(The Epoch Times)—Republican presidential candidates took the stage for a second Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in Simi Valley, California, on Wednesday.
Appearing in order of their standing in national polls were Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former Vice President Mike Pence, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.
As the seven White House hopefuls did their best to articulate their messages and project a presidential aura during the event, three people who were not present seemed to get nearly as much air time as those who were, presidents all: Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
President Regan was often cited by both the moderators and candidates as an almost mythic leader who fired striking air traffic controllers, granted amnesty to immigrants, and handed down the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
President Biden was cast as the country’s nemesis, the cause of every ill from the economy to the border crisis to wokeism.
President Trump, who was 2,300 miles away in Detroit, speaking to striking auto workers, was mentioned more than any other. The former president, who leads Republican candidates by some 40 percentage points in national polls, was both praised for the achievements of his administration and criticized for his failures. But mostly, he was chided like a schoolboy for his absence from the stage.
“Donald Trump hides behind the walls of his golf clubs and won’t show up here to answer questions like all the rest of us,” said Mr. Christie said.
Mr. DeSantis said President Trump was “missing in action.”
The frequent conjuring of both heroes and villains, which directed attention away from rather than toward those in attendance, was emblematic of the two-hour event. Though it provided some moments of interest, the debate provided little new information about any candidate.
Talk Soup
From the start, moderators struggled to maintain control of the debate as candidates talked over each other, interrupted, injected themselves into questions asked of others, and disregarded the time limits for answers.
Moderators Dana Perino and Stuart Varney of Fox News and Ilia Calderon of Univision. During the first break, Ms. Perino admonished the candidates, according to a Fox News commentator. That prompted a short-lived improvement, but the debate frequently devolved into talk soup.
In frustration, Ms. Perino warned Mr. Burgum concerning his interrupting, “We will have to cut your mic, and I don’t want to do that. I don’t.” Though, the North Dakota governor was no more guilty than others.
After the contest, a spokesperson for President Trump told reporters the spectacle he’d witnessed was reason enough for the former president to skip future debates.
“He said he’s not going to attend the debates, plural. And that’s his position—until it’s not.” Chris LaCivita said.
Mr. LaCivita added that rather than a debate, it looked more like a contest for “who’s going to be the designated survivor.”
Haley Attacks
Attacks on opponents come frequently in presidential debates. During the first GOP showcase on Aug. 23, Mr. Ramaswamy went on the offensive frequently, something he came close to apologizing for during the second event.
“I’m the new guy here. And so I know I have to earn your trust,” Mr. Ramaswamy said. “What do you see? You see a young man who’s in a bit of a hurry, maybe a little ambitious, a bit of a know-it-all it seems, at times,” Mr. Ramaswamy said. “I’m here to tell you, no, I don’t know it all. I will listen.”
After he was asked about his use of TikTok, an app widely prohibited for use on government-owed phones over security concerns, Ms. Haley reacted to what she thought was a weak answer by Mr. Ramaswamy.
“This is infuriating because TikTok is one of the most dangerous social media apps that we could have,” Ms. Haley said. “Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say,” she added.
Ms. Haley, who had mostly remained above the fray in the previous debate, also chose to attack Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Scott.
She criticized Mr. DeSantis for his anti-fracking policies in Florida and sparred with Mr. Scott over federal spending. Afterward, surrogates for both candidates answered Ms. Haley’s criticisms.
Chris Grant, a senior advisor to Mr. Ramaswamy, told The Epoch Times, “We don’t spend a lot of time thinking about Nikki Haley,” Mr. Grant added. “Nikki Haley clearly spends a lot of time thinking and getting angry about Vivek Ramaswamy.”
Matt Gorman of the Tim Scott campaign, told The Epoch Times simply, “[Nikki Haley] hasn’t met a federal dollar she hasn’t liked.”
After those and other attacks by several candidates, Mr. LaCivita wondered if the Republican National Committee should question whether further debates help the party. “What good does it do to have a group of people who stand around and do nothing but beat up on the frontrunner? Who has that really helped? That helps Joe Biden,” Mr. LaCivita said.
The China Challenge
The Chinese Communist Party was mentioned often during the debate as a global competitor, armorer of Russia, stealer of intellectual property, and indoctrinator of American students.
Mr. Burgum argued vehemently that the Biden administration’s push toward the adoption of electric vehicles played to China’s interests because it controls the supply of minerals needed to manufacture batteries.
“China controls 85 percent of the rare earth minerals. They’re called rare earth because they’re measured in parts per million. China is moving hundreds of thousands of pounds of earth, in Indonesia and Africa. They’re literally destroying the planet so that we can they can make a battery that’s in a car subsidized here,” Mr. Burgum said.
Mr. DeSantis said China poses multiple threats to the United States and must be countered.
“We need a totally new approach to China. We are going to have real, hard power in the Indo-Pacific, like Reagan, to deter their ambitions. We’re going to have economic independence from China,” Mr. DeSantis said. “And we are going to go after the cultural power they have in this country . . . We shouldn’t have them in our universities. We shouldn’t have Confucius Institutes.”
Mr. Pence said that failure to support Ukraine in its war with Russia would be “a green light for China to take Taiwan.”
“We’re in a cold war with China,” Mr. Burgum said. “The Biden administration won’t admit that, but we’re also in an economic war through what we’re doing with agriculture and energy. And we’re also in a war with them relative to cyber where we get attacked every day in North Dakota, every state, every school district, our tribes all being attacked every day by either China or Russia or Iran or North Korea.”
Ms. Haley vowed to end the supply of fentanyl in the United States, which she said originates in China. “We’re going to go after China because China is the one sending the fentanyl in the first place,” Ms. Haley said. “And we will end all normal trade relations until China stops sending fentanyl.”
No Standout
NTD TV, sister media to The Epoch Times, conducted a focus group with 15 Republican voters in Irvine, Calif., following the debate. Though the group did not have a consensus winner for the debate, several candidates drew favorable reactions.
A participant named Steven was favorably impressed by Mr. Burgum. “The governor of North Dakota, I thought he did particularly well. I was surprised by how well he did,” Steven said.
Others like Mr. DeSantis’s education policies, Mr. Ramaswamy’s openness to dialogue, and Ms. Haley’s determination to combat fentanyl. However, the group agreed that no candidate on the stage could unseat Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee.
A third Republican debate will take place in Miami on Nov. 8.
Sound off about the debate on my Substack.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.