Is Trump Under Spiritual Attack?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Do I wish that President Trump would exercise more self-restraint in what he says? Yes, indeed. Just so, as a student I wished that my garrulous mailman dad wouldn’t insist on telling “hilarious” ethnic jokes at Yale parent nights.

Republicans are burning up massive energy defending, explaining, or even mastering the facts about Trump’s free-wheeling statements. It could be better used on almost anything else. Think of all the crucial points of policy that are going unaddressed.

The Trump White House came up with a fine executive order defending religious liberty. Then it apparently caved under pressure, and gave us the leaf without the fig.

Trump promised to back the First Amendment Defense Act, which would have written those same protections into law. No sign of the White House pushing for it in Congress.

Replacing Obamacare with something that’s actually better deserves many hours of time on the part of the president and his staffers. It didn’t get it.

Defunding Planned Parenthood might happen, or it might not, depending on some backroom legislative noodling.

The wall he promised on our country’s chaotic southern border. Will it get built? It’s anybody’s guess.

The president could use his bully pulpit and majority in two houses of Congress to make real progress on all these fronts. But he’s too busy right now disputing overblown charges that he obstructed justice by hinting that General Michael Flynn shouldn’t be prosecuted for making a harmless phone call to a Russian diplomat, then firing FBI director James Comey for a weird and changing list of reasons — all of them valid, but he really should have settled on one.

Hate Housefires? Stop Drinking Flaming Shots.

Let’s say you need to rewire your house and install a new heating system. It’s hard to focus on that when you’re too busy rushing back and forth pouring water on little housefires. But you just seem to keep on setting them, because of your habit of drinking flaming tequila shots on the couch. Aw, shucks, it happened again.

Never-Trump Republican John Podhoretz wrote a fine column in the New York Post. In it, he warns President Trump that he needs to zip his mouth and gird his loins. Or else he’ll face a presidency that history will mock as a sputtering failure. It’s written in the spirit of a boxing coach. Think of Burgess Meredith in Sly Stallone’s corner in Rocky. He’d berate the bull-headed boxer not to drop his guard or lead with his chin. Rocky didn’t see that kind of advice as hostile, and neither should Trump.

Given his real business successes, I cannot really believe that Trump is the kind of onion-skinned narcissist who demands that his fans back even his self-defeating mistakes. That’s the kind of uncritical, unconditional love that liberal Christians demand from God. They will surely be disappointed. So will any politician. This isn’t North Korea, and conservatism isn’t a cult.

Trump Is Under Attack. And Not Just By Humans.

Given the profound evils that Trump has promised to confront, from Islamic terrorism to Planned Parenthood, from the persecution of Christians to the chaos on our country’s borders, we should not be surprised that he is being assaulted. No, I don’t mean by liberals, misguided people whose policies are poorly reasoned or based in raw emotion.

I mean by principalities and powers. By the spirits who (in the words of the prayer to St. Michael the archangel) “roam the earth, seeking the ruin of souls.” If you think (and you’d better) that your soul matters enough to Satan that he will bother to send you a tempter, just imagine the horde he dispatches to batter the president. They goad him to say foolish things, make rash decisions, and most of all to cave on his core principles — then fight like a tiger over trivialities.

Our president has too much power. As conservatives, we know that. But here we are. One man has the authority to:

Launch a nuclear holocaust;

Invade foreign countries without Congress’s say-so;

Issue executive edicts that distort the meaning of laws; and

Direct an army of unaccountable bureaucrats to skew their reading of tens of thousands of regulations, crippling businesses or citizens who disagree with him.

That’s a ludicrous pile of power for one man’s shoulders. And power is what the Enemy sniffs after like a jackal who scents some bacon.

America on the Knife Edge

This is a crucial watershed in American culture and history. We are teetering on the knife edge between a normal, functioning country where the Church is permitted to preach, and something much darker and uglier: a post- and anti-Christian Leviathan.

Look at the profane hysteria, the toxic boiling hatred that Trump and his voters provoked among progressives. That’s true even when they support policies to the left of President Bill Clinton’s on most crucial issues. That tells us just how far the “mainstream” has slid down the hill toward madness. You also know how divided our nation is. How fragile is public order?

Centrist speakers can’t even take a microphone at major universities, for fear that hooded militants will attack them and their audience with flagpoles. Police and firefighters get shot by racist extremists. Academic feminists sue to use the federal government to silence their colleagues on campus. College students alternate, schizophrenically, between ultra-fragile snowflakes who will crumble at untoward opinions — and hordes of brick-throwing, outraged insurgents.

Just Because the Media are Biased Doesn’t Mean Trump Isn’t Making Mistakes

Journalistic standards, never immune to liberal bias, have virtually collapsed. So we really shouldn’t be shocked when newspapers grossly distort and exaggerate the president’s behavior. When they cast him as a lawbreaker who needs to be impeached — for behaving in just the same ways that Barack Obama did (in between penning yet another auto-hagiography, and collecting a Nobel Prize simply for showing up). When they act as if normal back-and-forth and influence trading in the White House is evidence of “chaos at the top.”

We should also avoid the temptation of dismissing any criticism of the president, simply because so much of it is foolish, overheated, or grounded in evil motives. The fact that liberals will lie, or distort the truth, to harm President Trump, doesn’t mean he isn’t making some real mistakes.

Trump, Find Your Inner Coolidge

His greatest mistake, I think, is giving so much credence to people who clearly despise him. Not just him, but the millions of “deplorable” voters who put him in office. He keeps trying to beat the media and political elites at their own game by being clever on Twitter, or tweaking them in speeches. What he needs to do is find his inner Calvin Coolidge and ignore them.

He should drill down on the issues that drove voters to put him in office, and doggedly push them forward. That means building a wall, protecting religious liberty, promoting more pro-life policies, and a long list of other things that would outrage our nation’s elites, while actually accomplishing something. That means listening to people like Steve Bannon, who helped him get elected, rather than Jared Kushner, whose sister is selling U.S. visas in China.

Yes, the left will wail and gnash their teeth, but they’re doing that already. They couldn’t hate Trump any more than they already do. He needs to see how liberating that is.

What we need to do is step back from panicking over the president, or desperately defending him in futile Tweets and Facebook posts. Instead we should see the deeper stakes of the battle at hand. And that should drive us daily to pray for the president: that God grant him the virtues of temperance, justice, prudence and fortitude, for the toughest job on earth. That’s the only real power we have. It’s quite enough. (For more from the author of “Is Trump Under Spiritual Attack?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will You Help ‘Slay’ for Planned Parenthood?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood wants supporters to “slay” by sharing its new ad, directed by Hollywood screenwriter Joss Whedon.

“Every single one of us has a hero inside; and it’s our responsibility to use our superpowers to slay,” states a Planned Parenthood donation page. The abortion group highlights some of Whedon’s best known works, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The appeal, flanked by an online petition, closes by asking people to “watch it, add your name to join Joss Whedon in standing with Planned Parenthood, and then share, share, share, using #IStandWithPP. That’s how we slay, that’s how we win.”

As The Daily Caller noted, the call to “slay” is a play on the “vampire slaying” that took place in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The word “slay” has also risen in recent popularity as a slang term for “succeed” or “dominate.”

Pro-life groups noted the dark irony of Planned Parenthood adopting the slang term to promote its services. Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of U.S. abortions (323,999 total in 2014).

“UNLOCKED”

The ad, released Wednesday, features three primary characters. Entitled “UNLOCKED,” it supposedly previews a world without Planned Parenthood.

One teen girl becomes pregnant and is seen crying as she opens a scholarship letter to a university. Another girl appears unable to stop her friend from having sex at a party. Her friend ends up with an STD. A middle-aged mother dies from cancer that was noticed too late. The ad works backwards from the point of tragedy for each character (the scholarship letter, the STD, the death) until you see the three women approaching a Planned Parenthood facility at the same time, only to find it closed and the door locked.

The ad then imagines what would happen had the facility been open. The first teen gets a pack of birth control pills. The second teen takes a sex education course, which she shares with her classmates. The middle aged woman is screened for cancer and is shown celebrating her next birthday.

“If politicians succeed in shutting down Planned Parenthood, millions of people lose access to basic health services. STD testing, birth control, cancer screenings … how can these be at risk?” Whedon said.

Untruthful?

However, data reveals that Planned Parenthood’s non-abortive services are declining, while their abortions continue to rise. Pro-life group Live Action noted in a video last month that the organization performs less than 2 percent of the nation’s cancer screenings. But between 2004 and 2014, its number of annual abortions rose 27 percent.

Most women will never visit Planned Parenthood. Eric Scheidler, executive director for the Pro-Life Action League, previously told The Stream that “four out of five women will never step foot” inside one of its facilities. Additionally, other comprehensive care facilities for women and their families outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to one.

In April President Donald Trump signed a bill allowing states to stop funding family planning services, including Planned Parenthood. But the nonprofit still receives $500 million annually in government funding. Pro-life advocates have called for a reallocation of those funds to comprehensive health care centers. (For more from the author of “Will You Help ‘Slay’ for Planned Parenthood?” please click HERE])

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Officials: US Strike Hits Pro-Assad Forces in Syria

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. officials say an American airstrike has hit pro-Syrian government forces in southern Syria as they were setting up fighting positions in a protected area.

The officials say the strike near Tanf hit a tank and a bulldozer and forces there, but it was not clear if they were Syrian army troops or other pro-government allies.

One official says the pro-regime forces had entered a so-called “de-confliction” zone without authorization and were perceived as a threat to U.S.-allied troops there. The officials say the strike was a defensive move to protect the U.S. allies. It wasn’t clear if U.S. forces were there. (Read more from “Officials: US Strike Hits Pro-Assad Forces in Syria” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

To Dean Obeidallah: If You’re Right, Then Debate, Don’t Run

/0 Comments/in , /by

In response to my article “The Liberals’ Misguided Love Affair With Islam,” radio host and columnist Dean Obeidallah tweeted, “Hey @DrMichaelLBrown U win award award [sic] for dumbest article of the day — be proud. #moron.”

This was not the first time Mr. Obeidallah attacked me, offering rhetoric without substance, so I responded: “Let’s have a public, civil debate about the issue. You’ve challenged me before, but never with substance. Let’s deal with facts. Shall we?”

Some of his followers chimed in with their own mockery, and I responded to each one, wanting to move beyond the invective. Can we interact about specifics? Can you tell me what is factually inaccurate about my article? With one exception, I was greeted with either silence or further insult.

I then tweeted Mr. Obeidallah again: “Sir, please be kind enough to point out any factual errors in my article. I assume you read it carefully, correct?”

He responded: “Ur a joke — I just give ur views sunlight to destroy the BS — now go run along to Pam Geller.”

Actually, I don’t need this gentleman to give my views “sunlight.” By God’s grace, I have lots of internet exposure, with my articles posted on numerous websites. My Facebook page has more than 530,000 likes, I have a daily, syndicated radio show, an active YouTube channel, and three TV shows, two of which air internationally. So, he has his fine platforms and I have mine.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obeidallah’s attitude is typical of the condescending, “progressive” left: “We will ridicule and mock you because you are unworthy of our time.”

I replied to his tweet more forcefully: “You provide the perfect example of someone who has no facts to support his views: You mock and ridicule, devoid of substance.”

I also posted (to Mr. Obeidallah and one of his Twitter followers): “I call on peace-loving Muslims to join me in standing against radical Islam. You respond with mockery and insult. This is tolerance? Sad.”

Mr. Obeidallah then responded to my call to debate: “The answer is I don’t debate punchlines. Ur a joke.”

I answered: “The truth is you bring no substance, only insults, and your ideas would be instantly exposed in a civil, academic debate. Don’t run.”

He did not reply to me.

Was I surprised? Not in the least. I’ve seen the same thing happen time and again, and if anything, this approach suggests that the mocker is not ready to defend his viewpoint. Why not have your ideas challenged? Why not allow your viewpoints to be cross-examined? And if I am so wrong, why not expose me?

In the course of just three tweets, Mr. Obeidallah ridiculed my article as “the dumbest” of the day; used the hashtag #moron to describe me; then twice called me “a joke,” also accusing me of writing “BS.” And he did this without pointing out a single error in my article. Ah, the voice of tolerance!

Perhaps my esteemed critic can tell me if my Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University was a joke. Or if my three years of studying Classical Arabic was a joke. Or if my public debates at schools like Oxford University and Ohio State University, or outreach lectures at schools like the Hebrew University in Jerusalem or USC or Yale University, or scholarly papers delivered at schools like Harvard University were a joke.

Or am I “a joke” because I claim that radical Islam can trace its roots back to the Quran? Or that I believe that Robert Spencer should not have been shouted down when he tried to quote violent Islamic texts at the University of Buffalo?

The Needed Discussion

A colleague of mine in Australia pointed out that

The annual Freedom of Thought report published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union found that 13 nations punish apostasy with the death penalty.

The 13 countries are all Islamic: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Says the report, “All of these countries, except Pakistan, allow for capital punishment against apostasy, while Pakistan imposes the death penalty for blasphemy — including a disbelief in God.”

Does Mr. Obeidallah deny that these countries are Islamic? Does he claim that what they are doing is in violation of the Quran and of Sharia Law?

He might say that their practices are abhorrent, that enlightened Muslims reject this, that as a Muslim himself he believes the Quran is being twisted. All that is fine and good, and that’s part of what we can discuss.

I am not one of those who believes a true Muslim is always a radical Muslim, and I often take flak from some on the right who believe that Islam is always murderous. That’s why I use the adjective “radical” before the word “Islam.” At the same time, I get flack on the left from those (like Mr. Obeidallah, apparently) who believe that radical Islam is not Islam at all.

That’s why I invite Dean Obeidallah to have a civil, moderated, public debate. We could debate the question, “Is Radical Islam True Islam?” Or, “Is the Left Giving Islam a Free Pass?” (Or, perhaps something else that is related. I’m open to possibilities. I would even come on his radio show, where he controls the mic, or he could come on mine.)

Whatever the format, for the sake of truth, for the sake of those affected by radical Islam, for the sake of our nation, we should hash the issues out.

And on a personal note, Mr. Obeidallah, when you respond with mockery and disdain, you make yourself look bad, not your opponent. Surely you can do better than that. (For more from the author of “To Dean Obeidallah: If You’re Right, Then Debate, Don’t Run” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Immigration arrests climbed yet again in April as federal agents continued to track down both criminal and noncriminal aliens in far greater numbers over the first 100 days of the Trump administration than they did under former President Barack Obama a year ago.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 illegal immigrants on civil immigration charges between Jan. 22 and April 29, according to agency data released Wednesday. That was a 38 percent jump over the 30,028 arrests made in the same time period in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

ICE says it has averaged about 400 arrests per day since President Donald Trump signed executive orders in January authorizing stepped-up immigration enforcement.

“Agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens,” ICE acting Director Thomas Homan said in a statement. “However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the law.”

The arrest data show a continuation of a trend that became apparent in the first two months of Trump’s presidency. ICE arrested 21,362 illegal immigrants from Inauguration Day through March 13, about 33 percent more than the number of immigration arrests made in same period in 2016. (Read more from “Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the Middle East experiencing renewed levels of tumult, it begs consideration: Does the region need its own version of NATO?

This idea appeared in The Washington Post just this week. Josh Rogin reported that during the president’s stop in Saudi Arabia, he might lay out a proposal for a regional security alliance of Arab states.

It is not surprising that two major ports of call in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—would be part of President Donald Trump’s travels. The administration has put peace and stability in the Middle East at the top of his foreign policy agenda.

In addition to these state visits, the president has already met in Washington with leaders from Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.

More than glad-handing, all these meetings look substantive, part of the U.S. effort to knit together a regional effort to achieve two key strategic goals: countering the destabilizing influence of Iran, and defeating the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Traditionally, the U.S. has managed its Middle East influence through bilateral alliances. But even during the presidential transition, there were proposals for establishing a more formal multi-national mutual security architecture along the lines of NATO.

That’s not an unprecedented idea. In the 1950s, the U.S. supported the Central Treaty Organization, organizing the “Northern-Tier” (including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan) as part of a containment strategy against the Soviet Union.

The proposal floundered, argues Michael Doran in his excellent book, “Ike’s Gamble: America’s Rise to Dominance in the Middle East” (2016), because the U.S. failed to understand the internal dynamics of the region. Successful security alliances require a common threat, but that is not enough to build and keep a coalition together.

Alliances endure because of common interests.

>>> New Turmoil in Middle East Makes Sisi-Trump Ties Even More Important

Conflicting concerns have always stymied efforts to build coalitions in the Middle East. The Gulf Cooperation Council, for example, has flirted with military cooperation, but it has never amounted to anything serious.

The U.S. was successful in knitting together an Arab coalition force for the first Gulf War, but it was a temporary effort designed for a specific mission. It did not endure past the war.

“Frankly, there is too much distrust and suspicion between the regional countries for this to ever be effective,” argues Heritage Foundation scholar Luke Coffey. “The best way for the U.S. to enhance regional defense capabilities is through deepening bilateral relations with key countries.”

Yet, even if such an alliance never comes to fruition, there could be value in even suggesting the idea.

Uniformly, the Arab states and Israel are both anxious for the U.S. to r-engage in the region and help deal with the twin dangers of Iran and ISIS/al-Qaeda.

“Any further inter-Arab security and defense cooperation is very welcome as another way to put pressure on Iran,” argues Heritage Foundation regional security expert Jim Phillips, “but the White House needs to manage expectations with this.”

A formal alliance is unlikely to be quickly accomplished and could amount to little of practical value.

Moreover, even if such a treaty organization is even contemplated, it should not—and really cannot—be a substitute for the important bilateral relations that the U.S. currently enjoys with the countries in the greater Middle East.

A treaty organization might make sense as a mere suggestion to help shock the region into believing that the U.S. really is back as a balancing force to help quell the currently spiraling chaos in the region.

On the other hand, the U.S. should not over-invest in the effort at the expense of assembling the coalition it needs right now to undertake pressing and immediate tasks.

These urgent tasks include finishing the destruction of the ISIS caliphate, stabilizing the refugee populations, dealing with the counterterrorism threats from ISIS 2.0 that will likely persist in the region, preventing Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from becoming substantial bases of transnational terrorism, and diminishing Iran’s destructive influence in the region.

These tasks will require a comprehensive American-led effort of military, diplomatic, and assistance and engagement measures. They are tasks that cannot wait for a formal alliance structure to be established—if one ever actually does materialize. (For more from the author of “What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump likely will propose a plan next week calling for a balanced budget in 10 years, fiscal experts predict. It also will address how to fund the border wall, higher defense spending, and other Trump initiatives over the next decade.

“Many Republicans have been calling for a 10-year balanced budget,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal. “One way they may show savings for that 10-year period is through management and downsizing reform efforts.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, took an initial step last month in rolling out government reforms that the administration intends to expand on later this year.

A budget proposal that allows a president to demonstrate how committed he is to campaign pledges and gives a glimpse of plans to make $54 billion in cuts to foreign aid and nondefense discretionary spending is a good sign, Edwards said.

“One role of a federal budget proposal is for the president to create a bully pulpit to argue for cuts,” Edwards said. “Even if Congress doesn’t go along with phasing out things such as NPR [National Public Radio] and PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] this year, proposing this creates a needed national discussion.”

A balanced budget plan would be a significant departure from the previous administration. A major Republican criticism of President Barack Obama was that he never proposed a single balanced budget plan during his eight years in office.

Still, without entitlement reforms and with projected increases for infrastructure spending, projecting a balanced budget in 10 years would be based on very optimistic economic assumptions, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“If the OMB numbers are higher than what the [Congressional Budget Office] and nonpartisan assessments are reflecting, it might be questionable. Balancing in 10 years relies heavily on economic growth,” Boccia told The Daily Signal.

Trump and Mulvaney have said their goal is for the United States to surpass 3 percent annual growth again.

Mulvaney, who announced the budget would be released Tuesday, is set to address a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee calendar doesn’t yet include Mulvaney.

An OMB spokesperson told The Daily Signal that the office is still working on the rollout and would have details later.

The White House released a budget blueprint in March that focused only on the fiscal year 2018 budget. But next week, the fiscal plan will project out for the next decade.

The fiscal 2018 plan addressed only discretionary spending. The proposal to be released Tuesday will look at the other two-thirds of the budget, which is mandatory spending and mostly goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Both Edwards and Boccia anticipate that the proposal will address fraud in the Medicaid and Social Security disability programs.

Among details the public will learn more about:

The 10-year budget will provide a better idea of how Trump plans to pay for the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The fiscal 2018 blueprint calls for a down payment of $1.5 billion.

The fiscal 2018 proposal included a $54 billion increase in the military budget, to $603 billion, offset by cuts to foreign aid. Next week’s plan will show how much military spending would grow over 10 years.

The plan reportedly aims to invest in school choice programs and scale back funding for public schools.
The president’s budget proposal is largely a vision statement, Boccia said.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate budget committees likely will be eager to see how proposals for tax reform and reorganizing the government will affect future years, and how that in turn affects budget negotiations, she added. (For more from the author of “Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans today are facing an epidemic of chronic illness, including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, chronic illness is now the biggest single driver of medical costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in America. As of 2012, the last time the agency collected data, approximately 117 million U.S. adults had one or more chronic health conditions.

The challenge of effectively caring for the growing numbers of Americans suffering with these conditions, particularly as they age into retirement, is enormous.

That is why Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., have come together to address the problem.

For two years, they have closely studied the impact of the chronic illness problem, particularly as it relates to Medicare, the health program for America’s senior and disabled citizens.

Medicare is facing significant challenges from cost increases related to chronic illnesses, at a time when the program already faces many other challenges.

While a large number of factors contribute to Medicare’s rising costs—including the rapid aging of the population, the expense of newer prescription therapies, as well as the unit costs of increasingly expensive medical treatments and procedures—one cannot overlook the fact that an estimated 68 percent of Medicare recipients suffer with multiple chronic conditions.

Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses, of course, disproportionately contribute to costly hospital readmissions.

Under Hatch’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday held a mark-up session on S. 870, the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017. The committee approved the bill by a vote of 26-0.

With 17 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill aims to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to implement Medicare payment policies designed to improve management of chronic disease, streamline care coordination, and improve quality outcomes without adding to the deficit.

The Senate legislation would largely build upon the success of Medicare Advantage, the large and growing system of competing private health plans in the Medicare program.

Today, almost one-third of all enrollees in the Medicare program are enrolled in these private health plans, and that number is projected to grow significantly.

The bill would also extend new care delivery options for the so-called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) that currently deliver medical care in the traditional Medicare program as well.

Thus far, the ACOs have had a mixed success in delivering cost-effective care in the Medicare program. This legislative effort, focused on chronic illness, may help to improve their performance.

Hatch and his colleagues build on the potential of Medicare Advantage plans to cope with the chronic illness problem because the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does not respond nearly as well to the growing challenge of chronic illness.

Traditional Medicare does not provide the case management and care coordination that is increasingly routine in competing private health plans in the Medicare Advantage program.

Key Objectives

The Senate legislation has several objectives.

First, it would enhance home-based and “team-based” care, particularly for senior and disabled enrollees in the Medicare Advantage “special needs plans.” These special Medicare Advantage plans are already focused on providing care for complex and difficult patient populations.

The bill also expands opportunities for telehealth.

Second, the bill would broaden opportunities for doctors and patients in Medicare Advantage to make use of advancing medical technology and the latest innovations in benefit designs and care delivery models.

For example, the bill would enable Medicare Advantage plans to offer new benefits to chronically ill patients, not as “supplemental” benefits, but as part of their regular benefit offerings.

In short, the bill would give Medicare Advantage plans more flexibility in their benefit design and reimburse them for it.

Third, the bill would amend the law governing ACOs by enabling ACO patients to see any physician of their choice, while allowing ACOs to offer incentives to patients who take advantage of preventative care services.

An Important Step

In the short term, the Senate bill would improve care delivery for the chronically ill.

The potential for improving patient care across the board would be even greater if seniors’ health plans and providers—including traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and ACOs—were able to compete on a level playing field where information on medical prices and outcomes was fully available, and where patients exercised direct control over Medicare dollars in a defined contribution (“premium support”) program.

This bill is an important step forward in a process of improving Medicare, especially for those beneficiaries that experience chronic illness. (For more from the author of “Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Months before Donald Trump was even nominated for president at the Republican National Convention, the possibility of impeaching President Trump was already being floated in political circles.

“‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress,” read an April 2016 Politico piece, titled, “Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?”

“They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted a month before the Politico piece. “You might finally get to see unified opposition to the guy.”

“The only way Obama has gotten away with all this authoritarian executive order stuff is the Republican Party hasn’t stopped him. You want to see an opposition party in action, take a look at Democrats down the road,” he added.

Rush reiterated that prediction less than a week before the election. “I think one of the plans the Never Trumpers have if he wins is to impeach him,” the radio host said.

A day before the election, researchers with the University of Utah made the legal case for impeaching Trump if he won the election. The researchers claimed Trump could be charged with fraud or racketeering, both of which are felonies. (Read more from “The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo. (Read more from “Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.