CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-16-2019 12:45 PM

Before we get too deep in the partisan warfare, let's define "slave".

A slave is a person who has no power/right of self-direction in most areas of his life.

The right to arms and the right to choose one's doctors are just two. I think we need more than two to truly define it.

But I agree with Numbers, losing those two rights would be early steps to being essentially a slave, without choice or control over one's life. I mentioned the citizens of North Korea in an earlier post. Nobody here wants to become one of those. The more we cede to government the less control we have over our lives.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-16-2019 12:57 PM

(12-16-2019 12:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The statement is, of course, a little silly since no serious democratic presidential candidate is advocating that the government take all guns and I'm not sure any active candidates are advocating a take-back for "assault weapons."

But they are all tending in that direction, some more than others, and none that I am aware of have defined a specific stopping point short of that. Here's the slippery slope scenario that I think is very real, in fact almost certain if we start down that track. Say we ban "assault weapons" (if anybody can figure out what they are). There is no significant reduction in gun deaths, because there can't be, because "assault weapons" (however defined) don't count for a significant amount of gun deaths now. So, obviously, we didn't ban enough guns, so we have to pick out another category to ban. Then that doesn't produce much of an effect either, so we have to ban more and more guns, until we get there. I see no reason to believe that the process wouldn't lead there, and I see no assurances from any democrat candidate that it isn't the ultimate objective. Beto kind of let the cat out of the bag, and nobody on the democrat side has disavowed that, to my knowledge.

I'm sorry, but knowing that government has "some great employees and some terrible employees" does not give me a warm feeling about giving up my guns to government. And I truly believe that government domination of our lives is the ultimate goal of the left. They just approach it in bits and pieces.

Quote:And I'm not sure what you mean by "control your health care" since even Medicare for All still has private hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. even though the funding mechanism becomes largely public.

And "the funding mechanism becomes largely public" means that government
gets to decide what health care you get and what you don't.

Quote:
That said, if the government controlled my healthcare and took away my guns, my life would ... not be very different. And i'm pretty sure I'm not a slave for any intents or any purposes.

I'm quite certain that mine would, and not for the better. In fact, I think it's fairly likely that if the US had either Canada's single-payer or the UK's single-provider system, I would be dead today.

I do support universal health care, but using the Bismarck universal private care model rather than the single-payer or single-provider models. Quite frankly it makes me incredibly angry that democrats keep screaming "single-payer" without any clue what it means (hint: "Medicare for all" is not single-payer, or even single-provider), and republicans have ignored the nudge toward Bismarck that they got 25 years ago from Heritage. I am sincerely concerned that evil democrats will succeed in driving some form of government health care down our throats, as much as anything because stupid republicans don't come up with any alternative.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 12-16-2019 12:58 PM

I hate to argue with you Big, but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

The fact that your life wouldn't change if guns were taken away ignores that you have the choice to not have guns, and have decided not to have them, so your life wouldn't change... but I'm betting government would if nobody had them. I know for a fact that criminals with guns would change if they knew people didn't have them... so while your personal life might not change, people living in high crime areas where they would like to defend themselves against criminals, but now can't... their lives would likely change for the worse

I'd say I trust government to get guns from criminals a whole lot less than I trust that government (usually meaning individuals within government including police etc, and not the institutions themselves) wouldn't become vastly more intrusive if we didn't have them, but neither of those are high confidence marks.

As for healthcare, GEHA doesn't have a lot of choice in what to and not to cover... because of the government... because of the ACA, because of CMS/What Medicare covers. They can generally add, but not really subtract from your care.... see places that aren't allowed to sell a policy that doesn't include child birth to a same-sex male couple, or an infertile couple, or a couple beyond child bearing years.

The biggest reason you have few choices is that companies have decided not to let too much competition for an already highly regulated (cost-wise) industry mean that they can't get economies of scale such that they can make money at the regulated prices.

"Most polls you have seen' is like the new democratic party. Public transportation, public healthcare, public services work RELATIVELY well in large urban areas where you can literally dedicate hospitals and clinics to the care of one demographic... which you can't do in most of the country. It's why it works so well in Europe, where few people live more than a few hours from a MAJOR (relatively) metropolitan area. MOST of this country (area-wise) is a long way from a VA hospital or a metro bus line.

but I'd note that you aren't locked in to GEHA. You have the choice of a number of plans, plus the option to simply self-insure. Those may not be as good options, I understand... but that's not the same as having no options. Yes, there would still be private hospitals and providers, but there would be fewer of them.

As for 'no serious candidate', there are some very vocal leaders within the party, and of course their supporters and voters that are literally pushing for total gun bans... The fact that the candidates for President are smart enough to remain mute on the issue in order to not lose most of the states they lost in the last election while still rallying their base with the local representatives doesn't mean the party isn't moving that direction. I feel very confident that none of them would veto such a bill passed by the Congress.

and iirc, Trump is a 'medicare for all' proponent. I'm vary surprised that the left hasn't isolated him from the party with this issue.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-16-2019 01:00 PM

(12-16-2019 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before we get too deep in the partisan warfare, let's define "slave".
A slave is a person who has no power/right of self-direction in most areas of his life.
The right to arms and the right to choose one's doctors are just two. I think we need more than two to truly define it.
But I agree with Numbers, losing those two rights would be early steps to being essentially a slave, without choice or control over one's life. I mentioned the citizens of North Korea in an earlier post. Nobody here wants to become one of those. The more we cede to government the less control we have over our lives.

Whether a felon in Nebraska is a slave is a matter of opinion. Let me just say that giving up guns and giving government control of my health care come way, way too close to slavery for my comfort.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 01:18 PM

(12-16-2019 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before we get too deep in the partisan warfare, let's define "slave".

A slave is a person who has no power/right of self-direction in most areas of his life.

The right to arms and the right to choose one's doctors are just two. I think we need more than two to truly define it.

But I agree with Numbers, losing those two rights would be early steps to being essentially a slave, without choice or control over one's life. I mentioned the citizens of North Korea in an earlier post. Nobody here wants to become one of those. The more we cede to government the less control we have over our lives.

Right now private corporations (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. Under Medicare the government (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. I'm not hearing a compelling argument as to why Blue Cross or Humana is great but some kind of expanded Medicare is one of the first two steps into an enslaved populace.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 01:24 PM

(12-16-2019 12:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I hate to argue with you Big, but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

The fact that your life wouldn't change if guns were taken away ignores that you have the choice to not have guns, and have decided not to have them, so your life wouldn't change... but I'm betting government would if nobody had them. I know for a fact that criminals with guns would change if they knew people didn't have them... so while your personal life might not change, people living in high crime areas where they would like to defend themselves against criminals, but now can't... their lives would likely change for the worse

Well, I grew up in Alaska with 2 guns and they are still at my mom's house in Alaska, so I think I'm technically a gun owner. Unless you know something about my guns that I don't? Granted I wouldn't recommend firing either gun since they haven't been cleaned or serviced in over a decade. I also took gun safety/skill courses growing up in both Utah and Alaska, shot at gun ranges in both states, shot skeet over the ocean in alaska, and went duck hunting a few times. I'm not a gun nut, but your characterization is inaccurate.

I guess you could make the argument that I choose not to have them at home in New Orleans, which is true. But I think you were really trying to suggest that I don't have a close relationship with the 2nd amendment so it's loss wouldn't affect me. I just don't think the framing is accurate.

Also, again, what is with the red herring of dems or libs taking all the guns. There is no slippery slope. The number of people seriously talking about that as some kind of national policy is probably about the same as the number who think the earth is flat. I guess there are a few of them, but not many and not enough to shape any reasonable discussion on the topic.

edit - I edited my earlier post before reading any responses


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-16-2019 01:30 PM

(12-16-2019 01:18 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before we get too deep in the partisan warfare, let's define "slave".
A slave is a person who has no power/right of self-direction in most areas of his life.
The right to arms and the right to choose one's doctors are just two. I think we need more than two to truly define it.
But I agree with Numbers, losing those two rights would be early steps to being essentially a slave, without choice or control over one's life. I mentioned the citizens of North Korea in an earlier post. Nobody here wants to become one of those. The more we cede to government the less control we have over our lives.
Right now private corporations (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. Under Medicare the government (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. I'm not hearing a compelling argument as to why Blue Cross or Humana is great but some kind of expanded Medicare is one of the first two steps into an enslaved populace.

Under single-payer, you don't have the "one's own finances" option. You get the health care that the government agrees to pay for, and that's it. You don't have other options. Under single-provider you have other options (Baker Street in UK, for example) but access to them is very strictly limited, and because of those limits the "one's own finances" option is priced out of the reach of almost everyone except the very affluent. When faced with major medical expenses that NHS won't cover, or will cover but places you in a queue, Brits have the opportunity of taking out a mortgage or going overseas. I have friends who have done each.

With private insurance, if your plan doesn't cover it, you can find one that does. That won't exist in Bernie's model, and maybe not in others. Medicare as set up today is basically government funded basic insurance with the opportunity to supplement with private insurance. That is basically the Bismarck model, but when Bernie talks about eliminating private insurance, he clearly is not talking about that.

The argument is not that Blue Cross or Humana is better than Medicare, but that Blue Cross and Humana are alternative choices that would disappear, at least under Bernie's idea of "Medicare for all." Actually, Bernie's concept of "Medicare for all" is so unlike the way that Medicare actually works that I doubt he really understands what he is talking about.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-16-2019 01:33 PM

(12-16-2019 01:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 12:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I hate to argue with you Big, but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
The fact that your life wouldn't change if guns were taken away ignores that you have the choice to not have guns, and have decided not to have them, so your life wouldn't change... but I'm betting government would if nobody had them. I know for a fact that criminals with guns would change if they knew people didn't have them... so while your personal life might not change, people living in high crime areas where they would like to defend themselves against criminals, but now can't... their lives would likely change for the worse
Well, I grew up in Alaska with 2 guns and they are still at my mom's house in Alaska, so I think I'm technically a gun owner. Unless you know something about my guns that I don't? Granted I wouldn't recommend firing either gun since they haven't been cleaned or serviced in over a decade. I also took gun safety/skill courses growing up in both Utah and Alaska, shot at gun ranges in both states, shot skeet over the ocean in alaska, and went duck hunting a few times. I'm not a gun nut, but your characterization is grossly inaccurate.

So you own two guns, and you have chosen not to have them within several thousand miles of you. That is your choice, as Hambone correctly describes.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-16-2019 01:35 PM

Let me state my bottom line very clearly

I do not want to live in a country where I cannot own guns, or where the government controls my health care. Period.

You can certainly have a different opinion. If you have a different opinion, then we are probably not going to vote for the same political candidates.

Those two are just two of several positions that every democrat candidate for president has embraced to at least some degree, and those are two of several drop-dead show-stopper positions for me. If democrats win in 2020, I may be faced with some undesirable choices, going forward.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 01:36 PM

(12-16-2019 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 01:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 12:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I hate to argue with you Big, but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
The fact that your life wouldn't change if guns were taken away ignores that you have the choice to not have guns, and have decided not to have them, so your life wouldn't change... but I'm betting government would if nobody had them. I know for a fact that criminals with guns would change if they knew people didn't have them... so while your personal life might not change, people living in high crime areas where they would like to defend themselves against criminals, but now can't... their lives would likely change for the worse
Well, I grew up in Alaska with 2 guns and they are still at my mom's house in Alaska, so I think I'm technically a gun owner. Unless you know something about my guns that I don't? Granted I wouldn't recommend firing either gun since they haven't been cleaned or serviced in over a decade. I also took gun safety/skill courses growing up in both Utah and Alaska, shot at gun ranges in both states, shot skeet over the ocean in alaska, and went duck hunting a few times. I'm not a gun nut, but your characterization is grossly inaccurate.

So you own two guns, and you have chosen not to have them within several thousand miles of you. That is your choice, as Hambone correctly describes.

I edited my post before reading this. I think Hambone presumes that I haven't ever owned a gun or used a gun in any meaningful way, so my response was more based on that presumption.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 01:44 PM

(12-16-2019 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 01:18 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before we get too deep in the partisan warfare, let's define "slave".
A slave is a person who has no power/right of self-direction in most areas of his life.
The right to arms and the right to choose one's doctors are just two. I think we need more than two to truly define it.
But I agree with Numbers, losing those two rights would be early steps to being essentially a slave, without choice or control over one's life. I mentioned the citizens of North Korea in an earlier post. Nobody here wants to become one of those. The more we cede to government the less control we have over our lives.
Right now private corporations (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. Under Medicare the government (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. I'm not hearing a compelling argument as to why Blue Cross or Humana is great but some kind of expanded Medicare is one of the first two steps into an enslaved populace.

Under single-payer, you don't have the "one's own finances" option. You get the health care that the government agrees to pay for, and that's it. You don't have other options. Under single-provider you have other options (Baker Street in UK, for example) but access to them is very strictly limited. With private insurance, if your plan doesn't cover it, you can find one that does. That won't exist in Bernie's model, and maybe not in others.

The argument is not that Blue Cross or Humana is better than Medicare, but that Blue Cross and Humana are alternative choices that would disappear, at least under Bernie's idea of "Medicare for all." Actually, Bernie's concept of "Medicare for all" is so unlike the way that Medicare actually works that I doubt he really understands what he is talking about.

(12-16-2019 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me state my bottom line very clearly

I do not want to live in a country where I cannot own guns, or where the government controls my health care. Period.

You can certainly have a different opinion. If you have a different opinion, then we are probably not going to vote for the same political candidates.

Those two are just two of several positions that every democrat candidate for president has embraced to at least some degree, and those are two of several drop-dead show-stopper positions for me.

I just don't get your premise. Who is saying you cannot own guns? There are already restrictions on owning some types of guns and certain individuals owning guns. There is a debate amongst democrats on whether those lines should be drawn differently. There is a debate amongst democrats on whether there should be additional requirements for gun ownership (training, licensing, etc.). I haven't heard anyone saying that you can't own any guns. The vast majority of democrats don't want to take your guns (assuming you don't own only "assault weapons") unless you are a convicted felon, have a history of physically abusing close relations, have red flags related to terrorist activities, or have red flags related to your mental sanity.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 01:48 PM

69/70/75 - I remember you describing the Bismarck model a while back. I have forgotten the details but found it intriguing. Isn't the Bernie model basically that you can go to any doc and the government will pay for your care? So you still choose your doc (assuming your doc doesn't retire or change professions). I'm not a Bernie Bro or a Medicare for All proponent, so I'll admit I never bothered to dig into the specific details.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 12-16-2019 01:56 PM

mrbig, please don't post here anymore. You seem actually interested in building consensus and understanding and that's not what this forum is about.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-16-2019 02:09 PM

(12-16-2019 01:56 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  mrbig, please don't post here anymore. You seem actually interested in building consensus and understanding and that's not what this forum is about.


Fountains, please don’t try to destroy what you don’t understand. I come here to present my thoughts and to hear other’s thoughts. If all I got was others saying the same things as me (consensus of opinion) this would be a very boring place. You have plenty of outlets to hear others say what you think. Leave this one alone.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 12-16-2019 02:11 PM

(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 01:56 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  mrbig, please don't post here anymore. You seem actually interested in building consensus and understanding and that's not what this forum is about.


Fountains, please don’t try to destroy what you don’t understand. I come here to present my thoughts and to hear other’s thoughts. If all I got was others saying the same things as me (consensus of opinion) this would be a very boring place. You have plenty of outlets to hear others say what you think. Leave this one alone.

I just like mrbig and don't want them to waste their good energy in this toxic forum.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 12-16-2019 02:19 PM

Government run Medicare offers more choice than employer based insurance.

Let's say you get your insurance through your employer as about half of Americans do. What are your choices really? A few different deductible and premium combinations and your choice of doctors is limited to those that the insurance provider declares in-network. Plus, your employer can change your plan options or even insurers from one year to the next.

Meanwhile on Medicare, you actually have many, many more choices of doctors who are "in-network," and your healthcare is untethered from the whims of your employer.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-16-2019 02:29 PM

(12-16-2019 02:11 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 02:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 01:56 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  mrbig, please don't post here anymore. You seem actually interested in building consensus and understanding and that's not what this forum is about.


Fountains, please don’t try to destroy what you don’t understand. I come here to present my thoughts and to hear other’s thoughts. If all I got was others saying the same things as me (consensus of opinion) this would be a very boring place. You have plenty of outlets to hear others say what you think. Leave this one alone.

I just like mrbig and don't want them to waste their good energy in this toxic forum.

So you think dissenting opinions = toxicity?

I think a volleyball game with everybody on one side of the net is useless.

But if that is what you are seeking, I would suggest a party precinct meeting. Or CNN.

But please don’t try to stifle discussion by insisting we must all go down the same path to the same destination.


RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 12-16-2019 02:54 PM

(12-16-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So you think dissenting opinions = toxicity?

I think a volleyball game with everybody on one side of the net is useless.

But if that is what you are seeking, I would suggest a party precinct meeting. Or CNN.

But please don’t try to stifle discussion by insisting we must all go down the same path to the same destination.

No. No one is saying this.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 12-16-2019 03:44 PM

(12-16-2019 01:18 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Right now private corporations (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. Under Medicare the government (or one's own finances) dictates an individual's right to choose their doctor of preference. I'm not hearing a compelling argument as to why Blue Cross or Humana is great but some kind of expanded Medicare is one of the first two steps into an enslaved populace.


It's not so much that Blue Cross is great, but that one of the things that keeps Blue Cross from being horrible is the existence of the option of Humana... AND the oversight of the government.

I'd also say because if Blue Cross or Humana do something that injures you, there is someone to sue and the government to protect you

What keeps the government from being horrible? Who protects you from the government? Whom do you sue if the government injures you?

I think one of the biggest issues with healthcare is the fact that so few understand how it works... including many that work in healthcare and some otherwise very smart people.

Insurance is a contract and the ACA has proscribed PRECISELY what must be covered under these contracts. The idea that Humana might deny you but government insurance wouldn't is patently false.... because the government has proscribed what Humana MUST cover, just as they do for Medicare.

You see these commercials where people on Medicare are offered 'more' than basic Medicare for no premium increase? This isn't done by cutting services. It's done by cutting access.... by limiting the network of providers

Insurance (especially gov't insurance) is rarely fee for service anymore. It is almost always now a stipend for a care network. They are paid (making up numbers) $2500 per person to provide all of the care that a given population will need. Whether they use $1 or $1mm, the providers are paid $2500. If you have a 'network', that is what this means. If you need a referral, the network is much smaller. That is how costs are controlled.

Again, if you live in a large metropolitan area and almost never leave the area, population healthcare works. If you don't, it's a struggle. Sometimes it is an untenable struggle. Providers in low income/areas where upper middle class people choose not to live get paid more than providers in higher income areas, and they STILL struggle to find providers. Living on Park and 72nd and working at 5th and 129th isn't a big deal.

(12-16-2019 01:36 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I edited my post before reading this. I think Hambone presumes that I haven't ever owned a gun or used a gun in any meaningful way, so my response was more based on that presumption.

Not at all. I merely presumed that because you said having them taken away wouldn't impact you one bit (paraphrasing) meant that you either aren't currently a hunter nor do you feel in your situation that you need one at home. It had nothing to do with your stance on the 2nd amendment nor your experience with them.

I know lots of people who support the 2nd and have a history of gun use and ownership who decide for numerous reasons not to currently have one anywhere near them. Sometimes it's based on a family situation, like perhaps teens or tweens in the house or geography. I have family in NYC who like to hunt, but not in NYC, and they don't want the hassle of carrying rifles into or out of their building every time they go to the country.

I'm sorry you took my comment that way.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 12-16-2019 04:16 PM

(12-16-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess there are different perspectives on Lincoln, as there are on all public figures. At least Trump has not led us into war...yet. I am sure you are coming from the perspective of "Lincoln freed the slaves, so that's all that matters". Can you name any other thing Lincoln did? Trade agreements, economic measures? I can think of the draft and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Of course, Lincoln did not run for office on the platform of freeing slaves, nor was it an objective of his. When he did free slaves, it was only in the 11 CSA states - the ones in the Union states were not freed, and only because the CSA states din not meet his ultimatum. If any had, they could have retained their slaves. Maybe you need to read up on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No need to mansplain Lincoln to me (as I am a fellow man). Or is this an appropriate time to use "OK boomer"? I think I'm too old to use that and I don't think its quite appropriate for this situation anyway. Regardless, I knew all of this and no need to speak (write) down to me.

As in most things, I try to listen to the experts. So when I repeatedly see rankings of all presidents and Lincoln is on the top of almost every one of those lists (and certainly always in the top 5), then I find it hard to believe Trump (or Obama or Bush or Clinton) is better. Assuming quality of presidents falls along a bell curve and that Lincoln is a few standard deviations above normal, then he is going to be hard to beat.

I also think it is literally impossible to rank Trump on such a list when he is still the President and we are 3 years into his presidency. Same for Obama, it is just too soon to understand their historical impact.

(12-16-2019 12:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  "Most polls you have seen' is like the new democratic party. Public transportation, public healthcare, public services work RELATIVELY well in large urban areas where you can literally dedicate hospitals and clinics to the care of one demographic... which you can't do in most of the country. It's why it works so well in Europe, where few people live more than a few hours from a MAJOR (relatively) metropolitan area. MOST of this country (area-wise) is a long way from a VA hospital or a metro bus line.

(12-16-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Again, if you live in a large metropolitan area and almost never leave the area, population healthcare works. If you don't, it's a struggle. Sometimes it is an untenable struggle. Providers in low income/areas where upper middle class people choose not to live get paid more than providers in higher income areas, and they STILL struggle to find providers. Living on Park and 72nd and working at 5th and 129th isn't a big deal.

I know you have spent time in the health care industry and there are undoubtedly many details with which I am not familiar. But coming from Alaska, I do understand the problems associated with rural healthcare. And I get some info on the provider side as well since my wife is in private practice at a doc-owned clinic (partnership) who accepts medicare and medicaid patients.

(12-16-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's not so much that Blue Cross is great, but that one of the things that keeps Blue Cross from being horrible is the existence of the option of Humana... AND the oversight of the government.

I'd also say because if Blue Cross or Humana do something that injures you, there is someone to sue and the government to protect you

You can sue the federal government. I'm one of the attorneys that defends the federal government in civil lawsuits. I defend the VA, FQHC's, and some military clinics when they are sued, as well as CMS and HHS.

(12-16-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 01:36 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I edited my post before reading this. I think Hambone presumes that I haven't ever owned a gun or used a gun in any meaningful way, so my response was more based on that presumption.

Not at all. I merely presumed that because you said having them taken away wouldn't impact you one bit (paraphrasing) meant that you either aren't currently a hunter nor do you feel in your situation that you need one at home. It had nothing to do with your stance on the 2nd amendment nor your experience with them.

I know lots of people who support the 2nd and have a history of gun use and ownership who decide for numerous reasons not to currently have one anywhere near them. Sometimes it's based on a family situation, like perhaps teens or tweens in the house or geography. I have family in NYC who like to hunt, but not in NYC, and they don't want the hassle of carrying rifles into or out of their building every time they go to the country.

I'm sorry you took my comment that way.

Got it. Part of the reason I edited my original response is because I realized I was most likely reading too much into your comment. Thank you for the clarification.