I'm reading these quotes in yesterday's Washington Post, in "Trump’s health care ultimatum is straight out of ‘The Art of the Deal.’ It just might work."
But is anyone talking about Trump's "walk away" approach today, after the ultimatum failed? Or is everyone saying: Trump failed. And: So much for the "Art of the Deal." And: Trump got a stark elementary education in the complicated reality of Washington politics — that art-of-the-deal stuff doesn't fit the exquisite complexity of Congress.
The "walk away" strategy isn't just a bluff, is it? Sometimes, you really do walk away. Long term, that builds your game, doesn't it? Or, maybe it's wrong to say "just a bluff," because in poker, if you need your opponents to think you bluff, so they'll stay in when you've got a good hand. Poker bluffing is not a good analogy for what Trump did in saying the vote had to happen on Friday or that was the end. What corresponds to the hidden hand? All that's hidden is whether Trump really will declare it over if those hearing the ultimatum don't believe this really is their last chance. They know what the bill is, and if they decide not to vote for it because they want something else, then Trump might follow through with his threat and back out. But the balky members of Congress are the ones who are staying in and taking the risk that Trump won't stay in, so they seem to be the ones doing the bluffing. Isn't it Trump who's in the position of a poker player who folds because he thinks the other guy has a better hand?*
Whether poker bluffing is a good analogy or not, we still need to think about how well Trump's approach to Congress is working. In this analysis, we need to think about what Trump really wants. I'm not sure. He may want to fulfill a campaign promise, but that promise was always contingent on Congress doing what he wants, and it's questionable whether the bill was even what he promised. If nothing passes, it ends an intra-party fight, a fight that would have continued into the Senate, straight into the wheelhouse of Rand Paul...
Tonight I joined members of the @freedomcaucus to discuss how to defeat Obamacare Lite. #FullRepeal pic.twitter.com/a7adpmL3zB— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 16, 2017
... who likes to stand in front of a poster with Trump's "Art of the Deal" words on it.
But I'm not sure Trump wanted to keep that promise. I think maybe he could see that there would be terrible problems under any bill that might pass, and that his name (and his party's name) would be on all those problems — which the Democrats and their many friends in the media would elaborate and amplify in the run up to the mid-term elections.
With the bill rejected — swiftly thrown away in a grand gesture — Obamacare remains, and the coming problems are all (or mostly) on the Democrats. They passed that slow-toppling disaster, with no buy-in from Republicans, and they refused to participate in the earnest effort to save America from the collapse.
I don't think Trump gave up. He saw a better path and set up a quick way to get on it.
Now, I expect that the media will belabor the defeat and the proof that Trump is no artist of the deal and that Trump will get moving on different, better, happier deals like walls and airports — tangible, buildable things.
Posts
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222BJM said...
I don't think he has any of the knowledge, skill or experience needed to do it.
Unlike Obama's vast store of healthcare knowledge, legislative skillz and administrative experience.
This is a stupid and content-free post; ordinarily not worth a reply. But I want to ask you, what is the relevance of Obama to anything I have written? I didn't vote for Obama; I actively supported and campaigned for McCain and later Romney. I didn't do anything to support Obamacare. It wasn't my idea or my bill.
I have never understood how or why conversations get sidetracked in this fashion, in 2017. I'm not defending Obama. I'm criticizing Trump. Two entirely different things.
By the way, BJM;
Look further up in the thread, where I commented that Obama had a complete lack of legislative successes on his resume in 2008, just as Trump does.
When Trump said: "I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he said. "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated," Donald was revealing his mental inability to study and absorb details. Nobody, who has read accounts about Trump meetings, would ever believe that technical discussion about health care would do anything except cause a disinterested President's eyes to glaze over, and his mind shut on the subject.
The reality, no matter how it is twisted, amounts to Americans in general wanting an end to Obamacare and all the bureaucracy and rising healthcare costs that went with it. Rand Paul told the President how to fix it, starting with total O-Care repeal and a return to 2008 healthcare and insurance rules. Even Donald Trump should be smart enough to grasp the concept. Paul Ryan had a plan that could be blamed on Paul Ryan, so The Donald schemed to get a win-win if the bill passed the House and no blame if it did not.
Mark exclaims: To elect Republicans?????? Screw them. The response of EVERY person to see such an ad will be, "You are in a position NOW to fix it. You haven't. Instead you have tried to feed us a bunch of shit that we are supposed to eat and like it. Why the hell should we EVER vote for you?"
I usually do vote Republican because the only real alternative is to vote Democrat. But if Trump had run as a third party candidate, I believe he would still have won. He had his own money. He owes the GOP nothing. They rode to the Hill on his coattails, not vice versa. We desperately need a third party!
When Trump said: "I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he said. "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated," Donald was revealing his mental inability to study and absorb details.
When the Dems tried this the first time around with HillaryCare, they would show these charts that looked like a plate of spaghetti throw on a board with all the various interconnections and flow from one thing to another. Everyone laughed at this overly-complex contraption they wanted to put together. Well, they finally succeeded so that, yes, now it is "so complicated" that no one can grasp it all. That's what government does. It makes the simple complicated. And that's the point of getting rid of it.
I usually do vote Republican because the only real alternative is to vote Democrat.
I very nearly did not vote this time around. After all, I did not vote in 1996 when they gave us Bob Dole. It was around that time that I stopped calling myself Republican. In fact, it was right after the Republicans had included term limits in the Contract with America and after they won, they did not deliver. And Dick Armey said, "We never promised to pass term limits. We promised to have a vote on them. And we did."
Fool me once, shame on me. Try to fool me two thousand more times, I'm done with you.
What needs to happen at the next Republican Convention is for some speaker/delegate on the platform during primetime TV is to make a formal motion to disband the party because it has become a farce that stands for nothing.
And now these folks trying to portray principled conservatives as pro-ObamaCare because they did not go along with this travesty is just like the Dems trying to portray conservatives as pro-Russian.
Here again we find the Republican Establishment using radical Dem tactics.
Lots of comments and words by middle class, upper middle and some upper class people here. We are all insured, maybe paying more than we like, but nobody here has taken any sort of big financial hit.
An anecdote from the real , low information voter, Obamacare world: the local hairdresser has three workers, each paying out of pocket for Obamacare, with high deductibles. Each hoping for a change. Each pissed off today at "the assholes who didn't do what Trump wanted". They do not blame Trump at all, they blame "the other guys".
I don't want to go too far in defending the now-failed House bill. I'm not so sure that there is much of it that I want to defend at all.
Wouldn't ask you to. It was a rather terrible bill and it dying, to me, is a plus for the US.
Anyway, Trump repeatedly said he had a plan. And he talked about it in that uniquely sneering Trump way; it was going to be great, and everybody was going to get coverage at lower rates with better coverage and why haven't the idiots in Washington already done it? A great negotiator could get it done. Alright maybe only One Great Negotiator. The ONE GUY could do it.
Fully get that. However, one major negotiation tactic is to let the other party try something. When I negotiate anything, I don't make the initial offer (if somebody tries to force me to, I make it absurd). I allow the other party to do so and then counter...so, in the end, if we come to an agreement, it was "their" idea not mine (I don't care either way) and they'll be happier with it.
But the perception issue is going to be rough. How it LOOKS to a lot of people (whether it is true or not is immaterial) is that the GOP talked tough when they knew "what they wanted" couldn't get passed...but the moment the option to pass it came around, they caved completely. Why would I view Paul Ryan as being serious about repealing Obamacare after this?
Republicans should fund ads that begin immediately showing our former president promising you could keep your doctor and your plan and that you would save on average $2500 a year.
There's be catastrophic backfire.
Ads would come up saying "These guys had no problem repealing ACA when they knew it would be shot down. They didn't pass those same bills when it would be approved. They don't oppose ACA...they're just playing you." and I don't see any way Ryan et al can adequately combat this.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Google the ghost-writer who explains how it was all made up."
And we should believe this guy's politically motivated, self-aggrandized telling of the story because...???
So Althouse has become a "defender of lost causes!" Unfortunately, bias is a two-way street. Let me simply point out that much of what Tony Schwartz told The New Yorker is supported as well by accounts of other writers who captured the Trump personality. The difference, of course, is that Schwartz spent 18 months engrossed in Trump's daily business activities and he knows what is fiction and what is fact inside the covers of the book.
That puts Schwartz in a position far ahead of the conjecture written by Scott Adams.
Blogger Mark said... "You are in a position NOW to fix it. You haven't. Instead you have tried to feed us a bunch of shit that we are supposed to eat and like it. Why the hell should we EVER vote for you?"
The problem is they are not in a position to fix it NOW. This mess was constructed to get around the Senate filibuster. I think this is/was a mistake, but they do have a reason for what they did.
The Republicans are in a position to fix the "filibuster" now if they wanted to.
Look, it is excuse piled on excuse piled on excuse. The Republicans always have an excuse handy for sitting on their asses and doing nothing.
The thing is this -- everyone is on to them (well, most everyone since some keep parroting their excuses). None of their excuses hold water. None.
Eventually you come to realize that a person does what he does (or fails to do) entirely because he wants to do it (or does not want to do it), and for no other reason. Same with the Republicans.
And Trump was elected to stop and overcome those Establishment Republicans as much as to stop and overcome Hillary and the progressive regime.
I agree they should eliminate the filibuster and do it right. I understand their reluctance; they'll be in the minority again. Thing is, the Democrats won't be reluctant to eliminate it next chance they get so the Republicans should do it now.
At the very least, I don't know why they don't force the Dems to do a real filibuster. None of these pussy filibusters where the other side says they'll do it and so you just meekly slink away. Write a clean bill and make the Democrats stand on the floor of the Senate and talk until they pee in their pants.
I don't know why they don't force the Dems to do a real filibuster
Agreed. The current practice of cloture to "cut off" a "debate" that is not really happening is both an abuse and perversion of the process. The original reason for the debate rules was to allow for members to be heard and to state their case as full as they deem proper. The purpose of the rules was not simply to obstruct by announcing a "filibuster" and requiring a super-majority to bring a bill to a vote, but not having to proceed with any real debate.
Whether it is for Gorsuch or even every day legislation, they should require any Senator that wants to filibuster to maintain the floor with a real speech and then once they give up the floor, proceed to a vote. If tax and budget matters can proceed by a simple majority without the Senate crashing and burning and without it being the end of the Republic, so can other things proceed in that fashion. If it was good enough for the Founders and the first 150 years or so of our nation, it is good enough for us today.
" Well, they finally succeeded so that, yes, now it is "so complicated" that no one can grasp it all. "
Obamacare has really altered the entire healthcare industry, and for the much, much worse.
Doctors who don't have big student loans and whose kids are grown or who have a college fund, are dropping all insurance and practicing for cash. That is one thing Obamacare accomplished. It helped create the first free market in medicine in 50 years.
The non-professionals in this industry were enthusiastic. They thought they could create a big vertical integrated model that would work.
The insurance companies thought the mandates would drive customers to them under duress.
The employer mandate was supposed to take effect several years ago. The Democrats had a majority and lost it. They were afraid to try to enforce it lest their union allies bolt.
To unwind this will be a challenge. Most doctors, at least in cities, are on salary and are employed by the hospital. Or by an HMO that structures bonuses around reduced cost. I know GPs whose annual bonus is equal to their year's salary.
The young docs are working on salary with tight controls on their time and what they are allowed to do.
In Medicine we are back to the days of time and motion studies.
The reforms I think would work are to allow the Medicaid beneficiaries to stay but block grant Medicaid to the states.
End the mandates and make all insurance optional. Let insurers offer real insurance policies against insurable risks.
We haven't had that in decades.
Obamacare remains, and the coming problems are all (or mostly) on the Democrats. They passed that slow-toppling disaster, with no buy-in from Republicans, and they refused to participate in the earnest effort to save America from the collapse.
I don't think it will play out this way at all. The Republicans can't have it both ways. They can't say Obamacare is awful, but we decided not to repeal it. All of the failures of Obamacare are now owned by Republicans, because they could have repealed it and didn't. They were fine with voting for repeal when Obama was still in office, but now that it's for real, they lost their nerve. They deserve every bit of opprobrium the commenter Mark is throwing their way above.
They went wrong with "Repeal and replace". It should have been "Repeal. Period." If they truly meant what they said about Obamacare being so awful, they should just repeal it. If they want to go on to pass some other health insurance legislation, that's all well and good, but everyone knows that's hard to do. There are so many competing interests that it may well be impossible to get agreement on much. That's OK, it's just a reflection of the fact that there really isn't a consensus on what should be done next, any more than there was when Obamacare was passed in the first place.
Since Trump surprised me by winning the election, I try not to underestimate him at this point. This could definitely be a strategic maneuver. I especially think so because it happened SO fast. There's still a ton of time left even before 2018 to figure out how to get something done. I do see three basic problems, though:
1) On the politics side, there was a LOT of "we have a slam-dunk plan, it's easy, it's going to happen immediately". It's clear that, at least, was not true. There's a price to pay for that, I think. Whether it will be a force in 2018, hard to say, but it can't be good.
2) On the policy side, there's still just a ton of fundamental disagreement about what should be done. All the negotiation savvy in the world can't change the fact that moderate republicans are terrified about throwing lots of people off their insurance, and the Freedom Caucus thinks we should throw lots more people off their insurance than this (fairly draconian) bill calls for. That is a chasm of policy difference.
3) This points to a larger problem of negotiation strategy, a fundamental difference between business and politics. In real estate, for example, everyone agrees that houses should be built. The various developers and dealmakers are trying to get the best opportunities for themselves, they're working banks for better terms, they're fighting like hell, but everyone involved agrees that, as a general principle, providing housing is a profitable and worthwhile enterprise. In politics, the different stakeholders are WAY farther apart. Some people think the government should provide health care for every single American, some people think the government should not provide it for a single one. Some people think abortion should be on-demand in all fifty states, some think it should be punishable with long jail terms.
There's just way, way, WAY less agreement in politics about what should be done, and it changes the negotiation calculus. This is a prime example of that.
Well, I imagine I'm a standard-brand Republican (probably there's no such thing) and I'm not upset at all. It would have been nice to overturn ACA, but they obviously weren't in a position to really do it. Maybe they could have passed something that kind of did it, but if they can't because of the filibuster, no biggie! Let it collapse on its own, or maybe they can repeal a lot of the regulations via Scott Pruitt etc., and maybe they'll pass something later. Let's get rid of some other stuff that's easier first.
I wonder if the whole meme of how this is a disaster for Republicans is a media creation, based on wishful thinking.
MikeR:
Exactly.
Original Mike said...
At the very least, I don't know why they don't force the Dems to do a real filibuster. None of these pussy filibusters where the other side says they'll do it and so you just meekly slink away. Write a clean bill and make the Democrats stand on the floor of the Senate and talk until they pee in their pants.
That was Charles Krauthammer's idea as well. Write a clean bill. Not a reconciliation bill. Include sweeping federal tort reform in the healthcare industry, and an overhaul of insurance sales across state lines.
Let the Dems filibuster that, while Obamacare provisions tank.
Mickael K @ 5:18
In the world of economics markets are everything. It is also something that people often ignore when discussing this subject.
Post a Comment