Monthly Archives: April 2020

#379: Healthcare Quagmire: We Gotta Get Out of This Place (Part 2)

25 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #379 is the second entry and addresses healthcare cost. At this point not sure how many entries.  Like #378 this entry is a bit long.

ENTRY #379:  At the end of part 1 of this series (#378), I indicated suggestions to help address inequities in society would be forthcoming. Let’s start with what appears to be the closest to a practical solution, affordable health care for everyone.

The chart indicates the increase in medical care cost in the US as a percent of GDP. Since 1960, medical costs have increased from about 5% of GDP to more than 18% in 2018. These percentages include “discounts” offered to insurance companies and Medicare.

The impact of medical costs on a family vary widely. For families with health insurance partly or fully funded by an employer, the costs are relatively low. Yet, even with subsidies from employers, for most every family medical costs have increased faster than family income.

Until the Affordable Care Act passed under the Obama administration, families which did not have subsidized insurance, faced premiums that could be breathtakingly high, especially for those over age 50. In addition, many who had any one of a range of “pre-existing” condition often were unable to secure any coverage for the pre-existing condition.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, made considerable progress in filling the “unaffordable insurance hole” in the societal safety net and for getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. While Obamacare included some coverage gaps, in part to ensure passage in Congress, the AFA did significantly reduce the number of people without medical insurance.

For example, immediately prior to AFA coverage taking effect, about 18% of the US population was uninsured. That percentage continued to drop through 2016:Q4. Immediately upon taking office in 2017:Q1, the Trump administration repealed many features of the AFA.

The Trump administration has continued to eliminate features, including many insurance exchanges, through which uninsured people could at least buy some coverage. The result of Trump’s policies has been a sharp uptick in the number of uninsured. While the chart stops at 2018, the latest projection for 2020 is 45-50 million people in the US will be uninsured.

Opposition to broader insurance coverage seems to focus on two issues: (i) potential elimination of the option to buy additional private insurance; (ii) additional taxpayer cost with expanded coverage for everyone. Both issues are solvable, if opponents will listen.

A Medicare-for-All (MFA) type coverage does not preclude availability of private insurance that would offer an additional level of service or benefits. In some metro areas, selected medical practices offer what is promoted as “concierge service,” ensuring quick access to physicians and more private facilities for many procedures.

While the initial cost for a MFA program could be somewhat higher as people formerly uninsured begin to address issues, longer term the cost could be less. Much of the cost savings could be from eliminating “unproductive” costs. While estimates vary because of different assumptions, overhead costs for Medicare appear to be about 50% less than overhead costs for private insurance. (NYT article)

Currently hospital costs and therefore healthcare insurance premiums include some amount for emergency room visits by the uninsured and those without financial resources. ER visits are far more expensive than office calls. In addition, people who have no insurance often wait until an illness or situation becomes extreme before visiting ER, thereby increasing the cost of treatment.

Opponents to Medicare-for-All should think about medical cost in the same way they think about maintenance on their personal vehicle. Routine maintenance, such as changing oil regularly, is much less expensive than doing no maintenance and eventually replacing the engine. In many ways, the human body operates much your car’s engine; preventive maintenance is much less expensive.

Getting Congress to agree to some form of Medicare-for-All should be much easier following the United States’ experience with the coronavirus. There has not been an event in most everyone’s lifetime that has demonstrated the importance of medical care for all citizens. Recent estimates indicate those without insurance infected with COVID-19 will face medical bills of $50,000-$75,000. Even those with insurance could face medical bills of $25,000 or more.

For those who still think the US cannot afford such coverage, the chart lists healthcare costs per capita by country. Note the cost per capita for highly developed countries. The cost in the US is 75% HIGHER than Germany, the next most expensive country. OK, if you’re still concerned these countries don’t offer the same level of care as the US, then buy the additional-cost option.

Addressing the Naysayers. Any effort to implement a Medicare-for-All type system will be met with vigorous opposition from the right. Following are some likely questions as well as suggested answers. I recognize no answer, however logical and supported by facts, will satisfy the hard right. But given how so many people have been affected by COVID-19 so far, and how many are likely to be affected in the coming months, the voice of the naysayers may be heard less and less, especially when facts are presented to support a Medicare-for-All type system.

Comment #1: The US has the best healthcare system in the world. Don’t mess with it! Leave it alone.

Response #1: Let’s look at the expected lifespan in the US compared to other countries. The US ranks 47th behind such countries as Sweden, Germany, China, Taiwan, France, Korea, Canada, UK, Costa Rica, French Guiana and a host of other countries and ranks just one ahead of Cuba. If the US has such a great healthcare system, why does it rank 47th?

Comment #2: Those countries don’t have as many immigrants as the US. Those immigrants are what’s causing the problem here.

Response #2: Take a look at life expectancy among whites, blacks and Hispanics. Whites have the longest life expectancy but the others are not bringing the US total down by much. You also realize that life expectancy in the US declined under the Trump administration, don’t you? The decline was the first since WWII.

Comment #3: Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? There are lots of slackards out there who don’t pay income taxes. Paying for their medical care is not fair to me.

Response #3: First, anyone who has worked, whether or not they pay income tax, contributes to funding Medicare. In addition, the vast majority of Medicare recipients paid while working and continue to pay a monthly premium in retirement.

Comment #4: Medicare-for-All will create another inefficient government bureaucracy. The private sector is always more efficient. Why waste my hard-earned dollars?

Response #4: The bureaucracy supporting Medicare already exists. Plus, overhead for Medicare is substantially less than for private insurance. While there are different estimates for overhead, there is almost universal agreement that overhead costs for Medicare are substantially less than for private insurance. Most estimates are savings for Medicare of 50% or more. Medicare is more efficient at administering care than private companies. Why should people have to pay 2x the administrative costs for private insurance as they do for Medicare?

Comment #5: How are the doctors going to make any money? Medicare screws them on pricing.

Response #5: One adjustment with Medicare-for-All might be to weight payment to doctors more toward prevention rather than procedures. The change should also generate cost savings. In addition, if necessary, fees to doctors could be increased. The area needs further analysis.

SUMMARY: Some form of “Medicare-for-All” with an option for additional-cost coverage seems an ideal solution to help us address “we gotta get out of this (healthcare quagmire)  place.”  Obviously there are some issues to be worked out in order to implement a Medicare-for-All type program. However, most of the issues have been solved with existing Medicare programs and the Affordable Care Act prior to the Trump administration cuts.

Enough discussion for now about a practical solution to addressing healthcare costs. Likely more later.

 

Advertisement

#378. US Societal Quagmire: “We Gotta Get Out of This Place” (Part 1)

19 Sunday Apr 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: in a couple of preceding entries I tried to address the seemingly endless number of inconsistencies in information from the Trump administration about the spread of the coronavirus and/or actions to mitigate the spread. After some reflection, I decided that was futile.  Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time on Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  At this point not sure how many entries.  The first one is a bit long.  

ENTRY #378 BEGINS: In the 1960s, there was a song by The Animals that included the lyrics, “We gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do.”   While not written as a protest against the Vietnam War, the song was often used as a protest against the US participation in Vietnam.

Even though the song is more than 50 years old, the title seems appropriate today. The place we have to get out of is the economic and social quagmire in this country. The economic and social quagmire has been gradually getting worse with each decade. And while the Trump Administration has not been the sole cause, decisions by Trump with the support of the Republican Party have made the quagmire far worse.

Another perspective on the same situation is the US is sitting on an economic and social time bomb with the timer clock getting close to zero hour and ready to explode. What’s creating the time bomb is pressure from multiple sectors:

  1. Decades of limited earnings growth for middle and lower-income workers. The result has been greater income inequality.
  2. More medical risk. Fewer employers are providing company-paid medical insurance, thus leaving families to fund their insurance.
  3. Less job certainty. The uncertainty has been growing for some time as more organizations hire workers as contractors. Organizations are also automating an ever increasing number of functions of blue-collar and white-collar workers.
  4. More societal polarization with focus on one’s political party rather than with focus on solving problems. The shift began with the Reagan administration, when Reagan repeatedly declared, “Government is the problem, not the solution.” Trump’s public animosity toward anyone who does not support his views, however controversial, convoluted and even unconstitutional, has taken party loyalty over policy to an unprecedented level.

The four forces squeezing the US population are like hands squeezing a balloon. The coronavirus has intensified the squeeze, leaving little time before the balloon bursts. Reactions to state governors’ actions to control the spread of the coronavirus generally have been positive although some on the far right have protested. Apparently far-right Republicans think they have immunity to the virus.

The stay-at-home directives, closing of businesses and social distancing seem to have allowed the nation to pause and begin rethinking previously held assumptions. For example, prior to the coronavirus, certain jobs were considered relatively unimportant and, therefore, not worthy of much compensation. Such jobs included non-degreed healthcare workers, grocery store staff, transit workers and workers at food-processing plants.

Interestingly, the coronavirus changed those assumptions. People began to realize how important these jobs were to a functioning society. During the coronavirus those working in healthcare, grocery store and food-processing, among others, were categorized as “essential.” At the same time, many college-degreed, higher-paid white-collar jobs, including many executives, were categorized as “non-essential” and mandated to work from home.

Further, many “non-essential” businesses were ordered to close. The result was a huge spike in unemployment. Over a four-week period ending mid-April 2020, more than 22,000,000 workers in the US filed for state unemployment benefits. Over the next few weeks, the total will likely increase significantly since many unemployment offices were overwhelmed and furloughed workers unable to file.

How many of those currently furloughed will be re-employed post-coronavirus is uncertain. At a minimum, there likely will be a major disruption to the pre-virus job-status hierarchy. Many lower-paid “essential” workers could receive a pay increase and many white-collar workers deemed “non-essential” could be reclassified to lower-paid positions or jobs eliminated.

The COVID-19-related shutdown of the US economy has brought to the forefront social and economic inequities. Prior to COVID-19 these inequities often were discussed in the abstract since most of the people discussing the inequities were not affected directly. COVID-19 has reframed the conversation. Most of the public now realizes how fragile their jobs are and how the safety net for furloughed workers has a huge hole, starting with unemployment benefits and medical coverage.

Now that this “hole” in the safety net has been discovered, what steps will elected officials take to make repairs? The task of repairing the hole may be more complicated than policymakers realize. While anyone losing a job or being furloughed without pay suffers economically, the impact of that loss may be markedly different for different age groups.

Historically, as workers aged their families had been able to accumulate financial resources that could help cushion economic downturns. Thus, older workers furloughed because of COVID-19 should be in a better position economically than younger workers. But are workers today, older and younger, able to weather an economic downturn?

How do economic resources of today’s workers compare to workers at the same age say 25 years ago? Do today’s workers age 45 have the same relative assets as workers who were age 45 in 1995? What about assets of workers say age 25 in 2020 compared to those age 25 in 1995? Are workers today, older and younger, at a disadvantage economically compared to previous age cohorts? The answer is, “yes.” And that disadvantage has grown with each generation.

Over the last 50-60 years, there has a fundamental deterioration in affordability of key factors that help a family accumulate assets. Since roughly the mid-1960’s each succeeding age cohort has been faced with:

  1. Housing prices (and rents) increasing faster than income
  2. Medical costs increasing faster than income
  3. College tuition increasing at a rate much faster than inflation and income
  4. Retirement savings burden transferred to employees as employer-funded defined-benefit retirement programs have been eliminated

The economic pressures caused by each one of these factors probably could be managed by most families. For example, since 1960, when adjusted for inflation, housing prices have increased about 125%, rent about 75% and income only 25%.  However, when the increases in all factors are combined – each one has a similar curve – the result in a significant erosion in disposable personal income.

A story that hit me like a 2×4 to the forehead was an interview with a family trying to survive under the crush of these economic pressures. The interview was during the recent PBS News Hour. The subject was an ER- vehicle technician in New York.

The technician was describing the mental and economic pressures associated with the coronavirus. The ER technician earned about $40,000. As anyone familiar with cost of living in any of the NY boroughs, $40k for a family is tight. He also had a second job. What really struck me was the ER technician’s employer, apparently a contractor to the City of New York, did not provide health insurance.

Here’s the guy taking you to the hospital to get treated for coronavirus (or some other emergency) but the ER technician does not have employer-paid health insurance. Even worse he can’t afford private health insurance because the Trump administration eliminated many features of Obamacare and eliminated insurance exchanges. So, Trump and Republicans, the guy taking you to the hospital to save your life is risking his life and risking financial ruin if he contracts the virus from you. Does that seem fair?

Longer term, the impact of the coronavirus on the United States will likely end up changing permanently a number of aspects of society. The post-coronavirus United States will likely be forced to address the medical and economic inequities that have been building for the past 50-60 years. In addition, the US might begin to address the need retrain workers as more technology is integrated into the workplace.

The likely result of the coming technology tsunami? Many blue-collar and white-collar workers of all ages are going to be faced with possibly accepting a lower standard of living. (See booklet titled Technology Tsunami for more discussion and possible solutions.)

Will workers of different age cohorts be affected differently? Workers currently age 50 and older, even though they should have more resources, may be hit harder by the technology tsunami since many are less familiar with advanced technology and they have fewer years before retirement to try and recoup lost earnings.

But the technology tsunami is only one tsunami facing current workers. Another tsunami headed toward US shores is the retirement tsunami. What we as a society don’t talk about and certainly what has not been addressed at the Federal level is how unprepared for retirement workers are.

The retirement tsunami has been caused by the elimination of employer-funded health and retirement programs. The potential impact of the tsunami has been made worse by erosion of personal income from the accelerating cost of housing, medical and college tuition. Workers have nothing left over to save for retirement.

In a recent poll by Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 75%, or 3 out of 4 people age 50-62 had jobs that fell into a “non-traditional” category — meaning, those without employer-provided retirement plans and health insurance. According to the report, workers in non-traditional jobs can expect their retirement income to be as much as 26% lower than that of people who spent their 50’s and early 60’s in positions with full benefit packages, according to the center’s findings.  (Update: NYTimes article about older workers without adequate retirement savings moving in with children, 20 05 03 NYT Underfunded Retirement Parents Moving in with Children) 

What about the impact of higher costs and the technology tsunami on younger workers? Don’t they have 30-35 years to recoup lost earnings from a coronavirus economic slowdown and the technology tsunami? Unfortunately, a greater percentage of younger age cohorts are likely to be even less prepared for retirement than those currently age 50-62.

If costs for housing, medical, education and retirement continue to exceed gains in income, the cumulative effect will further erode disposal personal income. Unless there is a fundamental change in how health care costs, retirement programs and advanced education are funded, more and more people will be underfunded for retirement.

What will make a bad situation worse is a prolonged economic slump associated with the coronavirus shutdowns. The rate at which people have been furloughed is unprecedented – 22,000,000 in four weeks and likely another 10,000,000 in the next four weeks.

Few people in business, few economists and much of the general public does not expect the economy to bounce back once the restrictions associated with the coronavirus are lifted. Even if employment in the manufacturing increases over the next 24-30 months as companies begin bringing jobs back to the US, overall economic growth will be very slow.

Some portions of the service sector employment seem likely to experience a permanent loss of jobs. After “stay-at-home” restrictions are lifted, how many consumers will immediately return to restaurants, attend sporting events, go to shopping centers or travel by plane – and especially take cruises? Consumers are likely to remain cautious until an effective vaccine has become widely available – probably as long as 18-24 months. Even with the vaccine will the public’s behavior be changed permanently?

During the next 18-24 months and maybe forever, how much of structure of service sector will change? Many formerly employed in the service sector have no employer-funded health insurance and even fewer have an employer-funded retirement program. Where do these former employees turn for help? Their jobs are gone, or at least not coming back for some time. Finding another job will be extremely difficult since the economy is growing slowly at best.

Now you see why the theme of this entry is “We gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do.” This place is a dead end. We’ve got to find something new. The pressure to “get out of this place” seems like the spark for the Revenge Revolution.

The hardships associated with coronavirus seems to be awakening the middle class to realize how long they have been screwed by Republican policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and denying affordable medical care for all. Workers over 50 are realizing the need to return to employer-funded retirement programs and/or increased Social Security retirement benefits. Such programs are widespread in other developed countries so there is no excuse for not implementing.

When will the Revenge Revolution start? I think we’ve started. The coronavirus seems like an event that could trigger a revolution. The pace and magnitude of the job losses are unprecedented. The Revenge Revolution could spread as quickly as the coronavirus.

As more and more people realize “we gotta get out of this place” the more pressure on Washington to address the social and economic inequities. People are not going to be satisfied with Trump blaming China, the WHO or someone else for the coronavirus. People want concrete steps to fix the hole in the safety net, help train people for the coming technology tsunami, make healthcare affordable for everyone and make sure people have adequate resources for retirement. (Next few entries will offer some solutions.

#377. What’s the Con Man Hiding?

05 Sunday Apr 2020

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Diversions, Post Trump Presidency, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: there is an endless number of inconsistencies in information from the Trump administration about the spread of the coronavirus and/or actions to mitigate the spread. For this blog entry we take a look at trying to understand why Trump behaves the way he does.  What’s really behind his behavior?

ENTRY #377 BEGINS:  Last week I ended the entry expressing hope that the experience and sacrifices associated with the coronavirus would help bring the US populace closer together. Being closer, in turn, would reduce the severity of the likely Revenge Revolution. Behavior by most of the public this past week seems to reinforce that hope.

What is far less clear is understanding the behavior and decisions by Trump. You have to ask yourself, “Why such behavior?” It makes no sense.

My training in undergrad and grad school and most jobs in my professional career have been to analyze data and then forecast events/outcomes. The challenge with forecasting is to articulate reasonable, actionable actions before the situation becomes obvious and more difficult to control. In addition, recommended actions that provide the most lead time often are necessarily, but also may be based on seemingly disparate data points.

Those who make predictions understand their forecasts are almost always wrong. Naysayers and “Monday-morning quarterbacks” love to nitpick and point out errors in the predictions. However, those who make decisions based on predictions understand that a good, actionable prediction doesn’t have to be 100% correct. A good prediction only needs to presents reasonably accurate outcomes for the most relevant variables before the situation becomes obvious and actions to control the situation less effective.

With that background, let’s turn to the behavior of Donald Trump as president. From my perspective there is something or maybe a set of variables driving his behavior that is not obvious. If one steps back and analyzes the possible consequences of the behavior, the likely outcomes of Trump’s actions seem contrary to the best interests of the United States. So, why such behavior?

Yes, Trump’s narcissistic. Yes, Trump’s crude, rude and a bully. Yes, he’s under educated and lazy. And, yes, he’s a wannabe Mafia Don. But none of those traits explains his decisions in certain key situations and his relationship with certain people.

Following is top-of-mind list of behavior and/or decisions that to me are inexplicable. With a bit of work, the list would be at least five times as long. Here’s the very short list:

  1. Post-inaugural closed-door meeting in the White House with the Russian ambassador, a known spy. After the meeting the transcript was destroyed. Why?
  2. Public and intense alienation of NATO allies while publicly courting Putin. Why?
  3. Refusing to release tax returns. Then, when ordered to provide tax returns to a Congressional committee, which is written in the tax code, refuses to do so and takes case to court. Why?
  4. When signing the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus, adding an “executive exclusion” that claims the House of Representatives does not have the right of oversight for the expenditures and that he, Trump, will provide oversight. Why?
  5. Overruling vigorous protests by the FBI and CIA and issuing son-in-law Jared Kushner a top secret clearance. The agencies indicated Kushner’s behavior and associations disqualified him from such a clearance. What about the son-in-law’s behavior is so shady?
  6. Praising Navy SEAL Gallagher and then awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom when there was overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Why go against the recommendations of the military?
  7. Trash-talking Navy Captain Brett Crozier of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for trying to protect his crew from the coronavirus. Unlike Gallagher, Captain Crozier was praised as a hero by officers and enlisted sailors. Why praise Gallagher and trash-talk Crozier?
  8. Appointing cabinet officials with clear conflicts of interests, starting with General Flynn and his interactions with Russia and Turkey. Trump was informed of Flynn’s conflicts before the appointment, yet went ahead. Most of the Cabinet appointees have little or no experience in the department. In addition, Trump has consistently appointed “acting” staff members, apparently to avoid having the person be subjected to review by the Senate. Why?
  9. Claiming that he (Trump) had influenced the Saudis and the Russians to agree to raise oil prices. Just a few days before claiming he helped raise oil prices, Trump claimed that lower oil prices were like a tax cut for consumers. Whatever Trump offered the Saudis and the Russians didn’t work since the “deal” has been delayed. What was in this for Trump?
  10. Refusal to have the federal government take the lead in coordinating a response to the coronavirus. Only after extreme pressure did Trump invoke the Defense Production Act, which forced companies to make certain products and then sell the products to the Federal government at a certain price. But rather than the Federal government taking possession, Trump directs the companies to ship the products to private distributors, who are allowed to resell the products to the various states, often at 10x the price paid by the Federal government. Why?

There are many other examples, including the behavior of Attorney General Barr. But in each case one must ask, why? If any of these actions were part of a presidential campaign platform, would Trump have been elected? Obviously not. Who would vote for a candidate, for example, who says, “I’m going to insult NATO allies, and especially insult the English, French and Germans. Then I’m going to cozy up to a known enemy of the United States, the Russians.”

Here’s my take on Trump’s behavior and no one should be surprised. The Russians, for sure, likely the Saudis, and maybe the Chinese have Trump by the short hairs. Why? Because of backroom unreported financial deals, which likely involve laundering money. Recall, the only bank that would lend Trump money after his series of bankruptcies and defaulting on payments was Deutsche Bank. Which bank has been indicted and fined for laundering money? (Guess Deutsche Bank.) Who did Trump appoint as Commerce Secretary? None other than Wilbur Ross, the former chairman of Cyprus Bank, a bank notorious for laundering money.

Don’t be fooled by Trump’s bluster and claim that he’s tough on the Russians and Chinese. Look behind the curtain and see the sanctions against the Russians are a farce. The tariffs against Chinese goods are more show than substance. Think about this. Could the tariffs have been part of a deal where Trump agreed to walk away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership? The agreement would have strengthened America’s influence in Asia. By walking away, did Trump let the Chinese begin to dominate trade in Southeast Asia in exchange for some payment to Trump?

Even without his tax returns, there’s enough evidence to indicate Trump is up to his eyeballs in debt. Trump, Jr even bragged at the private club Trump bought north of Charlotte that the Russians were the source of money for many Trump projects. There’s enough evidence to suggest the Saudis have also provided cash to Trump.

Before the coronavirus, cash flow at many Trump properties was declining, and in some cases, cash flow was negative. The drop-off in cash flow associated with the Coronavirus has made the situation much worse. On April 4, the Trump Organization announced layoffs of 1,500 people. And more layoffs are likely to come.

Let’s pause for now and just ask ourselves, why in Trumpland does everything seem backwards? Why in Trumpland does black look like white? Why in Trumpland does down look like up? Why is irrational considered rational? And endless other dichotomies.

Over the next week, step back and view Trump’s remarks in the context of the questions raised and why everything seems backwards. Stepping back might provide some interesting insight, or at least raise more questions. To be continued.