Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic lawmakers have made a number of misleading claims about the House Republican replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act and findings in the Congressional Budget Office report.We compiled a roundup of their talking points, as a companion to our fact-check of White House claims about the CBO report.

Is it an act of mercy to throw 24 million people off of health insurance, so Republicans can hand billionaires a massive new tax giveaway? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), news conference, March 16

But what this bill does is it takes away health care from 14 million people in the next year, 24 million over ten years. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), interview on CNNs New Day, March 16

Actually, according to the CBO score, 14 million people will lose their insurance next year and 24 million people ultimately will lose their insurance. Rep. Linda T. Snchez (D-Calif.), news briefing, March 15

The two headline-grabbing estimates from the CBO report have been taken out of context by some lawmakers, includingPelosi and Snchez. The CBO estimated that under the GOP replacement bill, 14 million fewer people would be insured in 2018 than under the current health-care law and 24 million fewer people insured by 2026.

But this does not mean all of the 14 million or 24 million will be thrown off health insurance or lose health insurance.

Some of the people who would be uninsured would choose not to have insurance, because they had decided to obtain health insurance only to avoid a penalty under the ACAs individual mandate; the replacement bill eliminates the mandate. Others, such as elderly Americans, would not get insurance because the premiums are too high. (The replacement bill would allow the elderly to be charged five times as much as the youngest insured, compared with a 3:1 ratio under the ACA.) Many of the uninsured people would lose insurance because of reductionsin Medicaid enrollment after some states discontinue the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

The CBO estimated that the GOP bill would lead to 14 million fewer people insured than under Obamacare by 2018. Six million of 14 million would be people who now havecoverage in the individualinsurance market; 5million would be people with coverage under Medicaid; and 2million would be people with coverage through their employers, who also would no longer be required to provide insurance. (The remainder come from other insurance shifts.)

Most of the reductions in coverage in 2018 and 2019 would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate, the CBO found.

The CBO estimated that health insurance premiums would be 10 percent lower in 2026 than projected under current law. Thats because insurance premiums would spike for older people (20 to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old) and many older people would drop out of the insurance markets. Then the pool of people getting insurance would be younger and healthier, leading to lower premiums than currently projected. But its important to remember that it does not mean that premiums would decline by 10 percent, just that they would increase at a lower rate than now projected.

If this legislation is passed and millions of people are thrown off of health insurance, not able to get to a doctor when they must, thousands of Americans will die. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), quoted in news article, March 13

Sanders repeated a version of a Four-Pinocchio claim after the CBO report was released this week. However, Sanders spoke in broader terms this time (thousands of Americans will die) rather than using a specific number (36,000) that was so dubious that it earned Four Pinocchios.

Previously, Sanders had cited a calculation from ThinkProgress, a left-leaning website, assuming that 29.8 million people would lose their insurance and that one person will die for every 830 people who lose insurance.

As we noted in our January fact-check, the 29.8 million figure was a pretty big assumption. It was based on a report that assumed Republicans will repeal parts of the law through the reconciliation process without outlining any replacement plan, thus leading to a near collapse of the nongroup insurance market.

The actual GOP replacement plan, of course, doesnt support those assumptions. The CBO found that 24 million people would become uninsured compared with the current law, over 10 years (not immediately). The CBO didnt calculate the bills impact on mortality.

That takes away one of the main assumptions made in the original calculation on which Sanders relies, and it makes his claim questionable. Plus, he again said that thousands will die rather than could die stating calculations based on assumptions as a definitive fact.

#ReadtheBill & youll see #TrumpCare would allow insurance execs to personally make millions off your health care. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), post on Twitter, March 8

Baldwins tweet is misleading. The GOP replacement bill would repeal an Obamacare cap of $500,000 on how much insurance companies can deduct on their tax returns from their chief executives salaries. The cap applies to how much corporations can deduct not the individual executives tax liability, as PolitiFact Wisconsin noted.

According to CNNMoney: Five major insurers paid their CEOs $73 million in 2015, the most recent year for which pay has been reported. Only $2.5 million of that was deductible under Obamacare tax laws. But more than $70 million of that would be deductible under the proposed Republican legislation.

In general, other types of businesses face a $1 million deduction limit for executive compensation. The cap also restricted corporations from making tax deductions on stock options and other performance-based pay for the executives. So Baldwin and others argue that eliminating the cap would give incentive to companies to pay their executives more, since theyd make up for some of it through lower taxes. Removing the cap would ultimately boost the incomes of top executives, who stand to gain from their companies profitability, they say.

So while getting rid of the cap may make it easier for insurance companies to boost executive compensation, Baldwin goes too far in saying that the bill would allow executives to personally make millions.

Plus, well note that top executives already make millions. The chief executives of Aetna and Cigna received $17.3 million in 2015, UnitedHealths chief executive had $14.5 million in total compensation, and Humanas chief executive received $10.3 million, CNNMoney reported.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Read more here:
Fact-checking Democrats' rhetoric on the GOP health-care bill - Washington Post

In the summer of 1987, I led a team of young lawyers to oppose President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Our work, which today would be called opposition research, found its way into the devastating confirmation hearing testimony of Erwin Griswold, the former Harvard Law School dean who had been Bork's predecessor as solicitor general.

I do not claim that the work of my little team had any real impact on the Senate's 58-42 vote rejecting Bork's nomination. Griswold was only one in a parade of powerful anti-Bork witnesses, and Bork's arrogance and tin ear for politics were his own worst enemies. As distasteful as the battle was, the end the successful nomination of Anthony Kennedy after Bork's defeat seemed to justify the means.

Nevertheless, I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. While the nation did wind up with a much more acceptable choice, the treatment of Bork touched off a Thirty Years' War on judicial appointments. We have politicized the judicial confirmation process far beyond historical norms and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It's time for a truce.

Judge Neil Gorsuch is superbly well-prepared and well-qualified to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. There is no real dispute about that. Nevertheless, it seems that anti-Gorsuch forces are girding their loins for battle. Poor Gorsuch, they will say. We're going to do the best we can to defeat your nomination but it's not about you.

Just what is it about, then?

The first answer is: We don't like the decisions we are afraid he will make. Anyone with a basic understanding of how judges make decisions rejects that simplistic argument out of hand. Teams of young lawyers are certainly doing opposition research on Gorsuch today just as we did 30 years ago, but they have found nothing disqualifying yet and (I predict) will fail to do so.

Does his record support the label extremist? Certainly not. Ideologue? No. Conservative? Yes, of course but elections do have consequences. Gorsuch has declined and will continue to decline to answer questions about how he would decide any issue that might come before him not only because he is ethically bound to do so, but also because, until he reads the briefs and hears the arguments, he doesn't know. Neither does anyone else.

Another common reason to oppose Gorsuch: The Democratic base demands it. That answer gives new meaning to the term leading from behind. It assumes that this base is a rabid, unthinking multitude of sans-culottes who must be obeyed. But the real base that Democrats need to find and cultivate is voters who can distinguish outrageous actions from responsible ones.

Democrats should want leadership from the front, not mindless obedience to those whose only position is opposition. Responsible leaders should be explaining the function of the third branch in the U.S. constitutional system, the importance of judicial independence and the danger of a politicized the judiciary. A base that understands those things will support the prompt and uncomplicated confirmation of Gorsuch.

The final reason for opposition and for many Democrats the most powerful one is really schoolyard talk: Because you did it to Merrick Garland. Set aside for a moment the obvious retort from Republicans that is, We did it to Garland because we had the votes, and you don't and consider instead where the argument goes from there. It goes on and on and on. We will struggle without end, each obstructionist act lacking any better reason than the most recent insult. This is the Hatfields and McCoys. The Jets and Sharks.

Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but (as the Harry Reids and Mitch McConnells of this world love to remind one another) there will be another election, and what goes around comes around. A peace offering, plainly labeled as such, just might lead to something that is better for the country than mindless, vindictive tit for tat. What do the Democrats have to lose?

Washington Post

Robertson is a retired U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia.

Related articles:

Donald Trump can't stop losing

Trumpcare reveals GOP's scorn for poor Americans

Is Donald Trump falling into Paul Ryan's trap?

Are immigrants destroying our way of life?

Originally posted here:
Democrats, let Neil Gorsuch be your peace offering - Chicago Tribune

PHILADELPHIA The Democratic Party has a God problem.

And over the last couple of decades, as its base became more educated, less religious and more urban, this problem has only grown.

Some of this has to do with lower church attendance in cities versus rural areas, and the Democratic Partys increasing reliance on urban voters. Some of it is the divisiveness of social or cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. And the divide has seemingly sapped Democrats ability to communicate to religious Americans.

Especially if those people of faith are white, according to Brad Chism, a longtime and respected Democratic strategist based in Mississippi.

And that problem extends to the national media, who by and large are mostly Democrats, meaning you have these powerful forces who do not understand more than half of the people in this country, he said.

Chism makes a crucial point about what this means for American politics: Some of the greatest moral advancements in our countrys history have been accomplished largely through the influence of the church and church-going people, especially through the 20th century.

You look at womens suffrage, civil rights, the abolition of slavery and all of these massive other changes religion and religious people have played a role in moving society toward a higher plane, said Chism.

Weve seen that recently as well, but a lot of progressives and liberal Democrats dont see the role of religion in society, and that is a big mistake, he said.

And its a mistake people like Kevin Washo are trying to rectify, though they feel like theyre swimming against the tide. A day before the Democratic National Convention opened here last July, Washo, a Catholic prominent national Democrat, organized a private mass led by a Jesuit priest in the conference room of a prestigious law firm in a shimmering Market Street skyscraper.

That imagery is a far cry from the 2012 Democratic convention, when the hall exploded in turmoil as Democrats voted to amend their partys platform to include the word God. The platform initially had dropped previous platform language that referenced God. After an outcry, convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa returned to the stage to take a floor vote on a motion to reinsert the language.

The floor vote quite clearly failed as Villaraigosa repeated the roll call. Eventually he declared that the ayes have it, and loud boos exploded across the arena.

The headlines that came out of that debacle Democrats boo God was a common one ended up making matters worse for those, like Washo and Chism, who would like to see their party counter the perception of its estrangement from people of faith.

Washo, a former executive director of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, wants the national party to recognize this problem and invest heavily in solving it: One of the first things I think they need is full-time engagement at the DNC to focus on people of faith, not just for a cycle, but make something permanent within the party with real resources.

Washo said the messaging also needs to be sincere to people of faith a real, authentic effort, not lip service.

The 2006 midterm elections seem to have been a turning point. Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate as well as a majority of state governorships. As the Pew Research Center noted at the time, exit polls showed Democrats did well among their core constituencies; compared to 2002, they received increased support from Jews, the religiously unaffiliated, infrequent churchgoers and those who never attend religious services.

In other words, Democrats were hugely successful across the country by solidifying their base. In the process, they have pushed away religious voters not simply by ignoring them but by actively repelling them with accusations of bigotry and backwardness.

Unless they change that, Democrats havent got a prayer at solving their God problem.

See more here:
Democrats still haven't faced their God problem - New York Post

Brianna Wu Wants to Change the Democrats' Playbook New York Times Do you really think Democrats need to take pages from the Trump playbook? I would say we need to speak with our hearts more. The typical Democratic way of talking about, say, wealth inequality is to bring out Robert Reich, who will give a cute academic ...

Read the rest here:
Brianna Wu Wants to Change the Democrats' Playbook - New York Times

House Democrats lost seats in the 2016 elections. They're looking to narrow their 24-seat deficit in 2018, when the president's party typically loses seats in his first midterm elections. David Goldman/AP hide caption

House Democrats lost seats in the 2016 elections. They're looking to narrow their 24-seat deficit in 2018, when the president's party typically loses seats in his first midterm elections.

National Democrats are investing more resources in an upcoming Georgia special election, hoping new research gained from focus groups could not only pull off an upset in the suburban Atlanta district, but also give them clues to how they can best put the House in play next year.

According to details first shared with NPR, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is sponsoring three focus groups in the district over the coming week aimed at better discovering how to target younger voters, African-American voters and swing voters many of whom have not been reliable in turning out in midterm elections.

"Understanding that people are more than numbers, we have made a strategic decision to invest in qualitative research that will not only help up us in Georgia's 6th District, but also inform our message to key groups of voters ahead of 2018," said DCCC spokesman Tyler Law. "In order to learn lessons from last cycle and maximize our gains on an expanded battlefield, we must listen to real people and see what drives them to vote, and these focus groups are an important early step towards achieving that goal."

Democrats believe they have a unique opportunity in the race to succeed now-Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. The suburban Georgia district voted for Mitt Romney by 24 points four years ago; President Trump carried it by just over 1 point last November.

Places like the 6th District, where Trump drastically underperformed past Republicans, are the key to Democrats taking back the House, where they already have limited options due to a gerrymandered map. They need 24 seats to win back control, and there are 23 districts that voted for Hillary Clinton that are currently held by Republicans. They'll be on defense in 12 districts with Democratic incumbents that were won by Trump.

The DCCC and other progressive groups have thrown their weight behind Democrat Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old documentary filmmaker and former congressional staffer, ahead of the upcoming April 18 all-party "jungle" primary. There are 18 candidates running, and the top two finishers regardless of party will advance to a June 20 runoff if no one gets a majority.

Ossoff has already raised upwards of $2 million for his bid, and his campaign is also pitching in funds for two of the focus groups. The DCCC previously sent nine staffers to help with the race as well.

Special elections are not always accurate harbingers of future electoral success, but the Georgia contest gives Democrats a potential early bellwether of whether backlash to Trump can hurt Republicans at the ballot box. Ossoff's own ads have tried to paint himself as more of a centrist, but also have a clear anti-Trump message.

Democrats' first focus group, conducted Tuesday evening by Anzalone Liszt Grove (ALG) Research, was targeted at Romney voters between the ages of 55 and 74 who flipped to Clinton. Older voters typically turn out more reliably in presidential years, and Democrats will need to persuade more like them to vote for their candidates in November 2018. Among the questions Democrats were looking to answer is how they feel about Trump, whether those feelings about the president can trickle down to a GOP congressional nominee and whether they can persuade voters to elect a Democratic House to be a check and balance on a Trump White House.

The second focus group, set for Wednesday evening and also conducted by ALG, will survey younger voters between the ages of 18 and 45 on how Democrats can keep them engaged and motivated through the midterms.

The final focus group, this one targeting black voters, will be conducted next week by Cornell Belcher, a longtime Democratic pollster who worked on both of President Barack Obama's campaigns. The 6th District is about 12 percent African-American, but that number has nearly doubled in the past decade as the Atlanta suburbs have grown and diversified.

Democrats will need those reliably Democratic voters to turn out not just for Ossoff, but in November 2018, too, and they'll be looking to find how motivated they are to send a message to Trump with their vote and how they can be persuaded to get to the polls.

Many Democrats privately acknowledge that the district is still an uphill climb, though that could depend on which Republican advances to the June runoff. Top GOP hopefuls include former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, who has run twice before statewide and in some comments has looked to put some daylight between herself and the president. Johns Creek City Councilman Bob Gray just picked up the endorsement of the Club for Growth on Monday and has touted that he would be a "willing partner" to Trump.

National Republicans have dismissed the idea that running an anti-Trump strategy will work, saying Democrats tried and failed with that message last fall. But there are signs the party is taking Ossoff and his momentum seriously. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a superPAC aligned with GOP leadership, launched a $1.1 million buy against Ossoff. Its ad campaign began with an ad featuring footage of Ossoff dressed as Han Solo for a Star Wars-themed parody his college a cappella group did about drinking on campus.

The rest is here:
Democrats Eye Georgia Special Election To Test 2018 Messages - NPR