REPUBLICANS DON’T NEED A SINGLE DEMOCRAT To Fund Trump’s Border Wall…So What’s The Holdup?

[roamer_1]

That's a mixed bag. American companies complain that their European competitors have a edge on them because they do not have to provide health care since govs in Europe do that.

There is nothing that says American businesses must supply health insurance to employees. Simply refuse it, and let people go find their way on their own.

[Cripplecreek]

There is nothing that says American businesses must supply health insurance to employees. Simply refuse it, and let people go find their way on their own.

American business should be competing for good employees if that means offering a good insurance plan, so be it. That company will pick and choose the best employees.

[jpsb]

There is nothing that says American businesses must supply health insurance to employees. Simply refuse it, and let people go find their way on their own.

All large, just about all midsize companies and lots of small businesses do. Saying "simply refuse it" is not a real world solution.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is unfortunate that this promise doesn't seem to be one that is going to be kept; somehow, I just don't see the humor anymore.

This promise will be kept @libertybele   The DHS just issued an environmental waiver for construction ....

DHS waives environmental laws to begin building Trump border wall
The Washington Times, Aug 1, 2017

Homeland Security triggered a waiver Tuesday allowing the department to bypass environmental and other land protection laws in order to begin building and testing President Trump’s new border wall.

The waivers apply to San Diego, where officials already plan to upgrade miles of existing fence, but where they’ll also stage a competition this summer to build and test prototypes for Mr. Trump’s wall.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/dhs-waives-environmental-laws-begin-building-trump/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS

And money has been allocated for construction ...

Bill allocates $1.6 billion for Trump’s border wall
The Hill, Jul 11, 2017

The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday released a bill allocating $1.6 billion to begin construction of a physical barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico, one of President Trump’s central campaign promises.

***

In total, the bill allocates $13.8 billion to customs and border protection. That includes the $1.6 billion for the wall, $100 million to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents, $131 million for new border technology, $106 million for aircraft and sensors and $109 million for "non-intrusive inspection equipment."

It also adds $619.7 million to Immigration and Customs Enforcement over current levels, bringing total funding for ICE to $7 billion.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/341527-bill-allocates-16-billion-for-trumps-border-wall

[RoosGirl]

Republicans didn't need a single democrat to repeal Obamacare either.  What's the hold up?  Oh yeah...

[Cripplecreek]

Republicans didn't need a single democrat to repeal Obamacare either.  What's the hold up?  Oh yeah...

Transcripts of calls between Trump and the Mexican president have been released and don't look so good for Trump.

Apparently the wall was of minimal importance to him but was of great importance as campaign rhetoric.

[roamer_1]

American business should be competing for good employees if that means offering a good insurance plan, so be it. That company will pick and choose the best employees.

All well and good, 'but having someone else pay your bills' is the primary reason health care costs so much.

And business punting toward single payer is exactly the wrong thing to do, business wise. Far better to get out of insurance altogether.

[txradioguy]

That's a mixed bag. American companies complain that their European competitors have a edge on them because they do not have to provide health care since govs in Europe do that. One of the arguments in favor of single payer is that it would make our industry more competitive by shifting the cost of health care away from employers and on to gov.

And then you have an American healthcare system like the one in England that gave us the recent soap opera with Charlie Gard. At that point you have the government not only picking life's winners and losers but who lives and dies as well.  Not cool at all.

With O care we've seen employers have to cut hours and cut employees to be able to afford the impossible burden the ACA puts on them and stay in business.

If we get rid of Obamacare and return healthcare to a truly free market system...IMO there wouldn't be any real complaint because then employers could tailor the healthcare package they can afford and/or need to their business...or they could choose not to offer one at all.  Right now they don't have that freedom and they should.

I have not yet made up my mind on that, but Ocare must go, and I do not like the idea of a single payer system.

Agree 100%

Back in the day the mere mention of Socialized Medicine was likely to get you a punch in the nose.

I remember as a kid when my dad worked for Phillips Petroleum at their HQ in Bartlesville, OK that they had their own in in house medical staff.  Employees were required to have a physical once a year and could go get treatment from the doc if they weren't feeling well.

But then my doctor was a 10 minute car ride away in the same neighborhood where we lived too.

[roamer_1]

All large, just about all midsize companies and lots of small businesses do. Saying "simply refuse it" is not a real world solution.

That doesn't make it right, and yeah, it is the only 'real world' solution.

[Cripplecreek]

All well and good, 'but having someone else pay your bills' is the primary reason health care costs so much.

And business punting toward single payer is exactly the wrong thing to do, business wise. Far better to get out of insurance altogether.

Who made it your business to decide whether a business should choose to provide insurance as a means of attracting the best employees?

[RoosGirl]

Transcripts of calls between Trump and the Mexican president have been released and don't look so good for Trump.

Apparently the wall was of minimal importance to him but was of great importance as campaign rhetoric.

I can't find them.  Do you have a link?

[txradioguy]

I can't find them.  Do you have a link?

Found it.

He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

<snip>

Produced by White House staff, the documents provide an unfiltered glimpse of Trump’s approach to the diplomatic aspect of his job, subjecting even a close neighbor and long-standing ally to streams of threats and invective as if aimed at U.S. adversaries.

The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/you-cannot-say-that-to-the-press-trump-urged-mexican-president-to-end-his-public-defiance-on-border-wall-transcript-reveals/2017/08/03/0c2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.e5cf7a6968b0

[roamer_1]

Who made it your business to decide whether a business should choose to provide insurance as a means of attracting the best employees?

What, I can't have an opinion now?