Start The Impeachment Inquiry Now and Win The Presidential Election in 20/20

Dear Nancy Pelosi: As Speaker of The House of Representatives, you have won every skirmish and battle with President Donald Trump.  You led the Democrats to the enormous Blue Wave victory in the Midterm Elections.  A tide of  40 women ousted male Representatives across the nation.  2019 became The “Second Year of The Woman” in our history.

Your experience before as Speaker gave you the added knowledge and wisdom to best the president on different important issues since the 2016 election.  He was coming from the New York business world, and his experience in real estate was vastly different from the many political lessons you learned in Maryland when you were the daughter of the Mayor of Baltimore.  You entered politics when you were elected to The House as the Representative from San Francisco and moved up in later years to be elected Speaker the first time.

Now, you are faced with a major decision. A growing number of members of the majority Democratic Caucus and those who are running for president are urging you to start an Impeachment Inquiry. This would collect the evidence that would lead to Impeachment Proceedings against President Donald Trump.

Much of the evidence was laid out in The Mueller Report that was presented on April 18, 2019 after almost two years of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election that helped Trump win.   It ran to over 400 pages plus footnotes, and only a redacted version was available to the public. Some members of Congress did receive a more complete version.

U.S. Attorney William Barr who had been given The Report according to Department of Justice guidelines gave a televised four page summary  to the public on The Mueller Report.  He then testified under oath to the televised Senate Judiciary Committee, with Republican and Democratic senators asking questions and making statements.  During the questions, it is important to note that Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat, CA, asked if he had read the evidence under ten Obstruction of Justice incidents by the president documented in The Report. Barr, after some delay said he had not.


After Barr gave his summary, Trump claimed    “No Collusion” and “Complete Exoneration” although this was not in the report.  Senate Republican Majority leader Mitch Mc Connell  said, “Case Closed”.    However, the American people and the Democrats in Congress are not ready to do that.

Donald Trump will formally announce his run for reelection shortly. He is already holding rallies repeating his claims of “No Collusion and Case Closed” to the cheering throngs. He has also instructed Attorney General Barr to start an investigation of what he calls a plot by the F.B.I. and C.I. A. to attempt a “coup to overthrow his administration”.

There are now 24 Democrats running for President , a stunning number of men and women, the largest  group in modern history.  Former Vice President Joe Biden is leading in the current polls, with former Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont second.  Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is third.   Senator Kamala Harris of California is fourth.  Mayor Pete Buttigeg of Indiana is fifth.

The real political campaigns will begin when the Democratic primary results in a winner.  At present, William Weld , former governor of Massachusetts,  is challenging the president in the Republican primary.  His chances appear slim.

Speaker Pelosi could strike a master stroke if she starts the Impeachment Inquiry now and considers the millions of Obama voters in 2012 who switched to Trump in 2016.  These people  are significant potential voters for the Primary winning candidate.   They have seen Donald Trump’s actions and behavior these past two years and many are not happy with his performance.

Recent studies of this data reveal that these voters in four key states: Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio,   gave Trump his electoral win. They made the change four years ago and could be open to change again when the daily testimonies of witnesses in The Impeachment Inquiry are on TV.

According to the national polls,  Trump’s current approval rating is only in the high 30’s to low 40’s.  His disapproval rating is in the sixties.  At present, hypothetical matchups of leading Democrats show Joe Biden at the top, beating Trump by ten points. Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris  beat Trump in single digits.

Donald Trump always labels his rivals with insulting nicknames.  He has already called Joe Biden, “Low I.Q” and Elizabeth Warren, “Pocahontas” .  It is ironic that he chose “Crooked Hillary” for his 2016 opponent… when he was the businessman sued hundreds of times over shady real estate deals.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. This was despite Russian interference helping Donald Trump ….as documented clearly in The Mueller Report.

………………………………………Joyce S. Anderson



















“An Exaltation of Larks”


A very special book beckons to me from the shelves, An Exaltation of Larks, the fascinating collection by James Lipton, first published in 1968.  Lipton, an American writer, poet, composer and actor, traced the tradition in the English language back to the 15th century when groups of animals, fish and birds associated with hunting were given names to epitomize salient characteristics. Young gentlemen were taught the precise designation of their quarry. We are familiar with some: a pride of lions, a plague of locusts and a litter of puppies. The magic of this book is in the hundreds of collective nouns that identify the essence of the group to the reader for the first time — and the witty engravings by Grandville, a 19th century French lithographer, that accompany most of the terms and the text.


Here are a few groups of birds to whet your appetite:

A parliament of owls.

An ostentation of peacocks.

A banquet of pheasants.

A murder of crows.

A siege of herons.

A brood of hens.

An exaltation of larks.

Skylarks climb high together into the heavens while uttering their song — thus the poetic comment of exaltation.  In the interesting introduction to the book, Lipton traces the history from the 15th century to the present. He writes, “Obviously, at one time or another, every one of these terms had to be invented — and it is equally obvious that much imagination, wit and semantic ingenuity has always gone into their invention. The terms are too full of charm and poetry to suppose that their inventors were unaware of the possibilities open to them , and unconscious of the fun and beauty they were creating. What we have in these terms is clearly the end result of a game that amateur semanticists have been playing for over five hundred years.”


Part III of the book may be the most fun for readers since Lipton drew upon the Book of St. Albans, compiled in 1486, which included seventy references to people and life in the 15th century in addition to the birds, animals and fish for the hunt. The social references, scattered through the St. Albans book, are filled with wit and commentary about the manners and morals of the day. The lively, intriguing engravings accompanying these human figures capture the meaning and nuances in each term.  Here are samples from the 15th century:


A Herd of Harlots

A Converting of Preachers

A Doctrine of Doctors

An Incredulity of Cuckolds

A Riffraff of Knaves

A Drift of Fishermen

An Eloquence of Lawyers

A Worship of Writers (Ah, I love that.)


Lipton closes his delightful book with a challenge to the reader to join the “game” and create clever terms that illuminate intrinsic qualities of a group. He says, about playing the game, “like Tom Sawyer whitewashing the fence. I found that spectators didn’t stay spectators for long. If you should feel the urge, there are more brushes in the pail.”



An Exaltation of Larks  is available online at

Joyce S. Anderson …………………………………………………………………………………

Cell Phone Madness!

Are you ready to take a test?  Okay, here goes:

Do you own a cell phone?

Do you keep it with you in your car?

Do you answer the phone while you are driving?

Do you call someone on the phone while you are driving?

Do you turn corners with one hand while holding your phone with the other?

Do you have a head set for your telephone?

Do you conduct business on your telephone?

Do you call someone as soon as you leave the house in the morning?  For business?

For pleasure?

Do you ever argue with anyone on the telephone while you are driving?

Do you ever get upset during a telephone conversation while you are driving?

Do you know if New Jersey has a law against driving while using a hand held cell phone?

Oh — by the way — do you ever drink, eat, comb your hair, read, write or put on make up while driving?


In the movie, “Network”, Peter Finch the television executive sticks his head out of his apartment window and shouts, “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”  This scene flashed through my mind as I walked along Burroughs Avenue in Linwood one peaceful autumn morning and reached the corner. While I waited to cross, I watched driver after driver turn the corner from Oak Avenue onto Burroughs with one hand —  while talking on the phone held in the other hand. I felt like Peter Finch. I wanted to yell at all those drivers! But their windows were closed and they were oblivious to a lone walker watching them take the corner.

Most drivers I observe appear to be deeply involved in conversations as they drive their cars and talk on the cell phones at the same time.  Sometimes they appear angry with contorted faces. That’s when I really worry what’s going to happen next.  Psychologists have told us about attention span and doing more than one thing at once. The results have been proven in scientific laboratories. Now, we have the behavior happening all around us without laboratory controls.  Accidents on the way to happen.

Did you know the answer to the question about New Jersey law and using hand held cell phones while driving? In case you didn’t, here’s the answer. And the story on cell phones and driving nationwide.

New Jersey became the second state after New York to pass a law against using hand held cell phones — not head sets —  while driving. It has been ILLEGAL to drive and talk on a hand held cell phone since July 2004. This is called a ‘secondary offense’ after a driver has been stopped for another driving infraction, such as speeding.  The penalty is a fine up to $250; the violation does not carry points.   In New York, the police can stop motorists for talking on the phone even if no other driving infraction takes place.

State officials describe this law as a first step to get drivers to stop using hand held cell phones while they drive. Robert Rodriguez, director of the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety compares the cell phone law to the state law requiring the use of seat belts which also started as a secondary offense.  “We want to analyze human behavior to see if making it tougher is necessary.”  They found that 2 of every l0 drivers in New Jersey were not buckling their seat belts and changed the use of seat belts from a secondary offense to a primary offense.


What is the picture nationwide?  Eleven states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting cell phones while driving, and nineteen states also keep track of phone involvement in auto crashes.  New Hampshire with its motto, “Live Free or Die” is the only state in the union without a mandatory seat belt law.  But it did pass the first law in the nation against ‘distracted driving’ in 2001. This prohibits talking on a cell phone, eating, drinking or putting on makeup while behind the wheel.  Drivers face fines up to $1000. if police find any of the distracting activity caused an accident.

“If you’re going to have a law, it should cover all distractions,” says Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit group that represents safety officers.  Adkins added that there is no evidence that using a headset makes telephone use any safer while driving. A study funded by the American Automobile Association in 2003 found that changing the radio dials, talking with other passengers, eating, drinking , grooming and writing were more common activities for drivers than talking on a cell phone. Pam Fischer, an AAA spokesperson, says, “Research shows that it’s the conversation, not the device, that causes the distraction.”

Laws against cell phones vary in their specific prohibitions from state to state. Teenage drivers are  banned from talking on cell phones in New Jersey, Maine and the District of Columbia.  School bus drivers are also prohibited from talking on cell phones except in emergencies in ten states, including New Jersey , and the District of Columbia.  Some municipalities have passed their own rules on the subject although certain states restrict local governments from doing this. The bottom line is that legislators in each state research, debate and decide what actions they will take to protect the citizens in their state.


Final note: hands-free cell phone devices can be purchased at any cell phone store or online. Verizon sells these devices for prices ranging from $14.99 to $129.99.   However, drivers should be cautioned that two free hands can lead to all the other ‘distractions’.  The toughest danger to avoid while driving may be any telephone conversation that becomes intense or heated. Don’t risk it. Just hang up! And focus your attention on the road.

………………………………………………………………………………… Joyce S, Anderson


Census Citizen Question at The Supreme Court!

Prologue:  Every ten years since 1950, the Census Bureau has counted the population of the United States.  Originally, a government worker known as ‘enumerator’ would visit households and record the information.  In later years, people filled in their own forms on paper or electronically.

Everyone who lived in a household would be counted.  Adults  and children. The number then became the basis in states for their representation in the House of Representatives. Many households were two or three generational, including older members who had emigrated from other countries. There was never a question of citizenship.

On Tuesday, April 23, The Supreme Court will hear a Trump Administration case proposing a Citizenship Question be added to the 2020 Census.  Since 1960, the Census Bureau has been against adding a census question , saying “it would produce a less accurate population count. “ Five former Census Bureau directors from Republican and Democratic administrations wrote a brief to the Supreme Court against adding the Citizenship Question.

The purpose of this question is very clear.  Donald Trump has been opposed to immigration since he came down the escalator in Trump Tower and castigated immigrants from Mexico as “rapists and murderers”.   His successive bans on Muslims were in the courts for years.  Other members of his inner circle have agreed.  His chief of staff, General John Kelly said his formula for immigration from countries south of our border was” zero to one.”  In addition, the fate of the young children who were brought by their parents to live in the United States, still remains in limbo.  Many  of “The Dreamers” have graduated from college and are working and paying taxes.

Trump Administration immigrant court battles: Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Trump ban on visitors to the U.S. from several Muslim countries.  The High Court did temporarily block an administration plans to make it harder for people to claim asylum. The Justices are also considering an appeal that would allow Trump to end protections for  The Dreamers.  Last case: Federal judges in California,  New York and  Maryland have  blocked the administration from going ahead with the citizenship question.

Census Bureau experts have said millions of Hispanics and immigrants would not be counted.  That would cost several states a number of seats in The U.S. House  and millions of federal dollars that are determined by the Census.

Historical Notation:  See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of The United States Constitution.  You will find the phrase “three fifths of other persons”…. This refers to the black slaves in the southern states.  It was the result of a compromise in 1787 between Southern and Northern states arguing about representation and taxes.  It was changed in 1868 after the Civil War by the 14th Amendment, but still exists in print in copies, with the change in a footnote.

The infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in 1857 had described the escaped slave as property of his owner.

Epilogue:  Secretary of Commerce Ross proposed adding the Census Question to the 2020 Census.  The urgency on the administration side is that copies must be printed at this time.  The Supreme Court decision will not be made public until  June.

We would appear to be taking a step back in time since  the proposed Census Question by the Trump administration would turn back the clock to l787 . From that date on, some people living in the United States were counted as “three fifths of persons.”

Now in the 21st century, millions of undocumented immigrants would not be counted at all!  Let us hope that the Justices of The Supreme Court believe that every human being counts in the United States of America.

…………………………………………………..Joyce S. Anderson

Forward To The Past



“What’s a record player?” the clerk behind the counter asked when I had finally decided that my faithful decades-old machine needed replacing.  My classical music collection of LP’s includes some of the operatic greats. Toscanini conducting “La Traviata”. Leonard Warren as Rigoletto. Marilyn Horne and Joan Sutherland in “Norma”.  Maria Callas. Even Rosa Ponselle and Enrico Caruso.


I repeated my intent to the puzzled young man in the music store. “I would like to buy a record player.” Again, he responded, “What’s a record player.”   I had the uncomfortable sensation of being in a time warp. He was not kidding. He really didn’t know what I was talking about. And he was looking at me the way those people looked at Michael J. Fox in the film, “Back to the Future”. To see if there were any other strange characteristics besides my peculiar inquiry.


I persevered. “ A record machine. You know, the kind that you put the records on. With a turntable and the automatic arm that drops the records one by one.”  Oh,”, he said, “You mean the machines that people used to have in the old days before the cassettes and  C.D.s?  ( I aged two decades with that comment)  Now, it was my turn. “C.D.s What are they?” (CD to me means certificate of deposit or civil defense and I didn’t think he was on either of those wave lengths.)

He explained, “C.D.s are compact disks. They’re the latest thing in the sound business. The best possible way to hear music next to being there. Would you like me to play one for you?”  “Well”, I went on, “It’s not that I don’t believe you, but I have this huge collection of L.Ps at home. Something of a lifetime investment, you might say. I think I’ll stick with what I have. That’s why I need a new machine. Don’t you carry them at all anymore?”


At this point, we had reached an impasse. He obviously regarded me as an alien in the modern world of music. It also occurred to me that he might not even know what L.P.s were. It was clear that I was not a potential buyer of C.Ds, the sound of the future. He turned me over to the assistant manager, who diplomatically informed me, “We really don’t have any call for the type of machine you are describing. Perhaps a second-hand store or an antique dealer might have one.”


Help! Alvin Toffler was right. My world is becoming archaic. My machine is an anachronism. Toffler predicted in his book, “Future Shock” that this would happen. At the time, I didn’t believe him. After this consciousness raising session at the music store, I decided to keep my old machine. The sound may not be perfect, but I know it well and its sounds right to me. I also began t think about other things that have become outmoded, outdated and out of stock. I didn’t have to search too far. Here’s my starter list:

Clotheslines and wooden clothespins.

Dry goods stores.

Watches and clocks that one winds and sets.

Stockings, not pantyhose.

Rouge, not blusher.

Soap, not a body bar.

A manual typewriter.

A malted milk shake.

Five and Dime stores. At least one per town.

Roller skates that clip onto your shoes.

The metal key to tighten the skates.

Fountain pens. Other than the status models.

Bottles of ink for the fountain pens.

Ink eradicator to correct the blots.

A baby stroller that is simple in purpose.


Have you tried lately to buy a plain canvas what-we-used-to-call sneaker? The variations on this form of footwear are awesome. Tennis. Walking. Jogging. Running. Racing. With reinforced arch. Without said arch. High top. Low top. No top. Leather. Nylon. Canvas. Wide laces. Narrow laces. Stretchable laces. And all of these choices occur before you enter the world of different brands and myriad colors.


Many people yearn for the days of the past. For the simple rural society and its values. For fewer choices. For the small town with the 5 and 10 cent store and the corner drugstore with soda fountain. I cannot say I belong to that segment of the population. I guess I am somewhere in between that world and the present one, with a clothing chain store on every other block. One for women. One for men. And one for children. Is this really necessary?


How I would love to see tucked away on one of those blocks a nostalgia store. A store that stocks all the anachronisms and archaic objects I crave. All the hard-to-find record machines, needle threaders and wooden clothespins. This image conjures up the legendary store that used to exist in a neighborhood. It might have been called a hardware store, or a general store in the real old days. In every case, this store was the place of first and last resort. Merchandise usually spilled down fromm the jammed aisles.  Threading one’s way through the aisles took determination. But the reward was finding exactly what you needed. In the right size. And the right color. And just the brand you usually bought.


The owners of these stores knew their inventory and the hiding place of every item. They honed in on the most obscure request with unerring accuracy. “I know I have a few in stock. On the third aisle, top shelf, under the rubber spatulas.” And there they were!


Having such a store in our neighborhood would gave me a wonderful sense of security. As I am catapulted into the future, I could visit the nostalgia store from time to time and hold on to the comfortable past.


……………………………………………………………………………….  Joyce S . Anderson


Texting To Death!

Several months ago, while driving on Rte. 9 at the 45 mile an hour speed limit, I  found my car being followed much too closely by another vehicle. When I glanced in the rear view mirror, I could see the head of the young male driver looking down for some seconds and then up —repeatedly.  It only took me a few of the down -up motions to realize he was either reading or sending a text message. I signaled right and turned off the road at the first available opportunity. Has this ever happened to you?  I can state unequivocally that it’s a pretty scary experience. As if you are foreseeing a serious rear-end collision about to happen. And you are driving the car that is going to be crashed into.


Texting is a relatively new phenomenon that is growing at exponential speed.  People text while taking walks, sitting on buses and subways. eating in restaurants and riding  bicycles.  It’s the latest technological advance in communication. You don’t have to call. Just send a text message.  Only your thumbs will know the difference.


Ever since the arrival of cell phones, studies have proven that talking on cell phones while driving is dangerous. This is true whether the phone is hand-held or not.  The diversion of attention from the road is the key factor and distraction occurs whether one hand or both are off the wheel.  When the driver becomes engaged in conversation, either civil or heated, there is a loss of concentration and observation of  other drivers and traffic signs.


Texting is emerging as even more dangerous than using a cell phone according to recently released studies. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive text messages. The l8 month study followed more than l00 drivers of long-haul trucks, whose cabs had been outfitted with video cameras.  They were tracked for three million miles as they delivered frozen food, furniture and other goods across the country.  The cost of $6 million was funded by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, whose mission is the improvement of safety in trucks and buses.


The study found that when the drivers were sending or receiving text messages, they typically took their eyes off the road for five seconds. At normal highway speeds, five seconds translates into the length of a football field in distance. The resultant collision risk was 23 times greater when they were texting.  Rick Hanowski, who oversaw the study, said, “If you’re not watching the road for five seconds, it’s a crash waiting to happen.”  Tom  Dingus, director of the Virginia Tech Institute said of texting while driving, “You should never do this. It should be illegal.”


At present,  36 states do not ban texting while driving; 14 states do, including California, Alaska, Louisiana and New Jersey. Texting is so new that many police departments are not collecting data on accidents related to texting or talking on cell phones.  It is important to note that researchers of other studies said that although trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable, the findings applied to drivers of cars as well.


At the University of Utah, a study was conducted over 18 months with college students texting while in a driving simulator.  The results showed an eight times greater crash risk when texting than not texting.  The study, submitted for publication in The Journal for Human Factors, found that drivers took their eyes off the road for around five seconds — the same length of time as the truckers.

David Strayer, a professor who was the co-author of the Utah Report, saw two possible reasons for the lower risk of a crash than the truckers study: trucks are harder to maneuver and stop, and college students might be better at multitasking.  Strayer commented, “You’re off the charts in both cases. It’s crazy to be doing it.”


Virginia Tech  conducted a follow-up study with the focus on texting among teenagers driving light vehicles. Preliminary results from this study show risk levels for teenage texters about the same as for the truck drivers.  Earlier field and laboratory studies that delved into  drivers talking on cell phones while driving showed a crash risk as four times more likely.  And a Virginia Tech study that videotaped car drivers found that dialing the cell phone brought a crash three times more likely.


Researchers have done studies on all types of driving distractions: eating, drinking, combing one’s hair, putting on lipstick, turning to talk to someone in the back seat.   They do not agree about whether field studies are more valuable than laboratory simulations. However, they do agree that texting is a much greater risk to drivers than other distractions.  The AAA Foundation of Traffic Safety published polling data that shows 87 percent of people believe that drivers texting or e-mailing are a “very serious” safety threat. This is close to the 90 percent who consider drunken drivers a threat.  2,501 drivers were surveyed this past spring and 95 percent called texting “unacceptable behavior”. It is ironic that 21 percent of drivers said they had recently texted or e-mailed while driving. About 50 percent of the drivers 16 to 24 said they had texted while driving compared to 22 percent of drivers 35 to 44.


Robert Smith, 22, a recent college graduate says he does text while driving, even though he agrees it is a serious risk. “I put the phone on top of the steering wheel and text with both thumbs”, he said,  describing exchanges of ten messages or more at a time. “I’ll look up and realize there’s a car sitting there and swerve around it.”  He was not part of the AAA survey and said he was surprised at the findings.  However, he was not convinced to stop texting. “I’m pretty sure that someday it’s going to come back and bite me.”  The question his comment raises goes far beyond what will happen to him. It is  whether his texting will prove dangerous or deadly to another driver and passengers  when he crashes into their car.


………………………………………………………………………….Joyce S. Anderson

Trump: “Repeal and Replace Affordable Care Act!”

Prologue:  March 27, 20l9 -We learned that Donald Trump had decided once more to attempt to rid the nation of the A.C.A. known as Obamacare to millions of Americans. The day before, Trump had declared at a closed door meeting of Republicans,  “The Republican Party will be known as the Health Care Party!”   This was followed by a triumphant rally in Michigan where he had been exulting in his inflated interpretation of The Mueller Report, “No collusion.  No collusion…. Complete exoneration!” The latter claim was the exact opposite of Attorney Barr’s four page letter.

Brief History: When Barack Obama was elected in November, 2007, he placed Health Care as one of his top priorities.  The struggle took  over two years.  Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of The House working closely with him. On March 23, 2010 Obama signed the Affordable Care Act to become the “law of the land”.  It became known as Obamacare.

By November 2010,  The Tea Party had taken over the Republican Party and attacked Obama full force, winning back the House of Representatives.  From that day on, their goal was to “Repeal and Replace Obamacare.’’  In the years that followed, they tried over fifty times to do that and failed.  The final blow came on July 17 in Obama’s second term, in a Senate vote. It failed when Susan Collins, Lisa Merkowski and John McCain voted No. McCain was already fighting brain cancer and entered late in the vote to turn his right hand thumb down.

Donald Trump elected in 2016.  In the years that followed, his administration was described  on June 12, 2018 in a lead New York Times editorial as “The  Zombie Health Care Killers”.  For two years the White House kept threatening Obamacare while voters reported that healthcare was their greatest concern.  Midterm elections were  coming in November.  All Representatives and some Senators whose seats were up faced angry constituents at town meetings.  The voters would chant “ACA… ACA”… and tell personal stories of how the ACA had saved  their  parents’ lives or their own.

In June, 2018,  twenty Republican led states filed a lawsuit against Obamacare arguing for repeal of popular consumer protections including coverage of pre-existing conditions. The Justice Department declined to defend Obamacare against the lawsuit. Another administration policy was to encourage “junk health policies” temporary policies that ran out after short periods of time.   Also introduced was allowing states to take away Medicaid benefits from people who are not working.  States like Kentucky. were encouraged to enact such laws.

Despite attempts to weaken Obamacare,  by November 2018 , enrollment in the program had grown by 28 percent since 2013.  Voters in Red states , Idaho, Nebraska and Utah approved ballot initiatives to expand coverage under Obamacare. Californians held rallies to replace parts of expiring sections of the law.  A huge sign in Los Angeles:  “Don’t Make America SICK AGAIN!

November 2018 Midterm Elections:  The Blue Wave gave Democrats control of the House of Representatives. They flipped forty Republican seats.  Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of The House of Representatives once more.  2018 became the second Year of The Women.

During the post election months, political focus turned to the 2020 election.  Trump was already holding rallies in key states and Democrats were entering the race:  Kamala Harris,   Cory Booker,  Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders.   Health care was an important issue . Sanders endorsed Medicare for All a progressive position favored by the new young wing of the Democratic party.

Speaker Pelosi ‘s  goal in Health Care has always been to strengthen Obamacare in different ways.  Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat from Washington who is also a pediatrician said, “We have very practical solutions that we can implement immediately. We don’t have the time right now to wait for a full overhaul of our health care system.” The fiery new leader of young progressives, Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ,  AOC, said, “I reject the idea that single payer is impossible.”  However,  Speaker Pelosi had the last word in the Medicare for All feud.  She had said, “Health Care was on the ballot in November, and Health Care won. “

  Epilogue: Speaker Pelosi and several committee chairs had met and created a plan to build on Obamacare . Now, they will use it to fight Trump’s new declaration of “Repeal and Replace”.   It would increase the two main types of financial assistance the law provides: tax credits to help middle and low income people pay premiums, and cost-sharing  reductions  to lower deductibles on payments and other out of pocket costs.

At Tuesday’s press conference, Democrats reminded reporters that Trump boasted in the Midterms campaign, that  “Republicans would always protect  patients with pre-existing conditions.”  ‘’ We will remind the American people time and time again of that broken promise.” said Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina.

…………………………………………………Joyce S. Anderson