in an accident.  With an executive order, the  Trump administration removed the requirement that all must have health care coverage whether they were healthy or not or pay a penalty. Trump reduced the penalty to $0. Most insurance plans covering casualties mix those they think will not ever use their coverage with those who think or know they will. This varied pool spreads the risk around and keeps premiums to all lowered. This order makes the pool left with more of the sick in it who file expensive claims, raising premium costs or deductibles for everyone.

Another GOP backed action would kick budget-conscious families where it really hurts. It would jeopardize affordable coverage of pre-existing conditions as it takes down the entire the ACA (Obamacare) with it,  premium subsidies, Medicaid expansion and all,  leaving 17 million unable to afford health insurance.  They are doing this through a lawsuit in the courts to try to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional.  The Trump administration has announced it will not defend the ACA   against a GOP initiated Texas court case that seeks to declare the entire  ACA unconstitutional.  Twenty GOP state attorney generals have joined in the suit. That case could make it to the Supreme Court, now firmly dominated by  GOP conservatives.

The Colorado Attorney General race on the ballot Nov. 6 has no incumbent, but the Democrat, Phil Weiser, is committed to defending the ACA. His GOP opponent, George Brauchler, is vague, leaving the ACA up to Congress.

Particularly angering voters is the GOP engineering the loss of pre-existing conditions coverage. 27% of Americans between 18 and 64 have pre-existing conditions.  Under the ACA provisions, those with pre-existing conditions do not pay more than those who do not have them. Pre-existing conditions range from cancer and heart problems to high blood pressure to pregnancy.

Both GOP legislators and Donald Trump pay lip service to retain coverage of pre-existing coverage. The Trump administration argues that only the portion of health care pertaining to pre-existing conditions would be removed by the Texas court case.  Some  GOP members of Congress propose to  "save" coverage of the pre-existing conditions part of the ACA if it is destroyed and the rest of the ACA is left standing by the Courts. That bill is a deceptive and useless ploy.  Not only does their bill not tell at what price you will be charged for coverage, but it also does not require insurers to cover treatment.  it would still permit higher premium costs for factors such as age, sex and where you live.
______________________________________________________________________________

What if the Supreme Court agrees in total with the unconstitutionality of the entire ACA? Seventeen million consumers will return to the olden days before the Affordable Care Act with nothing to replace it.I had been an executive with a consumer credit counseling agency then helping people get out of debt. The most frequent cause of bankruptcy and dire financial problems were medical bills.  Family finances were being destroyed by the high cost of health insurance. Their choice was to go without insurance or risk no one in their family would get sick,  relying on emergency room and charity and nothing left for cancer screenings or annual checkups or prescriptions. Many gambled and lost, destroying their family finances. I recall constant fundraising in Grand County to cover medical bills of such and such a person who desperately needed help to fend off life-threatening illnesses.   That is not a time you would ever want to revisit.





https://www.thebalance.com/how-could-trump-change-health-care-in-america-4111422

https://www.cbpp.org/health/commentary-texas-suit-is-one-among-many-attempts-to-undo-pre-existing-condition-protections

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/11/fact-check-whos-right-about-protections-for-pre-existing-conditions

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/texas-affordable-care-act-obamacare-lawsuit/index.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mcconnell-defends-trump-backed-suit-080000483.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumpcare-will-hurt-people-next-year-201655059.html

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T027-C001-S003-cost-of-employer-health-coverage-to-rise-in-2019.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/gop-preexisting-conditions-bill-may-have-usd1-million-premium.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/texas-affordable-care-act-obamacare-lawsuit/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/25/obamacare-affordable-care-act-repeal-preexisting-conditions-attorney-general-elections/1419481002/

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/13/colorado-attorney-general-race/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-mcconnell-policy/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal-idUSKCN1MR2QE

Ignorance and not caring about others: two biggest political problems facing Obamacare

There are two political problems with Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act or ACA): One, that 80% of our population think that they have acceptable health insurance coverage, so why be concerned about the other 20%  (the moral aspect of this not withstanding) and the other is sheer ignorance of the benefits both the 80% and the 20% get thanks to the provisions of  the ACA (Obamacare). Even some do not realize Obamacare and their ACA benefits are the same and that Obamacare is the ACA nickname. It reminds me of the ignorance of some Tea Party supporters early in their movement who held signs up "don't let the government take away my Medicare", swallowing  falsehoods that Obamacare would have done that and ignorant that Medicare was a government program.

 Nonetheless, a recent poll revealed only 18% of those surveyed wanted total repeal.  A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: favorable s for Obamacare beat unfavorables. GOP claims that they have a public mandate to repeal is a bluff. Nonetheless,they are planning to repeal Obamacare, baiting and switching you at best for a lessor plan or, at worst , no replacement plan. Partial repeal as advocated by Trump's HEW nominee would add 18 million to the uninsured and over years, 30%. Premium prices would soar, per the Congressional Budget Office.

  It appears that pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on parents insurance until age 25 will survive if there can be an adequate means found to finance insurance of coverage of pre-existing conditions. Private insurers can continue to charge you extra for kids on your policies, with or without Obamacare. Financing pre-existing condition coverage has an enormous stumbling block in itself because it is the healthy participants that pay for the sick in both the private sector and the public one. That is a fact of mathematics  applied to any insurance plan.  That any mandate requring all eligible to pay into the ACA or face a fine will only shrink the number of healthy paying in resulting in undermining financing ability to cover pre-existing conditions.

However, here  is why I am such an advocate of Obamacare. Within my own circle and  family, let me disclose personal examples of what they would lose with repeal of Obamacare or with substandard, inadequate replacement of it.See if you fit into any of these situations:
A partially disabled friend for the first time could get proper medical attention for a chronic medical problem since he qualified for expanded Medicaid provided by Obamacare. My self employed son whose income level was too high for a subsidy still got coverage at much lower cost and much better coverage with free annual checkups and cancer screenings than before Obamacare. My daughter is contemplating leaving employment with employer insurance and will not have to go health insurance naked when she enters the private sector and starts a new business. She can get affordable health care coverage via Obamacare, probably made affordable by a subsidy because of her greatly reduced income while starting up the business. A daughter, breast cancer survivor with employer insurance, can now get mammograms and annual checks ups without high copays, and she does not have to worry anymore about life time caps on benefits. Because of the cost savings and the ACA to Medicare resulting my drug donut hole is covered and my Medicare has a 12 year extended life to 2029 and I, too, do not have copays for annual physicals and cancer screenings as I once did.

The question will be how many of these benefits will become part of Trumpcare? Would removing these standards and benefits required now of all insurance, public or private, give you "better" insurance? Or will you be back to the financial hardships of inadequate insurance and having to pay more out of your own pocket.

________________________________________________________________________

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that (Rep Tom Price's) legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:

• The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.
• Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/03/ama-to-gop-lay-out-obamacare-replacement-details-to-americans/#7597f3a33186

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/under-tom-prices-aca-killing-plan-18m-lose-insurance-and-premiums-rise/

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/brink-repeal-obamacare-has-never-been-more-popular-n707806