Colirio Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Mike said: I'm not sure what this line means. It has to be metaphorical, but even so I don't know he wants me to believe. What power is he telling me I used to have, then lost, and am now getting back? It seems to me that, when taken with the rest of his speech, he is saying that politicians making promises and then not working to make good on those promises has become commonplace. This would be the equivalent to politicians removing the power from the people in that no matter who they vote for, it just didn't matter. I believe this statement was President Trump telling us that he intends to work hard and not have just made idle promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 8 hours ago, bytebear said: I thought the most promising line was: ... today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another -- but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People Didn't Bane say something along those lines in The Dark Knight Rises? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I'm just happy he only said "I" what... 3 times? And radical Islam. And it's short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unixknight Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said: Wade said he was happy about the protesting because it "shows who these people really are . . ." etc. I was only making the point that both sides have people who use their free speech in blatantly negative ways. Whether one is worse than the other is subjective, as is whether one candidate deserves more protest than the other. That...subjective...conversation is one I don't want to get into. I agree and that was my point...to show similarities among protestors. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Colirio said: It seems to me that, when taken with the rest of his speech, he is saying that politicians making promises and then not working to make good on those promises has become commonplace. This would be the equivalent to politicians removing the power from the people in that no matter who they vote for, it just didn't matter. I believe this statement was President Trump telling us that he intends to work hard and not have just made idle promises. The way you said it is straightforward. I wonder why he didn't say it in as straightforward a way? Oh well, I appreciate your answer. Edited January 21, 2017 by Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Mike said: The way you said it is straightforward. I wonder why he didn't say it in as straightforward a way? Oh well, I appreciate your answer. He did. But in any oratorical endeavor, the elegant speech style is always used for that feel good impact. That's why people think Trump is rude, crass, hateful, etc etc... he doesn't talk in his rallies through oratory except for the rare occasions when he wants to use a rally to detail a mission or vision statement. Drove the people who were looking for a politician nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, anatess2 said: He did. But in any oratorical endeavor, the elegant speech style is always used for that feel good impact. That's why people think Trump is rude, crass, hateful, etc etc... he doesn't talk in his rallies through oratory except for the rare occasions when he wants to use a rally to detail a mission or vision statement. Drove the people who were looking for a politician nuts. Hmmm. I don't think he did. But I also suspect that our respective perceptions have to do with the differences between those who already support him, those who oppose him, and those who just seek to look at him objectively. I want to believe about myself that I am in the third category. But I fear that if I question him in any way those in the first category will suppose I'm in the second category. So in the interest of keeping the air clear let me say that I don't want to be (or appear to be) like President Obama's enemies who sought his failure from day one (and even said so publicly then and non-stop thereafter). I want President Trump to succeed for the good of my country's people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Mike said: Hmmm. I don't think he did. But I also suspect that our respective perceptions have to do with the differences between those who already support him, those who oppose him, and those who just seek to look at him objectively. I want to believe about myself that I am in the third category. But I fear that if I question him in any way those in the first category will suppose I'm in the second category. So in the interest of keeping the air clear let me say that I don't want to be (or appear to be) like President Obama's enemies who sought his failure from day one (and even said so publicly then and non-stop thereafter). I want President Trump to succeed for the good of my country's people. The speech is right on the first post of this thread. Word for word. It's a very succinct and straightforward summation of the message of his entire campaign. Edited January 21, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, anatess2 said: The speech is right on the first post of this thread. Word for word. It's a very succinct and straightforward summation of the message of his entire campaign. Yes, I have read it. And I watched a video of President Trump delivering it. I'm curious whether you agree (out of knowledge or opinion) that it was written for him by a professional speech writer, or that he wrote it himself and perhaps extemporized as I think he has sometimes been wont to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 8 hours ago, Godless said: Didn't Bane say something along those lines in The Dark Knight Rises? ? Yes, but Bane wanted to take money from the rich and promised to redistribute it to the poor. Same thing Bernie Sanders promised. Same thing that most Democrats promise these days. But they never deliver. Sure they take from the rich (and the middle class) but that money rarely makes it back down to the people. When Trump talks about giving power to the people, I am hoping he means he will shut down government programs that the States and local communities can do. And reduce Federal taxes, which are used to "promote" things like education, clean air, roads, emergency bailouts, but it seems more fair that we are taxed directly, and our taxes used directly for schools, clean air, roads, and emergency funds. No Federal government needed. That is my hope anyway. yjacket 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Mike said: The way you said it is straightforward. I wonder why he didn't say it in as straightforward a way? Oh well, I appreciate your answer. He did... Alot of us understood that... We will see if he really does it though As for why he did not say it like Colirio did... Well maybe he exercised some discretion. After all he now has to work with these politicians to get laws passed and things done... directly insulting them right from the start seems like a poor choice. Still Trump seems to successfully make what everyone thinks is a poor choice and still win so who knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 On 1/20/2017 at 3:15 PM, Vort said: No attempt at a politically unifying speech. Maybe what Trump said was what we needed to hear, but it certainly is not an open and welcoming inaugural speech. It is an open slap in the face to the previous administration(s) and to those who enthusiastically supported Obama's efforts. The battle lines have been drawn. If Trump can deliver on 50% of his rhetoric, he will be a stunning success. Here's to hoping. I love it shot across the bow and a slap in the face to the political elite, globalists, NWO establishment crap that has openly infected this country since Reagan. He called out the elites, the Gaddianton Robbers inside the government and told them there is a new boss in town. I'd rather have a Ron Paul in office, but if I can't get him I'll take an Independent like Trump. I hope he delivers and I hope they don't assassinate him. And with his executive order effectively gutting Obamacare already, I'm liking this. NightSG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Mike said: I'm not sure what this line means. It has to be metaphorical, but even so I don't know he wants me to believe. What power is he telling me I used to have, then lost, and am now getting back? This is IMO the heart and soul of Trump and the only reason I voted for him. There is a cabal in Washington DC, call it The Insiders, The Elites, Globalists, New World Order. It is outlined by Carroll Quigley a Professor at Georgetown and a mentor of Bill Clinton. In Tragedy and Hope he wrote: " “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” Ever wonder why once the Republicrats get in power they do the same things as the Democrats? Why did a "Conservative" President (G.W. Bush) passed the largest expansion of government into medicine at that time (Medicare Part D)? Ever wonder why the Republicrats always talk big about cutting spending yet magically the budget always grows. The Rs get elected by people to be conservative, yet nothing ever happens. It's all talk no action (except for very few Rs like Jim Demint, Rand Paul, etc.). Look at Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush, they are just big government conservatives-they like to talk about shrinking government put they don't do anything about it. Government continues to grow and grow. Shoot, the Heritage Foundation in 1993 had the base blueprints for ObamaCare (with an individual mandate), look at RomneyCare and R governor that creates a socialist program. I've said before I haven't voted R in 16 years, but Trump made me believe that there is a shot at breaking up the global socialist marxists elites that infect the upper levels of government. Trump has run in those elite circles, he knows about the secret societies, the "Gaddianton Robbers", but he is too independent to be controlled by them. He took aim right at them and said there is a new boss in town and a new set of rules. And that set of rules is AMERICA FIRST BABY!!! Finally-first time in a long while. Read None Dare Call it Conspiracy. I just hope he does what he says he will. Edited January 22, 2017 by yjacket a mustard seed and NightSG 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 18 minutes ago, yjacket said: I'd rather have a Ron Paul in office, Oh knock it off dude. We all know you meant to say "Bernie Sanders". (playing everyone!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Just now, MormonGator said: Oh knock it off dude. We all know you meant to say "Bernie Sanders". (playing everyone!) MG you crack me up . . .I need to get my Beeerrrrnnn on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 20 minutes ago, yjacket said: I love it shot across the bow and a slap in the face to the political elite, globalists, NWO establishment crap that has openly infected this country since Reagan. He called out the elites, the Gaddianton Robbers inside the government and told them there is a new boss in town. Too bad he won't be able to get much done without the "political elite" that still thoroughly infect Congress. Unless he plans to carry out the bulk of his agenda via Executive Order. I wonder how the GOP that lamented Obama's use of EO will respond to that... 20 minutes ago, yjacket said: And with his executive order effectively gutting Obamacare already, I'm liking this. Hooray for low income families losing their insurance!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Godless said: Too bad he won't be able to get much done without the "political elite" that still thoroughly infect Congress. Unless he plans to carry out the bulk of his agenda via Executive Order. I wonder how the GOP that lamented Obama's use of EO will respond to that... Hooray for low income families losing their insurance!!! It's going to be pretty hard for the Rs in congress to fight in (at least for the first 2 years), the guy was just elected so the Congresscritters who play the game will now what is good for them. Please, give me a break. There is no such thing as a few lunch; someone pays, somehow somewhere. It used to be that low income people took advantage of something called Charity. There were Charity hospitals-too bad the government ran them all out of business. The same socialist mantra is so backwards-they claim to be so charitable-yet they are the most uncharitable. The best way for low income people to get insurance is to let the free market reign and health care isn't a right-that's why you work and if you have a low income job you work to get a better job to get better insurance, better cars, better house, etc. or you learn to rely on the goodness of others. Ain't no free lunch. NightSG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Mike said: Yes, I have read it. And I watched a video of President Trump delivering it. I'm curious whether you agree (out of knowledge or opinion) that it was written for him by a professional speech writer, or that he wrote it himself and perhaps extemporized as I think he has sometimes been wont to do. He wrote it and gave it to a team a week before the IA to "flowerize" and do what all good speech preppers do - make sure it is accurate, doesn't offend the people you don't want to offend, and even run it through the computer to check for stylistic points and avoid seeming plagiarized. They gave it back to him 3 days before the IA and he practiced it for 3 days with his staff and his family. it is easy to spot a DT extemporation. His bearing changes. He goes from his "politician" demeanor (boring) to his "shooting the breeze over a game of billiards" demeanor (entertaining). He makes those switches so smoothly but it's still very distinguishable. Also, most of his speeches have the text released to the press before the speech so you'll see the parts he added because you don't see them in the press release. The IA was full-on TelePrompTer. He only detached from the prompter to say the last few words of a sentence. I don't think he extemporized at all. Backroads 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, yjacket said: It's going to be pretty hard for the Rs in congress to fight in (at least for the first 2 years), the guy was just elected so the Congresscritters who play the game will now what is good for them. Or Congress will continue being Congress and let Trump believe he's making a real difference. I think that's the most likely scenario. Quote Please, give me a break. There is no such thing as a few lunch; someone pays, somehow somewhere. It used to be that low income people took advantage of something called Charity. There were Charity hospitals-too bad the government ran them all out of business. I'm not a simpleton. I know that programs like Medicaid aren't free services, just like I know that there's no such thing as free tuition. Someone pays for it. Either the individual or the taxpayers. Quote The same socialist mantra is so backwards-they claim to be so charitable-yet they are the most uncharitable. The best way for low income people to get insurance is to let the free market reign and health care isn't a right- The free market reigned for years and people died needlessly as a result, all because they didn't have a good enough job to get health insurance. I understand the desire to see people be self-reliant and live without assistance, and I've stated many times on this forum that I don't believe in free, unconditional handouts. I believe in programs that support people who are struggling while giving them the tools to be self-reliant. Quote that's why you work and if you have a low income job you work to get a better job to get better insurance, better cars, better house, etc. or you learn to rely on the goodness of others. Gosh, you make it sound so easy! Let me tell you about the real world, a world where people get stuck in crappy jobs because they have no other options. Maybe they don't have a degree. Maybe the job market is stingy. Maybe they have a disability that limits their options. Heck, my wife and I had insurance through her employer when she was pregnant with our son. It was an incredibly pathetic plan, but our options were limited at that point. Our coverage maxed out at her 20 week ultrasound. We were fortunate enough to (very barely) qualify for Medicaid, otherwise the remainder of her pregnancy and her delivery would have come out of our own pockets. Before I got married, there were a couple of times that I let open wounds go untreated at the risk of infection because I couldn't afford a trip to the ER and I was too proud/stubborn to seek help from Medicaid (which probably doesn't cover ER trips anyway). I had a full-time job at the time. Three years later I finally found a better job with health benefits. No one should have to fear the financial burden of a trip to the ER. I don't care if you have a job or not. A serious injury or illness shouldn't bankrupt a person just because they don't have a job or "the right job". When they declared their independence from Britain, our founding fathers outlined LIFE as one of our inalienable rights. So yes, in a sense, I suppose health care is a right. I'm not saying the ACA is perfect, but it's given insurance to 20+ million people who previously didn't have the means to get insurance. It gave people with asthma, diabetes, HIV, and other lifetime ailments the opportunity to get new insurance plans without worrying about their pre-existing conditions being left in the cold. If Trump/Republicans have a plan that works better, I'd love to see it. But right now they seem all to eager to dismantle the ACA without offering up a viable alternative, and that's what worries me as the husband and father of people diagnosed with asthma. That's what worries my wife, who works with T1 diabetes patients to improve their quality of life. The GOP talks a lot about "replacing" the ACA, not just repealing it, but their sense of urgency seems alarmingly focused on the latter. Edited January 22, 2017 by Godless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) Godless, I am empathetic to the struggles you've gone through in health care-I've gone through my own struggles myself. But no health care is not a right. I'm sorry that you have been misinformed, but you simply are incorrect on what a right to life means and the logical extension of what you are suggesting. You are suggesting no less than slavery. A right to life, liberty and property (what the common saying was), are negative rights, what you advocate for are positive rights and there is a huge difference. The founders were wise and understood that no one has a right to take away someone's else's life-i.e. it goes back to the 10 commandments, don't kill, don't steal. When you say that health care is a right, you are advocating for slavery; and I do mean that. Why? Let's take a thought experiment; two families on an island each consisting of 100 people. One man on the island has acquired a nack for understanding how to use herbs to make remedies that help people when they are sick. In normal times, he trades these remedies for other people in exchange for food. Now this "doctor" stores up many of these remedies and sells them. Now we have a farmer who normally trades with the "doctor" but his cows get sick and his farm production is drastically reduced. He also gets sick and now has nothing to trade the "doctor". According to you, the doctor must provide this out of work farmer with health care b/c it is a "right". He has a supply of remedies to sell, but the farmer has nothing to give him in return. No one in their right mind would say that the farmer has the "right" to go to the doctor's house, stick a gun in his face and take his medicine. The farmer can beg, plead, ask for mercy, the doctor might even have a moral obligation to provide a remedy if he can. But none of that negates the fact that the man who lacks has no moral standing to forcibly rob the doctor. Now what does this have to do with ObamaCare. Well, we like to fancy it all up, give it different words, and make believe that the above is not what we are doing. But it is exactly what you are doing when you say health care is a right-only with a twist. No, you see this poor broke farmer, is able to convince 50 of his friends that access to this doctors medicine is absolutely a right. So what does he do, they call a town meeting and say, we all believe in democracy, the majority rules. And henceforth in order to ensure that no one will ever be without the doctors medicine ever again we propose something that once a majority agrees to is in effect for everyone. And that is that anytime anyone gets sick, everyone will have to pay 1 percent of the cost of the medicine. 49 people protest, but 51 people think it is a good idea and poof-now it is legalized robbery. Poor farmer now gets sick, 70 people pay their 1 percent, (as some people just figure whatever) but 30 people say no. Then poor farmer gets his 50 friends together with sticks and clubs goes to the 30 peoples houses and says pay up or we beat you up. Now normally we would call this thuggery, but b/c a "law" has been passed we call those who refuse "criminals" and if the "criminals" continue to refuse to pay their "fair share" of 1 percent the "law enforcement" (aka thugs) will take everything they have. Regardless of the fact that they never wanted the system, never asked for it, opposed it, said no, did everything in their power except infringing on their neighbor's property to protest. So no health care is not a right-you can dress it up all you want to-but what you advocate for is nothing more or less than a mechanism to rob money from other people have it transferred to your pockets and make those who resist being robbed "criminals" and those who receive the ill-gotten gains "victims". But make no mistake, claiming health care is a right is advocating for the right to steal. Edited January 22, 2017 by yjacket zil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Godless said: The free market reigned for years and people died needlessly as a result, all because they didn't have a good enough job to get health insurance. One of the great PR blunders the Republicans made, from the time Hillary started making noise about reform in the 1990 up through PPACA's passage and beyond--was suggesting that what we had was a "free market". The cat's cradle of preferential pricing agreements, refusals by doctors to accept certain insurances (and vice-versa), refusal by providers to give (and stick by) a straightforward price quote in advance of a procedure, tying services from one provider to services from another provider, ad nauseum; represented perhaps the most intricate (and perhaps destructive) cartel in this nation's history. Republicans should have had the courage to call it for what it was, and then bring in the trustbusters. Instead they remained fastidiously silent, to the point that even now--eight years after PPACA--the old cartels are still perpetuating all their most egregious offenses against the free market, virtually unscathed. Quote Before I got married, there were a couple of times that I let open wounds go untreated at the risk of infection because I couldn't afford a trip to the ER and I was too proud/stubborn to seek help from Medicaid (which probably doesn't cover ER trips anyway). Without dismissing or minimizing your ordeal, I would respectfully point out (and this is perhaps tangential, but still relevant) that from a social-service standpoint; the problem is often getting people to learn about and engage with the services that already exist. Your reluctance to go on Medicaid is, I think, an example of this. The anecdote speaks very well for your character; but I think it also speaks to an unncessary stigmatization of Medicaid as well as a degree of (very understandable) ambivalence in individuals who want Medicaid-type benefits, want those benefits to be funded through traditional Medicaid sources, but don't want to be on "Medicaid". Quote No one should have to fear the financial burden of a trip to the ER. I don't care if you have a job or not. A serious injury or illness shouldn't bankrupt a person just because they don't have a job or "the right job". When they declared their independence from Britain, our founding fathers outlined LIFE as one of our inalienable rights. So yes, in a sense, I suppose health care is a right. Much of this goes into the whole "positive rights" versus "negative rights" discussion, as @yjacket says. But regarding medical bankruptcies: My frustration with this argument is threefold. First, health care isn't free (again, @yjacket touches on this, but I'll say it in another way). In the case of--say--cancer; I may have literally hundreds of people working to make me well. Are they supposed to do it for free? If not, who will pay them if I cannot/will not? Isn't it just as morally problematic to forcibly confiscate the value of their labor from third parties (i.e. taxpayers), as it would be to forcibly confiscate the labor itself from the caregivers? And isn't it exponentially more morally problematic if we set up a system to reimburse such debts, knowing full well that such a system is unsustainable and that when it crashes it will create a crisis many times more desperate than the status quo? That, to me, is what PPACA did--they said it was "revenue neutral" by comparing ten years of income with six years of expenditures, leaving it to future generations to figure out how to keep funding the thing. Second, the rhetoric regarding medical bankruptcies is somewhat overblown. A lot of it came from research from then-professor Elizabeth Warren which has since been shown to be highly problematic (anyone who had paid a medical debt within x days of filing for bankruptcy was deemed to have a "medical bankruptcy" case, regardless of the amount of the debt and regardless of what other debts the person had. You might as well talk about an epidemic of "Netflix bankruptcies"). The simple fact is that hospitals know they can't get blood from a turnip; and they write off (and did, before PPACA) hundreds of thousands of collectible medical debt every day. Even when they get a garnishment, they often wind up only collecting pennies on the dollar; and garnishment abuses could have been cured by reforms at the state level. Finally, other facet of my frustration is that--while I realize that "bankruptcy" is another stigmatized word representing a frightening and unknown universe; as a former bankruptcy lawyer I would suggest that bankruptcy isn't really that bad. Utah has some of the stingiest exemptions in the nation; and even then a married couple can keep (last time I checked) two cars worth a total of $7K, a house with equity up to $60K, and so on. Emotional trauma aside, "Bankruptcy" is really just legalese for "debt forgiveness"; and for families with the income levels we're talking about the only really bad thing about it is that for a while you have a bankruptcy trustee asking nosy questions to make sure you didn't deliberately defraud any of your creditors (well, and that if you're in Chapter 13, you spend a couple of years paying off your debts for a few cents on the dollar). Quote I'm not saying the ACA is perfect, but it's given insurance to 20+ million people who previously didn't have the means to get insurance. Well, hang on a sec. I'm one of those twenty million people, and so's my wife. But our insurance hasn't done us a lot of good. We didn't want it--didn't think we needed it--but bought it to avoid the fines. In the last two years we've paid out about $4K in premiums. I've probably gotten about $350 in services, and my wife has gotten maybe $1K. (She has also paid probably $2-$3K in out-of-pockets for her CFS/Lyme Disease and related issues, that our insurance refused to reimburse because they insist she should have gone to one of their approved, incompetent "family practice" MDs instead of the D.O. who was actually able to alleviate her symptoms). So, my family has been hosed to the degree of $2K over the past two years; but because we are "covered" Obama and the Democratic Party consider my family a PPACA "success story". I realize that others have far more severe conditions and are getting better care--but again, at what cost? Spiked premiums for the rest of us, to maintain a system that is mathematically doomed and serves only to enrich certain cartel bosses who hope to pay off Congress to prop the works up so that they can still get while the getting is good; all of which will lead to absolute chaos and immense suffering when the house of cards finally comes crashing down.. Edited January 22, 2017 by Just_A_Guy mordorbund, zil, Backroads and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) Very well said JAG, Unfortunately the health care blunder went back a lot longer. It started in WWII b/c the stupid government (government always seems to muck things up) decided they had to muck into the wage industry. They arctually put out wage freezes on industry. Then the Labor Board ruled that "fringe benefits" were exempt from the freezes and companies in order to actually compensate their people and to compete among each other started offering fringe benefits like oh I don't know health insurance! The idea that health insurance is tied to where you work is just stupid, but thanks to government stupidity and mucking into the free market we now have 75 years of a culture where health insurance is tied to your work. Stupid government. Edited January 22, 2017 by yjacket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: One of the great PR blunders the Republicans made, from the time Hillary started making noise about reform in the 1990 up through PPACA's passage and beyond--was suggesting that what we had was a "free market". The cat's cradle of preferential pricing agreements, refusals by doctors to accept certain insurances (and vice-versa), refusal by providers to give (and stick by) a straightforward price quote in advance of a procedure, tying services from one provider to services from another provider, ad nauseum; represented perhaps the most intricate (and perhaps destructive) cartel in this nation's history. Republicans should have had the courage to call it for what it was, and then bring in the trustbusters. Sounds to me like the system desperately needed to be fixed one way or another and R's are upset that the D's beat them to it. Now the ball is in the GOP's court and they seem more inclined to flip the board off the table than come up with a meaningful solution to the problems in our health care system. 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Without dismissing or minimizing your ordeal, I would respectfully point out (and this is perhaps tangential, but still relevant) that from a social-service standpoint; the problem is often getting people to learn about and engage with the services that already exist. Your reluctance to go on Medicaid is, I think, an example of this. The anecdote speaks very well for your character; but I think it also speaks to an unncessary stigmatization of Medicaid as well as a degree of (very understandable) ambivalence in individuals who want Medicaid-type benefits, want those benefits to be funded through traditional Medicaid sources, but don't want to be on "Medicaid". Yes, definitely stupidity on my part. I'm not going to deny that. Like I said though, Medicaid may not have even covered those ER visits. I went to the ER once on post-deployment Tricare coverage and still ended up paying quite a bit out-of-pocket (which I was able to afford because I was smart with my deployment money). But even so, the "services that already exist" are still taxpayer funded, are they not? I still would have been a farmer robbing his neighbors to pay the doctor, would I not? 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Much of this goes into the whole "positive rights" versus "negative rights" discussion, as @yjacket says. But regarding medical bankruptcies: My frustration with this argument is threefold. First, health care isn't free (again, @yjacket touches on this, but I'll say it in another way). In the case of--say--cancer; I may have literally hundreds of people working to make me well. Are they supposed to do it for free? If not, who will pay them if I cannot/will not? Isn't it just as morally problematic to forcibly confiscate the value of their labor from third parties (i.e. taxpayers), as it would be to forcibly confiscate the labor itself from the caregivers? And isn't it exponentially more morally problematic if we set up a system to reimburse such debts, knowing full well that such a system is unsustainable and that when it crashes it will create a crisis many times more desperate than the status quo? That, to me, is what PPACA did--they said it was "revenue neutral" by comparing ten years of income with six years of expenditures, leaving it to future generations to figure out how to keep funding the thing. I have a hard time viewing health care as a positive right. If a person is dying and doesn't have the means to do anything about it, but society does, is society not killing the person by doing nothing? Maybe I'm just being a stupid idealist here, but I have a very hard time seeing robbery in using tax dollars to save lives. Tax revenue can (and does) get used for far less noble causes. 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: The simple fact is that hospitals know they can't get blood from a turnip; and they write off (and did, before PPACA) hundreds of thousands of collectible medical debt every day. Even when they get a garnishment, they often wind up only collecting pennies on the dollar. I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Finally, other facet of my frustration is that--while I realize that "bankruptcy" is another stigmatized word representing a frightening and unknown universe; as a former bankruptcy lawyer I would suggest that bankruptcy isn't really that bad. Utah has some of the stingiest exemptions in the nation; and even then a married couple can keep (last time I checked) two cars worth a total of $7K, a house with equity up to $60K, and so on. Emotional trauma aside, "Bankruptcy" is really just legalese for "debt forgiveness"; and for families with the income levels we're talking about the only really bad thing about it is that for a while you have a bankruptcy trustee asking nosy questions to make sure you didn't deliberately defraud any of your creditors (well, and that if you're in Chapter 13, you spend a couple of years paying off your debts for a few cents on the dollar). Again, eye-opening. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge in such things. I've been in dire situations in the past, with bills past due and threats of collection agencies getting involved (fortunately it never got that far). It's terrifying to have a full-time job and still wonder how you're going to put food on your table, let alone paying rent and basic utilities. And then you have a bicycle accident that leaves a gash on your chin that clearly needs stitches, but you just drown it in Neosporin and throw a band-aid on it instead of adding medical expenses to the list of things you don't have money for. There's a lot of things I know now that I wish I had known back then. And millions of Americans live in that same simple ignorance. They're more likely to talk to a loan officer/shark than a bankruptcy lawyer (because lawyers cost money). 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Well, hang on a sec. I'm one of those twenty million people, and so's my wife. But our insurance hasn't done us a lot of good. We didn't want it--didn't think we needed it--but bought it to avoid the fines. In the last two years we've paid out about $4K in premiums. I've probably gotten about $350 in services, and my wife has gotten maybe $1K. (She has also paid probably $2-$3K in out-of-pockets for her CFS/Lyme Disease and related issues, that our insurance refused to reimburse because they insist she should have gone to one of their approved, incompetent "family practice" MDs instead of the D.O. who was actually able to alleviate her symptoms). So, my family has been hosed to the degree of $2K over the past two years; but because we are "covered" Obama and the Democratic Party consider my family a PPACA "success story". I don't know your situation or what your options were, but I will say that my wife deals with people on a daily basis who lament their insurance plans and want to blame Obama for it when really they may have been able to get a better plan. Or they fail to realize the ACA's role in giving them the ability to get help from her company in the first place. Diabetes is a pre-existing condition, after all. People used to get denied insurance altogether for that. This goes back to research and education. A lot of people don't know what to look for in an insurance plan and get hosed as a result. Again, I don't know your situation. Maybe you already have the best plan for your needs and it's just not working out great for you. If so, that sucks and I'm truly sorry. As for me, my wife was able to get us on a much better plan after her first year with her company. It's improved our quality of life dramatically. I've been able to get treatment for my back issues without collecting dust waiting for the VA. My wife has been able to get tested and treated for the insane amount of new allergies that popped up after her pregnancy. Our insurance paid for our son's nebulizer at 100%, plus helped pay for asthma meds and occasional antibiotics for his ear infections. I think the peace of mind of knowing that we can afford to treat our non-life threatening ailments in addition to having a safety net for more serious concerns is well worth our monthly premiums (which I confess I don't exactly know the amount; it comes out of my wife's paycheck, not mine). 16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: I realize that others have far more severe systems and are getting better care--but again, at what cost? Spiked premiums for the rest of us, to maintain a system that is mathematically doomed and serves only to enrich certain cartel bosses who hope to pay off Congress to prop the works up so that they can still get while the getting is good; all of which will lead to absolute chaos and immense suffering when the house of cards finally comes crashing down.. Again, ACA has it's flaws. I get that. But I truly believe that it has done more good than harm. There are problems. Let's fix them. Tearing the whole thing down without first offering up a solution sounds like a horrible idea to me, and frankly could turn Congress very blue very quickly and make Trump a one term president. As much as I'd love to see that result, I'd prefer not to get there via taking a giant step backward in health care reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Godless said: Sounds to me like the system desperately needed to be fixed one way or another and R's are upset that the D's beat them to it. Now the ball is in the GOP's court and they seem more inclined to flip the board off the table than come up with a meaningful solution to the problems in our health care system. See this is why we can't really have meaningful dialogue on the subject... JAG writes a detailed post about how the system was broken and how the R's felt that the D's spent 8 years under Obama digging us in deeper and how he hopes now that the R's have power hopefully they can begin to climb out... And you interpret it as that little gem right there. Clearly the understanding of what is good for this country is too far apart between the sides for us to have anything but war between the sides. And that is sad. As for healthcare being a right let me ask you this... all the negative rights documented in the Constitution, for the most part simply require the Government to stay out of my way. And when it does act it is to stop someone from interfering with me and my exercise of rights. So please outline how "Right to Healthcare" follows the same pattern. How does the government staying out of my way enable it? Or to put it more simply how can you offer Universal Healthcare with out taxing people to pay for it? If you can answer that question then you just might be able to make the case that it is a right. Edited January 22, 2017 by estradling75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Godless said: I have a hard time viewing health care as a positive right. If a person is dying and doesn't have the means to do anything about it, but society does, is society not killing the person by doing nothing? Maybe I'm just being a stupid idealist here, but I have a very hard time seeing robbery in using tax dollars to save lives. Tax revenue can (and does) get used for far less noble causes. This is the heart of the issue. The battle is more philosophical than most people think. It's not just robbery, it is killing. Because ultimately all robbery is backed up by guns and the taking of life. Three people are in a jungle. One gets bit by a snake, one has the antidote, the other has a gun. Morally speaking the one who has the antidote probably has the obligation to help the one who is bitten. But what if he refuses? Does the person with a gun have the moral right and authority to rob and kill the one who has the antidote if he refuses to give it up? I would argue no, letting someone die by refusing to give aid is certainly a sin-but the worse sin is to kill the other, i.e. to force him to give up the antidote. But then again we don't know, maybe the one who has the antidote is saving it for himself? Maybe he thinks the person bitten is already too far gone, maybe he has already been bitten by doesn't tell the people he is with, maybe he is traveling with them to rush home to a son who has been bitten? We don't know and all we can say is that the man who refuses to give aid when he should give aid will ultimately have to face His maker for that decision. Make no mistake, letting someone die by inaction is vastly different than ultimately forcing someone to help at the point of a gun-that is the worse sin. It is the sin of Satan-he said he would make everyone return-he would make them be good, you can only make someone be good by force and that force is ultimately backed by the taking of life. Yes tax revenue does get used for "less noble causes", but the philosophy is still the same-i.e. it is legalized robbery and theft. And ultimately, (for another discussion), using this methodology to obtain your goal of helping everyone actually has the opposite effect-it makes everyone poorer and it destroys the ability to ensure as many people as possible have adequate xyz. Because the only way everyone gets xyz is if xyz is unlimited and free. But we live in a finite world, so it is impossible that everyone will get xyz-it is only possible to ensure the maximum amount of people have it and hopefully over time that will lead to everyone. Edited January 22, 2017 by yjacket Windseeker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.