Trump and most of the politicians I’ve heard all said they will protect pre existing so I don’t know why its such an issue?
All Republicans campaigned on a full repeal of the ACA during the ’16 campaign. McConnell himself said they would rip it out root and branch. Once elected, it somehow became “repeal and replace”.
They didn’t rip it out root and branch. Instead they tried a very complicated two-step boogie to fix the damn thing. It didn’t work.
The pollsters reported that the people liked the pre-existing conditions mandate. The problem with that is that it encourages uninsured people to stay uninsured until they face a critical health issue. This is what Obamacare tried to address with the individual mandate, which is now repealed under the tax reform bill earlier this year. The biggest issue with pre-existing conditions under the ACA is that it spread the costs out only among those in the private health insurance market.
There are lots of other issues with the ACA which are unnecessary, violates the doctor-patient relationship and mandates all sorts of reporting, forbids private doctors from opening or expanding an existing private practice hospital, and mandates so-called minimum coverages which affects group coverage as well.
Most Obamacare enrollees were simply dumped into Medicaid, while stealing 787 billion from Medicare.
Those who were productive, had previous private health insurance coverage and didn’t qualify for a subsidy found that they could not keep their doctor or insurance. Their new Obamacare premiums had doubled and their co-pays and deductibles increased by up to 500%. Even some who were subsidized found that they could not afford to use the insurance.
Obamacare was never meant to fix anything, it was meant to fail, with democrats hoping for an outcry for Medicare for All. AKA, single-payer, with the government making all meaningful health care decisions for all of us. Sound familiar? Medicare for all, really means healthcare for none. All current private, group, and employer plans will vanish overnight, including current Medicare plans.
Obamacare still needs a full repeal. If we want to cover pre-existing conditions we can certainly do that outside of traditional insurance plans by adding some language to current Medicaid law, spreading the base out to everyone, not being restricted to private health insurance as is the case today. You can’t buy home insurance when your home is burning down, so why should anyone expect to move that burden to the private health insurance market?
There are lots of ways that we can drive down health insurance costs, while maintaining or even improving health care. Obamacare rejected all of them.
I’ve posted frequently on illegal aliens, the daily alien invasion and natural born citizens for years. Especially since Obama’s natural born status was a hot topic of debate. Earlier today, news broke that Trump was asked a direct question for an HBO special by Axios, and Trump being Trump, answered it directly.
He flatly stated that he was advised that he could end birthright citizenship outright by means of an Executive Order. That would not be my first choice, but I agree that this policy, which just seems to have evolved willy-nilly needs to end. Critics claim that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, and I agree that it would be a good proposal for the Convention of States. I disagree with the critic’s claims, Trump would not be changing the Constitution, he would be enforcing it.
Imagine for a moment that you come home from work and find a couple who have no legal basis, or jurisdiction for being here have birthed a child in your bedroom, and when you open the door they present you with their child and say congratulations, you are now a proud daddy (or mommy) of our lovely baby girl. That is exactly what birthright citizenship is.
Welcome to Rich Takes!
Harry Reid has an opinion on birthright citizenship in 1993. He must have been sane at one time.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are the slave amendments. The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th addressed certain laws in the south which restricted former slaves rights, which it intended to correct. Sadly, it did not envision illegal aliens, persons present on our soil without our consent, whose very presence violates our law from bestowing citizenship upon their offspring. We did that to ourselves, and the 14th neither prescribes nor condones birthright citizenship for those without a legal presence.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<<
Section 2 raised some interesting points. The first deals with the Census (without specifically mentioning the census) and Representation. It says “counting whole persons residing in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”. First, the Indians not taxed means that they weren’t to be counted for purposes of representation, since they were considered citizens of their respective Indian Nations, and thus, not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Second, we have states today who benefit from representation not meant, in other words, by counting illegal aliens for purposes of the census and representation. Illegal aliens in California alone account for as many as 8 seats in the House of Representatives that they don’t deserve.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, …
…for anyone who breaks into our country without consent or overstays the terms of his or her entry, it’s as if they are physically not present on our soil. Constitutional rights on our soil, much less the ultimate prize of citizenship, only apply if you come here with consent. That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the court said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy (1905), a person who comes to the country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.
Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber, 1958.
This is why the court said in Turner v. Williams (1904) that an inadmissible alien does not have First Amendment rights because “[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law.”
In the notorious Zadvydas v. Davis case (2001), the court reiterated that any alien “paroled in to the United States pending admissibility,” without having “gained [a] foothold,” has “not effected an entry.”
It’s absurd to assert that people who are supposed to be off our soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their kids.
…The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the child be born here and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It is indisputable that even according to those opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial jurisdiction and not political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the phrase superfluous, as noted earlier), the language of “subject to the jurisdiction” is certainly more restrictive than the purely geographical and literal phrase “dwelling in the United States.” After all, everyone concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign diplomats were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born on our soil.
Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the Jurisdiction clause in the 14th Amendment not only excluded foreigners, but also native American Indians from birthright citizenship status. American Indians were considered to be citizens of their own native Indian nation, which is why they conducted and ratified thousands of treaties with the various Indian nations. It would be two or three decades until an Act of Congress bestowed US citizenship upon native Indians, who today are still the only legally recognized dual citizens of these United States.
…Once the drug cartels succeed in getting the illegal aliens onto our soil, it’s almost impossible for us to stem the tide. This is not due to logistical limitations but to extra-constitutional lawsuits that create death by a thousand cuts through every aspect of the asylum process. To that end, the Trump administration issued a new guidance through USCIS to finally stop the invasion at our border and turn back most of the bogus asylum seekers
…In comes the USCIS with new guidance to automatically dismiss any “credible fear” assertion at the border that is premised simply on fleeing violence unless there is evidence of government-condoned persecution. Asylum adjudicators will also be required to take into account, as a mitigating factor in true asylum seeking, the fact that these people are crossing illegally at the behest of the cartels rather than requesting entry at the points of entry.
I can’t imagine anyone trying to make a pipe bomb, sending it in the mail with a digital clock timer on it. In an envelope even.
What’s even crazier, the pipe was PVC. Not galvanized Schedule 40 or black gas pipe. Plastic.
Any serious bomber would not have used a timer instead of a trigger switch, and they certainly would not have used plastic pipe.
He seemed to have lived in his Dodge van. and he covered up the windows with commercially printed decals. Not bumper stickers, this guy somehow created a graphic and had them printed up and stuck them over the windows for privacy concerns, I’m guessing.
Here’s some of my more recent graphics, and another or two.
Democrats seem to be in favor of mobs, be they Antifa, Caravans, or just paid idiots getting into certain Republican’s faces while they are trying to enjoy a bite to eat.
Democrats have been calling to disband ICE. I don’t think so, and I appreciate their service.
Sent by a life-long buddy, above.
Dems seem to love Antifacist Action, aka ANTIFA. They like communists too, and that is exactly where the roots of ANTIFA comes from. They were the Stalinist communists in Germany both before and after WWII.