Brookings Institution: William A. Galston: 'Is Medicare For All A Trap For Democrats?'

Source:Brookings Institution- Washington: still the capital of the free world. 

Source:The New Democrat

"As the campaign for the presidential nomination heats up, the Medicare for All proposal that became popular with Democrats on the stump in 2018 risks pushing Democratic candidates into a trap in 2020. A political party is asking for trouble when it embraces a position on a high-profile issue that most Americans reject. But it’s not easy for a to avoid this pitfall when a majority of its own members endorse such a position."

From Brookings

"Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) joins MTP Daily to talk about single-payer health care and the "Medicare For All" bill that he is co-sponsoring."

From MSNBC

Source:MSNBC- Yes. Democrats are divided over Medicare For All 

To answer William Galston's question: Medicare For All, is a trap for Democrat and I'll explain why.

Source:The Wall Street Journal- Socialist Democrats?

Back in 1972 had the Democratic Party nominated Senator Edmund Muskie, who was a solid Progressive Democrat, but a Center-Left mainstream Democrat, over Senator George McGovern who was the Bernie Sanders Socialist of him time running nationally against a Center-Right and in many cases Progressive Republican in Richard Nixon, chances are and would depend on what campaign he would've ran, but he probably beats President Nixon in that election. The reasons why Richard Nixon ever becomes President in the first place and didn't win in 1960 has as much to do with to do with who he ran against in 60, 68, and 72 and the Democratic Party during those years, as it had to do with Richard Nixon the man himself. Who was never a popular national figure, at least personally even if Americans liked his foreign policy. party

If anything Donald Trump is even less likable and and more unpopular than Richard Nixon. Whatever you think of Dick Nixon, at least he had a plus approval rating as President and more than two years into his presidency, Trump has never been above even 45% and that was in his first days as President. Which means that Trump can't run for election on his popularity and run a positive campaign, because other than the strong economic and job growth in the economy, President trump really has nothing to run on in a positive sense. Americans clearly don't like him, don't trust him, don't even believe the man, don't even believe he's honest and not just ignorant and unqualified and they believe he's ignorant and unqualified, but apparently disliked Hillary Clinton even more in 2016. Which is how Donald trump, who is nothing more than a reality show star who really has nothing other than that when it comes to his own accomplishments becomes President of the United States.

So why is Medicare For All a trap for Democrats?

Instead of being able to run a positive reelection campaign in 2020, President Trump will be running a campaign against the Democratic Party. He'l be running against those Socialist Democrats ( as he'll them ) and their Socialist Democrat nominee for President ( as he'll call whoever that person is ) who wants to just raise your taxes, spend most of your money for you, take your health care and health insurance from you and make all of us dependent on Uncle Sam for our daily survival. If the Democratic Party and their leader embrace Medicare For All and the so-called Green New Deal in general. But if Democrats nominate a Center-Left Progressive ( which is what Progressives really are and not Socialists ) like a Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, ( just to throw out some names here ) than they can not just beat President Trump, especially if they have a solid Vice Presidential nominee, but don't have to run to the middle and be boring to beat the Republican Party in 2020. Which means not just the White House, but winning back the Senate and adding to their majority in the House.

The difference between what's called Medicare For All which depending on what numbers you look would be a new 3 trillion-dollar Federal program, where almost no one knows how to finance that and plus all the lost jobs that would result in eliminating the private health insurance industry, as well as perhaps jobs in the medical industry with hospitals having to layoff doctors and nurses because Medicare simply doesn't cover everything that private health insurers cover and what's called the Medicare Public Option that was almost passed out of Congress in 2009-10 and probably should've been had then Senate Leader Harry Reid used reconciliation on that and he could've gotten it through the Senate with just 51 Democratic votes, is that the private health insurance and health care industry would remain in place. But Americans depending on how the Medicare Public Option would be set up would now have the option to buy into Medicare in their state as if they were buying private health insurance, or keep their private health insurance plan.

I have issues with what's called Medicare For All for multiple reasons.

Perhaps the main one after you get to how huge the new Medicare would be with it now responsible for the health insurance and therefor the health care of about 320 million Americans ( and growing ) with roughly 1/5 Americans not able to afford health insurance at all which would make the Medicare costs for everyone else especially lower middle class Americans more expensive, because they would have to cover their own Medicare costs, plus the costs of low-income Americans whether they're working or not.

Perhaps the 2nd would be me as  Federalist who actually still believes in the U.S. Constitution and that having to do with the 10th Amendment. It would be one thing if the Federal Government decided to eliminate the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare For All and allow the states to run their own Medicare program, instead of Uncle Sam trying to run the whole damn program for the entire country himself, because then Medicare For All would be on sound constitutional grounds and not get the 10th Amendment challenges in court that it would be guaranteed to get. And then you would also get some competition between the states about how best to run Medicare in America.

My 3rd issue has to do with the fact that Medicare For All is not only not practical, but not necessary either. You can get to universal health care coverage without having to create one huge and expensive health insurance program. Which is the Medicare Public Option that I've already mentioned. Give Americans of all ages the option to buy into Medicare as if they were purchasing private health insurance.

Similar to Medicaid, allow the states to set up their own Medicare programs instead of again Uncle Sam trying to run the entire new program by himself. And the simple answer to the simple question of how would this be paid for is it would be paid for by the customers themselves. And you could set up a new low-income fund for low-income workers and people who are on Welfare so they could get into Medicare as well, if they choose too. With a Medicare Public Option you could also now eliminate Medicaid, because Medicare would become universal in the sense that every would become eligible for it. You could also even phase out the payroll tax for Medicare, because you now have all this new additional Americans paying into Medicare for their health insurance. Which would be a huge middle class tax cut for 10s or hundreds of millions of Americans.

If Democrats are smart history suggests they might not be instead repeat the history of 1968 and 72, but if they're smart they'll leave the socialism for the Green Party again in 2020 and instead of run as the FDR or Truman, LBJ, Obama Progressive Democratic Party as a party that's not looking to take over Americans lives for them and create a government big enough to run people's lives for them, but instead a responsible government that is able to empower people who are in need to get up and become productive and successful members of society.

As well as be able to represent the entire country as a whole and not just as politicians who are running for a certain wing of the country that wants government to do everything for them, but instead as a pluralist party that represents all Americans and what we have in common as a country that believes that every American regardless of their physical identity and DNA can make it America on their own, if they're just given the opportunity to do so.

Bill Parcells: 'This Is Why You Lift All Them Weights, This is Why You Do All That'

Source:AZ Quotes- Bill Parcells, when he was head coach of the New York Giants.

SourceThe Daily Review

"Pro Football Hall of Fame head coach & front office executive Bill Parcells comes in at #7 on the list of Top 10 Mic'd Up Guys of All Time."

From NFL Films

Source:NFL Films- Bill Parcells, leading the New York Giants to victory in Super Bowl 25, against the Buffalo Bills. 

As someone who grew up just outside Washington in Bethesda, Maryland and still live there, I grew up a Redskins fan and still am, ( even though Dan Snyder makes it harder for me to remain a Redskins and NFL fan each and everyday ) it gives me great pain to say anything nice about anyone who has ever worked for the New York Giants. Especially someone who not just had great success with the Giants, but had great success against the Redskins while with the Giants. The Redskins and Giants, are great rivals.

The only team that the Giants hate more than the Philadelphia Eagles, are the Redskins. And the only team that the Redskins hate more than the Dallas Cowboys, are the Giants. Welcome to the NFC which is just one small, but great family where everyone hates each other. Which might not be that untypical of the modern American family, especially with the current political situation and division. The NFC East is one of those places that's not that different from the modern American family. For example ( pardon my language ) you can all your brother an asshole or even make fun of your father or mother, but if someone else does especially outside of your family does, you want to kick their ass to set them straight. We don't actually hate each other, we even respect it each other which makes it easier to acknowledge greatness from another team in your division when you see it.

When a car company makes a great car, you bet your life that your competitors will see that and respect that. Perhaps even take notes of what makes that car great and why it's so popular. And when another team in your division does something great, or produces someone who is great like a player, or in Bill Parcells case a great head coach, other teams take note of that to see what made that coach so success with that team.

You could argue that what made Bill Parcells a great head coach was his knowledge for football and the NFL. A great ability to see talent and get the most out of the players that he had and of course that's all true. There are maybe 10 different NFL head coaches that knew enough about football and both sides of the ball that they could've been either a successful defensive coordinator or offensive coordinator: Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Noll, perhaps Bill Cowher, maybe Bill Walsh who gets credit for being the great offensive mind that he was, but the man had a great football mind as well and the San Francisco 49ers played his defenses and defenders were his players, not the defensive coordinator's. But one guy who really sticks out as a great football mind at least post-Tom Landry is Bill Parcells.

But as great a football mind that Bill Parcells was in the NFL and especially with the Giants where he won 2 Super Bowls in 5 years in New York ( or New Jersey, depending on your perspective ) and his knowledge of the game both defensively and offensively is an important factor, there's one more factor that I believe is more important and a bigger reason for his success in the NFL and that's his honesty. Like with the Giants ball control power offense where they almost told the defense what play they were going to run, because they only had a handful of both running and passing plays, there was no deception with the Bill Parcells Giants, they were either going to power run or perhaps pull a sweep outside with Joe Morris or someone else, or QB Phill Simms would go play action and hit a post to his TE Mark Bavaro or WR Lionel Manuel and there was also no deception or bullshit ( to be frank ) in how he treated his players. They always knew where they stood with him.

The classic Bill Parcells quote where he's on the sidelines I believe talking to his offensive line during a game and he's trying to motivate them and get them to play harder and he says, "this is why you lift all them weights, this is why you do all that shit!" Telling them the reason why Parcells makes his players work as hard as he possibly can, is not to punish them and to wear them down, but to make them as strong as they can and to make them as great as they.

It's that old Chuck Knox quote when he was the head coach of the Los Angeles Rams in the 1970s when they were at practice and he tells one of those players, "to be a champion, you have to pay the price." Coach Knox, was also famous for working his players very hard. Bill Parcells, wasn't interested in being popular even in New York, but wanted to build champions and he did that they only way he knew how to which was through blue-collar bluntness and hard work and he was very successful with his approach.

PM Entertainment Group: Ice (1994) Starring Traci Lords

Source:Pic Click- Traci Lords, in Ice. 

SourceThe Action Blog

"Also Known As: Caçada Pela Máfia; Inimigo Letal; Diamanten kalt wie Eis; The Diamond Killing; La croqueuse de diams
Year: 1994"

From Tinatra

Source:PM Entertainment Group- Traci Lords, in Ice. 

I don't think Ice is a great movie, but just because a movie isn't a great movie, doesn't mean that it's not good, or at least entertaining and very entertaining. Typical of a lot of Traci Lords movies which tend to be b-movies anyway, ( I mean, we are talking about a porn actress ) there is a lot of cheesy writing in the movie that makes it sound like some action TV show from the 1970s or 80s, that never got off the ground, because the pilot failed. ( Ha, ha, get it ) But typical of her movies there's also a lot of sexy scenes with her in it and I'm not talking about her porn films ( necessarily ) and a lot of good action scenes. Car chases and shootouts., where she's either playing a tough, badass, sexy, gorgeous cop, or in this case a bad girl who gets the bad guys at the end with her husband.

Source:Alamy- Traci Lords and Jamie Alba 

Even with Traci's gorgeous, baby face, she plays a bad girl in Ice. Ellen Reed ( played by Traci Lords ) and her husband Charley Reed ( played by Phillip Troy ) are cat burglars sho steel diamonds from the mafia and the local police detectives are on to them to try to catch them. This is really not a movie about bad guys and girls versus good guys and girls, but more like a movie about dancing with the devil that you know the best with the mafia being the worst devils in this case and the cops trying to use the Reeds's to help them bring down the local mafia there. Not that different from how the FBI an U.S. Attorney's use informants and ex-mobsters to help them bring down the mafia in New York and other big cities in America.

The plot alone I believe makes Ice a very interesting movie. But it's a cheap film like most b-movies and unlike Intent To Kill that did have other stars in it including Traci Lords with Scott Patterson and Yaphet Koto, I don't believe unless you're some Hollywood movie historian and junkie, I don't believe that you would recognize anyone else in this movie other than Traci Lords. But considering that Ice is a movie with a lot of perhaps c-actors and not even b-actors and that Traci at this point at least is probably just a b-actress at this point, Ice is a very watchable and entertaining film. Especially considering what they had to to work with. Sort of like an NFL team that wins 9 or 10 games without any stars on the team, Ice is a good film especially considering what it had to work with.

Foreign Affairs: Senator Elizabeth Warren: 'A Foreign Policy For All'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- U.S. Senator's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on Capitol Hill. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Around the world, democracy is under assault. Authoritarian governments are gaining power, and right-wing demagogues are gaining strength. Movements toward openness and pluralism have stalled. Inequality is growing, transforming rule by the people into rule by wealthy elites. And here in the United States, many Americans seem to accept—even embrace—the politics of division and resentment.

How did we get here? There’s a story Americans like to tell ourselves about how we built a liberal international order—one based on democratic principles, committed to civil and human rights, accountable to citizens, bound by the rule of law, and focused on economic prosperity for all. It’s a good story, with deep roots. But in recent decades, Washington’s focus has shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites. After the Cold War, U.S. policymakers started to believe that because democracy had outlasted communism, it would be simple to build democracy anywhere and everywhere. They began to export a particular brand of capitalism, one that involved weak regulations, low taxes on the wealthy, and policies favoring multinational corporations. And the United States took on a series of seemingly endless wars, engaging in conflicts with mistaken or uncertain objectives and no obvious path to completion. 

The impact of these policy changes has been devastating. While international economic policies and trade deals have worked gloriously well for elites around the world, they have left working people discouraged and disaffected. Efforts to promote the United States’ own security have soaked up huge resources and destabilized entire regions, and meanwhile, U.S. technological dominance has quietly eroded. Inequality has grown worldwide, contributing to an unfolding nationalist backlash that seeks to upend democracy itself. It is little wonder that the American people have less faith in their government today than at any other time in modern U.S. history. The country is in a moment of crisis decades in the making." 

From Foreign Affairs 

A "foreign policy for all", I guess has a real hipster ring to it, similar to Medicare For All or whatever example you want to use, but like most catch phrases whether they're pop culture or political, when you actually get into them the first question is always, "what does that mean?" What do you mean by that? As much as President Donald Trump's presidency contradicts this, the President of the United States and American government more broadly are actually serious things meant for serious people. This is not a reality TV show or some movie or hip sitcom or anything else. This is real-life where real decisions are made everyday effecting real people. "A foreign policy for all" might have a catch ring to it, but what does that mean and what is in that foreign policy.

So when Senator Elizabeth Warren, argues that it's time to bring our troops home, the first obvious question is, "bring them home from where?" If you're talking about bringing them home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then the next question would be, "what would happen instead after America is out of those two countries?"

Senator Warren, also argues that America spends too much on national defense, OK where would you cut the defense budget? It's hard to get official numbers from the U.S. Defense Department on this, but we're currently somewhere between 50-100 billion dollars on the defense of Europe in NATO. We currently make up just as one country 70% of the entire NATO defense budget. Would asking or demanding that Germany, France, Italy and other European states spend more on their own defense and take a good chunk of that revenue out of our own defense budget since Europe is now spending more on their own defense? America could do a lot with 50-100 billion dollars a year that it wouldn't have to spend on defense.

Sony Pictures Entertainment: The Frontrunner (2018) Hugh Jackman as Senator Gary Hart

Source:Sony Pictures Entertainment- Hugh Jackman, as Senator Gary Hart, when he ran for President in 1984 and 87.

Source:The Daily Review

"Based on a true story that changed everything, Hugh Jackman is #TheFrontRunner – only in theaters this Election Day."

From Sony Pictures Entertainment

Source:We Got This Covered- Hugh Jackman, as Senator Gary Hart.

I saw The Frontrunner not this Saturday, but the previous Saturday in Silver Spring, Maryland because I wanted to see it obviously, ( no, I was kidnapped and forced to watch it ) but because of the subject matter. I was 11 years old and in the 5th grade in Bethesda, Maryland in the spring and early summer of 1987. Gary Hart's presidential campaign for 1988 was so short that I'm not sure it even made it to the summer of 87, at least officially. It made Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign look like a Breaking Bad marathon on AMC. You would have to be familiar with her very brief presidential campaign, as well as Breaking Bad and AMC to get that reference, but it was very short.

So, when Senator Gary Hart was running for president in 1984 and 88, I was a very young kid and don't remember much about his two campaigns. Both were fairly short, but at least for 84 Senator Hart made to January before falling out after finishing third, ( I believe in Iowa ) but going into 87 Democrats knew that they weren't going to have to run against President Ronald Reagan again and the Reagan Administration had the Iran Contra scandal hanging over his head with a Democratic Congress in charge of it since they now controlled both the House and Senate and that those investigations could hurt both President Reagan and then Vice President George H.W. Bush, especially since George Bush was not only the Vice President, but was considered the Republican frontrunner for the 1988 campaign.

Gary Hart, was as very talented politician, as well as a very intelligent man both in foreign affairs and national security policy, but domestic policy as well. He was compared with John F. Kennedy for good reasons. He was very bright, good looking, and also had a tendency to tell people what he believed and what was on his mind. Very similar to Senator Joe Biden who also ran for President that year. He also had an ability to talk about serious and complicated issues, but do it in a way where you didn't believe you needed a Russian or Chinese translator to translate what he was saying. He had a very common touch not that different from Bill Clinton, Ron Reagan, or even George W. Bush. And if his 1987-88 presidential campaign was about what he wanted to be about which was new ideas and time for a new generation, instead of what it became about, maybe he not only wins the 1988 Democratic nomination for President, but defeats Vice President Bush as well.

Which is my lead in to what The Frontrunner is about with actor Hugh Jackman playing Senator Gary Hart. It wasn't the media, it wasn't The Miami or The Washington Post, or NBC News that brought down Gary Hart. Only Gary Hart with his extra marital affair and his political suicidal mistake of daring the media to follow him around to see that he wasn't having an affair. There were rumors going into 1987 that Senator Hart was a bit of playboy who cheated on his wife which was before he even meet Donna Rice the woman he had a brief affair with in the late spring or early summer of 87. And Hart was tired of getting those questions and truly believed that they were none of the media's or the American people's business what kind of relationship that he had with his wife and other women.

Gary Hart, perhaps in a split moment lost his cool at a local diner on one of his campaign stops having lunch with a Washington Post reporter and dared the media to follow him around to see if he was having an affair or not and that's exactly what they did. That's how they got pictures of him with Donna Rice on a boat together in Miami. As well as pictures of them together at his Georgetown townhouse in Washington. Because he invited the media to follow him around and didn't just shoot himself in the foot politically, but shot his whole foot off and perhaps his brain and heart as well. Thanks to 1987, Gary Hart has never ran for political again and has never even served a Democratic President again.

As far as the movie, other than not looking much if at all like Senator Gary Hart, I believe Hugh Jackman did a great job of playing him. But I believe the people who played the reporters and the media officials were the real stars of the movie. As well as Senator Hart's campaign staff including J.K. Simmons especially. Gary Hart, comes as naive when it comes to how the media reports on these stories about politicians and candidates and their relationships with women. Which is how Hart should've been portrayed because in real-life he wasn't expecting the media to cover his affairs, just the substance of his campaign. Which of course is not how the real world in politics works.

PM Stunt Fan: Intent To Kill (1992) Starring Traci Lords

Source:PM Stunt Fan- Traci Lords: "Holy smokes, Batman!" LOL 

Source:The Action Blog 

“Traci Lords as an undercover cop in leather skirt and jacket.” 

Source:Leather Series & Movies- Traci Lords as an LAPD undercover detective in Intent To Kill.  

From Leather Series & Movies

Today shows and movies featuring gorgeous, sexy big city police detectives and other law enforcement officers are very common. Just look at Law & Order SVU, CSI Las Vegas, The Mentalist, movies like One For The Money where Catherine Heigl plays a New Jersey bounty hunter and I could go on. But in the early 1990s, actresses even gorgeous and sexy actresses, even very good if not great actresses were playing the wives or girlfriends of big police detectives, or playing the victims. Perhaps they would play a rookie patrol officer or desk officer, but generally not involved in doing the legwork and dirty work of what vice cops do to bring down criminals and put themselves in serious physical danger.

Source:PM Stunt Fan- Traci Lords, about to kick ass 

Whatever you think of Intent To Kill and I'm one of the first people to say that it's not a great movie, even though I like it and have seen it several times, Intent To Kill was ahead of it's time in a positive way, because it had a female police detective who ends up bringing down the bad guys ( to use a cliche ) almost by herself. Her partner and boyfriend ( played by Scott Patterson ) ends up being the one who dies during the last shootout in the movie, not the woman with her boyfriend trying to save her as well and the day. ( To use another cliche ) Traci Lords, is the badass, super cop in the movie who brings down the bad guys. A Los Angeles drug gang, that's involved in other crimes like rape and murder.

Again, I'm not saying that Intent To Kill is a great movie. Some if not a lot of the writing especially for a 1990s film was pretty cheesy. Traci Lords, made a name for herself in the adult film industry not as a great dramatic or action star. But she's great in this movie as a LAPD vice detective who is gorgeous, sexy, has the look more of an LA biker chick with the black leather biker jacket, Levi's jeans, black leather boots, but who isn't just a pleasure to check out, but who plays a very sharp cop as well who is always ahead of the game. Her first seen in the movie she takes out a rapist on her own, because the victim is a hooker who is simply not believable as a rape victim. Which was a very different time back then. And she ends up essentially playing the female Dirty Harry in this movie and does a great job. A very entailing movie especially if you enjoy seeing gorgeous, sexy women kicking ass.

David Von Pein: CBS News Special Report- Eric Sevareid: 'Presidents and Assassins (November 25, 196)'

Source:David Von Pein- CBS News Special Report from Eric Sevareid.

Source:The New Democrat

"PRESIDENTS AND ASSASSINS" (CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT AIRED ON NOVEMBER 25, 1963)"

From David Von Pein

This CBS News Special Report, was just 3 days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. This was all very new with if not most Americans, but certainly a lot of them. Maybe only the oldest people in America remember William Mckinley being assassinated in 1901 and people who would have to be in their early hundreds at this point to remember President Abraham Lincoln being assassinated in 1865. And to remember President Lincoln being assassinated in 1865 and to still alive and to remember that in 1963, you would need one helluva healthy mind and perhaps body as well.

Source:David Von Pein- CBS News Special Report 

And since this was all so new with most Americans and with network news not being the dominate factor in America media in the early 60s that it had become by the early 70s with the Watergate coverage and President Richard Nixon's administration, Americans weren't use to seeing these special reports from the networks devoting so much air time to covering current affairs especially during prime time when most networks back then were showing their family entertainment like sitcoms, dramas, variety shows. Forget about 24 hour news networks not being around yet in the early 60s, network news other than the morning show and nightly news wasn't much of a factor yet by this time.

Source:Assassination of John F. Kennedy- CBS News Special Report 

The JFK assassination changed America a lot as far as how it operated and changed both our government and culture as well. The President got a lot more security with the Secret Service now becoming a major factor not just in the President's life, but his family as well, and ex-president's and their families. Americans started becoming more interested in current affairs with the networks newscast moving from 11 minutes a night to 22 minutes a night ( not including commercials ) and with nightly newscasts expanding, special reports and documentaries that were produced by the network news divisions themselves like CBS News for CBS, because a regular part of TV network viewing in the 1960s.

This CBS News Special Report by Eric Sevareid, is something that today you would probably see from PBS, CNN, perhaps MSNBC or FNC, but probably coming from a real slant. C-SPAN or one of the 24 hour documentary networks like National Geographic Channel today because the broadcast networks don't want to donate even a hour of their time at night to showing a current affairs or history documentary and take that time away from one of their hit sitcoms or dramas, especially when there's PBS, one of the news networks, or the documentary channels like History and others that show this type of programming all day and all night everyday and every night. But post-JFK assassination up until really the 1990s or so documentaries and Special Reports about one particular subject that was going on in the country at the time were shown by the networks on a regular basis back then.