Friday, April 21, 2017

RFK, Jr: My meeting with Trump on vaccine commission

Will Electing Donald Trump Be The Only Way To Finally Expose The Truth About Vaccine Damaged Children?

( A vote for Donald Trump for president will likely mean a lot of things: A rejection of Hillary Clinton, likely for the last time (politically, at least); a belief that Trump definitely will revitalize an economy that President Obama will leave on life support; confidence that he’ll really begin putting America first, among other things. But a vote for Trump – and an eventual Trump victory – may also mean that, for the first time, we’ll have a president who takes seriously the danger aggressive vaccine schedules pose to our children.
As many already know, during the Republican primaries Trump was the first and only candidate to bring up the reported link between MMR vaccines and increased rates of autism.
As NaturalNews reported in October 2015, Trump – a full year earlier – tweeted that “tiny children are not horses” and that they should be given “no more massive injections,” that vaccines should be “one at a time, over time.”
“I am being proven right about massive vaccinations – the doctors lied. Save our children & their future,” he said in another tweet.
“I’m not against vaccinations for your children, I’m against them in 1 massive dose. Spread them out over a period of time & autism will drop!” he said in another, followed by, “So many people who have children with autism have thanked me – amazing response. They know far better than fudged up reports!”
By contrast, Trump’s likely Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, has voiced only tepid opposition to Big Pharma, which proved to be completely meaningless after news broke that she had accepted more campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies than any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates (in the race at the time).
Trump, of course, came under attack from the mainstream media and mainstream medicine for his stance, especially during a debate sponsored by CNN. Debate moderators tried a “gotcha” question with him, but he answered it brilliantly – and correctly:
Autism has become an epidemic… Because you take a baby in, and I’ve seen it, and I’ve seen it, and I had my children taken care of, over a long period of time, over a two or three year period of time, same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump  I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, two-years-old, two-and-a-half-years-old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic. …I’m in favor of vaccines [but] do them over a longer period of time, same amount, but just in little sections. I think you’re going to have  I think you’re going to see a big impact on autism.
Who agreed with him? Only both of the physicians who were on stage with him that night, retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson and Sen. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist.
“We are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time…” Carson said when moderators threw the question to him.
“I’m all for vaccines, but I’m also for freedom. I’m concerned about how they’re bunched up… I ought to have the right to spread out the vaccines a little bit,” Paul noted.
As for Trump’s initial vaccine-autism tweets, as we noted he made them just hours after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report nothing that autism rates spiked 30 percent among American children in 2012 and 2013:
The report revealed that one in 68 U.S. children had autism in 2014; whereas in 2012, only one in 88 U.S. children had autism. The report claims it was not designed to determine the cause behind the recent spike in autism rates.
As early as 2012, Trump appeared on TV to rail against what he called “monster vaccines” linked to autism.
“I’ve gotten to be pretty familiar with the subject. You know, I have a theory, and it’s a theory that some people believe in, and that’s the vaccinations. We never had anything like this. This is now an epidemic. It’s way, way up over the past 10 years. It’s way up over the past two years,” he told Fox Newsas we reported.
When told his views were outside the mainstream, Trump said: “… I couldn’t care less,” adding, “I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.”

Dr. Suzanne Humphries - Are Vaccines Safe? by debunkerbuster

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

President Trump Signs S. 544 the Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement Act - Breaking News President Trump signed the S.544 Veterans Choice Program Act For military forces

...That's why I'm pleased today to sign into law the Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act.  So this is called the Choice Program Improvement Act.  It speaks for itself.  This bill will extend and improve the Veterans Choice Program so that more veterans can see the doctor of their choice -- you got it?  The doctor of their choice -- and don’t have to wait and travel long distances for VA care.  Some people have to travel five hours, eight hours, and they'll have to do it on a weekly basis, and even worse than that.  It's not going to happen anymore.

This new law is a good start, but there is still much work to do.  We will fight each and every day to deliver the long-awaited reforms our veterans deserve, and to protect those who have so courageously protected each and every one of us...


What this Act about it so the USA Veterans can go see the doctor of there Choice no more waiting for Doctors for Months to get help and no More long Drives to go to nearest VA Hospital these is great News for all the Veterans in the USA They have waited a long time for these to happen and Trump Did he signed the Act This truly is Awesome world News for our Vets This is Breaking News and Great News today for all the Veterans that have served the USA S. 544 the Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement Act this helps improve Healthcare for Our Veterans of the US Today at the White House 2017 April 19

Passed Senate without amendment (04/03/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

(Sec. 1) This bill amends the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to eliminate the August 7, 2017, sunset date for the Veterans Choice Program, thus allowing the program to operate until all of the money in the Veterans Choice Fund is expended.

(Sec. 2) The bill makes the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the primary payer (currently the VA is the secondary payer) for medical care relating to non-service connected disabilities and recovery of costs from third parties for certain care under the program.

(Sec. 3) The VA may share medical information with a non-VA entity (including private entities and other federal agencies) that provides veterans with authorized hospital care or medical services. Such entity may not redisclose or use such information for a purpose other than that for which the disclosure was made.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto's Roundup?

Again, the issue at stake here is calling for SAFE vaccines rather than zero vaccines, and to apply only the minimum amount of vaccines deemed necessary. Big pharma, being a business, wants YOU (every member of the population) to take as much medicine as they can manufacture.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, April 17th, 2017.]

Saturday, April 15, 2017

'Drugged': Path to sobriety - is opioid addiction curable?

Note: CBD does not get you high.

Mandi Thompson10 hours ago
He needs to educate on CBD Canabidiol, which is now legal in 50 states. It could help him.

LSG9 hours ago
The FDA approved a new more powerful opioid pill called Zohydro. Meanwhile, Cannabis which is not physically addictive and impossible to overdose on is still a Schedule 1 illegal drug. The biggest financiers of the anti-legalization movement are Big Pharma, Police, Private Prisons and Alcohol companies. It must just be a coincidence that they also stand to lose a lot of money if cannabis became legal...

Matthew10 hours ago
I know how to solve the problem! Let's keep jailing people for harmless marijuana! Nailed it, right Jeff Sessions?

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

GOP Embraces Mandates For ObamaCare

Possible effects of pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, in surface waters

Removing Pharmaceuticals From Water Doesn't Come Cheap Or Easy:

Household Waste Disposal - Some household items shouldn't be flushed because they do break down in water. Dissolved chemicals can travel through the sewer system and pollute the marine environment...

"Surface Waters - places of invisible pollution": Pharmaceuticals are a special class of micro-pollutants - when present at low concentrations they can be potent pollutants in the environment. Humans are using increasing amounts of drugs and many of them are excreted and pass waste treatment systems unchanged to end up in surface waters. In the laboratory zebrafish are being used to investigate the effects of individual pharmaceuticals and to assess the risks of their release into the environment. Mixtures of pollutants may even have different effects, therefore cocktails of pharmaceuticals, and/or other chemicals are tested on aquatic biofilm communities to measure toxicity or study changes in these micro ecosystems. Another problem is posed by improper use of antibiotics, their discards and subsequent release into sewage systems. The development of drug resistant bacteria, pose a serious risk to human health.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Removing Pharmaceuticals From Water Doesn't Come Cheap Or Easy

FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif. — Shivaji Deshmukh drinks water extracted from raw sewage. He knows the water is clean because his job is to help make it so as an engineer at the Orange County Water District.
“It’s an efficient, cheap water supply — and it’s the best quality,” says Deshmukh, amid the hiss of machines at the state-of-the-art facility.
Performing the recycling transformation requires a battery of treatments.
Wastewater strained and disinfected at an adjacent sewage treatment plant is first filtered through tiny straws. Then, in a process called reverse osmosis, the water is forced across a spiraled sheet of plastic with holes so small that little else can slip through. In the final phase, the water is zapped with ultraviolet light.
The three-step operation is one of the most sophisticated cleansing systems anywhere. While the incoming water contains minuscule levels of prescription drugs, tests for any traces of a half-dozen pharmaceuticals, conducted as the treated water leaves the plant, detect nothing.
The end product supplies more than 500,000 Orange County residents for a year, nearly one-quarter of the district’s potable water needs.
The cleansing procedure illustrates how difficult — and expensive — it is to scrub virtually every iota of contaminant from our supplies.
The standard ways of cleaning water are not designed to snare the tiny amounts of prescription drugs that survive digestion, and then, with a flush of the toilet, begin their journey toward America’s taps.
It’s not an academic exercise: According to an Associated Press investigation, scientists have found that water piped to tens of millions of people nationwide contains minute concentrations of dozens of pharmaceuticals from tranquilizers to painkillers to antibiotics.
While scientists have not definitively established that people are harmed by these drugs, laboratory tests have shown tiny amounts can have ill effects on human cells. And the fact that they are being consumed in combination, over many years — at any level — worries some researchers.
If those fears are borne out by future studies, it could lead communities and water providers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on more advanced treatments to improve on the commonplace regimen of filtration and disinfection with chlorine.
A large-scale reverse osmosis system is expensive. It costs Orange County about one-eighth of a penny per gallon — or $15 month for the 12,000 gallons used by a typical family of four, a price that doesn’t include overhead charges, such as construction, salaries and maintenance.
Officials at the Greater Cincinnati Water Works say their granular activated carbon filtering system costs 93.6 cents per month for the typical family of four.
Following a parasitic outbreak, the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas — which processes up to 900 million gallons daily at two treatment plants — invested millions of dollars in a different advanced system that dissolves ozone gas into water to destroy micro-organisms.
The cheaper ozonation process isn't designed to remove pharmaceuticals, though it does take care of many compounds.
Tests at the Nevada authority have shown that tiny concentrations of the tranquilizer meprobamate and an anti-epileptic drug regularly resist the treatment, as on occasion has carbamazepine, another anti-convulsant.
At the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 18.5 million people, tests at one of its five plants show that ozonation failed to remove a tranquilizer and an anti-epileptic drug from the finished drinking water, according to an ongoing study.
That district and the Southern Nevada Water Authority both draw from the Colorado River, which, tests show, can contain several hundred parts per trillion of pharmaceuticals, including the active ingredients in medicines to treat depression and anxiety.
The drugs get there because wastewater plants that drain into the river use basic treatments designed to remove microbes and industrial contaminants, not pharmaceuticals — the same scenario in many rivers nationwide.
Even in Europe, where governments have gone much further in addressing trace levels of pharmaceuticals in the environment, there’s scant political will to invest broadly in advanced wastewater treatment.
“The cost isn’t acceptable right now,” Yves Levi, a pharmacist and professor of public health at Paris-South 11 University, said in an interview in French. “No one knows if the risk is considerable or not.”
Another advanced process at drinking water treatment plants, the use of carbon filters, also lets some pharmaceuticals through.
Some of the most detailed testing was done at the Passaic Valley Water Commission in Northern New Jersey, where a drinking water treatment facility downstream from numerous sewage treatment plants chemically removes sediments from water, then disinfects it with chlorine and runs it through the extra filtering step.
Although the treatment decreased pharmaceutical concentrations, some samples heading into drinking water pipes contained all or some of the following: the painkiller codeine, an anticonvulsant drug, the remnants of a drug to reduce chest pains and caffeine.
Lead researcher U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Paul Stackelberg said he expected tests at the same type of treatment plant anywhere in the nation would produce similar results.
“It’s very easy to use all of the products that we use in our daily lives and not think twice about it,” Stackelberg said.
Stackelberg also raised an X-factor: Rather than obliterating some pharmaceuticals, chlorination could chemically transform them into compounds that are even more toxic.
In one lab study, scientists found that acetaminophen, after undergoing chlorination, reacted to form tiny amounts of two known toxic compounds — 1,4-benzoquinone and N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine, the latter being associated with acetaminophen overdoses.
Source: The Associated Press. Daily News-Miner. March 18, 2008.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Shocking! Elmo Lies To Children About Vaccine Safety / Laughs At Autistic Victim

Alex Jones Reacts to Autistic Sesame Street Muppet

Monsanto Isn’t Feeding the World—It’s Killing Our Children

“How could we have ever believed that it is a good idea to grow our food with poisons?” – Dr. Jane Goodall

Two new reports published in recent weeks add to the already large and convincing body of evidence, accumulated over more than half a century, that agricultural pesticides and other toxic chemicals are poisoning us.

Both reports issue scathing indictments of U.S. and global regulatory systems that collude with chemical companies to hide the truth from the public, while they fill their coffers with ill-gotten profits.

According to the World Health Organization, whose report focused on a range of environmental risks, the cost of a polluted environment adds up to the deaths of 1.7 million children every year.

report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council, focused more narrowly on agricultural chemicals. The UN report states unequivocally that the storyline perpetuated by companies like Monsanto—the one that says we need pesticides to feed the world—is a myth. And a catastrophic one at that.

The fact that both these reports made headlines, in mainstream outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian, is on one hand, good news. On the other, it’s a sad and discouraging commentary on our inability to control corporate greed.

Ever since Rachel Carson, in her book “Silent Spring,” so eloquently outlined the insanity of poisoning our environment, rational thinkers have warned that at the least, we ought to follow the precautionary principle when it comes to allowing the widespread use of poisons to be unleashed into the environment.

And yet, here we are, in 2017, facing the prospect, in what is unfolding as the most corporate-friendly administration in history, of dismantling what little remains of the government’s ability to stop the rampant poisoning of our soils, food, water and air—the very resources upon which all life depends.

In his book, “Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA,” published in 2014, E. G. Vallianatos, who worked for the EPA for 25 years, wrote:

“It is simply not possible to understand why the EPA behaves the way it does without appreciating the enormous power of American’s industrial farmers and their allies in the chemical pesticide industries, which currently do about $40 billion per in year business. For decades, industry lobbyists have preached the gospel of unregulated capitalism, and Americans have bought it. Today, it seems the entire government is at the service of the private interests of America’s corporate class.”
That was three years ago. And yet, as public opinion shifts toward condemnation of the widespread use of toxic chemicals on our food, here in the U.S., government officials entrusted with public health and safety appear more determined than ever to uphold the “rights” of corporations to poison everything in sight—including our children.

‘UN experts denounce ‘myth’ pesticides are necessary to feed the world’

The headline in the Guardian’s story on the report delivered this week to the UN Human Rights Council said it all.

From the Guardian:

new report, being presented to the UN human rights council on Wednesday, is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions.”
The report says pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole”, including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. Its authors said: “It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”
The UN report was authored by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 21st, 2017.]

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Reps. Blackburn and Scalise talk health care bill changes

Trump’s EPA Sending $100 Million to Michigan for Flint Water Relief

Posted Friday, March 17th 2017 @ 12pm  by Staff

The Environmental Protection Agency has awarded $100 million to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to help them recover from the water crisis plaguing the region, reports MLive.

The funds are part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, which was approved in 2016. The money was officially awarded on Friday, and will help the city accelerate programs to replace service lines that have leached lead in to the city’s water supply.

"The people of Flint and all Americans deserve a more responsive federal government," said EPA head Scott Pruitt. "EPA will especially focus on helping Michigan improve Flint's water infrastructure as part of our larger goal of improving America's water infrastructure."

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said she was ‘excited and very grateful’ to receive the aid from the federal government.

"The city of Flint being awarded a grant of this magnitude in such a critical time of need will be a huge benefit," said Weaver. "As we prepare to start the next phase of the ... pipe replacement program, these funds will give us what we need to reach our goal of replacing 6,000 pipes this year and make other needed infrastructure improvements. We look forward to the continued support of the EPA and federal government."

The new funding is a supplement to the EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF), which supplies over $30 billion to states in need of infrastructure repair.

"Under President Trump's budget blueprint, SRF remains fully funded, and the proposal provides robust funding for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program to finance critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure," the EPA said in a statement.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Fake News with a Real Point: Nurses Supporting Fast Food Workers Wage Increase to $15/Hour, 93% of Nurses to Benefit

By Doktor Schnabel - May 8, 2015

 – The American Nurses Association (ANA) made a shocking announcement today: Over 93% of Nurses would benefit from a new proposal to increase the minimum wage of fast food employees to $15/hour, if they can convince legislators be included in this leading group.

fast food wage increase

“We believe that enough evidence now exists to push legislation forward for nurses to be included in this group,” vowed ANA president, Pam Cipriano.  “These days there are lots of similarities between fast food employees and nurses.  Both serve and prepare food.  Both work early in the morning and late at night.  Both cater to hungry patrons.  Both take orders, refill drinks, and clean tables.  Nurses should be compensated just as much as our fast food employees.”

“Nursing school is nothing compared to McDonald’s Burger School,” stated RN Robert Wakers, with emphasis on RN standing for Refreshments and Narcotics.  “Those guys work their butts off and the amount of studying to pass their Fry exam makes our tests look like amateur hour.  But, I’m really hoping we can get legislators to lump us into their group.”

“This would really help me pay off my student loans if I could start making at least $15 an hour,” voiced Kelly Witherpoon, a recent nursing graduate.  “I hope to break even in about 8 years.”

With hospital administrators now outnumbering nurses and doctors combined, many administrators are worried about potential salary increases to $15 an hour.  “We aren’t sure our current health care model is sustainable if we had to raise our compensation to nurses,” said Mike Drookers, a hospital administrator making over $300,000 a year.  “If this law passes, we may be forced to lay off more nurses, which may tip the scales on our currently ideal nurse-to-patient ratios.”

Hopefully legislatures will recognize that nurses possess skills similar to fast food employees and they should be treated with equal respect or at least include them in the minimum raise hike.

Many medical and surgical residents are also looking to jump on the bandwagon too, since they come no where close to $15 an hour!

GomerBlog is the Earth's leading medical news site with many calling us "The Onion" for Healthcare Professionals. Our job is to make you laugh so that you can take ...

Restaurant Hygiene Is Law - Please Read Frightening Article

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

California Lawmakers Want to Decriminalize Infecting Others with HIV


Natural Treatments for HIV/AIDS

RUSH: Repeal And Replace Is DOOMED Because They Want FAILURE Written All Over Trump's Face


Demand FULL Repeal of ObamaCare Now - Stop Ryancare

Are #Nevertrump Lawmakers Working To Sabotage Obamacare Repeal So Trump Can’t Take Credit?

As I listen to the back-and-forth between GOP leaders and congressional conservatives over whether the recently-proposed American Health Care Act – touted as Phase One of a three-phase Obamacare repeal-and-replace effort – I’m left wondering if what is being offered thus far is just a starting point or an outright effort to thwart President Donald J. Trump and deny him success in achieving a major campaign pledge.
Because truth be told, something stinks about all of this. Repeal-and-replace legislation shouldn’t be that complicated. It shouldn’t be this controversial. It should be a slam-dunk, given Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Getting repeal-and-replace signed by a Republican president who ran on repeal-and-replace is a no-brainer.
— No Republican voted for Obamacare: When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in March 2010, it passed both chambers of Congress without a single Republican vote. The GOP, outnumbered and despondent after the 2008 election losses, couldn’t manage much tactically, but the part was able to unify against a bill that dramatically expanded Medicaid, grew the government and gave Washington nearly universal control over all healthcare in America.
Yet many of those Republicans now are finicky about a repeal measure that winds down the Medicaid expansion and begins the process of returning healthcare to the private sector? Why? (RELATED: New CBO analysis of GOP healthcare bill predicts 14 million fewer Americans covered, but Obamacare didn’t cover everyone, either.)
— What happened to the last repeal? For six years an increasingly larger Republican congressional majority tried to repeal Obamacare, and finally, in January 2016, after 60 votes, the GOP was able to send President Obama a bill that would repeal his signature law and defund Planned Parenthood.
As expected, Obama vetoed it, and there weren’t enough Republicans in the House to override the veto, so the bill went nowhere.
What happened to that bill? And why isn’t that bill – which all Republicans voted for – being offered again? It’s already gone through committees; it’s even got the distinction of being the first Obamacare repeal measure to pass. So where is it, and why isn’t that legislation being offered again for a vote?
— Is the process really that difficultSome GOP leaders now insist the process is too complicated to fully “repeal Obamacare.” They say repealing and replacing Obamacare has to be done piecemeal, through the budget reconciliation process in the Senate, which only requires a bare majority to pass legislation instead of the 60 votes needed to end filibusters.
Fine. But again, why not send through the same piece of legislation GOP lawmakers sent to Obama in 2016? Why do we have to send something entirely different?
At the time, newly installed House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters that the measure sent to the former president was passed via budget reconciliation, which can only be used once per year.
— What is different between then and now? What’s the difference between the legislation sent to Obama versus what is being debated and offered (and opposed universally by conservative lawmakers and organizations) now?
That’s a great question – and one for the Speaker. During his January 2016 presser, he said: “The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed. Because all those rules and procedures Senate Democrats have used to block us from doing this? That’s all history. We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.” (RELATED: HYPOCRISY: Nancy Pelosi Now Says Americans Have A Right To Know What’s In Obamacare Repeal BEFORE It Passes.)
Well, it’s next year. And there’s a Republican president. What’s the hold-up?
In using budget reconciliation, the GOP majority can’t completely repeal Obamacare, per se, but they can repeal any part of the law that directly impacts federal spending (like the Medicaid expansion, which provides recipients with taxpayer-supported subsidies). But the bill being offered allows Obamacare exchanges (which are collapsing) to remain in effect and continue enrolling new people through 2020. Plus, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that insurance premiums would rise initially, then decline only moderately – and that’s one of Americans’ biggest concerns, the crazy cost of premiums (for lousy coverage) under the current law.
So what gives? Are #nevertrump Republican leaders trying to sabotage the president by denying him victory over a key campaign pledge – Obamcare repeal and replace?
Follow new developments of this story at
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Michael Savage: High Risk Pool Will Save American Healthcare

Michael Savage: High Risk Pool Will Save... by debunkerbuster

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The Whitehouse Is Asking For Obamacare Nightmare Stories - CNN Cuts Feed of Obamacare Victims Explaining Problems with Current Healthcare Laws

Doctor Who Linked Vaccines To Autism Found Murdered

Obamacare’s “Death Spiral” Spreading From Insurance Companies To Medicaid As Collapse Is Imminent

When former President Barack Obama and Democrats got together to scheme ways to prevent the Affordable Care Act from being repealed at some point in the future – because they knew it was never meant to be sustainable – they wrote certain provisions into the law to make it nearly impossible, politically, to repeal.
And now, six years later, when Republicans finally have a shot at repealing and replacing Obamacare, those provisions are working exactly as planned.
The most formidable of those defenses was Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid. Once envisioned as primarily a medical coverage plan for the poorest Americans, Obamacare dramatically expanded the program to cover far more Americans. As of today, 31 states and the District of Columbia voted to expand Medicaid to cover more of their citizens, and while Democrats and Obama claimed that was the “compassionate” thing to do, the expansion is costing hundreds of billions more dollars per year and, frankly, is unsustainable. (RELATED: Trump Said To Be Open To Negotiating “Obamacare 2.0” Bill Critics Say Will Ruin GOP If It Passes.)
That’s a big deal because now so many states have expanded the program it is making a number of Republicans queasy about repealing Obamacare – just like the expansion was supposed to do.
“We cannot turn our backs on the most vulnerable,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican who expanded Medicaid, told CNN last month. “We can give them the coverage, reform the program, save some money, and make sure that we live in a country where people are going to say, ‘At least somebody’s looking out for me.’”
“It’s not a giveaway program,” Kasich said. “It’s one that addresses the basic needs of the people in our country.”
First of all, it is a “giveaway program,” and Kasich – a former member of Congress – knows it. It’s welfare, and by its very nature, it’s a benefit that the government gives to people, after it is paid forby other people. Secondly, John, who’s looking out for the taxpayers who are now on the hook for the billions more in costs each year thanks to the expansion?
And on that note, has the Medicaid expansion been such a rousing success that it’s now become a permanent entitlement, politically untouchable? Not according to an analysis from The Daily Signal, a news service published by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Experts who spoke to the news site said the expansion has played a heavy new financial burden on states (and federal taxpayers) that were lured into doing so by the promise of complete funding of any expansion for the first few years. But after those years passed, states that expanded Medicaid would have to begin kicking in more and more of the funding on their own, which is primarily why the 19 states that don’t have expansion decided against it.
“We see this as a moral issue, because what states have done is create this new category within the Medicaid program, which is a program that was originally intended to serve [the] aged, the blind, the disabled, low-income families, pregnant women — [those] we think about as the truly needy and truly vulnerable,” Nic Horton, a senior research fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, told The Daily Signal. “Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion changed that in states that accepted it.”
In a November report, Horton’s organization found that Medicaid expansion enrollment was blowing through projections, meaning more people than expected are signing up – and many of them are not healthy.
Horton said according to the report, about twice as many able-bodied adults have signed up than anticipated, doubling the cost of the expansion overall.
What’s worse, in many states funds and resources that were earmarked previously for the disabled and needy are now being diverted to pay for the Medicaid expansion…of largely able-bodied adults.
“Every penny that’s spent on this new group of able-bodied adults, that’s a penny that can’t go to the traditional Medicaid program,” Horton noted. (RELATED: Obamacare REPEAL? It’s more like health care system COLLAPSE!)
These costs are not going to go down, by the way; Kasich is dreaming when he says this program can be “reformed.” Also, the only way for costs to go down is to cut payments to hospitals and healthcare providers, which Medicaid already does, to the fiscal detriment of providers (many of whom are no longer accepting Medicaid patients because the payment schemes are so low).
No, the only true “reform” option here is to kill the Obamacare beast outright and return to the states the authority and flexibility to decide what kind of options they want to offer their own citizens. Obamacare proved once and for all that top-down mandated “care” and “coverage” from Washington, D.C., is an expensive disaster that has failed in every way to live up to its promises.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.