• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

I totally understand the discomfort with flag, star spangled banner, etc. I have an almost Quaker-like view of things like public prayer and pledging allegiance to anything. Jingoistic nationalism doesn't lead to positive conversations or outcomes. And all of this complaining about kneeling I find laughably hypocritical (not you, necessarily, mskis). You've got Kid Rock running around with an American Flag that he cut a hole in the make a poncho. You've got all manner of flag code violations in "patriotic fashion." You've got the same people complaining about kneeling during the song also supporting confederate flags & nazi flags, which I think most on here agree are far more offensive to the U.S. flag.

People complained about lawlessness & disrespect with lunch counter sit ins, and they ended-up on the wrong side of history. Protests are supposed to make you uncomfortable. They often have to offend in order to draw attention to a cause. One of the advantages afforded for celebrities is the ability to draw attention. Sport has played a huge role in bringing attention to and advocating for change, particularly in civil rights. Criticisms telling players to hush up because they are paid $10M to play a game get dangerously close to "dance monkey dance" (I'm not accusing you of this, for clarity). But back to the lunch counters as the relevant example...

The 1960 sit-ins started with only four college students in Greensboro, North Carolina. That is, essentially, a Colin Kaepernick moment. Within a year, more than 50,000 people participated in similar sit-ins in 100+ southern cities. Between 1961 and 1963, 20,000 were arrested, with 15,000 imprisoned in 1963 alone.

That first day, the waitress predictably told the four youths, “We don’t serve colored here.” One student disagreed, pointing to the fact that they had already been served when they purchased school supplies moments earlier.

Management instructed the waitress to ignore them. Whites were not so encouraging; they hurled familiar insults: “nasty, dirty n******,” “you don’t belong here.” You heard phrases like “because of people like you, rabble-rousers, troublemakers…. This counter is reserved for white people, it always has been, and you are well aware of that. So why don’t you go on and stop making trouble?”

Ultimately, this incredibly unpopular action, criticized for being rabble-rousing, led to popular interest & meaningful desegregation where others, including MLK, had failed.

It is incredibly challenging to address the current issue through a protest method clearly connected to the desired outcome, as it involves police accountability and incarceration as well as concerns about the lack of confidence in the Federal administration to protect civil rights. Basically, it is lost trust in public institutions to do the right thing. They aren't going to go to a council meeting or contact a representative because they do not see those institutions as a solution--they see them, perhaps rightfully, as part of the problem.

I can't think of a better approach at this point. It is prompting a conversation. It might not be productive yet, but the same was said about the lunch counters. The conversations then eventually became productive as people talked more.
 
I am appalled by Hillary Clinton's comments regarding Vegas. She decided to go political with it, despite not having the facts or even understanding the basics of the weapons likely used. :-@
 
Let's face it. At this point guns are just a political thing. It's not about how many people died or how many guns I can own. It's about how many votes I can get for taking one side or the other. Why have a rational discussion and sensible well enforced laws when all anyone wants is a few votes. Congress disgusts me in their lack of actual help and compassion toward the people they represent.
 
dvdneal said:
Let's face it. At this point guns are just a political thing. It's not about how many people died or how many guns I can own. It's about how many votes I can get for taking one side or the other. Why have a rational discussion and sensible well enforced laws when all anyone wants is a few votes. Congress disgusts me in their lack of actual help and compassion toward the people they represent.
Click to expand...

Truth.

At this point, everybody just goes through the same fake motions after every incident. I would feel differently if those on opposite sides would actually have a constructive conversation. But they won't--it is too advantageous politically to "maintain the enemy."
 
dvdneal said:
Let's face it. At this point guns are just a political thing. It's not about how many people died or how many guns I can own. It's about how many votes I can get for taking one side or the other. Why have a rational discussion and sensible well enforced laws when all anyone wants is a few votes. Congress disgusts me in their lack of actual help and compassion toward the people they represent.
Click to expand...

This.
 
dvdneal said:
Let's face it. At this point guns are just a political thing. It's not about how many people died or how many guns I can own. It's about how many votes I can get for taking one side or the other. Why have a rational discussion and sensible well enforced laws when all anyone wants is a few votes. Congress disgusts me in their lack of actual help and compassion toward the people they represent.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% and that is why Hillary's comments piss me off so much. She is trying to capitalize on people's pain. I completely agree that we need reasonable background checks but I do not see how gun control would have prevented this from happening.

I also support gun free zones if there are metal detectors.
 
dvdneal said:
Let's face it. At this point guns are just a political thing. It's not about how many people died or how many guns I can own. It's about how many votes I can get for taking one side or the other. Why have a rational discussion and sensible well enforced laws when all anyone wants is a few votes. Congress disgusts me in their lack of actual help and compassion toward the people they represent.
Click to expand...

Indeed :-@

congress gun.jpg
 
michaelskis said:
I agree 100% and that is why Hillary's comments piss me off so much. She is trying to capitalize on people's pain. I completely agree that we need reasonable background checks but I do not see how gun control would have prevented this from happening.

I also support gun free zones if there are metal detectors.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from, until I realized that there's also a specific bill that was on the docket that her comments were in reference to.
 
One aspect of gun control that I would support, is to make bump-stock modifications illegal to sell or own. Currently the they are legal but as illustrated with the Vegas shooting, they change the operation of a semiautomatic weapon.

Additionally, this situation with the girlfriend, trips overseas to Asia that no one knew about, and large sums of money being sent overseas is all kind of fishy. I still don't think ISIS was involved, but there is something weird about this whole situation.
 
Don't miss this weekend's Meet the Press where President Trump takes on Secretary of Defense James Mattis in an arm wrestling match and follows up with a staring contest against Secretary Cho from the Transportation Department!

















What a turd.
 
imaplanner said:
Relevant?

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086
Click to expand...

Misguided...

(Link)
Paris, France
November, 2015
Terrorists claiming allegiance to Islamic State carried out several coordinated attacks in the city, including shootings of pedestrians on the street and a mass shootings at the Bataclan theatre. One hundred and thirty people were killed in the combined attacks.

Paris, France
January, 2015
Islamist gunmen stormed the office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly magazine, and killed 12 people, including the paper's top editors and cartoonists, in anger over its satirical cartoons of Islamic terrorists and the Prophet Muhammad.

Nairobi, Kenya
September, 2013
Al-Shabab Islamist militants, who are based in Somalia, attacked the upscale Westgate mall in Nairobi, killing nearly 70 people and wounding about 175. The siege latest for three days before government troops could end the attack.

Utoya, Norway
July, 2011
A gunman disguised as a policeman opened fire at a youth camp for political activists on the small island of Utoya, northwest of Oslo. The gunman, who had been linked to an anti-Islamic group, killed 68 campers. Separately, the gunman set off a bomb in Oslo that killed 8 people.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
April, 2011
A 23-year-old former student returned to his public school in Rio de Janeiro and opened fire on the students, killing 12 children and seriously wounding more than a dozen others, before shooting himself in the head.

Baku, Azerbaijan
April, 2009
A Georgian citizen of Azerbaijani descent killed 12 students and staff at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. Several others were wounded.

Winnenden, Germany
March, 2009
A 17-year-old boy shot and killed 15 people at his school, Albertville Technical High School, in southwestern Germany.

Mumbai, India
November, 2008
Islamist terrorists carried out a series of shooting and bombing attacks across the city over the span of several days, including mass shootings at two hotels, the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and the Oberoi Trident. The attacks left 164 people dead and a further 308 people were wounded.

Moscow, Russia
October, 2002
A group of armed Chechen militants seized the crowded Dubrovka theater and took 850 people hostage. At least 170 people died in the terrorist attack.

Erfurt, Germany
April, 2002
A 19-year-old student opened fire at his secondary school, killing 16 people, including 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman, before killing himself.

Port Arthur, Australia
April, 1996
A 28-year old man opened fire at a cafe on a historic penal colony site in Tasmania, killing 35 people and wounding 23. It was the worst mass-murderer in modern Australian history.

Dunblane, Scotland
March, 1996
A gunman killed 16 children and one teacher at Dunblane Primary School before killing himself.

Montreal, Canada
December, 1989
A 25-year-old gunman shot 28 people at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, killing 14 women, before committing suicide.
 
michaelskis said:
Misguided...

.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that list would be but a drop in the bucket compared to the number of mass shootings in the U.S. since the start of the list.

A couple other notes:
  • After the Port Arthur shooting in Australia, they enacted a large-scale firearms buyback and firearms deaths (including suicides) declined by something like 35% over the next few years and have remained at those lowered levels since.
  • Of those killed in the 2002 Dubrovka Theatre attack in Moscow, only 1 was killed by gunfire while the rest were killed by poison gas that the Russian special forces used in an attempt to subdue the hostage takers.
 
So let me get this straight mskis I want to make sure I'm not missing something...you are citing 13 instances in 11 different counties killing 748 people over a 26 year span with a satirical newspaper who prints the same news article each time there is a mass shooting in the USA.

From what I understand, the Onion reprints this because we Americans only offer "thoughts & prayers" when these tragedies occur and do not actively try to solve/address the situation with these attacks. That's the tragedy.

NY Daily News article from Oct. 2, 2017 indicates there are over 1700 dead and nearly 1 mass shooting per day since Sandy Hook Elementary (that was in 2012). It states "the US has seen 1518 acts of gun violence in which at least four people were wounded or killed. There have been 1754 days since the children in Sandy Hook were killed." So let's compare 1,518 instances in 1 country killing +/-1700 people over a 5 year span.

This is just information. Nothing more.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Sadly, that list would be but a drop in the bucket compared to the number of mass shootings in the U.S. since the start of the list.

A couple other notes:
  • After the Port Arthur shooting in Australia, they enacted a large-scale firearms buyback and firearms deaths (including suicides) declined by something like 35% over the next few years and have remained at those lowered levels since.
  • Of those killed in the 2002 Dubrovka Theatre attack in Moscow, only 1 was killed by gunfire while the rest were killed by poison gas that the Russian special forces used in an attempt to subdue the hostage takers.
Click to expand...



Planit said:
So let me get this straight mskis I want to make sure I'm not missing something...you are citing 13 instances in 11 different counties killing 748 people over a 26 year span with a satirical newspaper who prints the same news article each time there is a mass shooting in the USA.

From what I understand, the Onion reprints this because we Americans only offer "thoughts & prayers" when these tragedies occur and do not actively try to solve/address the situation with these attacks. That's the tragedy.

NY Daily News article from Oct. 2, 2017 indicates there are over 1700 dead and nearly 1 mass shooting per day since Sandy Hook Elementary (that was in 2012). It states "the US has seen 1518 acts of gun violence in which at least four people were wounded or killed. There have been 1754 days since the children in Sandy Hook were killed." So let's compare 1,518 instances in 1 country killing +/-1700 people over a 5 year span.

This is just information. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I am disputing the headline in saying that it only happens here. Is it more common here, sure. Sad thing is people see the headline without looking at the source and thinking it is gospel. But then again, CNN can't seem to get the operation of the Bump Stock correct and seems to think that bullets from an fully automatic weapon travel faster, than if the same round was fired from a different type of weapon.

I also think it is interesting that Switzerland is #3 in the number of guns per capita (US 1 and Yemen 2). Yet their crime rates are amongst the lowest. Similar to Sweden and Norway ranked 10th and 11th. Why is that? Guns don't seem to be the issue in those countries. Mental illness care is in crisis mode in Switzerland, so it's not like they have better care.

Planit, I think that you hit the nail right on the head. People lose their freaking minds when there is a mass shooting, but don't bat an eye when it comes to the monthly death toll in Chicago. I want to see someone suggest something to reduce those numbers too, especially given the overwhelming majority (if any) of those guns were not acquired legally, so typical liberal gun control measures will only prevent people who will follow the laws from getting them.



On an unrelated note, how bad is it when Rush Limbaugh says that he is concerned with Trump telling the NFL what they should do. (LINK) think about that for a moment, even Limbaugh is not supporting Trump... and this is the guy who beat Hillary Clinton!
 
Last edited:
22467579_1498242776922595_7704906214896813350_o.jpg


President Trump Doesn’t Know He’s the President of the U.S. Virgin Islands
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-doesn-apos-t-154524421.html

The U.S. Virgin Islands government reluctantly responded to Trump's gaffe.

“I would not want to in any way involve the governor of the Virgin Islands in any national dispute in the media about what the president knows about the relationship between the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands,” Sam Topp, deputy communications director for Governor Mapp, tells Newsweek.

"It doesn't serve our purpose to participate in the national hoopla over whether Donald Trump is making competent comments or not. Just look at the documents that govern the relationship [between the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and you can determine how relevant or irrelevant, or advised or ill-advised, his comments were. There’s no president of the United States other than the president of the United States," Topp adds.
Click to expand...
 
Congratulations! You can't say or do anything without offending someone! We live in a world of hypocrisy, double standards, and just sheer stupidity!

Example one: An executive from apple said the following at One Young World Summit, and had to issue an apology because people were offended.
“Diversity is the human experience,” the Apple executive said. “I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”

“There can be 12 white blue-eyed blonde men in a room and they are going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation,”
Click to expand...
Link to story By the way, I think it is important to point out that the executive from Apple who said this was not a blue-eyed blonde man... but an African-American woman.

Example two: A 41 year old firefighter went to meet the guys at the a new fire house that he was assigned to in Detroit. Apparently it is customary to bring in something on your first day on the job as a gift. This fire fighter brought in a watermelon as a healthy alternative to donuts. Some of the African-American firefighters at that house were 'offended' because they claim that it is a symbol of slavery and oppression. So the 41 year old fire fighter was fired on his first day. Link Did I mention that there is a watermellon on licence plates, communities all over the place hold watermellon festivals, and a person at my last job in the south brought a wattermellon from her garden in for us to enjoy when she was retiring... oh and she was African-American.

I could keep going. A group of students were offended because a center piece on a table at a college president's house contained cotton plants and there is still outcry over civil war memorials all over the south.

The question is where will we draw the line and say get over it? For example, I am wearing a white cotton dress shirt today with my grey suit. Will people find that offensive? I am catholic and the catholic church does not support gay marriage. Are people going to be offended that I associate with the Church even if I don't fully agree with that position? Years ago someone from the LGBT community complained because I was not able to meet with them regarding a zoning permit for a business because I was out since my wife was having a baby.

Now I get it, there is still racism out there. I don't think there is any disputing that. But when is the walking on eggshells going to stop.
 
Just Great - another false statement / lie from DT

Trump suggests Obama didn't call families of fallen soldiers as president
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-obama-didnt-call-fallen-soldiers-rose-garden/

Following the exchange, Alyssa Mastromonaco, former deputy chief of staff for operations under Obama took to Twitter with an explosive response,
calling Mr. Trump's comments a "f----ing lie."
Click to expand...

Checking Twitter - her posting
13,700 Retweets 41,178 Likes
Click to expand...

More at: https://news.google.com/news/story/drdu19JeoApCNFMvALY1xdX00KgwM?ned=us&hl=en
 
Oh look, the cost of health insurance for those on Obamacare will be going up because Blue Cross in NC is raising its rates by 14.1%. Granted it is better than the 22% that they had requested, but I know people who can't afford a 5% increase. I am not sure how these people will be able to afford a 14% increase.

So... tell me again how the "Affordable" care act is making health insurance affordable to people again? I just keep hearing horror story after horror story.

Once again, I think that the government should make all preventative care free for US citizens, and all reactionary care subject to the free market. Help to prevent people from needing insurance, it will lower everyone's rates.
 
michaelskis said:
Oh look, the cost of health insurance for those on Obamacare will be going up because Blue Cross in NC is raising its rates by 14.1%. Granted it is better than the 22% that they had requested, but I know people who can't afford a 5% increase. I am not sure how these people will be able to afford a 14% increase.

So... tell me again how the "Affordable" care act is making health insurance affordable to people again? I just keep hearing horror story after horror story.

Once again, I think that the government should make all preventative care free for US citizens, and all reactionary care subject to the free market. Help to prevent people from needing insurance, it will lower everyone's rates.
Click to expand...

From what I understand part of the insurance premiums is based on how much your state funds the program. I didn't have an increase in Arizona, but Kansas did see a big premium increase, but I'm not incredibly well informed on the whole subject. I have this thing called insurance and all I see is the companies finding any excuse to raise rates. Gov't mandated health care, raise 'em up. No more gov't health care, that'll cost more.
 
Hey, SAC, regarding your little memes there...

- The first one - cute, but the hate apparently continues to eat you up.
- The second one, two points: 1. 9/11 did not "destroy a country". 2. Exactly how many deaths are the folks pictured directly responsible for as the result of terrorist actions?
 
dvdneal said:
From what I understand part of the insurance premiums is based on how much your state funds the program. I didn't have an increase in Arizona, but Kansas did see a big premium increase, but I'm not incredibly well informed on the whole subject. I have this thing called insurance and all I see is the companies finding any excuse to raise rates. Gov't mandated health care, raise 'em up. No more gov't health care, that'll cost more.
Click to expand...

Isn't that interesting because I thought that the ACA was going to make health insurance more affordable. Funny how that has not happened.

The other factor in all this is the hospitals are just as bad. I many situations, hospitals charge less for things if you pay cash. They realize that they can jack up the fees if insurance is going to cover a procedure. In Michigan, it is also tied into car insurance because that pays claims for auto related injury reports. If you break your arm on a skateboard, the hospital will charge less than if you break your arm in a car accident. Oh, they also have the highest auto insurance rates in the US.

But it all comes down to one simple fact, Obamacare has not does what he said it would. Rates have not gone down, you can't always keep your doctor, and you can't always keep your plan. It is a form of taxation, and he lied about every aspect of it. It is not making the US any healthier and we would have been better off without it.
 
michaelskis said:
Isn't that interesting because I thought that the ACA was going to make health insurance more affordable. Funny how that has not happened.

The other factor in all this is the hospitals are just as bad. I many situations, hospitals charge less for things if you pay cash. They realize that they can jack up the fees if insurance is going to cover a procedure. In Michigan, it is also tied into car insurance because that pays claims for auto related injury reports. If you break your arm on a skateboard, the hospital will charge less than if you break your arm in a car accident. Oh, they also have the highest auto insurance rates in the US.

But it all comes down to one simple fact, Obamacare has not does what he said it would. Rates have not gone down, you can't always keep your doctor, and you can't always keep your plan. It is a form of taxation, and he lied about every aspect of it. It is not making the US any healthier and we would have been better off without it.
Click to expand...

Although there is little point in showing you facts about Obamacare (you have clearly made up your mind), but the reason ACA hasn't worked is because it hasn't been supported. There are lots of problems with it, but the mandate that you get insurance, the rebates, and the insurance company requirements were not the problem.

Rates are raising because Trump made it clear early this year that he was at some point (and he has now done so) stop the payments to the insurance companies (the rebates) for providing care to the under insured. Just like other businesses, insurance companies want clarity and consistency. Trump has done a very poor job of both. His policies have made ACA worse. I would argue very clearly that it is appreciably worse because of Trump (and the R's in general).

The state ACAs were doing fine until the R's starting trying to dismantle them (and succeeded!!). The Fed ACA was doing okay, until the R's tried to break it. Then it got worse.

I am not going to argue for ACA, as personally there are more parts that I don't think work, then do. But to pretend like this isn't the fault of the Republicans as much as the Democrats, or specifically not Trump is just ill-informed. Look at lots of sources and find out when and why insurance companies started raising premiums. Then look for other sources. Just be informed, instead of spewing the very clearly uninformed "ACA didn't work!!".

Bubba said:
Dinner at Masa, six months paid vacation, and a night alone with Carla Gugino. :D
Click to expand...

I would go to Eleven Madison Park instead. Masa is overpriced for what you get. And EMP is newly renovated!! ;)
 
michaelskis said:
But it all comes down to one simple fact, Obamacare has not does what he said it would. Rates have not gone down, you can't always keep your doctor, and you can't always keep your plan. It is a form of taxation, and he lied about every aspect of it. It is not making the US any healthier and we would have been better off without it.
Click to expand...

Correction: *SOME* of us would've been better off without it. There are people that it helps.

Also, the only way to really know how effective or not effective it is would be to know what would've happened if it hadn't been enacted. There was a lot of communication about how insurance was getting more expensive even before the ACA went into effect. The other issue is that insurance would've just gotten more and more expensive for people that really needed it as more and more healthy people opted for bare bones insurance plans or no insurance at all.

So it's definitely been a mixed bag.
 
Hink said:
Although there is little point in showing you facts about Obamacare (you have clearly made up your mind), but the reason ACA hasn't worked is because it hasn't been supported. There are lots of problems with it, but the mandate that you get insurance, the rebates, and the insurance company requirements were not the problem.

Rates are raising because Trump made it clear early this year that he was at some point (and he has now done so) stop the payments to the insurance companies (the rebates) for providing care to the under insured. Just like other businesses, insurance companies want clarity and consistency. Trump has done a very poor job of both. His policies have made ACA worse. I would argue very clearly that it is appreciably worse because of Trump (and the R's in general).

The state ACAs were doing fine until the R's starting trying to dismantle them (and succeeded!!). The Fed ACA was doing okay, until the R's tried to break it. Then it got worse.

I am not going to argue for ACA, as personally there are more parts that I don't think work, then do. But to pretend like this isn't the fault of the Republicans as much as the Democrats, or specifically not Trump is just ill-informed. Look at lots of sources and find out when and why insurance companies started raising premiums. Then look for other sources. Just be informed, instead of spewing the very clearly uninformed "ACA didn't work!!".
Click to expand...

It is not just about insurance companies increasing rates. It is about what was included in those plans. I have been arguing this for years. There is also the fact that that the Federal Government requires people to buy a privately controled product or service or pay an additional tax. (LINK)

Furthermore, It was also to hold insurance companies accountable and 'fix' the system by requiring the following. the goals of the act were the following:
  • Improve the quality of healthcare and patient safety
  • Make coverage more secure for those who have insurance, and extend affordable coverage to anyone that is uninsured
  • Ensure access to quality, culturally competent care for all American demographics
  • Reduce the growth of healthcare costs while promoting high-value, effective care
  • Emphasize primary and preventive care associated with community prevention services
  • Promote the adoption and usefulness of health information technology

Also, you want links...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/28/obamacare-failure-not-caused-by-trump/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/upshot/grading-obamacare-successes-failures-and-incompletes.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441522/obamacare-failure-liberals-wont-admit-it
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nsurance-medicine-0911-jm-20160909-story.html
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2016/05/30/obamacare-is-failing-on-purpose/#6eb22cb81cee

Do you have links to show that it is an overwhelming success? Has it personally made your life better? I know it has helped some, but at what cost to others?


I don't think that Trump is doing anything to help, but I can say that based on what we were all told by Obama regarding lower healthcare costs, keeping your doctor, keeping your plan, better access to health care, and overall better healthcare, I can say from personal experience that none of those objectives have been met in my life or the lives of several friends and family members.

SO back to the question, Would you support a program that offers free preventative care and private insurance for reactionary care events?
 
michaelskis said:
It is not just about insurance companies increasing rates. It is about what was included in those plans. I have been arguing this for years. There is also the fact that that the Federal Government requires people to buy a privately controled product or service or pay an additional tax.
Click to expand...

Car insurance is required. I pay a ticket if i don't have it. Call it a tax, call it a fine, call it a fee. That is all semantics. (I am aware it was defined the SC)

Do we really have to go through this again? Do you want premiums to go down or not? If you only want premiums to go down for healthy people, sure have hazard insurance. Group all the really sick people together and make THEM pay more. Who cares!! This doesn't help the system or most people, but it would make rates go down for some people, so there is that...

michaelskis said:
Do you have links to show that it is an overwhelming success? Has it personally made your life better? I know it has helped some, but at what cost to others?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts or not... why would I have links when I clearly said I don't like it that much? Nor would I say it makes my life better as I am healthy and young(ish)... so yea. But your quote really does sound a lot like you are saying if it doesn't benefit me, why should we do it. To which I say because we are a civilized society that has the means to do it. We should because it is the right thing to do. I don't know, because as a religious society, we should want to help our fellow man.

michaelskis said:
I don't think that Trump is doing anything to help, but I can say that based on what we were all told by Obama regarding lower healthcare costs, keeping your doctor, keeping your plan, better access to health care, and overall better healthcare, I can say from personal experience that none of those objectives have been met in my life or the lives of several friends and family members.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't President. Trump is. Obama's actions were going towards a goal. My estimation was that he would have supported single payer. Agree or not, he had a vision for healthcare and pushed his agenda. Trump has no goal. He has no plan or vision. He has nothing but "Repeal!!!! This doesn't work!!!!" Which is a bunch of malarkey and is not something we as a society should support.

I have many people I know, including family, who have been helped by the ACA. The ability to get insurance when they have preexisting conditions is a pretty common thing I hear. Or does that not count since you like that provision?

Who cares what Obama said in 2009? I certainly don't. If you want to blame anyone, blame the dude who has the power to fix it. Or maybe the group of mostly guys who have the power to update / modify / fix the law? It is sad that we continue (as you have said from the beginning!!) to devolve this discussion into whether it works the way Obama thought it should. Who cares about that?

michaelskis said:
SO back to the question, Would you support a program that offers free preventative care and private insurance for reactionary care events?
Click to expand...
Sure for me. But that doesn't solve the issues for many people who have daily, monthly, or yearly pills, tests, etc. I am not in this for me. I am going to be fine. I can afford great insurance. I have the means. I think that we should look for a system that helps everyone. Including those who have very high monthly health bills. Because many of those people are just like us. Or could be us with one car accident, one heart issue, or something we can't control like MS.
 
michaelskis said:
SO back to the question, Would you support a program that offers free preventative care and private insurance for reactionary care events?
Click to expand...

I think the only alternative really left is moving at least portions of healthcare toward single-payer. The natural start point is to make preventative care free under a single-payer framework. Then keep & mandate private insurance for the rest with certain coverage requirements (pre-existing, etc.). I think that would be a solid interim step that could be done through a ACA update amendment. If you can improve baseline health through preventative, that will have significant positive affects on healthcare costs long term. It also allows insurance companies to focus on reactionary care & catastrophic care, which in theory should result in improved services & cost efficiency. I think it is at least an experiment worth trying, as I don't see much risk if it doesn't go as planned.

The other big need area is ability to negotiate drug prices, and some serious curtailment of how drug companies market & & advertise, and influence doctors.
 
I heard a good theory for a fix, that would have been doable a decade ago when both sides of the aisle could work together. Reduce the medicare eligible age down to 55 or even 50. This takes the sickest group out of the private pool making its premiums lower and bring younger healthier people into the Medicare pool. Charge the new group in Medicare a premium that reduces each year until 65. This brings statistically healthier people into both pools and should lower premiums. But if such a plan is proposed by one side it will be opposed by the other.
 
Hink said:
Car insurance is required. I pay a ticket if i don't have it. Call it a tax, call it a fine, call it a fee. That is all semantics. (I am aware it was defined the SC)
Click to expand...

Car insurance is only required if you own a car. Almost 10% of the adult population does not own a car and that figure is increasing (LINK)

Hink said:
Do we really have to go through this again? Do you want premiums to go down or not? If you only want premiums to go down for healthy people, sure have hazard insurance. Group all the really sick people together and make THEM pay more. Who cares!! This doesn't help the system or most people, but it would make rates go down for some people, so there is that...
Click to expand...

Yes, until you stop defending bad policy and arguing with me, we will continue to go through this. Should my buddy who can't have kids because of chemo pay for insurance that includes birth control? Should someone who is in the gym 4 to 5 times a week be responsible for paying extra to help offset the costs of someone who smokes 2 packs a day, eats like crap and weighs 400 pounds?

Hink said:
Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts or not... why would I have links when I clearly said I don't like it that much? Nor would I say it makes my life better as I am healthy and young(ish)... so yea. But your quote really does sound a lot like you are saying if it doesn't benefit me, why should we do it. To which I say because we are a civilized society that has the means to do it. We should because it is the right thing to do. I don't know, because as a religious society, we should want to help our fellow man.
Click to expand...

I read your posts, but I don't always agree with everything that you said. I also do think that we should help our fellow man... but it is like the saying goes... give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life. I much rather focus on preventing the problem than limiting the symptoms. The right thing to do is set up programs and incentives to prevent people from getting sick whenever possible. It will still happen, but we as a society do a horrible job with preventative care. Obamacare has not touched that. Obamacare is stealing fish from fishermen and giving it to people sitting on the shores instead of teaching them to weave their own nets.

Hink said:
Obama isn't President. Trump is. Obama's actions were going towards a goal. My estimation was that he would have supported single payer. Agree or not, he had a vision for healthcare and pushed his agenda. Trump has no goal. He has no plan or vision. He has nothing but "Repeal!!!! This doesn't work!!!!" Which is a bunch of malarkey and is not something we as a society should support.
Click to expand...

Trump is an idiot... but he was not around when Obamacare was put in place. I have zero confidence that he will make anything any better. I don't agree with full repeal. I agree with restructure to make preventative care free and reactionary care part of the free market. (I said it like 20 times now, but I don't think you read it the last 19).

Hink said:
I have many people I know, including family, who have been helped by the ACA. The ability to get insurance when they have preexisting conditions is a pretty common thing I hear. Or does that not count since you like that provision?
Click to expand...
That is one provision I agree with. However I have many people that I know or am related to who have suffered because of Obamacare. It cost my dad a good part of his retirement account thanks to some bad tax laws.

Hink said:
Who cares what Obama said in 2009? I certainly don't. If you want to blame anyone, blame the dude who has the power to fix it. Or maybe the group of mostly guys who have the power to update / modify / fix the law? It is sad that we continue (as you have said from the beginning!!) to devolve this discussion into whether it works the way Obama thought it should. Who cares about that?
Click to expand...

As long as people are defending it, I care. He pulled a bait and switch and so few people are holding him accountable for it. After all, people are still blaming Bush for the war...

Hink said:
Sure for me. But that doesn't solve the issues for many people who have daily, monthly, or yearly pills, tests, etc. I am not in this for me. I am going to be fine. I can afford great insurance. I have the means. I think that we should look for a system that helps everyone. Including those who have very high monthly health bills. Because many of those people are just like us. Or could be us with one car accident, one heart issue, or something we can't control like MS.
Click to expand...

Sure for me too... but it is a long term solution. I also have a pre-existing condition that is genetic that requires regular medication on a daily basis... But I have seen too many people make too many bad decisions when preventative health care would have prevented it. The best way to solve a problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Furthermore, it is supply and demand. There would still be a supply of people who need free market reactionary health insurance, but if people are healthy, the demand will be lower, which will result in lower costs.
 
Bubba said:
Hey, SAC, regarding your little memes there...


1. 9/11 did not "destroy a country".
Click to expand...

True, but not for lack of trying. Trump''s policies will destroy this country at a rate that the terrorists could only dream of in 2001. Sure no one has been killed by bombs, but many more will die - from a few months earlier to decades earlier - than they would have had Trump not been elected. The irony is of course, the demographic groups that supported Trump the most will see the greatest increase in death rates. It's just too bad they don't get that.

Bubba said:
2. Exactly how many deaths are the folks pictured directly responsible for as the result of terrorist actions?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily "terrorist" actions, just plain "actions" will suffice. Right, now a death toll number is hard to pin down. For starters, with few exceptions, I do blame Trump for the deaths of anyone not directly killed in Puerto Rico by the hurricane, due to his deliberate stonewalling, sheer stupidity, and outright racism. As the P. R. death toll continues to mount, that will be more blood on Trump's hands.

Death tolls are hard to accurately quantify, I realize. Even looking at 9/11, far more people will have shortened lives due to health reasons in the aftermath, than those actually killed on that day. I even heard that those that have so far died from health problems - such as first responders - is coming close to surpassing the initial death toll. Others may still be alive but are too sick to do anything and thus will be denied decades of "healthy living" even though they technically may live a long time.
 
Back
Top