President Trumps Inagural Address

[Just_A_Guy]

12 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.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are some sour grapes going on in the professional political class; but I think amongst the rank-and-file of the center-right there is a sincere belief that the Democrat's solution (and their proposed fixes to the "solutions" previously implemented) is by its nature financially unsustainable, and potentially paves the way for tyranny.  (If Trump is Hitler, do we really want him at the head of a government that decides whether his political opponents will get life-saving health care or not?)

Quote

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?

Not "stupdiity".  "Humanity", in conjunction with a very natural failure to know everything about everything.  I agree with you that education about existing services/options is key to any long-term resolution of the problems we face.

And you're right that for theoreticians like me, there are issues even with the pre-PPACA programs (Medicare, etc).  I think most folks on the right would concede that government, by its very nature, is going to impose on *some* limits on human liberty; and the object then becomes how to minimize those limits while still allowing for a government that does the things that need to be done.  My thoughts on government health care are still in a certain state of flux; but at present I'm inclined to think that some degree of involvement is going to be necessary to keep people from dying in the streets.  The devil is in exactly *what* kind of trade-offs we make in building/reforming/implementing such a program.  There is a potent force, on the left, that thinks that *anything* that can be described as "health care" should be fully funded by the taxpayers--up to and including contraception, transgender surgery, and Donald Trump's latest hair transplant.  I think that's silly.  Any government program needs to be directed towards non-elective procedures, needs to be based in free-market principles, and needs to subjected to repeated Proxmiring.  

Quote

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.

I'll leave most of the theoretical debate on negative versus positive rights to others who are better versed in its vicissitudes than I.  Suffice it to say:  I think individual citizens have a moral (and certainly, as a theist, I would say a religious) duty to do the best they can to ensure that people don't die for lack of health care.  But when we start talking about as a society, literally robbing Peter to pay Paul--I'm not sure the moral questions are so clear cut.  A government that can rob Peter to pay the deserving Paul, is also a government that can rob Peter to pay the much-less deserving Bill and Warren and Donald.  It is also a government that can control the deserving Paul, by threatening to stop robbing Peter.  And at some point, Peter's going to figure out that in this paradigm financial prudence is a sucker's game.  Who pays Paul when Peter is broke?

Quote

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). 

I hear you.  Again, I agree that education about law and about existing government programs is key.  In fact, one of the more entertaining turnabouts in Obamacare discussions with my progressive lawyer friends is when I ask whether there shouldn't also be national legal insurance (if I'm feeling particularly trollish, I ask whether it wouldn't be appropriate to have doctors administering the program; because heaven knows we've got enough lawyers who think they know how health care should work.    )

Quote

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). 

Yeah; FWIW it wasn't the level of coverage we had--it was just the insurer being an insurer, finding excuses not to pay for the treatments that actually worked and not understanding that no, self-proclaimed "family doctors" are not all competent to handle every kind of malady.  

And to go back to what was said earlier--I'm sincerely glad that your family are getting better coverage.  But as for me and my family--our minivan broke down in September, we've been unable to replace it, and I'm hauling my family of 7 around in a sixteen-year-old borrowed SUV with five seatbelts.  That extra $2K I paid to IHC, would come in awfully handy right about now.

Quote

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. 

Frankly, here's how I see it:  

Mom and Dad are divorced.  Junior loves horses.  His whole life revolves around them.  Dad, who lives in a one-room studio apartment, buys Junior a horse on credit, and says "don't worry, Junior.  Your Mom will make the payments, and you can keep it in her back yard."  

Mom, who lives in a typical suburban home on a 1/6 acre lot, finds out what's going on and says "I'm sorry, honey; I know you love horses, but this just isn't going to work". 

Junior goes back to Dad's place in tears.

Dad takes Mom to court, demanding sole custody of Junior in perpetuity on the basis of Mom's emotional abuse and parental unfitness.  

To me this scenario encapsulates Democratic governance for the past sixty years on a whole host of issues, PPACA being only the latest example.

[Mike]

22 hours ago, yjacket said:

Read None Dare Call it Conspiracy.  I just hope he does what he says he will.

Now there’s a name I’ve not heard in a very long time.    I remember that book in my parent’s library when I was a kid.  Here’s something from the first three paragraphs of chapter 2. I include it here not to start anything, but just to see if it makes you chuckle like it did me.

Quote

 

Everyone knows that Adolph Hitler existed. No one disputes that. The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the world are universally recognized. Hitler came from a poor family which had absolutely no social position. He was a high school drop-out and nobody ever accused him of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his early career he sat in a cold garret and poured onto paper his ambitions to rule the world. We know that. 

Similarly, we know that a man named Vladimir Ilyich Lenin also existed. Like Hitler, Lenin did not spring from a family of social lions. The son of a petty bureaucrat, Lenin, who spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Like Hitler, Lenin sat up nights in a dark garret scheming how he could conquer the world. We know that too.

Is it not theoretically possible that a billionaire could be sitting, not in a garret, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan ... and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler?  --By Gary Allen with Larry Abraham

 

 

Again, I offer this only as humor after your 16-year long hiatus from voting Republican. (Hope you don't take it any more seriously than that.) 

[zil]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

...and poured onto paper his ambitions to rule the world.

Note to self: Get more paper.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

.Again, I offer this only as humor 

Humor is not allowed in this forum. 

[yjacket]

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

It does make me chuckle :-).  Thank you.

I originally thought Trump was really bad, and he might have the potential for dictatorship.  But then I got to the point of, hey we are already pretty much sunk, he can't do much worse to screw it up and if he does.  I know if Killery gets elected it will go down so . . oh well let's get this party started!

As was said in the Batman movies "Some men just want to watch the world burn" :-).

Edited January 23, 2017 by yjacket

[wenglund]

On 1/20/2017 at 6:26 PM, unixknight said:

Nope, sorry @LiterateParakeet but these signs aren't the moral equivalent of the intensity of what's coming out of the left.

Correct. Here is evidence: 

And, I suspect that some, if not all of the posted signs were during Obama's second term, whereas the anti-trump "protests" occurred before or just as he took office--i.e. before he even had a chance to show who and what he really will be as president. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

57 minutes ago, yjacket said:

It does make me chuckle :-).  Thank you.

I said NO HUMOR 

[wenglund]

On 1/21/2017 at 4:47 AM, Mike said:

I" ... 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 "

'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 means that we get to decide for ourselves what it means, rather than leaving it to others.

What it means to me is that across all aspects of my life, my present and future is my personal responsibility and not that of the government. I am the captain of my own ship rather than some unknown bureaucrats working in offices hundreds and thousands of miles away. The power is mine to freely choose my education, my career and retirement, and my healthcare, etc.. And, with that power comes my responsibility to pay for these things--preferably via the marketplace. I also get to freely choose who I will serve and assist according to my abilities and what I deem best. In short, I am not asking what my country can do for me, but asking instead what I can do for myself and for the country.

This power and responsibility is mine, not because Trump or anyone else says it is mine. Rather, I decided this for myself, and made it happen for myself. Some time ago I determined to take back the power and responsibility regardless who is elected president. It is just nice to hear a high elected official acknowledge it, and agree with it--whether just in words, or also in deed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Correct. Here is evidence: 

More current evidence: 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Correct. Here is evidence: 

 

I could post plenty of similar videos from the Left....and you won't be any more convinced than I am right now.   And before you ask me to back that up....I have posted a bunch of articles and videos...they are in the archives here.  

[Windseeker]

I love Peggy Noonan and as she is a former speech writer really appreciated her take on the speech. 

I was more moved than I expected. Then more startled.

Quote

The Trump Wars of the past 18 months do not now go away. Now it becomes the Trump Civil War, every day, with Democrats trying to get rid of him and half the country pushing back. To reduce it to the essentials: As long as Mr. Trump’s party holds the House, it will be a standoff. If the Democrats take the House, they will move to oust him.

Because we are divided. We are two nations, maybe more.

Normally a new president has someone backing him up, someone publicly behind him. Mr. Obama had the mainstream media—the big broadcast networks, big newspapers, activists and intellectuals, pundits and columnists of the left—the whole shebang. He had a unified, passionate party. Mr. Trump in comparison has almost nothing. The mainstream legacy media oppose him, even hate him, and will not let up. The columnists, thinkers and magazines of the right were mostly NeverTrump; some came reluctantly to support him. His party is split or splitting. The new president has gradations of sympathy, respect or support from exactly one cable news channel, and some websites.

He really has no one but those who voted for him.

 

[Mike]

14 hours ago, wenglund said:

It means that we get to decide for ourselves what it means, rather than leaving it to others.

What it means to me is that across all aspects of my life, my present and future is my personal responsibility and not that of the government. I am the captain of my own ship rather than some unknown bureaucrats working in offices hundreds and thousands of miles away. The power is mine to freely choose my education, my career and retirement, and my healthcare, etc.. And, with that power comes my responsibility to pay for these things--preferably via the marketplace. I also get to freely choose who I will serve and assist according to my abilities and what I deem best. In short, I am not asking what my country can do for me, but asking instead what I can do for myself and for the country.

This power and responsibility is mine, not because Trump or anyone else says it is mine. Rather, I decided this for myself, and made it happen for myself. Some time ago I determined to take back the power and responsibility regardless who is elected president. It is just nice to hear a high elected official acknowledge it, and agree with it--whether just in words, or also in deed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, keep in mind that my question was about what Mr.Trump meant and wanted me to believe rather than what somebody else means and believes. If we get to decide what it means then it reminds me of the statement that a point in every direction is the same as no point at all. If everybody gets to decide what it means then it doesn't mean anything. I'm not being impertinent, and your expression above of self-reliance, independence and responsility is proper. I dare say most of us here share it. At the end of the day, however, if this shared spirit of self-direction is what Mr. Trump meant, then (a) he did a lousy job of articulating it in a straightforward way; and (b) he intentionally misleads because as you point out (rightly) this "power" was always ours, never lost nor taken from us, and most certainly not within Mr. Trump's arrogantly expressed ability to transfer.  Or so I opine. 

[Mike]

16 hours ago, zil said:

Note to self: Get more paper.

Hahahahahahahaha  Truly excellent. I would only add: there's an app for that. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hahahahahahahaha  Truly excellent. I would only add: there's an app for that. 

Pffffff. Another uncivilized, blaspheming paper-hater!  I think @askandanswer has a club you can join.  Fountain pen + paper = the best option for planning world domination.  I'll have to ponder the fate of you paper-haters, and record that in the appropriate notebook for reference later.

[Mike]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

Pffffff. Another uncivilized, blaspheming paper-hater!  I think @askandanswer has a club you can join.  Fountain pen + paper = the best option for planning world domination.  I'll have to ponder the fate of you paper-haters, and record that in the appropriate notebook for reference later.

Actually, you compliment me. After all, I've arrived at that stage of life where my children have begun accusing me of becoming a troglodyte.  

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

Actually, you compliment me.

Yeah, you'll get along just fine with askandanswer.  Do you have plans to visit Australia's cyborg clinic?

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Yeah, you'll get along just fine with askandanswer.  Do you have plans to visit Australia's cyborg clinic?

Hmmm, not sure.  If I visit, will I be assimilated?

[zil]

Just now, Mike said:

Hmmm, not sure.  If I visit, will I be assimilated?

Seems like you're well on your way.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Seems like you're well on your way.

Hmmm, not sure how to respond. (I'll get back to you after I check-in with the collective.)

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Pffffff. Another uncivilized, blaspheming paper-hater!  I think @askandanswer has a club you can join.  Fountain pen + paper = the best option for planning world domination.  I'll have to ponder the fate of you paper-haters, and record that in the appropriate notebook for reference later.

I have no problem with paper, as long as it fits into my printer and hasn't been defiled with pen ink

Edited January 23, 2017 by askandanswer

[zil]

41 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I have no problem with paper, as long as it fits into my printer and hasn't been defiled with pen ink

Demonic cyborg.

[askandanswer]

13 hours ago, zil said:

 I think @askandanswer has a club you can join.  

There's a club for fountain pen users as well. Its big and heavy and studded with 100 broken nibs from 100 broken pens. It is to be applied frequently and fervently to the fingers of fountain pen users in the hope of helping them forget their foolish traditions and forsake their forlorn fads.

[askandanswer]

On 1/24/2017 at 5:29 AM, zil said:

Demonic cyborg.

Pen lover