It’s no secret that Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone in the world, and it’s increasingly less of a secret that a better system would result in fewer infant deaths, fewer preventable deaths, fewer uninsured people, and less expense for Americans. What does that system look like, though? Well, it’s not privatized health insurance.
The problem with privatized health insurance is that it allows or forces people to go uninsured due to cost, which is why President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is so important. It lowered the number of uninsured to an all-time low of 8.6 percent by forcing affordable coverage options upon them (if you live in a state that expanded Medicaid) or forcing them to pay a fine so the insured wouldn’t have to flip so much of the uninsured’s bill. And while healthcare costs are still increasing (they always will), they are increasing at a slower rate than they were prior to the ACA.
The biggest reason socialized healthcare is difficult for Republicans to stomach is because they don’t trust the federal government to handle healthcare. You hear them say that over and over, and that the states can do it better. I don’t disagree, but if India can provide free healthcare to roughly 276 million Indians living under the poverty line, the American government can certainly do it for 43.1 million impoverished Americans. States should not be allowed to opt out of this coverage. It should be mandatory because those with private insurance would be paying for fewer uninsured visits to the hospital, meaning hospitals wouldn’t have to increase costs for everyone because of the $900 each uninsured visitor costs them annually.
But socialized healthcare is not going to be passed by this Congress or any other unless the Democrats manage a supermajority at some point, and even then it’s no certainty given the bad, yet unwarranted, reputation the word “socialism” has in this country. (Hint: it’s not fascism.)
The House Republicans’ American Health Care Act won’t be passed by this Congress, either. At least not how it currently stands. But minimum wage legislation should appeal to constituents and politicians of both parties.
The biggest problem for Americans isn’t increasing health insurance premiums. The biggest problem is stagnant wages, which is why passing minimum wage legislation is so important. Back in February, the U.S. inflation rate was at its highest since 2012. An item that cost $20 back in 1997 would cost $30.38 today. That’s a cumulative rate of inflation of almost 52 percent in 20 years. Middle- and low-wage workers’ incomes grew just over five percent during the same period. When the value of the U.S. dollar decreases 10 times faster than incomes increase, people struggle to pay for everything. My father and an entire district of a machinists’ union didn’t get a raise for the eight years Ronald Reagan was President. Imagine working for the same wage for nearly a decade while the cumulative rate of inflation increased 36.4 percent over that time. By the end of the eight years your 1981 U.S. dollar was worth just 63.6 cents in 1989. The lack of union membership in America has a lot to do with the increased income for the top 10 percent of earners, too.
While the globalization of the economy makes executives more valuable, a lack of union membership and lack of collective bargaining allows executive salaries to inflate. And while the affordability of commonly used items like refrigerators, ovens, etc. has increased according to the CATO Institute, that doesn’t necessarily offset the ever-increasing cost of energy. Between 2005 and 2015, residential energy costs increased 34 percent despite prices of natural gas delivered to electric utilities declining nearly 60 percent and coal prices remaining essentially flat, according to the Institute for Energy Research. And we all know that gasoline is more expensive. Today’s average price for gasoline is 54 percent more than the inflation-adjusted price of 1998, when oil prices reached an all-time low of $18.13 per barrel.
Secondary education continues to be an increasing expense, which increased on average at a rate of nine percent at four-year colleges, 11 percent at two-year colleges and 13 percent at private colleges since 2011-12, according to CollegeBoard. “But you don’t need a college education,” you might say. Sure, you might not need it, but the value of of a secondary education was double that of an equal investment in the stock market back in 2011, according to the Brookings Institute, and USA Today reported that a New York Fed study determined the net present value of a college degree to be at an all-time high of $300,000 back in 2014.
Education isn’t the only thing that’s steadily increased in cost, either. The median cost of rent has increased 64 percent since 1960 and 12 percent from 2000 to 2010 despite median wages falling seven percent during that time, according to ApartmentList. The Consumer Price Index for food is also 2.4 percent higher than it was just a year ago, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
While Republican politicians have no interest in socialized healthcare legislation or minimum wage legislation, they should if their goals entail more American jobs and a flourishing American economy. Socialized healthcare legislation, like Rep. John Conyer’s Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, and minimum wage legislation, like Rep. Al Green’s Original Living Wage Act, would allow Republicans to create more jobs and allow Americans to further stimulate the economy with expendable income.
No Conservative who is struggling to pay for necessities can successfully argue that they don’t deserve a raise, and no Republican politician can successfully argue that his or her struggling constituents don’t deserve a raise and keep his or her job. This is something Congress can pass and something Donald Trump should be proud to sign. It would be quite the blow to his predecessor if Trump managed to increase wages for all American workers making minimum wage. It would certainly make the numbers look better if Trump and the Republicans are successful in passing their healthcare bill, as more Americans would be able to afford health insurance.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: USA Prepares, Building America, Free Talk Live, The Easy Organic Gardener, American Survival Radio, Jim Brown’s Common Sense, Good Day Health, MindSet: Mental Health News and Information, Health Hunters, America’s Health Advocate, The Bright Side, The Dr. Daliah Show, Dr. Asa On Call, The Dr. Bob Martin Show, Dr. Coldwell Opinion Radio, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Drew Pearson Live, Drop Your Energy Bill
The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the GCN Live newsroom. A guest editorial follows.
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”-John Locke
It was reported by Aamer Madhani, a White House reporter under Barack Hussein Obama’s criminal administration, that big city mayors have vowed to defy the law and President Donald Trump regarding sanctuary cities harboring illegal aliens.
Aamer reported, “As you may know, back in Jan 26, 2017 several big city mayors across the U.S. vowed to defy President Trump’s executive order that threatens to cut off federal funding to cities that offer some sort of protection to illegal immigrants in their communities.”
The question is, how did they approve the funding in the first place?
Furthermore, the Law does not protect illegal aliens. It prosecutes them.
Aamer continued, “The pushback came from these mayors came as Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order that directs the government to identify federal money it can withhold to punish so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’”
Since when did the federal government receive delegated authority from the American people to take their tax money and reallocate it to cities that are harboring illegal aliens?
Aamer added, “If you remember, Trump had pledged to take action against sanctuary cities on the campaign trail.”
“But as Trump announced the order — as well as action to build a wall along the U.S-Mexico border and hire thousands of new border patrol agents and immigration officers — leaders of some of the nation's biggest cities flatly stated they would not cooperate with the president,” Aamer wrote.
And you need to ask why. This is not Trump against the mayors. This is the mayors working against American Law! And the law exposes the criminal (Romans 3:20).
Aamer reported “In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed that the action ‘won’t change how we enforce the law in New York City.’”
“De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce the crime rate in the nation’s largest city, in part, because relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant communities,” the report continued. “He added that if Trump follows through with the plan it would mean he's effectively cutting funding from the New York Police Department.”
In other words, through totalitarian methods, Mayor de Blasio is attempting to use the law against the law. Here, you have the criminal blaming the law for his crimes (1 John 3:12).
“Here in New York City and in cities across the nation, this executive order could in fact undermine public safety and make our neighborhoods less safe,” de Blasio said.
What De Blasio said was that the enforcement of law could undermine public safety. He is the one personally responsible for the undermining of the public’s safety. Was America told that they were under an Islamic threat after September 11, 2001? How does his statement line up with the facts?
Take a look at Muslims from the east who are plundering countries that they are entering.
Denmark: 450% more crimes committed by Muslims then non-Muslims.
Germany: Muslim migrants committed 142, 500 crimes in 6 months. This is 780 every day.
Sweden: 480,000 sexual assaults in one year. 77% of all rapes by less than 2% Muslim.
England and Wales: Over 56% of Syrian refugee's committed severe crimes in less than 1 year etc.
Belgium: 35% of Prison population is Muslim who make up only 6% of the population.
UK: Muslims fill 44%of high security prisons, out of a 5% population.
USA: 91.4 % Muslim refugees are on food stamps, 68.3 % on cash welfare.
Muslim migration has doubled in the decade since 9/11 and 60% migrants to America favor sharia law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68).
There were 68.57 illegal aliens imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Arizona, compared to 54.06 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned for every 100,000 citizens and legal noncitizens.
There were 97.2 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in California, compared to 74.1 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned per 100,000 citizen and legal noncitizens.
There were 54.85 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Florida, compared to 67.8 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 168.75 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in New York, compared to 48.12 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 54.54 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Texas, compared to 65.43 legal immigrants.
“After President Donald Trump signed an executive order exploring cutting off funding to so-called sanctuary cities, mayors on both coasts of the U.S. say their cities will not be bullied,” Aamer reported.
These mayors are the ones that are bullying anyone who does not go along with their lawless objectives. These are Saul Alinsky tactics at their best. They play the victim while perpetuating the crime.
In Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh called the executive order an attack on "Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values.”
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here,” Walsh told reporters at a news conference. “They can use my office. They can use any office in this building.”
Americans should put these criminal actors that masquerade as mayors in jail where they belong, and remind each and every one of them that these buildings belong to “We the people.”
Furthermore no one has the right to desecrate the blood of those who fought, bled and died enforcing the very laws that they are violating.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who has been accused and investigated for sexually molesting minors, said, “We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”
The opposite is true as I am about to show you.
Mayor of Chicago Rham Emanuel said, “I want to be clear. We're gonna stay a sanctuary city. There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you're from Poland or Pakistan, whether you're from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you're from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream."
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee told reporters nothing has changed for his city following Trump’s executive order.
“I am here today to say we are still a sanctuary city,” Lee said. “We stand by our sanctuary city because we want everybody to feel safe and utilize the services they deserve, including education and health care.”
Ed wants you to do your best to forget about Kate Steinle and her family. Kate was shot randomly by Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who is an illegal immigrant and a repeat felon who was deported back to Mexico 5 times.
Have Americans been inundated by the media’s narrative that there are threats constantly against “We the people”? Who has attacked the rights of Americans more than those who call themselves representatives? No one has.
Here, we have mayors that are committing treason (Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution) by opening the doors to those who are sworn enemies to America (Jeremiah 11:9).
A top aide to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan questioned whether the city even qualified as a sanctuary city.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed concern that the executive order is overly vague.
“That order does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “Instead, it gives undefined discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate sanctuary jurisdictions and the Attorney General to take action against them.” (Homeland security was found to be illegally transporting criminal aliens into the United States under the criminal Barack Hussein Obama’s administration.)
“We call upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to document and promulgate a lawful definition before further actions are taken, so the cities across the Nation may determine how to proceed," the organization added.
You cannot make this stuff up.
(A)Any person who—
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
If you like this you might like the GCN live talk radio show, Sons of Liberty.