Tag: health care

15 Democratic Governors Announce Health Alliance to Counter RFK Jr.

The Democratic governors of 14 states and the territory of Guam on Oct. 15 announced a new coalition they said will provide scientific information to counter Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Governors Public Health Alliance is aiming to boost coordination between states on public health guidance, preparing for emergencies, and detecting health threats. It plans to issue recommendations to the public on vaccines and other health topics, as the governors say guidance from the federal government can no longer be trusted.  

“We can no longer rely on the information coming out of Washington, DC, but our states are coming together to unequivocally state that science still matters,” Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

“While Donald Trump and RFK Jr. turn their backs on public health, governors are stepping up to make sure our residents have the health care they need and deserve,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey added.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) criticized the development.

“Democrat-led states that imposed unscientific school closures, toddler mask mandates, and vaccine passports during the COVID era are the ones who destroyed public trust in public health. Now, the same governors who eroded that trust are trying to reinvent public health under the guise of ‘coordination,’” Andrew Nixon, the communications director for the department, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“The Trump Administration and Secretary Kennedy are rebuilding that trust by grounding every policy in rigorous evidence and Gold Standard Science—not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Among other HHS divisions, Kennedy oversees the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His moves, including the removal of all members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel over conflicts of interest, have drawn criticism from Democrats.

The panel, now comprising experts selected by Kennedy, has advised the CDC to change recommendations for vaccines for COVID-19 and measles. The CDC recentlyaccepted the changes.

Some outside groups and coalitions have issued competing vaccination recommendations, including a western states alliance spearheaded by California. Multiple states have updated rules to let pharmacists prescribe vaccines not recommended by the CDC.

The governors’ coalition will build on those efforts by facilitating meetings with state officials, global health leaders, and other groups, according to GovAct, a nonprofit that describes itself as a nonpartisan initiative formed by governors. Other initiatives from the organization include the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, which is aimed at “protecting and expanding reproductive freedom,” including through expanded access to abortion.

All the governors that are part of the initiatives are Democrats, although GovAct’s advisory board features several former Republican governors, including former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot.

The governors in the public health alliance represent California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington state. Guam’s governor is also part of the group.

The alliance’s advisers include Dr. Mandy Cohen, who served as director of the CDC under President Joe Biden; Dr. Anne Zink, Alaska’s top medical officer from 2018 to 2024; and Dr. Raj Panjabi, a White House official during the Biden administration.

Keep reading

Public Health Destroyed Its Own Credibility Long Before RFK Jr. Arrived

“The actions of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are endangering the health of the nation,” declared six former U.S. surgeons general appointed by every Republican and Democratic president since George H.W. Bush in a Oct. 7 op-ed at The Washington Post. “The profound, immediate and unprecedented threat that Kennedy’s policies and positions pose to the nation’s health cannot be ignored,” the surgeons general declared. Whatever the merits of such criticisms of RFK, its alarmism is undermined by decades of the medical establishment wantonly kowtowing to harmful policies promoted by leftist ideologues.

It would be easier to countenance such admonitions if this isn’t precisely what the American medicine and scientific establishment has done when it comes to abortion, transgenderism, or the Covid pandemic.

The Conceit of Abortion as ‘Good Medical Practice‘

Though the American medical establishment was historically opposed to abortion, in 1970, the American Medical Association formally reversed its earlier position on abortion and voted in favor of legal abortion. Was this because of overwhelming evidence overturning scientific consensus regarding life in the womb being uniquely human, or analysis that abortions would not result in negative consequences for the women who underwent the procedures? Of course not.

Both simple logic and developments in scientific research are sufficient to know that life in the womb is human — with heartbeats beginning at the end of the fourth week of gestation — and thus deserving of legal protection. Arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed by week ten. And can we really believe that the medical establishment would think that a violent, invasive procedure that destroys a living organism inside a woman’s body, that her body is intimately united to and shares her DNA, would not in some sense harm that mother?

No, the medical establishment changed its position on abortion because of rising public pressure and social norms stemming from the sexual revolution. The feminist movement for female equality and empowerment demanded that women have more control over their bodies, enabling them to assume (and maintain) a competitive place in the workplace and attain more power in sexual relationships. Babies were (and remain) an obstacle to professional and personal development. Thus, suddenly, the AMA decided that “reproductive care is health care.”

This, despite the fact that a bevy of peer-reviewed quantitative analysis demonstrates that post-abortive women had an 81 percent higher risk of mental-health problems when compared with women who had not had an abortion, as authors Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis have noted. Studies show that after an abortion, women suffer higher rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse and suicidal behaviors, and marijuana abuse. And, obviously, abortions are catastrophic for the health and well-being of life in the womb. Nevertheless, the AMA to this day decrees that abortion is “good medical practice.”

Keep reading

The Death of Informed Consent

Through an open-records request, The New American has obtained documents that shed fresh light on the gravity of the decision in a landmark medical malpractice case — the only wrongful death jury trial in the country for a death officially declared to be caused by Covid. The decision in favor of the defense, handed down in June, should serve as a warning to us all.

Readers of The New American are already familiar with the story of Grace Schara, a Wisconsin teen with Down syndrome who lost her life in a Covid hospital in October, 2021. (Those new to the story can read about it here and can also access recordings of our livestream of the proceedings here.)

In short, the plaintiffs alleged that Grace died from intentional overdoses of sedative, benzodiazepine, and opioid medications, while the defense insisted that a SARS-CoV-2 infection ended her life.

Just days after the lawsuit ended, The New American interviewed Scott Schara, Grace’s dad, who said the outcome proves that informed consent, enshrined in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, is finished.

“Just by being in a hospital, you are giving implied consent,” he warned of the precedent this case sets. He said that the defense claimed, and the jury endorsed the idea, that the drugs in question were normal in an ICU, so no informed consent was necessary, nor did providers need bother to inform the family when Grace survived two drug overdoses early during her hospital stay. He also pointed out that the jury upheld defense witnesses who claimed that a “Do Not Intubate” order (DNI) is equivalent to a “Do Not Resuscitate” order (DNR), and that a doctor may unilaterally place either on a patient, also without informed consent.

Prior Complaints

However, before suing, Scott Schara filed a complaint with Wisconsin’s Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS), the state agency which oversees licensed professionals. It accused the physician who took care of Grace during the last two days of her life, Dr. Gavin Shokar, of “label[ing] the patient as DNR and overdos[ing] her on morphine.”

In order to obtain Shokar’s response to these charges, The New American requested the complete file pertaining to Grace’s DSPS case. We received some documents in late August, with only the patient’s name and certain private contact information redacted. However, the file merely included a reference to Scott’s complaint, a case which the agency closed on January 18, 2022 without investigation. We double-checked with DSPS, but the agency said it had nothing to add. (Interestingly, a second, unrelated complaint, filed in May 2023 against Shokar for “negligence/incompetence” and “unprofessional conduct” is listed among the documents received. DSPS reports the case as still open but offers no further details.)

Instead, the remainder of the 170 pages pertains to a complaint filed in July 2023, by Lorna Speid, Ph.D., a clinical pharmacist and president of the California-based drug development consultant, Speid & Associates.

In her initial letter to DSPS, she said she spent “many hours reviewing the medical notes and consulting with other experts in specialized fields” about Grace’s case.

Based on that collaborative analysis, she charged Shokar with “gross incompetence, gross negligence, medical malpractice, dishonesty and deliberate cause of death.” She called his actions deliberate “because the probability that one physician could make all these mistakes and errors, accidentally, is low. All reasonable physicians would know that the actions Dr. Shokar took would lead to the death of the patient.”

She also noted that “the degree and level of cruelty that Ms. [redacted] was subjected to was extraordinary, and repugnant.” According to Speid, part of that cruel treatment involved “recklessly falsif[ying] the medical records to insert a DO NOT RESCUSITATE [DNR] for a vulnerable patient, without the written and unequivocable consent of her parents/guardians,” and refusing to “administer NARCAN to reverse the Morphine overdose.” (Morphine is an opioid that Shokar ordered for Grace, and NARCAN is a brand name for the generic naloxone, an opioid reversal drug.)

Hollee McInnis was the registered nurse charged with Grace’s care on the last two days of the teen’s life, and about whom Speid filed a separate complaint with DSPS. Her report gives a play-by-play timeline of McInnis increasing a continuous infusion of Precedex (a sedative) throughout Grace’s last day on earth; Grace had survived two overdoses of this drug during the same hospital stay. The incidents are clearly documented in her medical record.

On top of that, McInnis piled three doses of the benzodiazepine lorazepam (two of which were given only three minutes apart), though this med is “contraindicated in patients in respiratory distress” (which McInnis recorded as Grace’s condition at the time). She then added a rapid intravenous (IV) push of morphine, which is also warned against for patients having difficulty breathing.

“There is no other explanation for a nurse with 20 years of experience, administering this cocktail of drugs.” Speid explained that it was instead McInnis’ duty to report Shokar for “inappropriate prescribing” and to “refuse to administer the drugs prescribed.”

Unfortunately, the doctor ordered, and the nurse delivered. Grace died a short time later.

Keep reading

What are Umbrella Therapies and Why Do We Never Hear About Them?

Since reality has an almost infinite degree of complexity, any framework we create to define it is doomed to be an oversimplification which excludes critical elements of the picture. However, rather than admit the shortcomings of any given model, that gap in understanding is typically bridged by forcefully asserting the validity of the chosen narrative and selectively focusing on the instances which affirm the validity of the model. Because of this (particularly within politics), you will frequently find a large number of people who are utterly convinced their side is 1000% correct despite another large contingent holding a diametrically opposing view of reality.

Likewise, in medicine, a similar politicization of truth will occur where people will believe their (or their tribe’s) chosen therapy is effective regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and likewise that it is safe regardless of how much evidence exists to the contrary. For example, while going through 54 forgotten news clips, in which, the news media (prior to being bought out by pharmaceutical industry) would routinely report on the dangers of vaccination, I came across this poignant quote from Barbara Loe Fisher:

What’s scientific about that assumption, that every time something bad happens after vaccination it’s a coincidence? That’s not science, that’s politics.

Note: after I originally sent that article out, I unearthed a large number of additional clips not present in the original that were subsequently added in (and you should watch here when you have the time too as they show vaccine injuries are very real and have been with us for decades).

When diagnosing patients, if one’s goal is to get the patient better (rather than just put a diagnostic label on them and the accompanying prescription) a few major challenges emerge:

•First, the same underlying issue can manifest quite differently from patient to patient (e.g., the inflammation and blood clotting created by the COVID vaccines gave rise to dozens of different symptom presentations).

•Second, very similar symptoms can be caused by different agents—particularly those which create systemic inflammation and blood flow obstructions (e.g., Lyme disease and mold toxicity are commonly confused with each other).

•Third, while certain things are more likely to trigger chronic illnesses, less frequent ones can as well (e.g., I’ve seen more cases than I can count where the underlying cause of a patient’s illness was missed by both conventional and integrative practitioners due to a more common cause of that cluster of symptoms being focused on).

•Fourth, the same disease process can interact very differently with different patients (either due to their constitution, co-existing health issues, or what stage of healing they are in), and as a result, the “correct” therapy for a disease may not always be the correct one for them (which amongst other things is why I try to always know multiple ways to treat each ailment I come across).

•Fifth, in many cases, patients respond differently to the same therapies due to their constitution (e.g., sensitive patients cannot handle stronger treatments many others do very well with).

Because of this, patients will frequently see numerous providers without having any significant improvement from any of what they’re told to do, and in many cases, they simply have to hope to have the luck to end up in the office of a doctor who’s preferred treatment modality happens to be what their body needs. However, as that is quite an unsatisfactory situation, it will normally be “addressed” by the treating physician adamantly insisting their diagnosis and treatment is correct, and then when treatment failures inevitably emerge, attributing the failure to the patient—in essence no different from the process we observe throughout the political system.

Keep reading

The Great Alzheimer’s Scam and The Proven Cures They’ve Buried for Billions

• Alzheimer’s disease is commonly thought to result from abnormal plaque buildup in the brain that gradually destroys brain tissue. As a result, almost all Alzheimer’s research has been directed toward eliminating amyloid, even after the basis for much of this work was shown to stem from fraudulent research.

•As such, despite decades of research and billions of dollars spent, this model has completely failed to produce useful results. The costly “groundbreaking” Alzheimer’s drugs only slightly slow dementia progression—at the expense of causing brain bleeding and swelling in over a quarter of those treated.

•In contrast, numerous affordable treatments have been developed for Alzheimer’s disease that target the root causes of the disorder, producing significant benefits at a fraction of the cost and without any toxicity.

•One neurologist, for example, proposed that amyloid serves a protective function in the brain and treats Alzheimer’s by identifying the underlying process causing dementia (which can often be diagnosed through symptoms). Remarkably, despite the method being proven in clinical research, awareness of it or the fact there are completely different types of “Alzheimer’s disease” which require different treatments remains almost nonexistent.

•Likewise, a strong case can be made that impaired cerebral circulation, along with impaired venous and lymphatic drainage, plays a pivotal role in Alzheimer’s disease.

•This article will review the common causes of cognitive impairment and dementia (e.g., cells becoming trapped in a shocked state where they no longer function) along with the forgotten treatments for neurodegenerative disorders—some of which, like DMSO, have extensive evidence supporting their use.

Keep reading

Democrats Are Holding The Government Hostage To Get Taxpayer-Funded Health Care For Illegals

Eight days into the government “shutdown,” Senate Democrats on Wednesday cast their sixth vote to keep the doors closed. They remain hellbent on their ransom demand to add another $1.5 trillion in spending, a big chunk of which would help pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants. They insist that’s not the case. 

They’re lying. And Americans know it. 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows 49 percent of likely U.S. voters agree with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said: “Democrats shut down the government to give hundreds of billions of free healthcare to illegal aliens, including the millions of illegal aliens to whom [Joe] Biden [and the] Democrats gave illegal amnesty.” Nearly one-third of respondents (32%) strongly agree with Miller’s assessment. The poll found 44 percent disagree, 38 percent strongly. 

‘Reserved for Eligible Individuals’

Health policy expert Elle Minarik says Miller is “100 percent” correct. The Democrats’ ransom demand, Minarik  says, would repeal the health title of the One Big Beautiful Bill, now known as the Working Families Tax Cut Act. Section 71109 of the package, passed earlier this year by the Republican-controlled congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, ensures that “Medicaid funds are reserved for eligible individuals by ending federal funding when an individual’s citizenship or immigration status has not been verified.”

The Democrat proposal repeals that provision and others in the Big Beautiful Bill, provisions that secure Medicaid for those it was created for — the elderly, disabled, children and other American citizens truly in need. 

“It’s just proof that they do not even know what is in their own bill that they shut down the government over,” Minarik, program manager at Paragon Health Institute, told me Wednesday on the WHO Morning Show with Jeff Angelo in Des Moines. 

It shouldn’t come as a shock that Democrats don’t know or don’t understand what’s in their own spending bill. After all, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once said of the behemoth government health care bill known as Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” 

Keep reading

From trips to treatments: how psychedelics could revolutionise anti-inflammatory medicine

Once synonymous with hippies and hallucinatory experiences, psychedelic drugs are now being explored for their medical potential. The stigma of that era resulted in research being suppressed by drug laws, yet with mental health treatments hitting limits, scientists have returned to this controversial corner of medicine.

Substances like psilocybin (found in magic mushrooms) and ayahuasca are now being taken seriously by scientists and doctors, not for the visions they induce, but for the healing potential they possess.

Initially, this focused on treating mental health conditions like depression, where currently prescribed drugs only help a minority of patients. But these investigations have now expanded to include diseases driven by inflammation, which psychedelic drugs may help reduce by calming down the immune system.

In both human cells grown in laboratory dishes and animal studies, psychedelic drugs like DMT, LSD, and a compound called (R)-DOI can block the release of inflammatory molecules called cytokines. These protein molecules fuel conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, asthma and even depression, as well as increasing brain damage following traumatic brain injury.

Advantage over steroids

But these drugs have a considerable advantage over typical anti-inflammatory medications like steroid drugs because psychedelics appear to work without suppressing healthy immune function, which is a major problem with steroids.

Significantly, these laboratory findings are beginning to be confirmed in studies in humans. Evidence is growing that psychedelics could hold the key to managing inflammation, one of the body’s central drivers of many chronic diseases, including depression, arthritis and heart conditions.

Take psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. In a study involving 60 healthy participants, just one dose was enough to significantly lower levels of two key inflammatory molecules – TNF-alpha and IL-6 – over the following week.

However, not all studies have shown the same clear results. Some only had a few participants and others were complicated by the fact that some participants had previous drug experience, which could affect the results.

One big challenge with studying psychedelics in medical research is that it’s very hard to hide who got the real drug and who got a placebo. When someone has a strong psychedelic experience, it’s obvious they didn’t just take a sugar pill.

Keep reading

White House Releases New Memo Exposing Democrats’ Demand for Nearly $200 BILLION in Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants — All While Gutting Reforms That Protect American Citizens

A newly released White House memorandum just blew the lid off Democrats’ latest betrayal of the American people.

Buried inside their continuing resolution (CR) is a demand to repeal President Trump’s historic America First healthcare reforms, the very safeguards that protect U.S. citizens from footing the bill for illegal aliens’ medical care.

According to the memo, if Democrats succeed, taxpayers will be on the hook for nearly $200 BILLION in healthcare benefits for illegal immigrants and non-citizens over the next decade, almost enough to fund the entire Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for the same period.

The Working Families Tax Cut Act (WFTCA), signed into law by President Trump, was designed to end taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrant healthcare and redirect resources to the most vulnerable Americans. It:

  • Ended Medicaid & Medicare funding for most non-citizens.
  • Shut down the California loophole that allowed liberal states to siphon federal dollars for illegal alien healthcare.
  • Blocked emergency Medicaid expansions that reimbursed hospitals more for treating illegals than for caring for American children and seniors.
  • Repealed the Obamacare “special rule” that gave subsidies to immigrants earning below the poverty line while denying them to poor American citizens

According to the memo, the Democrat proposal would:

  • Spend $193 billion over 10 years on healthcare for illegal immigrants.
  • Repeal safeguards against fraud, improper payments, and abuse of federal programs.
  • Cancel Trump’s $50 billion rural healthcare investment.
  • Eliminate expanded Health Savings Accounts for 10 million Americans.
  • Gut work requirements for able-bodied adults, reviving failed welfare policies

The memo breaks down just how much repealing Trump’s reforms would cost taxpayers:

  • $91.4B – Restoring Obamacare funding for non-citizens
  • $34.6B – Reopening California’s Medicaid scam
  • $28.2B – Emergency care reimbursements for illegals
  • $27.3B – Obamacare “special rule” subsidies for non-citizens
  • $6.2B – Medicaid for non-citizens
  • $5.1B – Medicare for non-citizens
  • TOTAL: $192.8 BILLION

Keep reading

Illegal Immigrants and Federal Health Benefits: What to Know

Republicans and Democrats offer competing claims about whether people who entered the country unlawfully are benefiting from Medicaid.

“The law prohibits undocumented immigrants from getting payments from Medicare, Medicaid, or the ACA. There’s no money, not a penny of federal dollars that are going there,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Sept. 30.

Yet Republicans say millions of people who entered the country illegally do receive federal health benefits.

“By some estimates, 20 million illegal aliens came [here] from every country, all around the world,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Oct. 2, referring to the years of the Biden administration.

“[Democrats] gave them all this parole status so that they could get enrolled onto taxpayer benefits.”

The war of words has erupted during a government shutdown because of Democrats’ demand that all health-related portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) be repealed as part of a continuing funding resolution.

The dispute is over competing visions for the scope of government-funded health. Democrats favor a more expansive list of noncitizens who can apply for federal benefits. Republicans, through the OBBB, have shortened the list considerably.

Here’s a look at which immigrants can now apply for Medicaid, and how that’s set to change in 2026.

Qualified Aliens

Under current federal law, “qualified aliens” can apply for federal benefits. This category includes people lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Generally, there is a five-year waiting period before eligibility begins, though most states waive that for immigrant children and pregnant women.

Parolees are also qualified aliens. Federal law gives the director of Homeland Security the discretion to release them into the United States temporarily, “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”

More than 2.8 million people were paroled into the country between February 2021 and January 2025, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Parolees are eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, or the ACA Marketplace after one year.

Immigrants who are granted asylum or refugee status are also qualified aliens. They have no waiting period.

Qualified aliens also include people who are under an order of deportation that has been withheld, come from certain designated countries, are victims of domestic violence, are victims of sex trafficking, are members of certain Indian tribes, or certain others.

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren Loses Her Mind When Journalist Notes That Democrats Actually Do Want Healthcare for Illegals on the Taxpayers’ Dime 

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts lost her cool on CBS News this week, when reporter Tony Dokoupil noted that Democrats actually do kinda want to provide healthcare to illegals, funded by taxpayers.

She got really angry but then pretty much confirmed what Tony Dokoupil was saying, while giving a long, confusing explanation.

You know what’s very telling in this ongoing debate? The anger and frustration of Democrats. It’s a tell that indicates that they are losing this argument and they know it. You see the same thing with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts lost her cool on CBS News this week, when reporter Tony Dokoupil noted that Democrats actually do kinda want to provide healthcare to illegals, funded by taxpayers.

She got really angry but then pretty much confirmed what Tony Dokoupil was saying, while giving a long, confusing explanation.

You know what’s very telling in this ongoing debate? The anger and frustration of Democrats. It’s a tell that indicates that they are losing this argument and they know it. You see the same thing with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.

Transcript via Curtis Houck on Twitter/X:

Dokoupil: “So, senator, you know, Republicans say what you’re really fighting for is taxpayer dollars for, as they put it, illegal aliens. I know that’s not strictly true but there is a provision –”

Warren: “Oh, excuse me not strictly true.”

Dokoupil: “It’s not directly true, but –”

Warren: “It is a flat-out lie. It is a flat-out lie.”

Dokoupil: “– the way that they frame it –”

Warren: “There is nothing in Medicaid, nothing in Medicare, that permits one undocumented immigrant to get one dollar of assistance. None.”

Dokoupil: “– Senator –”

Warren: “Zero.”

Dokoupil: “– if you let me finish the question –”

Warren: “Of course. I’m sorry.”

Dokoupil: “– sorry, in the Democratic counter offer the proposal for funding, there is a restoration of Medicaid benefits for certain noncitizens that had been taken away in the Big, Beautiful Bill as Republicans put it.”

Warren: “No!”

Dokoupil: “Republicans don’t think those people should be getting health care on the taxpayer dime. I’m not asking on the merits. Politically, putting that in there, exposes you to this talking point, this lie as you put it. Why put it in there? Why is it worth it?”

Warren: “No. What’s happened is that what we’re saying is that whenever hospitals give care, what is going to be the level of reimbursement? And the Republicans said it’s going to be a low level. The Democrats said we just want go back to the level it was before because you’re going to bankrupt hospitals. You’re going to put rural hospitals out of business. The Republicans and the Democrats’ plan, nothing changes the number of undocumented immigrants who still get care if they show up bleeding and unconscious at an emergency room. There is absolutely zero difference. The difference is whether or not hospitals who, under laws that date back to Ronald Reagan, may provide emergency care to anyone who’s unconscious, will actually get reimbursed at a very low level that will put the hospital ultimately out of business potentially or at a higher level. The Republicans – there is no change, no change in the number of undocumented migrants who get any help under what the Democrats want. Look, what we’re looking for is help for people who are going to get pushed out of nursing homes, help for people who are at home and relying on home health aides.”

Keep reading