I don't really understand what North Korea is up to - time will tell?
It's a combination of pressure from their paymasters, China, and the mountain used as their test site collapsing.
But of course it was Trump calling him Rocket Man that made the real difference ffs!!
My views on Trump are pretty clear, I think. But you do have to give him some credit here surely? There has to have been significant pressure and concessions from his administration for this to go ahead.
Certainly some credit, yeah. It's just really hard to know what exactly they're doing behind the scenes. Their attitude toward diplomacy has been hands off, to day the least. So the idea that they're driving this process is difficult for me to imagine. Obviously, as with the Iran and Cuba deals the details of how it happened won't come out for years. And also, as I wrote above, I'm curious as to what has changed to make the North want this and China at least give it their blessing, if not outright encourage them.
Long story short it's always hard to know what's going in behind the scenes with diplomacy, and even more difficult with North Korea.
Credit to the American diplomats for sure, especially doing their job with the serious impediment of the President and his totally mindless outbursts which really could have caused a war.
I don't really understand what North Korea is up to - time will tell?
It's a combination of pressure from their paymasters, China, and the mountain used as their test site collapsing.
But of course it was Trump calling him Rocket Man that made the real difference ffs!!
My views on Trump are pretty clear, I think. But you do have to give him some credit here surely? There has to have been significant pressure and concessions from his administration for this to go ahead.
Behind the scenes, perhaps - and if so then it would have taken a great deal of diplomacy to reach this stage. The Trump public face of the 'Rocket Man' and 'Fire and Fury' only lead to tit for tat from NK. Something has happened away from twatter to get here, but what, we don't know.
I don't really understand what North Korea is up to - time will tell?
It's a combination of pressure from their paymasters, China, and the mountain used as their test site collapsing.
But of course it was Trump calling him Rocket Man that made the real difference ffs!!
My views on Trump are pretty clear, I think. But you do have to give him some credit here surely? There has to have been significant pressure and concessions from his administration for this to go ahead.
Behind the scenes, perhaps - and if so then it would have taken a great deal of diplomacy to reach this stage. The Trump public face of the 'Rocket Man' and 'Fire and Fury' only lead to tit for tat from NK. Something has happened away from twatter to get here, but what, we don't know.
I'm sure the US deserve credit despite Donald's bizarre tweets and speeches. Maybe Trump just gets how to communicate with Kim Jong?
If progress with North Korea is simply down to Trump's tweets then maybe we are entering a new stage of world diplomacy?
The only places Trump has showed some success are here, the Supreme Court nomination, and the tax cut. And in each case he has mostly allowed the real politicians room behind the scenes to get the deal done. When he let's people do their jobs, he has done well. When he can't keep his mouth (mostly) shut, he fails.
A right-leaning member of the Supreme Court, a tax cut and progress on North Korea... that would usually be enough for a solid approval rating and decent mid-terms for the GOP after just 2 years, if he had just stayed rational all the rest of the time. But he has not. Because he is not. And the country now wants the Dems to lead in The House and Senate to check his personality and lower the perceived danger level.
The only places Trump has showed some success are here, the Supreme Court nomination, and the tax cut. And in each case he has mostly allowed the real politicians room behind the scenes to get the deal done. When he let's people do their jobs, he has done well. When he can't keep his mouth (mostly) shut, he fails.
A right-leaning member of the Supreme Court, a tax cut and progress on North Korea... that would usually be enough for a solid approval rating and decent mid-terms for the GOP after just 2 years, if he had just stayed rational all the rest of the time. But he has not. Because he is not. And the country now wants the Dems to lead in The House and Senate to check his personality and lower the perceived danger level.
To be fair to Republicans, and no I'm not comfortable with that either, the midterms tend to lean heavily toward the party in opposition. 1994, 2006, 2010, 2014. I think they were always going to lose seats in the House, I think the question is how many.
On the tax cuts, they're just not very popular. And moreover, they are not the red meat that the diehard base of the party want anymore. The Reagan conservatives are either gone or Democrats. And there aren't a lot of populist nationalist Republicans who think cutting taxes on corporations is anywhere near the top of the list.
On North Korea I think you overestimate how much Americans care about foreign policy.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
But yeah a strong economy, though one that remains tilted to the wealthy and in which wages remain flat. That should be good enough for a higher approval rating, and in a normal atmosphere I think the generic ballot numbers which are down to Ds +7/8 would be about what you'd expect. Instead, in special elections you've had Ds over performing by around 17% on average, which are huge numbers. And yeah I think at least a decent amount of that is down to Trump's instability.
A really good article from the New York Times that really highlights the fact that KJU still holds all the cards in all this, and that it's really still all to play for.
This is the type of story that often gets overlooked because it doesn't provide a clear and smooth narrative. But I think it's a good reminder that we don't have a clear narrative as to what has been happening in the North, and what will happen. And that's really key here, obviously you'll get Trump and his supporters congratulating themselves on Twitter, but nothing concrete has been established as far as denuclearization goes, and this is not plan for disarmament as of yet. Er have been here before. Yes this time feels different, potentially amongst the important symbology of ending the Korean War, but things feeling different only really counts if outcomes are different. And that's still to be seen.
The only places Trump has showed some success are here, the Supreme Court nomination, and the tax cut. And in each case he has mostly allowed the real politicians room behind the scenes to get the deal done. When he let's people do their jobs, he has done well. When he can't keep his mouth (mostly) shut, he fails.
A right-leaning member of the Supreme Court, a tax cut and progress on North Korea... that would usually be enough for a solid approval rating and decent mid-terms for the GOP after just 2 years, if he had just stayed rational all the rest of the time. But he has not. Because he is not. And the country now wants the Dems to lead in The House and Senate to check his personality and lower the perceived danger level.
To be fair to Republicans, and no I'm not comfortable with that either, the midterms tend to lean heavily toward the party in opposition. 1994, 2006, 2010, 2014. I think they were always going to lose seats in the House, I think the question is how many.
On the tax cuts, they're just not very popular. And moreover, they are not the red meat that the diehard base of the party want anymore. The Reagan conservatives are either gone or Democrats. And there aren't a lot of populist nationalist Republicans who think cutting taxes on corporations is anywhere near the top of the list.
On North Korea I think you overestimate how much Americans care about foreign policy.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
But yeah a strong economy, though one that remains tilted to the wealthy and in which wages remain flat. That should be good enough for a higher approval rating, and in a normal atmosphere I think the generic ballot numbers which are down to Ds +7/8 would be about what you'd expect. Instead, in special elections you've had Ds over performing by around 17% on average, which are huge numbers. And yeah I think at least a decent amount of that is down to Trump's instability.
"But a jump in wage growth and an acceleration in inflation in the first quarter will attract attention when Fed officials meet next Tuesday and Wednesday."
The only places Trump has showed some success are here, the Supreme Court nomination, and the tax cut. And in each case he has mostly allowed the real politicians room behind the scenes to get the deal done. When he let's people do their jobs, he has done well. When he can't keep his mouth (mostly) shut, he fails.
A right-leaning member of the Supreme Court, a tax cut and progress on North Korea... that would usually be enough for a solid approval rating and decent mid-terms for the GOP after just 2 years, if he had just stayed rational all the rest of the time. But he has not. Because he is not. And the country now wants the Dems to lead in The House and Senate to check his personality and lower the perceived danger level.
To be fair to Republicans, and no I'm not comfortable with that either, the midterms tend to lean heavily toward the party in opposition. 1994, 2006, 2010, 2014. I think they were always going to lose seats in the House, I think the question is how many.
On the tax cuts, they're just not very popular. And moreover, they are not the red meat that the diehard base of the party want anymore. The Reagan conservatives are either gone or Democrats. And there aren't a lot of populist nationalist Republicans who think cutting taxes on corporations is anywhere near the top of the list.
On North Korea I think you overestimate how much Americans care about foreign policy.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
But yeah a strong economy, though one that remains tilted to the wealthy and in which wages remain flat. That should be good enough for a higher approval rating, and in a normal atmosphere I think the generic ballot numbers which are down to Ds +7/8 would be about what you'd expect. Instead, in special elections you've had Ds over performing by around 17% on average, which are huge numbers. And yeah I think at least a decent amount of that is down to Trump's instability.
"But a jump in wage growth and an acceleration in inflation in the first quarter will attract attention when Fed officials meet next Tuesday and Wednesday."
Should clarify real wages. Whatever small growth there is will almost certainly be cut off by the average 20% increase in healthcare costs (potentially more depending on what the TrumpCare plans do to the market).
Did he also say he would be supporting the US joint bid to host the 2026 World Cup?
I was thinking we should chuck Greenland in the mix as well.
In all seriousness, they're always going to give the American President credit. Especially when they know that flattery works like a charm with this President, which is what scares me so much about his meeting with Kim. It could very well be that Trump's tweeting has helped this situation. But there is no clear evidence of that at this point (and again, something we may not know for years), and also, as mentioned above, there's still a long way to go in this whole thing.
What I'm saying I would say if anyone else were President. It's not a Trump thing, or even a US thing, it's a North Korea thing. And it's still not clear why they're doing what they're doing, what they want, and what they're willing to give up.
I'm not so biased that I'd rather Trump fail than we get a de-nuclearized North Korea. That would be insane. What I'm saying is we're a long way off from that, and yet from some of the coverage here, and some of the coverage in the press, you'd think we just signed the Paris Peace Treaties.
I also hope the denuclearize, but the realist in me says that will be a very long game. After all the effort NK have put into developing an effective nuclear arsenal (or so were told), why would they give up the only leverage they have? For a peace treaty? Access to the worlds markets for country that produces virtually nothing?
Trump has given him what he wants - a place on the world stage - with nothing in return.
So unless the Chinese are putting the screws on, this may be an endless round of talks, although an official peace treaty would be a good step forward.
I am wondering what China is doing. I find the release of the report stating that he’s only giving up nuclear testing because his test site is unstable fascinating. It almost like they went out of their way to undermine Kim.
I also hope the denuclearize, but the realist in me says that will be a very long game. After all the effort NK have put into developing an effective nuclear arsenal (or so were told), why would they give up the only leverage they have? For a peace treaty? Access to the worlds markets for country that produces virtually nothing?
Trump has given him what he wants - a place on the world stage - with nothing in return.
So unless the Chinese are putting the screws on, this may be an endless round of talks, although an official peace treaty would be a good step forward. I am wondering what China is doing. I find the release of the report stating that he’s only giving up nuclear testing because his test site is unstable fascinating. It almost like they went out of their way to undermine Kim.
It’s not in Chinese interests for the situation to change either way for North Korea. If Kim goes crazier they’d have to step in and bang Kim will be ousted and NK will become a failed state with refugees flooding into China. NK gets friendlier and eventually reunifise with the south and China has lost a buffer state between them and a lot of US military.
It’s not in Chinese interests for the situation to change either way for North Korea. If Kim goes crazier they’d have to step in and bang Kim will be ousted and NK will become a failed state with refugees flooding into China. NK gets friendlier and eventually reunifise with the south and China has lost a buffer state between them and a lot of US military.
It’s not in Chinese interests for the situation to change either way for North Korea. If Kim goes crazier they’d have to step in and bang Kim will be ousted and NK will become a failed state with refugees flooding into China. NK gets friendlier and eventually reunifise with the south and China has lost a buffer state between them and a lot of US military.
I don't know what point you're trying to make, nor how you're trying to refute what kent is saying.
But yeah kent, agreed, and it's why it's interesting to see what China's play is here. To me, them allowing this leads credence to the theory that North Korea is falling apart internally and they realize the end is nigh one way or another.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
As the quote goes... "Those who rob Peter to pay for Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
One of my longest friends, who lives in New Jersey... he is 50. His wife is 48. His two kids are 18 and 15. His premiums for the lowest Obamacare plan, with a $15,000 family deductible?
Try $33,000 for 2018. My premiums for myself and my wife alone are $13,000 this year.
ACA is not a success. It will implode in a few years at the pace premiums are going up.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
As the quote goes... "Those who rob Peter to pay for Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
One of my longest friends, who lives in New Jersey... he is 50. His wife is 48. His two kids are 18 and 15. His premiums for the lowest Obamacare plan, with a $15,000 family deductible?
Try $33,000 for 2018. My premiums for myself and my wife alone are $13,000 this year.
ACA is not a success. It will implode in a few years at the pace premiums are going up.
Yeh, but you can own as many automatic weapons as you like.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
As the quote goes... "Those who rob Peter to pay for Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
One of my longest friends, who lives in New Jersey... he is 50. His wife is 48. His two kids are 18 and 15. His premiums for the lowest Obamacare plan, with a $15,000 family deductible?
Try $33,000 for 2018. My premiums for myself and my wife alone are $13,000 this year.
ACA is not a success. It will implode in a few years at the pace premiums are going up.
Perhaps, though the number of enrollees this past year was very high given the drastically shortened sign up period and lack of advertising. And the longer people have health insurance, regardless of the price, the more resistant they will be to not having health insurance.
Also, ACA is successful to the 20 million+ who would not otherwise have health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion.
ACA could still fall apart, it remains to be seen how this Administration and Congress undermine it. But when it does, the fact of the matter is that Republicans will own it. They control Congress. They control the Presidency. They control the Supreme Court. They promised repeal, that didn't happen. They promised lower premiums. The opposite happened. They promised more people insured, the opposite happened and that was despite failure of a bill which would have kicked 22 million off their insurance. They promised "more choice," that might just about happen in some states with plans that won't cover things prescription drugs or pregnancies. Basically, the old waste of (admittedly less) money catastrophic plans.
At some point people will want better than the ACA, you will get no argument here. I am one of the people hurt most by ACA, young and healthy and make far too much for subsidies and live in an area with high insurance costs. But when that happens, it won't be "how can we go back to the old system?" it will be the time for a universal single payer system.
20 million is not a lot in a country of 310,000,000. Obamacare has taken the percentage of Americans with healthcare from 81% before it to 88% now. Not really that impressive, given the costs are spiraling out of control and wait times getting longer and service quality edging lower. Soon, some healthcare companies might even withdraw, limiting options further. Some large companies such as Berkshire and JP Morgan are even considering leaving the whole system and creating healthcare just for their employees, away from the state, leaving the remaining system even worse for the rest of us.
Oddly, I actually think single payer may have worked better than Obamacare. But no way will a system like this last long when costs are this large and going up 15% per year on those of us paying for all the rest to get it for free.
Americans think single payer is just where the so-called "rich" pay for healthcare. Can't wait to see their reaction when they find out their own taxes will double. Should be interesting to watch. In every country with single payer, middle class taxes are much, much higher than the low rates Americans are use to. Once this dawns on them, I think you are in for a surprise at whether Americans adopt Single Payer. I think they reject it.
20 million is not a lot in a country of 310,000,000. Obamacare has taken the percentage of Americans with healthcare from 81% before it to 88% now. Not really that impressive, given the costs are spiraling out of control and wait times getting longer and service quality edging lower. Soon, some healthcare companies might even withdraw, limiting options further. Some large companies such as Berkshire and JP Morgan are even considering leaving the whole system and creating healthcare just for their employees, away from the state, leaving the remaining system even worse for the rest of us.
Oddly, I actually think single payer may have worked better than Obamacare. But no way will a system like this last long when costs are this large and going up 15% per year on those of us paying for all the rest to get it for free.
Americans think single payer is just where the so-called "rich" pay for healthcare. Can't wait to see their reaction when they find out their own taxes will double. Should be interesting to watch. In every country with single payer, middle class taxes are much, much higher than the low rates Americans are use to. Once this dawns on them, I think you are in for a surprise at whether Americans adopt Single Payer. I think they reject it.
And 20 million is a lot of people when you consider pre-ACA you had 30-odd thousands deaths per year due to lack of insurance. When you consider the number of bankruptcies due to healthcare costs. That 81-88% would also mean a lot more people have usable insurance, because of basic insurance standards are much higher. Also, that number would be higher is Southern states had taken the Medicaid expansion, but such was the desire to oppose anything Obama did (and a Supreme Court ruling), they didn't. Virginia and Maine will grow that number by maybe 750k, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head. And "expanding Medicaid in our state" seems a very good platform to run on these days.
Berkshire, Amazon, and JP Morgan aren't pulling out of the system, they're just creating their own healthcare company. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about them starting their own healthcare company just to reduce costs when they look at how much money insurers are making, they must be thinking "hmmm, maybe we could make a bit of money at this insurance lark."
The math for the pay fors is hard, but as you say with premiums going up 15%/year (I don't think, nor do I know of experts who think, that is a trend that will continue), it'd sure be interesting to see where that money would go for Medicaid, which is more efficient than private insurance. I do not see a world in which Americans would accept kicking 20 million off their insurance. Time will tell with the midterms, but the 3 million that lost their insurance last year alone could really hurt Republicans. Plus, I have no idea how you could justify kicking 20 million people off their insurance after giving a $1.5t to corporations. And let's not pretend it's a middle class tax cut, we're seeing billions going into buybacks exactly as predicted.
The only way to deal with costs and wait times (which is a huge problem that is not talked about nearly enough) is to bring it under one umbrella. So either that's a Kaiser type model, where everything is done in one place (and something I know Humana was looking at when I worked for them). Or that's expanding Medicaid, probably first with a buy-in option, and then once you have that I suspect people will begin to realize that private insurance is a shit deal.
The cynic in me says that irreparable damage has been done to their nuclear capability. It would cost them an absolute fortune to re-establish a facility to further their programme......money they simply don’t have, nor are ever likely to have under current sanctions.
Fire some missiles close to America and you force them to react. They can't react militarily because China is your ally. But they can be realistic and talk to you. You can show how you have stood up to the Americans and Trump can ease the sanctions over time and claim to have sorted out the problem. Everybody wins! Except the people who have to live in North Korea but they have lost anyway!
To be fair, Trump is good at making these things look good for him.
Comments
Long story short it's always hard to know what's going in behind the scenes with diplomacy, and even more difficult with North Korea.
If progress with North Korea is simply down to Trump's tweets then maybe we are entering a new stage of world diplomacy?
A right-leaning member of the Supreme Court, a tax cut and progress on North Korea... that would usually be enough for a solid approval rating and decent mid-terms for the GOP after just 2 years, if he had just stayed rational all the rest of the time. But he has not. Because he is not. And the country now wants the Dems to lead in The House and Senate to check his personality and lower the perceived danger level.
On the tax cuts, they're just not very popular. And moreover, they are not the red meat that the diehard base of the party want anymore. The Reagan conservatives are either gone or Democrats. And there aren't a lot of populist nationalist Republicans who think cutting taxes on corporations is anywhere near the top of the list.
On North Korea I think you overestimate how much Americans care about foreign policy.
And I would also add that the ACA is still intact, more popular than ever, and that Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. And exit poll after exit poll shows that Healthcare is the biggest factor for voters.
But yeah a strong economy, though one that remains tilted to the wealthy and in which wages remain flat. That should be good enough for a higher approval rating, and in a normal atmosphere I think the generic ballot numbers which are down to Ds +7/8 would be about what you'd expect. Instead, in special elections you've had Ds over performing by around 17% on average, which are huge numbers. And yeah I think at least a decent amount of that is down to Trump's instability.
A really good article from the New York Times that really highlights the fact that KJU still holds all the cards in all this, and that it's really still all to play for.
This is the type of story that often gets overlooked because it doesn't provide a clear and smooth narrative. But I think it's a good reminder that we don't have a clear narrative as to what has been happening in the North, and what will happen. And that's really key here, obviously you'll get Trump and his supporters congratulating themselves on Twitter, but nothing concrete has been established as far as denuclearization goes, and this is not plan for disarmament as of yet. Er have been here before. Yes this time feels different, potentially amongst the important symbology of ending the Korean War, but things feeling different only really counts if outcomes are different. And that's still to be seen.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-economy-slows-in-first-quarter-but-wage-growth-accelerates-idUSKBN1HY1PT
Still well below pre-crash levels. Averages out to flat since Trump took office.
https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?panel=1
Should clarify real wages. Whatever small growth there is will almost certainly be cut off by the average 20% increase in healthcare costs (potentially more depending on what the TrumpCare plans do to the market).
In all seriousness, they're always going to give the American President credit. Especially when they know that flattery works like a charm with this President, which is what scares me so much about his meeting with Kim. It could very well be that Trump's tweeting has helped this situation. But there is no clear evidence of that at this point (and again, something we may not know for years), and also, as mentioned above, there's still a long way to go in this whole thing.
What I'm saying I would say if anyone else were President. It's not a Trump thing, or even a US thing, it's a North Korea thing. And it's still not clear why they're doing what they're doing, what they want, and what they're willing to give up.
I'm not so biased that I'd rather Trump fail than we get a de-nuclearized North Korea. That would be insane. What I'm saying is we're a long way off from that, and yet from some of the coverage here, and some of the coverage in the press, you'd think we just signed the Paris Peace Treaties.
Trump has given him what he wants - a place on the world stage - with nothing in return.
So unless the Chinese are putting the screws on, this may be an endless round of talks, although an official peace treaty would be a good step forward.
I am wondering what China is doing. I find the release of the report stating that he’s only giving up nuclear testing because his test site is unstable fascinating. It almost like they went out of their way to undermine Kim.
Kids, this is a reminder, don't get your ideas from poorly made internet memes. At least make sure the production value is high.
But yeah kent, agreed, and it's why it's interesting to see what China's play is here. To me, them allowing this leads credence to the theory that North Korea is falling apart internally and they realize the end is nigh one way or another.
One of my longest friends, who lives in New Jersey... he is 50. His wife is 48. His two kids are 18 and 15. His premiums for the lowest Obamacare plan, with a $15,000 family deductible?
Try $33,000 for 2018. My premiums for myself and my wife alone are $13,000 this year.
ACA is not a success. It will implode in a few years at the pace premiums are going up.
You have to take the rough with the smooth.
Also, ACA is successful to the 20 million+ who would not otherwise have health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion.
ACA could still fall apart, it remains to be seen how this Administration and Congress undermine it. But when it does, the fact of the matter is that Republicans will own it. They control Congress. They control the Presidency. They control the Supreme Court. They promised repeal, that didn't happen. They promised lower premiums. The opposite happened. They promised more people insured, the opposite happened and that was despite failure of a bill which would have kicked 22 million off their insurance. They promised "more choice," that might just about happen in some states with plans that won't cover things prescription drugs or pregnancies. Basically, the old waste of (admittedly less) money catastrophic plans.
At some point people will want better than the ACA, you will get no argument here. I am one of the people hurt most by ACA, young and healthy and make far too much for subsidies and live in an area with high insurance costs. But when that happens, it won't be "how can we go back to the old system?" it will be the time for a universal single payer system.
Oddly, I actually think single payer may have worked better than Obamacare. But no way will a system like this last long when costs are this large and going up 15% per year on those of us paying for all the rest to get it for free.
Americans think single payer is just where the so-called "rich" pay for healthcare. Can't wait to see their reaction when they find out their own taxes will double. Should be interesting to watch. In every country with single payer, middle class taxes are much, much higher than the low rates Americans are use to. Once this dawns on them, I think you are in for a surprise at whether Americans adopt Single Payer. I think they reject it.
Berkshire, Amazon, and JP Morgan aren't pulling out of the system, they're just creating their own healthcare company. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about them starting their own healthcare company just to reduce costs when they look at how much money insurers are making, they must be thinking "hmmm, maybe we could make a bit of money at this insurance lark."
The math for the pay fors is hard, but as you say with premiums going up 15%/year (I don't think, nor do I know of experts who think, that is a trend that will continue), it'd sure be interesting to see where that money would go for Medicaid, which is more efficient than private insurance. I do not see a world in which Americans would accept kicking 20 million off their insurance. Time will tell with the midterms, but the 3 million that lost their insurance last year alone could really hurt Republicans. Plus, I have no idea how you could justify kicking 20 million people off their insurance after giving a $1.5t to corporations. And let's not pretend it's a middle class tax cut, we're seeing billions going into buybacks exactly as predicted.
The only way to deal with costs and wait times (which is a huge problem that is not talked about nearly enough) is to bring it under one umbrella. So either that's a Kaiser type model, where everything is done in one place (and something I know Humana was looking at when I worked for them). Or that's expanding Medicaid, probably first with a buy-in option, and then once you have that I suspect people will begin to realize that private insurance is a shit deal.
It would cost them an absolute fortune to re-establish a facility to further their programme......money they simply don’t have, nor are ever likely to have under current sanctions.
To be fair, Trump is good at making these things look good for him.
I'd still rather my government spent the firework plane money on feeding millions of starving people though.