Thursday, July 13, 2017

Middle Class Destruction since 1971


When future historians look back at the beginning of the 21st century, they’ll note that we grappled with many big issues.

They’ll write about the battle between nationalism and globalism, soaring global debt, a dysfunctional healthcare system, societal concerns around automation and AI, and pushback on immigration. They will also note the growing number of populist leaders in Western democracies, ranging from Marine Le Pen to Donald Trump.

However, these historians will not view these ideas and events in isolation. Instead, they will link them all, at least partially, to an overarching trend that is intimately connected to today’s biggest problems: the “hollowing out” of the middle class.

The fact is many people have less money in their pockets – and understandably, this has motivated people to take action against the status quo.

And while the collapse of the middle class and income inequality are issues that receive a fair share of discussion, we thought that this particular animation from Metrocosm helped to put things in perspective.

The following animation shows the change in income distribution in 20 major U.S. cities between 1970 and 2015:

The differences between 1970 and 2015 are intense. At first, each distribution is more bell-shaped, with the majority of people in a middle income bracket – and by 2015, those people are “pushed” out towards the extremes as they either get richer or poorer.


This phenomenon is not limited to major cities, either. Here’s another look at the change in income distribution using smaller brackets and the whole U.S. adult population:

It’s a multi-faceted challenge, because while a significant portion of middle class households are being shifted into lower income territory, there are also many households that are doing the opposite. According to Pew Research, the percentage of households in the upper income bracket has grown from 14% to 21% between 1971 and 2015.

The end result? With people being pushed to both ends of the spectrum, the middle class has decreased considerably in size. In 1971, the middle class made up 61% of the adult population, and by 2014 it accounted for less than 50%.

As this “core” of society shrinks, it aggravates the aforementioned problems. People and governments borrow more money to make up for a lack of middle class wealth, while backlashes against globalism, free trade, and open borders are fueled. The populists who can “fix” the broken system are elected, and so on.

Originally published on Visual Capitalist.


Click the link for this article and see the animated version of the data since 1971 to 2017. It is stunning.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea party Leader

Women’s Issues Now

“I am woman!” This was the 1970’s female mantra followed by the infamous “hear me roar!” –which was originally a song written by Australian-American artist Helen Reddy.

The composition of the song sprung from Reddy’s desire to express her growing passion for female empowerment. To her credit, Reddy had genuine contempt for men who belittle women, especially in the workplace. When I was nineteen, I was fired from my job for refusing to sleep with my boss. I get that, some guys are just plain jerks. I won’t even defend their jackassery.

Although I now criticize the modern-day feminist movement, I used to be an intricate part of it in my own right. I was all things pro-woman, pro-choice, equal rights, voting rights, you know the whole spiel. Some of it was for a great cause and some of it wasn’t at all. But a woman in my twenties, I bought into the entire feminist movement–hook, line and sinker. Until one day, I woke up and realized that the movement doesn’t really stand for anything valuable anymore.

Today, feminists march around in their pink vulgar hats, squealing about how they ‘want to blow up the White House,’ and they complain about the Western ‘social construct’ that somehow continues to keep women downtrodden. In reality, women born in the United States today are some of the most liberated women on Earth. Sadly, feminists are too blinded by their own ‘victimhood’ to see it… even though it is right there in front of them.

Yet, there are indeed FIVE battles in which I believe feminists should be fighting…but they aren’t:

1.The slaughter of other women. 
Approximately 1,000 women are murdered every single day. In abortion clinics. Sometimes, their organs are even sold for a profit. You’d think feminists would be outraged by this. Instead, they celebrate. It’s totally mind boggling.

In fact, legalization and cultural acceptance of mass infanticide is feminism’s crowning achievement.
Planned Parenthood has become the Temple of Baal where human sacrifices are made and it’s now all perfectly legal. It’s no coincidence that our Western culture has been in complete moral collapse since abortion has been legalized. The Judeo-Christian values that shaped our civilization have almost been entirely erased in just a few decades of Roe vs. Wade. And feminists are very proud of that.

Abby Johnson was once clinic director for Planned Parenthood, but she was so disturbed by what she saw at the abortion clinic that she became an anti-abortion activist. In the following video, she shares her story with Tucker Carlson:

2. Pornography. We hear feminists endlessly screeching about their ‘need’ for FREE tampons, birth control, and unlimited access to abortions. It’s as if they are obsessed with their sex organs. But, we certainly don’t hear enough of them defending other women against the horrors of the porn industry.

There is no other industry that has such a dramatic impact on human behavior. Study after study has shown that users of violent and nonviolent porn are more likely to use verbal coercion, drugs, and alcohol to push women into sex. And multiple studies have found that exposure to both violent and nonviolent porn increases aggressive behavior, including both having violent fantasies and actually committing violent assaults.

And while many feminists have condemned pornography as a form of violence against women (which it is), other feminists shockingly embrace some forms of pornography as a medium of feminist expression. We would think that all feminists would agree that pornography is demeaning and abusive to women. Apparently not.

3.Transgender Insanity. Last month, a transgender MALE came in first place in a FEMALE competition. Andraya Yearwood, a freshman at Cromwell High School, placed first in the girls’ 100-meter and 200-meter dash finals against girls from other schools in the region, according to Turtleboy Sports. Ironically, his time would have earned him last place in both boys’ competitions.
But ladies, get used to it, this is the new norm where we may never be able to win another athletic competition again as long as biological men are allowed to participate in our sports.

In reality, modern-day feminists are watching as their movement suffers devastating blows, not at the hands of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or even Conservative Christians…, but rather at the hands of men wearing makeup and dresses. Yep, men are now working their way into female ranks and beating women at being women.
As author and Blogger Matt Walsh writes in his new book, The Unholy Trinity:

“For years, feminists have contended that they can do everything as well as men can. Today, they must sit quietly while the gay lobby explains that, on the contrary, they can’t even be women as well as men can. The mainstream acceptance of radical feminist theory has been, up until this point, one of liberalism’s greatest achievements. And now it’s all compromised for the sake of a population that barely exists.”

What’s worse, is that the transgender insanity has opened Pandora’s box for perverts and predators to pee in restrooms right next to our ten-year old daughters. I was in shock the other day to hear some friends of ours express their ambivalence to that particular situation. But then again, they don’t have ten-year-old daughters to worry about like we do. Either way, the feminist movement that is supposedly “pro-woman” doesn’t seem to care that men have invaded their bathrooms.

4. Oppression of women in the Middle East. I just finished reading Nonie Darwish’s new book called “Wholly Different,” which eloquently explains the differences between Christian values and Islamic values. Darwish would know as she grew up in the Muslim country of Egypt where her father was a jihadist who was killed when she was only eight-years-old.

She later moved to the United States and converted to the Christian faith (a very courageous act in itself given the consequences). After reading her book, I feel so blessed to be a female born in the United States–where women are the FREEST and most LIBERATED in the entire world!
I know there has been a lot of screaming (from the modern-day feminist movement) about how our “Christian patriarchal society has been so unfair to women!”–Perhaps, that may be true in some instances. But from her personal experience, Darwish brilliantly explains how it was Christianity and the Western culture that have truly elevated women to new heights (unlike the oppressive culture in which she grew up).

In fact, when I read Darwish’s first book “Cruel and Usual Punishment” a few years ago, I literally had nightmares about the poor little girls who are forced to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM) in some countries. Women in many other cultures are treated like second-class citizens, like property, are abused, and are sold as sex slaves. They don’t get to enjoy the freedoms that we (women) get to enjoy here in the United States. So, unless the modern-day feminist movement stands up for REAL oppression that is happening to women in many other parts of the world, it’s difficult for me to take them seriously.

5. Human Sex Trafficking.
We would think that feminists would declare war on human sex trafficking. Instead, they choose declare jihad on the Trump administration and march to protest Dana Loesch’s NRA ad (which, ironically condemns violence). Why? because those things are easier and require little courage.

Sex trafficking or slavery is the exploitation of women and children, within national or across international borders, for the purposes of forced sex work. Commercial sexual exploitation includes pornography, prostitution and sex trafficking of women and girls, and is characterized by the exploitation of a human being in exchange for goods or money. Each year, an estimated 800,000 women and children are trafficked across international borders—though additional numbers of women and girls are trafficked within countries. Adult women make up the largest group of sex trafficking victims, followed by girl children, although a small percentage of men and boys are trafficked into the sex industry as well.

Sex trafficking is certainly a perfect battle for the feminist movement to fight. But instead, they would rather stage a huge boycott of Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. Why? Again, because it’s much easier for them to do so. Not to mention the fact that their priorities are completely mixed up.
While the feminist movement has indeed advanced the women’s cause in phenomenal ways over the past century, I believe it is now stuck in ‘victim’ mode. And nothing sets a woman back more than seeing herself as a victim. Because she never has to take responsibility for her current situation. It’s always somebody else fault. Hillary Clinton and Kathy Griffin are perfect examples of this–pointing their finger at everybody else for their own stupid choices.

In reality, as American women, the first thing we can do to move our cause forward, is to show gratitude for the blessings our Creator has given us, and just simply be thankful that we live in a nation that secures these rights for each one of us. Then we can discern the battles laid out before us that are truly worthy of fighting.


I always viewed the “Women’s Movement” in the 1970s as the clever, evil, advance PR campaign to send all moms to work to pay the doubling of living costs caused by Lyndon Johnson’s overspending travesties.

I also think women have been manipulated by big government to become a “protected group” and that hasn’t been a good thing for them or anybody else in “protected groups”.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Push Repeal First

What If Both Obamacare and Trumpcare Collapse? 2 Potential Paths for Healthcare in the U.S., by Motley Fool, 7/11/17

Obamacare is on the verge of collapse -- at least according to some in Washington. It's easy to see why they think that's the case. Major insurers, including UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH), have pulled out of most Obamacare exchanges after losing billions of dollars. Aetna(NYSE: AET) is one large insurer that has totally withdrawn from Obamacare exchanges.

On the other hand, Trumpcare could be on the verge of collapse, as well. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) stated over the weekend that the Senate GOP healthcare bill endorsed by President Trump is "probably going to be dead."

So what's next for the U.S. healthcare system? Those on the left are pushing for one solution, while those on the right want another. Here are two potential paths for the nation's healthcare -- and the vastly different scenarios for investors if each becomes reality.

Single-payer system
Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes that "the only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program." Sanders, a socialist who caucuses with Democrats in the U.S. Senate, promotes what he calls "Medicare for all," -- a universal healthcare system where all Americans would receive full health insurance through Medicare. While there are other alternatives for a single-payer system in the U.S., Sanders' plan includes most of the goals of the political left.

Under this plan, Medicare would pay all of Americans' healthcare expenses. There would be no co-pays and no deductibles. The federal government would negotiate all pricing with healthcare providers and drugmakers.

Proponents maintain that a single-payer system such as this would lower the overall cost of healthcare. They point to other countries with government-funded healthcare with significantly lower healthcare spending levels per capita.
Sen. Sanders states that his proposed plan would cost $1.38 trillion annually. This would be funded through tax increases. Employers would pay an additional 6.2% tax. Most Americans, regardless of income level, would pay a 2.2% higher tax. Income taxes for the wealthy (annual income of $250,000 or more) would be raised significantly and tax deductions limited. Also, capital gains and dividends would be taxed at ordinary income tax rates. 

Free market system
Not everyone agrees that the U.S. should shift to a socialist type of healthcare system. Conservatives and Libertarians argue for an approach that relies more on free market competition and lower regulations. One such approach has been proposed by another former presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a conservative ophthalmologist who describes himself as "libertarianish."

Sen. Paul's plan Opens a New to totally repeal Obamacare and replace it with several key changes that give individuals more flexibility in purchasing health insurance. All Americans would receive the same tax deduction for health insurance regardless of whether they obtain insurance through their employers or buy it themselves. Health savings accounts (HSAs) would be encouraged through tax credits and eliminating maximum contribution limits. HSAs could also be used to pay for health insurance premiums, prescription drugs, and over-the-counter drugs.

Individuals would be allowed to pool together to purchase insurance like employers currently do. These pools could include non-profit organizations, such as churches, civic groups, and trade associations, as well as other entities formed solely for the purpose of buying insurance. Small businesses would be able to pool together across state lines to purchase health insurance as well. Insurers would also be allowed to sell policies licensed in one state to any other state.

It's not known exactly how much Sen. Paul's healthcare plan would cost, although it would certainly be far less than the $1.38 trillion cost for Sen. Sander's plan. The advantages of the plan, according to Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), are that it moves the U.S. in "the right direction toward patient-centered healthcare, lower costs, bigger pools to insure everyone and cover preexisting conditions." Brat stated that so far Paul's plan is "the most free market approach to healthcare that will truly bend down the cost curve." 
Impact on investors

These are obviously starkly different plans with arguments for and against each one. How would investors be impacted if something similar to Sen. Sander's single-payer system became law?

Shareholders of health insurance stocks would likely feel the most pain. It's possible that private insurers could offer Medicare Advantage plans as they do now. However, membership in these plans made up only 7.5% of UnitedHealth's total enrollment in 2016 and only 5.9% of Aetna's total enrollment last year. Health insurer stocks would plunge if a single-payer system was implemented. Biotech and pharmaceutical stocks would also no doubt suffer. We've already seen negative effects on these stocks from President Trump's statements earlier this year that he wanted to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate prices with drugmakers.

There's also a good chance that many other stocks would take a beating under Sen. Sanders' plan. Raising U.S. corporate taxes (which already rank among the highest in the world) probably wouldn't be seen as a good thing. Furthermore, increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends could cause investors to sell off stocks to avoid paying higher taxes before the single-payer system took effect.
How would investors be affected by Sen. Paul's plan? Health insurance stocks would likely soar. Companies like UnitedHealth Group and Aetna, which have retreated from the individual markets under Obamacare, would probably jump back in. HealthEquity(NASDAQ: HQY), which provides a technology platform for consumers to manage HSAs, would no doubt surge even more than it has over the last year.

Stocks of companies that rely heavily on the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, on the other hand, would likely drop. How the stocks of drugmakers and of other industries would be impacted is hard to predict. It depends on the details that a final plan would include.

Reality check
Now for a reality check. The likelihood of the U.S. going to a single-payer system at this point isn't high. The Washington Post even ran an editorial Opens a New Window.that stated that "single-payer healthcare would have an astonishingly high price tag" and that Americans probably wouldn't be willing to accept the negatives, including accepting "different standards of access and comfort." The odds of Sen. Rand Paul's plan being implemented also seem low. He first floated his proposal in January. It hasn't gained too much momentum since then.

For now, the most likely scenarios are probably either a modified version of Trumpcare or making changes to sustain Obamacare. Americans, including investors, will have to keep waiting to find out how they'll be impacted by whatever comes next.


I disagree. The Repeal First plan Trump endorses is the right decision. This sides with Rand Paul’s free market solution. With a full repeal, States should be able to do what they want to do and insurance companies should be able to sell what they can sell.

Lowering healthcare costs is the elephant in the room. It requires reducing government subsidies.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Bureaucracy is the enemy of freedom

Dick Morris video

Trump’s address to Poland addressed their need to resist the EU Bureaucracy.  The growth of government kills economic freedom and prosperity.  Trump is emphasizing the importance of the private sector and families. source= dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Confirmation Blockade

Running the Schumer Blockade, The GOP Senate needs to stop Democratic abuse of the rules. 7/10/17, WSJ

The Trump Presidency is well into its seventh month but the Trump Administration still barely exists. Senate Democrats are abusing Senate rules to undermine the executive branch, and Republicans need to restore normal order.

President Trump got an inexcusably slow start making nominations, but in the past few weeks he’s been catching up to his predecessors. According to the Partnership for Public Service, as of June 28 Mr. Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46. Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term, and George W. Bush 130.

The White House has understandably begun to make a public issue of the delays, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says it “has only itself to blame.” But a press release Mr. Schumer sent out Monday made the White House case, showing that the Senate has received 242 nominations but confirmed only 50 through June 30. Democrats are now the problem.

Among the non-controversial nominees awaiting confirmation: Kevin Hassett to lead the White House Council of Economic Advisers; David Malpass, under secretary at Treasury for international affairs; two nominees needed to review pipelines and other projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Mr. Malpass was nominated in March and voted out of committee in mid-June. Mr. Trump’s State Department is barely functioning with only eight confirmed appointees.

Democratic obstruction against nominees is nearly total, most notably including a demand for cloture filings for every nominee—no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate. The 30-hour rule means Mr. Trump might not be able to fill all of those 400 positions in four years. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period, which helps slow the GOP policy and oversight agenda.

Democrats have also refused to return a single “blue slip” to the Judiciary Committee, which has the effect of blocking consideration of judicial nominees from their home states. Senators like Minnesota’s Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar are holding hostage the eminently qualified Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for no reason other than politics.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s troops are even invoking an obscure rule that prohibits committees from doing business more than two hours after the Senate opens for the day. Republicans have had to cancel briefings on national security and Russia electoral interference, as well as scrap a markup of two human-trafficking bills.

Democrat Harry Reid didn’t have the cloture headache when he was Majority Leader because in 2013 he cut a deal with Republicans. The GOP traded the ability to offer more amendments to legislation in return for letting Mr. Reid limit post-cloture debate for most nominations to eight hours. This rule let Mr. Reid confirm dozens of judicial and lower-cabinet nominations every week. But the deal expired in early 2015, and good luck getting Mr. Schumer to grant the GOP the same terms.

Frustrated Republicans may soon begin listening to Oklahoma Senator Jim Lankford, who wants the majority to impose the eight-hour rule unilaterally. Most debate about nominees occurs during vetting and in committees. Eight hours on the floor is enough for all but the most controversial nominees, and the Senate could then get back to other business.

As for the blue-slip tradition, it was designed to facilitate advice and consent by allowing Senators to use their home-state knowledge about local judges to better inform the White House. But it is a courtesy, not a rule, and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley can ignore Senators who are using their blue slips as ideological vetoes of qualified candidates.

Mr. Trump has nominated first-rate judges, and Mr. Grassley is justified in suspending blue-slip privileges on a case-by-case basis. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also been starting the Senate at different times of the day to get around the Democratic sabotage of committee work. But note Mr. Schumer’s childishness in forcing a game of Senate hide-and-seek.

Mr. McConnell will be wary of Mr. Lankford’s advice to change a Senate rule in the middle of the term, but the Majority Leader rightly did so when Democrats staged a historic filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Democrats aren’t using cloture to raise the level of debate or highlight unqualified nominees. They are using it—and have said as much—to sabotage a Presidency. That isn’t what the Founders intended, and Republicans have every right to stop this abuse of process to let the President form a government.


I am not impressed with McConnell as the Senate Majority Leader.  He’s a RINO.  Everybody says he is an expert at Senate Rules, but if he is, he’s really a Democrat. Like 30 of the 52 Republicans in the Senate, his Conservative Review Scorecard is low and his grade is F.  He is part of the Deep State.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader 

Full Repeal Crucial

PENCE BACKS 'REPEAL ONLY' HEALTH-CARE PLAN, Republican Congress struggles to fulfill vow to voters, 7/11/17, WND

With the Republican-led Senate struggling to pass a plan to “repeal and replace” Obamacare as the August recess approaches, Vice President Mike Pence raised once again the alternative of passing a “repeal only” bill and working on a replacement bill later.

“We believe if they can’t pass this carefully crafted repeal and replace bill – we do those two things simultaneously – we ought to just repeal only and then have enough time built into that legislation to craft replacement legislation,” Pence told talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh Tuesday.

Last month, President Trump said much the same, tweeting: “If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!”

The Republican leadership Tuesday announced the August recess will be delayed two weeks to give more time to pass a repeal-and-replace bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to unveil a revised bill Thursday after the Congressional Budget Office assessed the initial version would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured by 2026.

But, as WND reported, the CBO, the bipartisan federal agency that provides budget and economic information and assessment to Congress — has a history of inaccurate forecasts that typically fail to account for the impact of market forces. Critics argue the CBO does not score legislation dynamically, ignoring growth that results from tax cuts and the reduced growth that results from tax increases. And the scoring of the Senate health-care bill does not take into account the millions of healthy Americans who, with the Obamacare mandate removed, would choose not to have health insurance.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and Ben Sasse of Nebraska are among the senators who favor a “clean” repeal bill as an alternative.
Paul has called the Senate bill “Obamacare-lite,” and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called it “far short of repeal,” contending it “keeps the Democrats’ broken system intact.” They remind Republicans they ran in 2016 on repealing Obamacare “root and branch.”

However, moderate Republican Sen. Cassidy of Louisiana has insisted a “repeal-only” bill would be a “non-starter,” and, like McConnell and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has said it may be necessary to work with Democrats on legislation instead to stabilize the insurance markets.

In the Times’ analysis column “The Upshot,” writer Margot Sanger-Katz disputed the contention of “repeal only” proponents that “the status quo” could “float along until a new political compromise arrived”

The theory, she said, “is that the repeal bill would come with a one- or two-year fuse, and that the looming explosion would compel lawmakers to compromise and pass something else in a hurry.”

She argued the CBO has scored what “partial repeal” would look like: 18 million people would lose insurance coverage in the first year and 32 million in a decade. Over the course of that decade, CBO concluded, the average insurance premium would double. She also doesn’t believe increased pressure would bring lawmakers closer to compromise.

“The very Republicans most enthusiastic about a repeal-only strategy seem less interested in pursuing a separate, costly replacement provision,” she wrote.

But Sasse proposes in his “repeal only” proposal “a year-long implementation delay to give comfort to Americans currently on Obamacare that a replacement plan will be enacted before expiration.”

In a letter to President Trump espousing his alternative, Sasse pointed out that with “one exception, every member of this Senate majority – moderate and conservative – has explicitly endorsed and/or already voted to repeal ObamaCare, most recently on December 3, 2015.”
If there is no agreement on the Senate bill, he said, the senators should immediately vote again on H.R. 3762, the December 2015 Obamacare repeal legislation that the Congress passed but President Obama vetoed.

Rachel Bovard, the Heritage Foundation’s director of policy services, pointed out Republicans have chosen to try to pass a health-care bill through the reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes to end debate and vote on the bill, rather than 50. Republicans have a 52-member majority.
What makes reconciliation so tricky, she said, is that reconciliation bills must contain only subject matter that has a direct budgetary impact.

She favors repealing first and replacing later, noting the December 2015 bill contains a two-year phaseout of significant parts of Obamacare, which would allow Republicans to discuss, debate and deliberate on what a replace plan should look like.

Work with Democrats?
Privately, senators and aides said McConnell remains well short of the 50 votes needed to start debate on the bill, Politico reported Tuesday. McConnell has urged senators to use the bill’s open amendment process to alter it to suit their concerns, according to senators and aides.

Cruz and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have proposed an amendment that would allow the sale of inexpensive, deregulated insurance plans for healthy subscribers. But Politico said the amendment is fracturing Senate Republicans, with disagreements over its drafting threatening to delay or even sink the bill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., doesn’t think Republicans can come up with an agreement and may need the support of Democrats. “I think my view is it’s probably going to be dead,” McCain said of the GOP bill. If Democrats are included, he said, it doesn’t mean “they control it. It means they can have amendments considered. And even when they lose, then they’re part of the process. That’s what democracy is supposed to be all about.”

GOP accepting ‘Obamacare logic’
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a member of the House Freedom Caucus who taught economics for 20 years, supports repeal first and replace later.

He told WND earlier this month he can’t support the initial Senate bill because it concedes the faulty economic logic that put Obamacare “in the ditch.”

“That Obamacare logic was just about 100 percent attention paid to coverage and no attention paid to the price of health care. As a result, people were covered with gold-plated health insurance policies, but no one could afford health coverage,” said Brat.

He says that’s exactly what Republican voters expected after the 2016 elections, but they aren’t getting it. “When you vote 50 times to repeal and then you tell the American people you’re going to repeal and then you end up very close to Obamacare logic. That is not good for the Republican brand,” said Brat. Brat is confident that if repeal came first, there would be plenty of interest across the spectrum in getting on board with the replacement bill. “Then you have the leverage to work with the Democrats. There’s no shortage of people who want to add programs in D.C. in the swamp, right? So you first repeal, and then the floodgates are open to add. You can get as many votes as you want from any politician to say yes. Politicians love to say yes. That would have been a brilliant move back in January,” he said.

He is imploring his fellow Republicans to proceed on the principles they constantly espouse about the success of the free market. “If you believe in free markets and the standard American package of free enterprise, etc., that will deliver the goods. Everybody knows these eye surgeries that started out at $6,000 per eye are down to $450 per eye to get your Tiger Woods eye surgery,” said Brat.

“That’s what the market can do if you let it alone. If you let the government intervene, you end up with Medicare, which is insolvent in 2034. You end up with Social Security, which is insolvent for the kids in 2034. Twenty trillion dollars in debt, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities to those major programs, and we’re going to add more government,” said Brat.
Daniel Horowitz, editor in chief of Conservative Review, contends the GOP bill does not repeal Obamacare.

The key problem, he said, is government interference in the health-care system. “Through government interference in health care, politicians have joined with industry lobbyists to destroy the health care market and the direct relationship between consumers and providers,” wrote Horowitz.

“After destroying health care with third-party and fourth-party insurance payments supplanting direct payments, they then destroyed health insurance, whereby most insurance is provided by the government or paid for by employers, thereby placing individuals at a tremendous disadvantage.

Not only do we no longer pay for our own health care, the overwhelming majority of those third-party payments are paid for by a fourth party: employers, government, or both.”
Horowitz, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America,” pointed out that in 2015 the public and private sectors combined to spend a total of $3.2 trillion on health care, accounting for about 18 percent of the economy. The reason health care is so expensive, he said, is because of the way Americans pay for it.

“In a functioning market, prices reach an equilibrium between the desire of profit for providers and the desire of consumers for the service,” Horowitz explained. “When consumers are paying for a service with their own money, there is a limit to what they can and will pay. This forces providers to innovate and cut costs to conform to the organic market demand.

“No such organic market demand exists when consumers don’t pay for their own product and all the money comes from a third party, which is primarily subsidized by a fourth party. Not only does this fail to lower costs, it encourages providers to charge even more, because they know there is an open-ended spigot from government-sponsored debt fueled by political pressure to keep the gravy train flowing.”

The problem is that Obamacare inflated Medicare to include able-bodied workers up to 400 percent of the poverty line, he explained. “The fight now, and the reason a lot of moderate Republicans are scared is because under this bill it goes from 400 percent down to 350 percent,” Krauthammer said. “This is a marginal retrenchment of what makes you eligible for Medicaid. And people are used to what was. They don’t want to give it back. That’s the reason that Obamacare repeal is in trouble.”

He said the country is not where it was seven years ago. “It’s the reason that the left usually wins, because when you hand out goodies since the New Deal, it is extremely hard to bring them back. That’s the core issue here.”

In May, Krauthammer said the United States is on its way to a single-payer health-care system completely funded by the government.

“I think historically speaking we are at the midpoint,” Krauthammer told guest host Chris Wallace on the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report.” “We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations, and I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system.”