Wednesday, April 13, 2016
After the Skilled Worker Visa Lottery, Are There Options?
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Why Many Terrorists Are Criminals Before They Turn To Extremism
Every week, The WorldPost asks an expert to shed light on a topic driving headlines around the world. This week, we speak with author Mubin Shaikh on the rise of jihadist groups in the Syrian civil war.
At least two of the bombers involved in this week's attacks on Brussels, which killed at least 32 people, had extensive criminal backgrounds: Ibrahim el-Bakraoui and his brother Khalid held multiple convictions between them, including for armed robbery, shooting at police officers and attempted car-jacking.
Similarly, some of the people involved in the November terrorist attacks on Paris had previously been convicted of or questioned about a range of crimes.
In fact, analysts have found that jihadi terror networks are often populated with criminals and ex-criminals, complicating the conception that their crimes are inspired by ideology alone. This especially has proven to be the case in France and Belgium.
The WorldPost spoke with radicalization expert Mubin Shaikh, an ex-counterterrorism operative for the Canadian security services and former extremist, to discuss the relationship between extremism and criminal networks.
What role do criminal networks play in radicalization?
We can say that the criminality aspect of this is what makes these individuals more susceptible to use violence, because they’re used to using violence.
The overarching thing with criminal networks is, number one: It accustoms you to violence. It makes it easier for you to commit that violence, because you’re used to seeing it, you’re around it. Number two, it allows you to build up a operational capability -- you now have a skillset you can apply to terrorism. Number three, it gives you access to a wider network of people who exhibit those previous two attributes.
You will see this in the overwhelming majority of individuals who join ISIS. They are criminals first, and their religion becomes a costume for them.
In terms of areas where radicalization can occur and people can be recruited: Can prison act as an environment for radicalization?
There’s two sides to that issue of radicalization in prisons. One is, if you look at what’s happened in the term "radicalization" -- a lot of people immediately associate that with religion, Muslim radicalization. But radicalization is just a generic term -- it refers to a very human process of people becoming increasingly extreme in their political views, or their ideological frame.
So you could say, yes, prisons are a university of radicalization. I mean that in a general sense -- if somebody goes into a prison, is he going to come out more hardened or is he going to come out softer?
Right, and that could be of any ideology, whether it’s white supremacy or Islamist terrorism.
Exactly, so in that context, prisons are a factory for radicalization. The jihadis themselves say prison is the university of jihad. They say that because you can have intimate networks with people, you can spend time to indoctrinate yourself and you’re not busy with being in the outside world. In that sense, yes, it is.
On the other side, when you’re locking up a disproportionately high number of Muslims, that is their common identity. You can be a drug dealer, a robber or whatever, but at the end of the day you have that common identity around which you can unite.
That feeds into a kind of perception of in-group among radicals?
Yeah, absolutely, it’s a group dynamic aspect of it. At times ideology is a driver of violent extremism, and at other times ideology becomes the passenger while other psychosocial factors become the driver. Those include in-group dynamics, out-group dynamics and marginalization based on discrimination. The prison experience is just another aspect of that.
Another thing that has been noted is that there’s a high proportion among terror attacks of people with close family ties. What role do peers and family members play in radicalization?
Marc Sageman did a lot of study on this, and his argument was that it’s not ideology that drives these people but kinship. It’s not what you know but who you know. So that’s one side of it. A lot of research does indicate that a lot of these people do get involved because of family ties, peers and kinship.
The other thing is operational security. A brother is not going to inform on another brother; a sister on a brother; or a mother on a son. Cohesion -- that you trust your brother, you love your brother -- is very useful for those purposes.
What can security service do to better counter radicalization and violent extremism? Particularly speaking about North American and European security services.
I see it in two ways. One is that you need to have strong human intelligence. Human intelligence is key, and when doing so, framing it in a way that gives those human intelligence services a sense of meaning. A sense that you’re actually doing something good, and you’re defending your faith from people who are failing your religion. This was the narrative they got me on, in that sense.
Another is NGO-based intervention. An intelligence guy can’t talk to an at-risk youth, because he is the enemy as far as they’re concerned. But NGOs that have training in mental health and educational or economic support can intervene when they see a troubled youth and give them an alternative.
Is there any country attempting something like that and showing signs of success?
Yeah, there are a number of countries that have been doing this for some time now. In Denmark, they’ve been doing that. The Nordic countries also have a very particular approach that is very heavy on this. When their intelligence services pick up some guys, what they’ll tell them is, "You should go talk to such-and-such imam, or this community organization." This shows that they’re not just about locking people up and throwing away the key -- they actually want to help.
In North America, it’s really just Canada -- where a lot of community interventions are being done quietly. The U.S. is still not on point yet on that. It’s starting, and there are some cases where there are imams who are talking to people, but it’s still not developed to the level it needs to be.
Any final thoughts in general on this you’d like to add?
I would say that right now what people are starting to agree on is the need for the use of former extremists, reformed extremists who have been there and done that. The equivalent of this is found in Germany, where they have the exit program for white supremacists, and a lot of them use ex-white supremacists.
The principles are exactly the same -- correcting the ideology, correcting the worldview and offering psychosocial support.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Read more HuffPost interviews on the conflict in Syria:
How Syria Became The Center Of The Jihadist World
The Terror Group That Could Ruin Syria’s Ceasefire Isn’t ISIS
Inside The Islamic State’s Apocalyptic Beliefs
Russia Says Its Airstrikes In Syria Are Perfectly Legal. Are They?
MORE ON BRUSSELS:
Even After Deadly Attacks, We’re Stronger Together
Harrowing Video Shows Train Evacuation After Brussels Attacks
Cities Worldwide #PrayForBrussels
Obama Still Wants To Talk To Enemies, But He’s The Only One
Brussels Universities Help Students Stranded After Attacks
U.S. Cities Tighten Security After Deadly Brussels Attacks
‘Black Day For Europe’: Leaders React To Brussels Attacks
Obama On Brussels Attacks: ‘We Must Be Together’ To Fight Terrorism
Phone Companies Offer Free Calls To Belgium After Attacks
Turks, Still Reeling, React To Brussels Carnage: ‘I Share Their Pain’
Belgians’ Worst Fears Realized After Months On High Terror Alert
Belgian National Soccer Team Preaches Love In Wake Of Attacks
Brussels Attacks Underscore Belgium’s Foreign Fighter Problem
For additional coverage in French, visit Le Huffington Post and their live blog; For coverage in German, visit HuffPost Germany; For coverage in Spanish, visitHuffPost Spain; For coverage in Arabic, visit HuffPost Arabi.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
An Illustrated Guide For Anyone Who's Ever Been Confused By A 401(k)
The good news is that many employers offer a retirement savings plan commonly known as a 401(k). The bad news is that understanding your 401(k) isn’t easy. There are many different types of 401(k) plans to consider, and the surrounding terminology may make it tricky for some employees to understand how to make the most out of this investment.
We joined forces with State Farm® to explain the ins and outs of 401(k) retirement plans in six simple comics, helping you maximize your savings while avoiding common pitfalls that may chip away at your nest egg in the long run.
Your job offers a 401(k) plan? Great!
Image: Michael Driver
No one would choose to pay taxes voluntarily, yet that’s exactly what you do when you don’t take advantage of a 401(k). Arising from a 1978 law, 401(k) plans have helped Americans save more by allowing them to invest, or defer, a portion of their pre-tax earnings into a retirement fund sponsored by their employer. Unlike the funds in a savings account offered by a bank, the money in a 401(k) is directly invested in higher interest opportunities.
Does your employer offer matching contributions? Boom!
Image: Michael Driver
Although they’re not required to, many companies offer matching contributions to your 401(k), which is a game-changer in boosting the size of your retirement account. On average, employers match contributions up to 2.7 percent of an employee’s salary, which has a huge impact on the total size of your retirement account when it’s time to cash out. Think of it as a bump in salary!
Wait, how much should you contribute?
Image: Michael Driver
Get the most out of your employer’s matching plan: Contribute at least as much as your employer is willing to match, otherwise you are literally passing up free money. Although a portion of your employer’s matching contributions is immediately available to your 401(k), you often need to satisfy a vesting schedule that slowly unlocks your employer’s contributions after each year you remain with the company -- typically five -- until you’ve reached 100 percent.
Switching jobs? Here's what you should do.
Image: Michael Driver
If you’re changing employers, you have four options to consider when deciding what to do with your (now) old 401(k). You may choose to leave your old 401(k) with your former employer, roll it over to a new employer’s 401(k), or cash out. The fourth option is to roll over your 401(k) into an IRA, or Individual Retirement Arrangement.
As tempting as it may sound, cashing out is generally considered to be the worst decision, because not only will your savings be subject to a 25 percent federal income tax in addition to state tax, you’re also subject to a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if you’re younger than age 59 1/2.
If your new employer permits it, rolling over your old 401(k) to your new plan is generally a sound strategy; you’ll continue to earn money on your previous savings while putting in additional money from each paycheck. In case your new employer doesn’t offer a 401(k), your previous employer may allow you to keep your old 401(k) under the stewardship of the fund manager if it has $5,000 or more in it. The drawback is that you won’t be able to make additional contributions toward your old 401(k), making it grow much slower.
What about an IRA? When does that make sense?
Image: Michael Driver
IRAs allow you to set up a savings account similar to a 401(k), except it’s not tied to your employer and you generally have more flexibility over how your money is invested. There are two types of IRAs for you to consider: a traditional IRA and a Roth IRA.
A traditional IRA is similar to a 401(k) in that you won’t pay taxes on your earnings until you decide to cash out. The major differences: an IRA’s individual contribution limit is $5,500 as opposed to the $18,000 for 401(k), and there won’t be any matching contributions from your employer.
On the other hand, the money you put into a Roth IRA is post-tax, but you won’t have to pay any taxes on your earnings when you withdraw your money. Many employers also offer what’s known as a Roth 401(k), which functions exactly like a 401(k) but it follows the tax scheme of a Roth IRA.
It’s time to cash out! Or is it?
Image: Michael Driver
When you’ve turned age 59 1/2, you’re finally able to cash out your 401(k) and IRA accounts without paying the steep early withdrawal penalties, but should you?
Since the full retirement age is 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later, it’s in your best interest to keep working at least until then, as you’ll be able to delay the distribution, or payout, of your 401(k) and traditional IRA until you’re 70 1/2 years old.
Once you’ve figured out the right way for you to receive your savings, take a moment to step back and marvel at the prudence of your younger self: you’ve made it.
Life gets infinitely easier when you’ve planned ahead. Now that you have the tools to embrace your future with confidence, let State Farm® help you to protect it.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
FDA Finally Agrees To Test Food For Monsanto's Glyphosate Weedkiller
The Food and Drug Administration will begin testing corn, soybeans and other foods for the presence of glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, according to the blog Civil Eats.
The decision comes almost a year after the World Health Organization declared that the chemical, the active ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup, likely causes cancer in humans.
Civil Eats, in an article published Wednesday, quoted FDA spokeswoman Lauren Sucher as saying the agency is "considering assignments" for the current fiscal year to "measure glyphosate in soybeans, corn, milk, and eggs, among other potential foods."
By testing for residues of the chemical, the FDA may answer longstanding concerns about whether it ends up in the food supply. If detected in large amounts, the industry would likely see an increased demand for stricter regulations.
Glyphosate is widely used in farming, in conjunction with genetically engineered seeds that can withstand its toxic properties, and has been linked to various health and environmental concerns. Monsanto, which patented the herbicide in the 1970s, maintains it is effective and safe.
The FDA and other regulatory agencies already test for pesticides, but glyphosate -- one of the most ubiquitous herbicides -- has never been on the FDA's list.
Among the groups that welcomed the FDA announcement was the Center for Biological Diversity, which noted in a statement that glyphosate has been named as a leading cause of massive declines in monarch butterflies.
Nathan Donley, a scientist with the group, said it was "shocking" it took the FDA so long to agree to testing. He added that he's "glad it's finally going to happen."
"More and more scientists are raising concerns about the effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment," said Donley, adding that FDA data is "badly needed to facilitate long-overdue conversations about how much of this chemical we should tolerate in our food."
Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, agreed testing is a "good first step," but said it must be thorough and widespread. He encouraged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to join the effort.
The FDA said a main reason it did not test for the herbicide in the past was because the available methods were "very cost- and labor-intensive to implement in FDA field labs," according to a statement to Agri-Pulse. New "streamlined methods" have made testing for glyphosate cheaper, the FDA said.
Monsanto said it hadn't received confirmation of the FDA plans for residue testing. The company said glyphosate's 40-year history has demonstrated its safety to the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators.
"If FDA does move forward with additional testing in a scientifically rigorous manner, we are confident it will reaffirm the long-standing safety profile of this vital tool used safely and effectively by farmers, landowners and homeowners around the world," Monsanto said in a statement.
Monsanto's patent on the herbicide expired in 2000, but the St. Louis-based company continues to reap about $5 billion annually in sales from glyphosate, Civil Eats reported.
Last month, Monsanto filed a lawsuit that seeks to prevent California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment from adding glyphosate to the state's list of known carcinogens.
Also on HuffPost:
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Pope says Trump is 'not Christian' for wanting to build a wall on U.S.-Mexico border
Pope Francis receives a cross made by an inmate during his visit to the CeReSo n. 3 penitentiary in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Wednesday. Photo by Gabriel Buoys/Pool/via Reuters
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE -- Thrusting himself into the heated American presidential campaign, Pope Francis declared Thursday that Donald Trump is "not Christian" if he wants to address illegal immigration only by building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump fired back ferociously, saying it was "disgraceful" for a religious leader to question a person's faith.
The rare back-and-forth between pontiff and presidential candidate was the latest astonishing development in an American election already roiled by Trump's free-wheeling rhetoric and controversial policy proposals, particularly on immigration. It also underscored the popular pope's willingness to needle U.S. politicians on hot-button issues.
Francis' comments came hours after he concluded a visit to Mexico, where he prayed at the border for people who died trying to reach the U.S. While speaking to reporters on the papal plane, he was asked what he thought of Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall along the entire length of the border and expel millions of people in the U.S. illegally.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," he said. While Francis said he would "give the benefit of the doubt" because he had not heard Trump's border plans independently, he added, "I say only that this man is not a Christian if he has said things like that."
Trump, a Presbyterian and the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, responded within minutes.
"For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful," he said at a campaign stop in South Carolina, which holds a key primary on Saturday. "I am proud to be a Christian, and as president I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened."
Trump also raised the prospect of the Islamic State extremist group attacking the Vatican, saying that if that happened, "the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened."
The billionaire businessman said later Thursday that he was "totally respectful" of the pope but stood by his initial response.
Francis, the first pope from Latin America, has been a vocal proponent of compassionate immigration policies. In an address to Congress during his visit to Washington last year, he urged lawmakers to respond to immigrants "in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal."
He also irked Republicans on the same trip with his forceful call for international action to address climate change. His comments prompted some GOP presidential candidates to suggest the pontiff stay out of politics.
Immigration is among the most contentious issues in American politics. Republicans have moved toward hardline positions that emphasize law enforcement and border security, blocking comprehensive legislation in 2013 that would have included a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally.
Hispanics, an increasingly large voting bloc in U.S. presidential elections, have flocked to Democrats in recent years. President Barack Obama won more than 70 percent in the 2012 election, leading some Republican leaders to conclude that the party could win the White House back only if it increased its appeal to the fast-growing group.
However, the current GOP presidential primary has been dominated by increasingly tough rhetoric on immigration, with Trump at the forefront. He's insisted that Mexico would pay for his proposed border wall and has said some Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally are murderers and rapists.
While Trump's rhetoric has been among the most inflammatory, some of his rivals have staked out similar enforcement positions. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are among those who have explicitly called for construction of a wall.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, one of the few GOP candidates proposing a path to legal status for people already in the U.S. illegally, said Thursday that he supports "walls and fencing where it's appropriate." Bush said that while he gets his guidance "as a Catholic" from the pope, he doesn't take his cues from Francis on "economic or environmental policy."
Marco Rubio, another Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, said that Vatican City has a right to control its borders and so does the United States.
Rubio said he has "tremendous respect and admiration" for the pope, but he added, "There's no nation on Earth that's more compassionate on immigration than we are."
Cruz said he was steering clear of the dispute. "That's between Donald and the pope," he said. "I'm not going to get in the middle of them."
It's unclear what impact, if any, the pope's rhetoric will have on the Republican primary. An October poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that most Americans had no strong opinion on the pope's approach to immigration issues, though he was overall viewed favorably.
Even before Thursday's exchange, Trump had been critical of Francis' visit to Mexico. He said last week that the pope's plans to pray at the border showed he was a political figure being exploited by the Mexican government.
Francis glossed over Trump's assertion that he was a pawn of Mexico, telling reporters on his plane that he would "leave that up to your judgment." But he seemed pleased to hear the pope had called him a "political" figure, noting that Aristotle had described the human being as a "political animal."
Video by PBS NewsHour
Here is the full question and answer aboard the papal plane:
Q: Good evening Your Holiness. Today you spoke eloquently about the problems of migrants. On the other side of the frontier there's a very tough electoral campaign going on. One of the Republican candidates for the White House, Donald Trump, in a recent interview, said you are a "political man" and that maybe you are a pawn of the Mexican government as far as immigration policy is concerned. He has said that if elected, he would build a 2,500-kilometer long wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, thus separating families, etc. I would like to ask you first off what do you think of these accusations against you, and if an American Catholic can vote for someone like this.
A: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as "animal politicus." So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.
Associated Press writers Nicole Winfield and Julie Pace wrote this report. Pace reported from Greenville, South Carolina. AP writers Jill Colvin in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, and Tom Beaumont in Columbia, South Carolina, contributed to this report.
The post Pope says Trump is 'not Christian' for wanting to build a wall on U.S.-Mexico border appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Antonin Scalia Was The Supreme Court's Longest-Serving Justice. Here's Where It All Began.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who was found dead Saturday morning, served on the Supreme Court for almost 30 years.
The longest-serving member of the current court, Scalia was first sworn in on Sept. 26, 1986, after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan and unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
Watch the moment Scalia's Supreme Court career began above.
Also on HuffPost:
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
An Iowa Voter Forced Ted Cruz To Confront The Human Toll Of Repealing Obamacare
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn't even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
"He had never been to a doctor for years," Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. "Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We're sorry, sir, there's nothing we can do for you.'"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: "Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?"
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. "Under Obamacare," Cruz said, "millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket." He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he'd gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. "My question is, what are you going to replace it with?" he said. Cruz responded that he'd get there, but first he wanted to talk some more about the "millions of stories on the other side" -- people who'd had to give up their old plans and, as a result, ended up with higher premiums or co-pays, narrow networks of providers or some combination thereof.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valde's brother-in-law couldn't afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price -- and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
It mirrored the answer Cruz had given just two days before, when Fox News host Bret Baier posed a similar question during Thursday's presidential debate in Des Moines. And Cruz's description of Obamacare's effects hadn't gotten any less misleading in the interim.
It's true that President Barack Obama's signature health care law rewrote the rules for how insurance companies sell policies directly to individuals -- requiring that all policies include comprehensive benefits, for example, and prohibiting carriers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people who pose greater medical risks. And it's true that, because of those changes, insurers cancelled some existing policies.
But early reports suggesting as many 5 million people lost their old policies appear to have been exaggerated. Subsequent studies estimated that the actual number was less than half of that.
Meanwhile, those people were able to get new coverage through the law's marketplaces. And the best available research suggests that the majority ended up paying less money, not more, for their policies, while enjoying guarantees of coverage nobody had previously.
Overall, fewer and fewer Americans are reporting difficulty with medical bills and the proportion of Americans without coverage has fallen to historic lows. In Iowa specifically, the proportion of residents without health insurance fell by nearly half from 2013 to 2015, according to Gallup.
As for the claim that the Affordable Care Act has either destroyed jobs or turned millions of full-time positions into part-time ones, it appears to be just plain wrong. Anecdotal stories of employers capping hours got a lot of attention in 2014 and 2015, but experts have now had time to examine the data and they see no signs of a significant trend towards part-time work. (Also of note: the private sector has created jobs in every month since the Affordable Care Act became law.) Based on conversations with several well-respected economists, the website Politifact recently rated this favorite Republican argument "Pants on Fire."
Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, as Cruz proposed, is something conservatives have long favored. It would allow insurers to start acting like credit card companies, relocating to whatever states have the least onerous regulations and selling all policies from them.
Like other efforts to gut existing rules on how insurers operate, it'd allow the industry to sell cheap, skimpy policies that might appeal to some healthy people, but would offer nothing to people need comprehensive coverage. In short, it's a way of allowing insurers to act like they did before health care reform -- not a way to make sure millions get insurance.
There's a reason Cruz didn't have a better answer for Valde, and it's the same reason Republicans never have a satisfying response to this question.
The Affordable Care Act has its pluses and minuses, with plenty of people legitimately aggrieved about what it's done or how it's worked out for them -- and plenty more opposed for philosophical reasons. But any alternative that provides similar (or better) access to health care protection from medical bills is bound to require a similar combination of regulation and government spending. Republicans oppose such measures on principle -- which is why, when they talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives.
While Valde never got a real answer from Cruz, he had a chance to ask another candidate his question later in the evening. He showed up at a rally for Clinton in Cedar Rapids and was called onstage while she was speaking. Clinton noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way. "That's fine with them," she said. "That's not fine with me."
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
