How to tattoo Trumpcare on the GOP’s forehead

Now is the perfect time for the Dems to introduce Medicare for people ages 50-64, to draw the contrast with a bill which raises premiums dramatically for that age group. Make the Republicans vote against it–we old folks have long memories, and we vote! #Truckfumpcare #AARP

Author: Kelly Kleiman

Kelly Kleiman is a freelance writer on the arts, feminism, travel and social justice. Her reportage and essays have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, among other dailies; in magazines, including In These Times and Dance; in the alternative press; on the BBC; and on Chicago Public Radio, where she’s one of the “Dueling Critics” and a contributor to the Onstage Backstage theater blog. She is also a consultant to charities and editor and publisher of The Nonprofiteer, a blog about charity, philanthropy and nonprofit management. She holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago.

7 thoughts on “How to tattoo Trumpcare on the GOP’s forehead”

  1. A nice idea, but I doubt the Republicans would ever even schedule it for hearings, much less allow it to EVER come up for a vote. Perhaps as an amendment that they'd have to vote down, but almost certainly never as a bill on its own.

    1. That's completely beside the point. Introducing a bill, and the entire Democratic Party's getting behind it and talking about it, could make a huge difference in 2018. The problem is that the Democrats would never do it. They are too cowardly, unimaginative, disorganized, and incapable of fighting for themselves.

      1. It doesn't even need to be a bill. The Republicans got away with talking vaguely about "repeal and replace" without having any plan in place. If Democrats simply talked about it as "something that is being looked at" and, importantly, if they could put a figure on the expansion–"if you make less than half a million a year, it would cost you less than a dollar a year in taxes, and you'd more than make that up the first time you got a flu shot"–it could become a very effective talking point.

        Note: I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I'm sure there is a calculation whereby those making less than $500K a year would in fact see a very low addition to their tax burden. I'm also choosing the locution "half a million" over a dollar figure like $500,000 because it's easier to relate to. I'm convinced that part of the problem with the presentation of lots of Democratic proposals is stating things in highly specific numbers with specific dollar amounts ("a family of four making less than $25,000 a year").

        1. Part of the problem with the presentation of lots of Democratic proposals is that Democrats offer at least lip service to reality. If you're not hobbled by that silly constraint, it's a lot easier to tell people things they will want to hear.

      2. No, we're not cowardly, unimaginative, disorganized or incapable of fighting for ourselves. We're just in the minority, and I look forward to changing that soon.

  2. Kelly, what an excellent idea. Now do you have a suggestion as to how we can give our Democrats in Congress an infusion of chutzpah?

    1. I'm thinking, electing more of them; meanwhile, I've passed this suggestion on to Assistant Minority Leader Jan Schakowsky. Whatever she and Minority Leader Pelosi may lack, it's not chutzpah!

Comments are closed.