The modern-day Democratic Party is, on any number of issues, simply <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-democratic-party-has-become-parody-itself-josh-hammer">beyond parody</a>. The far-left tail that is the AOC-led &#8220;Squad&#8221; has long come to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">wag the dog</a> that is the institutional party apparatus, and perhaps nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the intersection of economics and mathematics that sentient human beings have hitherto referred to as &#8220;sanity.&#8221;
In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">Communist</a> &#8211; VT) was notable for proposing sundry pie-in-the-sky socialistic nostrums that far outflanked eventual nominee Hillary Clinton on the hard left. In the clown car pile-up that is the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Sanders has once again outdone himself. As economic policy expert Brian Riedl recently broke down for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">City Journal</a>, Sanders&#8217; &#8220;current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade,&#8221; and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product would rise to an astonishing 70% — or three and a half times the 20% that has been the frequent post-World War II <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S">American norm</a>. The single priciest component of Sanders&#8217; hammer-and-sickle agenda, as the erstwhile Soviet Union honeymooner has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM">conceded</a>, is his bankrupting &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; plan — to the tune of $30–$40 trillion over a ten-year timeframe.
What is simply remarkable is that Sanders&#8217; &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; price tag now looks positively conservative compared to the newly unveiled plan of 2020 Democratic presidential primary rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ashe Schow <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all-is-a-complete-fantasy">noted</a> earlier today, Warren&#8217;s new &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; proposal &#8220;would cost $52 trillion over 10 years.&#8221; Proving even more thoroughly that the quixotic Democratic Party mind lies somewhere between the idyllic river of dragon dreams and the paradisal valley of unicorn farts, Warren doubled down on the disingenuous mathematical impossibility that she peddled ad nauseam at the last presidential primary debate and informed us gullible plebeians that her plan will somehow <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775335150/read-elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">not result in middle class tax hikes</a>.
Hmmmm.
As Riedl has <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes">previously</a> <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deficits-on-the-rise-and-not-because-of-tax-cuts-democrats-will-make-it-worse">demonstrated</a>, there is simply no world in which this exorbitant level of federal spending can be sustained. It is a complete and utter mathematical impossibility. Heck, we as a nation cannot even fiscally sustain our own previously pledged commitments to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-republicans-need-be-adults-and-talk-about-josh-hammer">bankrupting entitlement programs</a>!
But sure, what&#8217;s another $52 trillion in health care going to do, once we&#8217;re all already heading straight for a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html">Greece-style</a> sovereign debt abyss? At this point, the entirety of both the Democratic Party and &#8220;progressive&#8221; economic firmament seem to be unanimously in thrall to the <a href="https://economics21.org/modern-monetary-theory-rational-inflation">economically illiterate</a> fiction that is co-called &#8220;modern monetary theory&#8221; (MMT) — the nonsensical notion, as <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060">explained</a> by Investopedia, that governments that print their own currency &#8220;do not need taxes or borrowing for spending&#8221; because &#8220;they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.&#8221; Intellectually honest Democrats would publicly proclaim their fealty to the MMT cabal, in lieu of constantly equivocating when pressed about how they might possibly fund their fiscally ruinous and un-fundable schemes.
Sober-minded citizens have already seen the 2020 Democrats lurch to the far left on all sorts of bread-and-butter cultural and civilizational issues — from border security to religion to abortion to transgenderism. But on perhaps no issue is this crop of hucksters more transparently nutty than on their various plans for perhaps the most rudimentary political issue of all: Government spending.

October Democratic primary debate

HAMMER: The Democratic Presidential Primary Is A Race To The Fiscally Illiterate Bottom

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Economy

Health Care

Leftism

Medicare

Obamacare

Progressivism

Even as Democrats inveigh against President Trump for his alleged norm-shattering and contempt for the rule of law, their health care plans show a growing embrace of authoritarianism. For instance, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-09-25/schiff-trumps-comments-a-classic-mafia-like-shakedown" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-09-25/schiff-trumps-comments-a-classic-mafia-like-shakedown&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwkxR4Q6ZOFaNqd4M8yJdUm134cA">dubbed</a> the president’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “a classic mafia-like shakedown.” He knows of which he speaks, because the Democratic Party agenda on health care now includes threats to destroy any entities failing to comply with government-dictated price controls.
The latest evidence comes from Colorado, where several government agencies recently submitted a <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/HB19-1004%20Draft%20Report%20Colorado%20State%20Coverage%20Option%20and%20Appendix.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/HB19-1004%2520Draft%2520Report%2520Colorado%2520State%2520Coverage%2520Option%2520and%2520Appendix.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFDkt31ZlobGZ-HQwefFU-NC7beBQ">draft report</a> regarding the creation of a “state option” for health insurance. The plan would not create a state-run health insurer; instead, it would see agencies dragooning private sector firms to comply with government diktats.
The plan would “require insurance carriers that offer plans in a major market,” whether individual, small group, or large group, “to offer the state option as well.” In these state-mandated plans that insurers must offer, carriers would have to abide by stricter controls on their administrative costs — in the form of medical loss ratio requirements — than those dictated by Obamacare.
For medical providers, the Colorado plan would use “payment benchmarks” to cap reimbursement amounts for doctors and hospitals. And if hospitals decline to accept these government-imposed price controls, the report ominously says that “the state may implement measures to ensure health systems participate.”
In comments to reporters, Colorado officials made clear their intent to coerce providers into this price-controlled system. Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/09/colorado-health-public-option-hospitals/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/09/colorado-health-public-option-hospitals/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEdfFeIqjhxySRoTgjO7RycSEOHhA">admitted</a> that “[i]f our hospital systems don’t participate, this won’t work &#8230; [w]e can’t allow that to happen.” The head of Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Kim Bimestefer, <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/07/colorado-public-health-insurance-option-proposal/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/07/colorado-public-health-insurance-option-proposal/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGvUest7eeWAQmR2Zl20j5M7mzlAw">said</a> that “if we feel that the hospitals are not going to participate, we will require their participation.”
State officials did not elaborate on the mechanisms they would use to compel participation in the state option. But they could attempt to require hospitals and insurers to participate in the new plan to maintain their license to operate in Colorado — a likely unconstitutional condition of licensure.
In threatening this level of coercion — agree to price controls, or we’ll shut down your business — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis imitated his fellow Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s proposed drug pricing bill, up for a vote in the House as soon as next month, would impose excise taxes of up to 95% of a drug’s sale price if companies refuse to “negotiate” with the federal government.
In its <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHtCPW1KJ1eddfASQamnbb-cBFA-g">analysis</a> of Pelosi’s legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted that, because drug makers could not deduct the 95% excise tax for income tax purposes, “the combination of income taxes and excise taxes on the sales could cause the drug manufacturer to lose money if the drug was sold in the United States.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, CBO concluded that the excise tax would not generate “any significant increase in revenues,” as “manufacturers would either participate in the negotiating process” — because they have no effective alternative — “or pull a particular drug out of the U.S. market entirely.”
CBO also noted, in a classic bit of understatement, that Pelosi’s bill “could result in litigation,” for threatening losses on any company that dares defy the government’s offer of “negotiation.” But the Left seems uninterested in abiding by limits on government power — or the consistency of its own arguments. As I <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/dems-new-plan-would-ban-private-medicine-11557688457" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/dems-new-plan-would-ban-private-medicine-11557688457&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFNRhLOlmEwRWTbqkNbJt_yGEVBpw">noted this spring</a>, other proposed legislation in Congress would abolish the private health care market. Less than one decade after forcing all Americans to buy a product for the first time ever, in the form of Obamacare’s insurance mandate, liberals now want to prohibit all Americans from purchasing care directly from their doctors.
These recent proposals continue a virulent strain of authoritarianism that has permeated progressivism’s entire history. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to invoke emergency powers during his first inaugural address, and Rahm Emanuel infamously <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D_mzcbXi1Tkk&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEqUQZt1ngA3w0MxGoRCLRx9FlQDQ">said</a> during the Great Recession that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Make no mistake: The health care system needs patient-centered reform. But the true crisis comes from the progressives who would utilize blunt government force to seize control of one-fifth of the nation’s economy.
&nbsp;
Mr. Jacobs is Founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book The Case Against Single Payer. He is on Twitter: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/chrisjacobsHC" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.twitter.com/chrisjacobsHC&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1572027551149000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH6oeMTNLARnFthxB33FurVWA3XYw">@chrisjacobsHC</a>.

Surgeons operating patient for breast implant

JACOBS: The Left’s Health Care Vision Is A Prescription For Brute Government Force

Health

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dismissed her party&#8217;s calls to pass Medicare for All on Saturday and instead defended the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the most politically viable health insurance option for Americans.
&#8220;No, I do not,&#8221; Pelosi replied during an interview with NPR when she was asked if she agreed with many of the Democratic presidential candidates&#8217; demands to implement a single-payer health care system.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&#8220;This is complicated to put together health care for as many Americans as possible. Our goal for all of us, including those presidential candidates is to have health care for all Americans — affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;We believe that the path of the Affordable Care Act is the way to go, so I do believe that if you want to have whatever they are calling their plan — Medicare for all, whatever it is — the path to it is the Affordable Care Act.&#8221;
Former Vice President Joe Biden stands alone as the sole major presidential candidate to fully endorse the ACA, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. Biden has campaigned on reinstating the individual mandate as a way to guarantee that all Americans receive adequate health care coverage.
Through the mandate, the government would fine any individual who did not obtain sufficient health insurance. As a way to bypass the unconstitutional requirement to force Americans to purchase insurance, the individual mandate was categorized as an income-based tax levy. It was rolled back in 2017 after Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates, however, have made universal health care plans cornerstones of their campaign platforms, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The plan would notably force roughly 150 million Americans who are currently enrolled in private insurance plans to switch to a government-run program.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) faced widespread blow-back in January after she stated that she feels &#8220;very strongly&#8221; about fully embracing the single-payer health insurance system and thereby overhauling the entire American health care market. She later walked back her statements and argued that it is more nuanced than she previously illustrated.
However, Harris further stated that she wants a pathway to single-payer, but believes private health insurance should continue to cover people in the interim, which her campaign referred to as &#8220;Medicare for more.&#8221; Pelosi seemingly echoed a similar position on Saturday.
&#8220;I am with you as an advocate,&#8221; Pelosi said. &#8220;But as a member of Congress needing to get results for the American people, let&#8217;s take a path that takes us quickest and best and strongest to affordable care for all Americans.&#8221;
&#8220;I salute them if that is what they believe, I bless them for that, but that was, I think, not the practical path to get something done,&#8221; Pelosi added. &#8220;And I can, I say to them all of these issues, single-payer and all that, I have those signs in my basement from 30 years ago.&#8221;

nancy_pelosi

LISTEN: Nancy Pelosi Rejects Her Party&#8217;s Calls For Single-Payer Health Insurance

Nancy Pelosi

According to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire, a group of prominent conservative leaders have staked out their opposition to Judge Halil Suleyman (&#8220;Sul&#8221;) Ozerden, the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/trump-judicial-nominee-1417561">controversial</a> pick to fill a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-nominees-3/">vacant Mississippi-based seat</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ozerden, who is presently a U.S. district court judge in Mississippi, has been assailed by many due to concerns stemming from alleged exegetical sloppiness and alleged hostility to religious liberty.
The letter&#8217;s signees include First Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford, Conservative Action Project Chairman Alfred Regnery, Morton Blackwell, Dr. James Dobson, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Chairman Jenny Beth Martin, ForAmerica President David Bozell, March for Life Action President Tom McClusky, and Wallbuilders Founder David Barton. The letter reads, in relevant part:
<blockquote>Conservatives have grave concerns about the nomination of Judge Halil Ozerden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Specifically, the undersigned raise issue with his commitment to religious liberty, and more broadly, with his commitment to advancing the original meaning of the Constitution. &#8230;
Ozerden’s indifference to religious liberty in [the case of Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-00158-HSO-RHW, slip op. at 7–8, 15 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2012)] is indicative of a judicial style that is short on substance and which demonstrates a troubling indifference to the textualism we would hope to see in a circuit court judge.
A demonstrated commitment to religious liberty and a deference to the Constitution as it was originally written are the hallmarks of a prudent jurist. Principled conservatives must stand against judges being elevated because of who they know, rather than a proven history of a solid conservative judicial philosophy.
As Sen. Ted Cruz, who has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, &#8220;for a lifetime appointment on the court of appeals, I believe we should be looking for someone with a strong, demonstrated record as a constitutionalist. I have significant concerns that Judge Ozerden&#8217;s judicial record does not indicate that he meets that standard. For that reason, I do not believe he should be on the court of appeals, and I will oppose his nomination.&#8221; Senator Cruz is correct. Hopefully, other principled senators who care about our courts will join him.</blockquote>
As the letter indicates, stalwart conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/ted-cruz-halil-sul-ozerden-nomination-1492305">come out in public opposition</a> to Ozerden&#8217;s nomination. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has indicated he will support the Ozerden nomination, while many conservative eyes remain fixed on Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — a fellow former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee who has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47899/hammer-senator-josh-hawley-most-important-freshman-josh-hammer">already fought multiple battles</a> thus far in 2019 against Trump administration judicial nominees. It is unclear whether Hawley will fight at least one more.
As a recent judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit myself, I wrote a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48881/hammer-sul-ozerden-very-weak-fifth-circuit-pick-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-ed</a> in June explaining my own personal opposition to the Ozerden nomination:
<blockquote>What Judge Ozerden did in Catholic Diocese of Biloxi represents nothing less than a deliberate indifference — indeed, perhaps an outright hostility — to the interests of religious liberty. And religious liberty, of course, is easily one of the most indispensable issues by which senators ought to vet and assess judicial nominees. &#8230;
As a very recent Fifth Circuit law clerk, I can attest that the Court&#8217;s en banc votes — in which important cases are brought before all active judges — are oftentimes nail-biting affairs. The Fifth Circuit is being made great again, but it is not quite fully there yet. &#8230; And this Mississippi seat promises to be the proverbial Anthony Kennedy seat on the Court — the swing vote in en banc voting who will decide crucially important matters of intense interest to conservatives.
We should have zero question marks from the nominee for this Mississippi seat.</blockquote>
Some of Ozerden&#8217;s tough-on-crime defenders have attempted to defend his nomination by pointing to his purported tough sentencing practices as a district court judge but, as I tweeted yesterday, even that proposition is unclear at best.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Pablo Vega-Ontanon, an illegal alien from Mexico, was caught with enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 people. Maximum sentence was life imprisonment and a $10 million fine.
Sul Ozerden sentenced him to six years plus supervised release. <a href="https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM">https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM</a>
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1174778372225785856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Time is running short for fellow conservative senators to join Cruz — Ozerden&#8217;s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote will likely be held next week.

US. Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals

Key Conservatives Double Down On Opposition To Trump Judicial Nominee

Birth Control

Constitution

First Amendment

Josh Hawley

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Lawsuit

Religion

Ted Cruz

Last night, Robert Francis &#8220;Beto&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke doubled down, in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51718/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">rather colorful fashion</a>, on his vow to confiscate from law-abiding Americans their <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51381/hammer-i-will-never-ever-let-government-buy-back-josh-hammer">cherished</a> rifles whose <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44327/hammer-here-are-three-core-reasons-oppose-ban-josh-hammer">cosmetically amorphous and technically undefinable</a> features lead leftists to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50263/hammer-conservatives-must-not-go-soft-assault-josh-hammer">peculiarly label</a> them so-called &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; &#8220;Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said to enthusiastic audience applause, as The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51718/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">reported</a>.
Last night, furthermore, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">communist</a> loonbag <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48572/where-does-bernie-sanders-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Bernie Sanders</a> and demagogic harridan <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48596/where-does-elizabeth-warren-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Elizabeth Warren</a> each doubled down in their joint defense of a one-size-fits-all socialized medicine national health care takeover that would, in the estimate of fellow 2020 presidential contender <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49364/where-does-amy-klobuchar-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Amy Klobuchar</a>, strip over 140 million Americans of their privately held health insurance plans. Joe Biden, the purported &#8220;moderate&#8221; in this hellish menagerie, parroted last night the &#8220;no one will lose his doctor under Obamacare&#8221; ruse — a ruse, that is, which was literally exposed by left-leaning PolitiFact as its 2013 &#8220;Lie of the Year&#8221; with respect to the very underlying health care plan Biden now haplessly touts.
All of this, of course, came precisely two primary debates after open-borders zealot Julian Castro decided to hail the pagan glory that is abortion for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49056/hammer-democratic-party-fundamentally-unfit-lead-josh-hammer">&#8220;trans females&#8221;</a> — which would be biological men who subjectively feel as if they are women. The careful reader — or really anyone who has ever opened a biology textbook — will note that a member of the human species with both X and Y chromosomes, otherwise known as a man, cannot possibly procure an abortion even if he desires to do so. Yet we are still reliably informed that the Democrats, who have never seen a statist economic program they didn&#8217;t tendentiously glom onto under the hectoring veneer of &#8220;climate change,&#8221; are the Party of Science™.
I am not sure if the Democrats are the Party of Science. But I do know that the modern Democratic Party, which promotes youngsters who would&#8217;ve been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49515/hammer-aocs-squad-will-destroy-democrats-2020-josh-hammer">right at home in the Soviet Politburo</a> and remains emphatically <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51709/hammer-democratic-party-fatally-attracted-hardcore-josh-hammer">in the throes of its leftist base</a>, has not merely become <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/49056/hammer-democratic-party-fundamentally-unfit-lead-josh-hammer">fundamentally unfit</a> to govern the United States of America. It has also become an utter parody of its very self.
For decades, Republicans have mocked Democratic anti-gun proposals by calling them &#8220;gun grabbers.&#8221; Now, Beto O&#8217;Rourke is literally promoting — and <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/13/beto-orourke-selling-t-shirts-hell-yes-were-going-/">fundraising</a> off of! — his proposal to forcibly confiscate the firearms of tens of millions of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners. In <a href="http://theresurgent.com/2019/09/13/is-beto-orourke-trying-to-sabotage-the-democrats-again/">sabotaging</a> his own party, O&#8217;Rourke has outed the Democratic id for the masses to see — and boy, is it <a href="https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1172315168446935040">ugly</a>.
For years if not decades, Republicans have ridiculed Democratic health care proposals by asserting their pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams on socializing medicine would inevitably lead to the stripping away of private health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. Now, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">two of the top three contenders</a> for the Democrats&#8217; 2020 presidential nomination, are advocating for precisely that. A major political party entertained a genuine policy debate last night on the efficacy and morality of eradicating the health insurance plans of over 140 million Americans. Think about that for a second.
For years, Republicans have sneered at Democrats that their anti-biology crusade in the realm of normalizing &#8220;transgenderism&#8221; was, ultimately, untenable. Biology, many conservatives have told their Party of Science™ counterparts, is immutable. Now, Julian Castro advocates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51556/hammer-bernies-pagan-support-child-sacrifice-josh-hammer">pagan-esque unborn child sacrifice for Moloch</a> for a &#8220;class&#8221; of human beings who are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">biologically incapable of bearing children</a>. Contemporary fealty to political correctness apparently demands such devout obeisance to the LGBTQ+ alphabet soup lobby such that science itself must be subordinated and shunned.
We are truly through the looking-glass.
Forget The Onion. Forget The Babylon Bee. Parody is here, and its name is the Democratic Party.

ABC Houston Democratic presidential debate.jpg

HAMMER: The Democratic Party Has Become A Parody Of Itself

Amy Klobuchar

Bernie Sanders

Beto O'Rourke

Climate Change

Democratic Socialism

Elizabeth Warren

Global Warming

Gun Buybacks

Last week, the wife of Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC) posted an Instagram video to &#8220;rant&#8221; about her healthcare costs, especially whining about her marriage counseling bill not covered under her Obamacare &#8220;gold&#8221; plan. The wife and mother announced that she was going to &#8220;[reach] out to my congressman,&#8221; who happens to be her husband.
&#8220;I&#8217;m gonna have a little bit of a rant here on social media because I think this is important,&#8221; Amanda Cunningham started the video, as reported by <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-congressmans-wife-mind-blowing-our-insurance-doesnt-cover-marriage-counseling/">The Washington Free Beacon</a>. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been going over my not-a-bill bill here from Blue Cross Blue Shield, and realizing that, once again, all of my mental health therapy sessions are denied, in addition to all of our marriage counseling sessions.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s just mind-blowing to me that these basic well-known needs, that mental health is healthcare, are still being denied, that we&#8217;re still fighting for these absolutely basic things, it&#8217;s unbelievable to me,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;So I&#8217;m reaching out to my congressman — yes, also my husband — but saying, like, hey, what can we do about this? Let&#8217;s go to the House floor, let&#8217;s write a bill, Iet&#8217;s — I don&#8217;t know what you do, but let&#8217;s do it because this is ridiculous.&#8221;
&#8220;This affects us, our family, it affects everyone else who&#8217;s seeking mental health and needs support doing so. I&#8217;m just flabbergasted,&#8221; Cunningham ended the video post.
Rep. Cunningham is given access to the Obamacare &#8220;gold&#8221; plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield as a member of Congress and is &#8220;responsible for paying about a quarter of the premiums,&#8221; the Beacon noted.
For the affluent family to have their marriage counseling sessions covered in their plan, far less affluent Americans would see their premiums rise.
&#8220;She didn&#8217;t say it outright, but in her &#8216;rant,&#8217; Cunningham wanted to raise premiums on other Americans — most of whom earn far less than her family — so she would receive &#8216;free&#8217; therapy,&#8221; explained author and Juniper Research Group CEO Christopher Jacobs at <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/10/democrat-reps-wife-demands-free-marriage-counseling-taxpayer-subsidized-health-plan/">The Federalist</a>. &#8220;Viewed from this perspective, her objections seem somewhat self-serving from a family in the upper tier of the income spectrum.&#8221;
Jacobs noted that Obamacare, which was mandated by way of penalty on the American people by Democrats, already spiked healthcare costs, hurting Americans far less wealthy that the Cunningham family:
<blockquote>In CBO&#8217;s view, the law required people to buy richer insurance policies, and those richer policies encouraged people to consume more health care, both of which led to a rise in premiums. Unfortunately, that rise in premiums over the past several years has led millions of individuals who do not qualify for insurance subsidies (unlike Amanda Cunningham) to drop their coverage.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New video: Dem congressman Joe Cunningham&#8217;s wife is outraged her taxpayer-subsidized Obamacare plan doesn&#8217;t pay for her therapy, their marriage counseling<a href="https://t.co/HQLyf1g4Iy">https://t.co/HQLyf1g4Iy</a> <a href="https://t.co/3NXD4qD98c">pic.twitter.com/3NXD4qD98c</a>
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1171134249581371392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The video of Mrs. Cunningham&#8217;s self-described &#8220;rant&#8221; landed as out-of-touch for many on social media.
&#8220;Why do I need to pay for her marriage counseling LOL,&#8221; asked Congressional candidate Joe Saladino.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Why do I need to pay for her marriage counseling LOL
— Saladino for Congress (@JoeySalads) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeySalads/status/1171177167679557632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Sometimes I feel a bit sorry for male liberals because their side has created a Frankenstein in the name of feminism and their women come across as narcissistic. But then I realize that if you create Frankenstein then you have to live with it,&#8221; responded pro-life crusader Obianuju Ekeocha.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Sometimes I feel a bit sorry for male liberals because their side has created a Frankenstein in the name of feminism and their women come across as narcissistic. But then I realize that if you create Frankenstein then you have to live with it.
— Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) <a href="https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1171197817773338625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;&#8216;I don&#8217;t know what you do… ,'&#8221; popular conservative writer and Twitter account &#8220;AG Conservative&#8221; pointedly mocked, adding laughing emojis.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">&#8220;I don&#8217;t know what you do &#8230;&#8221;
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) <a href="https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/1171231191594393601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Congressman Cunningham

WATCH: Dem’s Wife Posts Video Complaining That Taxpayers Aren’t Footing Bill For Her Marriage Counseling

South Carolina

Former Republican New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday for promoting policies that are so far to the left that they resemble those of socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
“It sounds like Bernie Sanders is having his policies and statements written by the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro,” Sununu told Fox News host Sandra Smith when asked about the presidential candidate’s new proposal to cancel $81 billion of medical debt. “I mean, this is socialism to the extreme.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“I think it indicates that Bernie has decided that it is down to a two-person race with Elizabeth Warren and what he has to do in order to win is to out-pander her,” he continued. “And so you’re going to see a continuing series of all of these.”
Accordingly, the Vermont senator previewed an upcoming plan that would wipe away individuals’ past-due medical bills without impacting their credit scores. The $81 billion price tag is exclusive of his Medicare-for-All plan — a keystone of his presidential campaign — which estimates indicate could cost as much as $40 trillion.
In June, Sanders unveiled a separate proposal to eliminate the student loan debt of every American — approximately 45 million people. That sweeping plan would cost upwards of $1.5 trillion.
“But the other thing that comes out of this statement — and Republicans ought to take advantage of it — is that Bernie Sanders is doing an extremely good job of telling us what a disaster Obamacare is and that Obamacare really has to be replaced,” Sununu said.
The New Hampshire governor also noted that as Sanders and fellow progressive challenger Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) battle for the far-left lane of the current Democratic presidential primary, both candidates will likely try to outdo each other on the “everything for everybody” front.
“[Health insurance] is becoming a big test and they’re all pounding Obamacare and in ways that Republicans weren’t as effective as these Democrats seem to be,” Sununu said. “The only one defending Obamacare — and it’s beginning to slip even there — is [former Vice President] Joe Biden.”
Biden, who is largely running on former President Barack Obama’s legacy, is one of the only leading Democratic contenders not to advocate for a Medicare-for-All system that would overhaul the entire health insurance market. Rather, he has vowed to reinstate Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate to attempt to ensure all Americans obtain sufficient health insurance.
The mandate was initially part of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. As a way to bypass the unconstitutional requirement to force Americans to purchase insurance, the individual mandate was upheld in 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court as an income-based tax levy.
The individual mandate was repealed after President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.
“For everyone but Biden this has become an effort to be attractive to the millennials who have absolutely no idea what things cost and who have absolutely no idea that eventually — as Margaret Thatcher said — in socialism, you begin to run out of other people’s money,” Sununu added.

WATCH: New Hampshire Governor: Bernie Sanders Policies Sound Like They’re Written By Nicolas Maduro

Barack Obama

Joe Biden

New Hampshire

Nicolas Maduro

On Monday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; Knowles discusses how Trump unconventionally manages to accomplish what is impossible for traditional politicians. Video and partial transcript below:
President Trump, just while everyone was looking over here, while everyone is looking at all the tweets and all the &#8220;convfefe,&#8221; President Trump accomplished a significant portion, of a significant promise, of something that conservatives have been trying to do for [a] decade. We&#8217;re seeing this pattern, in 2017, President Trump failed to repeal Obamacare. You remember that … Republicans have been campaigning against Obamacare since 2009.
And they just had failed to do it, in 2010, they didn&#8217;t do it, in 2012, they didn’t do it, in 2014 they didn&#8217;t do it. 2016, Trump gets elected. He campaigns on it; 2017, they fail to defund Obamacare. That&#8217;s mostly because John McCain (R-AZ) changed his mind at the last minute, and [it] really messed us up over an important campaign promise for the American people.
But then what happened? Trump was upset about that; he still can&#8217;t even hear the name John McCain without shivers going up his spine. But in 2018 ⁠— the following year ⁠— President Trump passed a tax bill. [The] tax bill was good, it lowered rates, [it] saved people money at the time. And what people weren&#8217;t reporting at the time is that the tax bill repealed the individual mandate, which was the heart and soul of Obamacare… The central problem [with Obamacare] is that it forced you to purchase a product from a private company that you maybe don&#8217;t want to purchase, a lot of Americans didn&#8217;t want to purchase.
[The mandate was] totally crooked, totally unconstitutional, and that Trump Tax Bill got rid of the Obamacare mandate without anybody noticing because we were all paying attention to the taxes. We were all paying attention to the crazy tweets. We were all paying attention to the cofevve. Meanwhile, President Trump fulfilled a good percentage of an important promise, which no one else had been able to fulfill. He did it while we all weren&#8217;t paying attention.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t-Q6S6Mg86A?start=484" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
It&#8217;s the same thing here. Trump gets elected in 2016. He becomes president in 2017. So, 2017, 2018, and up through 2019, he had failed to defund Planned Parenthood. Now is that his fault? I guess he could have leaned more on the House and the Senate when we still had the House… But the fault is also in the legislators. What happened? Why didn&#8217;t Mitch McConnell (R-KY) bring this up? Why didn&#8217;t Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the time bring this up? Because Republican lawmakers are total cowards when it comes to Planned Parenthood. They don&#8217;t really want to defund it. There&#8217;s a ton of squishes among Republicans. They don&#8217;t want to make Lisa Murkowski (R-Al) or Susan Collins (R-ME) vote on that, and frankly they like to keep the pro-life issue available. They like to keep Planned Parenthood being funded because it&#8217;s a good fundraiser from us conservatives, us pro-lifers. The minute that you get rid of abortion, conservatives and Republicans lose a great fundraising tool, which is keeping all of us pro-lifers eager to defund these abortion mills.
So, I think cynically they moved not to do it. And so what is President Trump do? He doesn&#8217;t get it through the normal way, the way that we were all expecting him to do it. And so now ⁠— [in] 2019, well into his first term ⁠— he changes this rule, Title X. Maybe he didn&#8217;t even know that they were changing this rule. Maybe he just appointed good people who are able to fulfill his campaign promises. I mean that&#8217;s what presidents do, they delegate.
One way or another this rule gets changed, and what you&#8217;re looking at today is the possible defunding of Planned Parenthood by Planned Parenthood&#8217;s own hand. This actually gives credence to the idea that President Trump is a dealmaker. That he does the art of the deal. That he does negotiate. That he does get things done, he [just] doesn&#8217;t do it in the way that we all expect because we are used to that typical Republican. They know how to talk, they know the phrases, we know what the phrases mean. When they say they&#8217;re going to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, they don&#8217;t really mean that. But it does mean that they&#8217;ll do this, and it means they will do that. And you&#8217;ve got to play like 7-D chess just to figure out what these people are even saying because they won&#8217;t speak in plain English.
Trump comes in and he actually does manage to keep a lot of his promises. I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s most, but more promises than his predecessors at least. And he does it in ways that we don&#8217;t expect.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Download full episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/michael-knowles-show">Watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand!</a>

U.S. President Donald Trump&#8217;s MAGA rally at SNHU

KNOWLES: Trump Just Fulfilled Another Campaign Promise In An Unconventional Way

Abortion

Donald Trump

Michael Knowles

Planned Parenthood

Trump Administration

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) revealed on Wednesday that he will be using President Donald Trump’s visit to Dayton, Ohio as an opportunity to give the president a list of demands face-to-face, including expanding government-run health care.
&#8220;I spent much of yesterday wrestling with the right thing to do when President Trump visits Dayton today,&#8221; Brown said in a statement. &#8220;I decided I have a responsibility to Ohioans to use this opportunity to look the President in the eye and urge him to do the right thing.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I wrestled with the right thing to do when Trump visits Dayton today. I decided I have a responsibility to look him in the eye and urge him to do the right thing. <a href="https://t.co/OpMtDNheiO">pic.twitter.com/OpMtDNheiO</a>
— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/1159101195652349958?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump confirmed a day prior that he will be traveling to Dayton to pay his respects to first responders, law enforcement officers, and victims of a mass shooting that occurred over the weekend. A gunman took the lives of nine people and injured more than 30 others after he opened fire on a crowd outside of a bar early Sunday morning.
Following what Trump referred to as an &#8220;unspeakable act of evil,&#8221; the president <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50246/watch-trump-urges-nation-condemn-white-supremacy-molly-prince">addressed the nation</a>, calling for bipartisan cooperation on determining a potential solution to a recent slew of mass shootings.
The president also urged reform of America’s mental health laws, which he contended would not only better identify the &#8220;mentally disturbed individuals&#8221; who may commit future acts of violence, but would also treat them prior to any violent incidents occur.
&#8220;Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;Not the gun.&#8221;
&#8220;I will tell the President [when he comes to Dayton that] if he is serious about supporting mental health, he must support Medicaid expansion and [the] Affordable Care Act that provide care for so many,&#8221; Brown responded in his statement.
The president, however, has long opposed both Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as &#8220;Obamacare,&#8221; in favor of more private and competitive options. Brown’s office refused to comment when asked if the senator believes expanding governmental health programs is the only way to support mental health reform.
Brown, a vocal critic of the president, also stated that he will demand that Trump tell Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the Senate back into session and subsequently vote on &#8220;gun safety&#8221; legislation. Brown is seemingly referring to H.R. 8, a bill requiring background checks for firearm sales between private parties, that recently passed in the House.
The Ohio senator reversed his decision to meet with the president in Dayton after he had initially declined the opportunity.
&#8220;We are also angry — angry that shooting after shooting politicians in Washington and Columbus refuse to pass sensible gun-safety laws to protect our communities,&#8221; Brown <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/1157992270706216960?s=20">tweeted</a> on Sunday. &#8220;We are still learning about the attack in Dayton and we don’t know exactly what, if anything could have prevented this specific tragedy. But we know thoughts and prayers are not enough, we have a responsibility to act.&#8221;
&#8220;I don’t have any interest because of what he’s done on this, total unwillingness to address the issue of guns, his racist rhetoric,&#8221; Brown said during a Sirius XM radio interivew on Tuesday. &#8220;I don’t know what he’s going to say and do there. I mean, I welcome him to the state in some sense, but not about this.&#8221;
Brown was mulling over his own presidential run in 2020 due to his successful track record in the Rust Belt, a region that largely helped elect Trump in 2016. While Trump edged out Hillary Clinton by eight points in Ohio, Brown beat out his Republican challenger in the 2018 midterm election by just over six points. Moreover, he was the only Democrat to win statewide election in 2018, aside from judicial candidates.

Senate Democrats Press Conference

Democratic Ohio Senator Using Trump’s Visit To Dayton To Push Obamacare

Ohio

Shooting

On Monday, former Vice President Joe Biden brought back fond memories of yesteryear by repeating the mantra of his former boss, former President Barack Obama, stating, &#8220;If you like your health care plan … you can keep it.&#8221;
Biden was speaking at an AARP-sponsored conference when he reportedly asserted, “I give people the option. If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it. If in fact you have private insurance, you can keep it.” As <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-repeats-obama-pledge-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-you-can-keep-it/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> reports, “The 2020 Democratic frontrunner released a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/joe-biden-health-care-plan-obamacare-public-option/index.html">health care plan</a> Monday that would seek to build upon the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which included subsidies to lower prices on the exchanges and also allowing for a &#8216;public option&#8217; his campaign called similar to Medicare.”
Biden added, “You get a choice. You get full coverage and you can stay with your plan if you like it. You can stay with your employer-based plan, or you can move on. I think it&#8217;s the quickest, most reasonable, rational and best way to get to universal coverage.&#8221;
Fox News noted of Obama’s infamous promise, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”:
<blockquote>That familiar pledge, made repeatedly over several years by former President Barack Obama, was named the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">2013 &#8220;Lie of the Year&#8221;</a> by fact-checking website Politifact, as millions of individuals lost their private insurance &#8212; and had to switch to costlier options &#8212; due to changes mandated by the Affordable Care Act.</blockquote>
Politifact wrote:
<blockquote>The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called &#8220;grandfathering,&#8221; which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.
The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.
Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated &#8220;if you like your health care plan, you can keep it&#8221; when seeking re-election last year.</blockquote>
In an <a href="https://www.hughhewitt.com/chicago-tribune-columnist-obamas-health-care-promise-lied/">interview</a> with radio host Hugh Hewitt in October 2013, even the noted Obama defender Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune reluctantly admitted that Obama lied about his promise. The exchange went like this:
<blockquote>Hewitt: Now Clarence, you have written a few columns defending Obamacare, but you can’t defend that as other than an utter untruth, can you?
Page: Oh, Obamacare is like the proverbial camel being a horse designed by committee, right? It’s gone through so many changes and all, that the original dream has been largely corrupted. And there’s no guarantee, I knew even, and Obama knew even at the time he said it, there was no guarantee everybody was going to keep their insurance, because people couldn’t keep their insurance under the old system.
Hewitt: So he knew he was lying when he lied?
Page: I’m sorry?
Hewitt: He knew he was lying?
Page: Probably. Probably. But that’s one of those political lies, you know.
Hewitt: Well, don’t you think a lot of people…
Page: It’s one of those, you know, in the abstract, it’s correct, but the fact is…
Hewitt: Is it forgivable? Are you allowed to lie to get a bigger good? Is that it?
Page: Well, the question is, most people will be able to keep their own insurance policies. And that was the point he was trying to make. He was just being too grandiose and saying, and guaranteeing that everybody was going to keep their insurance.
Hewitt: Well, I agree with you. He knew what he was doing when he did that.
Page: Sure.
Hewitt: And is that acceptable for people to just out and out mislead the low information voters out there?
Page : He said it repeatedly in a political campaign that he won, so that’s what a political lie is all about, right?
Hewitt: But when he said this, it was after he was already in the White House.
Page: Well, he said it on the campaign trail repeatedly.
Hewitt: I know, but after he won, he then said it. Was that okay?
Page: Right, right. Well, what’s the difference?
Hewitt: Well, the difference is you’re the president of the United States.
Page: He made a promise to the public either way.
Hewitt: So it doesn’t bother you that he lied to us?
Page: Well, a lot of things bother me. You act like all lies are equal, right?</blockquote>
Obama on video here:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qpa-5JdCnmo" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

SURPRISE: Biden Echoes Obama&#8217;s Most Famous Lie

The Democratic Party has become, in the year 2019, a deeply destructive political force. The Party, as presently comprised, is a ragtag potpourri of anti-nation-state/pro-open-borders activists, devoted prenatal infanticide cultists, neo-Marxist economic &#8220;class warfare&#8221; grievance-mongers, and identity politics-centric racial identitarian hucksters. This is a Party for whom a leading presidential candidate — in both 2016 and 2020 — is a Fidel Castro-praising <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">actual communist</a> who literally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48956/watch-hammer-tipping-point-liz-wheeler-bernie-daily-wire">honeymooned in the former Soviet Union</a> and flew a hammer-and-sickle Soviet flag in his Vermont mayoral office at a time when the U.S. was engaged in an existential &#8220;mutually assured destruction&#8221; standoff with the Kremlin.
In short, the modern Democratic Party is not a healthy political vehicle. It is afflicted with the most pernicious of all political maladies — a seething sense of self-hatred. It is exceedingly difficult to ponder the core tenets of Founding-era American political theory — separation of powers, federalism, a carefully delineated nation-state, a durable and constitutionally secured rule of law, religious liberty, and flourishing intermediary institutions of the civil society — and conclude that the modern Democratic Party has a relationship with the United States of America itself that can be characterized as anything other than haughty self-abnegation.
Indeed, the two Democratic presidential candidate debates last week were revealing.
The 2020 Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">categorically refuse</a> to identify a single limitation on abortion that they could support. They speak about the need to even protect abortion for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48927/walsh-democrats-put-their-scientific-illiteracy-matt-walsh">&#8220;trans females&#8221;</a> — which would be biological men who subjectively feel as if they are women. The 2020 Democrats do not bother to explain how exactly it is that a &#8220;trans female&#8221; — a member of the human species with both X and Y chromosomes — could procure an abortion, which can probably be easily explained by the fact that there is no such thing as a pregnancy for a &#8220;trans female.&#8221;
The 2020 Democrats, furthermore, held an actual, legitimate debate on whether it is appropriate to eradicate private health insurance in America. We have apparently moved on so far from the debate over the inclusion of a &#8220;public option&#8221; in Obamacare that the relevant leftist policy debate is now not about the inclusion of a &#8220;public option,&#8221; but is instead about the exclusion of a &#8220;private option&#8221; in the Democrats&#8217; post-Obamacare &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; socialized medicine dystopia. Because <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110827054733/http://healthcouncilcanada.ca/en/index.php?page=shop.product_details&amp;flypage=shop.flypage&amp;product_id=120&amp;category_id=20&amp;manufacturer_id=0&amp;option=com_virtuemart&amp;Itemid=170">nothing</a> could <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/19111/baby-charlie-gard-has-died-amanda-prestigiacomo">possibly go wrong</a> with socialized medicine. And nothing could really go wrong with not only the imposition of single-payer socialized medicine, but the outright abolition of private health insurers.
The 2020 Democrats are completely clueless on the issue of foreign policy and America&#8217;s role in the world. In fact, if foreign policy had a role in the two debates last week beyond one or two rapid-fire, down-the-line questions, I believe I missed it. The word &#8220;Israel&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1144456752391315458">certainly was not mentioned</a> — as is befitting for a political party that is not just trending toward being seriously anti-Israel, but also toward being <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44424/hammer-stark-choice-facing-jewish-democrats-josh-hammer">seriously anti-Semitic</a>. The Democrats offer little more than platitudinous sound bites praising transnationalism and excoriating the post-1648 Westphalian nation-state system — exactly the opposite of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45699/hammer-america-needs-re-think-its-global-alliances-josh-hammer">how foreign policy in the 21st century ought to be conducted</a>.
But perhaps on no issue were the 2020 Democrats more utterly radical than on the issue of immigration. The Democratic presidential candidates fell all over themselves to see who could position him/herself as the most authentic guardian of socialized medicine health insurance coverage for the country&#8217;s ever-burgeoning illegal alien population. Because amidst a hitherto unprecedented year-plus assault on America&#8217;s sovereignty by means of a systemic border crisis driven by murderous cartels and almost unanimously frivolous asylum claims, what the 2020 Democrats seem to care about the most is further incentivizing the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46609/report-smugglers-and-cartels-profited-23-billion-josh-hammer">profitable enterprise</a> of cartel-driven human trafficking — and the <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/09/where-is-metoo-for-women-at-the-border/">brutal rapes</a> that are inherent to those criminal trafficking rings — by offering the additional amnesty of &#8220;free,&#8221; taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for all illegals. It is a proposition that, <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/29/border-crisis-hypocrites-on-parade/">only five years ago</a>, would have been beyond parody. But now it is standard Democratic Party presidential campaign fare.
The Democratic Party is, at its core, a political outfit that despises all that makes America great. The Democrats despise borders, despise the distinction between citizen and alien, loathe constitutional self-governance, frown upon the church-attending &#8220;yokels&#8221; of Middle America, and seek to remodel America through the lens of an ever-supercilious, ever-secularist Europe. Political leftism, once ideologically dominated by a moral relativism that obfuscated lines between good and evil, is now nothing if not morally clear and bumptious about what it believes. It just happens that what modern Democrats believe is positively harrowing. This is an unserious political party that should never, ever be given the reins of power over the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Voters in 2020 will have an extraordinarily clear contrast presented to them at the ballot box. Hopefully they <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45450/hammer-here-are-three-reasons-why-i-plan-vote-josh-hammer">make the right decision</a>.

HAMMER: The Democratic Party Is Fundamentally Unfit To Lead The United States Of America

Foreign Policy

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

On Wednesday, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released a new <a href="http://files.kff.org/attachment/Topline-KFF-Health-Tracking-Poll-April-2019">survey</a> which was conducted between April 11-16 and asked 1,203 American &#8220;adults ages 18 and over&#8221; about issues pertaining to health care.
Here are some of the more interesting findings:
Majority for Medicare
KFF asked: &#8220;Do you favor or oppose having a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan?&#8221;
56% of respondents said that they (strongly or somewhat) favored a Medicare-for-all scheme, while 38% said that they (strongly or somewhat) opposed it.
However, when broken down further, the divide between those who favor or oppose such a system was much closer. While 36% &#8220;strongly&#8221; favored Medicare-for-all, 28% &#8220;strongly&#8221; opposed it.
Prescription Drug Costs
When given a list of options, then asked about what Congress&#8217; top priorities should be as it pertains to health care, 68% said that &#8220;lowering prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible&#8221; was at the top of their lists. Next up was &#8220;making sure the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s protections for people with pre-existing health conditions continue,&#8221; with 64%.
The closest rival was &#8220;protecting people with health insurance from surprise high out-of-network medical bills,&#8221; which 50% of respondents indicated should be Congress&#8217; top priority.
It&#8217;s All in the Wording
When asked to indicate whether or not a given phrase had a positive or negative connotation, there were sharp differences depending on the way in which a government-run health care plan was termed.
While only 20% and 21% had &#8220;very positive&#8221; reactions to the phrases &#8220;socialized medicine&#8221; and &#8220;single payer health insurance system,&#8221; respectively, 45% and 41% had &#8220;very positive&#8221; reactions to the phrases &#8220;universal health coverage&#8221; and &#8220;Medicare-for-all,&#8221; respectively.
Very similar or identical measures stated differently led to starkly divergent feedback.
Obamacare Has Support
KFF asked: &#8220;Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn the 2010 health care law or not?&#8221; A majority of respondents (54%) indicated that they did not want to see it overturned, while a strong minority (39%) indicated the opposite. These answers were based on a &#8220;half sample&#8221; of 616.
Based on a half sample of 587, a much larger majority (68%) of respondents did not want the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s (ACA) protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, while 27% want such protections overturned.
Obamacare vs. Medicare-for-all
There&#8217;s a sticking point among Democrats, and that&#8217;s the debate between bolstering Obamacare or moving toward a Medicare-for-all plan.
KFF asked: &#8220;Do you think Democrats in Congress should focus their efforts on improving and protecting the 2010 Affordable Care Act or should they focus their efforts on passing a national Medicare-for-all plan?&#8221;
Despite nearly every Democratic candidate for president calling for a nationalized healthcare plan of some kind, progressive voters are a little more gun shy, with 52% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents indicating that they would rather keep and bolster the ACA, and just 39% indicating a desire for a Medicare-for-all plan.
That being said, those numbers have fluctuated dramatically over the last several months. In March, more Democrats wanted Medicare-for-all (49%) over protecting and improving the ACA (41%). In January, the tables were turned again, with the ACA possessing a 3% edge over Medicare-for-all.
Conclusion
This survey clearly demonstrates two things. First, the wording of political policy dramatically impacts the way it&#8217;s perceived. Second, many progressive Americans are having a crisis of identity regarding their position on health care.
Going into the 2020 election cycle, this information should be useful for both Democrats and Republicans.

New Health Care Survey Shows Some Support For ‘Medicare-For-All,’ But Wording Really Matters

Republican Party

According to a new <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/437401-poll-few-americans-believe-they-have-personally-benefitted-from?rnd=1554410733">poll</a>, a shockingly low percentage of Americans claim to have benefited from President Barack Obama&#8217;s signature piece of domestic legislation, Obamacare. In what ought to be viewed as a tremendous blow for Obamacare&#8217;s economic architects, only 14% of those polled said that Obamacare lowered their premiums, and only 13% of Americans said that Obamacare improved their co-pay fees.
The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/437401-poll-few-americans-believe-they-have-personally-benefitted-from?rnd=1554410733">reports</a>:
<blockquote>
Few Americans believe their health care situation has been improved by key components of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released Thursday.
Across party lines, most registered voters contacted for the March 30-31 survey said major provisions of former President Obama&#8217;s signature health care law either had no real impact on them or had made things worse.
Forty-eight percent of respondents said the ACA had not impacted their monthly insurance premium costs, while 46 percent said their premiums were worse compared to before the law. Just 14 percent of respondents said they were better off.
When asked about the health care reform&#8217;s effect on co-pay fees, 41 percent said they were worse off, and 35 percent said they were not impacted. Only 13 percent said the ACA improved those costs.
Forty-one percent said their access to medical service providers is the same as it was before the ACA, while 16 percent said it is better. Thirty-four percent said things are worse in terms of access.
</blockquote>
Perhaps surprisingly, even Democrats polled were rather downtrodden about Obamacare&#8217;s effects. According to The Hill, &#8220;Democrats were more likely to say they had not benefited from the ACA than to say the law has helped their personal situations.&#8221; Perhaps many Democrats, especially on the Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hard Left, will interpret this as a cue to double down on &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38805/medicare-all-no-health-care-cure-all-ben-shapiro">Medicare-for-all</a>.&#8221; But no sane Democrat ought to interpret this as an endorsement of the (<a href="https://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/reid-says-obamacare-just-step-toward-eventual-sing/">possibly even designed to fail</a>) prevailing status quo. And &#8220;Medicare-for-all,&#8221; of course, has no shortage of its own problems. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38805/medicare-all-no-health-care-cure-all-ben-shapiro">wrote</a> last November:
<blockquote>
So, would &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; &#8212; Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s preferred solution &#8212; actually take care of the [healthcare cost] problem? Or would it exacerbate it, given that nationalized health care creates more rationing, not less? There&#8217;s a reason nationalized health care systems like Sweden&#8217;s and Britain&#8217;s have necessitated increased private spending outside of the rationed systems. As Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution points out: &#8220;Sweden has increased its spending on private care for the elderly by 50 percent in the past decade, abolished its government&#8217;s monopoly over pharmacies, and made other reforms. Last year alone, the British government spent more than $1 billion on care from private and other non-NHS providers.&#8221;
And the entire global medical industry benefits from America&#8217;s private health care spending, which drives the creation of new drugs. So what happens when America no longer covers the cost for such pharmaceuticals? Our Food and Drug Administration may be slow, but it&#8217;s a lot faster than its European equivalents, which is why the vast majority of new cancer drugs are developed and made available faster in the United States.
</blockquote>
As TheBlaze <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/poll-on-obamacare">notes</a>, differences in those polled broke down, to some extent, along socioeconomic lines: &#8220;The less economically fortunate were much more unsure of the benefits of Obamacare, with 21 percent saying so, while the most fortunate were far less unsure &#8212; only 6 percent said they didn&#8217;t know if they benefitted or not. But among all four economic classes, a plurality said that their condition had not changed because of Obamacare.&#8221;

Poll: Only Fourteen Percent Of Americans Say Obamacare Has Lowered Their Health Insurance Premiums

Despite President Donald Trump&#8217;s claims last week that the Republican Party would be the &#8220;party of health care,&#8221; Senate Republicans are refusing to play ball.
The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/436973-mcconnell-to-trump-were-not-repealing-and-replacing-obamacare?amp">reports</a> that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told Trump on Monday that the senate would not vote on the president&#8217;s desired Obamacare replacement before the 2020 election. McConnell did, however, tell Trump that the senate would do what they could to pass bills that would lower the cost of health care.
&#8220;We had a good conversation yesterday afternoon and I pointed out to him the Senate Republicans&#8217; view on dealing with comprehensive health care reform with a Democratic House of Representatives,&#8221; McConnell said on Tuesday.
As an example, McConnell said senate Republicans would be &#8220;working on prescription drug pricing and other issues. He added that he was &#8220;clear&#8221; with Trump about not developing a comprehensive health care bill to replace Obamacare.
&#8220;He did say, as he later tweeted, that he accepted that and he would be developing a plan that he would take to the American people during the 2020 campaign,&#8221; McConnell said.
Trump did tweet Monday night about how terrible Obamacare has been for the country and claimed again that Republicans are working on a comprehensive plan that would lower premiums and deductibles.
&#8220;Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn&#8217;t work. Premiums &amp; deductibles are far too high &#8211; Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance,&#8221; Trump tweeted.
He continued: &#8220;The Republicans are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) &amp; deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive &amp; much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate &amp; win back the House.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn&#8217;t work. Premiums &amp; deductibles are far too high &#8211; Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance. The Republicans&#8230;..
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112900816371900418?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;.are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) &amp; deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive &amp; much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate &amp; win&#8230;&#8230;
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112903454941474817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
After The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/obamacare-donald-trump.html">published an article</a> on Tuesday claiming Trump &#8220;backed off plans&#8221; to replace Obamacare, the president took to Twitter again to set the record straight and take a jab at the paper.
&#8220;I was never planning a vote prior to the 2020 Election on the wonderful HealthCare package that some very talented people are now developing for me &amp; the Republican Party. It will be on full display during the Election as a much better &amp; less expensive alternative to ObamaCare,&#8221; Trump tweeted.
&#8220;This will be a great campaign issue. I never asked Mitch McConnell for a vote before the Election as has been incorrectly reported (as usual) in the @nytimes, but only after the Election when we take back the House etc. Republicans will always support pre-existing conditions!&#8221; he continued.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I was never planning a vote prior to the 2020 Election on the wonderful HealthCare package that some very talented people are now developing for me &amp; the Republican Party. It will be on full display during the Election as a much better &amp; less expensive alternative to ObamaCare&#8230;
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1113432687757484032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;This will be a great campaign issue. I never asked Mitch McConnell for a vote before the Election as has been incorrectly reported (as usual) in the <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>, but only after the Election when we take back the House etc. Republicans will always support pre-existing conditions!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1113435291472277509?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Hill reported that Senate Republicans did not know Trump would be asking for comprehensive health care reform prior to their meeting on Monday outside of a single tweet from the president which declared Republicans would become &#8220;the Party of Healthcare.&#8221;

McConnell Tells Trump No Obamacare Vote Before Election, Trump Responds On Twitter

Mitch McConnell

On Thursday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Andrew Klavan Show,&#8221; the host speaks with constitutional lawyer and Trump 2020 advisory board member Jenna Ellis about the Trump administration&#8217;s attempts to eliminate the individual mandate in Obamacare. Transcript and video below.
Andrew Klavan: The Trump administration is now saying that Obamacare is not constitutional. They are supporting a judge who said this. First of all, do you agree with that?
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And so, from just a purely constitutional perspective health care is not a subject matter that is given to federal Congress to write the law. So regardless of the policy considerations, we can debate all day what should be health care provision and policy in America, but that is not given to Congress that&#8217;s given to the states to decide and really the individual as well. Because when we look at the separation of powers everyone always thinks of it horizontally as being between the legislative, executive, and judiciary. But we forget that there&#8217;s the vertical as well which is between the federal government, the state government, and the individual. Because what&#8217;s not reserved to the federal government or to the states, we know from the ninth and tenth amendment, is reserved to the people. And so we the people have some vested powers as well. And so, health care as a subject matter we have to make sure to confine that within the proper portion of government or the people to be able to decide those things and that&#8217;s not given to the federal government. So just from a purely constitutional perspective, I would agree. But the whole idea of Obamacare was fundamentally flawed anyway if we want to get into the merits of that. So, I certainly agree with the administration on that.
Klavan: Well I mean they&#8217;ve all already found it constitutional and now basically the argument is &#8220;Well we got rid of the mandate.&#8221; So, so what? I mean what is the argument now of the mandate&#8217;s gone it&#8217;s less constitutional than it was before.
Ellis: Well that was really how Chief Justice Roberts justified his opinion back in the Obamacare decision was to say that because it was the individual mandate then that can be a tax which then that goes into the federal government&#8217;s side. So, he justified it as being able to be a regulatory power based on the individual mandate. So, if you get rid of that then you get rid of his justification for it. Which is why everyone is saying now that was really the Achilles heel of Obamacare.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZPooVKXoDLc?start=2045" width="560"></iframe></div>
Klavan: So now politically all the wise sachems in the media are saying &#8220;Oh what a mistake Donald Trump has made. He&#8217;s just gotten cleared by Mueller that he&#8217;s riding high. Why would he go and attack poor people&#8217;s health care?&#8221; Because people kind of like Obamacare now. They&#8217;ve kind of gotten used to it. what people like is what&#8217;s going on. Once it&#8217;s in place people always like this free stuff it seems free or is easier to use or whatever. Is he making a political mistake here?
Ellis: Not at all. And one of the things that why I really support Donald Trump and I think he&#8217;s been an amazing president is because he gets things done. And so, he&#8217;s not going to just ride the Mueller wave and say you know we&#8217;re going to then rest on our laurels. He has gotten more done in the first two years for conservative policy than most presidents would do in eight years. And so, I think that this is just being consistent with what he&#8217;s always done for the past two-plus years, which is to just continue with his agenda, get that going, and it doesn&#8217;t matter what&#8217;s in the news cycle. Certainly, he&#8217;ll rant about that on Twitter. I happen to love his Twitter feed. I think it&#8217;s an amazing distraction for the media. I think it&#8217;s hilarious. But I think he&#8217;s just continuing on with what he would&#8217;ve done regardless if the report dropped this weekend or not.
Klavan: And so, when he said that the Republicans are going to be the party of health care, do you have any idea what he&#8217;s talking about?
Ellis: Yeah. So hopefully the Republicans will be the party that says &#8220;we&#8217;re going to give this decision back to the people&#8221; because what people don&#8217;t realize when they&#8217;re looking at Obamacare and all this free stuff is that somebody at the end of the day is going to pay for it. Government doesn&#8217;t have its own resources. They have to take from the people. So either we&#8217;re going to collectively pay a tax and I&#8217;m going to end up, if I don&#8217;t need as much health care as the next guy, then I&#8217;m going to end up paying more Because that&#8217;s what socialism does, right? So when you have a single payer health care that&#8217;s ultimately the result. And I also think that the Democrats are pushing for single payer health care because they want government-funded abortion. That&#8217;s really the bottom line. And what they&#8217;re driving.
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1553952540843000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHY7qHCK2KEh9YGXcVOMLuVSzJW3g" href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch more of &#8220;The Andrew Klavan Show&#8221; here</a>.
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt%3D2&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1553952540843000&amp;usg=AFQjCNExXsIZ7EqcESQwPE8t59TnBvMBDA" href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Listen to more of &#8220;The Andrew Klavan Show&#8221; on iTunes here.</a>

WATCH: Constitutional Lawyer Explains Trump Strategy To End Obamacare

Andrew Klavan

Conservatism

Obama Administration

On Monday the Justice Department informed a federal appeals court that it <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/obamacare-unconstitutional-justice-department-dete/">approved of an appeals court decision</a> that stated the entire Obamacare statute is unconstitutional.
In December, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O&#8217;Connor had ruled that Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate was unconstitutional and thus the entire Obamacare structure was invalid. <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/03/25/the-doj-just-delivered-a-major-blow-to-obamacare-n2543736">Writing</a> to Lyle W. Cayce, Clerk of the Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, and Brett A. Shumate, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, wrote, &#8220;The Department of Justice has determined that the district court&#8217;s judgment should be affirmed. Because the United States is not urging that any portion of the district court&#8217;s judgment be reversed, the government intends to file a brief on the appellees&#8217; schedule.&#8221;
O&#8217;Connor&#8217;s <a href="https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181215.617096/full/">decision</a> came in the case Texas v. Azar, in which the constitutionality of the individual mandate was challenged. O&#8217;Connor stated that because Congress terminated the fines placed upon people if they did not obey the individual mandate, the reasoning that Justice John Roberts used in supporting Obamacare by calling it a tax was no longer applicable. Thus the invalidity of the individual mandate, which was an essential part of Obamacare, invalidated the entire package.
O&#8217;Connor <a href="https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Texas-v.-US-partial-summary-judgment-decision.pdf">wrote in his decision</a>, &#8220;Here, the Plaintiffs allege that, following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional. They say it is no longer fairly readable as an exercise of Congress&#8217;s Tax Power and continues to be unsustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They further urge that, if they are correct, the balance of the ACA is untenable as inseverable from the Invalid Mandate.&#8221;
O&#8217;Connor continued:
<blockquote>
Resolution of these claims rests at the intersection of the ACA, the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius), and the TCJA (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017). In NFIB, the Supreme Court held the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause but could fairly be read as an exercise of Congress&#8217;s Tax Power because it triggered a tax. The TCJA eliminated that tax. The Supreme Court&#8217;s reasoning in NFIB&#8212;buttressed by other binding precedent and plain text&#8212;thus compels the conclusion that the Individual Mandate may no longer be upheld under the Tax Power. nd because the Individual Mandate continues to mandate the purchase of health insurance, it remains unsustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause&#8212;as the Supreme Court already held.
</blockquote>
O&#8217;Connor delineated how the defendants&#8217; position was inconsistent:
<blockquote>
At the threshold, the Intervenor Defendants hope to have their cake and eat it too by arguing the Individual Mandate does absolutely nothing but regulates interstate commerce. That is, they first say the Individual Mandate &#8220;does not compel anyone to purchase insurance.&#8221; Hr&#8217;g Tr. at 37:12. Yet they ask the Court to find the provision &#8220;regulate[s] Commerce . . . among the several States.&#8221; U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. The Intervenor Defendants&#8217; theory, then, is that Congress regulates interstate commerce when it regulates nothing at all. But to &#8220;regulate&#8221; is &#8220;to govern or direct according to rule&#8221; and to &#8220;bring under the control of law or constituted authority.&#8221;
</blockquote>
O&#8217;Connor noted, &#8220;The Court today finds the Individual Mandate is no longer fairly readable as an exercise of Congress&#8217;s Tax Power and continues to be unsustainable under Congress&#8217;s Interstate Commerce Power &#8230; All told, Congress stated three separate times that the Individual Mandate is essential to the ACA. That is once, twice, three times and plainly &#8230; On the unambiguous enacted text alone, the Court finds the Individual Mandate is inseverable from the Act to which it is essential &#8230; The ACA&#8217;s text and the Supreme Court&#8217;s decisions in NFIB and King thus make clear the Individual Mandate is inseverable from the ACA.&#8221;
He concluded, &#8220;For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment and declares the Individual Mandate, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA, Pub. L. 111-148, are INSEVERABLE and therefore INVALID.&#8221;
On Monday night, reacting to the news from Trump&#8217;s DOJ, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed, &#8220;Tonight in federal court, the Trump administration decided not only to try to destroy protections for Americans living with pre-existing conditions but to declare all-out war on the health care of the American people.&#8221;

Trump&#8217;s DOJ Looks To Smash Obamacare, Approves Of Appeals Court Decision Invalidating It

Department of Justice

Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office about the impact of Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate is off by millions, according to <a href="https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05499">a new report</a>.
Editor at the Washington Examiner, Phil Klein, writes that the &#8220;scandalously off&#8221; estimates &#8220;had significant ramifications for healthcare and tax policy over the past decade.&#8221;:
<blockquote>
CBO estimates about the importance of an individual mandate to a national healthcare scheme prodded President Barack Obama into including the unpopular provision into the law in the first place. The mandate projections also played a key role in President Trump&#8217;s two major legislative initiatives. The fact that the CBO assumed 14 million could lose coverage mainly due to the elimination of mandate penalties helped kill the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, while its later assumption that 13 million fewer insured individuals would mean less spending on subsidies from the federal government helped get the 2017 Republican tax cut across the finish line by improving the budgetary math. Yet those incredibly influential estimates now appear to have been wildly off.
</blockquote>
This information was contained not in a major section of the report, or in news sources about the report, but in a lone footnote in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services&#8217; annual report on national health expenditure projections, according to Klein.
Remember that the scary &#8220;14 million would lose coverage&#8221; was based almost entirely on people voluntarily giving up their insurance because they no longer would be charged for going without. This new report from CMS shows that just 2.5 million more would forgo health insurance coverage in 2019 because the individual mandate was repealed and even fewer would be impacted after 2019.
As Klein reports, the individual mandate was included in Obamacare even though then-candidate Barack Obama opposed the mandate during the 2008 campaign. It was included in the legislation because the CBO and others estimated it was necessary to pay for older Americans by forcing the young &#8212; who don&#8217;t need as much health care &#8212; to pay into the system. The CBO estimates worked for the passage of the bill and against Republican attempts in 2017 to repeal and replace it. Then, CBO estimates saying 14 million would lose coverage (even though the majority would voluntarily give up their coverage) scared some Republicans from voting to repeal.
&#8220;While any CBO analysis of the Republican bills was likely to project large coverage losses due to the cuts to Medicaid and subsidies, if CBO had more realistic assumptions about the mandate, the numbers would have been significantly smaller, and perhaps left more room to convince centrist Republicans to get on board,&#8221; Klein wrote.
But, Klein notes, these misleading numbers ended up helping Republicans when it came time to pass President Donald Trump&#8217;s tax cuts in 2017. The CBO said 4 million fewer people would have coverage in 2019 because of the penalties, and 13 million fewer would have insurance over all &#8212; thus saving $338 billion.
The footnote in the annual report states there would be just &#8220;1.5 million fewer direct-purchase-market enrollees&#8221; because the mandate was repealed, and about &#8220;1.0 million fewer employer-sponsored-insurance-market enrollees.&#8221; The footnote also said Medicaid enrollment was &#8220;assumed to be unaffected.&#8221;
Klein, who&#8217;s spent a decade covering Obamacare, says &#8220;the CBO&#8217;s misfire on the individual mandate should be a major story.&#8221;
Obviously, it won&#8217;t be. One, because few people talk about Obamacare anymore since it has become so entangled in our health care system, and two, because the left-wing media isn&#8217;t going to give up one of its favorite talking points.

DUH: Original Obamacare Estimates Were Wildly Off, New Report Finds

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio declared Tuesday that the city will unveil a brand new &#8220;universal&#8221; health care program, footing the bill for all uninsured New York City residents, &#8220;regardless of their ability to pay or their immigration status.&#8221;
<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-unveil-health/story?id=60229872">ABC News</a> reports that de Blasio&#8217;s new plan, NYC Care, isn&#8217;t exactly a &#8220;universal health care&#8221; plan, but rather a &#8220;guarantee&#8221; that the city will pay for preventative medical care for an estimated 600,000 who do not have insurance, but live within the boundaries of New York City.
Health care, De Blasio announced, is now a &#8220;right&#8221; for anyone who gets sick in NYC.
&#8220;We recognized that obviously health care is not just in theory a right,&#8221; de Blasio told media ahead of his announcement. &#8220;We have to make it in practice a right.&#8221;
&#8220;Health care is a human right. In this city we are going to make that a reality,&#8221; de Blasio repeated at a press conference on the expansion Tuesday morning.
The plan, which isn&#8217;t precisely a plan &#8212; details are scant on how the system will actually work &#8212; will cover everything from mental health services, to well visits, to maternity care for New Yorkers who choose to go without insurance, or who can&#8217;t afford even the basic, public insurance option that New York City already offers, and aren&#8217;t signed up for &#8220;Obamacare&#8221; options on the state exchange.
&#8220;You know the national reality, the Republicans in Washington are trying to tear down health care, trying to tear down the universality of health care coverage, get rid of Obamacare. We&#8217;re doing the opposite. We want to increase the amount of healthcare that people can reach. We want them to have primary care, we want them to have specialty care,&#8221; de Blasio crowed in a press release, <a href="https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/01/08/nyc-mayor-healthcare-for-uninsured-expansion">according to local media</a>.
He added, &#8220;It will be open to anyone who does not have an affordable insurance option and will be priced on a sliding scale, to ensure affordability. NYC Care will provide a primary care doctor and will provide access to specialty care, prescription drugs, mental health services, hospitalization, and more.&#8221;
De Blasio apparently anticipates that the &#8220;pay-what-you-want&#8221; option will yield some payment, and its not clear from the numbers cited in Tuesday&#8217;s press conference that the city has considered what might happen if all 600,000 uninsured New Yorkers fail to pay anything for services rendered.
As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro pointed out on Twitter, de Blasio&#8217;s government estimates the plan will cost the city no more than $100 million per year &#8212; an amount that de Blasio says precludes having to raise taxes to cover the program. But the $100 million number assumes either that not all 600,000 uninsured individuals will need medical care, or that medical care will be provided at far below market value.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There are 600,000 uninsured in NYC. De Blaise claims the program will cost just $100 million additionally per year. That&#8217;s $160 per uninsured, so, um, LOL. <a href="https://t.co/7nqXCCt0Ns">https://t.co/7nqXCCt0Ns</a>
&#8212; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1082652339691937793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
Otherwise, the city&#8217;s estimate averages out to $160 per person in medical costs per year. One single birth can cost upwards of $10,000.
De Blasio seems unfazed by the idea that this might be a very expensive boondoggle, of course.
&#8220;Health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it,&#8221; de Blasio concluded. &#8220;While the federal government works to gut health care for millions of Americans, New York City is leading the way by guaranteeing that every New Yorker has access to quality, comprehensive access to care, regardless of immigration status or their ability to pay.&#8221;

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio Announces &#8216;Health Care For All&#8217; Program In New York City

Bill de Blasio

New York City

Former President Barack Obama waded back into politics over the weekend, telling a group of Democratic donors in Hawaii that the United States needs &#8220;new blood&#8221; in leadership, and that Democrats should be focused on finding a candidate for president who will change the world for the better.
The United States has &#8220;a deficit of leadership, and we need new blood,&#8221; Obama said, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/424158-obama-new-blood-is-needed-among-political-leaders">The Hill</a>. &#8220;People cling to power instead of seeing the power in other people.&#8221;
Obama is currently on a national tour raising money for the Obama Foundation which is still in the process of building the former president&#8217;s official library (though Obama has expanded the scope of his foundation to include his post-presidential non-profit work). The weekend&#8217;s events drew mostly Democratic VIPs from across Hawaii and featured a host of current and former politicians, including &#8220;U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell and former Gov. Neil Abercrombie,&#8221; <a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/01/obama-we-have-a-deficit-of-leadership-and-we-need-new-blood/">according to local media</a>.
Speaking on the subject of his current agenda, Obama told the audience that he&#8217;s focused on national politics at the moment because that&#8217;s where he believes the most good can be done. His real agenda will have to wait until after President Donald Trump is out of office, though he never explicitly mentioned Trump by name during his speech.
Oddly enough, Obama also avoided talk of the government shutdown, perhaps because his own administration used a similar tactic to help push through the Affordable Care Act, tying certain aspects of the bill to a long-term funding agreement during Obama&#8217;s first term as president.
&#8220;I have no shortage of causes that I want to work on,&#8221; Obama said. &#8220;The single most important thing we could do was to make sure that we were helping the next generations to make the changes that this world needs.&#8221;
For now, he&#8217;ll be &#8220;educating&#8221; and &#8220;inspiring&#8221; the next generation of candidates to take on those dastardly Republicans, he said, &#8220;so that they have the platform, the opportunity to channel their amazing energy and passion and imagination, in order to bring a whole new set of eyes and ideas and possibilities to the world.&#8221;
&#8220;We are, once again, going to change the world for the better,&#8221; Obama added.
The uplifting speech was, it seems, made less to challenge Trump than to convince leftist donors to open their wallets.
While Obama&#8217;s library <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-chicago-mayor-candidates-obama-center-20181211-story.html">languishes in Chicago</a>, bogged down by federal lawsuits challenging whether Obama should be allowed to lease part of the city&#8217;s historic Jackson Park in perpetuity for a pittance, and Chicago city guidelines that mandate the Obama Foundation care for Obama&#8217;s former neighborhood as it shifts to accommodate his legacy, the former president is launching a series of Obama Foundation initiatives at his second-choice library location: the University of Hawaii.
Hawaii will be the site of Obama&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://mauinow.com/2019/01/07/former-president-obama-announces-asia-pacific-leaders-program/">Asia-Pacific Leadership Program</a>.&#8221;
Obama is expected to be heavily involved in the Democratic primaries set to kick off shortly with a series of debates in May and June, but he doesn&#8217;t seem anxious to declare a favorite just yet. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has been actively meeting with potential Democratic nominees, Obama will likely wait to involve himself until later in the process, though he is expected to be instrumental behind the scenes.

Barack Obama Wades Into Politics Again, Says America Needs &#8216;New Blood&#8217; In Leadership

Democrats from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to former President Barack Obama announced this weekend that their first priority after the holidays will be to preserve the Affordable Care Act, which was declared unconstitutional (again) Friday by a federal district court judge.
Judge Reed O&#8217;Connor again struck down the ACA (better known as Obamacare) individual mandate on Friday evening, but unlike in other earlier rulings finding the same conclusion, O&#8217;Connor noted that he felt the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/chuck-schumer-senate-vote-obamacare">Roll Call reports</a>. That means the full Affordable Care Act is now unconstitutional (though the act will remain in place pending appeal, likely all the way to the Supreme Court).
O&#8217;Connor also noted that Chief Justice John Roberts&#8217; contention that Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate amounted to a &#8220;tax&#8221; on Americans did not save the law.
Schumer spoke out on Meet the Press Sunday morning, pledging that his top priority when congress returns from its holiday recess will be to pass a law preserving the Affordable Care Act, even though Schumer remains in the minority in the Senate. The Democrats only picked up the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections.
&#8220;It&#8217;s an awful, awful ruling, and we&#8217;re going to fight this tooth-and-nail, and the first thing we&#8217;re going to do when we get back there in the Senate is urge &#8212; put a vote on the floor urging an intervention in the case,&#8221; Schumer told Meet the Press.
&#8220;A lot of this depends on congressional intent. If a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate say that this case should be overturned, it&#8217;ll have a tremendous effect on the appeal,&#8221; Schumer added.
Presumably, Schumer will resurface a bill from earlier in the summer, which, if passed, would allow Senate Democrats to file their own motions in the ongoing federal litigation over ACA, &#8220;instructing&#8221; the court on how certain Democrats viewed the litigation when they were voting on it back during the Obama administration &#8212; but it&#8217;s a long shot.
<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-decision-chuck-schumer_us_5c16602de4b05d7e5d82f100">Even the left-leaning Huffington Post</a> expressed reservations about what Schumer can do. &#8220;The Senate could pass a nonbinding resolution expressing the body&#8217;s support for why the decision ought to be overturned, or simply clarifying its intent when it repealed Obamacare&#8217;s individual mandate,&#8221; they reported Sunday.
Former President Obama also weighed in on the issue, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-pushes-for-obamacare-enrollments-after-texas-judge-deems-law-unconstitutional">according to Fox News,</a> reiterating to potential Obamacare enrollees that the law has not been struck down for good and that he believes the Affordable Care Act will survive the appeals process.
&#8220;You might have heard about a federal court decision on a Republican lawsuit trying to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety,&#8221; the former president said in a post on Facebook and on Twitter. &#8220;As this decision makes its way through the courts, which will take months, if not years, the law remains in place and will likely stay that way.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Today is the last day of open enrollment. That means it&#8217;s the deadline to make sure you and the people you love have health insurance in 2019. So head over to <a href="https://t.co/ob1Ynoesod">https://t.co/ob1Ynoesod</a> to get covered! Here&#8217;s what else you need to know today about health care: <a href="https://t.co/gosn6c6uCa">pic.twitter.com/gosn6c6uCa</a>
&#8212; Barack Obama (@BarackObama) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1074050377291624449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
Although the Friday ruling is a win for Republicans, it could put Obamacare front and center in the 2020 presidential elections. The appeals process on the ruling is expected to take as long as two years, putting healthcare front and center in the minds of American voters just as the final months of the 2020 campaign are coming to a close. That is not necessarily good news for the GOP; Democrats have been successful in using catastrophic predictions about healthcare to motivate voters to the polls.

Menu

Obamacare

Articles tagged with Obamacare