Progressive One

So the McVeighs get to slide while you all chase Muslims.........Trump is itching for a scratch

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I am sticking to Progressive One; like stink on a skunk:
You are still stupid. You back elitist "Giorgi" George Soros and his NWO ilk.
Now please answer the questions you have been avoiding for months.
Are you ashamed of what the honest answers are? I would be also.
To see the hypocrite and phony, "the Progressive One" is; these quotes and questions have been presented;
"You can tell that this is the wakeup call to action many needed.....you can see the new level of mobilization, awareness and consciousness. the freeways have been blocked with thousands out here in LA.....Trump has his work cut out for him and his racist supporters in the sticks got him there.....will not be of any help to him…" - "Progressive?" One
So it is anarchy that Progressive One is behind!
At least he is out in the open.
The "professor" is a Marxist.
No wonder the professor avoids responding to these questions!
“you stated I was behind anarchy, so you've answered your own question. Very good” – Prog One
A sly way of admitting you support anarchy? I guess that is a Yes.
Why do liberals side with a Billionaire elitist like George "Giorgi" Soros?
PO; do you believe this should be what guides America?
“This system to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” - Insider, Professor Carroll Quigley – ‘Tragedy and Hope’,( p. 324)
10 Things You Didn't Know About "Giorgi" George Soros
https://youtu.be/tfBHYxEojZk
SOROS ROTHSCHILD RACE WAR PROPAGANDA EXPOSED
https://youtu.be/lhqqz3QFQKE
George Soros: Evil Puppet Master Exposed
https://youtu.be/1eRFTHD2CTg

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Progressive One

The emerging Trump doctrine
DOYLE McMANUS
A fter a full month of President Trump’s leadership, we can see his foreign policy more clearly now: It’s clearly incoherent. But it could be worse.
On one issue after another, Trump has disrupted U.S. diplomacy with incendiary statements — after which Vice President Mike Pence and other underlings have scurried around the world to tell other countries he didn’t really mean it. The recurring two-step has alarmed our allies, confused our adversaries and driven foreign policy wonks to despair.
Trump said he might lift sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine; pay no attention, Pence said last week: “The United States will continue to hold Russia accountable.”
Trump has dismissed the NATO alliance as “obsolete” and suggested it’s no longer worth fighting for. Not really, Pence assured the allies: “The United States is expressing strong support for NATO.”
About Iraq, Trump said last month: “We should have kept the oil — but OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.” Belay that, said Defense Secretary James N. Mattis: “We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil.”
And on China, Trump announced that he wasn’t wedded to the “One China” policy that effectively recognizes Beijing’s ownership of Taiwan. But the president later reversed himself to China’s president.
Actually, “incoherent” is too mild. This is a bag of contradictions with no common thread beyond an impulse to throw old doctrines out the window to see what breaks.
That’s a problem for a superpower that still, on its better days, aspires to be a global leader. It’s hard to maintain strong alliances when your most consistent message is that you’re no longer dependable.
On a more basic level, it will be hard to make America safe again if your own cabinet can’t agree on basic strategy. To quote the late Yogi Berra: “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
Every U.S. administration has internal debates. This one appears to have a clash of civilizations.
Inside the White House, the ideologists of Trump’s presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon and Stephen Miller, continue to stoke his disruptive impulses. Beyond that inner circle, emissaries from the establishment — Pence, Mattis and others — have labored to polish the rough edges.
Trump himself doesn’t seem to know what he thinks about some of these issues — probably because he never thought deeply (or, in some cases, at all) about them before.
That means the hardest job in Washington belongs to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the new national security advisor, whose mission is to be the honest broker among these contending forces.
Here’s the good news: In practice, Trump has erred on the side of caution.
He hasn’t lifted sanctions on Russia. He hasn’t ordered the U.S. Navy to attack an Iranian gunboat. He hasn’t moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, even though aides had the order ready on Inauguration Day. He hasn’t touched off a trade war with China — yet. (That could still happen.) His instincts are still hotheaded — but he has listened to Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress who have urged him to be careful.
The Trump doctrine may turn out to be: Watch what we don’t do, not what we say.
That approach will wear down our allies and our nerves, but it could turn into an odd form of normalcy.
It will continue to drive traditional strategists crazy, though. Last week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the wise men of American statecraft, urged Trump to end the chaos by giving a speech laying out “a Trump doctrine — any doctrine.”
What the world needs, Brzezinski wrote, is “a bold statement of [Trump’s] vision, including his determination to provide America’s leadership” and “a sense of historical direction.”
I disagree.
That would be sound advice for a conventional president — but not Trump, who shouldn’t really be encouraged to make more “bold statements.”
If you ask Trump to codify a doctrine, he’s likely to fall back on his speechwriting team from the campaign — that’s Bannon and Miller — and reissue talking points from 2016. That would have the effect of carving campaign slogans into stone.
The most encouraging discovery of the last month has been Trump’s pragmatism when his initial instincts meet resistance.
Before we ask for a “vision,” then, it might be better for the president to get a little more on-the-job training. Let McMaster make sure Bannon isn’t the only voice in the president’s ear. Let Pence and Mattis report on how the allies feel. Let Trump test Putin and discover whether his goals match with ours.
Incoherence comes at a cost, to be sure. But clarity, at this point, could be worse.
On this one, I’m going to echo the president’s supporters: Give him time.
doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com
Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I am sticking to Progressive One; like stink on a skunk:
You are still stupid. You back elitist "Giorgi" George Soros and his NWO ilk.
Now please answer the questions you have been avoiding for months.
Are you ashamed of what the honest answers are? I would be also.
To see the hypocrite and phony, "the Progressive One" is; these quotes and questions have been presented;
"You can tell that this is the wakeup call to action many needed.....you can see the new level of mobilization, awareness and consciousness. the freeways have been blocked with thousands out here in LA.....Trump has his work cut out for him and his racist supporters in the sticks got him there.....will not be of any help to him…" - "Progressive?" One
So it is anarchy that Progressive One is behind!
At least he is out in the open.
The "professor" is a Marxist.
No wonder the professor avoids responding to these questions!
“you stated I was behind anarchy, so you've answered your own question. Very good” – Prog One
A sly way of admitting you support anarchy? I guess that is a Yes.
Why do liberals side with a Billionaire elitist like George "Giorgi" Soros?
PO; do you believe this should be what guides America?
“This system to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” - Insider, Professor Carroll Quigley – ‘Tragedy and Hope’,( p. 324)
10 Things You Didn't Know About "Giorgi" George Soros
https://youtu.be/tfBHYxEojZk
SOROS ROTHSCHILD RACE WAR PROPAGANDA EXPOSED
https://youtu.be/lhqqz3QFQKE
George Soros: Evil Puppet Master Exposed
https://youtu.be/1eRFTHD2CTg

Progressive One

Trump deputies seek to repair ties with Mexico
SECRETARY of State Rex Tillerson, right, is greeted on arrival in Mexico City by U.S. Ambassador Roberta Jacobson and Mexican official Mauricio Ibarra. (Carlos Barria Pool Photo )
By Tracy Wilkinson and Patrick J. McDonnell
MEXICO CITY — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived in Mexico City on Wednesday on a mission to mend deeply frayed relations with the United States’ southern neighbor.
John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security, was expected to join him later in the day in a bid to repair the once-close relationship, which began deteriorating when President Trump repeatedly criticized Mexico during his election campaign.
Days after he took office, Trump argued on Twitter with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto over Trump’s demand that Mexico pay billions of dollars to build a massive wall along the border. The Mexican leader rebuffed Trump by canceling a planned visit to the White House.
Tillerson and Kelly will sit down with Peña Nieto on Thursday as well as with Mexico’s secretaries of foreign affairs, the interior, finance, national defense and navy. In addition to the wall, they are expected to discuss trade, counter-terrorism, immigration and other key bilateral concerns.
In Mexico, the perceived enmity from the new U.S. president has caused profound resentment and calls for Peña Nieto’s administration to take a more forceful stand in bilateral affairs.
“The federal government should enter these negotiations with resolve and without hesitation,” wrote columnist Clemente Castañeda Hoeflich on Wednesday in the Excelsior newspaper. “This is a relation of equals between two countries, two governments and two presidents.”
Yet Mexican officials must walk a fine line: appeasing get-tough calls from an irate domestic audience without further alienating the leaders of Mexico’s key trading partner at a time when the nation’s economy is already shaky.
The talks take place under a fresh cloud, because this week the Trump administration released aggressive new guidelines on immigration enforcement, signed by Kelly, that could lead to deportation of millions of Mexicans living illegally in the United States.
The policy calls for using local and state authorities to enforce federal immigration laws, deporting even people who commit minor crimes, jailing more people while they await deportation hearings and trying to send illegal border crossers back to Mexico even if they aren’t Mexican.
The move received blanket coverage in the Mexican news media, all of it condemnatory. The front-page headline in the newspaper La Jornada blared that Trump had declared “total war” against all of those living in the U.S. illegally.
The bilateral meetings are the first since Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray came to Washington in late January and met in private with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a key advisor to the president on foreign affairs.
Videgaray later said the U.S.-Mexico relationship is at a crossroads.
“This is a moment of definition: The decisions we make in the coming months will determine how Mexico and the United States coexist for the next decades,” he said last week at the margins of the Group of 20 economic summit in Bonn.
U.S. ties with Mexico ordinarily are little noticed far from the border, but Trump’s harsh anti-Mexico rhetoric and policies have changed all that.
During the campaign last year, he accused Mexico of sending rapists and criminals across the border and excoriated Mexico for what he said were unfair trade practices.
In addition to his vow to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it, Trump has threatened to impose a punitive tax on imports, including cars, that are made in Mexico. He also has vowed to scrap or renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 deal that eliminated almost all tariffs among the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
NAFTA is credited with vastly expanding trade — about $1.4 billion in goods now cross the U.S.-Mexico border every day — but at the cost of some U.S. jobs because the agreement made it easier for U.S. companies to move factories to Mexico.
In response, some Mexicans have called for national boycotts of U.S. brands and goods, using hashtags including #AdiosStarbucks, #AdiosWalmart, #AdiosCocacola and #AdiosProductosGringos, and lawmakers introduced a bill to stop buying American corn. Protesters formed human chains last weekend along parts of the border where Trump has vowed to build a wall.
Some Mexican officials also have countered with threats to end cooperation on joint efforts that target drug trafficking, illegal immigration and organized crime.
In recent years, Mexico has prevented thousands of Central Americans from flooding U.S. border crossings and has allowed extradition of drug lords, including Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, to the United States.
In Mexican congressional hearings this week about the new ambassador-designate to Washington, one lawmaker, Sen. Gabriela Cuevas, questioned why Mexico should continue its policy of deporting U.S.-bound Central American migrants on behalf of Washington.
“If the United States wants dialogue on immigration matters, they should sit at the table like equals,” Cuevas said. “Otherwise, what Mexico should do is leave the table and change its migratory policies with Central America.”
Mexico also is pouring an estimated $50 million into its 50 diplomatic consulates in the United States to support its citizens who are under threat of deportation. Delaying removals could wind up clogging U.S. immigration courts and jails.
“We have been cooperating with United States for many years on these issues, because they asked us to, and because we have a friendly, trustful relationship,” former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castañeda recently told CNN. “If that relationship disappears, the reasons for cooperation also disappear.”
There seems to be little space for common ground, however.
Even if Tillerson and Kelly are able to calm Mexican tempers, Trump seems unlikely to back down from his demands for a wall, a cornerstone of his campaign.
For Peña Nieto, who is approaching the last year of his six-year term, there is little political capital to work with the White House given widespread umbrage in Mexico at the new American president.
“We know that damage has been done to the bilateral relationship in the last few months,” Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after an official trip to Mexico City last weekend.
But Cardin voiced optimism for the future of U.S.-Mexico relations while taking a swipe at Trump and his penchant for tweeting.
“I’m confident the strength of our partnership and friendship with Mexico is dynamic enough to withstand 140-character broadsides or unrealistic demands,” he said.
Trump’s handling of relations with Mexico so far has largely relied on his inner circle, including Kushner, and not on the Latin America veterans at the State Department and National Security Council.
Craig Deare, who had been named National Security Council director for Western Hemisphere affairs, was fired late last week after he criticized how the administration was handling foreign policy.
Deare had complained to scholars during a private session at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington that foreign policy was too tightly controlled by Kushner and Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, according to one of the people who attended the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was private.
The fallout from a fraying relationship between the two countries could be extensive.
Mexico and the rest of Latin America could turn away from an unfriendly Washington toward an eager-to-please China. That could cost the United States economically and in terms of strategic power, after decades in which Washington diligently sought to rebuild ties with the region.
In Mexico, Trump’s antagonism, along with discontent with the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, is fanning flames of renewed nationalism and stoking the prospects of leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in the next presidential election.
tracy.wilkinson
@latimes.com
patrick.mcdonnell
@latimes.com
Cecilia Sanchez in The Times’ Mexico City bureau contributed to this report.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Will liberals allow the Left to ruin their party, using communist tactics?

Why do liberals align with the likes of a Billionaire elitist like George "Giorgi" Soros?
This is an expose and denouncement of "Giorgi" George Soros, and his communist/fascist tactics.

Why does any liberal align with the likes of a Billionaire elitist like George "Giorgi" Soros?
This is an expose and denouncement of "Giorgi" George Soros also.
10 Things You Didn't Know About Nazi collaborator. "Giorgi" George Soros
https://youtu.be/tfBHYxEojZk
SOROS ROTHSCHILD RACE WAR PROPAGANDA EXPOSED
https://youtu.be/lhqqz3QFQKE
George Soros: Evil Puppet Master Exposed
https://youtu.be/1eRFTHD2CTg
Anyone who cares to have organized rioting and Soros exposed, should copy and share this.

Progressive One

Films that cross border into politics
Award-nominated shorts enter waters that bigger-name features won’t dare.
“SILENT NIGHTS” centers on a relationship between a Ghanaian refugee and a local Danish woman. (Rolf Konow M&M Productions/Shorts HD)
By Steven Zeitchik
When the year’s best films are name-checked at the Oscars on Sunday night, the list will cover a broad range of topics, including family (“Manchester by the Sea”), communication (“Arrival”), ambition (“La La Land”) and race and sexuality (“Moonlight”).
The most potent global issue of recent years — the Middle East/North African refugee crisis and its questions of national security, immigration and religious tolerance — will be nowhere in sight.
But the Oscars have a trick up their sleeve. Fully half of the 10 movies nominated for the non-animated shorts prizes this year are migration-themed — everything from Greece coast guard officers rescuing refugees on rickety boats (the documentary short “4.1 Miles,” one of three in that category) to fraught encounters between Western governments and Muslim immigrants (the French piece “Enemies Within,” one of two in the scripted category).
These movies have the power to turn the Oscars into a political powder keg. With President Trump’s executive order banning many travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, the shorts inject themselves right into the last month’s headlines.
“The fact that the academy is honoring these films about refugees is telling,” said Daphne Matziaraki, the Greek American filmmaker who directed “4.1 Miles.” “Nominating these movies is in a way a form of protest for what’s happening in this country.”
Winners in one or both categories could well comment on the ban in their acceptance speeches, while the president, who in the past has live-Tweeted the Oscars, will almost certainly be paying attention.
Shorts have long been an also-ran set of categories, but a number of factors this year are converging to change that.
Shorts can be made faster than features, making them more responsive to current events. And shorts filmmakers tend to require less money in general, allowing them to gamble on commercially riskier subjects like refugees.
“This is a blinding flash of the obvious, but the shorts are very international, which makes them very diverse,” said Bob Rogers, a two-time Oscar shorts nominee who serves on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science’s Board of Governors for the shorts categories. “And if you’re paying for it all yourself, which you can’t do with Hollywood movies, you get to have much more to say and a lot fewer people to answer to.”
Subjects of several nominated shorts had to sweat out the battle between the White House and the courts before being allowed to come to the Oscars. The central character in the documentary short “Watani: My Homeland” — a Syrian refugee named Hala Kamil whose Free Syrian Army fighter husband was kidnapped by ISIS and is presumed dead — will come to the Oscars after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a stay of Trump’s order enabled an eleventh-hour visa.
“Somebody Tweeted the other day that if Hillary was president we’d all just be talking about movies and TV shows now,” said Bryn Mooser, the head of the L.A.-based Ryot Studio, the company behind “Watani.” “This country is awake in many places it hasn’t been before, and the Oscars reflect that.”
A scripted short that lands with such weight is “Enemies Within.” Selim Azzazi, the France-based son of Algerian immigrants, made the movie to tell of his late father, who grew up in the African country when it was still a French colony.
His film tracks a tense interrogation between an immigrant seeking French citizenship and the suspicious bureaucrat who can grant it — an ethnically tense two-hander that drills down to the personal stakes at the heart of the Muslim immigration debate. What starts out as a sundry conversation turns into an unexpected Sophie’s Choice as the immigrant is forced to choose between giving names of his Muslim friends from a prayer group and the country he badly wants (and deserves) to be a part of.
While it’s set in the 1990s, the issues couldn’t be more relevant. Azzazi views the events in the film as a kind of bridge between the House Un-American Activities Committee (he lived briefly in Georgia and counts “The Crucible” as an influence) and the current immigration debate.
“It’s always the same process. There are people who want to be thought as part of the country, and there’s a part of the population that cannot accept that, and it splits the country in half,” he said.
Meanwhile, “Silent Nights,” another scripted shorts nominee, centers on a relationship between a Ghanaian refugee and a local woman he meets at a Denmark absorption center.
“It wasn’t like we sat down and said ‘Let’s make a timely movie,’ ” said Kim Magnusson, the Danish producer of the film, expressing a sentiment shared by many of the shorts filmmakers. “But the more we got into it the more the world began to evolve. And then when Trump came to power it became prescient.”
For “Watani,” which tells of a family that fled Aleppo and is trying to start a new life in a small German town, the issues are equally up-to-the-minute, including outside the film.
Ryot Studio and the filmmakers decided to bring Kamil in on a visa despite the potential for an airport holdup — and despite the decision by Iranian director Asghar Farhadi (“The Salesman”) to stay home — because it could sway public opinion about the ban.
“4.1 Miles” director Matziaraki hopes her film has an eye-opening effect in the U.S. and Europe, especially as it is spotlighted at the Oscars.
“When you read the news you may feel empathy but it’s the other side of the world,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to look at these two realities colliding — the comfort-zone reality and this other reality.
“We’re going through historic times,” she added. “We can’t be detached.”
steve.zeitchik@latimes.com

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

The Spammin' Spook is at it again.

The poor dumb................Sambo !!

Progressive One

Boehner: Obamacare repeal and replace 'not what's going to happen'


Washington (CNN) — Former House Speaker John Boehner threw cold water Thursday on the prospect of congressional Republicans following through on their pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

"They'll fix Obamacare," the former Ohio congressman predicted at a conference hosted by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society in Orlando, Florida. "I shouldn't have called it repeal and replace because that's not what's going to happen. They're basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it."

Progressive One

Rich White Trash

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

That's better than being a poor dumb BROKE..................................SPOOK. !

Progressive One

With healthcare, they think it’s time to go solo
Amid the fight over Obamacare, some California politicians and advocates again promote idea of a state-run ‘single-payer’ system
MICHELLE KLEIN-HASS worries about losing her Medi-Cal coverage if Obamacare is repealed. She also backs a single-payer system. (Katie Falkenberg Los Angeles Times) DR. MITCH KATZ, head of L.A. County’s health department, likes single-payer but thinks it could take too long to carry out. (Christina House For The Times)
By Soumya Karlamangla
With President Trump now vowing to put forward a replacement for the Affordable Care Act in March, some California politicians and healthcare advocates are once again promoting the idea of a state-run “single-payer” system that operates like Medicare.
Backers say the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s promise to repeal Obamacare presents California with a chance to rethink how healthcare is delivered to its 39 million residents.
“Why wouldn’t we take this as an opportunity to create what we want in California?” Dr. Mitch Katz, head of L.A. County’s health department, said at a conference in December. He mentioned a single-payer system as a possible solution.
Other suggestions for how California can capitalize on the threat to Obamacare include creating a public option, a state-run health plan to sell on the state’s insurance exchange, and mimicking how Massachusetts provided universal healthcare.
“Just as [healthcare] was a lightning rod and a rallying cry for opponents of the law for the past seven years, now it’s becoming a rallying cry for the supporters,” said Dr. Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) introduced a bill Friday that would make California the first state to adopt single-payer, also called “Medicare for all.” Canada has such a system.
In a single-payer system, residents would pay into a state agency that essentially functions as an insurance company. The agency would pay doctors and hospitals when people sought treatment.
Previous proposals in California suggested financing the agency by pooling the state’s current funding for Medicaid, Medicare and other health programs and then taxing employees 4% of their income and employers 7% of payroll.
“More than ever we know that universal healthcare is popular in the minds of Californians,” Lara said in an interview.
Single-payer has a long, troubled history in California. Bills made it through the Legislature in 2006 and 2008 only to be vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But advocates say Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) increased support for single-payer by championing it on the national stage last year while vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.
New York state unveiled single-payer legislation this month. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) introduced a similar bill in Congress that would expand Medicare to cover all Americans.
But a 2008 report from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found that even with a tax on Californians and the state’s pooled healthcare funds, the state would still be short more than $40 billion in the first full year of single-payer implementation.
“Where were they going to come up with the $40 billion?” said Micah Weinberg, president of the Economic Institute at the Bay Area Council. “It’s just not feasible to do as a state.”
Weinberg pointed out that a single-payer initiative was scrapped in a state as small and liberal as Vermont. A single-payer measure on Colorado’s November ballot also failed.
Even supporters tend to get nervous about single-payer when they realize it would affect everyone and might be a step down from their current insurance plan, Kominski said. People who currently get insurance through employers, for example, would receive coverage through the state.
“I’m a skeptic,” Weinberg said. “For better or worse, we sort of need to see how things play out at the federal level and react appropriately.”
California enrolled about 5 million people in healthcare because of the Affordable Care Act. Its uninsured rate reached a record low of 7.1% last year, according to data released this month.
The state would lose $20 billion if the Affordable Care Act were repealed with no replacement. That’s an enormous, irreplaceable sum the state should concentrate on retaining, said Anthony Wright, executive director of advocacy group Health Access California.
“The first fight is this federal right, which threatens to undermine the entire health system,” he said. “I don’t want to presume that we’ve lost stuff that we haven’t lost yet.”
L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl was at the forefront of the state’s single-payer effort when she was a state senator in the 2000s. She said she isn’t yet sure of the best way to back-fill cuts to the Affordable Care Act.
Kuehl and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas introduced a motion Tuesday directing L.A. County officials to look into ways to offer medical care locally to people kicked off Obamacare, and to collaborate with the state on similar plans.
“We’re happy to work with the state to figure out a health insurance system, whatever that might be,” Kuehl said. “We have a lot of skin in the game.”
Kuehl said she thinks the state needs to consider replacing the $5 billion in Obamacare funds that subsidize Covered California plans. She said L.A. County is working to improve its hospitals and clinics in case it begins allowing people to buy into a local health plan and receive care from county doctors.
Michelle Klein-Hass, 53, is worried about losing her Medi-Cal coverage if Obamacare is repealed. She didn’t have to pay anything when she had emergency surgery to have her appendix removed. “It just about saved my life,” she said.
Klein-Hass, though, has supported a single-payer system since her mother was diagnosed with colon cancer two decades ago and was uninsured.
“They caught it real late, where they couldn’t do much of anything for her,” said Klein-Hass, who lives in Panorama City. “If we were living in a more civilized society, she would have had that found earlier.”
L.A. County’s Katz agrees single-payer would be optimal but thinks it could take too long to implement. That doesn’t mean the state can’t improve on Obamacare, he said.
If Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act, California could pass its own mandate requiring that everyone have insurance and that employers provide insurance. The state could go a step further, requiring that employers cover part-time workers, who are not included in the law’s employer mandate.
The state could also create a public option — its own health plan to sell on Covered California — that could be open to immigrants who are in the country illegally. They are barred from signing up for Obamacare under federal law. If the health plan is successful, it could one day morph into a single-payer system, Katz said.
“We’re going to need a California plan,” he said. “In four or eight years, or whatever it takes, maybe we’ve created the kind of system that other states will get.”
soumya.karlamangla@latimes.com

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Thank God President Trump was elected.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Why is it that more of the Slave's ancestors just can't figure out how the Dems have played them for decades?
There were many that did figure it out, and voted for Trump.
Same for the Hispanics.
Now Soros is buying a few of them; as a last ditch effort.