Maybe you’ve run into this argument. Generally, I think Democrats don’t want a border wall and don’t want illegal aliens charged with a crime because they support open borders. But if you challenge them on it, they get offended. Ever try pointing out that Hillary Clinton supported a border “fence”? Like when she voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006? Oh look, here’s video of her bragging about voting for it:
So let’s talk about the cost. $21.6 billion. That’s no small amount. That’s almost twice as much as it costs to build an aircraft carrier. So some, perhaps Libertarians and Conservatives, have a reason to think a border wall, fence, barrier, or whatever you want to call it, would cost too much. But not Democrats.
In 2016, Obamacare cost taxpayers $110 billion.
But let’s ignore Obama’s previous spending. Let’s ignore his average deficits of $900 billion a year. Let’s talk about the future. Democrats, such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and nearly every other potential future Democrat Presidential candidate supports guaranteed jobs or universal basic income. The only one who doesn’t is Joe Biden, who at his age might be struggling reading internal party polls.
A government guaranteed jobs program would ONLY cost $543 billion.
So Democrats really have no credibility when it comes to the argument that a wall costs too much. Here’s an idea for Democrats to think about. Guaranteed employment means people need something to work on. Why not have them build a wall?
Senator Cory Booker said that Trump letting Obamacare fail is “not just cynical, it’s actually sinister.” I have some choice words for Mr. Booker.
Republicans didn’t write Obamacare. They didn’t vote for it. They only had one thing in common really with Democrats on Obamacare: none of them read it.
Trump didn’t sign Obamacare. He didn’t write it. He didn’t repeal it. They couldn’t even replace a letter in the name. Obamacare remains largely untouched by Republicans. If it’s failing, that has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump. Obamacare is failing because Democrats didn’t design it to survive.
We could argue about whether or not Obamacare’s failure was intentionally designed that way, or just a bi-product of bad legislation. But the fact remains that Obamacare is going to fail. Next year 45 counties will have no healthcare plans on their Obamacare marketplace. 1,138 counties will have one choice.
So what is Booker talking about? How does he get to assign any blame to Trump on this? I guess you could argue because Trump isn’t bailing out the insurance companies. Obamacare had designed in it a failsafe bailout option for if (or when) it failed. The government would take billions of borrowed dollars and funnel them to the insurance companies to save Obamacare. Trump isn’t taking that option. I guess Booker thinks that not giving insurance companies massive bailouts is sinister. That would make sense if you’re on the side of the insurance companies.
Some have argued that by saying they were going to replace Obamacare, that is what has caused insurance companies to pull out. Well, that will be easy to test. Now that the hapless McConnell has failed, the insurance companies should come charging back into the Obamacare marketplaces, right? Cause right now the best metaphor for some of these Obamacare marketplaces is a Venezuela grocery store. But if Booker actually thought that was going to happen, what would he be worried about?
Obamacare is going to fail. Not because Republicans had anything to do with it, they didn’t. Because when Democrats rushed to pass it without any input from Republicans, they gave America a bad deal. If they had any sense, they’d offer to help the GOP fix it.
Here’s a question that’s been nagging at my mind. Forget the the fact that Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Obama administration colluded with the Ukraine
, UK, and Germany to smear Trump and spread false information to influence the election. Forget that this Russian attorney who met with Trump Jr. did it under false pretenses and didn’t give him any information.
Let’s say it was all worst case scenario. Trump Jr. meets with this Russian lawyer. The Russian lawyer actually works for the Russian government, she isn’t just loosely associated with them like she is with the company that did opposition research on Trump
. This is the real deal. Let’s pretend she gives Trump Jr. actual hard proof that Hillary Clinton was taking illegal donations from Russia, which is what this attorney claimed she had.
In our imaginary scenario, Donald Trump, Jr. meets with a Russian attorney from the Russian government and she gives him hard evidence that Hillary Clinton has committed a crime. Maybe he turns that over to the FBI, maybe he gives it to the media, maybe he just distributes it to his campaign, who knows. Are we saying that it should be illegal for someone to receive evidence from a foreign source that an American is doing something illegal? Is it treason to discover that an American has broken the law if that discovery comes from a foreign source?
For one, the Obamacare replacement has ground to a halt. Before you cheer (if you happen to be a Leftist and reading this), in no uncertain terms Obamacare has failed. Forget just premiums rising at exponential rates, next year there are 45 counties in America that will have zero healthcare plans on their Obamacare market exchanges
. In other words, the Obamacare marketplace is going to look like a Venezuela marketplace for thousands next year. 3 million will have one option. That’s what government run healthcare looks like for America.
However, the false narrative that Trump has been under investigation or that this Russian meeting means anything has stymied the Trump agenda. In fact, Republicans have devolved in their “repeal and replace” mission so far that their plan is barely more than a namechange at this point. From ACA to AHCA. And they can’t even get 51 votes for that.
It will be yuge. In the era of fake news and hyperbole, Trump is only one of many offenders. We live in an age where anyone can say anything and lay claim to credibility. It works especially well if you use half the facts and flawed research. That’s exactly what the Washington Post did when they declared that repealing Obamacare WILL kill more than 43,000 people a year. Not “it may”, not even “experts suggest”. It will kill them. 43,000 a year. Poof. Just like that. Without even getting end of life counseling.
“…thousands of American lives that were previously protected by provisions of the Affordable Care Act are in danger” begins the article. The claim is based on a study that says that for every 455 people put on Medicaid, one person a year lives who would have died otherwise. Since correlation always means causation, the reasoning is sound. It’s even more sound if you consider that there is absolutely no replacement for ACA.
Of course, that’s not true. Republicans already have a replacement ready, and it keeps some key parts of ACA such as not being dropped for pre-existing conditions. But here the article makes a strange argument. Despite being obviously anti-Republican, the article notes that while it only takes 50 votes to repeal Obamacare, it would take 60 to pass a replacement. I think the argument goes something like this: Republicans can repeal Obamacare easily, but in order to replace it and save 43,000 lives a year Democrats would have to not filibuster. So perhaps the headline should have read “Democrat filibuster will kill 43,000 people”.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time some wild eye, crazy hair person has claimed that repealing Obamacare equals mass murder. Bernie Sanders used to say that without the ACA 36,000 people would die annually. At the time he was given 4 Pinocchios by none other than the Washington Post.
Now? Apparently now Bernie’s prediction of 36,000 dead per year if Obamacare is repealed is “certainly well within the ballpark of scientific consensus”, according to the article. Good night, and good luck.