Froma Harrop commentary: Trump might go for Medicare for all in '18

[think]

Froma Harrop commentary: Trump might go for Medicare for all in '18

By Froma Harrop
Creators Syndicate • Thursday December 15, 2016 6:28 AM

What if Republicans abruptly repealed Obamacare, chaos ensued and Democrats sat on their hands and watched? Democrats would be doing the right thing, both for the American people and for themselves.

Donald Trump has vowed to repeal Obamacare on Day One of his administration. What would he replace it with? ''Something terrific.'' Vice President-elect Mike Pence concurs: ''We're going to repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel.'' Good luck to them.

And they'll need it. The Republicans' sly repeal-and-delay gambit — repealing the Affordable Care Act right away while delaying the effective date until after the midterms — wouldn't work. Just the act of setting a kill date for Obamacare would unleash pandemonium in the insurance market. And it would create massive anxiety among the newly insured and their doctors.

The parts Republicans could get rid of through reconciliation bills — that is, without support by Senate Democrats — are the parts that have expanded coverage: tax credits to buy insurance, the Medicaid expansion and the individual mandate. Under this scenario, the number of uninsured would rise from about 29 million to 59 million by 2019, according to an Urban Institute model...

Read more:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2016/12/15/1-trump-might-go-for-medicare-for-all-in-18.html

[katmondoo]

1. I have never seen anything good come from a Republican

[unblock]

2. Nixon created the EPA.

Nothing good since then, though.

[NCTraveler]

3. No need for my comment. The ignorance in the article stands on it's own. nt.

[think]

4. Froma is a big Hillary supporter. I found the editorial flawed but interesting. Interesting that a

huge Hillary fan was now advocating Medicare for All as the Democratic solution to a potential repeal of the ACA.

As for Trump passing Medicare for All it is a sarcastic title to get the reader to consider the alternatives rather than a rational possibility.

[NCTraveler]

5. I'm not interested in who she supports. The direction of her article is based in complete ignorance.

The "alternative" she presents is a laughable joke. The writing truly makes no sense in reality. If anything, her claiming Trump would support it is nothing but normalizing him and complete bullshit.

"it is a sarcastic title"

This is not the title. Seems you didn't read it.

"Suppose Democrats approved Medicare for all and Trump were still president. Trump has said nice things in the past about Canada's single-payer system. Chances are good that he would sign the bill."

This is great.

"it is a sarcastic title to get the reader to consider the alternatives rather than a rational possibility."

I agree with you. It is not a rational possibility. Why consider alternatives that are not rational possibilities? Those are you own words.

[think]

6. It is not a rational possibility that TRUMP would pass it. But not improbable that the Democrats

would counter with Medicare for ALL.

My focus on this editorial is on the discussion of Democrats countering with and promoting Medicare for All for America as the solution to a failed GOP attempt to repeal the ACA without a suitable replacement and not on making sure any suggestion that Trump might do something rational is blasphemy.

I highly doubt from reading Froma's many other editorials that she is trying in anyway to elevate Trump but rather goading his rabid fans into considering what is going to happen with Obamacare and the claim Trump will replace it on day 1.

But perhaps Froma is just naive and has had a MAJOR change of heart and now believes Trump might do great things.

I doubt that but I've been wrong before....

[NCTraveler]

8. This is funny.

In two years you believe it is not improbable that dems will pass Medicare for all.

"But not improbable that the Democrats would counter with Medicare for ALL."

What a painful article to read. It should be in Creative Speculation. If these are thought for our path forward we are screwed. Then again, this is so far out there that it is simply laughable. The article absolutely attempts to normalize Trump.

[think]

10. It's an editorial not an article. I like the fact Froma is pushing Medicare for All

and is chiding the Trump side with a tongue in cheek EDITORIAL.

The Democrats passing Medicare for All is not improbable in 2020 should the GOP follow through with repealing the ACA. I guess I should have been more clear in my thoughts.

The Democrats being in power in congress in 2018 and then passing MFA and then getting Trumps signature is not realistic but I like the direction the author is going with.

Do I think she's serious and this is a real expectation of hers? Of course not. It just makes for conversation as to what is going to happen with health care now that Trump has declared he will immediately replace the ACA on day 1.

Harrop is playing off of Trump's own words in the past to set up a scenario that is controversial to Republicans and causes GOPers to contemplate the upcoming fight over this issue. That's why it's commentary and not an article.

[NCTraveler]

11. I'm being generous by calling it Creative Speculation.

"The Democrats being in power in congress in 2018 and then passing MFA and then getting Trumps signature is not realistic"

Just a minute ago you were calling it "not improbable".

"tongue in cheek EDITORIAL."

Another change. Well done.

It's nothing more than laughable commentary that normalizes Trump.

"tongue in cheek EDITORIAL." Only if that is young kids speak for poorly written complete bullshit.

[think]

12. Here are my 2 statements:

"It is not a rational possibility that TRUMP would pass it. But not improbable that the Democrats would counter with Medicare for ALL."

"The Democrats being in power in congress in 2018 and then passing MFA and then getting Trumps signature is not realistic"

How are these statements contradictory?

And how is calling an editorial sarcastic as compared to "tongue in cheek" another change?

What are you trying to claim here?

[NCTraveler]

13. I did not call your comments "contradictory" as you now claim.

I would and have said they go so far as to fall outside of creative speculation itself.

[think]

14. "Just a minute ago you were calling it "not improbable". Your words not mine...

[NCTraveler]

15. Correct. That is me using your own verbiage.

It's sad that even creative speculation has gone this far.

"Not improbable." lol.

[think]

16. Yes. That's you BLATANTLY using it out of context to compare the 2 statements. But not suprising....

[hatrack]

7. Yeah, he'll sign the bill right after he gets back from the Pope's wedding

[NCTraveler]

9. First thing's first.

Dems will have control in '18 and Trump is going to sign our bill increasing taxes on the rich.

[Vinca]

17. Hard to imagine, but he must know he doesn't have to pay for his employee's heatlh insurance

at most places in the world other than the United States. The greedy business side of him might bite on this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. But that's not how American elections work. Republicans will still control Congress in 2018

If, by some amazing happening, Democrats won the House elections, and a supermajority in the Senate, in late 2018, they could try to get laws passed in 2019. But that 'if', given the gerrymandering of House districts, and the fact that of the Senate seats being contested in 2018, The Democrats plus independent allies hold 25, and the Republicans just 8, and Democrats need a gain of 8 to get a supermajority, is wider than the Grand Canyon.

This article is the health policy equivalent of

Collect Underpants
?
Profit

[think]

20. It's an editorial not an article. It says "commentary" right in the headline.

Yes. If it was an article claiming these things would play out it would be ridiculous.

Apparently many think Harrop is seriously claiming Trump will support Medicare for All. That's not the case.

Sometimes a person uses a hyperbolic hypothesis as a tool to reassess the way we look at an issue for debate. Harrop is playing on Trump's earlier statements that he saw merit in universal healthcare and is using it to goad his supporters.

In this case it didn't work and I regret posting it.

This wasn't suppose to be taken literally....

Harrop used a different title for the same EDITORIAL on a different web site. Perhaps I should have looked for it and used it instead:

Harrop: Democrats should let GOP own Obamacare repeal

http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/harrop-democrats-should-let-gop-own-obamacare-repeal/

It's the same editorial but the title is obviously aimed for a different audience. I figured DUers could get passed the headline, understand the intent, and appreciate the reasons for using a provocative headline to draw people into a discussion of Medicare for All as the only realistic replacement of the ACA.

Not once while reading the editorial or after posting did I ever believe that Harrop seriously felt that Trump was going to embrace Medicare for All now or in two years. I'm familiar enough with her work to understand her reasoning and as this person is a HUGE Clinton supporter I thought others would easily grasp that as well. My mistake....

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. It really doesn't read like sarcasm at all, even with a change of headline

Look at how she ends it:

"Chances are good that he would sign the bill.

A lot of what-ifs here, but one strongly suspects that on this issue, Trump really doesn’t care."

I can't read that and think "she's saying there's no chance of getting Democrats elected in 2018, and there's no chance Trump would support Medicare For All". Is she in the habit of filling her column with "this will never happen, but I'll explain it in detail"?

[think]

22. It's out of the norm for her in ALL aspects. But maybe she has done a 180 on Trump. Beats me.

Froma Harrop is a HUGE Clinton supporter and not one I'm even a fan of but I thought maybe the editorial was interesting as she was promoting Medicare for All which is what stood out for me.

None of her other editorials ever put Trump in a positive light from what I've seen.

https://www.creators.com/read/froma-harrop

http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/opinion/2016/11/05/froma-harrop-trump-brand-goes-down-market/93261590/

http://www.cdispatch.com/opinions/article.asp?aid=54801

http://www.mdjonline.com/opinion/froma-harrop-hillary-clinton-martyr-of-the-year/article_7c934a48-c177-11e6-a902-6f70ed1a275a.html


Here is her latest Tweet on the subject (It's a retweet. I'm not good at posting Twitter things.):

https://twitter.com/EyeOnInsurance/status/809115967510970368

Her account: https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

Whether she really believes the things in her editorial or used them to build a scenario to befuddle Trump supporters I can't say. But it would seem very out of character for her considering here recent editorials and Tweets in regards to Trump.

Still I was impressed how she threw Medicare for All back in the face of the Trump crowd. It was refreshing to hear from her and unexpected. That's why I posted her editorial...

[DavidDvorkin]

23. And pigs might fly.