The Trump presidency is in a hole

[FortuneTeller]

The freedoms you have in the USA is "paid for" from the mostly poor and low middle class enlistment to military. YOU say no one should pay for other peoples life. But the poor and middle class do pay that price. And it is not YOU paying for that, is your claim.. It is the poor and middle class in the military. They pay that price.

Is that really true?

 

[Nine_Ender]

Healthcare is dependent on others, namely me to pay for your healthcare. A right is inalienable. Nobody can give it to you and nobody has to pay for my rights. If you make me sick, then you should pay for it. Not because it is my right, but because you damaged me. The government cannot interfere with your right to life but it shouldn't make me pay for your healthcare. What if you don't like your doctor, do you have a right to see another doctor? What if the other doctor doesn't want to see you? Can the government make him treat you because it is your right? What about his rights comrade?

This is utter nonsense. You don't seem to understand actuarial science, the nature of "fault" in injuries/illness, the random nature of many illnesses in life. Stop being so selfish.

 

[Nine_Ender]

I'm a trader, my ego was destroyed long ago. The point I was making is my right doesn't require you to do anything. Your benefit requires money. The BIG issue is the difference between a society and a government. The liberal view is that they are one and the same. And that is where we disagree and why we are always arguing over all the ills your misguided view has created for what should be matters that society always has and always will address.

American society that believed too strongly in free markets without needed restrictions is what led to the subprime crisis, your high health care premiums, and the richest 1% taking an obscene amount of wealth away from the middle and lower classes. The experiment failed. The US had to dial it back or face a ruined economy. Your themes are no better then pure Communist themes, extremist ideas without an ounce of practicality to them.

 

[piezoe]

I don't really know what inalienable means, but if it means I had it before you and your government ever came along I don't need you to give it to me. I am a part, just one member of society, that's one group I belong to. I am also a part of We the People who run our government. I am also a citizen of a nation. To reply to another post. Now you are trying hard to steer the conversation to healthcare and that's fine with me as long as we don't start from the very gitgo that somehow it is your right and I must pay for it.

An inalienable right is a right you are born with without any law specifically giving it to you. For example, Happiness is not an inalienable right, but the right to pursue it is. Bummer. If you start thinking in terms of risk sharing you will figure out a way for everyone to have routine health care without risking bankruptcy. If you have to depend solely on yourself for healthcare, and you live, unfortunately, in the United States, there is a fair chance you will not be able to afford healthcare even if you make a great deal of money. You will just have to read a book on open heart surgery for dummies, and get your friend to operate on you. That's one of the few things that is not so great about, 'rugged individualism'.

 

[fhl]

I don't really know what inalienable means, but if it means I had it before you and your government ever came along I don't need you to give it to me. I am a part, just one member of society, that's one group I belong to. I am also a part of We the People who run our government. I am also a citizen of a nation. To reply to another post. Now you are trying hard to steer the conversation to healthcare and that's fine with me as long as we don't start from the very gitgo that somehow it is your right and I must pay for it.

You are quite right, java. This description by piezoe is so convoluted that I'm continually amazed they can even dream it up.

He doesn't identify health care with happiness. He claims that it must be provided so you will have a right to pursue happiness. Of course any thinking person knows it's just the opposite.

It's no wonder that most of America is so anti intellectual. Intellectuals seem to do nothing but sit around all day and ponder ways they can turn everything on its head and convince everyone of its rationality.

And another question for our intellectual friends is if forcing person one to pay for person two's health care allows person two to pursue happiness, what does it do to person one's pursuit of happiness?

 

[java]

An inalienable right is a right you are born with without any law specifically giving it to you. For example, Happiness is not an inalienable right, but the right to pursue it is. Bummer. If you start thinking in terms of risk sharing you will figure out a way for everyone to have routine health care without risking bankruptcy. If you have to depend solely on yourself for healthcare, and you live, unfortunately, in the United States, there is a fair chance you will not be able to afford healthcare even if you make a great deal of money. You will just have to read a book on open heart surgery for dummies, and get your friend to operate on you. That's one of the few things that is not so great about, 'rugged individualism'.

Gotcha, Scalia, 2nd, as far as bankruptcy, all drivers must carry liability but not comprehensive. I have long been in favor of means tested gov/tax paid for catastrophic insurance in lieu of medical bankruptcy. And also higher qualification levels for medicaid. But I'm not in favor of fixing ACA or introducing anything new until they first fix Medicare. When you can show me that Medicare is a first rate system, better than Canada, completely solvent for eternity, then I will consider Medicare for all. As far as Trumps hole, he should give Americans a true choice, don't touch ACA benefits, keep the subsidies in place at current levels, and eliminate all restrictions on private insurance. It aint the whole enchilada, but it would insure a clean transition with no affect on the people who are poor until they start working like normal people.

 

[fhl]

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

What puzzles me is that the real facts are available at your finger tips, yet you guys don't take the 15 seconds it takes to check them out. Instead you believe, without questioning, all that crap.

You mean like the WashPost story that the Russians had hacked the Vermont power grid?

 

[Arnie]

The media have done this all by themselves. I know you like to patronize us to make yourself feel so sophisticated, but I read the WashPost every day. It's no longer a newspaper in he traditional sense of providing factual news. It is all about advancing various leftwing agendas, eg Trump hate, war with Russia, AGW, every conceivable LGBQXYZwhatever, racial divisiveness open borders, etc.

The mainstream media have been biased all my life. There are two major differences now. One, we have alternate sources, which the mainstream media bitterly resent. They view their role as setting the agenda, deciding what is newsworthy and what is not. They have lost much of that power and they are furious about that, so they attack the alternative media and try to discredit them.

Two, the media are not at all concerned with the truth. It is all about winning, specifically beating Trump. They hate Trump more than they did Richard Nixon. They will do and say anything to beat him.

The NYTimes isowned by the richest man in mexico, Carlos Slim. The WashPo is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, whose amazon business is largely based on selling cheap crap from china. No conflicts there. The TV and cable nets are run by a group of men who are, shall we say, not very religiously diverse. Unsurprisingly, they all, even Fox News, advance a narrative that is at odds with the way most of the country see things. But is all due to Russian interference no doubt.

I can vouch for this. I subscribed to WaPo for years. Around the time Bezos got in it it started to get worse...I know hard to believe, but it is now a caricature of itself.

 

[piezoe]

You mean like the WashPost story that the Russians had hacked the Vermont power grid?

I don't mean like anecdotes. I mean ridiculous stuff like Papa Doc, or whomever, owns the NY Times. Who owns the Times is not something open to "alternative facts".