Trump and the Press

[RedDenver]

 

I feel sorry for Trump supporters at this point, it is just sad.

I feel sorry for liberals..especially Thomas Friedman award winner columnist from the New York Times who says garbage like this:

 

FRIEDMAN: I share Mikas real outrage on this issue. I dont care what he told Pence. We only care what he told Pence because Pence went out and basically mislead the public on Face the Nation. The issue is what did he tell Trump? Did he and Trump actually cook up this whole thing after the Russians did not respond harshly to the eviction of their spies and diplomats? Trump actually tweeted out some positive encouragement of this. Did the two of them cook this up all along? It gets, Joe, to two other issues. The first is we have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our very democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton were where Trump was, what the right would be doing on this issue? This goes to the very core of our democracy.

That's right he compared it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor where thousands of Americans died.

 

I think Friedman is a partisan hack, and he's getting basic terms wrong (like the difference between Russia influencing vs hacking our election). But you're missing his point here. He's saying having our democracy stolen from us is a problem on the same SCALE as Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

 

Imagine it this way: Trump doesn't get enough votes and Bernie Sanders wins the next election (or Clinton or whoever you don't want to win). But then it turns out that China messed with our system to help Sanders win. How big of a deal is that to our country?

[Apathy]

 

 

"I love the poorly educated." Donald J. Trump.

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/832633433927081984

What represents the blue and red? Dem vs Reb, male vs female, white vs black, etc?

 

Would really like to see how he got those figures

[knapplc]

If you read the comments on Mr. McDermott's twitter timeline, he's getting raked over this chart by quite a few people (justifiably).

 

Without a label it's a bit confusing. The color choice is horrible, since it doesn't seem to be split amongst Dems/Reps. If you read the context of his tweet then it makes sense that blue equals approve while red equals disapprove, but it certainly isn't clear.

 

Also, he compiled those numbers himself, and doesn't cite his data source.

[Cdog923]

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

 

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

 

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

[VitMan]

 

 

 

"I love the poorly educated." Donald J. Trump.

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/832633433927081984

What represents the blue and red? Dem vs Reb, male vs female, white vs black, etc?

 

Would really like to see how he got those figures

Just a shot in the dark but I think the blue is the percentage who approve and the red correlates to those who disapprove.

[Fru]

 

 

"I love the poorly educated." Donald J. Trump.

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/832633433927081984

What represents the blue and red? Dem vs Reb, male vs female, white vs black, etc?

 

Would really like to see how he got those figures

 

 

I agree. Empirical evidence to support a claim is generally a good thing. Similar to Trump's claims about voter fraud. Any kind of empirical and verifiable evidence for those claims would be interesting to see.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

 

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

 

 

I certainly understand wanting a more market-based approach without a mandate. That's fairly close to typical conservative plans -- although they've actually supported the mandate quite vigorously in the past, like with Romneycare in MA and in a healthcare reform bill support by Dole, Hatch and some others in the 90s.

 

I agree wholeheartedly about pharmaceutical prices. Interesting though since government intervention to drive down prices is a distinctly NON-conservative approach. Last I heard Trump was touting that idea until he actually met with Big Pharma execs and then dropped it like a hot potato. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

I guess I support the ACA (as do other health professionals I've talked to) because it made it possible for more people to get the treatment they need. Yeah, the costs need addressed to make it sustainable, but that's really the bottom line for most of us.

 

I just don't see a winning approach that will improve or maintain the level of coverage we have now coming from the GOP right now, and I'm following the updates intently. Unfortunately, for all their demonizations and public flaggelations of the law, they're finding out how damn difficult it is to try to overhaul the system.

[Apathy]

If you read the comments on Mr. McDermott's twitter timeline, he's getting raked over this chart by quite a few people (justifiably).

 

Without a label it's a bit confusing. The color choice is horrible, since it doesn't seem to be split amongst Dems/Reps. If you read the context of his tweet then it makes sense that blue equals approve while red equals disapprove, but it certainly isn't clear.

 

Also, he compiled those numbers himself, and doesn't cite his data source.

Awe thanks

[Oade]

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

[Oade]

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

I certainly understand wanting a more market-based approach without a mandate. That's fairly close to typical conservative plans -- although they've actually supported the mandate quite vigorously in the past, like with Romneycare in MA and in a healthcare reform bill support by Dole, Hatch and some others in the 90s.

 

I agree wholeheartedly about pharmaceutical prices. Interesting though since government intervention to drive down prices is a distinctly NON-conservative approach. Last I heard Trump was touting that idea until he actually met with Big Pharma execs and then dropped it like a hot potato. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

I guess I support the ACA (as do other health professionals I've talked to) because it made it possible for more people to get the treatment they need. Yeah, the costs need addressed to make it sustainable, but that's really the bottom line for most of us.

 

I just don't see a winning approach that will improve or maintain the level of coverage we have now coming from the GOP right now, and I'm following the updates intently. Unfortunately, for all their demonizations and public flaggelations of the law, they're finding out how damn difficult it is to try to overhaul the system.

I don't disagree with you. I don't mean to come across as supporting what the the far right group is likely going too pass. I just have an equal amount of distaste for what I've seen from dems.

 

I have no horse in this race, in this case I hate both parties end goals equally.

[QMany]

 

If you read the comments on Mr. McDermott's twitter timeline, he's getting raked over this chart by quite a few people (justifiably).

 

Without a label it's a bit confusing. The color choice is horrible, since it doesn't seem to be split amongst Dems/Reps. If you read the context of his tweet then it makes sense that blue equals approve while red equals disapprove, but it certainly isn't clear.

 

Also, he compiled those numbers himself, and doesn't cite his data source.

 

In the graphic, he cites the Pew Poll, February 2017. I wish he would have provided a link.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

Well...there is a plan that would take insurance companies completely out of it but Republican's heads would explode.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

 

I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar.

[Oade]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

 

I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar.

 

 

 

I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed.

[Making Chimichangas]

According to the Pew Research, cited by QMany, 57% of people who just went to high school, and not any kind of college or university, support and/or view Trump favorably.

 

I think this is because people who have never been to college have a far more simplistic view of the world. Strict adherence to a particular religion can also be a factor in shaping a simplistic view.

 

(Note: This is not a "you're an idiot" if you didn't go to college statement.)

 

However, I do think that people who have been to college, or heck even who have done a lot of traveling, know the world is very nuanced and what you hold as right or truth may not be shared by others.