Skip

“The AHCA repeals fewer than 10 percent of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. It is an amendment to the ACA that deliberately maintains Obamacare’s framework.”

A bait and switch?  Like I’ve said before, THIS was the best that the Republicans in DC could do after 7 years and tens of “REPEAL IT!!” votes?  They voted to “kill the King” – I’m not sure what the House passed could even be categorized as a “flesh wound” (H/T to Monty Python) – maybe a small slice with a kitchen knife dicing onions.  US Rep Amash, a libertarian / Freedom Caucus member had a statement that pretty much says the same thing (emphasis mine):

This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future.

When Republican leaders first unveiled the American Health Care Act, a Democratic friend and colleague joked to me that the bill wasn’t a new health care proposal; it was plagiarism. He was right.

The AHCA repeals fewer than 10 percent of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. It is an amendment to the ACA that deliberately maintains Obamacare’s framework. It reformulates but keeps tax credits to subsidize premiums. Instead of an individual mandate to purchase insurance, it mandates a premium surcharge of 30 percent for one year following a lapse of coverage. And the bill continues to preserve coverage for dependents up to age 26 and people with pre-existing conditions.

Read more

“Tennessee state Sen. Mark Green (R), President Donald Trump’s nominee for Army secretary, strongly believes that citizens should be armed ? and not just with any ol’ guns. They should be able to possess whatever weapons the military has, because an armed citizenry is the “ultimate checks and balances” against the federal government.

“The Second Amendment, while it allows citizens to protect themselves from other citizens, goes well beyond just allowing us to defend ourselves from a criminal,” Green said at a pro-gun rally in 2013.

“The men who penned and ratified this document gave us the right to keep and bear arms as an ultimate checks and balances against the federal government,” he added. “When considering magazine size and weapon type, comments like, ‘You don’t need a 10-round magazine to hunt deer’ completely misses the point of the Second Amendment.”

The Tennessee state senator also said that “the citizenry should be allowed to maintain whatever weapon the federal government has. If they can have an aircraft carrier, I ought to be able to have an aircraft carrier.”

Woo-hoo!

Read more

The anti-gun folks keep saying that there is no such thing as good guy with a gun that stops bad people.  I think that the people in this Texas restaurant would disagree:

Police in Arlington, TX are praising the swift action of a concealed carry permit holder who stepped up to eliminate a threat in a local restaurant Wednesday night.

Authorities say the gunman walked into Zona Caliente, in the 6500 block of South Cooper Street, about 6:15 p.m. and fatally shot 37-year-old Cesar Perez of Duncanville, the bar’s manager, Arlington police spokesman Christopher Cook said. Authorities later found two loaded guns and two knives on Jones, Cook said.  “We do believe he had the capacity to do much greater harm,” Cook said.

According to the Arlington Voice, the manager of the Zona Caliente Sports Bar and Grill, 37-year-old Cesar Perez, was shot dead by James Jones, 48, of Grand Prairie. Witnesses say Jones was acting very oddly when he confronted Perez. “When the suspect came in, he walked up to the bar and started yelling,” said police spokesperson Lt. Christopher Cook. “Customers said he was yelling incoherent and strange things.” With no warning, Jones drew his gun and fatally shot Perez. Police cannot establish any connection Jones may have had with the restaurant manager.

It was then that an unidentified man police are calling the “Good Samaritan” told his wife to get down, and drew his own concealed firearm. The “Good Samaritan” then opened fire on Jones, and hitting him.

Read more

EXECUTIVE ORDER
PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Read more

“Here’s a nugget that encapsulates the health insurance industry, despite all the noise surrounding the future of the Affordable Care Act: In the first quarter of this year, Aetna collected more premium revenue from government programs (namely Medicare and Medicaid) than it did from commercial insurance for the first time ever.

Why this matters: Most people get their health coverage from their employer, and that historically has been the bread and butter of the insurance industry. But the aging population and expansion of Medicaid managed care means insurers are investing more time and money in the lower-margin (but still lucrative) government programs. Aetna, in particular, has invested heavily in Medicare Advantage.”

With this sluggish growth, government is becoming a more and more of a role in “setting of the economy”.  

Read more

From Big Government is this piece from US Rep Ted Budd (R-NC) on the recognition of what I alluded to in my previous post – the subsuming, by Government, of organizations and industries by mere dint of its size and spending.  I’ve written for years of how organizations formerly known as charities (now calling themselves social services organizations) that used to depend on the wealthy and regular folks alike to dig into their wallets to support their missions but now end up begging on their knees to a mere handful of politicians to gain entry into the Public Treasury (what a HOWL they put up in my County when the Commissioners sliced them down to mere pittances this year).  Rep Budd elaborates (emphasis mine), especially on the Durbin amendment in Frank-Dodd law that mandated fees on debit cards) :

In the United States, we’ve long had a free market system, but that system is not what it once was. Total government spending–state, federal, and local–has grown in real terms by more than 400 percent since 1965. Government spending is now one-third of the economy. As the private economy retreats, the importance of a new marketplace grows: the political marketplace. Products and services are no longer judged according to their usefulness to the economy at large–they’re judged according to whether or not they are politically useful or connected.  

The political marketplace is the marketplace of crony capitalism. Its supply and demand are lobbying expenditures and the resulting federal program or carve out. Its actors are not firms, but the political class and the politicians they influence. This won’t be anything new to people who have been following Washington over the years, but I do want to talk about a textbook case of this–it’s called the Durbin Price Control and it affects regular Americans every day, whether they realize it or not. The Durbin Price Control is a price control on the fees retailers pay to banks whenever a consumer uses a debit card.

Read more

Likewise, Justice Brandeis notwithstanding, progressives have never been content to “experiment” at the local level and be judged by the results.  In every way they can, they seek to push all policy decisions to the national level.  There, with only the meager voting power to constrain them, they can impose their one-size-fits-all, “comprehensive” policies on everyone.  They even hound those individuals and companies who seek to exit the jurisdiction of the United States for freer pastures elsewhere.

-Prof. Randy Barnett (Georgetown Law, writer, Our Republican Constitution)

Read more

Yeah, the same ones that say that the US shouldn’t have their own (e.g., Obama’s new home had it’s extended…if walls don’t work, er…).  Yet, Israel had a horrific terrorist problem as the Palestinians simply kept trying to kill Israeli citizens (they have sworn to wipe Israel off the map and throw all the Jews into the sea).  The Israelis erected a wall – things got much better.

Hungary put up a wall to stop the Muslim invasion that is coming to the EU via the Middle East and Africa. Yes, they were told it wouldn’t work.  Ummm:

Hungary shows world how to eradicate illegal immigration in a few shorts months

When other countries were welcoming refugees with open arms, Hungary resolved to eliminate illegal immigration at any cost. The country succeeded, but that success damaged relations with the European Union in the process.

And this is when I respond appropriately (like when the UN or other countries criticize the US): sod off, swampy.  We’re a sovereign country – we don’t report to you.  ESPECIALLY the UN.  So Hungary has done well – and the results show why:

Read more

Mexico’s Government Warns U.S.A. to Not Build Border Walls

The Mexican foreign secretary called the plan to build walls along the border a “hostile” and “deeply unfriendly” act, and an “aggravating action.” He warned that Mexico intends to conduct a fierce legal battle to stop any border walls that violate the rights of Mexicans.

Frankly, I don’t give a poop what Mexico is frothing about – if the US wishes to deal with a problem in our country, we should deal with it in our way. Period.  If we build a wall, on our soil, that’s our decision. But Mexico wants us to believe that THEY have a say in our wall or not? Do they really believe that we should not have any say or take any action to control our own borders?

And with Trump making noise about re-negotiating or canceling NAFTA, they want to sue the US?  With Jeff Session as the US AG?  And WHAT “rights” of any Mexican would be violated by us putting up a wall?

Read more