On Friday, October 18, 2019, the National Review published an article titled To Trump, Alliances Are Strictly Business, discussing the importance of ethical business, social and economic responsibilities, and how we approach them. Meant to shake non-Trump Conservatives, business owners, employees, and more importantly, everyone.

                 Jonah Goldberg holds the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty at the American Enterprise Institute. Goldberg also has been a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times and has a #1 New York Times bestseller book Liberal Fascism.

                 Goldberg argues that for Trump, “Alliance Are Strictly Business.” Given two scenarios, the reader chooses whether to lend money to the pillar of the community or the shady weasel. Even though we are given a choice, the article reads rhetorically. Herein lies the argument of the author, a person with integrity is less financially “risky” and, therefore, should be respected.  Making the point that Trump talks a lot about the price of our relationships and commitments around the world. Trump's definition of national honor puts no value within our commitments regarding other nations, all while monetizing our view of them.

                  The argument makes sense considering the long trade war we currently find ourselves. President Trump seems to turn every foreign interaction into someway to benefit a capitalist system. It reminds me of an Aesop’s Fable, The Shepard Boy & the Wolf. America is becoming a nation that makes promises without any intention of following it to make a few dollars. We will eventually find ourselves with no allies, and our only reliance is the shady weasel.  

Affordable Medicaid

On Friday, October 4, 2019, the Los Angeles Times published an article titled Opinion: If Democrats want universal coverage, they need to abandon the “Medicare for all” fantasy. The article suggests building upon the Affordable Care Act, instead of implementing an entirely new system.

The article is intended to reach the majority of voters that back the idea of “Medicare for all.” As there are still advocates for ACA, the intent extends to those voters as well. While the former may already object to the author's suggestions, the latter falls under the same platform.

The author of the article, Peter D. Salins, is a professor of political science at Stony Brook University in New York which, is one of the highest-ranking research institutions in the world. Disregarding Salins’ accolades, he uses multiple research studies done when suggesting the misconceptions about “Medical for all.”  

Salin claims that what so many progressive candidates are fighting for is not only misleading, but it disregards how other countries actually implement near-universal healthcare. He cites other countries and how their health care systems work including Canada and the supplemental coverage two-thirds their citizens opt for.

To increase coverage to Americans, Salin suggests three steps that enhance the ACA. First, restoring enforcement that all Americans must have insurance. Reinstate the subsidies which helped unrinsed middle-income Individuals (14 million more covered). Second, better incentives for the states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion (2.5 million more covered).  Lastly, make low-cost public health insurance option for the 10 million additional Americans that can’t afford subsidized policies.

Although I neither agree nor disagree with the author, as America continues to grow, it becomes more and more critical that we can provide coverage for as many people as possible.