Mike Pompeo will be an excellent Secretary of State.
Despite his efforts cut the bloat, crap, and waste which had been overwhelming the State Department, Tillerson seemed more accomodationist than anything else. Some critics pointed out his globalist take on foreign policy. There were frequent disagreements on the issues. One source had declared that Tillerson called Trump "a
Pro-family groups like Texas MassResistance were also telling me that he caved to the LGBT hate machine when he was part of the Boy Scouts Board of Directors. President Trump indicated that he was trying to save the Iran deal, too. That is wrong.
Tillerson and Trump didn’t see eye to eye. ... They
were skilled, they were competent, but their attitudes didn’t fit into the
larger team culture. Why? Because they showed up with their previously held
identities—they were used to being the big fish in the pond and they refused to
let go.
Tillerson was not a team player, but a "me player". He was not focused on President Trump's agenda and decision-making process. He was interested in more in himself than in the mission of Trump's State Department. Trump reaffirmed this ongoing conflict again:
In truth, few tears were shed in Washington over Tillerson’s
dismissal. Talking to reporters, President Trump said that he and his secretary
of state “disagreed on too many issues to work well together.”
Now we go to Mike Pompeo, a conservative and American nationalist who is more committed to the pro-life, pro-family agenda of President Trump.
Here's why:
“What I liked about candidate Trump was his strong condemnation of the
Iraq War. I believe President Trump has done a great job, and I continue to
support him, but I cannot endorse his nomination of people who loved the Iraq
War so much that they want an Iran War next. Director Pompeo has not learned
the lessons of regime change and wants regime change in Iran.
“I can’t support people who never understood America First and want to
manipulate the President into the sphere of the neocons who never met a war
they didn’t want to star in.
Where is the basis for Pompeo's argument for war in Iran? There is nothing in Pompeo's correspondence or foreign policy record as the CIA Director or as a Congressman before that. Pompeo is most committed to ending the destructive, deceptive Iran deal above all. The previous Secretary of State was not committed to the President's vision on this issue.
I think that Pompeo is perfect for the job.
So, if Rand Paul won't support Pompeo, does that scuttle the confirmation?
Not at all. Joe Manchin more than likely will replace Paul's vote. Other Red State Democrats looking to boost their bipartisan credentials and win election will go along with the vote, too. Chances are, if John McCain does return to the United States, he would vote for Pompeo, too. Worst case scenario, Mike Pence will step in again and confirm the nomination.
This confirmation will face no hold-ups, and Dr. Paul won't be able to stop it. I wouldn't be surprised if even Dianne Feinstein gets behind Pompeo's confirmation, despite the fact that she faces a rough primary fight, too.
The Senate Democrats shut down the government in January. The "Schumer Shutdown" ended up a "Schumer Letdown."
The second budget deadline has passed, and even though the spending was vastly over-budget, Republicans can move onto letting Democrats hang themselves on their overzealous virtue signalling.
10 Democratic US Senators are in dire straits going into this year's election. They don't want to take a firm stance on immigration, but hope to ride out the latest wave of public sentiment to live and fight for their special interests another six years.
Check out the litany of tweets from GOP US Senators trying to move on immigration:
In case you didn’t think Congress was absurd before, Senate Democrats are now filibustering the open immigration debate they asked for, and are refusing to put their bill on the floor.
Majority Leader McConnell is shocked--shocked!--I tell you, and has been sharing his frustration with his liberal colleagues on the stalled immigration debate.
First, he reminds everyone that he promised an open debate on the issue:
For a month now, I’ve repeatedly said I’d bring #immigration to the #Senate floor following a government funding agreement. Senators have had plenty of time to prepare. There is no reason why we should not reach a bipartisan solution this week.
Of course, his efforts have been immediately stymied:
Every Senator has had ample time to prepare for this week's #immigration debate on the #Senate floor. The clock is ticking, but debate has yet to begin because Democrats have yet to yield back any of their post-cloture time. pic.twitter.com/AHSMdpvFAp
WHAT?
Didn't Democrats want a real debate and a chance to get some movement on lasting immigration laws and priorities?
My wish list is enforcement, enforcement, and more enforcement on top of that.
What are Democrats thinking? They have a chance to get their "DREAMS" to come true.
But ...
Shame on these Democrats! They never wanted to fix this problem, after all. They only wanted to demagogue this issue ad infinitum. It's not even about amnesty for illegal aliens. They are really worried about losing the chain migration aspect, which has allowed Democrats to import legions of new voters legally!
As of three hours again (from the date of this post), Senate Democrats are still not allowing a debate!
Now we find out what is going on. Democrats just want amnesty. They have no interest in securing the border or ensuring that this problem ends once and for all:
Keeping Americans safe does not need to be a partisan issue & addressing important safety issues along w #DACA, border security, and other parts of our broken immigration system is our best chance to produce legislation that can pass the House, #Senate, and earn @POTUS' signature
This is expert trolling from Mitch McConnell. I wish that he was consistently conservative in all other facets of his Majority Leadership. He still has to go, in my opinion.
What are other GOP senators talking about?
Chuck Grassley is really upset!
Exasperating!! Dems have talked for months + months about DACA issue BUT at noon today we tried to move fwd and Sen Schumer objected. haven’t the Dems been asking for this debate?????
Dems just objected AGAIN! When are the Dems going to carry out what they’ve been promising the DACA kids for several months? Let’s move fwd or level w us that you don’t want to help. my bill could solve issues for DACA kids + strengthens border security
By the way, President Trump has signalled" support for Grassley's bill.
But that only means that Democrats will double down in their insane, Trump Derangement Syndrome Opposition.
They cannot, will not allow the press, the legal strictures, or the public record grant Trump any kind of victory on immigration.
Of course, any form of amnesty would not be a victory to the base which sent Trump to Congress, and I believe--once again, I am writing this--that Trump has merely expected the Democrats to keep shooting themselves in the foot because the left-wing base in this country is absolutely insane, demanding a "Clean" DREAM Act and no border metrics or security measures.
Democrats are digging a deeper hole for themselves, and they are revealing to the country, and even their left-wing base, that they do not want to deal with immigration reform on any level, of any kind.
This latest fail is going to blow up in their faces come November. Just you watch.
This is big news - Kentucky Senator, former presidential candidate, and limited government advocate Rand Paul has joined a growing chorus of leading conservatives, officially endorsing my campaign for U.S. Senate!
As a longtime Libertarian-leaning conservative, I am deeply honored by and incredibly grateful for Senator Paul's endorsement in this race.
And with your help, I am eagerly looking forward to joining him in the U.S. Senate, as part of the next generation of the liberty movement.
Today, I'm asking my best supporters like you to help us spread the word about Senator Paul's endorsement.
There is so much at stake in the 2018 election. We've built incredible momentum behind my campaign, but we can’t leave anything to chance.
We must unite Montana Republicans and Libertarians of ALL stripes to defeat Jon Tester, who represents the worst of Big Government elitism and cronyism in Washington.
Here's what Senator Paul had to say:
"Matt Rosendale is the type of fearless defender of liberty I want fighting by my side in the Senate. Matt has proven himself a bold defender of our Constitutional rights and he will make an excellent addition to the Senate."
Defending the Constitution and returning power to Montanans and the American people is a cornerstone of my campaign... and as you know, I mean business and won’t back down from a fight! I've proven so time and time again in recent years, as I've fought for you in the Montana Legislature and as your State Auditor.
Thank you again for ALL your support in this race. I am eager to join Senator Paul in the U.S. Senate, where we will fight together to defend our civil liberties and rein in our overreaching Federal Government.
I just got back from a two-day trip to Washington, D.C.
And let me tell you, conservatives in Congress are FIRED UP about the possibility of having another principled fighter on the frontlines of the fight to Drain the Swamp.
In fact, yesterday I met with Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee about repealing ObamaCare, securing the border, balancing our budget and restoring constitutional government in Washington.
Senators Paul, Cruz and Lee are excited about the possibility of another conservative fighter joining them on the front lines in Washington.
But Arthur, they're also worried.
They're worried because of the power behind the Obama-Clinton Machine.
And they know that -- without your immediate support -- my campaign won't have the resources to fight back against the Obama-Clinton Machine and get our winning message out to as many voters across the state as possible before December 12.
Arthur, Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are standing with me in this fight.
When discussing Health care you must first address it as what it is,
Insurance…
Defining terms is crucial. I could not agree more. There are too many people who think that having a piece of paper that says "insurance" on it guarantees health care. Not so.
Insurance in general, regardless of type or derivative of it, is a
shining example to us all, everyday of why government, as we know it does not
work. It also exposes how the government
works against everyone of us by providing the Insurance market a tilted system.
Interesting.
We have lost our understanding of what our government is supposed to
look like and how it is supposed to operate.
Government has one right, the right to exist, as a necessary evil for
the management of the People’s business.
It has 3 duties. Preserve the Union and its Laws. Protect the People,
Union and their standing in the World.
Defend the People, the Union and her precious Freedoms from all enemies
foreign or domestic. Any right or duty
the Government has picked up since the inception of the Constitution, has
infringed on something belonging to the People.
Sometimes they partner with others to infringe on Rights they don’t dare
touch themselves.
Now you're talking. I agree. The Constitution outlines clearly enumerated powers. There is no reason for the federal government to get involved in the healthcare or insurance industries--and I do not care how hard progressives try to spin the preamble to suggest otherwise.
When such a misunderstanding of duties like this happens and continues
to happen we end up exactly where we are now.
The People running frantically to manage a maze of laws, rules,
penalties or intentionally placed hurdles or outright blatantly ignored
conditions of disgusting proportions just to find their Freedoms. It is the physics of Government versus People
that drove the Forefathers to give us the Constitution we have had for the last
230+ years.
I would add that all of this government micromanaging has hurt our health care system and stringently limited our access to quality health care. This is the message I have been sending at length to single-payer and Obamacare supporters over and over again.
OK, back to the purpose of this writing. Insurance, like government, is a necessary
evil. Most states require it for your
car. Every bank requires it for your
home. You can not open and operate a
business without numerous type of policies in place. The conditions of our World in 2017 require
Health, Disability, Life Insurances and depending on your way of life you may
require other types of specialized insurances.
In many of these situations insurances are a prudent and a responsible
choice.
The problems come like a herd of stampeding of cattle when you need to
use it. When your home floods and you
find out your home insurance doesn’t cover that. Nor does it cover Hurricanes, Tornadoes and a
myriad of other Acts of God. When they
do cover your loss, they attempt to pay you pennies on your dollars. Usually it requires specialized skilled
professionals and attorneys to defend your loss costing you from 10% to 33% per
professional. In most cases non-attorney
professionals charge flat fees upfront.
Insurance as a necessary evil .... hmm. I am glad for insurance, since it ensures that if I get into an accident, whether my fault or someone else's, that I will be prepared to continue driving or get a new car. Insurance companies have to be judged based on the service they provide. Insurance companies with a reputation of nickel-and-diming their customers will go out of business.
It's about competition, efficiency, and accountability.
Still, the problem with insurance companies trying to get away with providing as little as possible to cover your claim--that does happen, and that is an issue which has to be confronted.
Still, I would say that my car insurance is pretty good. I do not have to go to court, and much of the time I get exactly what I need and more to cover losses incurred by someone else's negligence or malfeasance.
Health care is a more precious need than driving a car, too. I get that concern. What can be done so that in matters relating to our health care,
When these losses are in matters of Disability and health issues, there
is an evil undertone to our current laws that not only allows the system to
abuse its users, the users insurance companies are contractually obligated to
protect, but allows the insurance companies an unfettered right to push you
until you either reach the end of their golden road or you remove yourself from
the process. They don’t care how that
happens, as long as you’re no longer their responsibility. If you are severely injured but choose to go
back to work risking more injury simply because your rent is due, kids need
clothes and food or you just got sick and tired of fighting a system designed
for a no-win situation they could care less, in fact they are probably banking
on life forcing you back to work long before they give you any real help. Even if you win, you’re still going to lose.
Insurance as a necessary evil: I have to still consider what to think about that one. What can be done about this problem? I agree with restoring a close relationship between patient and doctor. In order to accomplish that, however, men and women would have to cover the costs of whatever needs they sought from their medical professional.
Perhaps treating health insurance more like car insurance, where it kicks in only for catastrophic needs would be the way to go.
These behaviors do not happen because the laws allow it. They exist because the laws intentionally do
not address these issues. Insurance
companies own our Representatives and because of that, we pay the price while
the politicians and insurance companies make trillions annually. Government’s job is to protect us from these
companies but instead they stack the deck against us. Only when enough people get outraged will
they plug a hole in a law and they won’t plug all of them. Each occurrence will require the same massive
outrage. The insurance companies know
every hole in the laws, they exploit them daily. Our officials know they exist also.
Laws are becoming a major impediment to the proper use and disbursement of funds. Government regulation has created more problems, rather than simply ensuring that contracts are enforced. What has made it so easy for insurance companies not to comply with their contractual obligations? That's the million dollar question.
The ACA had nothing to do with insuring you. What it did do was swell the ranks of Medical
Unions and give you the appearance that you were getting something. Sure insurance companies had to enroll you if
you had a pre-existing condition. Did it
require the insurance companies to cover that condition or did they not address
that? Most insurance companies had a 1
to 3 year wait for pre-existing condition coverage pre-ACA.
100 years ago, 200 years ago men and women of all backgrounds had pre-existing conditions. How did they deal with these issues? I don't recall all of these people clamoring in the streets for the government to step in and save them. What the United States had before was working pretty well. I do agree that the more regulatory burdens that have stepped in, that the problems have not been solved.
Guess what, most still do. The only way to get coverage for a
pre-existing condition is to go on Medicare or Medicaid via the ACA. The ACA was designed to ingrain the American
psyche with the notion that healthcare should be free. Research “The 2nd Bill of Rights” for
evidentiary data. We can debate back and
forth over the design of free healthcare and other entitlements as weapons
against American financial security but it surely is a weapon against political
peace in America today. Another benefit
of the ACA.
I could not agree more. This perverse notion that health care should be for everyone at "the government's expense" is a perverse power play. That is all wrong.
There will be no healthcare solutions until the insurance companies and
their friends in Washington resume their seats at their assigned chairs. Insurance companies must be held to the
standards of contract law.
YES!
Those contracts
must be uniformly fair and not include the current menagerie of intentional
misrepresentation that can vary in the industry today. They must also meet a strong representative
of the people who will ensure they are not left to trample their customers in
sacrifice of their bottom line.
Milton Friedman outlined in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the government should serve as an umpire to provide and protect equal treatment under the law. I would add that market forces would do an even better job. Allowing men and women to purchase health insurance across state lines would allow for more choice and competition. Insurance companies in any one state who fail to deliver on their promises will get a bad rap, and other insurance companies will get the business.
Indeed, the insurance companies are very much trying to work and slant the system in their favor. To be pro free market does not mean pro-business. Consider this passage in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations":
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Government should be the arbitrator in matters between insurance versus
the People, not the hand on the back pushing those companies ahead of us. Government should set the guidelines and keep
its hands off our care. When the
insurance companies overstep, our representatives should not be a copy service
sending notes of how angry we are. It
needs the tools to check Insurance and help us become whole again.
I agree. The government has been making life too easy for insurance companies at the expense of consumers. Car insurance companies must compete on-line, through social media, on TV for customers. But just as Adam Smith announced, insurance companies have found a way to meet together with the government's blessing and raise prices against consumers.
How? By shutting them out of choosing products from other markets. They have colluded to limit choice and drive down supply, while demand has remained level or increased, thus raising prices. This racket has to be broken up.
Government repeatedly attempts to solve problems but from here on the
street it looks like no considerations are given to the possibilities of what
can go right or wrong in any scenario they attempt to “help” with. Every politician says they want a market
driven solution but they gerrymander the market every time they get an
opportunity. They promise you everything
and deliver nothing. When their reigns
of control are yanked, its our neck that breaks, not the insurance companies. That’s now how any of this is supposed to
work.
"Gerrymandering" the market will end when I can purchase a health insurance plan anywhere I want to. We don't need the government making promises. Rather, we need the government to stop prevent all sorts of different companies from making their own promises.
Tort reform is necessary. When insurance
companies push people to court they should be held responsible for all the
expenses of that process they chose over meeting their contractual
obligations. When they are forced to pay
you for your loss or care you should not have to give a large portion away for
winning. This will end the “I guess this
is where you sue us” mentality too many insurance companies have today. They know the judicial system, a product of
our government, will protect them before us so why wouldn’t they want to go to
court on every issue?
Tort reform is necessary. One of the biggest roadblocks to this reform is the trial lawyer associations, since they make big money off of repeated lawsuits. Just like the insurance companies, lawyer associations are colluding to ensure that business remains active and growing, all while the rest of us pay the price. This dynamic could be changing, however, with a limitation on legal actions, or an acceptable consequence. The state has a right to regulate legal actions, since these are government institutions. I would suggest that the losing party in a lawsuit must pay the attorney's fees for the winner. Such reforms would discourage frivolous lawsuits. Capping damages to the clear costs would be good, too.
We do need lawyers, but we do not need a legal culture in which men and women routinely run to court to exact revenge on others.
Any American Citizen who wishes to have insurance should have an
opportunity to get the policy that best suits their needs. In today’s climate, a person who lives in a
low population density state has most likely never heard of an HMO insurance
plan. Currently under ACA standards,
these plans are Cadillac plans and taxable.
They are too big and too expensive. Insurance companies jumped into the whole plot to force people to pay for Cadillac plans, since they would cash in big time.
Many think the idea of a HSA (Health Savings Account) as a great
insurance against bad potentials. The
ACA took away the employer contribution to those plans. Many employers who offer HSA based plans pay
much less for those plans because the plans generally help people be more
vigilant about their regular care issues which has been known to improve your
overall health. More than 25% of this
country has no access to these plans.
Buying across state lines can and will offer these policies to everyone,
regardless of location.
I am so glad that Patrick is talking about Health Savings Accounts. Let's encourage people to save for their future. Let's welcome individual citizens taking responsibility for their lives and actions. Providing incentives for working people and other income brackets to take care of themselves is a welcome decision.
Of course, the power differential pushed by Obama and progressives has never been about providing health care. It's been about gaining more power over the populace. All of this is wrong.
Coverage pools are one of the most misleading things ever introduced to
any industry. They give insurance
companies the ability to micro manage their costs and profits and show
unprofitable numbers while as a whole the company is thriving. One insurance pool, all 50 states per
company. Less than 20% of the coverable
people in this nation ranks as a high risk patient. If a company is splitting the nation into 10
pools they are structuring those pools not to provide you better coverage but
to provide themselves better profits.
High risk pools should be open to competition just like any other aspect of health care or health insurance.
Healthcare can not be a Right, it is a service.
Thank you so much for stating this so plainly, Patrick.!
Thank you again! It is so simple, and yet conservatives, free market advocates, and pro-individual Republicans are not getting this point across.
Check out what Rand Paul explained at the Veterans Affairs Committee hearing in 2014:
Of course, Sanders spun this discussion to make Dr. Paul look foolish, but Paul's point about enslaving practitioners is valid.
We ended the practice of people being forced
into providing services free of cost over 150 years ago. The people who provide our healthcare are
well trained professionals who deserve to be compensated for their work, which
is usually a thankless job. America is a
compassionate country. If a person is
unable to work due to medical reasons they should be cared for in a fair and
equitable system that does not teat them differently based on whether they have
Blue Cross & Blue Shield or Medicare.
Those who do not wish to work should not receive free care.
YES! No free medicare, not welfare-medicine. NONE!
Tax breaks always sound great but they are nothing more than an
appeasement scam government has used to get us to comply with their desires for
decades. If you get a 10% tax credit and
are paying $15,000 a year for insurance you will not pay taxes on $1,500 of
your income. This will save you probably
$150 or less a year.
Let the market
determine the costs of insuring people.
Yes!
Let the people decide which coverages are best for them. Stop trying to fix things and let the market
correct itself. When the buying
restrictions are removed hundreds of thousands of companies will go into a
competition mode. Plans will get
cheaper, coverages will get better and the companies that drag their customers
through the current legal and financial mine fields will cease to exist.
That's what I am talking about!
Standardization of documentation is a must. Every insurance company has a different sets
of paperwork for every part of their process.
Healthcare costs will never reduce without removing the massive effort
in every doctor’s office, clinic or hospital on paperwork alone. Addressing this can reduce the need for
specialists who do nothing more than paperwork.
Most offices and hospitals run like well oiled machines by the scenes. Freeing them from the mass of paperwork can
allow more effort to creativity to improve these systems even more while saving
billions.
Competition in a wider marketplace will force different insurance companies to get rid of all their p paperwork issues. These reforms must depend on the individual insurance companies who want to control costs while increasing the number of clients.
.
Common Sense must be applied going forward. When a young adult decides they do not want
health coverage, they should be required to sign a document that says they
accept all responsibilities for all care they may require in the future. When you leave a job due to a disability,
your insurance must persist or there will be no care for your condition. You’ll never return to work. When you pay for coverages, you get what you
pay for and the care you need. We must
finally draw a line on fraud in the medical industry. Make the current maximum penalties for fraud
the new minimums and prosecute all who defraud aggressively.
"You get what you pay for" describes the experience for Canadians in their single-payer system. They get lousy care if any. The shortages, rationing, and waiting times are outrageous. No single-payer! No socialized medicine.
People need their prescriptions; Make it mandatory for employers, over
a predetermined income level, to at least offer a prescription, dental, eye
care and disability insurance package as a minimum. There should be a max 50%
cost to the employee. Most of these
plans have very minimal costs and can protect workers in times of need.
No mandates, please. I disagree with this final point. Businesses, employers, companies must have the choice to decide what kind of benefits they offer--or do not offer. If an employee is concerned about the benefits package, then they need to ask for it. If they are that concerned about receiving something like that, then they can look for a job somewhere else.
Final Reflection
I am grateful for these extended remarks from Patrick Schubert.
We need to recognize that there are clear political conflicts which have prevented true competition and choice, and thus providing for quality healthcare and access.
The federal and state governments have been picking the winners and losers, specifically because of insurance companies lobbying Congress for rules which help them at the expense of everyone else. This Big Business-Big Government collusion must end.
I do agree with the Bernieacs on one point--there middle man is getting too much money and power, and it has to stop. After that, I emphatically disagree with their argument to allow the government to step in and provide "Medicare for all".
Insurance companies can play a role, and their capacity to pool risk and provide funding is worth seeking out. No one wants to be on the hook for a multi-thousand dollar medical operation for a crisis or a chaotic event.
How do we ensure that insurance companies provide good service? Ensure competition. Insurance companies are in the business of making money. We could limit their impact and scope by allowing for clear transparency and ensuring the insurance companies cover unexpected needs--just like car insurance.
Patrick Schubert's analysis is pretty incredible. I enjoyed the widespread scope of his comments on the health insurance/health care discussion. Let's hope that we get more people elected who will respect the will and needs of the voters, the clients who purchase health insurance and seek adequate health care.
Retired Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli of Virginia set up a new PAC to help fund conservative candidates for office in Washington DC.
His fund challenged Mitch McConnell in the 2014 primary, for example
Even though McConnell went onto the general election and another win, the process created a new conservative voice in Kentucy, and paved the way for Matt Bevin to become the next governor.
Other Senate Conservative Fund investments have enabled conservatives to win key House Seats during the 2017 special election series, too.
Check out what they sent me in the mail, too:
The letter is common place, but then they provide me two postcards for my two US Senators--and the envelopes are specifically addressed to them:
Notice the addresses to the US Senators
Finally, conservatives are learning to fight back and raise in the same way that the left, that progressives, that the Democratic Party has been fundraising then fighting all these years.
It's not enough to have the right ideas. Men and women of conservative conscience have to be willing to fight and win through an effective, unending process.
