Connect with us

Healthcare

Migrants should be quarantined as they await their asylum hearings

Published

on

Migrants should be quarantined as they await their asylum hearings

Here’s an idea that should garner bipartisan support. In fact, if everyone in DC were to stay consistent regarding the current migrant crisis, both Republicans and Democrats should buy into the only humanitarian plan that makes sense across the board. They should act on this immediately.

Media outlets have been reporting outbreaks of infectious diseases among migrants. We’ve all heard about the poor health situations that have taken lives; Democrats love to blame border patrol and the President every time a migrant dies in custody. They demand action. Here’s what we should do.

Let’s treat them all with the best possible medical care available in America. No child should die in custody. No migrant should suffer with diseases while they wait for their asylum hearing. Is there a politician who could disagree with either of those statements?

Of course, treating them properly means quarantine. The outbreaks are too numerous and many are being quarantined already. This happened in March at the beginning of the surge of migrants across the southern border:

Mumps, other outbreaks force U.S. detention centers to quarantine over 2,000 migrants

Mumps can easily spread through droplets of saliva in the air, especially in close quarters. While most people recover within a few weeks, complications include brain swelling, sterility and hearing loss.

ICE health officials have been notified of 236 confirmed or probable cases of mumps among detainees in 51 facilities in the past 12 months, compared to no cases detected between January 2016 and February 2018. Last year, 423 detainees were determined to have influenza and 461 to have chicken pox. All three diseases are largely preventable by vaccine.

That’s just one story. There are dozens, including new outbreaks reported nearly every day. The conditions many of the migrants endure during their travels and the lack of vaccinations in their home countries mean the threat of spreading infectious diseases is great. All migrants must be quarantined, thoroughly examined, and properly treated. It’s the only humane thing to do.

To accomplish this, we need facilities in which the masses of migrants crossing the border illegally can be housed and treated. This will cost money, and while I’m not a fan of the government spending anything, but we could chalk it up against the $150 billion that will be spent on one year’s worth of illegal immigration. Suddenly, the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to rapidly establish such facilities along the border doesn’t seem like such a high price to pay.

We would also need to speed up the asylum hearing process. The backlog is tremendous and growing. Mark us down for another $40 million or so to rapidly process the backlog and get us to the point that asylum seekers are not forced to wait months or even years before their hearing.

Again, this only makes sense for their sake. Nobody likes being left in limbo, right?

This plan would save many asylum seekers from being given final orders of removal in absentia. They don’t want to get deported. As we reported yesterday, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan declared 90% of asylum seekers aren’t able to show up for their hearings. They won’t have to worry about it anymore under this plan. They can be escorted directly to their hearings from the comfortable quarantine centers.

Certainly Democrats can buy into this plan pretty easily. The migrants they want to protect will receive the best protection the United States can offer them. They’ll get free food, housing, education, and medical care while they’re in quarantine. Then, they’ll get an escort to their asylum hearing so they don’t inadvertently miss it. That should make perfect sense to anyone with a heart.

The only humane way to handle the migrant crisis is to quarantine them once apprehended, treat them well in their migrant centers, and escort them directly to their asylum hearings when the time comes. Everyone wins.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Bernie Sanders blames high cost of college for seniors going bankrupt

Published

on

Bernie Sanders blames high cost of college for seniors going bankrupt

To all of you 68-year-old college freshmen out there, Bernie Sanders wants your vote. He feels your plight. He recognizes the crushing effect of the high cost of college and how it’s making your go bankrupt. All you want is a degree so you can get a job to pay for socialism in your golden years, and the system is against you. But not with Bernie. Bernie will save you.

All snark aside, it’s true that seniors are going bankrupt, but it’s not because of pensions being cut (something that was essentially cured over a decade ago) or high cost of college. It’s true that healthcare costs are a driving force. Bernie got that one right. What he doesn’t indicate is how the five-fold increase in bankruptcies is a direct result of Obamacare’s cost-driving effects on health insurance and medical costs.

This is why the greatest lie the Democrats are seemingly being allowed to get away with is that their plan is what will fix the broken healthcare system. Medicare-for-All and the other proposals are all advancements on Obamacare. They take things further to the left. After seeing what a little progressive healthcare can do, why would Americans want to double down on it? Who wants twice the failure?

It’s hard to tell which is worse: That Bernie blames high college costs for senior citizens going bankrupt or that millions of Democrats are nodding their heads instead of scratching them.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Is telemedicine the future or another ridiculous tech stunt?

Published

on

Is telemedicine the future or another ridiculous tech stunt

Technology brings many amazing things to society. Medical technology in particular can save lives. But some aspects of advancing medical technology are ill-conceived. I can rant all day about the focus on highly profitable treatments superseding (and often subverting) the low-profit venture of finding cures.

There’s another technology that is burgeoning to the point that it’s being rolled out in many places across America. Telemedicine answers the question, “Is there an app for that?” In healthcare, the answer is now, “Yes.”

Truthstream Media ridiculed the practice, and while I completely understand the cynicism they have that I usually share, this time I think they’re missing it. If telemedicine can mitigate the need to see doctors for small things, I’m all for it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Let’s subsidize the 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Lets subsidize the 2nd Amendment

If there’s one thing that chaps my fiscal conservative khakis, it’s subsidies. Too much in taxpayer dollars is given to people and private businesses through programs designed to “help” them despite the demonstrable reality that most subsidies merely enable continued failure. For example, ethanol subsidies combined with fuel mix mandates artificially inflate demand and price while setting farmers up for a cataclysmic fall when superior alternatives arise. Then, there are sugar subsidies which take money from taxpayers so they can then spend MORE on sugar-based products than they would if the subsidies didn’t exist.

In our welfare state, individual subsidies are often panned by the right and embraced by the left, but there are clear arguments about both perspectives. People really do need help sometimes, and it’s not just because they’re lazy or wishing to live off welfare. Many need help through hard times so they can get themselves back on their feet. On the flip side, the left’s perspective that more people on welfare means they’re helping more people is one of the most backward concepts latched onto by a political ideology known for its backwards concepts.

As a whole, both individual and corporate subsidies need to be reduced by weening as many as possible off the assistance merry-go-round through increased prosperity and opportunity, In many cases, this can be accomplished by pulling government out of the way and letting Americans do what Americans are capable of doing when unhindered.

With my obligatory anti-subsidy rant out of the way, let’s talk about guns. More importantly, let’s talk about crime. As crazy ideas go, this is one that’s certain to be panned by both the right and the left, but it’s crazy enough to work. As I’ve said before, the way to mitigate gun violence is to make gun laws looser, not stricter. A gunman’s favorite venue is a place where there are no other guns present. Gun-free zones are massacre spots waiting to happen.

The argument that more “good guys with guns” would help relieve the so-called gun violence epidemic is demonstrated in places where the opposite is the law of the land. Chicago decided to eliminate “good guys with guns” with obtuse gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms. But their gun problem has consistently been getting worse. This makes no sense to the left who can’t seem to grasp that criminals will do as criminals do. They’ll acquire, carry, and utilize firearms illegally, and in a place where the law abiding citizenry is disarmed, it’s the criminals who will rule the streets.

It’s time to give the people the means by which they can defend themselves against crime and government tyranny. Instead of trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, we should arm them. It’s time for the government to subsidize the 2nd Amendment.

Any adult who is willing to go through gun safety, care, and usage training and who has no criminal record should be offered a “personal firearm” with varying degrees of government assistance. Low-income families can get them for free, one per household. Others can receive a voucher to help subsidize their purchase of qualified firearms from registered dealers participating in the program.

Just because someone can’t afford a gun doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have one. If the government allows easy and often free access to healthcare, education, food, and other necessities, they should also offer free and easy access to the one thing that can protect them when things get really bad.

Many will balk. They’ll say it’s a terrible idea because more guns means more crime. But they’re wrong. More guns in the hands of the right people will mean less crime. Moreover, the knowledge that any given household a criminal may intend to enter has a certain likelihood of having an armed resident is a deterrent in itself.

There are plenty of drawbacks, which is why this concept is practically impossible to implement in America today. The first time a government-subsidized firearm is used in a deadly crime will be the policy’s death knell. As a society, we have a tendency to focus on individual instances rather than the big picture, which is why calls for “assault weapons” bans are so prevalent despite the fact that less than 1% of 1% of AR-15 owners use their firearms to commit a crime.

But wait a second. You’re thinking it’s ridiculous to call for government to help people acquire more firearms because some will be used to harm others. It’s a terrible plan, you’re thinking. But isn’t that the argument made by pro-abortion activists who are calling for government to fund abortion?

Obviously this is article is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. It’ll never happen. But it’s no less ludicrous than people calling on government to fund abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood. As Will Chamberlain from Human Events noted, the same calls to subsidize Planned Parenthood could be made into calls to subsidize the NRA.

At least with gun subsidies it’s certain that doing so will save lives. With abortion subsidies, it’s all about taking life.

Why should low-income families have to choose between putting food on the table and having access to the tools that can keep their family safe? The left calls for subsidized abortions to take lives. Why not subsidized guns to save them?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending