Rob

If you really want to fix it, this is how you do it: The plan restructures U.S. healthcare around universal catastrophic protection and personal health savings. Every American would receive catastrophic insurance from birth, with insurance covering all major medical costs once annual out-of-pocket spending reaches $5,000. Routine care would instead be paid from individual Health Security Accounts funded monthly by the federal government and adjusted for inflation. These accounts would belong to the individual for life, could receive contributions from employers and family members, and could be inherited by children. To reduce costs and improve access, the system requires upfront price transparency for medical services, allows insurance to be sold across state lines, and permits workers to form national insurance pools outside traditional employer plans. Direct primary care models are encouraged with fee limits and guaranteed next-day access. The plan also addresses physician shortages by offering 1% federal student loans for medical and nursing school with loan forgiveness for service in underserved areas, while allowing doctors and nurses to practice nationwide through mandatory state license reciprocity. Finally, the system includes structured support for disability and long-term care and allows people currently on Medicare, Medicaid, or VA care to remain in those programs unless they voluntarily choose to transition.

@deml4368 @Monkeyiobe @Geiger_Capital Not to mention, he had to renounce his allegiance to his country of origin.

@Monkeyiobe @Geiger_Capital Did his father do it legally? A legal immigrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore their children born here would also be subject to the US and therefore citizens

Justice Alito once again nails it… If a Chinese or Iranian person enters our country illegally and has a child here, their child is automatically a citizen of that foreign nation, and is even required to fight for that nation. How are they not "subject to" a foreign nation?

@JustinWStapley That’s not a great question. Diplomats fall into that category and we expel them all the time.

If illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under what authority can the federal government deport them? This is the problem with living constitutionalism and consequentialism, it seeks to craft constitutional law that is a tangle of knots, twists, and turns to wrest the foundational document of our republic toward whatever fancy the zeitgeist arrives at. The originalist path not only makes more sense but actually accomplishes the whole point of having a written constitution...the consistent application of the rule of law according to text, history, and tradition.

@DrBrittaniJ I have asked doctors specifically if there were specific foods I should eat or avoid eating for a specific diagnosis. I was told that they weren’t sure, that wasn’t something they studied in med school. Maybe that’s something to consider.

I’m actually super sick of doctors being scapegoated for outcomes we have minimal control over. This is like blaming the ER doctor for the car crash. Stop! While I agree with his main assertion that food is central to healing and should be improved, he is attributing a level of agency to physicians that actually belongs to health system administrators, insurers and politicians. They are the ones who have created the dystopian hellscape that is both the American and hospital-based food system. Doctors are constantly stuck managing the downstream consequences of the upstream failures of our corporate overlords. We hate it as much as patients.

@JeffBirky08 @EricBurlison Agreed, and screening should be done in the gate area for each flight so you don’t have a thousand people huddled in one area.

@EricBurlison Airlines should pay for their own security, cut TSA out of the budget all together. The private sector always does a better job than the government does anyways. No more delays during government shut downs either.

The TSA isn't just an airport problem. It's a pattern. Government takes over a service, promises to do it better, then fails to deliver while the taxpayer picks up the tab. That's why the Smart Space Act matters. That's why cutting waste matters. Government monopolies don't work.

@JohnCleese And yet you still trash the only person who has done anything about it. Odd.

36,500 protesters slaughtered by a regime supported by many Western progressives

Most people don’t have a problem with immigration. They have a problem with illegal immigration. They also have a problem with immigrants who are on welfare. Welfare didn’t exist when my ancestors came to this country. It’s people like you who try to merge it all together that are the problem.

I’ve always been fascinated by the debate over immigration. There's been a negative attitude towards it for most of US history, but most Americans wouldn’t exist were it not for (among others) German, French, Irish, Italian, African, Indian, Mexican, Japanese, and Vietnamese people coming together in America. Americans exist, and America is so great, because so many people have come here from other countries. For that reason alone, this administration's policies are anti-American.

Sure, but I didn’t hear any questions about the legality of the EO, all the questions were tied to the wording and underlying meaning of the text of the 14th amendment. So in this case it is about the interpretation of the Constitution not the legality of the EO. Based on the questions I heard I suspect the administration will lose.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 You do know that the court hears cases for a variety of reasons, right? Like perhaps because a President can't override the Constitution with an EO?

Here they go again. Folks, the 14th Amendment covers birthright citizenship. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That’s it. There isn’t any more. There’s no grey area. There’s no confusion. Whatever bullshit explanation a MAGA gives you that doesn’t end up proving that the above statement is actually fake, is just made up nonsense. If you are born in America, you are an American citizen. Period.

@Chatt_TT @tommysantos14 Clearly not if the court is willing to hear it.

@tommysantos14 @theactualrob And occupying military soldiers, but yes. Subject to the jurisdiction has been clearly defined already.

@Chatt_TT @tommysantos14 That’s the phrase the whole thing is about. Who is subject to the jurisdiction.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Where? Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

@theactualrob @tommysantos14 No, because it literally says so right there in the 14th amendment.

Each of those conflict started before the US got involved. In each case the US was requested to intervene by France, England, or both. It’s irrelevant if it ultimately became a NATO intervention. You asked for a situation that we were asked for support that was not related to NATO defense. I gave you three. Not one had to do with NATO defense and all three were started without US involvement.

@theactualrob @AbGamble1 @BillKristol NATO intervention in Libya was preceded by a UN Security Council Resolution. Bosnia & Kosovo interventions were an effort to prevent regional instability. Member States had the opportunity to discuss and vote before any collaborative action was taken. See the difference yet?

“Trump has already broken NATO in so many ways. The United States is no longer trusted in Europe. Trump’s military threats against Canada and Denmark were clear, specific, and obvious violations of the North Atlantic Treaty. The damage is done.” thebulwark.com/p/liberation-d…

@AdamKinzinger What defenses are stretched. There are zero European NATO involved in any conflict.Please enlighten me.

A war is raging in Europe, and Trump has said basically we won’t defend them. So they have to think about their own defense without the US, all while the US began military action without consulting them and is now demanding they send their already stretched defenses to Iran. Their reaction makes sense. Any 6th grader understands this.

@ewarren How about we make it affordable enough to not need child care. Why have children that are raised by someone else.

Imagine if instead of funding forever wars in the Middle East, the United States delivered universal child care and health care for all Americans.

@RobEld75 @Microinteracti1 We just did.

@Microinteracti1 Then say goodbye to all your military bases in Europe, Donny. 😄 Good luck carrying out any global operations without your NATO partners.

NATO’s 31 members will ‘have to reexamine’ whether they can still afford to have the USA as a partner. Let’s be honest about what is happening. The United States, under Trump, is actively supporting Russia. Blocking weapons to Ukraine. Pushing for a peace deal that rewards Moscow. Calling Putin a partner. Washington’s National Security Strategy no longer even identifies Russia as a threat. Russia is the only reason NATO exists. It has always been the only reason. And Washington is now on Russia’s side. So the question is not whether NATO can survive without America. The question is whether NATO can survive with it. And America has already started leaving. Rubio skipped the NATO foreign ministers meeting in December. Hegseth skipped the defense ministers meeting in February. Two top-level meetings in a row. It is rare for a US administration to miss even one.  They are not forgetting to show up. They are choosing not to. NATO noticed. NATO kept meeting. NATO kept working. Macron said it anyway. “No intimidation or threat will influence us, neither in Ukraine, nor in Greenland, nor anywhere else in the world.”  Sweden’s Prime Minister was blunter. “We will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.” Good. Because NATO does not need permission. Thirty-one nations. Nearly a billion people. The world’s largest collective economy. NATO militaries hardened by four years of watching Russia bleed itself dry on NATO’s eastern doorstep. And here is what Today it is not the Russia of 2022. That Russia is gone. Ukraine shot it to pieces. Up to two million men lost. Elite units wiped out entirely. Equipment inventories so depleted that Russian forces are pulling tanks from Soviet-era storage and patching them together with parts that belong in museums. The most combat-capable military in NATO’s history is now facing the most degraded Russian army since the Second World War. NATO knows the enemy. It has watched it die in real time. America’s own Secretary of State called NATO allies “cowards” and the alliance a “paper tiger.”  This from a country that just spent a month bombing Iran and achieved nothing. A country with a $39 trillion debt, a democracy rated below Mexico by international observers, and a president whose first instinct after re-election was to call Vladimir Putin. Now look west from Washington. The Pacific. China. No NATO. No thirty-one allies who have trained together for 75 years, shared intelligence, and stood on the same walls. Just two oceans and a government that just told its only friends to go to hell. America without NATO is not a superpower. It is a large, indebted nation with no friends, two oceans, and China on the other side of one of them. NATO without Trump’s America is not weaker. It is stronger. Gandalv / @Microinteracti1

@CatoInstitute @CatoEdwards Screening should be conducted at the gate area for each flight, not in a single location where thousands of travelers are stuck together.

To prevent the next TSA crisis, Congress should privatize security screening at the nation’s airports, says Cato’s @CatoEdwards. Expert security firms would handle screening, while the government focuses on regulatory oversight and intelligence—as in Europe and Canada. ow.ly/Yuek50YBTr1

@JohnKasich @NATO They didn’t just disagree, they actively prevented the US from operating.

When this administration dismisses @NATO, it forgets what NATO has meant for America: collective security, shared values, and decades of peace. You don’t walk away because allies disagree. You strengthen it and preserve it.

@RNAeatsbugs @RBReich 😂

@theactualrob @RBReich Most corporate regulations that *require businesses be accountable to public, honest to consumers, not collude, not put negative externalities, pollution, slave wages, cheap toxic ingredients & unsafe working conditions on the public* have been created by Democrats. Fixed it 🤠

Montana — yes, deep red Montana — has a plan to effectively neuter Citizens United. No Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment needed. Here's how it works.

It’s not about explicit opposition to birthright citizenship. It’s about who qualifies for it. Just because you give birth in the United States doesn’t mean the child is a citizen. The SCOTUS is going to decide where that line is. Is it only diplomats who don’t get citizenship or do tourists and illegal immigrants also not become citizens? I think it’s a valid question to ask for clarification.

Here's the thing: if you oppose birthright citizenship, that's an opinion you're allowed to hold. It's a free country. It means you support changing the United States Constitution, which very clearly and explicitly says anyone born on American soil is a citizen. But pretending that the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that, just because you don't like it, is a silly child's game. Birthright citizenship is a foundational principle of what America is all about, and no President, no matter how ignorant or delusional, is able to change that with the stroke of a pen. That's just not how America works. 🇺🇸

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

@OWarren49999 @JoshEakle You clearly have not read the amendment.

"It's a new world with globalization, so birthright citizenship has to go," This argument from the Trump Administration this morning is a template for gutting the Bill of Rights entirely. Think about how this logic would apply to any other issue: "We can't have the right to bear arms anymore; it's a new world with assault weapons." "We can't have free speech anymore; it's a new world with social media." "We can't have due process anymore; there are too many criminals to process." "We can't have Fourth Amendment privacy anymore; there are too many terrorists to catch." No. The Constitution is the Constitution. It doesn't get to be thrown out because a President decides to on a whim. This is how free countries operate.