White House Watch: What Does Trump Really Think About the Alexander-Murray Bailout?

The truth about what President Trump really wants on the cost-sharing reimbursements of Obamacare remains, well, confusing. It’s been a back-and-forth from the president since it was first learned this week that Lamar Alexander, a Republican, and Patty Murray, a Democrat, were working on a deal for a temporary appropriation of money to reimburse health insurers who were offering affordable plans to low-income customers.

The Trump administration had announced last week that it was ending the CSR payments, which conservatives have considered illegal, since Congress did not appropriate the funds for that purpose. Trump called the payments a “gravy train” for insurers. There is concern among many health-care experts that without the payments or some other reforms, the withdrawal of insurers from the low-income, high-risk market will accelerate and could destabilize an already precarious situation. The Alexander-Murray solution would extend the payments for a short time—but for those opposed to Obamacare, the deal would essentially codify one of the government interventions conservatives argue distorts the market.

The scenario encapsulates the difficulties of health-care politics, and it’s not clear the president is sure where to go. Let’s examine where he’s been over the past three days.

On Tuesday, when asked about the Alexander-Murray deal, Trump revealed his administration had been “involved” in the discussions. Alexander later said he had spoken on the phone with Trump the previous week and had been encouraged to find a legislative solution to the CSR issue. But later that evening, Trump seemed to back away from any possibility he was supportive of their mission. “While I commend the bipartisan work done by Senators Alexander and Murray—and I do commend it—I continue to believe Congress must find a solution to the Obamacare mess instead of providing bailouts to insurance companies,” he said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation.

Trump then seemed to make his opposition to reinstating the CSR payments clear in a Wednesday morning tweet. “I can never support bailing out ins co’s who have made a fortune w/ O’Care,” he wrote. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggested in her briefing later on Wednesday that the Alexander-Murray deal didn’t have enough reforms to have the president’s support. “This president certainly supports Republicans and Democrats coming to work together,” Sanders said. “But it’s not a full approach, and we need something to go a little bit further to get onboard.”

I tried to get the White House to clarify what exactly was needed to get him “onboard.” On Thursday morning, a White House official responded, “The president supports working with Democrats and Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare, and has laid out some clear principles throughout the process that includes more flexibility for states, repealing Obamacare’s onerous taxes and regulations, and opposing a bill that simply makes bailout payments to insurers.”

A few minutes later, during a press availability at the White House, Trump was asked to clarify his position on Alexander-Murray and the CSR issue again. It’s worth reading the president’s answer at length:

No, I like people working on plans at all time. I think ultimately block grants is the way to go where we block out the money to the states. You get better healthcare; you’ll get it for less money. It will be more specific. A state is a smaller government and it can take better care of its people, especially where you have well-run states. We have governors that do a great job and, you know, states that do a good job. If you look at Florida, if you look at Maine, Maine really was very much anxious to do that. Various states—Kentucky—various states really wanted that block grant money. And for the most part, I think we have the vote for that. There will be a transition period, so anything they’re working on will be short term. It will be absolutely short term, because ultimately it’s going to be repeal and replace. So I have great respect, as you know, for both of the senators that you mentioned, and if they can come up with a short-term solution. What I did say, though, is I don’t want the insurance companies making any more money than they have to, because if you look at the stock prices of the insurance companies from the time of the creation of Obamacare with 300 and 400 percent—and even more than that—increases in their stock, they made a fortune off Obamacare. The people that need Obamacare are decimated. Premiums are up 40, 50, 60 percent, in some cases over 100 percent. In the case of Alaska, premiums are up over 200 percent. So anything that they are working on is a very short term—meaning one year to two years, max. Because I think we have the votes, or we’re certainly within one vote. And when you’re within one vote, we’re able to get a vote. . . . So again, I respect very much the two senators you’re talking about. I love that they’re working on it. I want them to be careful with respect to the insurance companies. Insurance companies are extremely good at making money, extremely talented at making money. And I want them to be careful with that. We will probably like a very short-term solution until we hit the block grants, until that all kicks in. In other words, it doesn’t just kick in the following day. There’s a transition period. And if they can do something like that, I’m open to it, but I don’t want it to be at the expense of the people. I want to take care of our people; I don’t want to take care of our insurance companies. They’ve been very well taken care of over the last number of years, believe me.

If the president has a position—either on the Alexander-Murray deal or the broader question of what should be done, if anything, to prevent a collapse of the health insurance market—it’s not clear from anything he’s said this week. It’s a big reason why, despite the growing number of Senate co-sponsors for the proposal, Alexander-Murray is going nowhere fast.

Video of the Day—White House chief of staff John Kelly on Thursday once again took the podium at the press briefing, to address this week’s controversy over President Trump’s call to the family of Army Sgt. La David T. Johnson, who was killed earlier this month during an operation in the African country of Niger.



As recovery efforts in hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico continue to limp along, President Trump has continued to talk up the federal response to the crisis there. Meeting with Puerto Rican governor Ricardo Rossello Thursday afternoon to discuss ongoing relief efforts, Trump was asked by a reporter to rate the White House’s work in the territory.

“I’d say it was a 10,” Trump responded. “There’s never been anything like that. I give ourselves a 10.”

After Rosello declined to provide a similar numerical rating, Trump prompted him: “Governor, I just want to maybe ask you a question. Because for the spirit of these people that have worked so hard and so long . . . did we do a great job?”

“You responded immediately, sir,” Rossello replied. “I think everybody over here recognizes there’s a lot of work to be done in Puerto Rico. But with your leadership, sir, and with everybody over here, we’re committed to achieving that in the long run.”

Trump’s focus on his own performance in the Puerto Rico crisis has earned him heaps of negative press over the last few weeks, and it’s taken its toll in the eye of the public: Just 36 percent of Americans think the federal government has done enough in the territory, while 55 percent say it hasn’t, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

But while the president hasn’t done himself favors with his rhetoric, the federal response actually seems to be proceeding about as well as could be hoped. Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who ran the agency under President Bill Clinton, told the Washington Post on Monday that he’d give the administration an A-plus in the hurricanes’ aftermath.

“They’ve maxed out probably how many people they could put there,” Witt said. “I know they’re all working frantically, but sometimes that’s not enough.”

Trump brought up Witt’s comments Thursday as well.

“He gave us an A-plus. And I thought that was really very nice,” Trump said. “I really believe he’s correct. We have done a really great job.”

Hollywood Watch—Amid the new stories about the past predations of film producer Harvey Weinstein comes this compelling account from Academy Award-winner Lupita Nyong’o of her own encounters with him. Among the revelations is a particularly despicable attempt by Weinstein to prey on Nyong’o in his home—while his children were in another room.

Photo of the Day

Donald Trump shakes hands with Ricardo Rossello, governor of Puerto Rico, during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017. (Kevin Dietsch/Pool via Bloomberg)


Special Election Watch—One sign Republicans are worried, or at least covering their bases, ahead of Alabama’s special election for Senate in December? A new TV ad from Great America Alliance, the pro-Trump super PAC, blasting Democratic nominee Doug Jones as “deceptive and dangerous.”



While most polls show Jones trailing and the average gives Republican Roy Moore a more than four-point advantage, one Fox News poll released this week found the race tied. Moore and Jones are running to fulfill the remainder of the Senate term vacated by Jeff Sessions, who became the attorney general. Luther Strange, who was appointed to Sessions’ seat earlier this year, lost the GOP nomination in this special election to Moore in a runoff last month.

Essay of the Day—My colleague Andrew Ferguson’s latest for Commentary, on the one-of-a-kind Washingtonian Sally Quinn, is the definition of a must-read. An excerpt:

Sally Quinn has been writing books and articles for more than 40 years, yet her prose retains a childlike, disarming artlessness that makes Finding Magic and its serial revelations all the more arresting. She buys a house, she switches jobs, she kills someone with a hex . . . the tone never changes. “During my college years I had occasional psychic moments,” is how she begins one chapter, as if daring you to stop reading. Another chapter begins: “I love the Tarot.” She talks to ghosts. On her first visit to the Middle East, she faces her own personal Arab–Israeli conflict: She is torn, she tells us, between sleeping with the Israeli defense minister and “the Palestinian leader, an incredible hunk wearing traditional robes.” (She decides to stay faithful to her beau back home.) She reads minds and thinks you can, too: “It is just a matter of time before we don’t have to speak to one another anymore.” She has sex frequently and ardently. It’s all here. She calls her book a spiritual memoir, though “spiritual” is a word—“faith,” “magic,” and “religion” are others—that she never stops to define. Given her central place in the upper reaches of Washington’s ruling class over the last half-century, we are entitled to read the book as a generational document—an Apologia Pro Vita Sua for the Baby Boomer Georgetown set. One reviewer called her “the quintessential Washingtonian,” and so she is. Sally Quinn is one of the channels through which the revolution of the 1960s entered Washington and remade the city and American politics.

2018 Watch—From NBC News: “Trump Offers Support to Three GOP Senators Expected to Be Challenged”

Song of the Day—“Battle Without Honor or Humanity” by Tomoyasu Hotei.

Related Content