# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
Political Issues Part 1:

Congratulations! You have been assigned to this topic! Your quest for informative objective research begins! Using your savvy tech skills, please research the Internet for an article explaining the issue.

The article should explain what the issue is, use data/evidence, and explain why it is so controversial. In this search, you might be reading other research that isn’t credible. That’s okay. It’s part of the research process. We want the BEST article posted here. After you post, you will have to evaluate and RANK other articles in this category for their credibility and objectivity.

Research and Rank and await Part 2 of the lesson… J

# data[].attributes.body
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/where-are-u-s-troops-stationed-abroad/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/24/580433745/a-look-at-all-11-school-shootings-that-took-place-in-the-first-23-days-of-2018https://www.npr.org/2018/01/24/580433745/a-look-at-all-11-school-shootings-that-took-place-in-the-first-23-days-of-2018

B

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42452733http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42452733

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/undocumented-illegal-immigrants.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Nathan stjames _republicans try to repeal Obamacare.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nathan stjames _republicans try to repeal Obamacare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What began last week as a long-shot option after Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced their latest blueprint to overhaul the health care system has transformed into an all-hands-on-deck operation at the Capitol ahead of a September 30 deadline.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear to his conference that if Graham and Cassidy can secure the votes, he is prepared to make another attempt to move a health care bill, a source familiar with the process told CNN. Largely hands-off up to this point, the Republican leadership has essentially begun to kick-start its machinery to set up a potential floor vote during the last week of the month.

The leadership has also weighed in with the Congressional Budget Office to try to encourage it to speed up the process of assessing the bill's impact so Republicans can act if the votes materialize.

There is no expectation that McConnell would bring the bill up on the floor if it did not have the support needed to pass, but Republicans aren't far away from making it a possibility, a source close to the process told CNN.

The fact that Republicans remain tantalizingly close to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act once and for all means this short week in the Senate will be do-or-die time for the legislation. Republican leaders are expected to gauge support for the proposal in Tuesday's conference lunch, according to two sources familiar with the process.

The White House is also making a push for the bill, an administration official told CNN. A source told CNN that efforts are already underway although there are no plans to call in President Donald Trump to make a full-fledged lobbying effort just yet. Last week, Graham told reporters that Vice President Mike Pence had spent considerable time reaching out to Republican governors to try to gain their support and buoy the effort.

Trump is also expected to reach out to Alaska's governor in an effort to get Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski to "yes." Murkowski told reporters Monday she is reviewing the bill.

One move Monday could make this more likely for the GOP: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey put out a statement in support of Graham-Cassidy, calling it "the best path forward to repeal and replace Obamacare."

This is significant given that Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who voted against the Republican Obamacare repeal bill earlier this year, has indicated that his decision will depend a lot on what his governor says. McCain said he is undecided as well.

The Senate homeland security committee is planning a hearing for next Tuesday on block grants -- the basis of the Graham-Cassidy bill. It's an unusual committee to hold a hearing on this topic given the health and finance panels are more closely involved in health care issues.

Notably, the homeland committee's chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, is a co-sponsor of Graham-Cassidy, and was one of the most vocal critics earlier this year of the closed-door deliberations of GOP leaders.

Democrats cry foul

Democrats are already crying foul about the planned hearing. A Democratic aide closely involved in health care deliberations argued that this hearing is precisely so that Republicans can say they tried to do things through regular order.

"He's doing that to give the veneer of process," the aide said of Johnson.

In the past five days, Democrats and outside groups have also started to re-engage in a major effort to short-circuit Republicans' mobilization.

Asked if it was time to take the Graham-Cassidy bill seriously, one senior Democratic aide simply responded, "Yes."

Deadline to get the votes

All the usual caveats for health care legislation remain, however. While GOP leaders in the effort have publicly shared that they believe they have between 47 and 49 votes for Graham-Cassidy, they aren't at the magic number, 50, quite yet, and time is of the essence.

The Senate's parliamentarian has suggested that Republicans only have until the end of the month to use their 2017 budget reconciliation bill as their vehicle to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority. After September 30, Republicans would either have to move on or pass another budget with health care reconciliation instructions to continue working on the overhaul legislation.

This week is a short one in Washington because of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, meaning the best-case -- and really only -- scenario would entail bringing up a motion to put the bill to the Senate floor next week. That would give senators just six days -- only four of which scheduled as days the chamber will be in session -- to secure the votes to take the bill up and move through the legislative process (amendment vote-a-rama included).

Given the time and effort the GOP has spent on health care already -- months of plodding, closed-door talks where ideological and political divides simply could not be bridged -- this latest process would be a version of Senate hyperspeed.

It's important to note that Republicans have been this close before.

The Senate GOP was only one vote shy of passing the so-called skinny repeal bill in July when McCain cast his "no" vote. It's entirely possible that Republicans could get right up to 49 votes again and still fail to get the final, crucial vote. All eyes are on Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who along with McCain, were the three Republicans to sink the skinny repeal.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, has already made it clear he won't support the latest version of the bill. In a Twitter tirade Friday, Paul wrote: "#GrahamCassidy sales pitch: if you like your Obamacare you can keep your Obamacare. No thanks."

What the bill does

After the last several Senate Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare failed to garner enough support, Graham and Cassidy began putting together their own proposal. They, along with Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Dean Heller of Nevada, unveiled their bill Wednesday at the Capitol.

The bill would repeal the individual and employer mandates as well as shift Obamacare's Medicaid expansion funding and insurance subsidy structure into a block grant program for states. States would be given a lump sum of money from the federal government, and it would be up to them how to spend it.

The bill would also reduce federal support for the traditional Medicaid program by providing a fixed amount of funds per enrollee. Republicans argue this would give states more flexibility and would allow them to spend their money more efficiently.

But Democrats and consumer advocates say the block grants would provide less money to states than they would get under Obamacare, and, further, funding would be specified only through 2026. They have charged the block grant structure would put more of a burden on the states because they would have to make up for the shortfalls in federal dollars.

Murkowski reviewing

Murkowski of Alaska, one of three Republicans who opposed the previous GOP health care bill, told reporters Monday she is "still looking" at Graham-Cassidy.

When she was asked if she had concerns about Medicaid cuts in the bill, she said she is still looking at the numbers.

"I need to figure out how all the numbers work with regards to Alaska" Murkowski said.

"We understand what block grants do, but if you get more flexibility but with not enough money to utilize the flexibility that makes a difference so we're continuing to go back and forth. I sat with Sen. Cassidy last week and we're continuing to share numbers."

Do they have the votes?

Early last week, senior Republicans in both chambers were dismissing the effort, oftentimes with an eye roll and a chuckle. But the latest health care effort seemed to pick up steam in a closed-door Republican conference luncheon late last week, where, according to Graham, McConnell told the conference that he was "all in" on the latest attempt if Republicans could put together the votes.

"If we had a vote right now, we'd get 47-48 votes," Graham said Thursday.

The consensus in the room was that Republicans owed their voters one more try, staff said.

"It's the right thing to do," said one GOP aide, who until recently repeatedly shot down queries about the bill as pointless. "Our guys made this promise for years and want to give it one more go."

If the Graham-Cassidy proposal picks up real momentum in the Senate this week, it could potentially jeopardize another health care effort in the Senate: a rare bipartisan discussion that has been taking place on stabilizing the Obamacare marketplace.

Over the past few weeks, the Senate health committee held bipartisan hearings for the first time this year on possible fixes to the health care law, bringing in state insurance commissions, governors and other experts to testify.

After Republican lawmakers dominated the first half of the year with efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act altogether, the hearings -- and now the deliberations between committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and ranking member Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, aimed at quickly introducing a bipartisan bill -- appeared to mark a significant turning point in the heated health care debate.

Aides said staff-level discussions continued throughout the weekend and that Alexander and Murray hoped to begin finalizing language in the coming week and push for a vote soon thereafter.

So far, there is general across-the-aisle agreement on ensuring that Congress continues to fund a key set of Obamacare subsidies known as cost-sharing reduction payments (the details, including how long these payments would be ensured for, are still being hashed out). A more complicated area of discussions is what level of flexibility states could have under Obamacare, with conservative Republicans pushing for greater breathing room and Democrats warning that they could not support a proposal that would weaken patient protections.

But the revival of any GOP bill that is certain to be rejected by Democrats in the chamber would once again turn health care into a highly charged and partisan exercise. Democrats have been carefully eying the Graham-Cassidy proposal in recent weeks, warning that it could throw a wrench into bipartisan talks.

"It's easy to see how another partisan Republican repeal effort would threaten work between Democrats and Republicans to work together in good faith," a Democratic aide told CNN.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
republicans push ahead with obamacare repeal  - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Lauren Fox, Phil Mattingly and MJ Lee, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Republicans push ahead with Obamacare repeal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What began last week as a long-shot option after Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced their latest blueprint to overhaul the health care system has transformed into an all-hands-on-deck operation at the Capitol ahead of a September 30 deadline.

# data[].attributes.body
Quinton https://gun-control.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/index.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42871641http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42871641.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nathan stjames -republicans try and repeal Obamacare.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nathan stjames -republicans try and repeal Obamacare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What began last week as a long-shot option after Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced their latest blueprint to overhaul the health care system has transformed into an all-hands-on-deck operation at the Capitol ahead of a September 30 deadline.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear to his conference that if Graham and Cassidy can secure the votes, he is prepared to make another attempt to move a health care bill, a source familiar with the process told CNN. Largely hands-off up to this point, the Republican leadership has essentially begun to kick-start its machinery to set up a potential floor vote during the last week of the month.

The leadership has also weighed in with the Congressional Budget Office to try to encourage it to speed up the process of assessing the bill's impact so Republicans can act if the votes materialize.

There is no expectation that McConnell would bring the bill up on the floor if it did not have the support needed to pass, but Republicans aren't far away from making it a possibility, a source close to the process told CNN.

The fact that Republicans remain tantalizingly close to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act once and for all means this short week in the Senate will be do-or-die time for the legislation. Republican leaders are expected to gauge support for the proposal in Tuesday's conference lunch, according to two sources familiar with the process.

The White House is also making a push for the bill, an administration official told CNN. A source told CNN that efforts are already underway although there are no plans to call in President Donald Trump to make a full-fledged lobbying effort just yet. Last week, Graham told reporters that Vice President Mike Pence had spent considerable time reaching out to Republican governors to try to gain their support and buoy the effort.

Trump is also expected to reach out to Alaska's governor in an effort to get Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski to "yes." Murkowski told reporters Monday she is reviewing the bill.

One move Monday could make this more likely for the GOP: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey put out a statement in support of Graham-Cassidy, calling it "the best path forward to repeal and replace Obamacare."

This is significant given that Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who voted against the Republican Obamacare repeal bill earlier this year, has indicated that his decision will depend a lot on what his governor says. McCain said he is undecided as well.

The Senate homeland security committee is planning a hearing for next Tuesday on block grants -- the basis of the Graham-Cassidy bill. It's an unusual committee to hold a hearing on this topic given the health and finance panels are more closely involved in health care issues.

Notably, the homeland committee's chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, is a co-sponsor of Graham-Cassidy, and was one of the most vocal critics earlier this year of the closed-door deliberations of GOP leaders.

Democrats cry foul

Democrats are already crying foul about the planned hearing. A Democratic aide closely involved in health care deliberations argued that this hearing is precisely so that Republicans can say they tried to do things through regular order.

"He's doing that to give the veneer of process," the aide said of Johnson.

In the past five days, Democrats and outside groups have also started to re-engage in a major effort to short-circuit Republicans' mobilization.

Asked if it was time to take the Graham-Cassidy bill seriously, one senior Democratic aide simply responded, "Yes."

Deadline to get the votes

All the usual caveats for health care legislation remain, however. While GOP leaders in the effort have publicly shared that they believe they have between 47 and 49 votes for Graham-Cassidy, they aren't at the magic number, 50, quite yet, and time is of the essence.

The Senate's parliamentarian has suggested that Republicans only have until the end of the month to use their 2017 budget reconciliation bill as their vehicle to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority. After September 30, Republicans would either have to move on or pass another budget with health care reconciliation instructions to continue working on the overhaul legislation.

This week is a short one in Washington because of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, meaning the best-case -- and really only -- scenario would entail bringing up a motion to put the bill to the Senate floor next week. That would give senators just six days -- only four of which scheduled as days the chamber will be in session -- to secure the votes to take the bill up and move through the legislative process (amendment vote-a-rama included).

Given the time and effort the GOP has spent on health care already -- months of plodding, closed-door talks where ideological and political divides simply could not be bridged -- this latest process would be a version of Senate hyperspeed.

It's important to note that Republicans have been this close before.

The Senate GOP was only one vote shy of passing the so-called skinny repeal bill in July when McCain cast his "no" vote. It's entirely possible that Republicans could get right up to 49 votes again and still fail to get the final, crucial vote. All eyes are on Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who along with McCain, were the three Republicans to sink the skinny repeal.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, has already made it clear he won't support the latest version of the bill. In a Twitter tirade Friday, Paul wrote: "#GrahamCassidy sales pitch: if you like your Obamacare you can keep your Obamacare. No thanks."

What the bill does

After the last several Senate Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare failed to garner enough support, Graham and Cassidy began putting together their own proposal. They, along with Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Dean Heller of Nevada, unveiled their bill Wednesday at the Capitol.

The bill would repeal the individual and employer mandates as well as shift Obamacare's Medicaid expansion funding and insurance subsidy structure into a block grant program for states. States would be given a lump sum of money from the federal government, and it would be up to them how to spend it.

The bill would also reduce federal support for the traditional Medicaid program by providing a fixed amount of funds per enrollee. Republicans argue this would give states more flexibility and would allow them to spend their money more efficiently.

But Democrats and consumer advocates say the block grants would provide less money to states than they would get under Obamacare, and, further, funding would be specified only through 2026. They have charged the block grant structure would put more of a burden on the states because they would have to make up for the shortfalls in federal dollars.

Murkowski reviewing

Murkowski of Alaska, one of three Republicans who opposed the previous GOP health care bill, told reporters Monday she is "still looking" at Graham-Cassidy.

When she was asked if she had concerns about Medicaid cuts in the bill, she said she is still looking at the numbers.

"I need to figure out how all the numbers work with regards to Alaska" Murkowski said.

"We understand what block grants do, but if you get more flexibility but with not enough money to utilize the flexibility that makes a difference so we're continuing to go back and forth. I sat with Sen. Cassidy last week and we're continuing to share numbers."

Do they have the votes?

Early last week, senior Republicans in both chambers were dismissing the effort, oftentimes with an eye roll and a chuckle. But the latest health care effort seemed to pick up steam in a closed-door Republican conference luncheon late last week, where, according to Graham, McConnell told the conference that he was "all in" on the latest attempt if Republicans could put together the votes.

"If we had a vote right now, we'd get 47-48 votes," Graham said Thursday.

The consensus in the room was that Republicans owed their voters one more try, staff said.

"It's the right thing to do," said one GOP aide, who until recently repeatedly shot down queries about the bill as pointless. "Our guys made this promise for years and want to give it one more go."

If the Graham-Cassidy proposal picks up real momentum in the Senate this week, it could potentially jeopardize another health care effort in the Senate: a rare bipartisan discussion that has been taking place on stabilizing the Obamacare marketplace.

Over the past few weeks, the Senate health committee held bipartisan hearings for the first time this year on possible fixes to the health care law, bringing in state insurance commissions, governors and other experts to testify.

After Republican lawmakers dominated the first half of the year with efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act altogether, the hearings -- and now the deliberations between committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and ranking member Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, aimed at quickly introducing a bipartisan bill -- appeared to mark a significant turning point in the heated health care debate.

Aides said staff-level discussions continued throughout the weekend and that Alexander and Murray hoped to begin finalizing language in the coming week and push for a vote soon thereafter.

So far, there is general across-the-aisle agreement on ensuring that Congress continues to fund a key set of Obamacare subsidies known as cost-sharing reduction payments (the details, including how long these payments would be ensured for, are still being hashed out). A more complicated area of discussions is what level of flexibility states could have under Obamacare, with conservative Republicans pushing for greater breathing room and Democrats warning that they could not support a proposal that would weaken patient protections.

But the revival of any GOP bill that is certain to be rejected by Democrats in the chamber would once again turn health care into a highly charged and partisan exercise. Democrats have been carefully eying the Graham-Cassidy proposal in recent weeks, warning that it could throw a wrench into bipartisan talks.

"It's easy to see how another partisan Republican repeal effort would threaten work between Democrats and Republicans to work together in good faith," a Democratic aide told CNN.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
republicans push ahead with obamacare repeal  - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Lauren Fox, Phil Mattingly and MJ Lee, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Republicans push ahead with Obamacare repeal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What began last week as a long-shot option after Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced their latest blueprint to overhaul the health care system has transformed into an all-hands-on-deck operation at the Capitol ahead of a September 30 deadline.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

# data[].attributes.body
https://nyti.ms/2Fyz2ZC

# data[].attributes.body
Nasser Gaamoom
Should the U.S. Health Care System Be Nationalized?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should the United States adopt a nationalized health insurance plan in which doctors, hospitals and the health care delivery system would be under the control of the federal government?

Health insurance remains an unobtainable luxury to over 43 million U.S. citizens. Millions more live on the edge with only minimal, limited coverage. As health care costs continue to soar, and the overall health of Americans remains relatively poor compared to similar industrialized nations, the masses of the uninsured will continue to grow.

Health care spending increased 7.7 percent in just one year during 2003 -- four times the inflation rate.

Seeing their health insurance premium costs grow by about 11 percent yearly, many U.S. employers are dropping their employee health care plans. Health coverage for an employee with three dependants will cost an employer about $10,000 per year. Premiums for single employees averages $3,695 a year.

Many suggest that America's health care solution is a nationalized health plan, under which medical care for all citizens would be paid for by the federal government and provided by doctors and hospitals regulated by the government. What are the good and not-so-good points of nationalized health care? [Read more...]

Nationalized health insurance would reduce the cost of American-made consumer products. Employers naturally pass the soaring costs of providing employee health insurance on to consumers. The result? U.S. consumers pay more and the nation's ability to compete in global trade is reduced. Products from countries with nationalized health care simply cost less.

Nationalized health insurance would be good for U.S. employees. The resulting reduction in cost of American-made goods would help U.S. companies compete in global trade, thus keeping more jobs at home. Workers would gain job mobility. Too many Americans stay in jobs they dislike, or hesitate to start their own businesses out of fear of losing their health insurance. Employer-provided health insurance tends to stifle innovation.

Nationalized health insurance does not insure equal access to the health care system. Elderly people in Canada and the United Kingdom report much more difficulty in obtaining health care than U.S. seniors. While New Zealand's guidelines for treatment of end state renal failure imply that age should not be the sole factor in determining eligibility, they state that "in usual circumstances, people over 75 should not be accepted." To the terminal misfortune of that nation's elderly renal failure patients, New Zealand has no private dialysis facilities.

Removing the medical sector from the free enterprise system tends to reduce the overall quality of health care. Study-upon-study has shown the quality of health care is typically higher in the U.S. than in any other nation, including those with nationalized health insurance. The United States has lower breast and prostate cancer mortality rates than New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France and Australia.

Germany, Sweden and Australia are now establishing free-market alternatives in an attempt to alleviate problems caused by their nationalized health care systems. Indeed, these countries are learning that the best course for provision of quality health care is not more patient power rather than more government power.

A recent national survey conducted by the American Consumer Institute showed that American consumers are split in their support of a nationalized health plan in which doctors and hospitals would be under federal government control. According to the survey, 43% would favor such a plan, compared to 50% who would oppose the plan.

The survey showed that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor a nationalized plan (54% vs. 27%). Independents mirror the overall numbers (43% favor). African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to favor a nationalized health plan (55%), compared to just 41% of the Caucasians and just 27% of the Asians. The survey also suggests that affluent consumers (31% for households earning over $100,000) are less apt to support a national health plan, compared to lower income consumers (47% for households earning below $25,000). According to Anne Danehy, an expert for the Institute and President of Strategic Opinion Research, "the survey reflects wide differences of opinion among consumers, suggesting that policymakers will struggle to find consensus on how best to deal with these important national issues."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the U.S. Health Care System Be Nationalized?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should the United States adopt a nationalized health insurance plan in which doctors, hospitals and the health care delivery system would be under the control of the federal government? Health insurance remains an unobtainable luxury to over 43 million U.S. citizens. Millions more live on the edge with only minimal, limited coverage.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-seek-input-review-waters-us-rulehttps://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-seek-input-review-waters-us-rule

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/around-the-world-environmental-laws-are-under-attack-in-all-sorts-of-ways-77590https://theconversation.com/around-the-world-environmental-laws-are-under-attack-in-all-sorts-of-ways-77590

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/opinion/gun-buybacks-newtown-anniversary.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%20Control&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection

# data[].attributes.body
Majad and Yazin
A
B
C
Congrats you have different articles :)

# data[].attributes.body
Jon you got a A
Congrats

# data[].attributes.body
C. I challenge the article because it is just a transcript of past shootings. Nothing about gun control itself and the laws of gun control.

# data[].attributes.body
Niles Gall

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/29/heres-what-trump-should-say-about-opioids-in-his-state-union-address.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/trump-wall-mexico-government-shutdown/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/trump-wall-mexico-government-shutdown/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
B

# data[].attributes.body
Yazin
Great things in there good info
A👍

# data[].attributes.body
From quinton to Sarah
C becuase it’s bais only to get rid guns.

# data[].attributes.body
Austin A
Article is good and explains your topic

# data[].attributes.body
B because there only has the dates for the sechdule meeting. Not what they are gonna do about the regulations or anything about it.

# data[].attributes.body
Niles
A
Good article with in depth details

# data[].attributes.body
B this article explains the idea of guns and recognizes the problems with them

# data[].attributes.body
To Hatem Y
our article is an A

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/01/31/the-health-202-trump-seems-to-see-opioid-crisis-as-primarily-a-law-enforcement-problem/5a70cc2130fb041c3c7d74ef/?utm_term=.632e024adc32https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/01/31/the-health-202-trump-seems-to-see-opioid-crisis-as-primarily-a-law-enforcement-problem/5a70cc2130fb041c3c7d74ef/?utm_term=.632e024adc32

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of active-duty U.S. military troops stationed overseas has dipped below 200,000 for the first time in at least 60 years. The decline, reflecting a broader one in active-duty U.S. forces, has occurred in multiple countries - including South Korea, which has become a focus of attention amid escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea.

There were around 1.3 million total active-duty U.S. military personnel in 2016. Of these, 193,442 - or 15% - were deployed overseas. That's the smallest number and share of active-duty members overseas since at least 1957, the earliest year with comparable data, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of information from the Defense Manpower Data Center, a statistical arm of the Department of Defense.

an issue that President Donald Trump The five countries with the largest active-duty U.S. military presence in 2016 were Japan (38,818), Germany (34,602), South Korea (24,189), Italy (12,088) and Afghanistan (9,023). Of the top five countries, Afghanistan is the only one in open conflict, addressed in a speech Monday.

The U.S. has had personnel stationed in Germany and South Korea, two of its military allies, for several decades, yet the number of active-duty troops in each country is at a modern low. The U.S. military presence in Germany peaked at 274,119 in 1962, nearly eight times its level last year. And there were 71,043 personnel stationed in South Korea in 1957, nearly triple the military presence in 2016. (While this analysis begins in 1957 for consistency, earlier data show there were nearly 327,000 total Defense Department personnel in Korea as of June 30, 1953 - just before the Korean Armistice Agreement established a new border between North and South Korea.)

Regionally, Asia and Europe accounted for 70% of the U.S. active-duty military presence worldwide in 2016. Asian countries had the highest share of overseas troops (38%), while around a third were deployed to Europe (32%). Nearly one-in-seven active-duty members were in the Middle East and North Africa (13%) and 3% were in sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas (excluding the U.S. and its territories). The remainder (14%) were in other locations , such as at sea or between territories.

Within the past 60 years, the U.S. had the most troops overseas during the Vietnam War era. The number of active-duty U.S. troops overseas peaked at 1,228,538 in 1967 (36% of the total active-duty force), with more than 450,000 in Vietnam alone. The following year, Vietnam had the largest U.S. military presence of any single country in the past six decades, with 537,377 troops - nearly 45% of all active-duty troops overseas at the time.

This is significantly larger than the peak totals for more-recent conflicts. The total active-duty U.S. military presence in Afghanistan peaked in 2011 at 82,174, while the presence in and around Iraq peaked in 2007 with 218,500 troops. (The 2007 Iraq figure includes deployed Reserve and National Guard members for Operation Iraqi Freedom; active-duty figures alone are not available for the period of the operation and are limited to forces in and around Iraq.)

In this analysis, unless otherwise noted, active-duty military figures include the Defense Department's four military branches: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. They exclude the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as National Guard, reserve and civilian personnel, as data for these forces are not available for all years. All years represent military personnel as of Sept. 30. Preliminary data for 2017 are available here.

Topics: Foreign Affairs and Policy, Military and Veterans, Wars and International Conflicts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. active-duty military presence overseas is at its smallest in decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of active-duty U.S. military troops stationed overseas has dipped below 200,000 for the first time in at least 60 years. The decline, reflecting a broader one in active-duty U.S. forces, has occurred in multiple countries - including South Korea, which has become a focus of attention amid escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
Quintons b

# data[].attributes.body
I give the article an A because it contains a lot of useful information giving statistics

# data[].attributes.body
A

# data[].attributes.body
A. Because it’s not bias

# data[].attributes.body
I would give the article an A rating because it contains a lot of useful information and statstics and gives valid explanation of each statistic

# data[].attributes.body
Jose from quinton
A becuase your article talks about both sides of Obamacare

# data[].attributes.body
Jon your article is an A

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a B explains it really good just some minor flaws

# data[].attributes.body
Tim A
Provided good information

# data[].attributes.body
Hatem your article is an A

# data[].attributes.body
Wasn’t really bias and talked about the facts about immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Nasser G.
Sarah: B
Has alot of info about the issue but I feel it’s a bit biased towards more gun control rather than being unbiased and just giving info.

# data[].attributes.body
https://fee.org/articles/national-health-insurance-a-medical-disaster/https://fee.org/articles/national-health-insurance-a-medical-disaster/

# data[].attributes.body
I give this article a C because I believe that this article might be bias is some of its content

# data[].attributes.body
Dominequie Fleming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of active-duty U.S. military troops stationed overseas has dipped below 200,000 for the first time in at least 60 years. The decline, reflecting a broader one in active-duty U.S. forces, has occurred in multiple countries - including South Korea, which has become a focus of attention amid escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea.

There were around 1.3 million total active-duty U.S. military personnel in 2016. Of these, 193,442 - or 15% - were deployed overseas. That's the smallest number and share of active-duty members overseas since at least 1957, the earliest year with comparable data, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of information from the Defense Manpower Data Center, a statistical arm of the Department of Defense.

an issue that President Donald Trump The five countries with the largest active-duty U.S. military presence in 2016 were Japan (38,818), Germany (34,602), South Korea (24,189), Italy (12,088) and Afghanistan (9,023). Of the top five countries, Afghanistan is the only one in open conflict, addressed in a speech Monday.

The U.S. has had personnel stationed in Germany and South Korea, two of its military allies, for several decades, yet the number of active-duty troops in each country is at a modern low. The U.S. military presence in Germany peaked at 274,119 in 1962, nearly eight times its level last year. And there were 71,043 personnel stationed in South Korea in 1957, nearly triple the military presence in 2016. (While this analysis begins in 1957 for consistency, earlier data show there were nearly 327,000 total Defense Department personnel in Korea as of June 30, 1953 - just before the Korean Armistice Agreement established a new border between North and South Korea.)

Regionally, Asia and Europe accounted for 70% of the U.S. active-duty military presence worldwide in 2016. Asian countries had the highest share of overseas troops (38%), while around a third were deployed to Europe (32%). Nearly one-in-seven active-duty members were in the Middle East and North Africa (13%) and 3% were in sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas (excluding the U.S. and its territories). The remainder (14%) were in other locations , such as at sea or between territories.

Within the past 60 years, the U.S. had the most troops overseas during the Vietnam War era. The number of active-duty U.S. troops overseas peaked at 1,228,538 in 1967 (36% of the total active-duty force), with more than 450,000 in Vietnam alone. The following year, Vietnam had the largest U.S. military presence of any single country in the past six decades, with 537,377 troops - nearly 45% of all active-duty troops overseas at the time.

This is significantly larger than the peak totals for more-recent conflicts. The total active-duty U.S. military presence in Afghanistan peaked in 2011 at 82,174, while the presence in and around Iraq peaked in 2007 with 218,500 troops. (The 2007 Iraq figure includes deployed Reserve and National Guard members for Operation Iraqi Freedom; active-duty figures alone are not available for the period of the operation and are limited to forces in and around Iraq.)

In this analysis, unless otherwise noted, active-duty military figures include the Defense Department's four military branches: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. They exclude the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as National Guard, reserve and civilian personnel, as data for these forces are not available for all years. All years represent military personnel as of Sept. 30. Preliminary data for 2017 are available here.

Topics: Wars and International Conflicts, Military and Veterans, Foreign Affairs and Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. active-duty military presence overseas is at its smallest in decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of active-duty U.S. military troops stationed overseas has dipped below 200,000 for the first time in at least 60 years. The decline, reflecting a broader one in active-duty U.S. forces, has occurred in multiple countries - including South Korea, which has become a focus of attention amid escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
Quinton 4

# data[].attributes.body
Austin 5 it is well thought out article

# data[].attributes.body
Jose 5 article talks about both sides

# data[].attributes.body
William 4 wasn't bias

# data[].attributes.body
Yazin 5 star depth detail

# data[].attributes.body
5

# data[].attributes.body
Dane B more could’ve been added on to the topic of gun control and stopping this form of behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
Kevin A

# data[].attributes.body
Jose 5 the articles explains the good and bad things about Obamacare

# data[].attributes.body
William 5 it’s not a bias article

# data[].attributes.body
Niles 4

# data[].attributes.body
Hatem 5

# data[].attributes.body
William 5 seems biased toward Mexican Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
Niles 4