After months of repeal-and-replace failures, the Senate has a chance of passing something. It’s a great looking bill that addresses many of the problems with Obamacare. It’s clothed in some very appealing components that can get conservatives juiced up. Unfortunately, under the attractive facade lies a sad reality: it’s still just Obamacarelite.
If it can overcome some important hurdles such as getting the CBO report in time and convincing three of five potential Republican dissenters, then it should easily sail through Congress and reach the President’s desk before Thanksgiving. One of the dissenters, Senator Rand Paul, is the only one who seems willing to state the reality that it will not reduce premiums nor will it improve the quality of health coverage. It takes Obamacare and fixes a few things, but it misses completely on the part that most Americans would expect from a repeal and replace.
There’s good to this bill. It puts more power over finances and regulations in the hands of the states. It defunds Planned Parenthood. It eliminates the individual and employer mandates. All of this is great, but that it won’t slow the growth of premiums (and may actually accelerate the rise) should make this a no-go for conservatives.
It won’t. Senators who would normally be opposed to this type of legislation such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Ben Sasse will probably support it. Why? Because they need to pass something. They need a win soon. The GOP’s abysmal record since getting control of the White House means they need this in order to salvage their futures in the midterm elections.
Most Republican voters will support it. Most conservative pundits will approve. If things were going differently on Capitol Hill with a long list of strong legislation on the books, this bill would be unnecessary. They could hold out for something better such as a full-repeal that gradually cuts Obamacare to pieces over time while putting together a true free-market solution that lowers premiums and increases innovation. Instead, they’re playing politics and keeping most of Obamacare intact to mitigate election-day fallout from their failures.
I detailed the two biggest reasons this bill is unacceptable on the Federalist Party website.
There’s still a good chance it won’t pass. Mike Lee is looking at the details before deciding, but will probably accept it. It’s hard to imagine John McCain not backing Lindsey Graham’s bill. Rand Paul is a hard “no.” That means that to pass, they’ll need to convince Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins to sign on with an outside chance of Democrat Joe Manchin crossing over. Mitch McConnell has not endorsed the bill yet, saying he’s staying out of it until they get the 50 votes they need to pass. They better hurry. If they can’t get it in under reconciliation, the bill is dead.
Until we remove DC completely from the healthcare system, we’re not going to see lower premiums. We aren’t going to see better healthcare. Don’t fall for any arguments that this bill is a first step. It’s the only step. They’ll call it a day and let this continue to eat away at our economy for years until single-payer rears its ugly head. The only way to prevent Obamacarelite from becoming Berniecare is if we get DC out of healthcare altogether.
Urgent: Will Mitch McConnell Fight For a Vote on an Eleventh-Hour Obamacare Replacement Bill? | Guy Benson, Townhall
Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met on Tuesday afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to discuss their last-ditch ObamaCare repeal bill. Leaving the meeting in McConnell’s Capitol office, Cassidy said the leader’s message was that Graham and Cassidy need to find 50 votes for the bill on their own. “He just says we need 50 votes,” Cassidy said of McConnell…”The Leader has said publicly and repeatedly that to move forward on anything we’ll need at least 50 votes,” said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart, calling that a “consistent message.”
Republicans seven month long effort to upend the American health care system failed in late July, after three Republican senators – John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – shot down the party’s third and final (until now) proposal to repeal Obamacare in a contentious 49-51 vote.
New Report: Obamacare Premiums Will Go Up AGAIN. 15 Percent Hike… | Kacie Burnett, Louder with Crowder
Insurers have pleaded for more certainty on key Obamacare payments called cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which reimburse them for giving discounts to low-income patients. The Trump administration has made the payments on a month-to-month basis, but insurers want them funded on a long-term basis.
Now that socialist Bernie’s “Medicare for All” proposal has gained steam among senate Democrats, the fight for universal healthcare may become the cause celebre for the 2020 election. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal says the plan should include funding for abortions, which would effectively make the U.S. taxpayer complicit in the mass slaughtering of unborn babies.
As President Obama would say: This isn’t my opinion. It’s the conclusion of liberals who would embrace a single-payer system if they had to recreate American health care from scratch. “A commitment to universal health coverage — bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare’s cracks — should definitely be a litmus test,” writes Paul Krugman. “But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn’t the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities.”
If we applied the same third-party payment technique to any other segment of the economy, we would get the exact same inflationary spiral we see in health care. I buy donuts from time to time. If those donuts were free at the point of purchase, I would buy (and eat) a whole lot more than I do today. The stereotype of cops eating donuts came about because donut shops gave them away to the cops for free.
Collins seems unlikely to back the proposal because it defunds Planned Parenthood. McCain reportedly is well-disposed to the bill, which is sponsored by his pal Lindsey Graham. However, he is said to have cautioned that any repeal effort should go through the regular committee process. We’re already midway through September, which doesn’t leave much time for that.
With control of both chambers on Capitol Hill as well as the White House, there should be no reason to keep the seeds of socialized medicine that Barack Obama planted. The GOP that’s been promising to end Obamacare shouldn’t be giving us a different variation of the same thing, but that’s exactly what’s happening. The best-case-scenario if the bill passes is that we continue down the road of unnecessary financial burden on Americans. The worst-case scenario is that this will make it easier for the Democrats to implement their plan for economic oblivion, better known as single-payer.
So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem
As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.
The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.
Laws built on lies
Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.
State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.
Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?
Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?
The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment
These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.
This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.
The 2nd Amendment – the primary target
In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.
But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block
These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.
Why the focus on firearms?-
The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.
If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?
Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.
Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left
The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.
But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.
As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.
Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.
PragerU: Do college students support abortion or life?
Progressive indoctrination centers, better known as American universities, have been pushing students towards a leftist worldview for decades. One might start believing the mainstream media narrative that college students are overwhelmingly pro-abortion based solely on other things we’ve seen coming out of college campuses.
PragerU tackled the issue. While nothing in this video will shock anyone, it’s a good cross-section of perspectives that likely reflects what’s actually going on at universities like UCLA. Will Witt went there and found the standard answers on both sides of the board. While the majority were pro-abortion, two pro-life students were found. Their responses were clearly more thought through than the answers given by their pro-abortion counterparts.
This leads to my next article. I’m starting to believe that if people are given all the information about abortion, and more importantly about the life attributes of preborn babies, they’d be more willing to accept a pro-life perspective.
Of all the challenges facing America today, the abortion issue is the most directly tied to life and death, literally. A world without abortion can only be achieved when we’re willing to have the conversations with everyone regardless of their current stance.
A glimmer of hope: Only 7% of millennials support taxpayer-funded abortion without restrictions
A new poll reveals that a very small minority of millennials are in favor of the stated Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. While a large chunk still believe that abortion should be legal, only 7% believe that it should be taxpayer-funded and without restrictions.
As with pretty much every poll ever conducted, the polling process used by Students for Life Institute for Pro-Life Advancement was done in a way that heavily promotes the idea of opposing abortion. But it’s encouraging to see that such a small percentage were essentially willing to identify in favor of the most radical abortion stance available to them.
According to Live Action:
Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said the survey shows that Millennials are rejecting labels and instead are focused on the reality of how political policies will affect them. “Especially as we talk with Millennials, who are often outside the political structure of Washington, D.C., the anti-abortion movement must be clear on what we are advancing and its impact on mothers, the preborn and taxpayers,” she said. “And for those elected officials who want to engage in life-affirming legislation, Millennial voters are listening when you compassionately address the specifics of life in law.”
At the heart of the issue, we are in the middle of a cultural battle. Most still look at abortion as a discussion between political and religious groups, but the reality is the issue comes down to an understanding by American society about whether it’s morally or ethically correct to condone abortions.
The real question is whether one believes a preborn baby is a person. Generally, those who see the fetus as a living person side against abortion while those who see it as a collection of cells favor abortion. This is why I’ve said before we really need to look at this issue through the lens of cultural implications rather than fight solely on the political and religious fronts.
The only way to end abortion on-demand in America is to make it perceived as the immoral practice that it is. We need to promote the righteousness of adoption, empower the family system, and remove the stigma associated with being pro-life.
2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base
NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel
Harden scores 48 points, Rockets beat Lakers 138-134 in OT
PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”
Pirro: Democrats putting politics over people
This nation deserves a better class of news outlets
As media, Democrats turn to other topics, we need to keep up the pressure for the wall
As progressive tariffs continue, China scores biggest trade surplus in history
3 reasons to build the wall despite polls showing it isn’t popular
Understanding the real crisis at the border and how to frame it properly
A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash
What Allen West has been saying for years is extremely relevant today
Art Laffer on why a trade deficit is a good thing
Thomas Sowell isn’t a fan of tariffs
Rand Paul didn’t like the Democrats raising foreign aid as the border wall goes unfunded
Culture and Religion2 days ago
How ‘Progressives’ are a small but vocal political minority
Democrats2 days ago
The Onion’s take on Kirsten Gillibrand is hilarious (and not completely satirical)
Media2 days ago
Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
Conspiracy Theory1 day ago
Ezekiel’s prophecy and the truth about false prophets
Culture and Religion1 day ago
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
Immigration1 day ago
No national emergency declaration: Trump’s “major announcement” will be an offer Democrats can’t refuse
Democrats1 day ago
Cartoon: Is that another huge immigration caravan?