Sessions: needs to catch up on his reading. Sessions: needs to catch up on his reading.

Madmen and morons, heads in their rectums

Sessions' tough-on-drugs formula was a political winner in the 1970s and 1980s

On March 11 I wrote an op-ed piece on the utter futility and counterproductiveness of the war on drugs in both the United States and Mexico, and followed it up with a radio interview. (For important context, I recommend reading that piece before continuing with this one.)

ADVERTISEMENT

Naturally, I was taken to task by supporters of President Donald Trump, not because they support the feckless mendacity that the war on drugs represents, but rather because they thought I was overreacting to the noises from the Justice Department about revivifying an aging drug war that no sane person wants to fight.

In sum, in my political zeal I was not letting the new administration go through its inevitable growing pains, and was prematurely judging potentially bad policy before it was actually put into practice.

After all, Trump never talked about drug policy in any meaningful way during his campaign. Surely his administration would listen to the best evidence within the scientific community on drug policy issues.

Fair enough. But we’re now well into the first year of dystopia. Was I wrong?

Lest there be any doubt,  Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (a man who said he liked the KKK until he discovered they used marijuana) issued a two-page memorandum on Friday, outlining just what his department intends to do about the nonexistent crime wave and marauding drug gangs, which of course includes bringing back mandatory minimum sentencing for certain classes of drugs (viz. those used mostly by blacks and minorities), among many other draconian measures, using phrases straight from the vade mecum of the Nixon administration, such as “public safety” and “respect for our legal system.”

Apparently our prisons are not full enough, and too few lives have been ruined in the pursuit of political capital.

ADVERTISEMENT

One thing can be said about the Trump administration that everyone can agree on (as amply demonstrated by Trump’s impetuous and disastrous firing of FBI director James Comey): subtlety and nuance are not in the playbook.

Sessions apparently stopped reading three decades ago, and dog whistle racism aside, thinks that this tough-on-drugs formula is a political winner. Of course it was, in the 1970s and 1980s.

But he should catch up on his reading list by cribbing some more recent polling data. Two-thirds of Americans disfavor incarceration of heroin and cocaine users, and 63% of Republican millennials favor marijuana legalization.

Of course it isn’t impossible that white septuagenarians – one of whom shows distinct signs of pre-senile dementia – could lead this multicultural pluralistic civilization into its deserved place in the sun instead of into a sunless sea, but that seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, south of the border, another man with an even lower approval rating than Donald Trump (I guess that’s possible), and the ostensible head of perhaps the most corrupt political party in modern history, who is also not especially known for his cognitive abilities, Enrique Peña Ñieto, doesn’t seem to know what to do about the once again increasing drug war violence in Mexico.

He was rightfully critical of his predecessor’s mother-of-all-bad-ideas idea of putting the screws to the cartels in 2006, only to find himself in the trap of Sisyphus, doing the same thing over and over again with no results.

As the Mexican military raids poppy fields in the mountains southern Mexico, the bodies continue to pile up (23,000 drug war-related deaths in 2016), prompting the International Institute of Strategic Studies to conclude that Mexico is only behind Syria as the world’s deadliest conflict zone.

Peña Ñieto ostensibly feels he has to do something about the endemic insecurity in parts of the country, so he does what he knows: military intervention and the arrests of cartel leaders, despite the fact that this has never worked.

He has failed to realize – or realizes but for political reasons cannot admit – that sometimes doing nothing is doing something. The only one in Mexico talking sense about what to do about the cartels is former president Vicente Fox.

I’ll leave readers with two questions, one answered, one not so much. First, how do we put an end to this madness? That one is easy, and it’s right before our very eyes in the Global Commission on Drug Policy Report of 2014.

Second, when will we put an end to this madness? When public leaders pull their heads from their rectums and lead by selling to their respective incredulous body politic the efficacy of a paradigm-shifting policy reversal.

Likely? Hardly. So I remain left sadly wondering.

Glen Olives Thompson is a professor of North American Law at La Salle University in Chihuahua, a specialist in law and public policy and a frequent contributor to Mexico News Daily. Some of his other non-academic work can be viewed at glenolives.com

Stories from our archives that you might enjoy

  • alance

    The Clintons and Obama lacked the political courage to remove or advocate the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Trump is gutting the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the agency that sets federal drug policy that lobbies against drug decriminalization and legalization.

  • rojawi

    Well-said and right on target. A bipartisan consensus about reforming drug laws and sentences has emerged over the last few years, but Jefferson Beauregard III doesn’t grasp it. He’s living far, far in the past. Going back to draconian practices will end up hurting people of color the most. I’m sure that’s exactly his intention.

    • David Nichols

      Perhaps if so many “people of color” didn’t choose to sell, and or consume illegal drugs, they would not be disproportionately represented in prisons…
      I have no objection to legalization, but that is no panacea for the problems that drug use causes…
      Legal heroin, et al, will still cost money that addicts will continue to commit crimes to obtain…
      By definition addicts are not reliably employed…

      • Karl Dubhe

        Bigot, blacks and whites use drugs. In fact, if you go on a per-capita basis, whites are more likely to use drugs.

        Black people get thrown in prison for it; whites go to a ‘treatment’ centre.

        • David Nichols

          No bigotry involved…If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…
          My statement stands as a simple truth: Don’t want to go to prison? Don’t engage in criminal behavior…no matter your race.
          If any particular race is more closely monitored and prosecuted for criminality, that’s all the more reason for them to avoid illegal pursuits…

        • TioDon

          Liar. And….fake facts.

          • Karl Dubhe

            Says the guy who posts on Brietbart…

            Thanks for the laugh.

        • csb4546

          Karl, you’re the racist here –
          “whites” don’t go to jail for drugs in America?
          Only a liberal reverse-racist could believe such nonsense.

          • Karl Dubhe

            You can look up the studies for yourself. But, you wont. Because you believe what you read on your racist rightwing websites.

        • miabeach

          Except you’re wrong. That’s a false dialogue perpetrated by embarrassed a holes like you.

          • Karl Dubhe

            No. I’m not wrong.

            You’re just not willing to accept that you don’t get to claim that you’re intrinsically superior to anyone. You’re no different to those who you hate. And you hate.

          • miabeach

            Yes, you are wrong again. I know the truth hurts but that’s too bad.

          • Karl Dubhe

            Says a Republican. I know how much you guys respect science.

            You guys don’t do truth, e.g. Donald Trump.

      • cooncats

        Umm, not a whole lot of difference.

        In 2013, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use was 3.1 percent
        among Asians, 8.8 percent among Hispanics, 9.5 percent among whites, 10.5 percent among
        blacks, 12.3 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, 14.0 percent among Native
        Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 17.4 percent among persons reporting two or more
        races.

        • There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of current illicit drug use
        between 2012 and 2013 for any of the racial/ethnic groups. Between 2002 and 2013, the rate
        of current illicit drug use increased from 8.5 to 9.5 percent for whites. Among blacks, the rate
        increased from 8.7 percent in 2003 and 2004 to 10.5 percent in 2013 (Figure 2.12

        https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf

        • David Nichols

          See my reply to Karl Dubhe, no point in repeating myself…

        • Mike S

          coon, these types of statistics are really almost meaningless. Whites use legal prescription drugs like Oxycontin and other pain killers and stimulants at much higher rates than those further down the economic ladder. I also question the truthfulness of respondents. And putting pot and meth together as “illegal drugs” doesn’t tell us much. This survey is all qualitative and not quantitative. And no mention of one of the most dangerous drugs of all- alcohol. Real drug and alcohol addictions are heath problems and should be treated as such.

          • cooncats

            You’re preaching to the choir. Drug use among Americans, illegal or prescription, is an epidemic and it is silly to worry about skin color. Worry about a society that has definitely lost its way.

      • miabeach

        The real problem with a socially liberal society is all the death and destruction they leave for sensible sober people to clean up. When they come down with AIDS or so addicted they can no longer function the rest of us must pay. I take care of myself, I live a clean healthy lifestyle and I deeply resent wasting tax dollars caring for degenerates and junkies. I hope the new healthcare plan disallows subsided care to reckless people. If you want to know why we have a shrinking population just add up all the premature deaths from abortion, drug related death including murder, overdose and sickness and all the death from lifestyle diseases.

        • Mike S

          AIDS is a dwindling disease expected to be gone within 10 years. Addiction is a health problem and can and should be treated that way; incarceration is VERY expensive and solves nothing…actually makes those problems worse. The cost of caring and rehabilitating so called “degenerates and junkies” is is minor compared to wasteful and often corrupt military spending. The cost of climate change will dwarf helping people get over their addictions and providing for education and job training. World population is almost 8 billion and 80% life in poverty…why do we need ever expanding population when we can’t take care of what we have? So you would deny people who smoke, drink, eat sweets & white flour, or become couch potatoes health care? Who exactly is a “degenerate” by your definition…anybody that doesn’t live in your sterile pontificating right-wing echo chamber? By the grace of god you go…you ungracious, uncaring, fascist. You are the problem, not the solution

        • Mike S

          “I live a clean healthy lifestyle and I deeply resent wasting tax dollars caring for degenerates and junkies.”

          Heart disease is one of the most expensive problems our society faces. So I hope you are not indulging in factory pork or GMO corn-fed beef. I hope you are not consuming fructose. I hope you are not eating factory fish. I don’t want you to be wasting Medicare dollars on a bad life style. I hope you are at the gym everyday.

  • Donald Godier

    Like everything penned by the uninformed ultra libtard GOT, this is purr liberal drivel, you have lived your life in theory of what would make a perfect world without actually living in the real world. President Trumps administration is returning the U.S. to respecting the rule of law! There is one thing I agree with you on, too many of the drug pushing morons are being sent to jail. My solution to prison overpopulation is simple, when confronting the drug slinging morons I would say summary execution would be the appropriate action. No trial, no court costs and no costs for incarceration. A win win for everyone, and coincidentally less drug demand when the dealers know they won’t be coddled!

    • Karl Dubhe

      You are nearly as crazy as Trump is.

      • RickDrake

        This is what crawled out of the swamp that the gropenfuhrer created.

        • Donald Godier

          LIB – Literally Insane Bastards

          • daniel pugh

            Mature

      • Donald Godier

        That’s a compliment in my eyes since all you libs are mentally ill and electroshock therapy would be the kind treatment for you all, my alternative treatment for you all would be summary execution, every lib is a stain on freedom!

        • Karl Dubhe

          I’m sure it is a complement for you. After all, conservatives have a track record of experiencing mental deterioration.

          Reagan, Thatcher and now Trump. All suffered from dementia.

          • Donald Godier

            Like all liberal shitheads you would naturally go there since when you all can’t be constructive you revert to the lowest personal attacks. 1st Trump has more honor and integrity than any liberal asshole on the face of the planet. There isn’t 1 liberal in the world that in my opinion deserves to even live, period, your all a waste of air!

          • Karl Dubhe

            My god. You’re totally insane.

            Enjoy the civil war that’s in your nation’s future. You’ve earned it.

    • daniel pugh

      Mouth breathing knuckle dragger.

  • RickDrake

    Check out how many shares of stock Sessions has in private prisons, get back to me.

    • TioDon

      Lame. Predictable, yes, but also lame.

    • David Nichols

      Why don’t you tell us genius, instead of making an unsupported inference..?
      Oh, I forgot, you’re a LibRetard and that’s how you roll…

      • RickDrake

        You’re right, I’m a genius, and you’re not! How long did it take you to come up with LibRetard ? You must be tired from all the thinking, if one could call it that. But thanks for acknowledging that I roll.
        I’ll acknowledge that you crawl out from underneath rocks.

        • David Nichols

          Diversionary Techniques 101, but no answer to my question…
          Inquiring Minds Want To Know Rick Drake— how many shares, which companies…?
          BTW your acknowledgment means nothing, I consider the source of all comments, and yours fails to move the needle on my give a shit meter…LSM
          .

  • frankania

    If a “crime” has no unwilling victim, it is NOT a crime. If people could buy drugs at a store, like they can buy liquor, then the seller would be legally liable for the purity, and the selling to adults only (like alcohol).
    There would be no cartels needed, and no violent gangs gunning each other. Big Brother, leave us alone!

  • flylowguy

    Sessions is not the man for the job. Then again, neither are most of the people Trump has placed. There are many ways for a President and his men to go wrong. Before this is over we might see most of them.

    • BETOXELA2015

      You can only wish you punk Commie tonto. The Muslim Commie let the MS-13 terrorists into the U.S. illegally and now Trump through Sessions is cleaning up all of his mierda. The Muslim Commie’s eight years, as the worst U.S. president in our history, set the country back years financially, socially, economically, and politically. Trump in less than 100 days has started to rectify much of what was destroyed by the Black Commie while in the WH. This is what eats at all you Commie leftist hearts, that the U.S. will never get to become like Cuba as long as we have someone like Trump around. Sadly, the only thing Trump will not be able to do is to bring back all those that have died in the Middle East and around the world because of Obama’s and Hilliary’s stupid, insane, and corrupt policies.

  • K. Chris C.

    Article 3, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”

    An American citizen, not US subject.

  • alance

    The leader of a violent gang with roots in Central America has been charged with authorizing the killings of two Boston teenagers and charges against the 13 suspected gang members, unsealed in federal court include seven murders, attempted murders, racketeering, assaults, obstruction of justice, arson, conspiracy to distribute marijuana and related firearms and conspiracy charges.

    Officials said the suspects are members of a segment of the MS-13 gang that came to Long Island from El Salvador. Ten of the 13 defendants in this case are in the country illegally, including all of the defendants charged with the murders. This gang operates from coast to coast and are domestic terrorists. Sessions needs to crush this gang first.

    • Mike S

      A large operation against MS-13 was initiated in 2014. Part of that operation was carried out yesterday and dozens of the worst were picked up. Most will be sent to prison and then deported. It is a complicated sequence of events, but MS-13 was a byproduct of Reagan’s dirty bloody little covert war in Central America in the 80s.

  • TioDon

    Yeah, America should take advice from the drug capital of the world.

    • RickDrake

      Where’s the demand?…follow the $. Not very difficult.

      • David Nichols

        Follow the dollars in Mexico’s demand for guns…
        Follow the dollars in Mexico’s demand for pushing their economically desperate paisanos into the USA.

  • First year of dystopia? How is that? Stock market way up. Illegal immigration down. Conservative on Supreme Court. Israel a friend again. Energy options expanding. Military respected. Heads of leftwing media exploding. Obamacare about to be gutted. Islamic terrorists called Islamic terrorists. It just keeps getting better and better. If this is dystopia, let’s have more of it.

    • Mike S

      1. Stock market up 6% has nothing to do with Trump. It went up 300% from 2009 to 2016 under Obama.The Trump economy will kick in 4th quarter 2017 and a likely recession by beginning of 2019. Deficits during “good times” will skyrocket under Trump just like Bush as wealthy get massive tax breaks.
      2. The new SC justice took Merrick Garland’s “stolen seat” and was rubber stamped by the chinless hick from Kentucky running the senate. A pro-corporate justice…that’s an accomplishment?
      3. Netanyahu needs to be taken down a few pegs.
      4. Energy options are contracting not expanding. You like favoring coal over solar and wind? Trump doesn’t understand science and thinks climate change is a Chinese plot.
      5. Military is no more respected under Trump than Obama. Increasing a military budget that is bigger than the next 20 countries combined is corrupt and wasteful.
      6. You like having 24 million Americans lose their health insurance and Big Insurance peddling deficient policies with huge deductibles and co-pays? You like gutting Medicaid?
      7. There were no foreign terrorist attacks on US soil for last 8 years. Trump is continuing exactly Obama’s policy against ISIS. He will take an undeserved victory lap when Mosul and Raqqa fall this year.

      Turn off Fox and Limbaugh and get out of your right-wing echo chamber. This is the most inept and corrupt Administration ever- breaking the Emolument Clause of the Constitution daily. I predict Trump will not last 4 years.

      • Oh, and I forgot another win: Nikki Haley giving the finger to the anti-American cabal in the United Nations. It just keeps getting better and better! Yahoo!

      • csb4546

        “Trump will take an undeserved victory lap when Mosul and Raqqa fall this year.”

        Trump will also take the undeserved blame after terrorists who entered the US under Obama’s open borers and catch and release programs attack Americans from inside US soil.
        I don’t imagine you’ll be pointing the finger at Obama when that happens, will you?

        • Mike S

          Your not thinking straight. If a vetted Syrian refugee let in by Obama goes off as a Muslim terrorist, you can be very sure Obama (not Trump) will be blamed. Has any vetted Muslim refugee in the last 10 years ever committed a terrorist attack? I doubt if that will happen. I’d be a lot more worried about the out-of-control gun homicide rate of 13,000 killings and 50,000 maimings a year if I were you. A half million Muslim Iranians fled to the US after our puppet the Shah fell in 1979. Not one ever perpetrated a terrorist attack.

    • Glen Olives

      Well, you’re certainly a glass half full kind of guy. Here’s another view: the Washington swamp filled, not drained, with Wall Street billionaires and lobbyists, an atttempt to boot 24 million Americans of the health care roles while providing a tax windfall for the wealthiest, 41.2 million working Americans on public assitance, famers unable to find field workers, tourism significantly down, environmental regulations rolled back or ignored while the world continues to heat up, serial scandals in an administration run by a man with a severe personality disorder and pre-senile dementia, and the continued flow of manufacturing jobs overseas. Let’s have more of that?

      • Glen, Glen, Glen, you really gotta widen your news sources further afield than the New York Times and Huffpost.

        • Glen Olives

          I’m a big fan of Fox and Brietbart too. But back to the point, have a stated something you think is innacurate?

          • I avoid detailed back-and-forths on internet comments. It’s a waste of time. Nobody gets convinced of anything. For every point you make, you can cite “proof” of it, and I can do the same in the other direction.

            Glad to see that you read Breitbart. It will give you a bit of balance, I hope.

          • Commander Barkfeather

            What do you know? I agree. Not everything in the world is about Donald Trump. This essay is about drug policy. BTW–if you’re getting your information from Breitbart, you might also try Mad Magazine.

      • cooncats

        Glen, once again your rhetoric and false numbers gives you and your bias away. There never was 24 million and of the smaller number this actually benefited, you need to subtract the people whose employers ditched their health care plans because of Obamacare and more importantly, the fact that much of the enrollment was an expansion of a welfare medical “insurance” Medicaid.

        For example, in 2014, the number of insured increased 8.5 million but 6.1 million of those were on Medicaid. At the same time, 3.8 million fewer people got insurance through employer plans.

        The thing was designed to fail. It assumed large numbers of young and healthy uninsured people would sign up and cover the costs of the older and less healthy. But they didn’t because they looked at the lousy coverage, big deductibles and copays, and decided to go uninsured. And of course a big part of this group also stayed on their parents’ plans until age 26, something the geniuses that ran the numbers forgot to take into account.

        I certainly wish the Republicans had done absolutely nothing about this thing so it could crash on its own and the responsibility for it clearly identified with the one and only party that passed it. Because the premiums are soaring, the insurers are exiting and the thing is collapsing exactly as predicted by folks who understand basic human nature and math. Which you do not.

        Obamacare was never meant to succeed, it was designed to crash the existing system and it has pretty much done that. Your Democrats figured they’d still be running things and then they could “solve” the failure of Obamacare with socialized medicine. Oops, they ran a complete loser of a candidate who couldn’t beat a talk show host but sure knew how to run “pay for play” Mexican style. I’m really surprised the PRI hasn’t invited Hillary to join, she is definitely a bird of a feather.

        Sorry to distract from the topic here but when you posted that stupid 24 million rant it was clear you needed some educating.

        The problem with American health care starts with the out of control costs of it. No matter how good your insurance plans are, and for the most part they suck, no system can stand medical inflation running 2-3 times general inflation. Now toss the demographic bomb of retiring baby boomers in there and the entire system is good and truly screwed.

        • Glen Olives

          Let’s say its not 24 million. 18 million? 10 million? 5 million? You have a certain knack for missing the point in the extreme. The ACA was meant to fail? Really? I wonder if the parents of children with bone cancer who got life saving treatment for their kids with this pre-existing condition think that. I also wonder: Who is it that really needs educating?

          • cooncats

            Like most leftists, you rant instead of enlighten. Fact remains the thing never worked from the get go and your falsifying the enrollment numbers and ignoring where they came from simply illustrates your intellectual dishonesty. Citing a few people who were helped while ignoring the millions who lost their private insurance and their doctors, and saw their premiums soar because of this law is just another example of your dishonesty.

            Actually, I think you are beyond educating.

          • Glen Olives

            I’ll try to make this as simple as possible for you with a very simple question. Do more people have health insurance after the passage of the ACA or do fewer people have health insurance?

          • cooncats

            A simplistic question with a simplistic answer.

            More people have something called insurance only because Medicaid was expanded. Was this a sustainable expansion? No because the law shifts more and more expense to state budgets as time goes on. States, who for the most part cannot run the printing press like D.C does are beginning to trim Medicaid rolls simply because they can’t pay the bills.

            http://www.nachc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/statepolicyreport5.pdf

            What about the quality of that insurance? Obama, along with his lies about keeping doctors and insurers promised that families would save 2400 per year over current (at that time) costs. Actually, they’ve seen huge increases in premiums, this is well reported.

            http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/

            You also hide from the issue of what this law has done for deductibles and copays. Just how, in a country where two thirds of the people can’t handle a $500 emergency because they don’t even have that much saved, are these to be paid? Of course they can’t for the most part.

            What happens when they are confronted with providers who won’t accept Obamacare or require up front payment of copays/deductibles, an increasing percentage?

            Forgot about that one too, eh? Whoops, That’s what happens when you substitute ranting for research.

            I wish you could sit down to breakfast with a retired insurer/drug company lobbyist and somewhat liberal friend of mine. Hearing him explain who really designed Obamacare and what it was intended to do, namely collapse the private system and usher in single payer I think would be quite a revelation for you. Hint: The insurers and the drug companies designed it.

          • Glen Olives

            Interesting that you conflate “simple” with “simplistic.” Obama himself said that the ACA was not perfect and needed to be improved. But when is the perfect the enemy of the good? You may also may have noted the thousands of Trump supporters railing against the attempted repeal of the ACA at recent town hall meetings. These people apparently have the idiotic audacity to think that healthcare should be a right on not a priviledge. How dare they. You also claim that the ACA was meant to fail. That’s an interesting conspiracy theory, and one that I actually hope is true. After all, the British, Canadians, and all other people living in devoloped countries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their univeral health care coverage. Take a peek at the polling data.

          • cooncats

            Yes, simplistic because as I pointed out you aren’t taking into account the quality of the insurance or how many recipients have been enrolled/shifted into a welfare program.

            Perhaps you should read up on what Mr. Gruber admitted.

            I see you have research Canadian health care as good as you have Obamacare. Why it is so good that we have scores of Canadians down here in Mexico getting health care. LOL

            We’re not discussing Trump. Once again you run away from your factual errors by changing the topic. I don’t give a shit what Trump supporters say or do. He isn’t going to be able to make this work anymore than Obama did.

            http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/double-digit-premium-hikes-confirmed-for-obamacare-next-year/

            Give it up. You don’t have a clue about this topic and you clearly don’t do your homework. If you did you’d know that there isn’t a large country in the world that has solved this health care problem. The French probably come closer than most.

          • Glen Olives

            If by “welfare” you mean “Medicare,” then yes, that has been dramatically expanded, and I do take that into account, and I do consider that a good thing. I don’t recall claiming that any country has a perfect health care system, but I do find in telling — almost laughably so — that you apparently like the French system of universal health care. It would seem then that in principle you are agreeing with me, but arguing to be argumentative and not enlightened: all fire and no light.

          • cooncats

            No genius, MediCAID. Don’t confuse the two. MediCARE is the rapidly going bankrupt health care for old geezers like me. With any luck I’ll drop dead before the money runs out.

            MediCAID is a welfare medical program. It was expanded initially under Obamacare but as I documented, because in the later years the cost was shifted to the states, this aspect of Obamacare is also unraveling.

            No you didn’t take either the kind or quality of health care insurance into account or you wouldn’t be quoting fictitious health care coverage numbers and then ranting about them.

            This is like comparing the crap they sell at WalMart with what is sold at Tiffany’s.

            Did I say I liked French healthcare? Are you also reading challenged along with your apparent lack of research skills? Saying something may be the best of a bunch of bad solutions is not liking something. Sheesh!

            Obamacare was written by the insurers and designed to enrich them. It was no accident that post Obamacare their stocks ran way up. The markets correctly understood this was a feedbag for them. You however can’t seem to figure this out either.

            And of course it did absolutely NOTHING to address the cost problem. Which is the root of the problem and has been all along. The entire health insurance system, public or private, drives health care inflation because it insulates the consumer from price considerations.

          • Glen Olives

            You seem slightly confused. Perhaps as an old guy you’re experiencing the first signs of pre-senile dementia like your Dear Leader. At any rate, I said Medicare and I meant Medicare, but Medicaid works just as well, even better, so thanks for adding that.

            Yes, you did endorse the French system. (Is your mouse not working? All you need to do is scroll up, but let me help you: “The French probably come closer than most.”)

            You can try as you might, but even the cloudiest of minds can’t have their cake and eat it too. You hate the ACA yet endorse single payer, when it is obviously a half step between. What are you advocating — a repeal and going back to the old system? Single payer? It seems that you don’t quite know, or can’t decide.

            Finally, I must point out your talent for stating the obvious: of course health insurers had their hands in formulating the ACA. Had they not, it never would have passed. So what? Are more people insured now or fewer people insured? Are pre-existing conditions covered now or are they not? Young, healthy people are paying more than old, sick people. One day they will be old and sick and paying less. Cherry pick the bad provisions of Obamacare at your pleasure, but keep in mind that nobody claims it is perfect and can’t be improved.

            So in sum, do you actually have a policy position on healthcare or are you simply a disgruntled ideologue? It’s always easier to criticize than to take a position on what ought to be.

          • cooncats

            Confused is not understanding the difference between quantity and quality. Confused is trying to pretend these mega rate increases 10K deductibles and 50 percent copays don’t matter. Confused or math challenged? You are definitely former AND the latter.
            forme
            Young healthy people aren’t paying because they aren’t signing up, genius.

            http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160514/MAGAZINE/305149980

            I notice you just blather on about Trump in your lame op eds and posts and never manage to post much in the way of facts or references that support your rants,I’ er positions. That speaks volumes about just how non-rigorous and self checking your work is.

            No, genius, they didn’t have a “hand” in it, they and the drug companies basically wrote it. That comes straight from the horse’s mouth of one of your fellow liberals who was actually there helping them write it.

            He says, BTW, they all knew it wasn’t going to work from the get go.

            And it didn’t.

            I’d rather have no position than a poorly thought out, unsupportable one based on a lot of emotional vomiting. That pretty much describes your writing here.

            And please seek treatment for your Trump Derangement syndrome. You’re seeing the man under every rock these days. That is dangerously delusional.

          • Glen Olives

            And entertaining rant, to be sure. I even enjoyed the ad hominems. Not surprisingly, though, you didn’t touch the core of the argument and left my objections to your odd, circular reasoning unaddressed (I’m suspecting no college class in formal logic?). I am also left wondering why the ACA remains so popular (majority approval in the most recent Gallup poll) if it’s such an unmitigated disaster. So again, I’d love to hear about your brilliant plan, “genuis.” (Perhaps you could get work as a policy intern for Paul Ryan.)

            You’re right about one thing — I do have Trump Derangement Syndrome, so thanks for confirming the diagnosis. I also have Mussolini Derangement Syndrome, Erdogan Derangement Syndrome, and Duterte Derangement Syndrome, in addition to being allergic to autocrats, kleptocrats, plutocrats, and kakistrocrats in general. That said, the above piece is about Sessions and not Trump, or did you not notice?

          • cooncats

            Yes, it is curious that the topic is the drug war but when called on your fake numbers and very convenient lack of facts about health care, you went quite nuts.

            Like I said, be very careful about who you label as morons. Stay away from mirrors when you do that. Sessions may be stuck in the past but a moron he is not.

            The core of your argument was based on false numbers and worse reasoning. I took care of that quite nicely and backed it up with credible references even from your leftist buddies. You on the other hand haven’t backed up anything.

            You are an intellectual and academic lightweight and you should stop coming here and embarrassing your self with these badly written op ed rants. Even when you are right about something like the drug “war” (the topic here, remember) you make such bad work of it that it is painful to watch.

            BTW, that’s “an entertaining rant.” Maybe you should get a proof reader to help you out with your English and composition.

            As for solutions, all you seem to have to offer are more of the same failed ideas. You do know that a sure sign of insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?

            LOL

          • Glen Olives

            Like I said, all heat and no light. What facts did I get wrong? Are the Gallup numbers bad? Did Sessions not issue the memorandum? Is Trump secretly smart in private and only unintelligible in public? What exactly? I’ve given you every opportunity to develop a coherent, logically consistent argument on the substantive issues, but you can’t seem to do it, as my legitimate questions remain unanswered. I don’t mind wandering diatribes of personal insults, but it doesn’t get us anywhere.

            Nevertheless, you got ever so slightly close to an answer about what you would do in intimating that I should look at healthcare “before the government and insurance industry screwed it up.” When was that exactly? Was it before Medicare/Medicaid? Was it before the New Deal? Perhaps the first Gilded Age? Was it in Norman Rockwell’s 1950s?

            But let’s do get back on topic as you suggest (you apparently didn’t notice that you started this thread on healthcare — they say short term memory is the first thing to go).

            Perhaps because you “watch” (?) articles instead of reading them, you missed that I called EPN a moron, not Sessions.

    • Commander Barkfeather

      Conservative Republicans have been out of the White House for so long they have become rather thin-skinned when one of their own is attacked. No one has accused Donald Trump of being born in Kenya or running drugs out of Mina, Arkansas. Donald Trump has nothing to fear from the media, be it liberal or no. His own excess will lead to his demise. No administration in history could possibly keep up with the daily pace of controversy, outright scandal, and questionable decisions exhibited by this administration. It is doubtful he will finish his term.

      • Scandals? The only “scandals” are those dreamed up by the hysterics on the left who just cannot get their minds wrapped around the fact that they … lost … the … election.

        You’ll get another opportunity in four years. Hang in there.

        • Mike S

          Just the opposite of Obama:

          “Why does Donald Trump behave in the dangerous and seemingly self-destructive ways he does?

          Three decades ago, I spent nearly a year hanging around Trump to write his first book, “The Art of the Deal,” and got to know him very well. I spent hundreds of hours listening to him, watching him in action and interviewing him about his life. For me, none of what he has said or done over the past four months as president comes as a surprise. The way he has behaved over the past week — firing FBI Director James B. Comey, undercutting his own aides as they tried to explain the decision and then disclosing sensitive information to Russian officials — is also entirely predictable.

          Early on, I recognized that Trump’s sense of self-worth is forever at risk. When he feels aggrieved, he reacts impulsively and defensively, constructing a self-justifying story that doesn’t depend on facts and always directs the blame to others.

          The Trump I first met in 1985 had lived nearly all his life in survival mode. By his own description, his father, Fred, was relentlessly demanding, difficult and driven. Here’s how I phrased it in “The Art of the Deal”: “My father is a wonderful man, but he is also very much a business guy and strong and tough as hell.” As Trump saw it, his older brother, Fred Jr., who became an alcoholic and died at age 42, was overwhelmed by his father. Or as I euphemized it in the book: “There were confrontations between them. In most cases, Freddy came out on the short end.”

          Trump’s worldview was profoundly and self-protectively shaped by his father. “I was drawn to business very early, and I was never intimidated by my father, the way most people were,” is the way I wrote it in the book. “I stood up to my father and he respected that. We had a relationship that was almost businesslike.”

          To survive, I concluded from our conversations, Trump felt compelled to go to war with the world. It was a binary, zero-sum choice for him: You either dominated or you submitted. You either created and exploited fear or you succumbed to it — as he thought his older brother had. This narrow, defensive worldview took hold at a very early age, and it never evolved. “When I look at myself today and I look at myself in the first grade,” he told a recent biographer, “I’m basically the same.” His development essentially ended in early childhood.

          Instead, Trump grew up fighting for his life and taking no prisoners. In countless conversations, he made it clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration. Many of the deals in “The Art of the Deal” were massive failures — among them the casinos he owned and the launch of a league to rival the National Football League — but Trump had me describe each of them as huge successes.

          [President Trump wants to put on a show. Governing matters less.]

          With evident pride, Trump explained to me that he was “an assertive, aggressive” kid from an early age and that he had once punched a music teacher in the eye and nearly been expelled from elementary school for his behavior.

          Like so much about Trump, who knows whether that story is true? What’s clear is that he has spent his life seeking to dominate others, whatever that requires, and whatever collateral damage it creates along the way. In “The Art of the Deal,” he speaks with streetfighting relish about competing in the world of New York real estate: “They are some of toughest, and most vicious people in the world. I happen to love to go up against them, and I love to beat them.” I never sensed from Trump any guilt or contrition about anything he’d done, and he certainly never shared any misgivings publicly. From his perspective, he operated in a jungle full of predators who were forever out to get him, and he did what he must to survive.

          Trump was equally clear with me that he didn’t value — nor even necessarily recognize — the qualities that tend to emerge as people grow more secure, such as empathy, generosity, reflectiveness, the capacity to delay gratification or, above all, a conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong. Trump simply didn’t traffic in emotions or interest in others. The life he lived was all transactional, all the time. Having never expanded his emotional, intellectual or moral universe, he has his story down, and he’s sticking to it.

          A key part of that story is that facts are whatever Trump deems them to be on any given day. When he is challenged, he instinctively doubles down — even when what he has just said is demonstrably false. I saw that countless times, whether it was as trivial as exaggerating the number of floors at Trump Tower or as consequential as telling me that his casinos were performing well when they were actually going bankrupt. In the same way, Trump sees no contradiction at all in changing his story about why he fired Comey and then undermining the explanatory statements of his aides, or in any other lie he tells. His aim is never accuracy; it’s domination.

          Trump derives his sense of significance from conquests and accomplishments. “Can you believe it, Tony?” he would often begin late-night conversations with me, and then go on to describe some new example of his brilliance. But the reassurance he got from even his biggest achievements was always ephemeral and unreliable — and that appears to include being elected president. On the face of it, Trump has more opportunities now to feel significant and accomplished than almost any human being on the planet. But that’s like saying that a heroin addict has his problem licked once he has free and continuous access to the drug. Trump also now has a far bigger and more public stage on which to fail and to feel unworthy.

          [I sold Donald Trump $100,000 worth of pianos. Then he stiffed me.]

          Any addiction has a predictable pattern — the addict keeps chasing the high by upping the ante in an increasingly futile attempt to recreate the desired state. From the very first time I interviewed him in his office in Trump Tower in 1985, the image I had of Trump was that of a black hole. Whatever goes in quickly disappears without a trace. Nothing sustains. It’s forever uncertain when someone or something will throw Trump off his precarious perch — when his sense of equilibrium will be threatened and he’ll feel an overwhelming compulsion to restore it. Beneath his bluff exterior, I always sensed a hurt, incredibly vulnerable little boy who just wanted to be loved.

          What Trump craves most deeply is the adulation he has found so ephemeral. This goes a long way toward explaining his need for control and why he simply couldn’t abide Comey, who reportedly refused to accede to Trump’s demand for loyalty and whose continuing investigation into Russian interference in the election campaign last year threatened to bring down his presidency. Trump’s need for unquestioning praise and flattery also helps to explain his hostility to democracy and to a free press — both of which thrive on open dissent.

          As we saw countless times during the campaign and since the election, Trump can devolve into survival mode on a moment’s notice. Look no further than the thousands of tweets he wrote attacking his perceived enemies over the past year. In neurochemical terms, when he feels threatened or thwarted, Trump moves into fight or flight. His amygdala gets triggered, his hypothalamic-adrenal-pituitary axis activates, and his prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain that makes us capable of rationality and reflection — shuts down. He reacts rather than reflects, and damn the consequences. This is what makes his access to the nuclear codes so dangerous and frightening.

          The Trump I got to know had no deep ideological beliefs, nor any passionate feeling about anything but his immediate self-interest.

          Over the past week, in the face of criticism from nearly every quarter, Trump’s distrust has almost palpably mushroomed. No importuning by his advisers would stand a chance of constraining him when he feels this deeply triggered. The more he feels at the mercy of forces he cannot control — and he is surely feeling that now — the more resentful, desperate and impulsive he becomes.

          Even 30 years later, I vividly remember the ominous feeling when Trump got angry about some perceived slight. Everyone around him knew that you were best off keeping your distance at those times, or, if that wasn’t possible, to resist disagreeing with him in any way.

          In the hundreds of Trump’s phone calls I listened in on with his consent, and the dozens of meetings I attended with him, I can never remember anyone disagreeing with him about anything. The same climate of fear and paranoiaappears to have taken root in his White House.

          The most recent time I spoke to Trump — and the first such occasion in nearly three decades — was July 14, 2016, shortly before the New Yorker published an article by Jane Mayer about my experience writing “The Art of the Deal.” Trump was just about to win the Republican nomination for president. I was driving in my car when my cellphone rang. It was Trump. He had just gotten off a call with a fact-checker for the New Yorker, and he didn’t mince words.

          “I just want to tell you that I think you’re very disloyal,” he started in. Then he berated and threatened me for a few minutes. I pushed back, gently but firmly. And then suddenly, as abruptly as he began the call, he ended it. “Have a nice life,” he said, and hung up.”

          • TioDon

            For the love of God….shut up! You are so full of yourself.

          • Mike S

            This article was written by a very insightful man who wrote the “Art of the Deal” for Trump and spent a year with him. Trump stated the “Art of the Deal” was the second greatest book ever written (the Bible being the first). Of course Trump has never read the Bible because he is not in it. Read the article carefully because it accurately explains Trump’s unfit temperament and personality. If you don’t have buyers remorse, something is wrong with you. Stop the denial.

    • Mike S

      Oh, and illegal immigration has been trending downward for 8 years. Total number of undocumented Mexican residents is way down from its peak in 2007. Number of law-abiding long-term undocumented residents being deported is up…not so sure that’s a good thing. Trump’s wall will never be built. He has dropped his “get tough with China ” trade promises. He decided NAFTA was ok. His first foreign stop will be Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries where he has investments and has borrowed money. He has his daughter and son-in-law in the White House making money off their connections. He plans on getting rid of Dodd-Frank for the Wall Street plutocrats. Now his racist AG plans on jailing pot users again. The man is an ugly sham. Felipe, if he came to your house and pooped on your porch you would claim he was just fertilizing your plants.

      • “Law-abiding, undocumented residents” (i.e. illegals) is a contradiction in terms. It’s akin to saying a tall, short person. If you’re undocumented, you are not law-abiding, now are you?

        • Mike S

          The law-breakers are those who entice them to cross the border and then ILLEGALLY hire them. Funny how Republicans have never been interested prosecuting those people. And people who were brought to the US as children and now have US born children and clean records and know no other country are not law breakers in my opinion. We owe them a path to legal status.

          • csb4546

            “we owe them”??????????
            who are “we” that you speak for?

  • cooncats

    Were you for firing Comey before you were against it like the rest of your fellow liberals? Just curious.

    But we definitely agree on drug policy. This has become prohibition on steroids. Not that I think legalizing will do anything to help this epidemic. I’m just too old to understand the whole drug use culture. I just chalk it up to the accelerating decline of civilization. History shows those are never stopped, they must run their course.

  • Vernon King

    The Title is an excellent example of name calling. It serves no purpose other than to make me not want to read what the person has written. Left or right name calling is wrong. Does anyone need to do this to make a point??? Other than title I thought it brought out interesting points.

  • lang_eddy

    Don’t worry…..old Donald Duck Trump and his gang in the white house will continue to screw up anything worth saving. War on drugs?…..this war will continue as long as DD Trump continues to rule. Time for a change in the USA.

  • Mike S

    Good opinion column- right-on.

    Rand Paul has summed up Trump/Session’s new drug policy very succinctly:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/

  • Commander Barkfeather

    Like I suspect most Americans my age, during the late 60’s to early 70’s I also was tempted by “Better Living Through Chemistry.” Hashish and LSD. After screwing up my college years, I swung in the opposite direction with Nancy Reagan and “Just Say No.” Now, after witnessing the futility of the “war on drugs,” I have u-turned once again. Governments are much better at controlling and regulating things than going to war with them. It is also safer and more economical. It’s what governments do best. Regardless, both countries lack the proper cast for this next scene of the drama. Finally, “heads up rectums” is a tad too provocative for my taste. We must control our passions, lest they control us. All in all, though, a sound policy and an insightful essay.

    • miabeach

      I’m good with legalizing all manner of drugs and reckless behavior as long as their lifestyle is not subsidized by the rest of us. Especially health care and other insurance that increases premiums for clean living morally strong citizens.

      • Commander Barkfeather

        “(R)eckless behavior” is a rather vague term. According to Trump’s HHS Secretary Tom Price, diabetics have no one to blame but themselves. Do they practice “reckless behavior?” Are you citing yourself as “clean living morally strong?” Are you willing to be examined by a government panel to substantiate this claim? People without vices usually have some pretty annoying virtues.

  • alance

    Nixon created a nightmare when he rejected the results of the Shafer Commission that called for the decriminalization of marijuana possession in 1972. Nixon aid John Ehrlichman revealed that “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

  • miabeach

    Mass Incarsaration was a President Clinton program dreamed up by Hillary. Lock them up and throw away the key.

  • Glen Olives

    Well, it depends on how one might defiine “success.” More people are insured, including people with pre-existing conditions, and personal bankruptcy filings for medical bills are down. Compared to the broken system that preceded it, yes, I would say the ACA is a success. It has many problems as well, and needs to be improved as Obama himself admitted, but as Trump so presciently pointed out, healthcare policy is “complicated.” As you elude to, young healthy people who should be paying lower premiums are paying higher premiums to subsidize older sick people; in that respect it’s not that dissimilar from Social Security. The easiest and most rational solution would be to adopt single payer. People in countries that have universal health care seem to like it quite a lot.

    • cooncats

      That’s “allude to” Glen. We know you slept through economics, did you sleep through English too? Success is not moving people from employer sponsored health care with decent coverage and reasonable deductibles to policies that are so bad only the Medicaid welfare recipients can actually get health care.

      http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160514/MAGAZINE/305149980

      “For the 85% of enrollees with lower incomes, federal subsidies make the premiums somewhat more affordable. Those even closer to the poverty line can get additional subsidies that reduce the deductibles, which can run into the thousands of dollars.

      But for many middle class Americans — a single person earning more than $47,520 or a family of four with an income of $97,200 — the pricey premiums and deductibles mean health care coverage remains out of reach.

      “The middle class are getting squeezed,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “They aren’t getting subsidies and these deductibles are hard to afford.”

      This schism is turning Obamacare into another government benefit program for lower- and moderate-income Americans. The typical enrollee has an income of only 165% of the federal poverty level, or $40,000 for a family of four.'”

      Glen, based on what you are showing us here I’d be a little more circumspect about labeling anyone a moron.

      • Glen Olives

        You’re easily distracted by typos (I’m guessing laser pointers too) which is yet another sign of pre-senile dementia, but thanks for the free spell check all the same.

        Everybody agrees that the ACA needs modification, and your continued silence on the issue is telling, indeed, “genius.”

        Have you recanted your admiration for the French universal health care system yet? I hope not, because it’s a very good model.

        • cooncats

          No, I just got tired of trying to educate a real moron. The ACA isn’t fixable, it was not intended to work. It was intended to create a situation that guaranteed single payor. If there had been a real intention to create a workable solution the obvious cost problems would have been addressed.

          It was written by the insurers and drug companies and designed as a wonderful feed bag for them. Then it was marketed to the stupids like yourself as a solution. Obviously as soon as the feed bag was curtailed, the premiums, deductibles and copays would explode, which they have.

          Trouble with you is that your head is so far up your arse you’re uneducable. You sure need to get out of the backwoods of Chihuahua and notice even your fellow lefties have figure this out. My liberal buddy who actually participated in the writing of this legislation is a great deal more honest than you are. Or maybe just a great deal less clueless.

          • Glen Olives

            Of course! I get it now! Thanks for clearing things up for me. I guess I’m a slow learner.

            The insurance industry wrote the ACA to benefit themselves with the help of your liberal buddy, but yet it was designed to fail so that single payer could be implemented, thus putting the health insurance industry out of business. Brilliant plan!

            Logical inconsistencies and conspiracy theory aside, you’re just repeating yourself, another sign of cognitive impairment. I wonder who is really “uneducable”?

          • cooncats

            It was a brilliant plan and would have worked had you all succeeded in electing the corrupt old woman. Of course I reckon you were in Chihuahua with your head up your arse for that too. The single payor they planned on was to have been administered by the same people who wrote this bill.

            Here’s a discussion that is probably too hard for you to follow but give it a try, will ya?

            https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/3a1mam/what_would_happen_to_health_insurance_companies/

            I have to repeat myself with you because you are such a slow learner that repetition is the last resort of anyone trying to teach you anything. However, I see now this is really a waste of time. Have a nice weekend and don’t play with yourself too much.

          • Glen Olives

            That’s even better. A $500 billion industry (with shareholder approval) plans to commit suicide so a few hundred of its employees can become GS-5 administrators in a simplified single payer system. That’s pure diabolical genius!

            And the moon landing was faked by a secret Muslim named Obama who also killed Kennedy and destroyed the evidence with Hurricane Katrina.

            By the way, your insults used by somewhat artful, but “don’t play with yourself too much”? A regression to grade school taunts is — you guessed it — another sign.

            Enjoy your weekend down the rabbit hole.

    • csb4546

      Really, do Mexicans like their free “universal” healthcare?
      Hours and hours in lines, months or years to wait for procedures.
      If ACA is left untouched it will collapse financially within about 2 years.
      The state exchanges are in tatters. Meanwhile, premiums and deductibles are soaring every year. Your’e right, having care is better than no care – but is this anything like what was promised? No wonder we couldn’t read it until after it was passed. The cost savings are a myth.
      (I’m not sure Trump’s plan will fare any better – but ACA is indefensible.)

      • Glen Olives

        Yes, generally speaking, Mexicans like their health care system. But, as all things in Mexico, it has fundamental flaws, and I don’t think it should be emulated in the U.S. Having said that, basic health care for common ailments is free and effective. It’s certainly true as you point out that Americans don’t have the patience for waiting in line for non-emergency procedures, but that’s an observation about a culture and not an observation about health care efficacy.

        As to the ACA, it is imperfect, to say the least. “[C]ooncats” seems to think it was designed to fail based on a conspiracy theory with more holes in it than a kitchen colander. In reality, it was just designed to pass, and because it was designed to pass and not be perfect, it has flaws.

        I disagree that the ACA is indefensible. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. Trump’s plan would kick 23 million off the insurance roles, channelling billions of dollars of savings into the pockets of billionaires.

        The essential problem, as Joseph Stiglitz has presciently pointed out, is not about healthcare. It is about conservative economists who he thinks are not unlike drunks looking under the lamp post for their keys because that is where the light is. That light of course is GDP. And a rising GDP is good, right? If health care costs go up, GDP increases. A win for economic metrics, but a loss for ordinary Americans who can’t afford healthcare. We’re measuring the wrong things.

        So that’s where I think we are. We can have a world-class health care system where only the lucky and wealthy few have access, or we can have a really good healthcare system where everybody is covered. Consider also that while many people in single payer systems grouse about healthcare (who doesn’t grouse about anything that isn’t perfect?), polling shows that they like it quite a lot, with vast majorities supporting it.

        Finally, although I think it is obvious, I must say so that there is no misunderstanding, that the opposition to healthcare as a right has very little to do with price or quality, and everything to do with profit. In my view, profit should not be worshipped to the extent that it eclipses human decency. FDR’s administration created the CCC which planted a BILLION trees during the Great Depression. What private company would have done that? None, because no profit could have been had from that. But did not reforestation not benefit America as a whole?

        Some things I hope you might give some thought to.

        • csb4546

          There are two Mexican healthcare systems – the rich private system, and the system for commoners. Commoners wait months and sometimes years for services, tests, and procedures.
          “Mexicans like their healthcare” – depends on your economic status. The poor may die before receiving the tests and care they need. The rich pay for instant service.

        • csb4546

          Come on, that 20 million who will “lose” healthcare includes millions who will simply choose to not participate – it’s a fake, guesswork statistic to defend the ACA. Liberals don’t want to give people the choice – hence 100% coverage. Sounds good, but people can’t afford deductibles, so they can’t use the system. Millions have ACA and can’t afford to use it.

  • Mike S

    Most of the “extra” money incurred by ACA is coming from a roughly 2% de facto tax increase on the wealthy’ The wealthy in the US now have historically low tax rates even with this roughly 2% increase. We now have the highest wealth disparity in over a 100 years. The ACA had certain minimum coverage requirements including pre-existing conditions. The new GOP AHCA plan allows very deficient policies with much larger copays and deductibles. It diminishes pre-exiting condition safe guards. It guts drug and alcohol addiction rehabilitation. It greatly cuts Medicaid by block granting those funds to states. A single payer system like Medicare for all is the only way to cover everybody and save money at the same time. It gets people out of emergency rooms. It has proven successful in every 1st world country. A healthy society is a productive society.

  • Luisa De Anderson Morales

    do not do any more press conference
    go public on tv the problems in the congress/ name/ names
    get term limits on all members of congress
    your party is the problem they only support payoff
    thank you we really need you
    new rule 1 one rule for 5 gone
    BIA and BLM are free loderer get reed of them
    STATE DEP CUT BY 70% we need the money here
    no more money given to other country

  • Wayne Smyer

    PUTIN TO TRAITOR TRUMP! “HERE PUSSY PUSSY”

FreeCurrencyRates.com
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT