Republicans are again trying to repeal and replace Obamacare, but what they’re really doing is attempting to alter the Affordable Care Act just enough so they hold onto their jobs and fulfill a promise made by Donald Trump to repeal and replace Obamacare “one Day 1.” We are nearing Day 100, and the House Republicans can’t even agree amongst themselves let alone get enough votes in the Senate to pass their American Health Care Act.

The best thing that could have happened for Republicans with regard to the Affordable Care Act would have been to accomplish the goal announced by House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just after Barack Obama was elected president. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” he said. They failed, and so will their attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The problem for Republicans, and specifically Southern Republicans, is that Obamacare is working for some and would work for most of their constituents. In fact, the South had the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012 at 18.6 percent. And it’s not all Hispanics. Over 68 million of them are white.

Southerners are also the least healthy of all Americans, with 20 percent reporting fair or poor health in 2014. Southerners are also the most impoverished Americans, with 17 percent of Southerners living below the poverty level in 2014. The South also has the highest rates for diabetes, obesity and infant mortality in the nation. The South accounts for nearly as many uninsured people as the rest of America combined, and 17 percent of the uninsured fall into the coverage gap for Medicaid expansion.

Yet Southerners have taken advantage of, or actually, been disadvantaged by the Supreme Court decision to not force Medicaid expansion upon all states. Had all states been required to expand Medicaid, 7 million people would gain coverage, 4.3 million fewer people would be uninsured and states would see between $5 and $10 billion in uncompensated care savings over the next 10 years, which would offset increased state spending by between 13 and 25 percent.

Of the 19 states resisting Medicaid expansion, 14 are in the South. The states with the most people who stand to gain insurance through expansion are Florida (1.253 million), Texas (1.186 million) and Georgia (.682 million). Georgia nearly elected a Democrat to the house just a few days ago, Texas is turning blue, and two Republican incumbents lost House seats to Democrats in Florida last November, while Democratic incumbents retained all six of their seats.

In short, Southerners need Obamacare and the subsidies that come along with it. They’re just starting to realize it. Now, if America adopted a Medicare-for-all system that Bernie Sanders has proposed, maybe we could stop spending nearly $3 quadrillion on health care as a nation.

--

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

Published in News & Information

Now that a Russian hacker has been arrested in Spain at the request of American authorities, what are America’s options if he reveals Donald Trump’s political campaign members were involved in a hack of the 2016 Presidential election?

  1. Impeach Trump

If it is revealed that Trump was directly involved in the hacking of the 2016 Presidential election he will most certainly be impeached. That doesn’t mean he will be removed. While Trump doesn’t have a strong contingent of Republican support in Congress right now, and traditional Conservatives would most certainly prefer a more traditional Conservative in Mike Pence as President, Republicans still hold enough seats to avoid a two-thirds majority impeachment vote. It would take 166 Republicans (more than half the Republican delegation) to turn on Trump to remove him from the White House, but a lot could change in the 2018 midterm election.

  1. Cyber attack on Russia

America will most certainly respond to a Russian cyber attack of the 2016 Presidential election by doing something similar to Vladimir Putin. While they could remove him in a traditional manner (airstrike, sniper, drone, etc.), it’s more likely America avoids World War III and flexes its cyber muscle to reveal some things Russians might not find attractive about their leader to swing the needle against him for once. One of those things could be revealing Putin’s financial information, including homes and properties owned and net worth. This won’t likely affect a Russian election because Russians revere their shirtless, horse-riding leader and let him score eight goals in hockey games. It might not even happen if Trump is still in office, because Putin is allegedly in a position to blackmail him.

  1. Re-vote

Holding an entirely new Presidential election is almost certainly out of the question given the Republicans current control of Congress and secretary of state positions. Currently, 29 of the state officials charged with election duties are Republican, but there will be 26 secretary of state elections in 2018. Every state would have to agree to a re-vote, making this option all but impossible.

  1. Military attack on Russia

This is even more unlikely than a revote given that America and Russia have the two strongest military forces in the world. While America spent a whopping $516.5 billion more military dollars than Russia in 2015, Russia has about 200 more nuclear weapons than America, according to the Federation of American Scientists. If World War III were to break out, China, the third largest military in the world, would most certainly join Russia in the effort. Their combined military budget would be just over half that of America’s.

So America’s options in response to a confirmed hack of the 2016 Presidential election are not only limited, but most are highly unlikely.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

While Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution grants only Congress the right to declare war, the United States has won and lost (or fought to a draw if it makes you feel better) many wars since Congress last declared war on Dec. 8, 1941. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syrian attacks have all taken place without Congress declaring war.

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a response to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s advancement of the Vietnam War and was supposed to reinforce Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution over Article II, Section 2, which makes the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It clearly hasn’t, as President Donald Trump proved the night of April 6 when he launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian air base after it was determined the Syrian government attacked a rebel ammunition cache holding chemical weapons that killed over 100 people -- none of which were American civilians or soldiers.

 

When Pearl Harbor was bombed on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, war was declared by Congress the very next day. When the Twin Towers came down on 9/11, the war effectively began the very next day, but without a declaration of war from Congress. Those were attacks on US soil, though. This, however, was not in response to an attack on America, which has members of both major political parties throwing a fit, which is uncharacteristic. Most often the party not inhabiting the White House makes a fuss about the president’s overreach. Both Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul think Trump’s military action in Syria violates the Constitution.

 

The War Powers Resolution only requires the commander-in-chief to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing a military attack, and Trump did indeed notify more than two dozen members of Congress of his plan to attack Syria the night of April 6. He did not seek their authorization to do so because it wasn’t required of him thanks to the leeway offered by previous presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom launched attacks without Congress. Hell, George Bush, Sr. won the Gulf War in less than 100 hours. How can Congress expect to take back its Constitutional right to declare war if they allow presidents to bomb for 90 days when it took less than five days to win a war in 1991?

 

The most interesting thing about the War Powers Resolution is that it’s likely unconstitutional, which would make it pretty difficult to replace it. John McCain and Tim Kaine attempted to do so in 2014. They proposed the president should consult Congress before launching a military operation that is expected to last more than a week. It never happened, and it wouldn’t have any teeth today anyways. Bush, Bush, Jr. and Obama have knocked them all out. Drones helped a bit, too.

 

The War Powers Resolution is useless when one person can blow up the entire world in a matter of minutes without deploying a single soldier. War has become a lot like a catch in the NFL. We don’t really know how to define it, but we know it when we see it. And Americans have gotten used to waging war without declaring war. The United States is in a perpetual war against terrorism, and Americans keep waking up everyday, going to work and mostly ignoring what’s happening on the other side of the world. It’s no different than if war isn’t being waged. Americans everyday can safely assume their country is bombing somebody, and ignorantly assume those people had it coming.

 

I’m a big believer in the order of things. That is, the order in which information is presented matters, and that’s how I perceive the US Constitution. Article I holds more weight than Article II, and Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is listed before the Second Amendment for a reason. I mean, the whole reason white folks even stumbled upon this country was in search of religious freedom. And I’m not even religious, but I value the right to a free press and free speech over the right to own a gun. In this case, I think Congress’s right to declare war holds more weight than a president’s right to command the armed forces, and I think the Constitution was written in that order for that reason. While a president can’t declare war, he can control military operations once war is declared. I'm sure the drafters of the Constitution didn't think war would be waged prior to a declaration of war, or that bombs would be built that can blow up countries.

 

I also understand the importance of the president being able to command the armed forces in order to avoid an attack on Americans, and in a nuclear age when one bomb can wipe out an entire country, stopping those attacks is more important than retaliating. That is not the case here. Bush, Jr. didn’t have a very good reason to bomb Iraq, but he really didn’t need one. Neither does Trump with regard to Syria. Allowing Congress to decide whether to declare war might have saved the United States from entering either conflict.

 

I like the idea of checks and balances, but what Congress really wants is to reign in the powers of the president they’ve already given away. And if Congress really wanted that, they should have passed unconstitutional legislation that had some teeth the first time around, because it won’t happen again. That’s why I think the War Powers Resolution should be repealed and Constitutional order given precedence.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information

Despite a new study in Scientific Reports that shows climate change to amplify droughts and floods by disrupting jet streams, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to undo Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

So while the Trump administration couldn’t repeal and replace Obamacare, it can repeal and replace Obama’s climate legacy. But Bloomberg reports that the executive orders are unlikely to bring back mining jobs because demand for coal has fallen due to stiff competition from cheaper natural gas and a boom in wind and solar power.

A report from the Environmental Defense Fund states the wind and solar energy industries have been adding jobs 12 times as fast as the rest of the economy, and the fastest growing job over the next decade will likely be wind turbine technician, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Another recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states that deaths related to extreme heat are expected to keep rising, especially in the world’s largest cities, and the United States will not be immune.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt has incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide emissions are not the primary contributor to climate change and repeatedly called the 2015 Paris Agreement “a bad deal.”

Nations supporting the Paris Agreement, including the United States, agreed to limit the warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. Despite the executive orders reversing America’s course to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants, Pruitt said the EPA will continue working to provide Americans with clean air and water.

Even Fox News jumped on the bash Pruitt bandwagon on climate change, with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace citing American Lung Association information that half of Americans breathe unhealthy air everyday. He then asked Pruitt how he and the EPA expect to keep that number from rising now that carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants will increase. Pruitt instead focused on how America’s air quality is better than it has been in the past, which of course means we can risk dirtying it further.

A letter signed by 447 former EPA employees urged Congress to reject Trump’s nomination of Pruitt to run the agency. Pruitt is also one of many Republicans who originally filed a lawsuit against the EPA arguing that the EPA exceeded its legal authority in imposing carbon emission curbs on coal-burning power plants. He is no longer a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information