(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.