dailysignal--2020-08-20--3 Ways the Trump Administration Saves on Medicare, Medicaid Costs

The Trump administration has made several free market reforms in health care that should contribute to the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid , the official in charge of the programs says .
President Donald Trump , both as a candidate and as an officeholder , has opposed structural entitlement reforms backed by some conservatives .
But the Trump administration ’ s actions on deregulation and price transparency prompted competition and produced savings for the medical programs , Seema Verma , administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services , said in an interview last week .
“ Across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look for regulatory changes , changes to the law , that make long-term impacts to the health care system and that will make these programs more sustainable , ” Verma told The Daily Signal .
Special interests have tried to block some reforms , she added .
“ The president is not afraid to take on special interests to make the health care system more sustainable , ” Verma added .
“ So , this work he has done is making Medicare and Medicaid more sustainable .
What we are taking on is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Medicare Trustees report issued in May provided less than promising news , said Robert Moffit , a senior fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation .
“ Even with some of the welcome and worthwhile administrative changes made by the Trump administration , they will not usher us all into the sunny uplands of fiscal rectitude , ” Moffit told The Daily Signal in an email .
“ In fact , the 2020 trustees report was issued without the benefit of an analysis of the negative impact of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the stark rise in unemployment ) needed to sustain the already troubled Medicare trust fund , ” he said .
Moffit , a former assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Reagan administration , continued : Still , Verma noted significant savings for Medicare Part D and for Medicare Advantage , as well as for Medicaid , through free market measures .
Here are three key examples .
Medicare and Medicaid benefit from measures preventing what Verma called “ hospital monopolies.
” “ One of the changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital outpatient facilities for doctor visits with the same reimbursement we pay doctor ’ s offices , ” Verma said , adding : Further , the Trump administration has helped expand options for patient care .
“ We ’ ve also done a lot of work to allow more flexibility for ambulatory surgery centers , allowing them to perform more procedures where we know the quality is better and the cost is lower , and we give beneficiaries more choices , ” Verma said .
“ So , over time , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a big difference in terms of lowering costs.
” In February , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule to modernize Medicare Advantage , which offers private health plans that contract through Medicare , and the Medicare Part D prescription-drug program .
The new rule promoted the use of generic drugs and would allow beneficiaries to know out-of-pocket costs in advance .
The change was expected to increase revenue for the two Medicare programs by just under 1 % .
The Part D program was required to offer drug-price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , beginning this year , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded telehealth for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries .
“ We went through the Medicare Advantage policies , and we made a lot of regulatory changes , giving more flexibility to the plan , getting rid of burdensome regulations , and the result was we are at a 13-year low in terms of the premiums that Medicare beneficiaries are paying , ” Verma said .
She said similar savings are happening in the prescription-drug program after an administration push to lower drug prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Part D , we are actually at a seven-year low in terms of premiums , and the philosophy in the changes is to allow for greater competition , ” Verma said , adding : While those programs are just part of Medicare , she said , “ I think some of the changes we made in Medicare policies are not only going to lower costs for our beneficiaries and our taxpayers , but they also have a downstream impact on the entire health care system.
” The major expenses come in Medicare Part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the trustees report .
Medicare Part A is the hospitalization program .
Medicare Part B provides coverage for regular doctor visits .
Part A is running annual deficits and projected to become insolvent in 2026 , the report found .
The report estimated long-term balance would be secured through either an “ immediate ” increase in the Medicare payroll tax from 2.9 % to 3.6 % or a cut in Medicare hospitalization spending by 16 % .
The trustees report projects general revenues to fund Medicare Part B , the general medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal and business income taxes .
In 10 years , that amount will jump to 22.1 % of all such taxation .
Medicare costs are projected to continue expanding .
In 2019 , Medicare spending reached $ 796.2 billion , with an average per capita benefit of $ 13,879 and a total administrative cost of 10.6 % .
Medicare is projected to grow from 3.7 % of gross domestic product in 2019 to 6 % in 2044 , or 6.3 % under a more realistic scenario .
“ Growth under either of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s workers , the economy , Medicare beneficiaries , and the federal budget , ” the trustees ’ report says .
Verma said that Trump “ wants to deliver on his promise to take care of beneficiaries and for Medicaid to ensure we have a safety net system that is sustainable.
” In January , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the Healthy Adult Opportunity program , which is an optional program for states to participate in as part of the Medicaid program .
Medicaid is a jointly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the poor and those under 65 .
The program was designed to allow states to be innovative with use of federal dollars , but still accountable for results .
It gives states the ability to manage drug costs and flexibility to waive certain requirements , such as retroactive coverage periods , and the ability to engage beneficiaries through nominal premiums and cost-sharing , according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services .
“ We ’ ve heard every conservative talk about block grants , ” Verma said .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Medicaid program would work better if it was in a block grant .
Unfortunately , Congress didn ’ t take action on this , so the president did .
We have allowed for a block-grant opportunity for states.
” The Trump administration has cracked down on fraud and abuse , she noted .
“ I can tell you when I came to this administration , they had a backlog of what we call ‘ disallowances , ’ ” Verma said .
“ Those are cases where we know the state has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous administration did nothing about it .
We actually cleared that backlog , recovering billions of dollars , and we continue that work.
” Integrity has been a big part of our agenda , she noted :

The Trump administration has made several free market reforms in health care that should contribute to the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, the official in charge of the programs says.
President Donald Trump, both as a candidate and as an officeholder, has opposed structural entitlement reforms backed by some conservatives.
But the Trump administration’s actions on deregulation and price transparency prompted competition and produced savings for the medical programs, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in an interview last week.
“Across the board, we’ve tried to look for regulatory changes, changes to the law, that make long-term impacts to the health care system and that will make these programs more sustainable,” Verma told The Daily Signal.
Special interests have tried to block some reforms, she added.
“The president is not afraid to take on special interests to make the health care system more sustainable,” Verma added. “So, this work he has done is making Medicare and Medicaid more sustainable. What we are taking on is the cost of health care.”
However, the Medicare trustees report issued in May provided less than promising news, said Robert Moffit, a senior fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.
“Even with some of the welcome and worthwhile administrative changes made by the Trump administration, they will not usher us all into the sunny uplands of fiscal rectitude,” Moffit told The Daily Signal in an email.
“In fact, the 2020 trustees report was issued without the benefit of an analysis of the negative impact of the major loss of the payroll revenue (with the stark rise in unemployment) needed to sustain the already troubled Medicare trust fund,” he said.
Moffit, a former assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Reagan administration, continued:
The best change is to harness the defined-contribution approach, which maximizes both the free market forces of consumer choice and real competition among plans, to improve coverage and secure savings to both taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. We already have seen the effectiveness of that approach in the Medicare Advantage program and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, [which] covers approximately 8 million federal employees and retirees and their families.
Still, Verma noted significant savings for Medicare Part D and for Medicare Advantage, as well as for Medicaid, through free market measures.
Here are three key examples.
1. Curbing ‘Hospital Monopolies’
Medicare and Medicaid benefit from measures preventing what Verma called “hospital monopolies.”
“One of the changes we made was to pay hospitals and hospital outpatient facilities for doctor visits with the same reimbursement we pay doctor’s offices,” Verma said, adding:
That is a situation where it actually lowered the government’s cost, lowered the cost for our beneficiaries, and it has the downstream impact of reducing the tendencies of these hospitals to buy up physician practices and create monopolies, which increase costs.
Further, the Trump administration has helped expand options for patient care.
“We’ve also done a lot of work to allow more flexibility for ambulatory surgery centers, allowing them to perform more procedures where we know the quality is better and the cost is lower, and we give beneficiaries more choices,” Verma said. “So, over time, that’s another change that is going to make a big difference in terms of lowering costs.”
2. Medicare Reforms
In February, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule to modernize Medicare Advantage, which offers private health plans that contract through Medicare and the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
The new rule promoted the use of generic drugs and would allow beneficiaries to know out-of-pocket costs in advance. The change was expected to increase revenue for the two Medicare programs by just under 1%. The Part D program was required to offer drug price comparisons beginning in January 2022.
Also, beginning this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded telehealth for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.
“We went through the Medicare Advantage policies, and we made a lot of regulatory changes, giving more flexibility to the plan, getting rid of burdensome regulations, and the result was we are at a 13-year low in terms of the premiums that Medicare beneficiaries are paying,” Verma said.
She said similar savings are happening in the prescription drug program after an administration push to lower drug prices.
“The philosophy in terms of Part D, we are actually at a seven-year low in terms of premiums, and the philosophy in the changes is to allow for greater competition,” Verma said, adding:
A lot of the changes we made provided more flexibility, really getting government out of the way and allowing the free market to work better.
While those programs are just part of Medicare, she said, “I think some of the changes we made in Medicare policies are not only going to lower costs for our beneficiaries and our taxpayers, but they also have a downstream impact on the entire health care system.”
The major expenses come in Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B, according to the trustees report. Medicare Part A is the hospitalization program. Medicare Part B provides coverage for regular doctor visits.
Part A is running annual deficits and projected to become insolvent in 2026, the report found.
The report estimated long-term balance would be secured through either an “immediate” increase in the Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% to 3.6% or a cut in Medicare hospitalization spending by 16%.
The trustees report projects general revenues to fund Medicare Part B, the general medical program, will consume 15.8% of personal and business income taxes. In 10 years, that amount will jump to 22.1% of all such taxation.
Medicare costs are projected to continue expanding. In 2019, Medicare spending reached $796.2 billion, with an average per capita benefit of $13,879 and a total administrative cost of 10.6%. Medicare is projected to grow from 3.7% of gross domestic product in 2019 to 6% in 2044, or 6.3% under a more realistic scenario.
“Growth under either of these scenarios would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, the economy, Medicare beneficiaries, and the federal budget,” the trustees’ report says.
3. Block-Granting Medicaid and Stopping Fraud
Verma said that Trump “wants to deliver on his promise to take care of beneficiaries and for Medicaid to ensure we have a safety net system that is sustainable.”
In January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the Healthy Adult Opportunity program, which is an optional program for states to participate in as part of the Medicaid program.
Medicaid is a jointly funded federal-state program providing health care coverage to the poor and those under 65. The program was designed to allow states to be innovative with use of federal dollars, but still accountable for results.
It gives states the ability to manage drug costs and flexibility to waive certain requirements, such as retroactive coverage periods, and the ability to engage beneficiaries through nominal premiums and cost-sharing, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
“We’ve heard every conservative talk about block grants,” Verma said. “It’s a long-standing, long-held view that the Medicaid program would work better if it was in a block grant. Unfortunately, Congress didn’t take action on this, so the president did. We have allowed for a block-grant opportunity for states.”
The Trump administration has cracked down on fraud and abuse, she noted.
“I can tell you when I came to this administration, they had a backlog of what we call ‘disallowances,’” Verma said. “Those are cases where we know the state has been claiming federal Medicaid funds inappropriately. The previous administration did nothing about it. We actually cleared that backlog, recovering billions of dollars, and we continue that work.”
Integrity has been a big part of our agenda, she noted:


dailysignal--2020-08-21--How the Left Ruins the Objectivity of Science

More than two years ago , I wrote a column titled “ Whatever the Left Touches It Ruins.
” I listed eight examples : -—And , perhaps most disturbingly , America ’ s commitment to free speech .
One should now add the sciences .
The COVID-19 pandemic has hastened the left ’ s ruining of science .
This already had begun with the left ’ s attacks on “ objectivity , ” the most essential value in science—the very thing that makes science possible .
The left declares objectivity , which it now puts in quotation marks , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
One example is that science departments in universities throughout America have declared their intention to hire physicists , biologists , and other scientists based on gender and race , not scientific expertise .
A few years ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applicants to the physics department of the University of California at San Diego were females , “ leading one male candidate with a specialty in extragalactic physics , ” reported Heather Mac Donald , “ to wonder why the school had even solicited applications from Asian and white men.
” Mac Donald updated her findings in a just-published piece : “ The dean of the Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California , San Diego , pronounced himself ‘ absolutely dedicated ’ to turning the engineering school into an ‘ anti-racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the declaration by more than 1,000 doctors and other health care providers that despite all their previous warnings against public gatherings as health risks : “ As public health advocates , we do not condemn these gatherings [ mass protests against racism ] as risky for COVID-19 transmission .
We support them as vital to the national public health.
” Yet another example of leftism overwhelming medical science is the medical profession ’ s denial of the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and zinc in the early days of a COVID-19 infection .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration , would label a drug dangerous when it has been used safely for more than half a century , and by many thousands ( such as those with rheumatoid arthritis or lupus ) every day for decades , is a medical and moral scandal .
The medical profession has placed politics not only ahead of science but also ahead of saving lives .
The medical profession , the Food and Drug Administration , and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have lost the faith of half of the American people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith of the majority of Americans .
It is difficult to envision the medical profession regaining its credibility in this generation .
One of the world ’ s most prestigious medical and scientific journals , The Lancet in the U.K. , withdrew an article it had published that dismissed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients .
The Lancet article contained made-up data .
As The New York Times reported , Dr. Richard Horton , editor-in-chief of The Lancet , called the paper retracted by his journal a “ fabrication ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published the fraudulent study about the alleged dangers of hydroxychloroquine because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies , which have nothing to gain financially from widespread use of hydroxychloroquine , a cheap , generic drug .
The Lancet also published the article because it loathes President Donald Trump , who , when the first reports of successful treatment with hydroxychloroquine surfaced , announced that use of the drug could save lives .
Horton had labeled Trump ’ s withdrawal of U.S. funding of the World Health Organization “ a crime against humanity ” after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , including behaving as a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party when it condemned Trump ’ s Jan. 31 ban on travel from China .
The number of Americans killed by the medical boards , the pharmaceutical boards , the Food and Drug Administration , and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not allowing doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine in the early days following a patient ’ s diagnosis with COVID-19 and outside of a hospital setting , and the number killed by the doctors who could but would not prescribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands .
On my radio show , Yale University epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch said : “ Because we were blocked from using it [ hydroxychloroquine ] in the United States to the present point , probably at least 100,000 people have died.
” Based on the retracted study in The Lancet , The Washington Post ran a story headlined “ Hydroxychloroquine Drug Promoted by Trump as Coronavirus ‘ Game-Changer ’ Increasingly Linked to Deaths.
” And social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter immediately remove any citation of a scientist who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American Psychological Association , choosing leftism over psychology in declaring , “ 40 years of research [ show that ] traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
” The one good thing to come out of the American Psychological Association ’ s pathologizing masculinity is that people searching for a competent psychotherapist for themselves or their child now have an easy method by which to identify the incompetent : Simply ask the prospective therapist if he agrees with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does or merely hesitates to distance himself from it , you know you want another therapist .
Forthcoming columns will deal with more areas of life ruined by the left , including , most troubling of all , America itself .
As seen in their treatment of the statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson , the left can tear down , but it can not build .

More than two years ago, I wrote a column titled “Whatever the Left Touches It Ruins.” I listed eight examples:
—The universities.
—The arts: music, art, and architecture.
—Sports.
—Mainstream Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.
—Race relations.
—Women’s happiness.
-—Children’s innocence.
-—And, perhaps most disturbingly, America’s commitment to free speech.
One should now add the sciences.
The COVID-19 pandemic has hastened the left’s ruining of science. This already had begun with the left’s attacks on “objectivity,” the most essential value in science—the very thing that makes science possible.
The left declares objectivity, which it now puts in quotation marks, a characteristic of white supremacy.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
One example is that science departments in universities throughout America have declared their intention to hire physicists, biologists, and other scientists based on gender and race, not scientific expertise.
A few years ago, all five candidates on the shortlist of applicants to the physics department of the University of California at San Diego were females, “leading one male candidate with a specialty in extragalactic physics,” reported Heather Mac Donald, “to wonder why the school had even solicited applications from Asian and white men.”
Mac Donald updated her findings in a just-published piece: “The dean of the Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, pronounced himself ‘absolutely dedicated’ to turning the engineering school into an ‘anti-racist organization.'”
A recent example was the declaration by more than 1,000 doctors and other health care providers that despite all their previous warnings against public gatherings as health risks: “As public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings [mass protests against racism] as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health.”
Yet another example of leftism overwhelming medical science is the medical profession’s denial of the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and zinc in the early days of a COVID-19 infection.
That physicians, including the Food and Drug Administration, would label a drug dangerous when it has been used safely for more than half a century, and by many thousands (such as those with rheumatoid arthritis or lupus) every day for decades, is a medical and moral scandal.
The medical profession has placed politics not only ahead of science but also ahead of saving lives. The medical profession, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have lost the faith of half of the American people and, over time, will lose the faith of the majority of Americans.
It is difficult to envision the medical profession regaining its credibility in this generation.
One of the world’s most prestigious medical and scientific journals, The Lancet in the U.K., withdrew an article it had published that dismissed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients.
The Lancet article contained made-up data. As The New York Times reported, Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, called the paper retracted by his journal a “fabrication” and “a monumental fraud.”
The journal published the fraudulent study about the alleged dangers of hydroxychloroquine because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies, which have nothing to gain financially from widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a cheap, generic drug.
The Lancet also published the article because it loathes President Donald Trump, who, when the first reports of successful treatment with hydroxychloroquine surfaced, announced that use of the drug could save lives.
Horton had labeled Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. funding of the World Health Organization “a crime against humanity” after the WHO’s politicization of the coronavirus, including behaving as a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party when it condemned Trump’s Jan. 31 ban on travel from China.
The number of Americans killed by the medical boards, the pharmaceutical boards, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not allowing doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine in the early days following a patient’s diagnosis with COVID-19 and outside of a hospital setting, and the number killed by the doctors who could but would not prescribe hydroxychloroquine, is likely in the tens of thousands.
On my radio show, Yale University epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch said: “Because we were blocked from using it [hydroxychloroquine] in the United States to the present point, probably at least 100,000 people have died.”
Based on the retracted study in The Lancet, The Washington Post ran a story headlined “Hydroxychloroquine Drug Promoted by Trump as Coronavirus ‘Game-Changer’ Increasingly Linked to Deaths.” And social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter immediately remove any citation of a scientist who promotes hydroxychloroquine.
A fourth example is the American Psychological Association, choosing leftism over psychology in declaring, “40 years of research [show that] traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”
The one good thing to come out of the American Psychological Association’s pathologizing masculinity is that people searching for a competent psychotherapist for themselves or their child now have an easy method by which to identify the incompetent: Simply ask the prospective therapist if he agrees with the association’s statement. If he does or merely hesitates to distance himself from it, you know you want another therapist.
Forthcoming columns will deal with more areas of life ruined by the left, including, most troubling of all, America itself.
As seen in their treatment of the statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the left can tear down, but it cannot build.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-08-21--2 Musts for Beating COVID-19: Know Who’s Sick, Provide Places to Recover

A recent special report published by The Heritage Foundation looks at the policy responses several countries have taken to combat the coronavirus pandemic .
The report sheds light on two prerequisites—in the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine or a cure—that countries need to have in place to succeed at turning back the virus .
If there ’ s no way of knowing who has the virus and can spread it to others , preventing its spread is much more difficult .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Those carrying the virus have to be identified through the use of adequate testing .
That means not only that tests have to be plentiful enough to be used whenever a coronavirus case is suspected , but also that the tests have to be administered correctly .
And there must be enough medical resources in a country to process the tests rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially in its early days .
One reason Iceland and South Korea—two countries The Heritage Foundation ’ s special report covers—were able to escape a wider-scale outbreak , such as the one that currently rages in the United States , is because Iceland and South Korea tested abundantly right off the bat .
Everyone who was suspected of possibly carrying the virus was given a test , and the test results were processed quickly .
In the United States , the prerequisite of having enough testing capability in the early days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureaucratic layers of counterproductive regulations .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s special report describes it this way : One of the main reasons that the United States had difficulty engaging in mass testing early on in the pandemic was that excessive regulation made it very difficult to produce a sufficient number of test kits .
Specifically , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) , which has a lengthy approval process to bring any test to market , initially granted emergency use authorization ( EUA ) only to the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop and perform COVID-19 tests .
Although universities and the private sector were anxious to develop tests early on , the FDA and CDC warned these entities not to perform their own testing without FDA authorization .
Aside from the fact that the first batch of CDC test kits were faulty , the cumbersome process associated with getting FDA authorization prevented the U.S. from having a [ usable ] supply of tests .
The gravity of the situation was keenly stated by Heritage health policy expert Bob Moffit , who commented : There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to recover where they are apart from the noninfected population .
Contagious people carrying the virus who are identified through testing need to be able to live apart from the noninfected while they recover from their illness .
One of the great tragedies in the U.S. as the pandemic unfolded in New York was that Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients .
Many elderly residents were exposed to the virus when these contagious COVID-19 patients did not leave the facilities , and many thousands of New Yorkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed “ shock ” that 66 % of New York hospital admissions related to the virus were those who were adhering to the government order to stay in their own homes and “ not venture much outside.
” It shouldn ’ t have shocked anyone .
Staying in one ’ s home if no one living there has the virus is one thing , but why would the government and its experts order people to do so when no one knows whether others there are sick with COVID-19 or even when other residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only be chalked up to one of the all-too-frequent failures of conventional wisdom .
The coronavirus spreads most easily indoors and when contact is made with infected persons for longer than brief meetings .
Government mandates to stay home with other people who are contagious only make sense if the goal is to have people catch the virus .
With that in mind , Heritage recommends having facilities known as “ isolation centers , ” where those who have the virus—but who do not require hospitalization—can go voluntarily and live apart from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , elaborated : The foundering hotel industry could be utilized to designate some hotels as isolation centers , where those whose symptoms are not life-threatening can stay voluntarily until they are no longer shedding virus .
The cruise ship industry also might be interested in participating by allowing some of its docked cruise ships to be used as isolation centers .
The Heritage special report advises the Trump administration and state governors to discuss with private insurance companies—as well as with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of reimbursing patient stays in isolation centers , as they already do for many other medical treatments and procedures .
It would be a surprise if the insurance companies pushed back against this idea .
After all , preventing more COVID-19 cases would save health insurance companies money by causing fewer medical insurance claims to be filed .
And those infecting others in their own homes often infect family members who are on the same health insurance plans as themselves .
The cost of covering one person ’ s lodging in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hook for the COVID-19-related bills of an entire family , is naturally a preferred choice for a private insurance company and saves taxpayer dollars spent on Medicare and Medicaid .
No one wants to infect others in their family with the potentially deadly coronavirus .
With isolation centers available , those with COVID-19 would voluntarily use them , and the languishing hotel and cruise ship industries could use the business .
Stemming the pandemic with private sector funds and resources is in the best interests of all .
Conventional wisdom need not @ @ @

A recent special report published by The Heritage Foundation looks at the policy responses several countries have taken to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
The report sheds light on two prerequisites—in the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine or a cure—that countries need to have in place to succeed at turning back the virus.
No. 1: Adequate Testing Ability
If there’s no way of knowing who has the virus and can spread it to others, preventing its spread is much more difficult.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Those carrying the virus have to be identified through the use of adequate testing.
That means not only that tests have to be plentiful enough to be used whenever a coronavirus case is suspected, but also that the tests have to be administered correctly. And there must be enough medical resources in a country to process the tests rapidly for the entire course of the pandemic, especially in its early days.
One reason Iceland and South Korea—two countries The Heritage Foundation’s special report covers—were able to escape a wider-scale outbreak, such as the one that currently rages in the United States, is because Iceland and South Korea tested abundantly right off the bat.
Everyone who was suspected of possibly carrying the virus was given a test, and the test results were processed quickly.
In the United States, the prerequisite of having enough testing capability in the early days of the pandemic did not exist because of bureaucratic layers of counterproductive regulations.
The Heritage Foundation’s special report describes it this way:
One of the main reasons that the United States had difficulty engaging in mass testing early on in the pandemic was that excessive regulation made it very difficult to produce a sufficient number of test kits. Specifically, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has a lengthy approval process to bring any test to market, initially granted emergency use authorization (EUA) only to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop and perform COVID-19 tests. Although universities and the private sector were anxious to develop tests early on, the FDA and CDC warned these entities not to perform their own testing without FDA authorization. Aside from the fact that the first batch of CDC test kits were faulty, the cumbersome process associated with getting FDA authorization prevented the U.S. from having a [usable] supply of tests.
The gravity of the situation was keenly stated by Heritage health policy expert Bob Moffit, who commented:
The bureaucratic hurdles that in normal times are costly, time-consuming, and just plain annoying to doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals can be downright dangerous when they undercut rapid responsiveness in a national emergency and pose risks to public health and safety.
No. 2: Places to Recover
There should be places where infected individuals can go to recover where they are apart from the noninfected population.
Contagious people carrying the virus who are identified through testing need to be able to live apart from the noninfected while they recover from their illness.
One of the great tragedies in the U.S. as the pandemic unfolded in New York was that Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients.
Many elderly residents were exposed to the virus when these contagious COVID-19 patients did not leave the facilities, and many thousands of New Yorkers died as a result.
Cuomo later expressed “shock” that 66% of New York hospital admissions related to the virus were those who were adhering to the government order to stay in their own homes and “not venture much outside.”
It shouldn’t have shocked anyone.
Staying in one’s home if no one living there has the virus is one thing, but why would the government and its experts order people to do so when no one knows whether others there are sick with COVID-19 or even when other residents are known to be infected?
It can only be chalked up to one of the all-too-frequent failures of conventional wisdom.
The coronavirus spreads most easily indoors and when contact is made with infected persons for longer than brief meetings. Government mandates to stay home with other people who are contagious only make sense if the goal is to have people catch the virus.
With that in mind, Heritage recommends having facilities known as “isolation centers,” where those who have the virus—but who do not require hospitalization—can go voluntarily and live apart from the uninfected population until they recover.
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, elaborated:
Excess hotel capacity and other such places may be repurposed as isolation and care facilities. Participation should be voluntary, and policymakers may want to undertake education campaigns to encourage people to use these facilities to protect their families from the pathogen.
The foundering hotel industry could be utilized to designate some hotels as isolation centers, where those whose symptoms are not life-threatening can stay voluntarily until they are no longer shedding virus.
The cruise ship industry also might be interested in participating by allowing some of its docked cruise ships to be used as isolation centers.
The Heritage special report advises the Trump administration and state governors to discuss with private insurance companies—as well as with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—the idea of reimbursing patient stays in isolation centers, as they already do for many other medical treatments and procedures.
It would be a surprise if the insurance companies pushed back against this idea. After all, preventing more COVID-19 cases would save health insurance companies money by causing fewer medical insurance claims to be filed. And those infecting others in their own homes often infect family members who are on the same health insurance plans as themselves.
The cost of covering one person’s lodging in an isolation center, rather than being on the hook for the COVID-19-related bills of an entire family, is naturally a preferred choice for a private insurance company and saves taxpayer dollars spent on Medicare and Medicaid.
No one wants to infect others in their family with the potentially deadly coronavirus. With isolation centers available, those with COVID-19 would voluntarily use them, and the languishing hotel and cruise ship industries could use the business.
Stemming the pandemic with private sector funds and resources is in the best interests of all. Conventional wisdom need not be consulted.


dailysignal--2020-08-23--Nurses Rally Against Unionization as Law Muzzles Hospital Management

Nurses opposed to unionization at Mission Hospital in Asheville , North Carolina , made their voices heard over heavy rainfall at a demonstration in front of the hospital .
“ I don ’ t want someone standing between me and my patient , telling me how to do my job , ” said one nurse who is voting “ no ” on the union-organizing effort .
“ I can make my own decisions.
” “ What if someone dials 911 , and we happen to be on strike at the time ?
” asked another nurse , who is part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m concerned with the divisiveness with everyone in the hospital .
We are a team.
” The Daily Signal counted about 10 “ Vote No ” nurses gathered outside of the hospital in the rain Friday morning during the streaming event .
“ It ’ s easy to bring your concerns to the hospital , ” another nurse said .
“ You can do this through the right process and make changes , and it doesn ’ t cost you anything from your paycheck.
” Supporters of the unionizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cite what they say are staffing shortages and working conditions that put nurses and hospital patients alike “ at risk.
” Under union election rules , hospital management is not permitted to advance its viewpoint to employees within 24 hours of the vote , defined as when polling places open .
The National Labor Relations Board , an independent agency of the federal government , is conducting the secret-ballot election .
But since ballots were mailed to nurses Aug. 18 and will be counted by the labor board Sept. 16 , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hospital , effectively is silenced for almost a month .
Going into the union election , Rachel Greszler , a research fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation who specializes in labor policy , found that the union has all the advantages .
Even in the absence of COVID-19 , union election rules are rigged against the hospital ’ s management , she said .
But the vote-by-mail process implemented as a safeguard during the pandemic puts union operatives in an even stronger position to corral nurses , Greszler told The Daily Signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily tips the scale in the union ’ s favor , the mail-in ballot process brought on by COVID-19 has effectively put a 30-day gag order on Mission Hospital , ” she said , adding : While the hospital can not talk to its employees , provide information , or even defend itself against potential false claims by [ National Nurses United ] , the union can send its employees to workers ’ homes to try to convince them to vote yes to unionizing .
Unions have been known to use intimidation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want an election , but at least with in-person , secret-ballot elections , workers can later vote their true desires .
Now , we have NNU organizers showing up to nurses ’ private homes , and inside those homes are the ballots that will determine the election outcome .
In a press release , National Nurses Organizing Committee-North Carolina , an affiliate of Oakland , California-based National Nurses United , takes aim at HCA Healthcare , the manager of Mission Hospital .
The union argues that nurses are victimized by subpar working conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffing shortages .
“ In the Emergency Department , patients have been left in the hallways , despite having multiple open rooms , because there were not enough RNs to provide care , ” the union ’ s press release says , adding : Stephanie Grant , a registered nurse at the hospital , is quoted in the Aug. 4 press release as saying : “ We are elated to finally have the opportunity to proceed with a vote to build a democratic union with a union voice to protect our patients and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community that they can count on high-quality care they need and deserve.
” In a letter dated July 20 addressed to leaders of Asheville and Buncombe County , 25 nurses at Mission Hospital make their case against the union .
“ Please do not let blind support of NNU ’ s fictitious agenda lead you to abandoning us , ” the letter says .
It also contends that National Nurses United “ is responsible for nationwide strikes that are hurting nurses , patients , and communities.
” Vickie West , a nurse at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to the Asheville community and the news media that details some of her concerns about the union .
“ As I ’ ve listened to the arguments for and against bringing a nurse ’ s union to Mission over the past few months , I knew from my experience with a previous employer that unions are not the answer that they are being promoted to be , ” West writes , adding : West also raised objections to how the union might handle questions of seniority and the impact it could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advancement should be based on performance , not seniority , ” one nurse said during the demonstration .
“ I also want my voice heard .
I don ’ t want someone else speaking for me.
” But the union contends in its press release that hospital staffers have been put in compromising positions that are sometimes unsafe .
National Nurses United describes itself as the “ largest union and professional association of registered nurses in U.S. history ” with about 185,000 members .
If the union prevails in the election , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mission Hospital .
At least one demonstrator had a message for colleagues who support unionization .
The nurse , holding up a “ No Union ” sign , invoked the name of Florence Nightingale , the English social reformer widely viewed as the founder of modern nursing .
“ I ask you to reflect on when you took your Florence Nightingale oath and when you said you would do no harm , ” she said .
“ How could you possibly walk from the bedside of a patient to go on strike ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with cases where patients at Mission Hospital could have died if nurses had been out on strike .
What ’ s happening in the union election at Mission Hospital wouldn ’ t be tolerated in normal elections , Heritage ’ s Greszler said .
“ Imagine if , in the upcoming presidential election , one candidate was prohibited from campaigning once mail-in-ballots were sent out , but the other candidate was allowed to campaign door-to-door while the election ballots sit inside , ” she said .
“ Regardless of which candidate one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fair process.
” Greszler also said she expects that victory for National Nurses United would spur unions in other parts of the country to embrace mail-in balloting and potentially jeopardize worker freedom :

Nurses opposed to unionization at Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, made their voices heard over heavy rainfall at a demonstration in front of the hospital.
“I don’t want someone standing between me and my patient, telling me how to do my job,” said one nurse who is voting “no” on the union-organizing effort. “I can make my own decisions.”
“What if someone dials 911, and we happen to be on strike at the time?” asked another nurse, who is part of the “Vote No” movement. “I’m concerned with the divisiveness with everyone in the hospital. We are a team.”
The Daily Signal counted about 10 “Vote No” nurses gathered outside of the hospital in the rain Friday morning during the streaming event.
“It’s easy to bring your concerns to the hospital,” another nurse said. “You can do this through the right process and make changes, and it doesn’t cost you anything from your paycheck.”
Two “Vote No” nurses express themselves in the rain during the streaming protest Friday from Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina.
Supporters of the unionizing effort by National Nurses United, however, cite what they say are staffing shortages and working conditions that put nurses and hospital patients alike “at risk.”
Under union election rules, hospital management is not permitted to advance its viewpoint to employees within 24 hours of the vote, defined as when polling places open.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The National Labor Relations Board, an independent agency of the federal government, is conducting the secret-ballot election. But since ballots were mailed to nurses Aug. 18 and will be counted by the labor board Sept. 16, that means the nurses’ employer, Mission Hospital, effectively is silenced for almost a month.
Going into the union election, Rachel Greszler, a research fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation who specializes in labor policy, found that the union has all the advantages. Even in the absence of COVID-19, union election rules are rigged against the hospital’s management, she said.
But the vote-by-mail process implemented as a safeguard during the pandemic puts union operatives in an even stronger position to corral nurses, Greszler told The Daily Signal.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
“While the unionization process already heavily tips the scale in the union’s favor, the mail-in ballot process brought on by COVID-19 has effectively put a 30-day gag order on Mission Hospital,” she said, adding:
While the hospital cannot talk to its employees, provide information, or even defend itself against potential false claims by [National Nurses United], the union can send its employees to workers’ homes to try to convince them to vote yes to unionizing. Unions have been known to use intimidation to get workers to sign cards indicating they want an election, but at least with in-person, secret-ballot elections, workers can later vote their true desires. Now, we have NNU organizers showing up to nurses’ private homes, and inside those homes are the ballots that will determine the election outcome.
In a press release, National Nurses Organizing Committee-North Carolina, an affiliate of Oakland, California-based National Nurses United, takes aim at HCA Healthcare, the manager of Mission Hospital.
The union argues that nurses are victimized by subpar working conditions and that hospital patients are victimized by staffing shortages.
“In the Emergency Department, patients have been left in the hallways, despite having multiple open rooms, because there were not enough RNs to provide care,” the union’s press release says, adding:
In the Trauma Care Unit (TCU), short staffing has been common, sometimes with the unit down three RNs, which puts everyone at risk. In one example, two TCU RNs came down with fevers, and one was vomiting after exposure.
Stephanie Grant, a registered nurse at the hospital, is quoted in the Aug. 4 press release as saying: “We are elated to finally have the opportunity to proceed with a vote to build a democratic union with a union voice to protect our patients and our colleagues to assure the entire Asheville community that they can count on high-quality care they need and deserve.”
In a letter dated July 20 addressed to leaders of Asheville and Buncombe County, 25 nurses at Mission Hospital make their case against the union.
“Please do not let blind support of NNU’s fictitious agenda lead you to abandoning us,” the letter says. It also contends that National Nurses United “is responsible for nationwide strikes that are hurting nurses, patients, and communities.”
Vickie West, a nurse at the hospital, has circulated an open letter to the Asheville community and the news media that details some of her concerns about the union.
“As I’ve listened to the arguments for and against bringing a nurse’s union to Mission over the past few months, I knew from my experience with a previous employer that unions are not the answer that they are being promoted to be,” West writes, adding:
There, I saw that most staff did not like the union and only called on them when they had a personal agenda item to push. It caused some staff to be pulled away from patient care to attend to their union duties. Those who were mediocre or low performers were supported most by the union. In my opinion, it didn’t make for better staffing, better wages or a better work environment.
West also raised objections to how the union might handle questions of seniority and the impact it could have over merit on personnel decisions.
“Advancement should be based on performance, not seniority,” one nurse said during the demonstration. “I also want my voice heard. I don’t want someone else speaking for me.”
But the union contends in its press release that hospital staffers have been put in compromising positions that are sometimes unsafe.
On general medical floors, several incidents of attacks on [registered nurses] from agitated patients have occurred. In one case, an RN was assaulted when pulled down by her hair, suffering a head injury. In another incident, a social worker was grabbed from behind and dragged across the floor. Workplace violence incidents occur far more frequently when staffing is inadequate. Inadequate staffing has also led to unacceptable delays in care, such as timely transfer of patients for diagnostic procedures in the Trauma Care Unit.
In a written statement, Mission Hospital said:
Over the course of the past five months, we have seen NNU bring unnecessary conflict and divisiveness to our hospital. We believe quality care is best served when our patient care team works collaboratively together. With that said, we respect and will protect the right of nurses to determine for themselves whether or not they want union representation, and will encourage all to take part in the election.
National Nurses United describes itself as the “largest union and professional association of registered nurses in U.S. history” with about 185,000 members.
If the union prevails in the election, it reportedly would represent about 1,600 employees of Mission Hospital.
At least one demonstrator had a message for colleagues who support unionization. The nurse, holding up a “No Union” sign, invoked the name of Florence Nightingale, the English social reformer widely viewed as the founder of modern nursing.
“I ask you to reflect on when you took your Florence Nightingale oath and when you said you would do no harm,” she said. “How could you possibly walk from the bedside of a patient to go on strike?”
That same nurse said she was familiar with cases where patients at Mission Hospital could have died if nurses had been out on strike.
What’s happening in the union election at Mission Hospital wouldn’t be tolerated in normal elections, Heritage’s Greszler said.
“Imagine if, in the upcoming presidential election, one candidate was prohibited from campaigning once mail-in ballots were sent out, but the other candidate was allowed to campaign door-to-door while the election ballots sit inside,” she said. “Regardless of which candidate one supports, that’s clearly not a fair process.”
Greszler also said she expects that victory for National Nurses United would spur unions in other parts of the country to embrace mail-in balloting and potentially jeopardize worker freedom:


dailysignal--2020-08-24--White House Correspondent Probes Facts Behind Trump’s Impeachment

The Daily Signal ’ s White House correspondent , Fred Lucas , had a front row seat to the impeachment of President Donald Trump , an impeachment that Lucas says began even before Trump took office .
Lucas ’ newly released book , “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” dives deep into the left ’ s plot to remove the president from office and the key players involved in the partisan effort .
Lucas joins the podcast to discuss his book and how the American people should view Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a 107-year-old woman who has beaten both the Spanish flu and COVID-19 .
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected ] Enjoy the show !
Virginia Allen : I am joined by my colleague Fred Lucas , The Daily Signal ’ s White House correspondent and author of the newly released book “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.
” Fred , thanks so much for being here .
Fred Lucas : Thanks for having me on .
Allen : So Fred , let ’ s get right into it .
In December of last year , House Democrats voted to impeach the president , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your book , “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” that really the effort to impeach the president began from the moment he took office .
Can you just explain that a little bit further ?
Lucas : Well , the only correction I would make there is it … really started before he took office , pretty much after the election , well before the inauguration .
And I document this in there that one of the first actions taken was [ Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate bill on emoluments saying that Trump would be committing a high crime or misdemeanor if he did not divest all of his business holdings immediately .
That bill went nowhere , but it was sort of symbolic .
From that point on , you had [ Rep. ] Maxine Waters pushing forward … what she called the “ Impeach 45 ” movement .
It had like a whole host of liberal nonprofits such as Tom Steyer , John Bonifaz , who ran this group Impeach Donald Trump Now .
So these things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the inauguration and they continued , people were pressing .
There were actually three impeachment resolutions against Trump that reached the House floor that Congressman Al Green had managed to force a House floor … vote on these resolutions , well before the Ukrainian phone call .
So basically , the bottom line is the push to impeach Trump did not start with a Ukrainian phone call .
Allen : You mentioned Maxine Waters .
And I mean , it was probably , gosh , only like a month after the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , essentially , her goal was to see him impeached .
There was no hiding this .
They were very , very blatant , very obvious , right from the start .
They didn ’ t want Trump in office .
But why ?
Where did this hatred come from so early on before the president had hardly done anything ?
Lucas : Trump even recently said , “ Maybe it ’ s my personality.
” But I think that was a lot of it .
I think he just was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
What I would say is that early on , Nancy Pelosi , first as minority leader later speaker , did not want to see this happen .
She thought it would be a political loser , had no chance of going anywhere .
She at one point said that she wanted an impeachment , [ that it ] needed to be compelling , overwhelming , and bipartisan .
She ended up settling for an impeachment that was very uncompelling , underwhelming , and very partisan .
I think one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of a total collapse in her leadership because she could not stave this off .
And one interesting thing is that she ’ d said that , just shortly after Democrats took the majority , Pelosi was in an interview and said that Trump just is not worth impeachment .
And the important thing about that is that once she said that , that was before the Mueller report came out .
Now , a lot of people knew that by this point we ’ re strongly suspecting that the Mueller report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia scandal , but at least in theory , there was some chance we didn ’ t know what the final report would say .
And I think that ’ s very telling because here is Pelosi on the chance , at least in theory , the chance that Mueller would come back with a report saying that there was collusion , which would be a very treacherous thing , if that were true that would be a very treacherous thing for Donald Trump to be involved in a collusion with Russia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but just a few months later , Pelosi , after saying Trump wouldn ’ t be worth it , given the chance that there was collusion , a few months later , Pelosi is all bent out of shape over a phone call with a Ukraine president .
So those two things don ’ t really seem to mesh .
Allen : So what happened then in between her sort of being almost a little nonchalant in a way and saying that the president is not worth impeaching to then all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lucas : Yes .
Well , one big thing , there ’ s an entire chapter in this book that gets into Pelosi ’ s feud with “ the squad.
” And the squad had a huge role in this .
One congressional source that I talked to said that there ’ s a direct parallel between impeachment and the power of the squad .
And they really came in and pushed this .
Allen : And those five being [ Rep. ] Ilhan Omar , and AOC [ Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah .
Right , the lawmakers .
And it looks like it ’ s going to be expanding , maybe , after this election .
Yes .
So from that point , they were sort of winning a PR war against Pelosi among the grassroots of the party .
And you eventually had this situation where Pelosi was to some degree in open warfare with the squad .
And she ’ d given an interview , I think , that was somewhat dismissive of the squad , referred to the Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whatever .
And this caused AOC [ to ] rear back and [ she ] ended up playing the race card against Pelosi .
Omar did some [ thing ] similar , very publicly .
Now , probably the advisable thing to do in this would be the sort of sit back and let the Democratic civil war go on .
Trump probably unwisely went to Twitter and attacked the squad during this , which caused Pelosi , kind of gave her an out , to come in and defend the squad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there was one interesting thing that I note in this book and that was when Pelosi visited with AOC .
Pelosi posted their photos together on social media , AOC did not .
And I think that there ’ s almost a message there that Pelosi was the one who was trying to fit in and be part of the cool kids and AOC did not feel like she had to .
Allen : Interesting .
So , I mean , this is really like insider political play , essentially .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ school classroom , “ I ’ m going to bully this kid because the cool kids don ’ t like him.
” Lucas : Yeah .
Well , there is a bit of insider baseball stuff here because this book ’ s based on more than a dozen interviews , it ’ s not just me pontificating .
I ’ ve interviewed numerous people on Capitol Hill , in the White House , both on the record and off the record .
Another good bit of insider info that actually got some media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was happy to see that , was what the book said about how [ Rep. ] Adam Schiff really edged out [ Rep. Jerrold ] Nadler to end up being the guy who runs the impeachment .
A lot of that had to do with Nadler did not do a very good job when he tried to jump into the impeachment and handle it with some of the early stuff with the Mueller stuff .
He did a horrible job in his committee work , and hearings , and so forth .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pelosi became very upset and she knew if the caucus did push her to an impeachment , that she did not want to use Nadler .
Now , another interesting thing is that Schiff was very ambitious during all this .
And there was actually , some of our feeling here , he actually had a tweet about two weeks before the whistleblower complaint came out .
And when she complained that the money seemed to be on hold at the time when Rudy Giuliani had said he was investigating [ former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that had been public , but some of this revealed made it look as almost like Schiff might ’ ve had some advanced knowledge that this whistleblower complaint was coming .
Allen : Wow , that ’ s fascinating .
So why was this seen as an opportunity ?
Why was the Ukraine phone call and the whistleblower the second chance , essentially , that the left saw , “ OK , the Russian collusion thing didn ’ t work , we ’ re going to latch onto this.
” Lucas : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times even actually called it a do-over of sorts , in which they referred to Adam Schiff as being the can-do special counsel that Robert Mueller could not be , which I referenced that .
But yeah , this was the Russia narrative that they ’ d built up for years , and the Democrats made a real strong investment in the Russian narrative that collapsed on them after the Mueller report .
And they had to turn to something because even after all this , that ’ s sort of been what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk from Maxine Waters , Al Green , and others , was , “ Let ’ s wait for the Mueller Report and then see.
” And then the Mueller report came out , I think Pelosi probably , maybe Nadler at the time , thought , “ Well , we ’ ll be OK. We ’ ll have to beat him in the election.
” And then the calls for impeachment did not quiet down .
On some level , they picked up .
By June or early July of that year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was calling for either an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry against Trump , even after the Mueller report .
The big part of it was , from people I interviewed and talked to on this , the fear among Democrats and even moderate Democrats was that they would be reprimanded .
Impeaching Trump became a political litmus test .
So it almost stands to reason that the next thing to come along was going to be what they called for impeachment on .
And this was not a perfect cause , Trump said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other president it would have been considered an impeachable offense .
They were looking for something though , something , anything , that they could use as a grounds for impeachment .
They framed this as a national security threat .
And the book gets into how they went through several admissions of this .
First they called it a quid pro quo with [ Ukrainian President Volodymyr ] Zelenskyy .
That didn ’ t really shock people ’ s conscience , so they started using the word bribery , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a word that they tossed around for a little while to describe Trump and Zelenskyy , that didn ’ t work .
So they eventually settled with abuse of power and obstruction of justice , which was sort of broad enough for people to generally understand , but nonspecific enough that they didn ’ t have to really explain .
Allen : One of the most interesting things that you discuss in the book is that this standard that was used by the Democrats to justify impeachment , if those standards were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous president , pretty much every other president would be worthy of impeachment .
Can you just explain that a little bit further ?
Lucas : Well , yes .
Yeah , yeah .
And I get into the book quite a bit on that .
Certainly , you don ’ t have to go back that far , I mean , just [ former President Barack ] Obama , certainly obstruction of Congress .
He , in this case , Obama used executive privilege to shield [ former U.S. Attorney General ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents about [ Operation ] Fast and Furious .
That was something that could have easily been considered .
And Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for holding back these documents .
That ’ s something that Congress could have , in theory , impeached .
By this standard they could impeach Obama over that for obstructing Congress and abuse of power .
Oh my gosh , that ’ s such a broad term .
Certainly you could say that Obama ’ s use of the immigration executive actions—DACA [ Deferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ] —one could say that those were abuses of power .
Allen : We have to touch on , just briefly , and I know you touch on it in the book , Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents who were actually , besides President Trump , impeached .
What was different about their impeachments versus President Trump ’ s ?
Lucas : The big thing is that both of those were impeached over actual crimes , or alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual criminality was involved in the articles of impeachment .
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice , and his attempt to cover up the Monica Lewinsky affair .
And I would further note that the legacy of impeachment was not the only consequence for Bill Clinton , and that he had to pay a $ 90,000 contempt of court fee for lying under oath about the Lewinsky situation , he had to surrender his law license .
And so he faced legal consequences beyond political .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kind of legal consequence for the Ukraine phone call because abuse of power is not an actual statute , obstruction of Congress is not a statute .
Democrats seem to try to merge contempt of Congress , which is actual statute , with obstruction of justice , which is a statute , and create something new called obstruction of Congress in the impeachment of Trump .
So that was not an actual criminal law .
Going back all the way to Andrew Johnson , he was impeached for a violation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real quickly , that was Congress had passed a law with a super majority over Johnson ’ s veto saying that the president can not fire a Cabinet official without the approval of the Senate .
So Johnson knew it was an impeachment trap , he walked right into it and fired the secretary of war , Edwin Stanton .
So the Republican House impeached him for that .
And the Senate acquitted him by just one vote , actually .
But that impeachment is pretty much frowned on by most historians today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court .
But I think there ’ s a point that at the time that was a duly enacted statute and Johnson was actually impeached for violating an actual law .
So I think the Johnson impeachment probably will stand up to history much better than the Trump impeachment .
Allen : Wow .
So , what , I think to me , and I ’ m sure to so many Americans , is so troubling and concerning about Trump ’ s impeachment is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see from really the Founders ’ intent of allowing for impeachment was not to remove a candidate just because you disagree with their policies or you don ’ t like them , there was very specific intent there .
So just explain for a moment why this vote was really concerning to see it straight down party lines ?
Lucas : Well , there were a couple of Democrats in the House , there are , I think , four overall that voted against at least one article of impeachment .
But yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , it was a party-line vote .
And then in the Senate , Mitt Romney crossed over to vote to convict .
But yeah , it was almost entirely partisan .
And the book actually gets into a bit of why we ’ ve seen Republicans , actually , who didn ’ t like Trump early on , why they became somewhat more loyal to him , and it ’ s largely because he ended up being a more conservative president than anticipated , was one .
But also , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire ” attitude toward Trump , which is one of always exploding over everything he does , and it ’ s always a crisis .
And I think that extended here , Democrats felt very pressured by their party base .
There were a lot of moderates who ran in purple districts and red districts in 2018 .
Pelosi owed the majority to them .
And they campaigned on saying , “ We ’ re not going to Washington to impeach the president .
We ’ re not like those other Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they got into Congress , they sort of faced the threat of a primary challenge .
And I think their rationale was that a primary challenge , even if it ’ s not successful , could really hobble somebody going into a general election .
Whereas voters might forgive you if you just vote along the party line on a major , seemingly inconsequential issue like impeachment because no one thought that Trump would actually be removed by the Senate .
Allen : Fred , I love your perspective on all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s White House correspondent , you were watching all of this unfold really up close and personal .
I mean , when there ’ s not a global pandemic , you ’ re at the White House multiple times every week , you ’ re on the Hill .
What was it like being in D.C. , being at the White House , being on the Hill when all of this was unraveling ?
Give us kind of your inside perspective , what were some of those vivid memories that you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling of being involved in something historic .
And like I said , there was never a chance that Trump was going to be removed from office , but … this is only the third time in American history this has happened .
Yeah , I think there was this vibe , I think there was chatter among other reporters about the historical aspect of it .
But also , there was chatter about who this helps , who this hurts in the election .
I think since that time , everything has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but yeah .
At one point , this seemed like it might be a big issue going into the election .
Allen : So the book is called “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” by Fred Lucas .
And Fred , the book can be found on Amazon , Barnes & Noble , wherever books are sold .
Correct ?
Allen : OK .
Awesome .
Well , we ’ ll be sure to have a link to the book in today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just really appreciate you coming on this show , and so excited for this book , and just to really hear and read your inside perspective .
Lucas : OK .
Thanks for having me on .

The Daily Signal’s White House correspondent, Fred Lucas, had a front row seat to the impeachment of President Donald Trump, an impeachment that Lucas says began even before Trump took office.
Lucas’ newly released book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” dives deep into the left’s plot to remove the president from office and the key players involved in the partisan effort.
Lucas joins the podcast to discuss his book and how the American people should view Trump’s impeachment.
Also on today’s show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a 107-year-old woman who has beaten both the Spanish flu and COVID-19.
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Virginia Allen: I am joined by my colleague Fred Lucas, The Daily Signal’s White House correspondent and author of the newly released book “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.”
Fred, thanks so much for being here.
Fred Lucas: Thanks for having me on.
Allen: So Fred, let’s get right into it. In December of last year, House Democrats voted to impeach the president, but you make very clear in the title of your book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” that really the effort to impeach the president began from the moment he took office. Can you just explain that a little bit further?
Lucas: Well, the only correction I would make there is it … really started before he took office, pretty much after the election, well before the inauguration.
And I document this in there that one of the first actions taken was [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren actually put forward a Senate bill on emoluments saying that Trump would be committing a high crime or misdemeanor if he did not divest all of his business holdings immediately. That bill went nowhere, but it was sort of symbolic.
From that point on, you had [Rep.] Maxine Waters pushing forward … what she called the “Impeach 45” movement. It had like a whole host of liberal nonprofits such as Tom Steyer, John Bonifaz, who ran this group Impeach Donald Trump Now.
So these things are all in place, eventually, after the inauguration and they continued, people were pressing.
There were actually three impeachment resolutions against Trump that reached the House floor that Congressman Al Green had managed to force a House floor … vote on these resolutions, well before the Ukrainian phone call. So basically, the bottom line is the push to impeach Trump did not start with a Ukrainian phone call.
Allen: You mentioned Maxine Waters. And I mean, it was probably, gosh, only like a month after the president had taken office that she openly said that, essentially, her goal was to see him impeached. There was no hiding this. They were very, very blatant, very obvious, right from the start. They didn’t want Trump in office. But why? Where did this hatred come from so early on before the president had hardly done anything?
Lucas: Trump even recently said, “Maybe it’s my personality.” But I think that was a lot of it. I think he just was not supposed to win was a big part of it.
What I would say is that early on, Nancy Pelosi, first as minority leader later speaker, did not want to see this happen. She thought it would be a political loser, had no chance of going anywhere.
She at one point said that she wanted an impeachment, [that it] needed to be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. She ended up settling for an impeachment that was very uncompelling, underwhelming, and very partisan.
I think one of the things about Pelosi, it was kind of a total collapse in her leadership because she could not stave this off. And one interesting thing is that she’d said that, just shortly after Democrats took the majority, Pelosi was in an interview and said that Trump just is not worth impeachment. And the important thing about that is that once she said that, that was before the Mueller report came out.
Now, a lot of people knew that by this point we’re strongly suspecting that the Mueller report would not find any collusion in the Russia scandal, but at least in theory, there was some chance we didn’t know what the final report would say.
And I think that’s very telling because here is Pelosi on the chance, at least in theory, the chance that Mueller would come back with a report saying that there was collusion, which would be a very treacherous thing, if that were true that would be a very treacherous thing for Donald Trump to be involved in a collusion with Russia.
It turned out not to be true, but just a few months later, Pelosi, after saying Trump wouldn’t be worth it, given the chance that there was collusion, a few months later, Pelosi is all bent out of shape over a phone call with a Ukraine president. So those two things don’t really seem to mesh.
Allen: So what happened then in between her sort of being almost a little nonchalant in a way and saying that the president is not worth impeaching to then all of a sudden calling for his head?
Lucas: Yes. Well, one big thing, there’s an entire chapter in this book that gets into Pelosi’s feud with “the squad.” And the squad had a huge role in this. One congressional source that I talked to said that there’s a direct parallel between impeachment and the power of the squad. And they really came in and pushed this.
Allen: And those five being [Rep.] Ilhan Omar, and AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and those folks.
Lucas: Yeah. Right, the lawmakers. And it looks like it’s going to be expanding, maybe, after this election. Yes.
So from that point, they were sort of winning a PR war against Pelosi among the grassroots of the party. And you eventually had this situation where Pelosi was to some degree in open warfare with the squad.
And she’d given an interview, I think, that was somewhat dismissive of the squad, referred to the Green New Deal as the “Green Dream,” or whatever. And this caused AOC [to] rear back and [she] ended up playing the race card against Pelosi. Omar did some[thing] similar, very publicly.
Now, probably the advisable thing to do in this would be the sort of sit back and let the Democratic civil war go on. Trump probably unwisely went to Twitter and attacked the squad during this, which caused Pelosi, kind of gave her an out, to come in and defend the squad and that sort of settled this feud.
But there was one interesting thing that I note in this book and that was when Pelosi visited with AOC. Pelosi posted their photos together on social media, AOC did not. And I think that there’s almost a message there that Pelosi was the one who was trying to fit in and be part of the cool kids and AOC did not feel like she had to.
Allen: Interesting. So, I mean, this is really like insider political play, essentially. It kind of sounds like a middle school classroom, “I’m going to bully this kid because the cool kids don’t like him.”
Lucas: Yeah. Well, there is a bit of insider baseball stuff here because this book’s based on more than a dozen interviews, it’s not just me pontificating. I’ve interviewed numerous people on Capitol Hill, in the White House, both on the record and off the record.
Another good bit of insider info that actually got some media attention this past week, which I was happy to see that, was what the book said about how [Rep.] Adam Schiff really edged out [Rep. Jerrold] Nadler to end up being the guy who runs the impeachment.
A lot of that had to do with Nadler did not do a very good job when he tried to jump into the impeachment and handle it with some of the early stuff with the Mueller stuff.
He did a horrible job in his committee work, and hearings, and so forth. At that point, after about three hearings, Pelosi became very upset and she knew if the caucus did push her to an impeachment, that she did not want to use Nadler.
Now, another interesting thing is that Schiff was very ambitious during all this. And there was actually, some of our feeling here, he actually had a tweet about two weeks before the whistleblower complaint came out.
And when she complained that the money seemed to be on hold at the time when Rudy Giuliani had said he was investigating [former Vice President] Joe Biden, some of that had been public, but some of this revealed made it look as almost like Schiff might’ve had some advanced knowledge that this whistleblower complaint was coming.
Allen: Wow, that’s fascinating. So why was this seen as an opportunity? Why was the Ukraine phone call and the whistleblower the second chance, essentially, that the left saw, “OK, the Russian collusion thing didn’t work, we’re going to latch onto this.”
Lucas: The second chance, the New York Times even actually called it a do-over of sorts, in which they referred to Adam Schiff as being the can-do special counsel that Robert Mueller could not be, which I referenced that.
But yeah, this was the Russia narrative that they’d built up for years, and the Democrats made a real strong investment in the Russian narrative that collapsed on them after the Mueller report. And they had to turn to something because even after all this, that’s sort of been what Pelosi had used to stave off impeachment talk from Maxine Waters, Al Green, and others, was, “Let’s wait for the Mueller Report and then see.”
And then the Mueller report came out, I think Pelosi probably, maybe Nadler at the time, thought, “Well, we’ll be OK. We’ll have to beat him in the election.”
And then the calls for impeachment did not quiet down. On some level, they picked up. By June or early July of that year, a majority of the Democratic Caucus was calling for either an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry against Trump, even after the Mueller report.
The big part of it was, from people I interviewed and talked to on this, the fear among Democrats and even moderate Democrats was that they would be reprimanded. Impeaching Trump became a political litmus test.
So it almost stands to reason that the next thing to come along was going to be what they called for impeachment on. And this was not a perfect cause, Trump said. I don’t think under any other president it would have been considered an impeachable offense. They were looking for something though, something, anything, that they could use as a grounds for impeachment. They framed this as a national security threat.
And the book gets into how they went through several admissions of this. First they called it a quid pro quo with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. That didn’t really shock people’s conscience, so they started using the word bribery, but that was not a convincing sell. Extortion is a word that they tossed around for a little while to describe Trump and Zelenskyy, that didn’t work.
So they eventually settled with abuse of power and obstruction of justice, which was sort of broad enough for people to generally understand, but nonspecific enough that they didn’t have to really explain.
Allen: One of the most interesting things that you discuss in the book is that this standard that was used by the Democrats to justify impeachment, if those standards were applied across the board to every other previous president, pretty much every other president would be worthy of impeachment. Can you just explain that a little bit further?
Lucas: Well, yes. Yeah, yeah. And I get into the book quite a bit on that. Certainly, you don’t have to go back that far, I mean, just [former President Barack] Obama, certainly obstruction of Congress.
He, in this case, Obama used executive privilege to shield [former U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder from having to turn over documents about [Operation] Fast and Furious. That was something that could have easily been considered. And Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for holding back these documents.
That’s something that Congress could have, in theory, impeached. By this standard they could impeach Obama over that for obstructing Congress and abuse of power. Oh my gosh, that’s such a broad term. Certainly you could say that Obama’s use of the immigration executive actions—DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals], DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents]—one could say that those were abuses of power.
Allen: We have to touch on, just briefly, and I know you touch on it in the book, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents who were actually, besides President Trump, impeached. What was different about their impeachments versus President Trump’s?
Lucas: The big thing is that both of those were impeached over actual crimes, or alleged crimes, I should say, but actual criminality was involved in the articles of impeachment.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, and his attempt to cover up the Monica Lewinsky affair.
And I would further note that the legacy of impeachment was not the only consequence for Bill Clinton, and that he had to pay a $90,000 contempt of court fee for lying under oath about the Lewinsky situation, he had to surrender his law license. And so he faced legal consequences beyond political.
There’s almost no chance that Trump will face any kind of legal consequence for the Ukraine phone call because abuse of power is not an actual statute, obstruction of Congress is not a statute.
Democrats seem to try to merge contempt of Congress, which is actual statute, with obstruction of justice, which is a statute, and create something new called obstruction of Congress in the impeachment of Trump. So that was not an actual criminal law.
Going back all the way to Andrew Johnson, he was impeached for a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. And just real quickly, that was Congress had passed a law with a super majority over Johnson’s veto saying that the president cannot fire a Cabinet official without the approval of the Senate.
So Johnson knew it was an impeachment trap, he walked right into it and fired the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. So the Republican House impeached him for that. And the Senate acquitted him by just one vote, actually.
But that impeachment is pretty much frowned on by most historians today, mainly because the Tenure of Office Act was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But I think there’s a point that at the time that was a duly enacted statute and Johnson was actually impeached for violating an actual law. So I think the Johnson impeachment probably will stand up to history much better than the Trump impeachment.
Allen: Wow. So, what, I think to me, and I’m sure to so many Americans, is so troubling and concerning about Trump’s impeachment is that it was so partisan. And we see from really the Founders’ intent of allowing for impeachment was not to remove a candidate just because you disagree with their policies or you don’t like them, there was very specific intent there.
So just explain for a moment why this vote was really concerning to see it straight down party lines?
Lucas: Well, there were a couple of Democrats in the House, there are, I think, four overall that voted against at least one article of impeachment. But yeah, I mean, for the most part, it was a party-line vote. And then in the Senate, Mitt Romney crossed over to vote to convict. But yeah, it was almost entirely partisan.
And the book actually gets into a bit of why we’ve seen Republicans, actually, who didn’t like Trump early on, why they became somewhat more loyal to him, and it’s largely because he ended up being a more conservative president than anticipated, was one.
But also, because of the less sort of “hair on fire” attitude toward Trump, which is one of always exploding over everything he does, and it’s always a crisis. And I think that extended here, Democrats felt very pressured by their party base.
There were a lot of moderates who ran in purple districts and red districts in 2018. Pelosi owed the majority to them. And they campaigned on saying, “We’re not going to Washington to impeach the president. We’re not like those other Democrats, we’re moderates.” But then when they got into Congress, they sort of faced the threat of a primary challenge.
And I think their rationale was that a primary challenge, even if it’s not successful, could really hobble somebody going into a general election. Whereas voters might forgive you if you just vote along the party line on a major, seemingly inconsequential issue like impeachment because no one thought that Trump would actually be removed by the Senate.
Allen: Fred, I love your perspective on all of this because, as The Daily Signal’s White House correspondent, you were watching all of this unfold really up close and personal. I mean, when there’s not a global pandemic, you’re at the White House multiple times every week, you’re on the Hill.
What was it like being in D.C., being at the White House, being on the Hill when all of this was unraveling? Give us kind of your inside perspective, what were some of those vivid memories that you have?
Lucas: It was just a feeling of being involved in something historic. And like I said, there was never a chance that Trump was going to be removed from office, but … this is only the third time in American history this has happened.
Yeah, I think there was this vibe, I think there was chatter among other reporters about the historical aspect of it. But also, there was chatter about who this helps, who this hurts in the election. I think since that time, everything has been sort of focused on COVID, but yeah. At one point, this seemed like it might be a big issue going into the election.
Allen: So the book is called “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” by Fred Lucas. And Fred, the book can be found on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, wherever books are sold. Correct?
Lucas: Yes, that’s right.
Allen: OK. Awesome. Well, we’ll be sure to have a link to the book in today’s show notes, and Fred, we just really appreciate you coming on this show, and so excited for this book, and just to really hear and read your inside perspective.
Lucas: OK. Thanks for having me on.