NeuroTypical

If you watched the same ABC interview I did, I came away with a very different understanding. The whole thing about deporting legal immigrants appeared to be one of offering a choice. Zero forced separation. But if a family has a mix of legal and illegal people, the illegal people must go whereas the legal folks can chose to go or stay, depending on what makes sense for their family. The reporter tried every way under the sun to spin this in a controversial or negative way. He noted many of the dreamers have grown up to be responsible productive citizens, and he'd gladly work with Dems to figure something out for them besides deportation.

I have a solution, but not sure if it's a good one. On your computer, not your phone, start here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng Upper right corner of screen, click the three little dots, then select Download: That lets you download a PDF file. Nooks are supposedly able to read PDF files, but the only online discussion I can find from 2010 said it might be problematic. Here's hoping things have improved in 14 years. (Yes, that's a picture of me and my wife's pet rooster Doctor Who.)

They were gonna go with a red dot and I said "no way, it's gotta be green!" (Actually, I have no clue. Never would have noticed if Vort hadn't pointed it out.)

Gotcha. So, my point stands. You've already got a socialized government run option, and you picked the one administered through the for-profit company. You have only one choice. You can't afford one, and you can afford the other. So you pick the other. Because one isn't viable and the other is. The socialized government run one is the not-viable one. The one administered through the for-profit company is the viable one. And your solution is to get rid of the for profit one, and make socialized government run one the only option for everybody. Existing socialized government-run option: Not viable. VA administered through UHC: Viable. Right?

Alrighty folks, this thread has run its course. Just a reminder of the site rules. Y'all agreed to them when you signed up. You can find the link at the top of every page.

I think I buddied up with you on Facebook as you were going through a round of surgeries. First and foremost, thank you for your service. My family's decades of travails with healthcare doesn't make for such impactful pictures, but I have plenty of stories also. I remember at one point with 3 of the 4 of us having some hefty medical things happening, I was averaging half a dozen hours a week on the phone with providers and insurance, trying to keep approvals flowing and care paid for. I think that year I probably averaged at least 2 hours a month of just me, taking notes, following up, staying on hold, re-submitting lost paperwork, and educating people who answered the phone on their jobs. That said, I'm confused. I need a bit of help understanding whether Tricare was available to you if you paid in, or whether it wasn't.

I've managed it a few times. In the '90's, I fought to learn how to forgive and love someone. I had to figure out how to do it while at the same time taking action that resulted in their excommunication and a 5 year prison sentence for their crimes. Dude hurt people close to me, in ways that land you in prison for 5-life. I honestly, without exaggeration or embellishment, figured out how to love him. It involved more than a little praying. Initially for the ability to love him, later specifically for him. It was sort of a 'climb mount everest' moment for me. Pretty easy to love all the other humans after that. No matter how they howl for my blood or the downfall of my nation or whatever. It's a thing that gets easier with practice. If you want another example of it being done, read what the Amish did to their serial killer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/05/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng#p9

Same. Best I can think of is this, which didn't involve too much nation-fighting-nation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Outcomes

Time to go watch The Book of Eli again! Excellent movie.

So, perhaps I could just take a moment and point out that even Mr. lets-get-rid-of-for-profit healthcare himself, when he has a choice between socialized and for-profit, choses the latter. I was discussing this stuff with my wife, who identifies as politically homeless. She had a suggestion which I find worthy of passing on to @Phoenix_person. You want socialized healthcare so much, pick a state and have them do it. Zero federal involvement/rules/money. All run completely by the state. If it's going to be so popular, surely it'll win over the residents of that state. I mean, we hear so much about the UK and Denmark, well, Cali's economy is larger than both I believe. It should be easy for them. Let's run the test and see how many CA house seats are lost after the next census.

Yeah, the US left has always been more supportive of violence to further their political goals. it's been brewing for quite some time amongst folks like your cube neighbor. Any guesses at what the last 4 years have done to these numbers? I doubt the conservatives and moderates have budged much.

Dude is a high-achieving affluent Ivy Leaguer with anticapitalist leanings. In January he gave the unabomber's manifesto 4 stars. “Had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely nowhere and at the end of the day, he’s probably right…. When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it’s not terrorism, it’s war and revolution.” Honest question for @Phoenix_person: What percentage of your activist leftist organizing people that you work with, would you say would agree more than disagree? (The laugh-emoji phenomenon has me a bit spooked, so I'm looking for data in various places, hopefully to calm my nerves a bit.)

Ew. To the credit of all the Trump critics out there: In the last election, as November became December became January, Trump's tweeting claims of election fraud started with links to various articles from all over the place, to articles from a few fringey sites, to basically only articles from OAN. Anyone else ever listen to Coast To Coast with Art Bell? Overnight AM radio show, focusing on alien abductions and government mind control and the illuminati and all such conspiracy things. OAN has always given me serious CTC vibes, except whereas Art always knew he was an entertainer, OAN claims to be a news source. Again, Ew.

Oh - this guy is pretty good at explaining things too, even if he is a fan of public healthcare: KDASocialismKendonFahr.mp4

And I'll either remind you, or give you a challenging fact to disprove: There is no such thing as a "lefties with the goal of communist Russia or Venezuela". Stalin didn't start with the goal of purges and gulags. Venezuela didn't start with the goal of empty shelves and hyperinflation. Dark humor summary: You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out. It's a disagreement about the nature of humanity. I figure humans are best when they plan for themselves. And they run a substantial risk of reaching their absolute worst when they decide to plan for others. You have this (inherently good and noble) idea that you can ease the suffering of folks by doing for them. The bigger those goals get, the more power held by the administrators, next thing you know, a gazillion Ukranians starve because you're evolving to a better method of farming. Hehheh, whoops! My bad! Our next reform will fix it all! As for Denmark, how much looking into the nuts and bolts of the flirting with socialism done by Scandinavian nations, and how they've been paring back since the '90's? This isn't sourced (and it's full of snark), but the sources for all these claims is available: Sorry if you didn't pick up on my answer - here it is again: Tens of millions of Americans who distrust socialism are what's stopping you from nationalizing health insurance. I hope we keep winning, or at least, delay the losing as long as possible. Lord preserve me from retired military people who want to take my employer-provided for-profit healthcare and replace it with tricare. More food for thought: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade Socialism stifles innovation, rewards idleness, is at least as corruptible as capitalism, and has spawned some of the greatest evils known to mankind in the last 150 years. Capitalism paired with representative democracy rewards innovation, encourages people to deal with their own crap, has provided the largest number of humans with the largest amount of freedom and the greatest economic expansion known to all humanity. Both ideas started with the locomotive. One is the clear winner.

Here's where we agree: Capitalism, when paired with a representative government of some form, inherently creates an elite class with concentrated power and wealth and control. Here's where we don't agree, but only because you haven't thought things through enough: You know what else inherently creates an elite class with concentrated power/wealth/control? Literally every single other great structure human beings have ever attempted, across all of recorded history, with zero exceptions (unless you're willing to take the biblical story of Enoch as fact). I'm in favor of the capitalism/representative pairing, because it's the least worst. The more you look outside of your anticapitalist narrative and avail yourself of the history of the world's great socialist experiments, the more you must come to realize I'm right. The Politbureau's dachas and nepotism. China's ornately decorated gold plated seats of government power. Venezuela's Miraflores Palace. The cushiony perks of nazi party membership which continued until the end of WWII. Google up which nations are brutal murderous dictatorships, then google up how their ruling class lives compared to their people. Everywhere. All the time. Heck, even at it's most poverty-stricken and tribal, humans have chiefs with greater access to the best food and women, the finest clothing. It's a human thing. It doesn't matter how noble the origins, how pure the intentions, how selfless the organizers, it's what you get. From what I can tell, you sir, are one of the most Christlike individuals with the most pure love of your fellow man that I've ever met online. I have zero doubt you want to ease the suffering of those who suffer. I have zero doubt that you busy yourself with such activities and search deeply for the right solutions. So maybe pay a little heed to a little warning: The greatest and most murderous evil governments all started out with plenty of people like you. Cambodia's killing fields, Russia's purges and gulags and starved Ukrainians, China's various atrocities, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, and endless other examples. You're very big on the USA's dirty fingers in everyone's pie. Feel free to compare death tolls and the overall impact on personal freedom to get a sense of what I mean. Capitalism is better, especially when paired with a meritocracy that allows people to move up and down the social scale. And the more you give poor people money and services and stuff, the less incentive they have to go get the things for themselves. You get what you pay for. Anyway, I'm glad you're here. You help keep me honest and humble, whenever I get too proud of capitalism. But you'll have to show me where my larger perspective is incorrect if you want to have a bigger impact.

We won't see eye to eye on it. My answer is that if anything is worth doing, it's worth doing for profit. That said, I'll agree there are endless things wrong with the health insurance industry. My list will not be the same thing as your list though. I'm thinking things would be largely fixed if the govt got out of it totally. If companies could charge more for people in high-risk categories. AKA charge less for people in low-risk categories. I've said it before - you get what you pay for. The more healthcare you give people, the more healthcare they'll earn. Make people pay for their own stuff, and they'll use less of it. Because they'll prioritize health. I'm fine with safety nets. I'm not fine with using what should be a safety net, as yet another government program to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. I don't understand what you're saying. The HO is an oath to abide by a set of ethical guidelines, right? To get my bean counting job, I had to agree to my company's standards of business conduct. Law enforcement takes an oath. Elected folks take one. Could you clarify?

It's odd. Odd that shortly after Israel took out Hezbollah's entire leadership structure, the government of Syria collapsed. It's almost like those two might have had some closer association than either would admit. It's almost like Israel's action got timed with a larger operation, possibly with hidden players. (cough cough al-tanf cough) We may never know the full story. But it would be nice if Israel doesn't have to repeat their actions in Gaza. Just reading headlines and knowing absolutely nothing else, it's almost like a bunch of someone's pieces are all finally fitting together after years of planning.

Oo - another big difference between left and right thought! We have different understandings of how humans be human. From my perspective, any human has the right to seek to profit from their labor. That includes folks in the medical profession, as well as folks in accounting and managerial and executive professions. If mechanics and pizza slingers get to gain wealth by working, but doctors and managers and CEOs can't, then nobody will want to be a doctor or a manager or a CEO. (Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will change the subject or shift the goalposts to talk about corporate excess or outrageous CEO pay or something. Just once, it would be nice to find one who could stick to the subject of whether it's ethical to profit from healthcare.) Also from my perspective, there is no "right" to healthcare. Put another way, nobody has the right to the labor of another. We have a name for that. It's called slavery. (Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will not address this point. Instead, they'll talk about what moral and just societies should do. Just once, it would be nice to find one who can talk about what a right is, and whether or not one human has a right to the product of somebody else.) Finally, from my perspective, people being able to do what they want with the product of their labor, or their surplus earnings, is largely a right. There are exceptions. But being able to purchase stock in a small business, or a for-profit school, but not a hospital, would cause more problems than it solves. This last point is the most easily argued-against, the most difficult to defend. As you have to be pretty blind to fail to see excesses and disparities in harmful, I'd even say destructive or evil amounts.

Ok then. With more than a decade of data, it's time to draw some conclusions. In 2010 when ObamaCare was passed, 62% of Americans rated U.S. healthcare good or excellent. A Gallup survey released on Friday says that's now 44%. Remember Obama's 3 big promises? - "If you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them" Before Obamacare, Medicaid patients were half as likely to get an appointment with a doctor compared with privately insured patients. In 2019, they were less than one-third as likely. ACA plan networks include on average only 40% of local physicians and 21% of those employed by hospitals. - "People with pre-existing conditions will be protected" UHC's Medicare prior authorization denial rate was 8%, and by 2022 had risen to 22.7% - "Healthcare would become more affordable." Probably the biggest lie of all. Deductibles went from $2425 in 2014, to an average of $5,241 this year. If it followed inflation only, it would be $3206. "But LM" I hear you cry, "Medicare and UHC isn't Obamacare! You're comparing apples and oranges!" Well, can we remember ObamaCare places requirements on all plans, whether you get it from your employer or the marketplace. Plans must cover “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them. Insurers are banned from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors. Obama couldn't make single-payer happen, but he was able to do the next best thing - force the collective insanity on the entire insurance industry. So, just like we said at the time, in this thread, the young and healthy ended up subsidizing their elders, taxpayers ended up subsidizing everyone on the exchanges, and everything would suck more and be more expensive. And since it seems hardwired into people to blame rich folk and big corporations, things are bad enough now that they're starting to shoot CEOs. The ratio of this Facebook post does not bode well: Out of approximately 40,000 reactions on the post, 35,000 used the “Haha” emote. Nah, that's just some old book full of superstitions of dead cultures. Nothing of relevance to be found there.

Which church are you talking about? I've lived in a dozen wards in half a dozen stakes in 2 different states, and never once ever heard this. Like, ever. Not in 35 years of paying attention. Any member holding the priesthood can log into the church website and look up their priesthood line of authority, and notice that it has Joseph Smith in it.

We had a weird few months in our new ward, with some random relatives living with us temporarily. They came with a rambunctious ~3 year old girl with boundless energy, an absolute lack of any kind of filter, and zero understanding of boundaries. The random relatives let us take her to church in December, the ward was having a potluck after services and there would be a Santa. - During sacrament meeting, she ran into the chapel screaming "UNCLE [LM] I WENT PEE PEE ON THE POTTY!!!!" - Upon seeing the Santa Claus, she immediately jumped the line and ran straight for him, almost knocking down the poor kid who was next in line. There was zero malice, just zero comprehension on how lines worked. I'll always regret that any ward members who assumed she was our kid, never asked us why they never saw her at church again. We wanted to show them our daughter and say "we returned her and got this one".

On Men vs Women attending church, this started surprising folks recently: https://www.realclearreligion.org/2024/09/23/in_a_first_young_men_are_more_religious_than_young_women_1060195.html You can google around for different articles on the phenomenon, and explanations for it. I'll have to pay attention on Sunday and see if I see more YM or YW.

Odd, when I grab my phone and say "Siri, call waifu", it calls my wife. (My wife is also my dakimakura, but be careful googling that, or you might think less of me for knowing the word.)

I'm appreciating the back and forth. I don't think a nation can survive without contentious-but-still-civil debate going on, and I'm grateful Thirdhour allows it. Wanted to address this one: The last time I checked, both sides were pretty clearly in agreement about some things. The left holds women in a class of historically marginalized people who have had to fight for centuries to gain things like laws that don't treat them as property, the right to do things like own property and vote. Last I checked (which was last week actually), there were still plenty of folks on the left valuing women's safe spaces, the right to live a life without fear, etc. So from that perspective, let's take a moment to look at this fun vid made by all the biological men invading the Capitol hill women's room in the last day or two, to protest banning men in women's rest rooms. I hear a bunch of 'em got arrested. https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1864517663155999053 Anyway, your accusation has validity. We talk a lot about men invading women's spaces, but not so much the other way around. Yeah, we pay pretty much zero attention to protecting men's spaces, etc. Because a woman heading into a men's room will be, 99 out of 100 times, more vulnerable and more prone to being in danger than the men. And while bio men winning in girls/women's sports has become such a thing that the United Nations finally took a stand against it, a biological woman trying to compete in boys/men's sports, will probably not win the trophy. In short, of course this isn't a two sided coin. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women. We can take care of ourselves. Men are stronger than women. They don't belong in women's rest rooms. From my perspective, you gotta ignore a lot of very common sense science in order to think of this in terms of a two sided coin. Of course, when we're talking minors, the gender disparity disappears. I do not want this female-to-male person going into the boy's bathroom. Us grown ups can have grown up debates all day about the issue, but I'll be resisting the cultural indoctrination and forced-confusion policies like letting boys or girls go into each other's bathrooms, for as long as I hold breath.